power without purpose

--------------------

on the rush to select a new leader for the Liberal party:

Power without purpose is not worth achieving. And a party without vision will not get elected. It is a lesson that should have been learned after the last campaign. The fact that it was not is a clear indicator that a comprehensive renewal process is necessary. Instead of choosing a path that addressed public concerns over the party's ethics while engaging members from across the country in a discussion on the party's vision and future policy direction, the Liberal executive decided to launch a leadership campaign in hopes of a quick return to power. Now, instead of spending time on the essentially important task of party renewal — healing old wounds, reaching out to estranged supporters, and evaluating the party's internal operations and governance — Liberals will be concerning themselves with the circus-like atmosphere of a leadership convention.

— CHRISTOPHER HOLCROFT, Globe and Mail (2006/03/24)

--------------------

the biological basis of boys loving boys

--------------------

“News that gay men can be sperm donors must be welcome to couples requiring assisted reproductive technology. However, evidence is accumulating that sexual orientation is the result of gene-environment interaction; sexual orientation has a heritable component. Thus, using sperm from gay donors may have the potential of passing the gay gene(s) to the next generation. Patients requiring such service should be informed of such potential."

— Frank Sin, Associate Professor (University of Canterbury)

It is unfortunate that the public domain is not always well suited to complex debate. Instead of granting space for real discourse, a robust korero, everything is a soundbite, a simplistically absurd reduction of arguments, ideas and narratives to their most basic precepts. Suddenly everyone has an opinion, some more reasonable than others.

Frank Sin didn't do himself any favours. Given he's an expert in genetics, I was surprised that he wrote the letter in the first place. Until of course one considers that Sin's field of expertise is human male infertility. Perhaps he could be forgiven for wanting to flag a warning about something that he perceived could undo the work to which he has devoted much of his research career. The response from Allan-John Marsh of the Wellington-based Gay Association of Professionals wasn't particularly helpful, or even correct either, implying that homosexuality was innate but neither inherited or heritable.

As could be expected, the mainstream media had a field day, frantically calling whoever they could to milk whatever controversy they could. Much huffing and puffing ensued, redneck opinions were aired, agendas were either pushed or defended, whichever 'side' of the debate you happened to be on. Somewhere in the middle of all this, the potential for the greater public to gain some understanding was lost.

So how then do we approach this topic? It appears that this issue has two distinct components: the biological basis of sexual orientation, and the ethical implications of 'choosing' a child's sexual orientation. Obviously the two are interrelated, but it is a good idea to work out what we think we know, and what we know we don't know about the first part, before trying to understand the basis for the second.

We need to be careful about this term ‘biological’. All too often it is confused with related but distinct terms like ‘genetic’, ‘innate’, or ‘inherited’, but the word biological also encompasses that which is ‘environmental’, ‘learned’ or ‘aquired’. Most, though not all, characteristics that make us human are a combination of many of these factors. When we enter the realm of behaviour, be it social or sexual, these interactions become even more complex and subtle. There are very few behaviours that are either genetic or environmental, innate or learned. Of those that are, it doesn't mean that one is more 'biological' than the other; at its very fundamental level, all behaviour is in some way biological, given that it involves the neurochemical processes of the brain. We can only talk, at most, about predispositions, about relative potentials to be inherited, about probabilities and trends. The very fact that there are individuals that break these trends, the fact that we can only work with statistical probabilities, means that these factors, social and non-social, are by their very nature not deterministic.

— Xavier Goldie, GayNZ.com (2006/03/28)

--------------------

onward Christian soldiers...

--------------------

so i'm sitting here in a hotel room in Washington, D.C., blocks away from the White House and the U.S. Capitol... ironically, i'm here for a competition and conference on international law... i wonder if George Bush and his crew ever really stop to think about these issues when they sip their morning coffee... part of me wants to trust that they do... and yet...

i, for one, think the CPT's critics are right...


