"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas any more."
Can a punk be conservative?
Anyways, I'm more than happy to pass some internet hits to a blog that was until moments ago named Conservative Punk Canuck. Her blog looks interesting.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Friday, June 11, 2004
Question of the Day
This was put to The Straight Dope by a Jason of Vancouver B.C.
[I hasten to assure him that I have no plans to turn into the living dead. That should reassure him.]
He asks:
If we were to suffer an apocalypse where most of the living became
flesh-eating zombies, how long, assuming I survived, would I continue to receive hydroelectricity from my power company?....I am assuming that most of the people who were supposed to be maintaining things at my hydro company would be out looking for brains, and that the surviving hydro employees would be busy digging shelters, etc.)....
The Straight Dope experts, who have an answer for *everything*, reply:
...Your question has two possible answers
depending on which scenario of zombie conquest you envision....
The answer continues here.
This was put to The Straight Dope by a Jason of Vancouver B.C.
[I hasten to assure him that I have no plans to turn into the living dead. That should reassure him.]
He asks:
If we were to suffer an apocalypse where most of the living became
flesh-eating zombies, how long, assuming I survived, would I continue to receive hydroelectricity from my power company?....I am assuming that most of the people who were supposed to be maintaining things at my hydro company would be out looking for brains, and that the surviving hydro employees would be busy digging shelters, etc.)....
The Straight Dope experts, who have an answer for *everything*, reply:
...Your question has two possible answers
depending on which scenario of zombie conquest you envision....
The answer continues here.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
The little post that grew and grew
My friend and former Report colleague, Colby Cosh, is a bit bemused that a small post he did on some stupid old comments from Edmonton NDP candidate and doofus Malcolm Azania has turned into a bit of a national story.
No surprise to me though.
My friend and former Report colleague, Colby Cosh, is a bit bemused that a small post he did on some stupid old comments from Edmonton NDP candidate and doofus Malcolm Azania has turned into a bit of a national story.
No surprise to me though.
"They're twistin' to the didgeridoo!"
Tim Blair, following a complaint by an Australian journalist that there aren't enough Australian place names in songs, canvassed his readers and found that they could remember a lot of ditties with place name checks.
Anyone who listens to the Johnny O'Keefe cover of Twistin' USA, called Twistin' Australia Way, would have about a hundred Australia town and city names cited in the song...all places where kids were doing the Twist. Although, I find it hard to concieve how someone could do the Twist to the didgeridoo. I'd pay an Australian dime to see that.
Tim Blair, following a complaint by an Australian journalist that there aren't enough Australian place names in songs, canvassed his readers and found that they could remember a lot of ditties with place name checks.
Anyone who listens to the Johnny O'Keefe cover of Twistin' USA, called Twistin' Australia Way, would have about a hundred Australia town and city names cited in the song...all places where kids were doing the Twist. Although, I find it hard to concieve how someone could do the Twist to the didgeridoo. I'd pay an Australian dime to see that.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Why not just post "an election is no time to discuss important policy questions" and be done with it?
Enter Stage Right also blogs their exasperation with pro-life Tories who just won't shut up:
People, during an election you're going to alienate more people than you'll attract when you make those kind of comments. You can't make policy sitting in the opposition benches.
Wouldn't it be better, if you are a pro-life politician, to talk about your pro-life views, instead of giving a nasty surprise to pro-choice voters when you help pass laws restricting abortion after never discussing the issue for 20 years?
Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I think that fooling voters is a bad thing.
Update: Steve of Enter Stage Right clarifies what he meant:
What I meant in that blog entry was not that pro-life Tories shouldn't publicly advocate restrictions or even a total ban, simply that some of them, like Gallant, used overly inflammatory language to advance their position. Comparing abortion to the slaughter of a human being by terrorists seeking to destroy the very notion of the West isn't a good way to get your point across in my opinion. It's hard to argue that a 'moderate' people like Canadians would hear that and agree.
This is an excellent point, which I am happy to concede.
However, in the current electoral climate all the parties of the left are using abortion as the nasty "n-word". Mr. Harper should be careful to keep his apparent "Canadians have a right to vote to restrict abortion if they so chose" stance if he feels a need to reprimand his MPs.
