8 Years

Blogger has been around for 8 years now, and I've been on board (in some form or another) for 5 of those. For some reason, that seems strange.

It's also weird how my interest in politics has massively quieted down. A friend pointed out recently that might be because being in school allows for massive amounts of news reading and political discourse on a daily basis, which simply isn't present post-school. An astute point.

Broken People, Broken Programs

Over the last while, I've been engaging in a debate (both in the blogosphere and face-to-face) about the merits of "church". This has led to a label of me arguing the "pro-church" position on these issues. The fact that there would be a "pro-church" view implies there is an "anti-church" view, which I presume would have to be the opposing position. I presume this implies "church" as a "structural building with traditional Sunday services", although I would be interested in hearing what the actual definition being referred to is.

This blog post is largely, although not exclusively, inspired by this post. Reading it will help in understanding the topics on which I am commenting.

I'll start by disagreeing with the statement: "There's no problem with the programs, it's a problem with the people." To imply that nothing is wrong with church programs is a wrong statement - or at the very least, less than perfectly true. More accurate might be "Church programs, though not perfect, can be valuable tools in growing, reaching and encouraging people."

Programs might be (and most probably are) flawed, but people unequivocally are flawed. That's why it's a prima facie, de facto problem with the people. If people were perfect, there would likely be perfect programs. Unfortunately, people aren't.

I'm not saying traditional church (or its associated programs) are perfect. I'm just saying it's pretty darn good. They help many, many people. And people are pretty darn bad.

You know what? I'm immature, incompetent, unwilling, rebellious, selfish and lazy, in addition to being slothful, greedy, lustful, weak and cowardly. Among many, many other "not-so-nice" labels. That's just the start. Throw me a few more and I'll sign up for those too. I am a complete and utter sinner, and the only reason I'm on this earth today is by the unconditional grace of God, without which I would be even more decrepit than I am today, as I am utterly and completely deserve to be burning in hell for eternity, and thanks to His great mercy, I have been given new birth.

In my prideful opinion (missed that one in the first list), there is a great degree of personal responsibility in each of our lives, period. And we shouldn't expect the church to do any of it for us. At the end of the day, we're not responsible for what the "church" did to us, or what quality of "programs it offered" - we're responsible for our actions and our own spiritual health.

Although saying "there is no problem with the programs, it's a problem with the people" might be giving the programs too much credit, I don't believe it's selling the people out at all. The programs aren't sinfu - but people are.

I am not willing to attack people, because I have no right to. How dare I point the finger at another when I am guilty as charged? The parable in Matthew 18:21-35 feels directly on point.

That's not an exercise in self-flagellation, simply an honest assessment of myself. I'm a broken individual, ergo, I will inevitably create broken programs.

If the people are the cause of the programs, then let's work on the people as opposed to blowing up the programs.

Baseball Trades

If the proposed Rios-for-Lincecum trade happens, JP should follow up with Burnett-Kemp. I would like that very much.

Golden Compass, Golden Scandal

2 Thoughts for today:

1) I'm not sure that going around screaming "The Golden Compass is evil! The Golden Compass is evil!" is going to accomplish much. Simply saying something is evil/bad/etc. rarely does the trick. Far more effective is explaining why something is wrong, etc.

I'm currently reading the book. I'll get back to you.

2) I am at a serious loss to explain this ridiculous lack of decorum. Think of how this sells for the NDP: "Young Conservative MP caught looking at scantily-clad women on laptop on Parliament Hill". Sounds like a pretty good smear, no?

Except it has a perfectly valid explanation: the pictures were of said young Conservative MP's girlfriend.

How is this possibly defended? How embarrassing would this be if in a public setting accusations were made by someone who had been snooping on you? I can't imagine the situation Moore must have felt he was in.

And to paint this as anything other than a blatant and embarrassing attempt to smear Moore is impossible.

I'm actually in shock that any MP would try this. Mathyssen should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

Christian Gossips

Why are Christians the worst at this? Is there any possible justification for this?

Why is it that people avoid working at churches because they are hives of gossip?

Why is it that we have roast pastor for lunch way too many Sundays?

Why is it that when someone comes to us with a problem we tend to quickly share it with a "friend" with some sort of ill-conceived rationale?

Where along the way did we forget Proverbs 16:28: "A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends?"

Wedding Invite Rules

1) Don't invite yourself to anything.

2) If you're not invited to something, it doesn't mean the bride and groom don't like you.