It could have been a bloodbath. But the dramatic military rescue of the three Christian Peacemakers this week after four months of captivity in Iraq went off without a hitch. No shots were fired. There was no need. Ironically, in the end, the anti-war activists were freed by the very people whose presence in Iraq they were there to protest.

There are also all kinds of gentle (and not-so-gentle) criticisms starting to emerge about the Christian pacifist organization. Its commitment to peace may be in no doubt, say analysts, but does it fully understand the risks involved — and not just to its members? Had it gone awry, however, this week's rescue could have resulted in the "sacrifice" of who-knows how many people: the captives, the captors, the rescuers, even uninvolved passersby. James Loney made it clear he was opposed to any military rescue if he was kidnapped, says Doug Pritchard, the organization's co-director. Is that why CPT has been slow to express gratitude for the rescue, indeed referred to it as a "release" in its early statements?

University of Toronto security and intelligence specialist Wesley Wark says that the peacemakers' "extreme idealism and naïveté" has to be weighed against the costs — not just to families and friends, but to the states that are obliged to intervene, regardless of peoples' prior instructions. "CPT's willingness to take risks, perhaps unnecessary risks, should be tempered with a willingness to take care and precautions. But as far as I can see, they're ideologically opposed to security measures because it would impede their activities."

Their actions, if not intentions, concern former peace negotiator Terry Waite, held hostage by Islamic extremists in Beirut between 1987 and 1991. Waite said the situation in Iraq is now too dangerous for any Western civilians, including the peacemakers. "Many say that's a risk we understand and are willing to take. The only problem with that is that, as you take that stance, you do involve other people in the situation, and that might be a problem. I applaud the motive but at this stage I question the tactic."

Asked to comment on the rescue of Briton Norman Kember, readers of Britain's Daily Telegraph generally excoriated Kember and the two Canadians as "irresponsible." A typical email read: "No civilian has a 'right' to enter a war zone to protest that war or dig up stories of abuse against the soldiers who are fighting it. These same soldiers must then go in and rescue these ridiculous people from certain death at the hands of their captors and risk their own lives doing it."

To critics such as Alan Alexandroff, research director at U of T's Munk Centre for International Studies, the purpose of the peacemakers' mission in Iraq has never been clear, other than they "give voice to the anti-war position. But that doesn't help with post-conflict resolution, does it? They want the U.S. and the coalition to leave, but what would that society look like if they did? The biggest help they could give is to assist the political leadership in forming a national government."

But the peacemakers think their work is stopping war. "You've got to understand that (we) have a totally other mind view," says Catholic commentator Ted Schmidt who knows Loney well. "They are radically non-violent. They are canaries in the mine."

— LYNDA HURST, Toronto Star (2006/03/25)

--------------------

uniting the left?

--------------------

i'm not sure if i'd back this idea... first, it'd be a slippery slope to the hapless two-party system that the Americans have... politics and public policy is too complex to be subsumed under a simple "left vs. right" dichotomy... second, there's a difference between being "left" and playing "left"... the NDP seems to have lost its way or, as some might say, have "sold out" altogether... they still espouse left-wing values, but they've slowly drifted to the centre in their thus-far futile bid for power... the Liberals are rudderless these days, to say the least... i don't think they even know which direction is which... being "not-right" (pun intended) doesn't make one "left"...

i'd suggest this pipe dream should remain in the drawing board...

--------------------

"I think it's important for people who call themselves progressive to really think about the situation," former Ontario premier and putative Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae said in a speech last week in Winnipeg. "There's a progressive record that's shared by a majority of Canadians, but so far we have not succeeded in becoming a majority in the House of Commons, so we must think a bit about how that can happen." Rae, who fought eight elections as a New Democrat — three at the federal level and five at the provincial level — did not explicitly call for a merger between his former party (he resigned in 1998) and the Liberals, but that was the logical extension of his argument.

