What happened in 2008? What's going to happen in 2009?

[Edward Campbell]

I agree, generally, with several of the ‘findings’ of the Good Grey Globe’s panel of strategists as reported in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081224.WStrategists1225/BNStory/politics

The good, the (mostly) bad, and the faint signs of hope
Our strategists panel looks back on the year in Canadian politics

Globe and Mail Update

December 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM EST

What was the smartest strategic move of 2008?

Scott Reid (former communications director for Paul Martin): Stephen Harper's decision to call the 2008 election. Although he failed to secure the majority he sought, imagine the hurt he'd be feeling if he were lurching toward a re-election campaign in the current economic carnage? Then again, don't imagine. Just wait nine months — that's a good bet as to when we'll next be on the campaign trail. (Runner-Up: Liberal leadership contenders Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae putting personal ambition second to the public and party interest by stepping aside and allowing the Official Opposition to resolve its leadership situation in favour of the clearly preferred Michael Ignatieff.)

Greg Lyle (former chief of staff for Gary Filmon and adviser to Mike Harris): It's a toss-up between Jean Charest's election timing and Ed Stelmach's decision to embrace change in his election. The were no really admirable federal moves; the cleverest one was the Tories' rebound against the coalition as a sell-out to separatists, although the long-term repercussions don't make it a smart move.

Gerald Caplan (former NDP campaign manager): Stephen Harper's decision to call an election, even though it meant flouting his own fixed-date legislation and commitment.

What was the worst strategic mistake?

Reid: Stephane Dion's insistence on making the Green Shift the centrepiece of the Liberal Party's electoral offering. Everyone told him "don't do it." He did it anyway. And it resulted in the worst-ever Liberal result. If Mr. Harper hadn't blown his mid-campaign response to the financial crisis, the Liberals would have done even worse. (Runners-up: Mr. Harper's - or Guy Giorno's or whoever the hell it was - decision to respond to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression with an economic update that offered no substantive response, phony surplus projections and the most venal dose of partisanship in recent memory, and Liz May's brave but fundamentally stupid decision to run in Central Nova against Peter Mackay.)

Lyle: Green Shift.

Caplan: Mr. Harper's intervention in Jim Flaherty's November fiscal update. The fact that it ended up strengthening his political position was entirely unforeseen.

What was the most underreported political story?

Lyle: The role of Doug Finley and his direct contact and organization team in winning the last federal election. Ridings like Kenora were picked off by the Tories like they were snipers. The Liberals are simply uncompetitive in that arena.

Reid: The utter failure of the Special Panel On Afghanistan to properly diagnose the war's future. John Manley argued that Canadians were owed a reasonable strategy for success if Parliament were to request an extension of our Kandahar mission. His panel then answered its own challenge by saying it would take an additional 1,000 allied troops, medium helicopter lift capacity and a more transparently communicated government policy. The last of these recommendations was plainly ignored. And the first two prescriptions were swiftly revealed to be wholly insufficient. By September, American generals were publicly arguing that more than 10,000 additional soldiers were required just to keep the situation stable and most experts now agree that there may soon have to be negotiations with the Taliban. In fairness, a variety of arguments could have been reasonably employed to support an extended tour of duty in Kandahar. But the fact remains that the analysis, recommendations and rationale upon which Parliament actually hung its hat cannot be honestly said to stand the test of time. (Runner-up: Mr. Harper's personal lawyer in the Cadman lawsuit resigning his position.)

Caplan: The link between government economic policies and the ever-increasing financial woes of millions of Canadians.

What was the biggest lesson for our political parties?

Lyle: Humility, one would hope. All the mainstream parties lost goodwill in English Canada. The Liberals and the Tories lost the most. They just are not connecting with what real people care about. The pre-Christmas power play was particularly disastrous. Unfortunately, because both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff came out ahead politically, the lesson was likely lost.

Reid: People can be inspired and excited about politics. Just look at Barack Obama.

Caplan: As William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) once said about the secret of success in Hollywood: "No one knows anything."

What was the year's most encouraging political trend?

Lyle: I am not encouraged.

Caplan: The Obama victory and the faint hope that it might have implications for our mediocre political culture.

Reid: The insistence by Michael Ignatieff that Stephen Harper scrap his economic update and offer Canadians an honest outlook.

What was the year's most worrisome political trend?

