THE DINGO ATE MY BABY!

Or so goes the defence.
There's no need to dissect all of the desperate Harper potshots, because I've got limited band width. However, a few obvious points should be made:
1) When one tries to wrap themselves in virgin maple leaf cloth, one should not have danced with the je accused devil; he should not have mused indifferently about whether Canada ends up with one, two or ten national governments; and he should call on Howie Meeker to 'check that tape' before making foolish remarks.
2) While framed as an irreparable disagreement between political parties, with a looming financial crisis hanging over its head, the general public is neither eager to embrace either Harper nor a strange awkward coalition of flower-bearers.
3) Throwing good money after bad to save the political life of Gummo Harper may seem like a good investment, but why should tax payers be subsidizing it - especially if their argument is that tax payers should not be subsidizing the party that they vote for?
4) When the CONservatives come to their senses and realize that they need a completely different, more relaxed and low-key point person, will this man want the job?
5) Is Harper just P-O'd that he's become Duceppe's 'sloppy seconds'?

A GOLDEN BOOT...

... is what the CON's pointed attack at the opposition parties should serve as.
If you are a supporter of an opposition party and you read the news today about how much your team relies on public funding, you likely were shocked or at least discomforted.
The Bloc gets 86% of its financing from the dispersal of money from the $1.90-a-vote subsidy. Elizabeth May's team, which has just recently emerged on the national stage and reached the threshhold necessary for a piece of the pie, is reliant on it to the point of 65%. And us Liberals? A whopping 63% of our current funds come this way, while the NdP slightly less at 57%. Still, a far cry from the CON-temptors, who pulled in the highest total last election but it only accounts for 35% of their receivables.
Reading a sample of the better blogs, I sense the anger and passion that Harper's attempts at handcuffing opposition has done. It has also apparently created a united front in Ottawa. That all opposition parties appear on side and ready to stand up is a very positive step. Not just because of this but also for the fact that Flaherty's faux fiscal update ignores the current climate of fear sweeping across the nation. The meme from Thursday's blarney is merely a Tommy Flanagan whip to whack the achilles of the opposition.
However, another message should be received loud and clear. It is time to get into action; we can't wait for a new leader, whom ever that is, to unveil a new model and a new strategy. Reaching out, spreading the news and providing real, concise reasons for Canadians to donate must be done now. This is the kind of moment that have gotten the CONs in their wealth creation scheme. This is the way that we can help our party, and help prepare to stand up for Canada. Really. Because the last guy to use that slogan really has been sitting down on the job.
Mr. Dion, get head office to unleash a well-thought out, direct pitch to members and former members, the general public, et al. Michael, Bob and Domenic, now is the time to share your ideas with the head office, don't hold back. By looking at the CON strategy here, there is no tomorrow.
And you. Get up and donate. NOW.

THERE'S NO NEED TO FEAR...

In fact, I suggest everyone take a deep breathe. Exhale. Put those crumpled shreddings of a newspaper and broken pieces of a remote down.
The chances of there being another election within the next few months, never mind the next few weeks, is on the same scale as George W. being named Time's Man of the Year. It could happen, but it ain't.
Stephen Harper's intention is pretty clear in his so-called fiscal update, which even to one right-wing copy horse, is neither fiscal nor updated.
It includes no new spending, infrastructure or otherwise, to stimulate the economy or address large industrial collapses. It essentially points to the past two years and says: "Isn't what we did enough?"
Had your financial advisor told you 12 months ago to spend your rainy-day fund on a motor boat, a big limousine ride and a wild party, I'm guessing you'd have found yourself a new advisor. But that's exactly what these bozos did. A $3-billion contingency fund, set aside for an emergency, wiped out in Harper's laise-faire attempt to buy a majority. He didn't see this coming, or if he did, his blind ambition left him thinking that the public would overlook his broken promises, half-assed attempts at managing the economy and given him a majority -- which we didn't.
So now comes the No More Mr Nice Guy, having shucked the sweater for a steel girdle and a bayonet.
Just over a week after unveiling the most bloated cabinet in Canadian history, he's now bleating that politicians will set the example. The first step is to be the public funding of political parties.
To please rural Quebecois, Harper and his CON-spirators have come up with a non-veiled threat. I won't say he's attempting to undermine Canada's democracy, but certainly his goal is to weaken the pillars that were set up in replace of fairly unfettered donation regulations.
He may have a point, the current program may be in need of a change, but I'll put forth my ideas later. This is neither the time nor place, because during a period of economic and social stress, we need to have our parliament functioning together, not torn asunder.
So again, take a deep breathe.
If the discussions of a coalition breed a working agreement, I'm certain that Harper will withdraw. If not, we could be in time for a Canadian history lesson, reliving Byng-King.
In this situation, I like our odds as Underdogs.

