Pop quiz! Let's see who's been paying attention in Parliament this week.
This week, a vote was held on a private member's bill that would have advantaged a particular group perceived as being friendly to that member's party. Who was the bill going to benefit? Was it:
A.) A Conservative Party bill designed to dole out handouts to the oil and gas industry?
Or,
B.) An NDP bill designed to dole out handouts to artists?
If you guessed "B", award yourself a priceless no-prize.
Indeed, this week a vote was held on NDP MP Tyrone Beskin's Bill C-427, designed to institute "income averaging" for Canadian artists. See, in many years artists -- who basically pursue their hobbies as if it were a profession -- don't get to work an awful lot. Yet they -- *gasp!* -- still have to pay taxes when they do. I know. Shocking, right?
The bill was defeated.
Well, it turns out that Beskin has a plan to correct this grave injustice. It would allow them to average their income over a certain period of time -- spanning productive years in which they worked and years in which they weren't producing anything anyone had any interest in, and for whatever reason they didn't work in some other capacity.
Now, Canadian artists describe this as "fair." Fair in the sense that it gives them the freedom to pursue their hobby as if it were a career, and as a consequence actually pay a lower tax rate when their work might actually have some value. Compare this to working-class Canadians, who do not enjoy the same benefits.
Now apparently this has been tried before. And abandoned before. Mostly because Canada's tax codes were reformed to make income volatility less damaging.
But apparently Canadian artists want this back because... well, they want it. And apparently because while they love to harp about how the wealthy should pay more and more taxes, regardless of how much they already pay, apparently they don't like paying taxes either.
I know, right? Go figure.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Ground Continues to Shrink Under the "Robocon"-mongers
This is a news story that has seemingly escaped the notice of many of those obsessed with the so-called "Robocon" robo-call scandal. And considering that it pertains directly to something routinely treated as a smoking gun strongly supporting the notion that someone in the Conservative Party organized a campaign of misleading robo-calls with the party's knowledge.
That would-be "smoking gun" was a claim, in an Elections Canada affidavit, that Michael Sona had talked about organizing misleading robo-calls. It turns out this isn't true.
Elections Canada investigator Al Matthews submitted an affidavit in March 2012 that made this precise claim. But Matthews has since backed away from that allegation, insisting that it was a mistake.
“In an earlier [sworn affidavit] I wrote that Sona called [Matthew] McBain ‘about a campaign of disinformation such as making a misleading poll-moving call,’” Matthews wrote in a subsequent affidavit later in May 2012. “On checking I realize that in both interviews Mr. McBain … did not recall Sona as relating the call to ‘disinformation’ or about a ‘misleading poll moving call,’ only that he wanted to set up an autodial call that would not track back to the Burke campaign.”
It seems worth noting that such an autodial call would be illegal according to CRTC regulations -- something that Sona may not have known at the time, but very likely knows now.
This allegation against Sona has been seized on by "Robocon"-mongers time and time again as a smoking gun suggesting decision-makers in the party knew about it and condoned it. Sona was the communications director for the Marty Burke campaign, so had the allegations against Sona been true it might not have been that unreasonable.
Unfortunately for them, it apparently isn't true.
It's enough to make you wonder just how much more of the allegations aren't true.
That would-be "smoking gun" was a claim, in an Elections Canada affidavit, that Michael Sona had talked about organizing misleading robo-calls. It turns out this isn't true.
Elections Canada investigator Al Matthews submitted an affidavit in March 2012 that made this precise claim. But Matthews has since backed away from that allegation, insisting that it was a mistake.
“In an earlier [sworn affidavit] I wrote that Sona called [Matthew] McBain ‘about a campaign of disinformation such as making a misleading poll-moving call,’” Matthews wrote in a subsequent affidavit later in May 2012. “On checking I realize that in both interviews Mr. McBain … did not recall Sona as relating the call to ‘disinformation’ or about a ‘misleading poll moving call,’ only that he wanted to set up an autodial call that would not track back to the Burke campaign.”
It seems worth noting that such an autodial call would be illegal according to CRTC regulations -- something that Sona may not have known at the time, but very likely knows now.
This allegation against Sona has been seized on by "Robocon"-mongers time and time again as a smoking gun suggesting decision-makers in the party knew about it and condoned it. Sona was the communications director for the Marty Burke campaign, so had the allegations against Sona been true it might not have been that unreasonable.
Unfortunately for them, it apparently isn't true.
It's enough to make you wonder just how much more of the allegations aren't true.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Quebec Women's Groups Call For Rona Ambrose to Resign... For Acting Responsibly
Minister for Status of Women acts more responsibly than any previous Minister ever
In voting in support of Stephen Woodoworth's motion to establish a Parliamentary committee to discuss abortion, Rona Ambrose has acted more responsibly than any previous Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Ever. Bar none.
A number of women's groups in Quebec -- where nearly one in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime -- couldn't have that. They're demanding that Ambrose resign as Minister for the Status of Women.
Of course she should do no such thing. And hopefully she won't.
"The role of the office of the Minister for the Status of Women is to look after the interests of women," declared Quebec Federation of Women President Alexa Conradi. "By voting for this committee, which has no other goal but to reopen the debate on abortion, she is shirking her responsibility."
Quite the contrary. It isn't Ambrose's responsibility as the Minister for the Status of Women to slap down discussion of abortion, nor is that even in the best interests of women. In fact, it's distinctly in the best interests of women -- in fact, in the best interests of all Canadians -- that abortion be discussed openly and frequently.