Caplan: The abysmal level of our political discourse. The fact that the PM - and maybe any politician - can reverse himself on sacred principle after sacred principle and suffer no political consequence speaks volumes about the minimal expectations the public holds of the political class.

Reid: The economy. Forget the politics. Forget the machinations. We lost 70,000 jobs in one month and the smartest people in the world say it's the worst thing they've ever seen. If all we have to fear is fear itself, then there's a lot to be afraid of.

Lyle: The ongoing triumph of crass political machinations over any type of idealism.

Coming soon: Lyle, Reid and Caplan look ahead to 2009
--------------------


Specifically, the panel is right in these assessments:

• “Stephen Harper's decision to call the 2008 election” was the smartest strategic move of 2008 (Reid & Caplan);

• “Stéphane Dion's insistence on making the Green Shift the centrepiece of the Liberal Party's electoral offering” was the worst strategic mistake (Reid & Lyle);

• “The role of Doug Finley and his direct contact and organization team in winning the last federal election” was the most underreported political story (Lyle);
(The fact that most of you never heard a word about it proves his point.)

• “The abysmal level of our political discourse” and “The economy … If all we have to fear is fear itself, then there's a lot to be afraid of” are tied as the year's most worrisome political trend (Caplan & Reid).

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We lost 70,000 jobs in one month and the smartest people in the world say it's the worst thing they've ever seen.

Many of the "smartest people in the world" also agree there's no point starting any long-term infrastructure programs as "stimuli" because the recovery should already be under way any time in the next 9 to 18 months.  They must be younger than me if its the "worst thing they've ever seen".  Every time someone starts a sentence with "This is the worst year for <X> since..." they finish it with some year in the 1980s.  To my way of thinking - looking at how bad things can really get - 1915 and 1940 were bad years.  Economically speaking, if the last "bad year" was in the era of MTV and big hair, things aren't really that bad.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is the time of year for pundits to reflect on what went (mostly) wrong in 2008 and what will go (mostly) right in 2009. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is columnist Lawrence Martin’s muddled view:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081224.wcomartin29/BNStory/specialComment/columnists

The year of descent - and the great Canadian paradox

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
December 29, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

It was hardly the best of times - more likely, the worst of times. The years don't get much more dismal or distressing than 2008. It was the year of descent.

From a seemingly salutary starting point, the economy went into a sudden frightful plunge. From sustained budget surpluses, we headed for the deep red sea. In Afghanistan, the war rolled on, the prospect of peace a pipe dream. At home, our green awakening was stalled, if not halted. In Ottawa, Parliament was shut down twice, the word "dysfunctional" taking the prize as the year's most frequently used adjective.

The level of sophistication of our politicians was witnessed in the election campaign. Conservative attack ads featured birds defecating on the opposition leader's head. Subsequent to the campaign, what was expected to be a high-minded economic statement was turned into a document that had a hand grenade in every paragraph.

It was the year in which the Prime Minister, true to form, couldn't see a belt without wanting to hit below it. It was a year in which the opposition leader, true to form, couldn't see a cliff without wanting to hurl himself off it.

It was the year of gates - Cadmangate, Schreibergate, NAFTAgate, Bikergate. It was a year in which, just when we started to think minority government could work, minority government proved to be an embarrassment for all concerned. The democratic process was either assaulted or insulted. In the second half of the year, Parliament sat for only two weeks.

It was the year in which an old maxim applied: Expect the unexpected. For the first eight months, environmental causes dominated the political agenda. But, by autumn, the green preoccupation disappeared, overtaken by the collapse of financial markets. In a test between a hole in the ozone layer and a hole in the wallet, the former had no chance.

The floundering by the Harper Conservatives was only outdone by that of the Liberals. The party proved itself so hapless it couldn't produce a video for national TV on time or in focus. The party formed a coalition that, it claimed, didn't include the Bloc Québécois, only to bring the Bloc leader, pen in hand, to the coalition-signing ceremony.

There was all that in 2008 - and something else. It was the year of the great paradox. The Liberals were trounced. But, at the same time, the Liberal philosophy was resurgent. To the south, the Bush era drew to a close and, with it, eight years of Republican folly. Canadians who had turned away from the U.S. now looked there for inspiration. The tides were moving back to old-fashioned Democratic values.