By splitting the left-wing vote, the Liberals and New Democrats squander the chance to form a government that can advance the values they share. By competing with each other, they improve the Conservatives' odds of staying in power. By fighting over small stuff — how greenhouse gas emissions are cut, how publicly insured medicine is delivered, how the child-care system is expanded and how tax breaks are apportioned — they risk letting the caring, cohesive Canada in which they both believe slip away.

The Liberals, for the most part, still see themselves as Canada's natural governing party. They regard their poor showing in the last two elections as a cyclical malaise that can be cured with a new leader, an invigorating policy conference and an updated agenda. The New Democrats, buoyed by their recent rise in popularity, see themselves as Canada's modern, urban party. They nurse hopes of supplanting the Liberals someday. The two parties have different roots. The Liberals — known in their early days as the Reformers and the Clear Grits — trace their origins to pre-Confederation British North America. The NDP — originally known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation — sprang from the social gospel movement of the 1930s. They draw their core support from different segments of the population. The Liberals are a mainstream, middle-class party. The New Democrats aim to represent workers and those struggling for a break.

There is little love lost between them. The Liberals blame the New Democrats for destroying their prospects in the last two elections. The New Democrats blame the Liberals for undermining their campaigns with scare tactics. But the arithmetic of union is compelling. The two parties won 47.7 per cent of the popular vote in the last election. The Conservatives gained power with 36.3 per cent. Vote splitting on the left allowed the Tories to pick up 19 seats in Ontario, four in Saskatchewan and 10 in British Columbia.

The ideological gulf between the Liberals and NDP has narrowed to a gully in the last 20 years. No longer do the New Democrats seek to nationalize banks or uproot capitalism. No longer do the Liberals scoff at the notion of banning corporate campaign donations. Both parties support balanced budgets, a strong central government, a publicly funded child-care system and an enhanced role for cities in national decision-making. The tussles over strategic voting in the 2004 and 2006 elections suggest the two parties know — even if they refuse to admit — that their constituencies have converged.

— Carol Goar, Toronto Star (2006/03/22)

--------------------

politics rooted in personality?

--------------------

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners? Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism? Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place. Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty. The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?

— KURT KLEINER, Toronto Star (2006/03/19)

--------------------

on student politics

--------------------

In the most recent edition of our school newspaper, yet another salvo has been fired in the ongoing war of words between the Obiter and the venerable Chair of our Student Caucus. To us amused (and bemused) readers, it just epitomizes the ultimate “forbidden thought”: student politicians and student newspaper editors can sometimes take themselves way too seriously (on the other hand, mere contributors of articles always hold the higher ground). Despite operating under the guise of legitimate critique and public discussion over issues of accountability, it’s not difficult to discern the mutual dislike between these warring factions. However, it’s entirely understandable, as a matter of civility, political correctness, and concerns over defamation, for everyone involved to have attempted to maintain a measure of decorum.

On a positive note, this has revived some interest (at least, for those of us here that pay attention to such things) in student government and the relevance of these institutions to our community. It is also interesting to note that, just around the time the election writ was dropped, the Pandora’s box was opened about dissolving Student Caucus and/or merging it with the Legal & Lit Society (I would have said “collapsing” or “folding in”, but that’s another debate). As we again head into the popularity contest known as student government elections, we should really be examining and discussing the purpose and mandate of our would-be representatives. It would definitely be for everyone’s benefit to understand why exactly it is that we spend so much time caviling over certain issues when pragmatism would suggest simple and straightforward solutions.

However, let there be no mistake: I have absolute respect for anyone and everyone that’s been involved in student government and/or is thinking about running for the upcoming elections – having been marginally involved this year with academic politics has cemented my abiding esteem for those who care enough about this community and are trying to make a difference. That said, we need to ensure that the individuals we are going to elect can actually do what it is they say they’ll do and what we entrust them to do – as demonstrated by the admissions policy debate, even those with the best intentions can sometimes become ineffective as a result of the surrounding political climate. We need individuals who have the skills and experience necessary to navigate the landmines of academic politics, who can build coalitions and bridge gaps between differing interests, and who can be entrusted (in the broadest sense of the term) – and make no mistake, this is ultimately a question of trust – to represent the interests of the student body. We need people with vision and perspective, not simply those with “pet projects” or a single-issue focus. We need listeners and doers, the type of people who can strike the appropriate balance between consulting and acting. And we need people who are in it not for their own personal/professional advancement, but because they have a demonstrated commitment and desire to make a genuine contribution to the Osgoode community.