3) Don't invite yourself to anything.

4) It costs alot of money to have a wedding, and every single seat at a reception costs money. Don't be offended if the bride and groom decide that they would prefer to spend more money on establishing their new life together, and less on more people at the reception.

5) Just because someone else is invited doesn't mean you should feel jealous.

6) Don't invite yourself to anything.

More Snow = Less Snowplows

I love how CTV links the following news stories together:

Coldest Winter in Years, Environment Canada Warns

and

City scaling back winter snowplow service

The two run nicely, hand in hand.

Child Care

Why do we assume that the best avenue for child care is the government?

We complain about the government so much, and yet somehow it is a good idea to trust our most precious resource to them?

Bye, Bye, Barry

Finally.

The worst kept secret is going to come out. Barry Bonds has* used steroids.

* = allegedly.

Shopping Trip

Apparently it's time to hit the US for a good ol' shopping trip.

This may be partly deceiving, as it's still unclear whether the Canadian dollar is stronger, or if the American dollar is just really weak, but it's interesting to see where this is headed.

Says here that there will be a common North America currency within 5 years. Now that the two currencies are close in value, the incentive will only increase.

Throne Speech Vote

Throne Speech vote tonight. It's expected to pass.

My thoughts?

However - and this is important - if that's his position, then he all but has to abstain from every vote on issues related to the Throne Speech. The upcoming justice bill, for instance? If he intends to abstain from voting it down now, he should abstain from voting it down later. Will he? Perhaps, but (again), only to save himself from an election he doesn't want.

I probably should have used "should" instead of "all" in the first line. But my thoughts remain the same.

WS Prediction

Rockies in 7. Why not?

Election 2007? Not yet.

Dion seems to have figured a way out.

Basically:

Dion said he will introduce an amendment to the speech that criticizes the government for abandoning Canada's Kyoto commitments and asks for combat operations in Afghanistan to end by February 2009.

But the amendment is expected to fail because the New Democrats, who want an immediate troop withdrawal, will be unable to support it. The Liberals would then abstain from the final vote, keeping the government alive.

"Criticizes the government for abandoning Kyoto"? What does that mean? It's all well and good to criticize, but Dion needs to either say "yes, we agree, we can't meet Kyoto", or "no, let's stick with it".

If he says "yes", then he shouldn't be "criticizing" it in the Throne Speech, and it shouldn't affect how he votes on the Throne Speech. If he says "no", then as a matter of principle he should be voting it down.

Then, furthermore, how can he abstain from the final vote on the Afghanistan issue? Either he thinks that Canada should be out by 2009 (and then vote against the Speech) or doesn't care, and then he can let it go.

Perhaps that's his goal (it clearly is): let the government stand for now without actually supporting it. Then, he can pick his battles later on.

However - and this is important - if that's his position, then he all but has to abstain from every vote on issues related to the Throne Speech. The upcoming justice bill, for instance? If he intends to abstain from voting it down now, he should abstain from voting it down later. Will he? Perhaps, but (again), only to save himself from an election he doesn't want.

It's one of the main problems with a minority government - the ability of the opposition to determine when they want to force an election - and on which issue, regardless of their position on the issue as recently as several months prior.

Throne Speech of Oct. 16, 2007

I've always been more interested in federal politics than provincial. I'm not sure why, it's just been the way it's gone. I suppose as I move on to having a more personal involvement with the educational and medical spectres (due to children and elderly parents), my interest will likely increase over time, but as for now, I was relatively bored with the provincial election, but took an acute interest in the throne speech, delivered yesterday by Michaelle Jean (although of course written by Stephen Harper & advisors).

Harper seems to like to work in groups of five. He had five priorities for the last election, and he's followed it up with five priorities for this term of government:

1. Strengthening Canada's sovereignty and place in the world;
2. Building a stronger federation;
3. Providing effective economic leadership;
4. Continuing to tackle crime; and
5. Improving our environment.

The biggest "surprise" would be the inclusion of the environment, but that was pretty much a given due to the media outcry over the issue. Whereas the last throne speech included a few vague words on the environment, this one included 11 paragraphs. Interestingly, it included a new direction for the government on the issue (more on that below).