On this side of the border, where our Conservatives had wreaked far less havoc, all was in a holding pattern. But, by year's end, the holding could no longer continue. No one was using New Deal terminology. But, by necessity, big government activism was called for, and that's what - with its bailouts and big spending and deficits - the Harper government was turning to.

The stone was rolled back and Lord Keynes reborn. The driving passions of conservatism were found to be woefully inadequate. Deregulation, one of those passions, led to a deregulation-induced recession. The political right lost its reputation, with its deficits, as prudent fiscal stewards.

It showed itself behind the curve on global warming and green issues. Its long-time enthusiasm for the military solution was called into question by the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Into the breach the Liberals didn't step. Stephen Harper's cynical view of governance - it is strictly combat - precariously propped him up. His divide-and-conquer strategy took him to death's door with his economic-statement debacle. His battlefield comeback a few days later was something to behold.

But 2008 left him facing daunting obstacles. Mr. Harper lost his biggest asset - Stéphane Dion. In the election, facing a divided left and a rickety Liberal leader, he increased his seat take. But his error-prone, uninspiring campaign left him short of a majority. Optimal opportunity missed.

Having a minority didn't slow him down much in his first term. But as this dark year closes, the circumstances the Prime Minister faces are radically different. The descent of the economy in combination with a new Liberal leader in combination with the leftward tilt of the times signify the agenda is no longer his own.

Survival means he has to start acting against his nature. He has to start reaching out to the other side. Worse, he has to start doing something that is totally anathema to him: donning Liberal clothes.
--------------------

While I agree with Martin when he suggests that Canadian politics continued its descent towards the levels of slander and deception that are common in the USA – and were used my by the Obama campaign against McCain/Palin than vice-versa, it appeared to me, and while I agree that Prime Minister Harper rarely saw a belt below which he did not feel compelled to hit, it is not true that the year was, in partisan political terms, worse than most of its predecessors. It was years and years ago, circa 1967, actually, that we, Canadians, said ”gentlemen out, players to bat” and consented to the precipitous descent of politics into the messy business it is today – a big tip of the hat to Coutts, Davey et al.

I am pretty certain that, yet again, Martin has let his distaste for all things conservative and for George W Bush’s brand of conservatism in particular get in the way of his world view.

Barack Obama is going to be far, far closer to Stephen Harper than he ever would have been to Stéphane Dion and Iggy and the Liberal Party will have to tack to the right – fairly hard right, I think – to get onside with the new Democratic administration. It may well be that Obama, like Layton, is an instinctive big spender but he will be severely constrained by a Democratic congress and his own hand picked advisors, almost all of whom would fit well in Harper’s Conservative Party but most of whom would be out of place in the Liberal Party of Canada in 2008.

Harper will have to waste our money on unproductive, frequently even counterproductive stimulus packages and that will go against his grain but he too is a “player” and he knows that a Canadian political leader must follow the mindless herd when it is in full stampede.

 

[GAP]

Barack Obama is going to be far, far closer to Stephen Harper than he ever would have been to Stéphane Dion and Iggy and the Liberal Party will have to tack to the right – fairly hard right, I think – to get onside with the new Democratic administration. It may well be that Obama, like Layton, is an instinctive big spender but he will be severely constrained by a Democratic congress and his own hand picked advisers, almost all of whom would fit well in Harper’s Conservative Party but most of whom would be out of place in the Liberal Party of Canada in 2008.

I suspect that Obama will not be constrained by a Democratic congress......rather with Pelosi et al there, Bush's deficits are going to look like chicken feed beside what is coming.....

Harper will have to waste our money on unproductive, frequently even counterproductive stimulus packages and that will go against his grain but he too is a “player” and he knows that a Canadian political leader must follow the mindless herd when it is in full stampede.

With the Auto industry first in line, the clamoring is only started.....everyone will want on the gravy train, and Harper will be hard pressed to say no......

 

[Kirkhill]

If Foreign Policy is a test it seems that the Liberal Party of Canada is NOT the only one that "Campaigns from the Left and Governs from the Right (Centre)"

For Nancy Pelosi, to this outsider, it sounds like "That was then.   This is now."

Pelosi: US must stand strongly with Israel


Published:  12.28.08, 03:13 / Israel News 



Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a statement concerning the Israeli operation in Gaza in which she wrote that "When Israel is attacked, the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally."