Yes, student politicians and student editors can sometimes take themselves too seriously. And yet there are times when they – and these issues – need to be taken seriously. As the Osgoode election looms, let’s scrutinize those holding themselves out for office and ask ourselves: can I take this person seriously enough to see them as my representative?

--------------------

draw a pig

--------------------

the pig serves as a useful test of the personality traits of the drawer...

--------------------

huggable Harper?

--------------------

No one ever expected that power would turn Stephen Harper into a warm and cuddly soul. It's simply not in his nature. He holds babies at arm's length. He makes small talk with the stilted charm of an alien. His smiles often look pained. In a delicious moment last May, on a tour to endear himself to Canadians, he plunked himself down at a knee-high table, peered at finger-painting toddlers and, when they waved their tiny hands in his vicinity, muttered, "Don't touch me." Last January, at the end of the second English-language leaders debate, he gave up the pretense. "My strengths are not spin or passion," he told viewers.

Each PM must find his or her style. In Mr. Harper's case, sudden bonhomie would be alarming. But he should remember his basic political texts. Astute prime ministers build a foundation of trust and familiarity so that voters will accord them the benefit of the doubt in dicey situations. Political strategists have warned, “If the only time you get seen is in a crisis that you don't own or control or in a transparently staged photo op, people's judgment is not likely to be very sympathetic when events force you to appear.”

--------------------

a parent's cost-benefit analysis

--------------------

i received this forward a few days ago and thought about posting it then... it seems all the more poignant after the Ontario government's decision to remove the tuition freeze for post-secondary education... also, i just watched Losing Isaiah, an interesting movie about parental and custody "rights" (i bracket that because i think it is ultimately unhelpful and misguided to conceptualize the issue as a matter of "rights" -- this puts the focus on the battling custodians, instead of the child, who is transformed by such terminology into a "thing" to be "possessed")...

my own take, given the facts of this particular story and the larger socio-political questions raised, is that litigation shouldn't have been the first step -- as in many things in life, it would have been better to discuss the issue and attempt to resolve the dispute outside of the legal environment... however, seeing as it did end up in court, i would say that the case for the birth mother's "rights" wasn't particularly strong -- i just can't see how it's in the child's "best interest" to be uprooted from a stable environment to recreate a theretofore non-existent relationship... there's a case to be made for visitation privileges and perhaps some form of joint custody arrangements for a parent who has given up (in this story, literally abandoned) a child out of necessity or duress, but that shouldn't mean an onus is placed on the adoptive parents to have to establish their legitimate custodial interest... again, if we conceptualize this from the perspective of the child's "best interests", the only reason to exclude a previously absent parent from his/her life is if there is a reasonable and foreseeable risk of harm (conceived broadly) from the "new" relationship... (then again, i haven't taken a course in family law... moreover, this movie just made me realize more that i could never practice in that area)... however, the debate is all the more complicated by the reality that parties to such disputes don't really think "reasonably" -- given the emotional weight of the issue, it's probably naive and too idealistic of me to think that we can resolve these disputes by "just talking" (much of "family law" probably wouldn't exist otherwise if people were "reasonable" about their personal disputes)...

although it's understandable that the complexity of the issues can hardly be fully canvassed in a 90-minute Hollywood production (and, let's be honest, this is far from a simple debate), Roger Ebert's critique is quite apt: "The movie has been carefully written so as not to offend the opinions of anyone in the audience. No matter what side you are on, you will find your viewpoint expressed. The filmmakers apparently have no firm ideas of their own about the rightness and wrongness of the alternatives (why did they make the movie?), and the conclusion is worthy of Solomon in the way it dispenses understanding and love on all sides while finding a solution which, although it does allow the movie to end, really solves nothing."