Always happy to clarify, though. [Rick passes out from surprise after fielding a piece of reader e-mail *THUD*]
Enter Stage Right also blogs their exasperation with pro-life Tories who just won't shut up:
People, during an election you're going to alienate more people than you'll attract when you make those kind of comments. You can't make policy sitting in the opposition benches.
Wouldn't it be better, if you are a pro-life politician, to talk about your pro-life views, instead of giving a nasty surprise to pro-choice voters when you help pass laws restricting abortion after never discussing the issue for 20 years?
Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I think that fooling voters is a bad thing.
Update: Steve of Enter Stage Right clarifies what he meant:
What I meant in that blog entry was not that pro-life Tories shouldn't publicly advocate restrictions or even a total ban, simply that some of them, like Gallant, used overly inflammatory language to advance their position. Comparing abortion to the slaughter of a human being by terrorists seeking to destroy the very notion of the West isn't a good way to get your point across in my opinion. It's hard to argue that a 'moderate' people like Canadians would hear that and agree.
This is an excellent point, which I am happy to concede.
However, in the current electoral climate all the parties of the left are using abortion as the nasty "n-word". Mr. Harper should be careful to keep his apparent "Canadians have a right to vote to restrict abortion if they so chose" stance if he feels a need to reprimand his MPs.
Always happy to clarify, though. [Rick passes out from surprise after fielding a piece of reader e-mail *THUD*]
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Do they expect Mr. Harper to heal the sick and raise the dead?
Regarding Canada's media...what Colby Cosh said, er, wrote.
Regarding Canada's media...what Colby Cosh said, er, wrote.
Seeing through a glass, very darkly?
Rick Joyner, U.S. Christian leader, made what we can safely call a prediction touching on the current federal election, last year.
Parsing his delphic prophecy from last fall, I am surmising that he predicted that there will be a Liberal or NDP government after the June 28 federal election.
Here's his prediction, in case it mysteriously disappears from his website. Emphasis mine:
"SOUTH CENTRAL CANADA: I saw a black cloud darkening over this portion of Canada—just east of Calgary to east of Montreal. Then it started spinning and became a powerful storm of confusion and disorientation, growing tighter and tighter in order to become stronger, doing much damage before suddenly breaking up. It was followed by brilliant sunshine. When people started coming out of their storm cellars, they were all saying, “We will not let that happen again!” I felt this storm was both political and spiritual. Though this storm was preventable, it did much damage. However, the result left behind an almost fresh, virgin territory in which strong, brilliant, spiritual, and political leadership will prevail, setting a very bright course for the future.
Let's look at this from the standpoint of the social conservative Christian that Mr. Joyner is, judging from other things I have read by him.
Yes, he is not explicitly talking about this election but, unless there is an outbreak of religious-based terrorism, the only scenario that seems to make sense to me is that Mr, Joyner is talking about an election and the disastrous consequences of a vote gome wrong, from "God's perspective." Canadians by and large would not care about the flowering and end of a political and spiritual movement if it didn't have some sort of direct effect on their own lives. Unless we see FLQ type activities, an election seems to be the best way to make sense of Mr. Joyner's prediction.
[A caveat to my progressive friends and readers. I am not going out of my way to be anti-Liberal or anti-NDP here. From Mr. Joyner's perpective, it would make the most sense that he would see our Liberals or NDP as bad. So, I am following his lead in poking at the prophecy in an attempt to figure out what he means.]
Is this "black...political movement" the Tories? I would hope not, but it is possible that the Harper Tories could be just that bad. Aside from my own prejudices, this doesn't make sense as the Tories would probably not bring in various government policies that are hostile to Christian moral thinking.
Is this "black...movement" the Liberals? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. This prophecy seems to refer to something *new* happening. As students of Canadian politics will remember, after the last election, the Liberals hold most of those seats already. You could say that he is foretelling that some kind of sweep will develop for the Liberals in the last three weeks of the election, which would result in them being wiped out (as in 1958 or 1984) in the next federal election. But why use such language in the prophecy if the Liberals win again exactly as they have in the last few elections?. Unless they win every seat in this region he is talking about, this is not really new.