According to Pelosi, "Peace between Israelis and Palestinians cannot result from daily barrages of rocket and mortar fire from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Hamas and its supporters must understand that Gaza cannot and will not be allowed to be a sanctuary for attacks on Israel." (Yitzhak Benhorin, Washington)

Source

Leaders and Followers:  Leaders, with little to divide them in personal philosophy beyond a personal desire for personal power, find activist followers at the fringes. "Conservative" politicians find them amongst poorly educated rural folks with a tendency to go to church.  "Socialist" politicians find them amongst poorly educated college students with tendency to skip classes.


Once in power the Leaders hew pretty close to the same line as their predecessors, if only because their "Party" or "House" (if we choose to revert Mediaeval/Renaissance polities) will keep them generally on course economically.  (Of course every now and then you do turn up a raving looney like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and ....... FDR? ...  Or was he just a man of his times?  A patrician with a stronger sense of self than of policy?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The stone was rolled back and Lord Keynes reborn. The driving passions of conservatism were found to be woefully inadequate. Deregulation, one of those passions, led to a deregulation-induced recession. The political right lost its reputation, with its deficits, as prudent fiscal stewards.

Hogwash.  The driving passions of conservativism include balanced budgets and free & fair trade, both of which have benefited this nation enormously since the mid 1980s.  To speak of a "deregulation-induced recession" is to display near complete ignorance of the circumstances which led to our situation.  If the "political right" has lost its reputation as prudent fiscal stewards, it is only among the fools and partisans who can not or will not understand who did what over the past 30 years.

>he will be severely constrained by a Democratic congress

I find that unlikely in the extreme.  The Democrat Congress is not opposed to spending; the Democrat Congress is only opposed to spending which does not benefit Democrat interests and serve Democrat ideology.

 

[dapaterson]

I find that unlikely in the extreme.  The Democrat Congress is not opposed to spending; the Democrat Congress is only opposed to spending which does not benefit Democrat interests and serve Democrat ideology.

Of course, you could replace every instance of "Democrat" above with "Republican" in the same situation.

From what I have seen to date, Obama is less of an ideologue than Bush; a bit of pragmatism would be a refreshing change down south.

Now if we could only get Harper to try to remain focussed on leading, vice tweaking the opposition...

 

[Rifleman62]

"I am pretty certain that, yet again, Martin has let his distaste for all things conservative and for George W Bush’s brand of conservatism in particular get in the way of his world view."
If this is the case, why keep posting Lawrence Martin and his fellow travellers in the same employ incessantly? Know Your Enemy, possibly, but their point of view is tedious at best. My opinion, others may not agree.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

"I am pretty certain that, yet again, Martin has let his distaste for all things conservative and for George W Bush’s brand of conservatism in particular get in the way of his world view."
If this is the case, why keep posting Lawrence Martin and his fellow travellers in the same employ incessantly? Know Your Enemy, possibly, but their point of view is tedious at best. My opinion, others may not agree.

It could be worse, I could post the latest article from, say, Eric Margolis where he predicts whats going to happen in 2009.

 

[Rifleman62]

Please don't. Although not in the same employ, he is of the same yucky ilk.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Globe and Mail web site, is the second part of the opening article in this thread:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081229.WStrategists30/BNStory/politics/home

What lies ahead
Our strategists panel makes its predictions for 2009

Globe and Mail Update
December 31, 2008 at 2:54 PM EST

Will there be a federal election in 2009?

Gerald Caplan (former NDP campaign manager): Absolutely not. Michael Ignatieff knows his party can't handle it.

Greg Lyle (former chief of staff for Gary Filmon and adviser to Mike Harris): It is unlikely. The key moment of vulnerability will be when the House first sits and the budget is tabled. It is too close to the last election to have an automatic election if the government falls. I think a change of government is more likely.

Scott Reid (former communications director for Paul Martin): Yes, and it will happen no later than autumn.

Will the opposition coalition survive past the end of January?

Caplan: No. It's already functionally dead. Iggy wants no part of it.

Lyle: It is already dead. However, co-operation in another way does seem likely.

Reid: No.

Will continued concerns over the economy work to the advantage or disadvantage of any particular party?

Lyle: So long as the Conservatives remember to demonstrate empathy, it overwhelmingly helps the Conservatives. They are seen hands down as the country's best economic managers.