--------------------

The government recently calculated the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 as $160,140 (USD) for a middle income family --- and that doesn't even touch college tuition!

But $160,140 isn't so bad if you break it down.

• $8,896.66 a year
• $741.38 a month
• $171.08 a week
• a mere $24.24 a day
• just over a dollar an hour

Still, you might think the best financial advice is don't have children if you want to be "rich." Actually, it is just the opposite. What do you get for your $160,140?

• naming rights --- first, middle, and last!
• glimpses of G-d every day
• giggles under the covers every night
• butterfly kisses and Velcro hugs
• endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies
• a hand to hold, usually covered with jelly or chocolate
• a partner for blowing bubbles, flying kites
• someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what the boss said or how your stocks are doing
• more love than your heart can hold

For $160,140, you never have to grow up. You get to:

• finger-paint
• carve pumpkins
• play hide-and-seek
• catch lightning bugs
• frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under refrigerator magnets
• collect spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas
• make hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and cards with backward letters for Father's Day
• never stop believing in Santa Claus

You have an excuse to:

• keep reading Charlotte's Web
• watch Saturday morning cartoons
• go to Disney movies
• wish on stars

You get to be immortal. You get another branch added to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list of limbs called grandchildren and great-grandchildren. You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match. You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare away the monsters under the bed (and POLAR BEARS!), patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits.

That is quite a deal for the price...

--------------------

screening for beliefs

--------------------

A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail gave me pause to consider some things I had written about redefining the notion of "citizenship." Also this week, the editors of our school newspaper asked me to play Captain Canada and respond to an article attacking the notion of Canadian values. My response was simply this: good for the author for feeling secure enough to exercise his freedom of speech to express his opinions, disagreeable as some of them may have been. Indeed, many wars have been fought for – amongst other things – (in his words) the right of assholes and fools to speak freely, even if that freedom is used to speak against the same liberal values underlying that freedom. That’s the beauty of a liberal democracy – and, unfortunately, that’s also its tragic irony at times.

However, in choosing to use that freedom to speak against diversity and pluralism, the author seemed to have missed the point of liberalism, and the very notion of what Canadian values are. It isn’t simply tolerance for tolerance and diversity for their own sake; rather, it’s the notion that, by starting from a position of tolerance and respect for each other’s different values, cultures, and opinions, it allows us to engage and connect with each other and build civil society together. Tolerance doesn’t undermine liberal democracy; it is its very foundation. Canada isn’t made poorer by its multiculturalism, diversity, and commitment to liberal values; in fact, it is one of our national treasures, one that we should hold dear and defend, against all enemies -- foreign and domestic.

Concerns about terrorism have led Western governments to re-examine their immigration and refugee policies, with the aim of tightening the rules for entry, facilitating the integration of newcomers into mainstream society and more easily finding and removing the ones who pose genuine threats to security. Some have implemented or are considering loyalty oaths for prospective citizens. There is nothing wrong with asking people to promise to uphold the laws of the country in which they have chosen to make their home. But there is a great deal wrong with screening people for their thoughts and opinions.

This unacceptable infringement of individual freedoms enshrined in the very constitution the new citizens are being asked to uphold could happen in Canada if a key recommendation in a study issued by the Fraser Institute is followed to its logical conclusion. The study, written by Martin Collacott, a former Canadian diplomat and government counterterrorism expert, focuses on the very real shortcomings of federal refugee policies and the inadequate safeguards that have made the country vulnerable to entry by terrorists and their supporters. Among the remedies, he argues that newcomers should be required to make “a more explicit commitment to Canada and Canadian values” as a condition of admission, and that they should understand that failure “to live up to our expectations” will result in their removal. But he acknowledges that “it will often not be easy to identify those who do not share our values — or, for that matter, even to determine how such a judgment can best be made.”

