A Little Layton slamming to warn the heart

A touching little piece from the Ottawa Citizen's Susan Riley

Junkyard Jack

Susan Riley
The Ottawa Citizen


Wednesday, December 19, 2007


They are overshadowed by a leader who is alternately decisive and abrasive, they appear to believe federal Liberals are the source of all evil and they are not going anywhere in the polls.

No, not Stephen Harper's Conservatives; Jack Layton's New Democrats. Generally they fly under the radar, sidelined in the battle between the traditional behemoths -- to their intense and understandable frustration. Lately, however, they have found themselves at centre stage, but not in flattering light -- victims of the self-inflicted blunders that often trip up the bigger parties.

NDP backbencher Irene Mathyssen's rash accusation against Conservative MP James Moore concerning his laptop preferences was more than an embarrassment: it was ammunition for those who will always regard New Democrats as smug, priggish scolds. Despite Mathyssen's apology, the remark will haunt her and her party. And, for once, Layton wasn't front and centre: he let his embattled MP dig her own way out.

Later, it fell to veteran British Columbia MP Libby Davies to apologize for false accusations, advanced by NDP officials, that a Liberal candidate in the last election tried to bribe his NDP rival. Again, Layton kept a low profile throughout.

That didn't protect him from accusations, from Liberal Ralph Goodale, of embracing "junkyard-dog" tactics -- not an unusual charge on the Hill, but an unusual target. New Democratic Party leaders usually try to float above the fray, not descend into it. But this is not your mother's NDP: it is muscular, mustachioed and, most days, pretty mad.

It is also increasingly hard to distinguish from its rivals. Last week, for instance, there were reports -- almost lost amid Brian Mulroney's star turn -- that Layton rejected two potential NDP candidates in Quebec for straying from the party line. It was not, party officials insisted, because one is transgendered. Interestingly, when Harper accepted the banishment of two Ontario Conservative hopefuls for ideological inconsistencies, he was accused of being a control freak.

New Democrats also accuse Harper of slavishly imitating U.S. Republicans, of importing neoconservative strategies from abroad. But they recently announced their own mission to Australia to study new Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's recent victory. Apparently when New Democrats shop offshore for tactics, it isn't a sign of political sycophancy, but evidence of ideological solidarity and organizational sophistication.

They point is not that New Democrats are uniquely hypocritical: all parties exhibit double standards on these and other issues. But no party is more deeply shocked by the shabby exigencies of real-life politics -- with that great Prairie exemplar of virtue, Manitoba MP Pat Martin, a leading case.

As for Layton's inability to crack the 16-to-19-per-cent range in polls, that may reflect ambivalence over his informal alliance with the Harper Conservatives. The alliance is purely strategic. Nor is it comprehensive -- New Democrats still criticize Tory environmental and social policies. But there has developed, for some NDP stalwarts, a disquieting pattern: a gang-up on the Liberals, when Harper poses a far greater danger to the country.

Others, especially Elizabeth May, are troubled by Layton's nasty tone towards the Green party. Some of his MPs accuse May of being a closet Tory; other cast her as a wannabe Liberal. She has been attacked, unfairly, as an opponent of a woman's right to choose and generally shunned by Layton, despite her repeated attempts to talk. If the NDP response to May is tense and the tone frayed, it is because she represents a threat. Gradually, unevenly, and despite the lack of a daily platform, the Greens are creeping up in the polls.

But, as Layton's supporters explain, he is in politics to win, not to help like-minded rivals. And he is right to mistrust Liberals: they talk a progressive line in opposition, but invariably govern from the right.

That said, Stéphane Dion is a different kind of Liberal -- the first leader in years not close to the world of big money. Whether he succeeds in creating a greener, more progressive Liberal party is an open question and Layton, sensibly, isn't inclined to wait for the answer.

Meanwhile, Layton is conducting himself like any other ambitious, strategy-minded, combative (male) leader. For now, policy seems secondary to strategy. That may be why the party was so slow to condemn the hysteria over veiled voters: it didn't want to risk support in Quebec. Indeed, its overriding goal -- sound familiar? -- appears to be to showcase its prize recruit, Outremont MP Thomas Mulclair, and make electoral inroads in Quebec.

As for the leader, he is both an asset and a liability -- intense, intelligent, volatile, convinced of his own virtue, prickly when criticized and not warmly engaging. No, not Stephen Harper. But similar.

Is there a problem?

If so what is it, the message, the dealing with Harper or Jack himself?Recommend this Post

To Boldly go where no man has gone before

Voyager 2 has made an important first for mankind as it crossed the Termination Shock a boundary that separates the solar system's heliosphere from a region where the solar wind falters as pressure from interstellar gas impedes it.