Reid: Incumbent governments suffer when people lose their jobs and start to lose their hopes. How did Hoover do in 1934 or Bennett in '35? Stephen Harper will find out soon enough.

Caplan: In parlous times, the public wants security, not experimentation. That's why the coalition was murdered in public opinion. That's why the steadfast Barack Obama whupped the erratic John McCain. If the government is seen to offer a budget with obvious stimuli, the public could be well-satisfied. And of course, economics is Mr. Ignatieff's Achilles heel.

Other than the economic crisis, what will be the biggest political story facing the country?

Lyle: The economic crisis is the story of the decade, if not the century. Nothing else will really matter. However, by the end of the year there will be more and more stories about cutbacks in social services, especially in health care.

Reid: Is Michael Ignatieff really all that and a box of chocolates?

Caplan: As 1950s British prime minister Harold Macmillan once responded to this question: "events, dear boy, events." The unforeseen sets the agenda as often as not.

What will be the country's most important political battleground?

Reid: Ontario. If the Liberals can swing it back in their favour, Mr. Harper is toast. If not, the Liberal Party could be in serious long-term jeopardy.

Lyle: The Greater Toronto Area. If Quebec is unavailable, the Tories must expand their GTA beachhead to make a majority. Fortress GTA is the last major Liberal stronghold, so it is critical for them to defend it.

Caplan: Like it or not, the House of Commons: Iggy vs. Harper.

Which federal leader is least likely to still be leading at the end of 2009?

Lyle: Jack Layton. The NDP made a big investment in the last campaign but it didn't deliver. Particularly significant is that Mr. Layton couldn't deliver in his hometown against the weakest Liberal campaign we will likely ever see.

Reid: Stephen Harper.

Caplan: Alas, all are likely to be among us, however wounded.

Outside of party leaders, who's the one federal politician to keep an eye on?

Lyle: Michael Chong. His decision to leave Cabinet on a point of principle was a rare moment of personal courage in Canadian politics. We need politicians who will not be seduced by the perks of office if we want to be able to admire our elected officials once again.

Reid: Jim Flaherty. By any objective standard he's the worst finance minister in 25 years — and probably ever. If he continues to screw up everything he goes near, Mr. Harper will toss him under the bus. When that happens, open warfare will break out between the ex-Reformers and the ex-Harrisites. It will make the Chretien-Martin rivalry look like a game of spin the bottle.

Caplan: He or she hasn't materialized yet. Let us pray.
--------------------

And here are my assessments of the prognostications:

• Liberal insider Scott Reid is right: there will be an election in 2009, probably in  summer – after a budget has passed and just as the Canadian economy is starting to rebound because resources are in demand again to fuel the stimulus projects in other, bigger countries like the USA.

• All three are correct: the coalition is DEAD, dead dead.

• NDP good ol’ boy Gerald Caplan is right: in perilous times Canadians crave a steady and, apparently, competent hand.

• Caplan is right again in citing Macmillan’s rightly famous “events, dear boy, events” line.

• Conservative strategist Greg Lyle and Reid are on the mark: Ontario, in general, but the greater Toronto Area, in particular, is the main political battleground.

• Caplan is correct: Duceppe, Harper, Iggy and Taliban Jack Layton are all likely to be around at the end of this new year.

• Caplan is right again: we have yet to see the rising star (or dog) of Canadian politics in 2009 – but there will be one, or more.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"I am pretty certain that, yet again, Martin has let his distaste for all things conservative and for George W Bush’s brand of conservatism in particular get in the way of his world view."
If this is the case, why keep posting Lawrence Martin and his fellow travellers in the same employ incessantly? Know Your Enemy, possibly, but their point of view is tedious at best. My opinion, others may not agree.

I am frequently frustrated by Lawrence Martin’s capacity to get things badly wrong when he aims outside of his arcs but I am even more frustrated by what I perceive to be a growing sense of narrow closed mindedness in Canada and the USA.

I mentioned that I had been reading The Big Sort by Bishop and Cushing; one of the troubling trends they identify is that of focused information gathering by which they mean that people are less and less willing to even hear, much less consider views that are at odds with their own. I regard this trend as real – I think we see it here on Army.ca – and deeply troubling.