That's the problem in a nutshell. The impetus for oaths of allegiance and loyalty tests is understandable, particularly in Europe, where the growing alienation of large immigrant communities has created fertile ground for the recruitment to terrorism and other criminality of disaffected young people. Western democracies are wrestling with the problem of how to integrate people who may not accept such bedrock societal values as religious tolerance, and of how to identify the potential extremists among them. However, stigmatizing an entire immigrant group will not make this task any easier. It is legitimate to worry that newcomers may not be accepting the broader values of the society in which they have chosen to rebuild their lives. But screening based on individual beliefs and values is not the answer.

--------------------

the unhappy liberal

--------------------

"This is the first time many of you have actually voted for a winner."
-- Jon Stewart, at the 78th Annual Academy Awards

Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile – touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: "The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones."

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised – they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes – government – they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself . . . [and] an activity inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

Normal conservatives – never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry – are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars – another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is – was – all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims – that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do – the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . .

You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

– George F. Will, Washington Post (2006/02/23)

--------------------

just another weekend...

--------------------

*or at least it would've been, if someone hadn't made me feel so special...

--------------------

written in the stars?

--------------------

eeeeeek... just one more year from being a quarter-century old!

Since your ruling planet is Neptune the Muse, the source of fantasy, mysticism and intuition, your imagination is boundless! Your empathy makes you sympathetic, compassionate and selfless. (Yeah, yeah, you're a saint.) You're definitely more psychic and understanding than the rest of us, and this can make you emotionally isolated at times.

You compose, draw, dance, write poetry and take fabulous pictures. But you're tortured trying to honour your idealism and artistic temperament in a world of commerce. You're kind, lovable, unselfish and caring.

As feisty as an Aries, as witty as a Gemini, as dramatic as a Leo, as charming as a Libran, as meticulous as a Virgo and as shrewd as a Capricorn -- who are you? Aside from being the one with the most shoes, you have a secret wish to save the world.

YOUR SHADY PAST

You danced your way through the '80s, especially around 1986-89. But you gave up a lot in the early '90s. Once you moved past self-pity, you started to create a new world for yourself in 1994. Between 1993 and 2001 you completely reinvented yourself. You're good at this. Recently, you've been wondering what you really want to be when you grow up. Fortunately, once you zone in on something, you have tremendous perseverance.

WHICH BRINGS US TO 2006

There's good news and bad news for this year. You're still going to be in slave mode in 2006 and perhaps 2007 as well. But you won't be miserable. The kind of work you will face will build your self-confidence and at the same time build others' respect and confidence in you. That's not too shabby, and that's the bad news. The good news is Jupiter will bring chances to expand your world through travel, study and opportunities in publishing and the media.

IS THE FUTURE LIKE THE PRESENT ONLY LONGER?

Your future is definitely brighter. In 2008, you'll step up to the plate and let everyone know you've arrived. The only dark cloud on your horizon could be partnerships. Your partner might feel overlooked. This will be a testing time for relationships. In 2007, moneybags Jupiter travels through your House. Please note: A career is not just a "job"; it's your life path.

IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY

There's no stopping you in 2008. You will work steadily toward a marvellous career peak when your cherished dreams will come true. You can also look forward to increased popularity in 2008. But that might contribute to your partner feeling like chopped liver. (Did you want to serve onions with that?)

BE THE BEST YOU CAN BE

You perfect the art of illusion in this world. You're the creative genius who not only sees the big picture but takes care of the little details as well. (Einstein and Michelangelo were both Pisces.) You're a dreamer who helps others realize their dreams. Furthermore, you're quick to identify what others need. Film directors, actors, dancers, musicians enrich the lives of everyone else. You remind us of the romance in our souls. You give us more than escape: You offer inspiration and hope.