It could well be that the Liberals would be relected, only to prove so "bad" from a conservative Christian perspective that they sow the seeds of their own destruction. But the "new" feel of this "black" thing makes me think that isn't the case.
With due respect to my New Democrat readers, the most likely "bad" candidates, from what I am guessing is Joyner's point of view, are probably from the NDP.
Here's a scenario, in tune with the prophecy. The Liberal vote drains to the left enough that the NDP starts to pick up seats in Sakatchewan and Manitoba (quite plausible as both have NDP provincial governments) and enough seats in Ontario to either finish first or force the Liberals to include them in a formal, or de facto, coalition government.
Ridiculous? Well, I was in Ottawa during the 1990 provincial election when the provincial Liberal vote switched to the NDP and stunned commentators watched as an NDP government was elected in Ontario. Bob Rae's government gave Christian conservatives lots of headaches in the following years.
I can see the stop-Harper vote swinging to the NDP as the "stronger anti-Harper choice" in some urban ridings. Given the gravity of what Joyner seems to be pointing at, we could even go out on a limb and say that the government will be an NDP government with Liberal support. The next election, in this scenario according what I am guessing the prophecy says, will see Canadians cured of NDP-Liberal thinking and a straight right-left fight as you would see in Britian or the U.S.
This we can safely say. Mr. Joyner is not predicting a win for "godly conservatives" who will govern wisely in the June 28 vote. The government to come, he predicts, will be a national hangover for Canada.
This prophecy is maddeningly imprecise. Not quite "A virgin will have a baby and..." or "A king named Cyrus will commission the rebuilding of Jerusalem." Sigh.
How accurate is Mr. Joyner?
Well...
Several conservative Christian groups have critiqued Mr. Joyner's theology and his
tendency to get things wrong when he is predicting the future.
This is not helpful, as the Bible advises that in Old Testament days, anyone who used the phraseolgy that "The Lord says..." without the events coming to pass as specified was a false prophet. He was to be stoned. (By having rocks thrown at him until his death...you wiseacres! :) )
Several years ago, he widely distributed a prophecy by Bob Jones that stated that Los Angeles would be destroyed in an earthquake and/or nuclear war...in 1998.
[Although, to be even-handed, I'd also like to point you to Mr. Joyner's response to the above linked story that includes the prediction and other criticisms of his ministry. You may see it here.]
What do I think? Well, I do like the idea of Mr. Joyner trying to share what he believes The Lord is telling him.
However, I do hope that Mr. Joyner has the grace to admit that he is glad that he was wrong if The Tories win the election later this month and his prediction a "black political movement" proves unfounded and they govern Canada well. If so, I think Canadian christians would extend grace to him in return. Christianity is a faith of second and third and fourth and fifth chances...so anyone can make mistakes. Even modern day "prophets". But, they should be prepared to admit their mistakes too.
It will be interesting to see if he was right. I wanted to get this online before the votes are counted...thus this post.
Update: Of course, what Andrew Coyne says here could happen too:
"Of course, there's one scenario I'm overlooking: a Liberal-NDP-Bloc "Stop the Conservatives" coalition. Don't think it can't happen."
That would be diabolical if you think about it. Never foresaw that that could happen when I first posted, certainly.
Rick Joyner, U.S. Christian leader, made what we can safely call a prediction touching on the current federal election, last year.
Parsing his delphic prophecy from last fall, I am surmising that he predicted that there will be a Liberal or NDP government after the June 28 federal election.
Here's his prediction, in case it mysteriously disappears from his website. Emphasis mine:
"SOUTH CENTRAL CANADA: I saw a black cloud darkening over this portion of Canada—just east of Calgary to east of Montreal. Then it started spinning and became a powerful storm of confusion and disorientation, growing tighter and tighter in order to become stronger, doing much damage before suddenly breaking up. It was followed by brilliant sunshine. When people started coming out of their storm cellars, they were all saying, “We will not let that happen again!” I felt this storm was both political and spiritual. Though this storm was preventable, it did much damage. However, the result left behind an almost fresh, virgin territory in which strong, brilliant, spiritual, and political leadership will prevail, setting a very bright course for the future.