I often rail against the shouting heads school of what passes for debate on TV – pioneered, I believe by John McLaughlin 25+ years ago. I am equally critical of Canadian media’s often misguided quest for balance that seems to require an (often ill informed) response to ‘hard’ news. When a Canadian soldier is killed in Afghanistan that’s a fact; there is no need to interview a ‘panel’ of pro and anti-war activists (AKA busybodies) to provide either context or balance but it is done in the hopes of creating controversy – which is the real product of most ‘journals’ and journalists.

It ought to be, in my opinion needs to be possible, indeed normal to read/hear/see facts in newspapers and on TV/radio and, based on one’s own understanding of the situation, draw conclusions. It ought, also, to be normal to read/hear/see opinions – with our without an immediate counterpoint – and, once again based on being broadly informed, draw conclusions. Indeed our own opinions ought to be, need to be informed by a range of news and views. When they are not, which is the case when we elect to get our news and views only from e.g. the National Post, then we are, by my definition, ill informed. Ill informed people are more likely than not to draw incorrect, even dangerous conclusions because they will have failed to have done a proper reconnaissance or made a sound appreciation of the situation.

For my part: I do not consider Lawrence Martin and John Ibbitson or even Linda McQuaig and Antonia Zerbisias to be ‘enemies’ of any kind. Nor do I consider e.g. Terence Corcoran to be a ‘friend.’ I do consider all to be:

a. ‘good’ writers – able to get an idea across in a few well chosen words;

b. informed on the fields within which they chose to write. The fact that, from time to time, I think all columnists ‘get it wrong’ doesn’t mean that they really are wrong. If I though that then I would have to assume that I am right – and I’m 100% certain that is not the case; and

c. entitled to express their opinions – just as I am ‘entitled,’ grace à Mike Bobbitt, to do so here.

For my part, when I see something I think might interest Army.ca members I will continue to post the views of others, even when the ‘offend.’

 

[Rifleman62]

Look this was not a personal shot at you. You can post whatever is fit to be posted. You don't offend me. You know what I meant by, as well as it's historical context, Know your Enemy. I don't consider the named  media persons "enemies" I  do of course read  more than just the National Post, so that I am informed of other points of view.

My point is that I believe that the G & M et al are very, very powerful and the use of that power should be balanced, which in my opinion it is not.

My other point is that again in my opinion, the "reporters", editors etc are writing from their own personal point of view as sponsored by their employer. What credentials do they have that makes them capable of second guessing any news item/topic from how the war in Afghanistan should be conducted to running a government etc. To me , most don't have any credability, they can't even check their statement for fact. The CBC "reporters" are obvious examples of this. As you are aware I believe they hate the PM because he makes them work instead of handing the news to them on a platter like the Liberals did to be repeated in their newspapers and TV.

Lawrence Martin as you state probably has good contacts in Ottawa. By that do you mean with the LPC and their cronies, correct? How did he get them? Could be that he is a good listener, always puts a plug in for the team and a good word for the individual who was the speaker so that that person gained some stature. Whatever, hard to explain. Mr Martin has his good connections for a reason, and one thing for sure is his distaste for all things conservative/Bush  keeps those good connections thriving. Thriving but not balanced. Not ethical in my opinion. Not honest in my opinion, but I will continue to read what he writes, and Mr Martin will continue to be employed by a media outlet that agrees with his point of view.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree with Edward (Again) on the tendency of individuals over time to become close minded.  I suffer from that myself.

I find that when I first am confronted by an interesting subject, personally or professionally, I am only too willing to suck up data.  In that process I willing go out and look for sources of all opinions because most people choose to lie by omission rather than commission. The legal profession makes a science of it just as their forebears, the clerics, and their cousins, the pamphleteers and academics do.  That is why our court system works.  The adverserial system relies on exposing the other guy's omissions. (Although these days nocturnal emissions seem to be favourite targets - but I digress).

However, once I have generated enough info to be able to formulate a hypothesis, or a plan, it is really hard to keep looking at contrary opinions.  This is particularly true when your sources become predictable in the information that they are offering.  I find this failing particularly true of Lawrence Martin - not only do I disagree with him but I can be sure that no matter what he writes it will not sway me.  Consequently l ignore him.  To my peril.  Because in amongst all the dross and garbage of his narrow opinions he occasionally reveals a factoid which has a bearing on my hypothesis.

Round here a poor hypothesis is a source of embarassment.