YOURS TO HOLD IT HIGH...

With 2 young children at home, my movie-going hobby has become a mere ghost of what it once was. No double-dip treats at the mega-plex, nor late evening escapades to the city to see a classic on rare display.

But this past week, I made time to catch Passchendaele.

It's not likely to become a timeless classic but it does have incredible value, as both a historic lesson and a heart-wrenching entertainment. The passion of director/writer/co-producer/song writer/actor Paul Gross is there, perhaps maybe a touch too much, but I applaud him for a thoughtful, impressive retelling of a time and people that are long forgotten. That Remembrance Day is just around the corner made it a timely must-see; and the film adds another candle to some very strong Canadian films of late. The memories of cardboard tax dodges with lame laugh tracks and tinny soundtracks is so 70s ish.

Gross stars as Michael Dunne, which is a personal tribute to his own grandfather, a WWI soldier. We witness early the ravages of war that sent him home a broken man (although my main complaint is that Gross' ability to express/display the soul-numbing experience seems underwhelming) and now a recovering shell of a man in Calgary, expected to trade on his valor medals by enlisting the young and shamed. A nurse, passionately unveiled by Montreal's Caroline Dhavernas, deals with her own pain by comforting the damaged. Her brother (Joe Dinicol) meanwhile labours as a teenager in love and a shamed survivor. The cast is by and large terrific. My quibbles with Gross may be an overreaction; he is the centre of the film, after all. Along with the patriotic and powerful who attempt to wield their way over the rest, these fragile people seek means to survive.

The war becomes their recourse.

There are moments of great emotion, of delicate and skillfully played sincerity, and some truly frightening scenes of war. It made me wish that, as a young man, I had ventured out to thank the dwindling survivors of that conflict when the opportunity was still possible; now, the chance to show my appreciation for soldiers of the second world war (my mother, born-and-bred BCer, was stationed in Quebec while my prairie-raised father in Europe) is drawing closed. Whether you see this film or not, I recommend you take the time, somehow and somewhere, to tell a veteran that you care about the sacrifices they and their friends made, for us.

It should not be just a one-day-a-year type of thing.

By John McCrae

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Post note: I had a brief moment during the film where I imagined, how would a Canadian version of the classic American war film be made? You know, the kind that were star-studded, cameos of everyone, and would it be successful? Of course, its to be debated whether many of those US war films were successful, but just imagine the cast:

Keanu Reeves, Gordon Pinscent, Keifer Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, William Shatner, Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams... maybe it's better as an idea in my head.

One partisan reflection from the film: At one point we are briefly introduced to the sister and brother's neighbour - a large, slovenly man with a brutish dog at his side. He is at first unfriendly and later at best a boorish bully. I don't know if there was even a need to identify this man by name, because he's just the neighbour. But Gross has the brother address him and maybe, just maybe, it was a wild slapshot at a fellow Calgarian: "Hi Mr. Harper."

KINGSTON REDUX...

The embers of Tuesday's election are still warm, and for some of us the sting remains.

Unlike some, however, I do not wish or want a hasty decision from Stephane Dion.

He wears the burden of the result but should not shoulder it alone. There remain many questions but the aim should be to decipher the right answers that will carry the Liberal Party forward, and not into the depth of despair, bigger debt and denial that our opponents are hoping for.

I am certainly disappointed but not disillusioned -- except mainly in the attention and focus of some members of the media. That may be a subject for another post, however it should be noted that few members of the U.S. media ever faced the music or examined with integrity their own roles in the build-up and unleashing of the Bush Iraq War boondoggle. So let's not hold our breath.

Instead, while some prefer to prompt an argument over leadership, I'd rather aim the march to the critical re-birth that the party needs in these times. Just as Lester Pearson, who had suffered a humiliating defeat in 1958, including some almost tramatizing embarrassments, rolled up his sleeves along with the party braintrust and many of Canada's elite thinkers, I feel that is the direction we need to move.

