…is the Macleans piece, Wrath of the Bloggers, which features quotes from Cory Doctorow, Michael Geist and yours truly. Right now, 15% of this weblog’s incoming traffic is coming from there.
In the same hotel as the one where Sam Bulte’s $250-a-plate fundraiser — er, celebration — is being held, Online Rights Canada will be holding a Balanced Meal where the talk will be about “why MPs shouldn’t take cash from the industries they regulate”, the way Sam Bulte is.
The fun runs from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Drake Hotel’s corner cafe (the Drake is at 1150 Queen Street West, two blocks east of Dufferin). Online Rights Canada says that the Cafe’s macaroni and cheese is tasty; I will also vouch for their “Notorious B.U.R.G.” hamburger. Check out their menu [PDF].
A couple of things to note about the Balanced Meal:
- This is a nonpartisan event, and we don’t have any position
on how you should vote in the coming election. Partisan raconteurs need
not apply.
- ORC can’t pay for dinner. Sorry, but we’re a not-for-profit organization!
- Please RSVP to info [at] OnlineRights.ca. Seating will be limited, but we love a crowd.
Be there — I will, and with accordion, even!
Now, despite clearly
labelling the event as a fundraiser on her own website,
she’s arguing it isn’t a fundraiser at all. Instead, in response to
the question “How can we count on you to carry on. . . impartially when
you are taking money from special interest groups?”, the Star reports
that Bulte responded:
“They are not hosting a fundraiser for me. It’s a celebration of my support for the arts community.”
We should all be so lucky to have celebrations where each guest forks over $250. If each of you cheapskates who attended my birthday party had done that, I’d be entering this blog entry in a zignone wool suit from Harry Rosen.
Since what Sam says has often proven to be at variance with what she does, I decided to be empirical and go take a look at her site. Here’s a screen capture of her site as of 10:45 a.m. this morning:
I see the word “FUNDRAISER” in capitals, clear as day. How ’bout you?
I downloaded the invitation, which I’ve put here for your reference [80K PDF], in case someone at her campaign gets smart (unlikely) and replaces it. Here’s what the top of the first page looks like:
I believe that phrases “cordially invite you to an artists’ and creators’ fundraiser for Sam Bulte” and “All funds raised will go to Sam’s re-election campaign” strongly suggest that this “celebration” is indeed a fundraiser. If you’re still not convinced, there’s the note at the bottom of the first page that reads:
Tax receipt will be issued for the eligible portion of the cost
You can hand out tax receipts for “celebrations”? I should’ve handed some out at my legendary hot tub party!
Finally, there’s this legal statement on the second page of the invitation:
Please note the new contribution limits as at January 1, 2004: Individuals may contribute up to a total of $5,000 in a calendar year to a registered party and its registered associations; candidates and nomination contestants. Corporations and trade unions may contribute up to a total of $1,000 in a calendar year to the registered electoral district associations; candidates; and nomination contestants. Crown corporations and corporations that receive 50% or more of their funding from the federal government will not be able to make any contributions.
It’s a fundraiser, all right. What kind of idiots does she take us for?
That’s right, even more from my notes on last week’s all-candidates meeting. In case you missed them, here are my earlier entries on that meeting:
- All-Candidates Meeting: Opening Statements
- All-Candidates Meeting: First Two Questions
- More Questions from the All-Candidates Meeting
Question Seven: The Gun Crime Question
What are you going to do about gun crime?
Peggy Nash, New Democratic Party
- This is a question that I hear repeatedly, and there are no simple fixes for this problem
- Nobody needs a gun
- Many of the guns are coming from south of the border [remember, American readers, to us, “south of the border” means “America”]
- The border is unpatrolled in many places and there isn’t enough staff to cover all of it
- Gun crimes need to be treated with mandatory jail time
- Also need to work on communities — “poverty by postal code”
Sam Bulte
- Key gun crime laws died on the table because of the vote of non-confidence [which led to this election]
- We need more police — both local and RCMP
- We need to work with youth as well — there has to be some prevention — can’t just be “law and order”
- We should ban guns
Lorne Gershuny, Marxist-Leninist Party
- We can’t resort to an “iron-fisted approach”
- Society has to live up to its responsibilities, and individuals have to live up to their responsibilities
- We have to balance going on the offensive with respecting people’s rights
- “Arc of poverty” — one-quarter of the people in the city live below the poverty line
Jurij Klufas, Conservative Party
- This is possibly the most important issue
- There’s a “big business” running the streets — the drug trade
- The drug trade and guns are intertwined
- Tougher laws and mandatory sentences for gun crimes
Terry Parker, Marijuana Party
- mumble mumble mumble Legalization of marijuana will end organized crime mumble mumble
Rob Rischinsky, Green Party
- We already have strong gun laws
- The problem is with illegally-obtained guns
- Let people who want to have gun collections keep them, but make it so the guns in those collections are non-functional
- Gun sport enthusiasts can also keep their guns, but store them at the place where they are used [e.g. their shooting range]
- We believe in restorative justice
Question 8: What will you do for seniors?