At work a poor plan is a source of financial loss to my employer and hardship to my fellow employees.

In the military realm, as a concrete example, think of the effect of Monty and Boy Browning ignoring the evidence from the Dutch Underground (a compromised and unbelievable source) of the presence of German Panzers in the Arnhem area.  Roy Urquhart was not best pleased, nor were Frost and the men at the Bridge.

Its good to suffer at times - and wading through drivel is a minor sufferance.  As my "other granny*" (the Yorkshire one which you can throw off the bus) would have said:  "Where there's muck there's brass (money)".

I find one of the easier antidotes is to keep delving into new subjects.  I am constantly amazed by how often the same themes recur no what matter what subject I am playing with.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Apologies to McAuslan fans and a reference to a favourite Scottish lullaby:

"Oh, you cannae shove your granny aff a bus.
Oh, you cannae shove your granny aff a bus.
Oh, you cannae shove your granny, for she's yer mammy's mammy.
Oh. you cannae shove your granny aff a bus.

" Ye can shove yer other granny aff a bus.
Ye can shove yer other granny aff a bus.
Ye can shove yer other granny, for she's yer daddy's mammy.
Ye can shove yer other granny aff a bus".

Sung to the tune of  "She'll be coming round the mountain". 

Family relations in Scotland.

 

[DBA]

I would say it's more as I become knowledgeable about a subject the less tolerant I am of rhetoric over substance in discussions of it and quickly grow tired of bullshit from any side. Life is too short to constantly wade through dreck. I try to be short and factual in putting forth my opinions on a subject and to stay clear of presenting them as 'infallible truth'. I might read one or two books from the other side of an issue but unfortunately 80%-90% of the contents is usually very lacking in reasoned argument and I grow weary trying to find the few cognizant points being made.

A big issue I see for 2009 is will freedom or tyranny win? Will the various HRCs and proponents of the crisis of the hour be soundly defeated in their attempts to destroy freedom of speech?

 

[GAP]

Interesting email from a friend, related to the oil patch economy as it is now

Hi all,

It has been awhile since my last update. With things slowing down massively around Fort McMurray I actually have a chance to sit and get caught up on some things I have been delaying for some time.

Please don’t think I am looking for sympathy with this email, as I know it is found between shit and syphilis in the dictionary, but just wanted to give a big hello to all friends out there that I haven’t spoken to in awhile and give you a status report.

For those of you who did not know where I was or what I was doing, I have been in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Home of the infamous “tar sands” or “oil sands”. Work dried up and went into standstill mode in Manitoba and I was forced to move out to Alberta a.k.a. “land of milk and honey”.

The energy boom of the years few years has fuelled places like Fort McMurray to become thriving boom towns, but with things the way they are in the current global crisis the bust has come as well.

When I arrived in Alberta, I had my pick of a hundred different jobs at any given moment and all for top wages. I took some schooling in construction safety and it is a booming trade. The job I took I didn’t even apply for. It was definitely the shortest interview of my life and consisted of “when can you get here?”

I went for a Drug & Alcohol test “pee test” later that day and drove up to Fort McMurray the next morning. Originally my schedule was to be 10 days on, 4 days off…even with the slow down I have yet to actually work that schedule. Most times, it has been 17 days on and 4 days off or 24 days on and 4 days off, etc. I even got a better job offer having only been working here for about a month for more money, but my company matched the offer and I stayed. I had the benefit of also being paid once a week and it definitely was a shock to pay more in taxes in one week then I ever got on a paycheque.

Times were great, money flowed in, work never ceased, but I knew it just couldn’t last. If $147 a barrel oil didn’t stop rising, we wouldn’t be able to afford it ourselves and if it kept going it would eventually crash the economy anyway. It seems that the effect of high oil prices with a host of other global economic problems was in fact our own undoing.