Let's look at this from the standpoint of the social conservative Christian that Mr. Joyner is, judging from other things I have read by him.
Yes, he is not explicitly talking about this election but, unless there is an outbreak of religious-based terrorism, the only scenario that seems to make sense to me is that Mr, Joyner is talking about an election and the disastrous consequences of a vote gome wrong, from "God's perspective." Canadians by and large would not care about the flowering and end of a political and spiritual movement if it didn't have some sort of direct effect on their own lives. Unless we see FLQ type activities, an election seems to be the best way to make sense of Mr. Joyner's prediction.
[A caveat to my progressive friends and readers. I am not going out of my way to be anti-Liberal or anti-NDP here. From Mr. Joyner's perpective, it would make the most sense that he would see our Liberals or NDP as bad. So, I am following his lead in poking at the prophecy in an attempt to figure out what he means.]
Is this "black...political movement" the Tories? I would hope not, but it is possible that the Harper Tories could be just that bad. Aside from my own prejudices, this doesn't make sense as the Tories would probably not bring in various government policies that are hostile to Christian moral thinking.
Is this "black...movement" the Liberals? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. This prophecy seems to refer to something *new* happening. As students of Canadian politics will remember, after the last election, the Liberals hold most of those seats already. You could say that he is foretelling that some kind of sweep will develop for the Liberals in the last three weeks of the election, which would result in them being wiped out (as in 1958 or 1984) in the next federal election. But why use such language in the prophecy if the Liberals win again exactly as they have in the last few elections?. Unless they win every seat in this region he is talking about, this is not really new.
It could well be that the Liberals would be relected, only to prove so "bad" from a conservative Christian perspective that they sow the seeds of their own destruction. But the "new" feel of this "black" thing makes me think that isn't the case.
With due respect to my New Democrat readers, the most likely "bad" candidates, from what I am guessing is Joyner's point of view, are probably from the NDP.
Here's a scenario, in tune with the prophecy. The Liberal vote drains to the left enough that the NDP starts to pick up seats in Sakatchewan and Manitoba (quite plausible as both have NDP provincial governments) and enough seats in Ontario to either finish first or force the Liberals to include them in a formal, or de facto, coalition government.
Ridiculous? Well, I was in Ottawa during the 1990 provincial election when the provincial Liberal vote switched to the NDP and stunned commentators watched as an NDP government was elected in Ontario. Bob Rae's government gave Christian conservatives lots of headaches in the following years.
I can see the stop-Harper vote swinging to the NDP as the "stronger anti-Harper choice" in some urban ridings. Given the gravity of what Joyner seems to be pointing at, we could even go out on a limb and say that the government will be an NDP government with Liberal support. The next election, in this scenario according what I am guessing the prophecy says, will see Canadians cured of NDP-Liberal thinking and a straight right-left fight as you would see in Britian or the U.S.
This we can safely say. Mr. Joyner is not predicting a win for "godly conservatives" who will govern wisely in the June 28 vote. The government to come, he predicts, will be a national hangover for Canada.
This prophecy is maddeningly imprecise. Not quite "A virgin will have a baby and..." or "A king named Cyrus will commission the rebuilding of Jerusalem." Sigh.
How accurate is Mr. Joyner?
Well...
Several conservative Christian groups have critiqued Mr. Joyner's theology and his
tendency to get things wrong when he is predicting the future.
This is not helpful, as the Bible advises that in Old Testament days, anyone who used the phraseolgy that "The Lord says..." without the events coming to pass as specified was a false prophet. He was to be stoned. (By having rocks thrown at him until his death...you wiseacres! :) )
Several years ago, he widely distributed a prophecy by Bob Jones that stated that Los Angeles would be destroyed in an earthquake and/or nuclear war...in 1998.
[Although, to be even-handed, I'd also like to point you to Mr. Joyner's response to the above linked story that includes the prediction and other criticisms of his ministry. You may see it here.]
What do I think? Well, I do like the idea of Mr. Joyner trying to share what he believes The Lord is telling him.