The priorities:

Strengthening Canada's sovereignty and place in the world:

Highlights included:

• Improving living conditions in the North for First Nations through better housing
• Building an arctic research station
• Mapping Arctic seabed
• Increasing patrol ships/surveillance of the Arctic
• Modernizing Canadian military, increasing reservist policies
• Improving support for veterans
• Implementing Afghan mission until 2011 (period covered by Afghanistan Compact

A surprising focus on the Arctic, but perhaps this is only due to my lack of experience with the topic. There's an interesting relationship to the environment, as Arctic research could be directly related to determining the extent and tracking the development of alterations in the earth's climate.

The words related to the military appear standard: modernize, etc. Improving support for veterans appears to be a worthwhile cause - it is interesting to think that as the number of major world wars fall farther and farther into the rear-view mirror, the number of veterans from those wars continue to fall.

By far the most contentious of these objectives will be the continuation of the Afghan mission until 2011. I really don't buy the "Support our troops by bringing them home" argument - in a time where we have people enter the army by choice, they have chosen to subject themselves to that lifestyle, and it seems strange for a civilian to believe that they are "supporting" the troops by removing them from their chosen profession. The Afghan mission is UN-sanctioned and supported, appears to be doing good (even the opposition agrees), and is focused on far more than simply "fighting". I can support that.

Building a stronger federation

Highlights included:

• Implementing legislation to put formal limits on use of federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
• Consulting with voters on changes to senate, including appointment process and term limits
• Developing strategy for next phase of Action Plan for Official Languages
• Implementing legislation to guarantee Aboriginal people on reserves same protections under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and legislation specific claims
• Issuing an apology for the Indian Residential Schools matter

I'm all for senate changes - specifically elections and limits on the length of service. If we are going to keep the Senate (which I think we should), it needs to be modeled more after the American model - provide some real options and give it real teeth.

With respect to limits on the federal spending power - a formalization of this process cannot be harmful.

Providing effective economic leadership

Highlights included:

• Cutting the GST as promised by another percentage point
• Protecting cultural and intellectual property rights, specifically copyright
• Improving governance of Employment Insurance
• Implementing an infrastructure plan to support long-term growth
• Supporting workers in key industries, including: forestry, fisheries, manufacturing, tourism, agriculture, mining

The GST cut isn't a surprise - indeed, just a follow-up on a campaign promise. You could wonder whether there would be a corresponding suggestion for a PST cut as well (at least for us Ontarians), but I'm not holding my breath for Dalton.

Copyright reform is probably needed, as the law is quite complex and convoluted.

Supporting infrastructure is critical, as it has a ripple effect on all areas of daily living. This is an area that should be a focus of all governments, and it's nice to see it prioritized.

The one major issue I felt was lacking was a further income tax cut - which I would have definitely preferred to the GST cut, but it is my speculation that the CPC is saving that one for an "election bullet" so to speak. Harper clearly does not want to empty his gun too early, and the lack of tax relief (apart from the GST) leads me to believe that it will be a major plank of Election 2007? (or, hopefully, 2008 or 2009).

Continuing to tackle crime

Highlights included:

• Reintroducing a "Tackling Violent Crime" bill to provide stricter measures on violent criminals and predators, including: age of protection, impaired driving, dangerous offenders and stricter bail/mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes
• Strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act for young offenders who commit serious crimes
• Implementing a National Anti-Drug Strategy
• Recruiting 2,500 more police officers
• Legislating to ensure protection against terrorism and responding to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on security certificates

Harper was obviously not impressed that his Violent Crime bill didn't make it through last time, and intends to rectify the situation immediately. As he has outlined that all bills related to the Throne Speech will be confidence matters, this could possibly be a 'poison pill' once it appears down the legislative road. If Dion/Layton/Duceppe shoot this one down, it will be a major argument of Harper's come election time (and should any of them vote against it, there will be some explaining to do).

Toughening the Youth Criminal Justice Act isn't a surprise, but could be more contentious due to the variances on belief about young offenders. The specifics will be interesting to follow, as this has the potential to be a campaign issue (or at the very least issue in the House).

Police officers are needed, and will be provided. This shouldn't be particularly contentious, as it's hard to argue that we shouldn't have more officers (unless the argument is the money should be spent elsewhere, but a specific objective would need to be substituted).

Improving our environment

Highlights included:

• Pressing for international agreement to cut global emissions in half by 2050
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 60-70% by 2050
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020
• Binding national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions
• Implementing national air pollution regulations
• Stating Kyoto targets will not be reached
• Implementing new water strategy to clean up major lakes/oceans/access to safe drinking water for First Nations
• Bolstering protection of water and land through tougher environmental enforcement with accountability to polluters
• Introducing measures on food and product safety

Quite the extensive list. No surprise on the final rejection of Kyoto - it wasn't going to happen anyways, and fault can be divided appropriately. The intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (20% by 2020) lacks teeth, but is a start.