We need to discover our brand again, unearth our purpose for governing and what we envision Canada's future to be. Is that through some large, public spending policies like national pharmacare or a guaranteed income, or updating Canadian democracy through abandoning first-past-the-post heritage that has for the most part served our party well over the past decade? Does it require a shift back to the centre, or a ambitious embrace of more centre-left ideals? Or other multiple options and proposals yet to be debated? Then there's our own machinery that is direly needing updating. The party does not serve it's grassroots well. Here in BC, a creaky, uncoordinated apparatus at the Vancouver office continually fails to respond to the riding executive's needs, whether it be providing quick and current funding reports or membership information, or responding to specific requirements, like producing and supplying information for members. I don't know how it's done in other provinces, but if it is as ineffective as BC's model, then that explains a lot.

Should Stephane Dion want to stay and fight both the backroom battleaxes and the dirty politicking of Harper and his henchmen, I will support him 100 per cent. If he chooses to step down, I will again support him. While I didn't vote for him at the 2006 convention, I have developed an immense appreciation for him, a man of rare integrity, warm intellect and awkward but certain passion.

It's incumbent on all members of the party to face one concrete fact -- the Liberal Party is not equipped currently to survive a long and entrenched battle against a wealthy and unethical foe, who has the ear and weight of the main stream media at its beck-and-call.

We need funds and we need ideas, however we seem to be chasing them in the wrong order. Let us create a platform, through debate and discussion just as Pearson and his team did during the famous 1960 Kingston conference, to lead the party into the challenges ahead. A template has already been created, by Tom Axworthy, that offers a launching pad for renewal.

Great leaders have been attracted to the Liberal Party because of that tradition, not the other way around.

Let's work together on making the party stronger.

ROOK TO BLOCK...

Stephen Harper may not be a chess master, but he's certainly demonstrated some talent at malevolent manipulation, especially when it comes to the Cadman affair.

With members of his party accused of offering financial considerations -- confirmed in Harper's own words on a taped interview -- to a dying MP for his vote, he knew that this sticky mess could dampen his pitch for all-encompassing power on Parliament Hill. It would be a virtual death blow to a man who campaigned (and quickly shed) on ethics.

So, he did what a shrewd, win at all costs general would do on the battlefield -- he attacked before his opponents could launch their best shots. Harper tried first to ignore it, deny it, then with his own voice asking "is this for publication?", he chose to aim his barrel at the author who penned the book, and his chief opponent. A lawsuit proved to be adequate enough to remove the issue for what was certainly long enough for an election. Well, it turns out it wasn't. Those darn abstaining Liberals. He had to request, beg almost, for the judge to hold off his case against the Liberal Party due to an election he said he wouldn't call.

Now, after imposing his own lip-lock on the final few days of the hustings, Harper managed to squeeze out a few answers in an exclusive interview Monday night just before the election coverage blackout -- thus eliminating any opportunity for follow-up questions or counter-spin. What a leader.

While even his own tape expert has contradicted Harper's main defence, that the interview tape was doctored, he still has an ace in the hole. That ace was Cadman's widow, who was the prime witness for the author's claim that a $1 million insurance policy offer was made to secure the MP's vote. With his own cold, calculating blue eyes, Harper somehow gained the trust of Dona Cadman, whom some may call a well-meaning, if somewhat unsophisticated lady, telling her that he knew nothing of a million-dollar offer.

Completely inadmissable, but aren't the similarities between the Cadman case and the Gurmant Grewal affair, where the CON MP attempted to sting the Liberals by feigning interest in crossing the floor, cause to prick up thy ears, oh media?

Dona chose to run for the CON party in this election, thus giving Harper another alibi for his own actions. She hasn't changed her story -- Chuck was approached by men from the CON team. Now, that ugly incident that nearly stained her husband's legacy is water under the bridge. But I'm betting she didn't come up with the idea on her own. What if Harper planted a seed with the widow, of continuing her husband's work, and carrying the torch for the CONs in Surrey North? Wouldn't that be just what Chuck would have wanted? Who said a snake has no charm?

These things we do know: Mrs. Cadman has shown little skill as a politico but has followed the Harper campaign strategy to a 'T'. In other words, she's eluded the media, and refused to explain the situation -- it is before the courts, so-to-speak.

But it seems to be like that court-room tactic of where the chief witness suddenly can't testify because she's since wed the accused. If it works on Boston Legal, why not on Ottawa Improper?

Let's get this straight: Dona Cadman will only go as far as the party brand can take her tomorrow. She is not the type of person who wins over the electorate, she has none of her husband's charm, nor delivers any kind of passion for the job. While he entered politics as a one-issue candidate, the maverick earned his stripes by walking the walk, demonstrating integrity above so much callous and shallow political games. Through no fault of her own, that's not Dona. But it's as though she's a cypher for someone else, doing this marathon of hide-and-seek, likely believing in her own cause, but not seeing that she's a pawn being played.