However, I do hope that Mr. Joyner has the grace to admit that he is glad that he was wrong if The Tories win the election later this month and his prediction a "black political movement" proves unfounded and they govern Canada well. If so, I think Canadian christians would extend grace to him in return. Christianity is a faith of second and third and fourth and fifth chances...so anyone can make mistakes. Even modern day "prophets". But, they should be prepared to admit their mistakes too.
It will be interesting to see if he was right. I wanted to get this online before the votes are counted...thus this post.
Update: Of course, what Andrew Coyne says here could happen too:
"Of course, there's one scenario I'm overlooking: a Liberal-NDP-Bloc "Stop the Conservatives" coalition. Don't think it can't happen."
That would be diabolical if you think about it. Never foresaw that that could happen when I first posted, certainly.
What if Reagan [had] won in 1968?
Enter Stage Right's Bruce Walker poses the question, and thinks that Reagan would have won the election handily and been a good president.
I'm not sure that is the case. Here's why.
1) As The Making Of The President 1968 documents, Barry Goldwater was working hard for Richard Nixon in 1968. He was making the sort of "Just win [with Nixon], baby" arguments that are often so seductive to conservatives. Lots of conservatives had a great personal trust in Senator Goldwater that would have been hard to shake off.
The right was uneasy about Reagan's governing strategies in California in 1968. Read Kent Steffgen's books on Reagan to understand why.
2) It was not really credible to suggest that someone who had been governor of California for just over 18 months could be the a good President. Someone who had governed California for two terms is a different matter entirely.
Ronald Reagan's on-the-job political education would make him a much better president in the 1980s, when he served.
Enter Stage Right's Bruce Walker poses the question, and thinks that Reagan would have won the election handily and been a good president.
I'm not sure that is the case. Here's why.
1) As The Making Of The President 1968 documents, Barry Goldwater was working hard for Richard Nixon in 1968. He was making the sort of "Just win [with Nixon], baby" arguments that are often so seductive to conservatives. Lots of conservatives had a great personal trust in Senator Goldwater that would have been hard to shake off.
The right was uneasy about Reagan's governing strategies in California in 1968. Read Kent Steffgen's books on Reagan to understand why.
2) It was not really credible to suggest that someone who had been governor of California for just over 18 months could be the a good President. Someone who had governed California for two terms is a different matter entirely.
Ronald Reagan's on-the-job political education would make him a much better president in the 1980s, when he served.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Is Gordon Campbell a goner?
Jim Goll, a U.S.
Christian who believes himself a modern day prophet of the Lord, said the following in May during an Abbotsford B.C. conference, reports The Elijah List. [Scroll down and look for his picture. Then look for the heading "British Columbia"].Emphasis mine:
"....JIM GOLL -- FINAL CONFERENCE SESSION:
....British Columbia...There is going to be an upsetting of governmental things in British Columbia. The government shall change in British Columbia and Victoria Island shall not be a place where it shall be of witchcraft and new age practitioners hiding. But it is going to be a place where the victory of God is going to be seen in a governmental seat....".
Although Mr. Goll isn't explicitly predicting this, I am guessing that he means that Premier Gordon Campbell will be stepping down.
An "upsetting of governmental things", would also seem to imply that the NDP will win the next provincial election. It could also mean a "revivial" amongst government MLAs too (which would be better for Christians to hope for, but never mind).
Why mention this? Well, I just wanted to make a record of this in case Mr. Goll is correct. Or not. If the B.C. Liberals win in 2005 and Gordon Cambell takes office again, we could fairly ask Mr. Goll "What happened?"
I'm a little dismayed to read this, as a change of government in B.C. would be bad news for so-cons, and not something to hope that God will do. Unless Mr. Goll thinks that the Unity Party of B.C. (which my mom dubbed "The Love Party" after party leader Chris Delaney appealed to "The power of love" during the last provincial leaders debate) will win, this is not a good omen.
Mr. Goll is said to have a good record of accuracy. We'll see.
P.S. How unfortunate that Mr. Goll did not have access to a good atlas. It's "Vancouver Island."