Sam Bulte, Liberal Party
- Many of the programs in place for seniors were put there by the Liberals
Lorne Gershuny, Marxist-Leninist Party
- Here in Canada, we have the resources to provide for all
- Unfortunately, providing for everyone’s needs is not a principle we follow
Jurij Klufas, Conservative Party
- We will give patient care gurantees
- We want to expand the definiton of “caregiver” so that more people who take care of the elderly qualify for benefits
Peggy Nash, New Democratic Party
- We would like to commit $1 billion a year over the next four years to programs that would give more seniors the ability to stay in their own homes rather than go to old folks’ homes
Terry Parker, Marijuana Party
- mumble mumble Revenues from marijuana mumble mumble mumble
Rob Rischinsky, Green Party
- Some reasons that older people need help: pollution and our lifestyle
- Wait till the boomers hit the system
- We want to provide universal access to senior care
Question 9: The Environment
[My notes on the question are bunged up, but it’s a question about the environment.]
Rob Rischinsky, Green Party
- We can have both economic prosperity and environmental health
- Look at Sweden: since 1990, their GDP has gone up 54% while pollution has gone down 25%
- Kyoto [the accord] is the first step
- Note that there was no mention of the environment in the televised debates
Peggy Nash, New Democratic Party
- The NDP has made sure that money was given to the TTC and the energy retrofit program
- We stand for:
- Clean air
- Clean water
- Making polluters pay
- National energy retrofit program
- [The way we’ve implemented] Kyoto is a national shame
Terry Parker, Marijuana Party
- mumble mumble hemp mumble mumble forests mumble mumble fuel
Sam Bulte, Liberal Party
- The Kyoto Accord — led by the Liberal party
- Funded Great Lakes cleanups, targeted Toronto
- We have invested $5.1 billion in the environment
Lorne Gershuny, Marxist-Leninist Party
- The type of economy we live in will always clash with the environment
- As long as the profit motive exists, that clash will always exist
Jurij Klufas, Conservative Party
- Kyoto is a disgrace
- We’ve missed every deadline
- Now we have to buy credits
- We proposed tax credits for people who take public transit
- We will invest in renewable fuels
Categories
Swingers!
Although the news is a couple of weeks old, I haven’t yet had a chance to comment on the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that clubs that allow group sex and partner swapping do not harm Canadian society and should not be considered criminal.
Colby Cosh said pretty much what I think, so I’ll let him do the talking:
Hey, guys, maybe you could explain what harm group-sex clubs actually do cause to non-members? Is there even one in your city, and if so could you find it?
…
Socons will find themselves, presumably to their
surprise, in the Bastarache/Lebel camp [these were the two dissenting judges]. They will see some meaning in
the phrase “the Canadian community as a whole” where absolutely none
exists. They will regard the court as having usurped and destroyed a
power of determining “indecency” that belongs to Parliament. In
principle I don’t like genuine “judicial activism”, but this decision also binds future courts; it has the effect of reducing the power of every branch of government, including the judiciary,
to assist in outlawing private behaviour and expressive materials.
Can’t social conservatives tell the difference between judicial
activism that expands the power of the state–like adding
newly-invented “protected grounds” to discrimination law–and judicial
activism that inhibits it?
Nah. What they care about is that the power of the
state be used for their own preferred ends. Hey, some of my best
friends are social conservatives. But when it comes to subjects like
this, most of them posses nothing resembling a philosophy–merely a
reflexive claim to authority.
In fact, it’s the same reflexive claim of authority that socons accuse progressives of touting.
I feel that in the end, we’ll put a uniquely Canadian spin on swinging, giving it a touch of good ol’ Canuck politesse:
Categories
Apollo 12 Cuff Checklists
One thing that impressed me in the movie Apollo 13 was their use of checklists: in a mission where little differences are actually big differences, there’s nothing like a checklist to take care of the things that our brains are bad at (accurately tracking long lists of procedures and data) and free our brains to do what they do best (evaluating, analyzing and reacting to changing situations). I should probably get in the habit of making more checklists.
The Apollo 12 Lunar Journal site has two PDFs showing two different mission checklists that were mounted on the cuffs of the astronaut’s suits: one for the command module [700K PDF — some poorly-photocopied nudity], and one for the lunar module [900K PDF — some poorly-photocopied nudity]. Not only do the checklists feature the standard tech stuff, they’ve also got some cartoons and photos of Playboy playmates. That sort of stuff wouldn’t fly today, but this was engineering culture in the ’60’s.
While David Janes and I do not always see eye-to-eye on every issue, our poltics often align in that foggy part of the political landscape where “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal” meet (according to the Map of Politopia, I live in the northwest suburbs of “Centerville”). Accuse me of wanting to have my cake and eat it too if you must; I will counter (and win) by reminding you that that is exactly the purpose of cake.
The latest series of entries in his blog, Ranting and Roaring, lists the planks of the “Janes Platform”, if he were running for Prime Minister. I generally agree with them:
Strangely enough, what David has to say about paying off the debt — “A Janes government will not pay down the debt, believing that keeping
money in the hands of the Canadian people and growing the economy to
the point where the debt is an irrelevancy is a more effective strategy” — is pretty close to what Lorne Gershuny of the Marxist-Leninist party said about the debt at last week’s all-candidates meeting!