The national air pollution regulations are key - and one of the major planks of this environmental strategy. Essentially, the government is saying "we're going to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, but the focus of the strategy is to get cleaner air and cleaner water".

For me, that is a much more important goal. Clearly, things need to be done about our climate, but with smog advisories every day in the summer and water pollution problems a daily news update, they appear to be pressing issues. Greenhouse gas emissions might kill us in 50 years, but air pollution and water pollution is killing us now.

Interestingly, Dion will have a hard time supporting what has to be the most comprehensive environmental throne speech of all time in Canada(and likely in history for what is known as a "Conservative" government). His horse is tied to the Kyoto wagon, and now that the government is rejecting that wagon, he'll be hard-pressed to do an about face on that issue.

In short - the greenhouse gas emission targets feel weak, and will be correctly viewed as such, but the focus on water and air pollution will see immediate benefits, and is critically important.

Overall, an in-depth throne speech with a particular focus on crime and the environment. Two parties (NDP, BQ) have already stated their intentions to vote against it, leaving Dion's Liberals as the determining party. Harper would likely love to go to the polls now with this throne speech as the backbone of his electoral platform (with the aforementioned income tax cut in his back pocket), and Dion would likely love to avoid an election, as he would be the prohibitive underdog. However, it will be difficult for him to vote for the throne speech due to the provisions regarding the environment (and to a lesser extent, continuing the Afghan mission until 2011).

My money says that enough members of Dion's caucus are "sick" on the day of the vote to avoid a potentially embarrassing situation where the opposition votes to keep the government intact. The speech passes, and Dion figures out a way to kill the government at some point surrounding the next budget (but not likely on the budget itself).

Spinny Spin Spin

In a series that is tied 1-1, (such as the Boston-Cleveland one was a couple of days back), what are the options for reporting on a preview for Game 3?

I read each of the following:

Boston tries to take control of series
Cleveland looks to gain advantage at home

Interesting, the first one was national media, the second, local.

Then, after Cleveland won Game 3, the following headlines for Game 4:

Boston looks to get back into series
Cleveland looks to put stranglehold on Red Sox

Same news sources.

Incredible how simple wording and spin can paint a drastically different picture.

Playing Games With The Throne Speech

According to the Liberals:

CP says that Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes the Liberals are so desperate not to go to the polls they would rather accept a throne speech that states Kyoto targets can't be met rather than trigger a election. The throne speech is a confidence motion that would force an election if voted down.

McGuinty, the Liberal environment critic, says he doesn't know what will be in the speech, but that he has heard that the prime minister may try to force Canada to abandon Kyoto altogether.

"We have heard rumours that the prime minister is going to try to use the throne speech to take this country outside of the Kyoto Treaty," said McGuinty.

Which, I might point out, he has a right to do. But then McGuinty goes on:

"We simply cannot believe all of this effort and all of these games being played by the prime minister. We're just scratching our heads and saying why isn't he moving forward in a positive way to protect the environment for Canadians as opposed to playing these procedural games? I think most Canadians are getting very, very tired of this," said McGuinty.

But if the Tories move away from Canada's Kyoto obligations, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion will be placed in a tough political position. He could face ridicule if he votes for such a throne speech because of his party's well-publicized support of the accord.

But there are also reports that the Liberals may find a way to oppose the speech or elements of it without forcing the government to fall.

McGuinty did not comment on the speculation, but he said the Liberals are exploring several options to deal with potential outcomes from the speech.

It's quite simple, really.

If Canadians are getting "so tired" of this posturing by Harper, then McGuinty should recommend the obvious if Harper indeed does do this - force an election. Of course, they probably really don't want an election based on the recent byelection results and Dion's already bad poll numbers.

And "procedural games"? As one of the commentators pointed out on the CTV thread, the Liberals signed the Protocol in 1998, and then did nothing for 4 years, rendering the targets completely unattainable. Those are the real procedural games.

LCS Predictions

Having decided that the Rockies are my new NL team (and this isn't bandwagon jumping, I've been cheering for them all year, and historically in the past as well), it's not surprising that I'm both:

a) excited they are in the LCS, and
b) picking them to advance to the WS.

Ergo - Rockies in 6.