Back when oil was $147.00 a barrel I was trying to tell any of my guys that would listen to pay off debt, don’t buy a truck, don’t buy a skidoo, don’t buy a quad, and don’t buy a house locally and to start buying sacks of rice. Most just laughed at the rice comment although I was deadly serious about it. A few listened and would talk about what they should do personally and it is those few that still seem to be doing alright. Too many of them are on the hook for houses they bought at the peak, one guy has 5 houses, three he purchased at the peak, at a value of nearly three million dollars of real estate, and now he has no renters and we laid him off before Christmas. A mobile home that had been partied in for the last 20 years was still selling at the peak for 500,000 plus around here. Suburban houses were selling for 700-800 thousand. There were maybe 10 houses for sale in Fort Mac when I arrived, now there is 700, at least 70 people have tossed keys back to the bank in the last week alone. The average house price has dropped 200 thousand in the past 2 months alone. A host of my guys all went out and bought skidoos, trucks, quads, big screen TVs and other toys and are now wondering how the hell they are going to pay for it all.

I dutifully paid off all my debts and didn’t buy a damn thing. I lived in the camps, and thus never paid any rent, nor for any food and laughed all the way to the bank. But with the slow down and the fact even though my company is one of the few still operating, I’m down to maybe 50 guys, down from 200 at the height. We still lose one, two, five a week due to lay offs. By this rate we’ll have to close up shop because of inefficiency.

Most of the other safety advisors I know, if they haven’t already been laid off are going this week and there is almost next to nothing for them to go to. The labour union hall may have had 10 guys to cull from when we put a call out this past summer and fall, now there is 4000 riding the boards and 4000 at the operator’s hall, 7000 at the scaffolder’s, 9000 at the carpenter’s, etc, etc, etc. The vast majority of these people are from Cape Breton and Newfoundland, who will return to an already distressed economy back home.

So, I am holding in there for now, still employed, but I honestly don’t know for how long. I keep telling my guys that I have to “drag up” to the gate that one day I’ll be told to keep going myself. I’m working on back up plans to back up plans to back up plans, and hopefully I can sustain myself till we see an upswing. But in reality the only chance I might have of working in Alberta in the Fort McMurray area is the odd 30 day shutdown in the near future.

But I’m not stressed, I’m still sleeping well and I have a positive outlook for the future.

I hope you are all doing well and would love to hear from you.

Ralph McLean

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Times were great, money flowed in, work never ceased, but I knew it just couldn’t last.

A succinct summary of the past 15 years.  Now here we are, still with $450+ billion of our 1975-1985 spending spree and prior debts to pay, facing another $85+ billion (estimated) overspending before we can think about paying some of it off again.  And won't we be well-f#cked if interest rates - and the cost of servicing that debt - nudge upward?

People who were adults in the 1970s will pretty much be able to get down into their graves, having enjoyed the fruit of their own time and the fruit of the lifespans of those to whom they pass the bills.  Is there anyone in the country over the age of 50 that doesn't feel ashamed of being a selfish greedy little sh!t with no thought for anyone but himself?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

>Times were great, money flowed in, work never ceased, but I knew it just couldn’t last.

A succinct summary of the past 15 years.  Now here we are, still with $450+ billion of our 1975-1985 spending spree and prior debts to pay, facing another $85+ billion (estimated) overspending before we can think about paying some of it off again.  And won't we be well-f#cked if interest rates - and the cost of servicing that debt - nudge upward?

People who were adults in the 1970s will pretty much be able to get down into their graves, having enjoyed the fruit of their own time and the fruit of the lifespans of those to whom they pass the bills.  Is there anyone in the country over the age of 50 that doesn't feel ashamed of being a selfish greedy little sh!t with no thought for anyone but himself?

 

[geo]

Is there anyone in the country over the age of 50 that doesn't feel ashamed of being a selfish greedy little sh!t with no thought for anyone but himself?

I don't feel ashamed for what I have contributed to the current (and past) mess... but I do feel sorry for those who follow & will have to pay for it.

Problem is, most of today's kids are entirely unprepared to assume any form of responsibility...

This isn't going to be pretty IMHO"

 

[Rifleman62]

I am not ashamed. This is not the first time in my working career that the economy tanked. We went through lay offs several times including the Wednesday before we got married (on a Saturday) 40 years ago. One winter, my wife got laid off from her part time job the week I was laid off, the furnace went, undiagnosed illness with a daughter .......

Things were tough many times. Never ever collected unemployment insurance although paid into it since 1960's. Always found a new job within a couple of weeks.

When I was moved by my employer in December 1981 from another province, mortgage interest rates were 21 1/2 %. Remember those days.

We survived.

No, I am not ashamed. I feel for my kids and grandchildren. One son-in-law is laid off from a high priced job in the oil industry. That's worrying.