Jim Goll, a U.S.
Christian who believes himself a modern day prophet of the Lord, said the following in May during an Abbotsford B.C. conference, reports The Elijah List. [Scroll down and look for his picture. Then look for the heading "British Columbia"].Emphasis mine:
"....JIM GOLL -- FINAL CONFERENCE SESSION:
....British Columbia...There is going to be an upsetting of governmental things in British Columbia. The government shall change in British Columbia and Victoria Island shall not be a place where it shall be of witchcraft and new age practitioners hiding. But it is going to be a place where the victory of God is going to be seen in a governmental seat....".
Although Mr. Goll isn't explicitly predicting this, I am guessing that he means that Premier Gordon Campbell will be stepping down.
An "upsetting of governmental things", would also seem to imply that the NDP will win the next provincial election. It could also mean a "revivial" amongst government MLAs too (which would be better for Christians to hope for, but never mind).
Why mention this? Well, I just wanted to make a record of this in case Mr. Goll is correct. Or not. If the B.C. Liberals win in 2005 and Gordon Cambell takes office again, we could fairly ask Mr. Goll "What happened?"
I'm a little dismayed to read this, as a change of government in B.C. would be bad news for so-cons, and not something to hope that God will do. Unless Mr. Goll thinks that the Unity Party of B.C. (which my mom dubbed "The Love Party" after party leader Chris Delaney appealed to "The power of love" during the last provincial leaders debate) will win, this is not a good omen.
Mr. Goll is said to have a good record of accuracy. We'll see.
P.S. How unfortunate that Mr. Goll did not have access to a good atlas. It's "Vancouver Island."
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Ronald Reagan, RIP
The Ronald Reagan that I like to remember...campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The Ronald Reagan that I like to remember...campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Friday, June 04, 2004
b/w
One music buff's picks for the 100 greatest single "flip sides" of all time. You probably haven't heard them, but there are lots of interesting song choices here.
One music buff's picks for the 100 greatest single "flip sides" of all time. You probably haven't heard them, but there are lots of interesting song choices here.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Instalanche! Well, not quite...
The Meatriarch gets a bit of a hits bounce from being mentioned in the National Post.
Good for him! As someone who is doggedly trying to work on his own hit counts without mentioning at all that he blogs to friends and co-workers, I understand how he feels.
The Meatriarch gets a bit of a hits bounce from being mentioned in the National Post.
Good for him! As someone who is doggedly trying to work on his own hit counts without mentioning at all that he blogs to friends and co-workers, I understand how he feels.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
25 years later
The Shotgun bloggers seem to think that there's no way that the Liberals can win another majority. I wouldn't be so confident.
It does raise an interesting scenario...the 1979 election resumed 25 years later. After 1979's vote, the Tories clung to power with support from Quebec (in the form of the Social Credit caucus). Harper's Tories might need the votes of the Bloc to survive as a minority government according to the early betting.
If that happens, I am wondering if the Harper government should bring forth a quick budget designed to lose a vote of conifidence but win the following election. Lots of tax cuts to polarize the electorate into anti-tax (Tory) and pro-tax (Liberals, NDP, Bloc) factions.
The Shotgun bloggers seem to think that there's no way that the Liberals can win another majority. I wouldn't be so confident.
It does raise an interesting scenario...the 1979 election resumed 25 years later. After 1979's vote, the Tories clung to power with support from Quebec (in the form of the Social Credit caucus). Harper's Tories might need the votes of the Bloc to survive as a minority government according to the early betting.
If that happens, I am wondering if the Harper government should bring forth a quick budget designed to lose a vote of conifidence but win the following election. Lots of tax cuts to polarize the electorate into anti-tax (Tory) and pro-tax (Liberals, NDP, Bloc) factions.
Ain't that funny
I see that a fellow named Russ Hiebert is running for the Tories in my home town. No relation, of course.
I wonder if he will get any votes from the people who knew me when I was younger because they think that he is me.
I see that a fellow named Russ Hiebert is running for the Tories in my home town. No relation, of course.
I wonder if he will get any votes from the people who knew me when I was younger because they think that he is me.