The AL pick is much more of a heart over head pick, although I do think that there aren't that many differences between the teams. Fine, who am I kidding - the Red Sox should be better on paper, but if they have to face Sabathia/Carmona for a total of 4 games, I see the Indians winning 3 of those, and then they only need one of the other 3. Good enough for me.

Indians in 6.

Ontario Election

Well, that was a whupping.

Final results still to come in, but Tory lost his riding, and a very solid majority for the Liberals.

And a decisive rejection of the MMP system. A bit surprising, but maybe it shouldn't have been.

What can be learned from this? Ontarians are largely happy with the current state of affairs - and if true, I'm quite content with that. Ontario has a semi-consistent history of alternating colours provincially and federally, and I'm more interested in a Harper-McGuinty combination versus Dion-Tory combination.

Criminal Record for Hockey Attack

As reported here in the London Free Press:

A Niagara Falls woman hockey player has kept one on-ice record no professional player has ever earned -- a criminal record.

Julia Tropea, 22, lost the appeal of her sentence for assault levelled last January in a precedent-setting case of hockey violence.

Tropea pleaded not guilty to assault causing bodily harm, but guilty to common assault last November for the vicious attack on a London player during a tournament at the Western Fair on Feb. 12, 2005.

Her sentence -- a suspended sentence and two years' probation -- was a far stiffer sentence than faced by professional hockey players who, in high-profile cases, have been given conditional discharges for on-ice assaults.

Both Todd Bertuzzi and Marty McSorley -- NHL tough guys who went to criminal court for on-ice hits -- were granted discharges, leaving them without criminal records.

Superior Court Justice John McGarry upheld the sentence from Ontario Court Justice Ted McGrath, saying "these actions were not in the heat of the moment but a planned attack in a no-contact sport."

McGarry stressed in his decision the London amateur women's hockey game was supposed to be non-contact.

"In these circumstances, the comparison of sentences being conditional discharges for professional hockey players is not helpful when one considers non-contact amateur sport."

Tropea, who played for the Niagara Falls Rapids, was charged after Carly Bernard, 20, playing on the London team, fell on another Niagara Falls player and prevented her from getting up.

She was about to be sent to the penalty box for unsportsmanlike conduct when Tropea came across the ice and cross-checked her.

Bernard fell to the ice and Tropea kicked her helmet at the top of the head with the toe of her skate.

When Tropea was being escorted from the ice, she was heard threatening other players with "I'll kick the (expletive) out of you, too."

Bernard was later diagnosed with a jaw dislocation and a possible concussion.

Tropea was assessed a cross-checking penalty.

The Crown and the defence agreed at the original sentencing there was no way of knowing if Bernard's injuries were caused by the cross-check or the kick.

Tropea's lawyer, Andy Rady, is considering an appeal to Ontario's highest court.

"I will be consulting with my client to decide whether to appeal the matter further to the Ontario Court of Appeal," he said.

Interestingly, the Bertuzzi and McSorley cases were cited in the oral decision. Justice McGarry is an excellent judge - well spoken and very articulate.

The case has some interesting precedential value, but since the actions occurred in a non-contact game, it has slightly less applicable precedent to professional or contact hockey. The next similar case will be interesting - if a judge follows the Bertuzzi/McSorley line, or the new Tropea line.

Citation to the actual decision will be posted once it is made available.

A-Rod: Choker or Champ?

Much has already been written in the last 24 hours of the Yankees tragic loss and elimination from the postseason. As a Jays fan, it is difficult to feel sorry for the Yankees or A-Rod, but I'll try.

Incredibly, blame for the Yankees collapse has been riding with one of the least responsible people of all: Alex Rodriguez.

Leaving aside the fact that aside from A-Rod's fantastic season the Yankees probably finish 3rd in the AL East, and definitely miss the playoffs, the question then becomes: is A-Rod really as bad in the playoffs as is widely (almost universally) reported?

It's almost impossible to disagree that after Robby Cano and Johnny Damon, A-Rod was the best offensive Yankee in the series. But somehow, it's all his fault.

Despite the fact that he went 4-9 with a HR over the last 2 games, all anyone is talking about is his 2 strikeouts to lead off game 4. Unreal.

If the NY media/national media drives A-Rod out of NY (a possibility - and if he leaves, he's probably headed to Anaheim), the Yankees will be worse team next year. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way things are headed.

Here We Go!

It's time for a blog.

I'm likely to discuss sports, politics, religion, law, news and more.

Stay tuned!