Voyager has now entered the heliosheath, an area of lessened solar wind and in a mere 7-10 years will become the first man made object to leave the solar system.(not including clothes and the loose change carried in the pockets of abductees)

It's sad to think that pollution, resource depletion, war or social upheaval could make this the pinnacle of man's achievement. I've always been a sci-fi guy but more an more it looks like we will self destruct in this gravity well and never reach beyond it.Recommend this Post

peak oil video: How will you ride the Slide

Recommend this Post

Paying $5000 to breed?

A recent article in the Australian Journal of Medicine recommends placing a carbon tax on breeding. The idea would allow 2 freebie kids, with a $5000 (Oz dollars) carbon charge on subsequent births and a $800/year/excess child carbon tax. The money would go towards the purchase and maintenance of land and the planting of trees to offset the expected carbon footprint of the children.

On the other side, you would receive income tax deductions for contraceptives or sterilization.

I actually like this idea in principle but it would not work.

Civil libertarians would scream that you were making breeding the prerogative of the rich.

By taxing breeding you could also impoverish children for the "Crimes" of their parents.

Would you repo children who could not afford their breeding tax?

For those who already pay tens of thousands of dollars for fertility treatments, $5000 would hardly make them blink an eye.

At the same time Australia like Canada has an aging population and is built on the constant growth model. What would be the point of discouraging citizens from breeding if you would just import replacement citizens from countries that have no such limitations.

Limiting consumption by existing people should still be considered most important in lowering our carbon footprint but the idea of limiting population growth or actually shrinking world population should be considered. This however cannot happen until we change the economic system from requiring constant growth to something less damaging.

I think a world wide move to supply free birth control and education should be a priority but the danger is it will only weed out the idealists and leave the more frenzied breeders to continue on their merry way!

I think peak oil will whittle down the population eventually anyways but if we started it ourselves we might save some of the pain.

What do you think the answer is?

Recommend this Post

Scientology unconstitutional

The global finacial crisis, global warming, and assholes in power all depress me but then the Germans come along and declare "that we do not consider Scientology an organization that is compatible with the constitution," and once again I'm happy and care free again, wheeeeee!!!

see full story

Scientologists believe all the wrongs of man are caused by evil spirits(body thetans) remnants from an earlier galactic genocide, that adhere themselves to our bodies and cause us all forms of grief. These thetans were created when the evil Galactic overlord XENU,(Not to be confused with Lucy Lawless) flew all his enemies to a prehistoric earth in space DC-8s, dropped them in volcanoes and nuked them. Sounds like overkill to me, why not open the airlocks of the space planes?, he had already captured them why not just shoot them? Wasn't a hot volcano enough to kill them?

The ghosts/spirits/thetans were then brainwashed to believe in religion and released to plague proto man. I knew that incident with the Nun and a quart of Tequila was not my fault!


Through years of analysis and hefty fees you can be cured (brainwashed) and become as normal and well balanced as Tom Cruise. Apparently part of the treatments include holding onto metal Phalluses hooked up to a machine. By the look of it Travolta really gets off on it.



The Germans however believe the whole thing is a money making scam which considering what L. Ron Hubbard said about religion seems like a quite reasonable assumption.

"If you want to make a lot of money, start your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard

So while we have made no progress on Global Warming today the Germans have made some small progress on solving Global Stupidity, That makes it a good day!

Hail Xenu!!Recommend this Post

What Will we Eat as the Oil Runs Out?

This is a must read article from Peak Oil expert Richard Heinberg.
Since it's long enough as it is I'm not going to spout off about it, until comments start.Recommend this Post

This idea is the Pitt's

It seems Brad Pitt is flogging his “Make it Right” project in an attempt to build 150 “eco friendly” homes in the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans.

First I have to congratulate him for at least trying to do some good.

Second I have to say “ are you just STUPID or what?”

Don't get me wrong, eco friendly houses are a good thing, hell I'd love one. There are no designs for this project yet so it’s impossible to judge if these buildings are really sustainable development or not. The designs will be through a design contest and I'm sure the cost of a true eco house will make these less than perfect. In the end I suspect that a little recycled material and bamboo will be incorporated so they can "green wash" another foolish development.

So how do you make a house Flood Proof?

Well the easiest ways are to make it float like some of the barge houses in the Netherlands, or put it on stilts with the lower level being inconsequential parking, storage. Both of these ideas add additional cost to the buildings with no real utility. Neither of these options solves the real problem of people and the detritus of modern life including sewage, cars, pesticides, herbicides, Gas stations etc all being below sea level in a era of rising seas levels. Even if the houses survive the land below is recontaminated each time there is a new flood.

The money to make these houses flood safe would be better used making 150 houses on dry land, that are net zero homes. The only environmentally friendly thing to do in New Orleans is to naturalize all destroyed areas and allow the city to shrink. Building on a flood plain or even worse below sea level with today's realities is anything but Eco Friendly!Recommend this Post