That Harper has pulled the eyes over the media on this is without a doubt. You could even say that they've been derelict in their duty in pressing for more answers on this character-revealing case of subterfuge and distortion of democracy (question- Dona still sticks by the story that there were two meetings, despite the party's denial. Who were the men?). It's the equivalent of George W's war record. But that Harper has tarnished the reputation of the one hero in this whole affair, and used his widow to cover his tracks, is a signal that he can never be trusted. But will the real story ever be told?

TIME TO TALK TURKEYS...

Progressive voters have a lot of power heading into Tuesday's federal election. The CON team, led by head cheese Steve Harper, remains within striking distance according to some polls, yet holds an edge that could result in what the so-called leader said is a "stronger mandate" and send a "pretty severe warning" to the opposition parties. Yep, that means 14 year olds in adult prisons, continued governing behind closed doors, and using fear as a wedge on all kinds of issues, from economy to the environment. Oh yeah, and it means science takes a back seat to paranormal dressers and gut instincts.

But that draconian result doesn't have to be, if we put our heads, hearts and votes together to put some Tory turkeys out to pasture.

To do that, we need to park our partisan hopes to one side and look at key battlegrounds. While the rationale behind strategic voting will be a work in progress until parties begin to trust their rivals, there are a few key ridings where it is incumbent that we unite to rock the CONs.

In the following six ridings, Canadians who believe in the ideals and achievements of Douglas and Pearson, Trudeau and Broadbent can send a Harper minister/heavyweight packing, need to get their acts together and support the best option available to bounce a CON.

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK : The wife of Harper's right-hand hatchet man Doug Finley, Diane has been getting a little heat for her non-appearances around the riding. She raised the ire of both farmers and citizens of Caledonia for not helping solve a heated battle over land claims. The immigration and citizen minister wouldn't be in trouble in this solid conservative riding if not for the popularity of independent candidate Gary McHale. But the real challenge for Finley falls in the form of Dr. Eric Hoskins, a physician who has travelled the world working in war zones, becoming the youngest recipient of the UN's Lester Pearson Peace Medal.

If Ndp and Green supporters get behind Hoskins in what could be a close battle, the region would replace a Harper bobblehead with a tremendous talent.

VOTE HOSKINS

REGINA-LUMSDEN-LAKE CTR : Famous for his open-lapel, anti-gay slur in a dusty old video, Harper henchman Tom Lukiwiski made an almost teary-eye apology that was followed by complete indifference for his actions. His caveman-attitude is reflected in a lot of ideas that pass as proposals by this CON corps, so a true message should be delivered, and thankfully Fred Kress, NdP candidate, is the man to deliver it. It's a close battle where the margin of victory was less than 4,000 votes. Liberals and Greens should put their 'X' beside Kress.

VOTE KRESS

EDMONTON-STRATHCONA : Although he has shed his profile as Parliament hill lothario, due to the engagement with fellow CON Helena Guergis, Rahim Jaffer has built up a reputation as an underwhelming but loyal presence in Harper's squad. However, he is the rare Tory who doesn't have his constituents unblinking devotion, thus opening the door for the NdP's Linda Duncan, a renowned advocate and environmental lawyer. It's critical that good Liberal and Green supporters give their support to Duncan to bump this CON duffus.

VOTE DUNCAN

PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA : Not much needs to be said, other than Mike Harris retread Tony Clement is a meddling moron. By voting for the Liberal's Jamie McGarvey, Clement can be removed from a position where he can do much harm.

VOTE MCGARVEY

SAANICH-GULF ISLANDS : Once again, Harper has thrusted a dangerous imbecile in over his head, with Gary Lunn having already made nuclear safety a risky option in Canada. And what do you think is the CONs' hidden answer to Canada's energy future? You guessed it. All the more reason for NdPers (who lost their candidate just after the deadline) and Greenies to back Dr. Briony Penn of the Liberals. This is a must-do.

VOTE PENN

OTTAWA-WEST : Here's another ugly reminder of that Harris regime, Johnny Baird. He so happens to be the environment minister, or manager of regressive faux outrage. To knock this redundant greenhouse gas producer from his seat, progressives must move behind Liberal David Pratt. Your wife will thank you, your kids will thank you, as will all God's creatures upon Baird's extinction from the House of Commons.

VOTE PRATT