STUFF EVERY SELF-RESPECTING PISCES KNOWS

The symbol for Pisces is the Fish. You are a Feminine, Mutable sign. You morph and style - flex to whatever's going on. ("Are we packing tropical?") Your element is Water. Your sign rules the Twelfth House, which governs secrecy, escapism, seclusion, sacrifice.

— Georgia Nicols, National Post (2005/12/31)

--------------------

a lack of vision?

--------------------

even as a card-carrying member of a political party, it's important not to lose sight of critical and non-partisan perspectives... Jonathan Kay of the National Post rightly sent this wake-up call to the Liberal party:

If there's anything more annoying than the shrill demagoguery and Bush-bashing that marked the Liberal election campaign, it's the sententious navel-gazing that's followed it. Since Jan. 23, countless misty-eyed Liberals -- from name-brand senators to ambitious junior apparatchiks -- have come forward to explain how their party can reclaim its ancient glory. In speeches, on the comment pages of newspapers and in mass-circulated e-mails, the cliché-studded Liberal cri de coeur has become a literary genre unto itself.

But even in a crowded field, Jim de Wilde's op-ed in Friday's Toronto Star stands out. The author is described as a "long-time Liberal and academic who is currently co-teaching an MBA course on Venture Capital Strategies at the Rotman School of Business." By combining the institutionalized sanctimony of the Liberal party with the jargon addiction that pervades biz school, he has succeeded in producing the quintessential post-Martin Liberal manifesto -- a document that at once says virtually nothing, yet also speaks volumes about the state of his party. [O]n and on it goes -- vacant bromide after vacant bromide. Until the reader gets to a sentence so perfectly meaningless that it inspires a perverse sort of awe: Canadian citizens, de Wilde tells us, need to "understand the importance of Canada being a metaphor for global citizenship in the current era of global politics."

[However, de Wilde's] soaring vacuities are in fact merely symptoms of a far larger problem confronting the Liberal party -- a problem that competent editing can't fix. Under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the Liberal party had no ideology, just a will to power. Now that this amoral approach has been discredited by Adscam, Liberals are casting their minds back through the decades, trying to remember what it is they're supposed to stand for -- an exercise that leads them to such Trudeau-era chestnuts as "multicultural value propositions" and "creating national projects."

But Trudeau, misguided as he was, at least put meat on the bone with real-life policies such as the National Energy Program, bilingualism, the Charter of Rights and cultural nationalism. Whatever we think of them now, they at least were grand ideas that captured the imagination. The problem for Liberals is that this era is long gone. If anything, Canadians now want the federal government rolled back -- most crucially, to give provinces more room to experiment with private health care. With gay marriage yesterday's news, and Martin's Kyoto plan shown up as a sham in Montreal, the Liberals' one hope of kindling Trudeauvian fervour in the last election was a Soviet-style child-care plan -- which voters rejected in favour of Stephen Harper's simple cash-for-kids model.

De Wilde and his fellow Liberal idealists are caught between the party's instinct to dazzle voters with interventionist pan-national programs and the reality that all of the grandiose schemes worth pursuing (along with many others that weren't) are already with us. De Wilde's exhortations reflect the Liberals' awkward effort to square this circle: lofty, faux-inspiring slogans that vaguely summon the spirit of yesterday's champions without actually offering any substantial ideas.

Canadians aren't looking for another left-wing revolution. They're looking for honest, centrist governance. That's what Harper promised. And if he provides it, the Liberals will have all the time in the world to write their tedious manifestos and hone their vision of "21st-century 'liberal cosmopolitanism'."

Whatever that is.

while i don't agree with Kay's anti-social-liberal bent, his comments about the propensity for Liberal idealism to be interpreted as vacuity is a poignant criticism... hence why i'd suggest a policy convention is necessary before a leadership contest, so that the party can figure out its priorities...

then again, i'm neither a name-brand senator nor an ambitious junior apparatchik who has access to newspaper op-ed columns...

--------------------