Simply put, whether people like Conradi care to admit it or not, abortion deals with the termination of human life. For any country to have no law governing it -- and to refuse to even discuss it -- is the very definition of madness. But that's only the first reason abortion should be discussed by Parliamentarians.
Perhaps the best reason to establish this committee is for the simple fact that Canadians are woefully under-informed of what the facts regarding abortion in Canada are. Conversely, the best reason for groups like QFW to oppose that debate is because if Canadians did know the facts regarding abortion in Canada were, there is no way the status quo would be allowed to stand.
To start with, Canadians do prefer that abortion remain legal. So that portion of the status quo would remain unchanged. However, 60% of Canadians were found to support some restrictions on when a woman can receive an abortion (57% of men supported this, and 60% of women did as well.)
That's a very severe blow to two common arguments used by the pro-abortion movement. The first, their argument that the current abortion-related status quo is in the best interests of women -- clearly a sizable majority of women do not agree. Secondly that only women have the right to an opinion on abortion -- clearly discounting men does them no good, as even more women than men believe that the law should restrict abortion in some way.
Even though some previous polls have suggested that Canadians are comfortable with Canada's abortion status quo, those polls also found that the majority of Canadians didn't know what that status quo was! Canadians tended to believe that Canada has abortion limits similar to those in the United States.
The pro-abortion lobby, unfortunately, is perfectly comfortable with Canadians not really knowing just what the status quo related to abortion in Canada is. No sooner was Woodworth talking about this abortion than the pro-abortion lobby hit their panic button, fear-mongering as fiercely as they possibly could.
Because they, of all people, know the facts. They know that they cannot afford for Canadians to become aware of the facts. Because if Canadians did, there would be big changes related to abortion -- changes that the pro-abortion zealots won't like.
In voting in support of Stephen Woodoworth's motion to establish a Parliamentary committee to discuss abortion, Rona Ambrose has acted more responsibly than any previous Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Ever. Bar none.
A number of women's groups in Quebec -- where nearly one in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime -- couldn't have that. They're demanding that Ambrose resign as Minister for the Status of Women.
Of course she should do no such thing. And hopefully she won't.
"The role of the office of the Minister for the Status of Women is to look after the interests of women," declared Quebec Federation of Women President Alexa Conradi. "By voting for this committee, which has no other goal but to reopen the debate on abortion, she is shirking her responsibility."
Quite the contrary. It isn't Ambrose's responsibility as the Minister for the Status of Women to slap down discussion of abortion, nor is that even in the best interests of women. In fact, it's distinctly in the best interests of women -- in fact, in the best interests of all Canadians -- that abortion be discussed openly and frequently.
Simply put, whether people like Conradi care to admit it or not, abortion deals with the termination of human life. For any country to have no law governing it -- and to refuse to even discuss it -- is the very definition of madness. But that's only the first reason abortion should be discussed by Parliamentarians.
Perhaps the best reason to establish this committee is for the simple fact that Canadians are woefully under-informed of what the facts regarding abortion in Canada are. Conversely, the best reason for groups like QFW to oppose that debate is because if Canadians did know the facts regarding abortion in Canada were, there is no way the status quo would be allowed to stand.
To start with, Canadians do prefer that abortion remain legal. So that portion of the status quo would remain unchanged. However, 60% of Canadians were found to support some restrictions on when a woman can receive an abortion (57% of men supported this, and 60% of women did as well.)
That's a very severe blow to two common arguments used by the pro-abortion movement. The first, their argument that the current abortion-related status quo is in the best interests of women -- clearly a sizable majority of women do not agree. Secondly that only women have the right to an opinion on abortion -- clearly discounting men does them no good, as even more women than men believe that the law should restrict abortion in some way.
Even though some previous polls have suggested that Canadians are comfortable with Canada's abortion status quo, those polls also found that the majority of Canadians didn't know what that status quo was! Canadians tended to believe that Canada has abortion limits similar to those in the United States.
The pro-abortion lobby, unfortunately, is perfectly comfortable with Canadians not really knowing just what the status quo related to abortion in Canada is. No sooner was Woodworth talking about this abortion than the pro-abortion lobby hit their panic button, fear-mongering as fiercely as they possibly could.
Because they, of all people, know the facts. They know that they cannot afford for Canadians to become aware of the facts. Because if Canadians did, there would be big changes related to abortion -- changes that the pro-abortion zealots won't like.
Friday, September 14, 2012
So, This Happened...
Today, the Conservative government, under fire from lefties for something these same people never criticized when the Liberals were in power, did something the Liberals would never do.
Yet somehow they will continue to find a way to demonize Stephen Harper. It's just what they do.
Yet somehow they will continue to find a way to demonize Stephen Harper. It's just what they do.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Going Rogue... Badly
I have no idea what "Deep Rogue Dam" is and probably you don't either. Apparently it has something to do with Kai Nagata and The Tyee. So you can safely presume that the epic fail is absolutely imminent.
Just how imminent? This imminent:
At times like this, it seems in order to just let Batman take it from here:
Just how imminent? This imminent:
At times like this, it seems in order to just let Batman take it from here:
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The Ground Continues to Shrink Under the Council of Canadians
It just keeps looking worse and worse for the Council of Canadians.
Frank Graves is a name that is extremely familiar to followers of Canadian politics. In 2010, Graves gave advice to then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff that he invoke a "culture war" between the Liberal Party and the governing Conservative Party. It did not end well for the Liberal Party. It was serious enough that Graves lamely tried to explain the entire thing away -- although he never really has.
So it should come as no surprise that Graves -- President of the EKOS polling firm -- is also instrumental in the Council of Canadians' bid to overturn the 2011 election results in seven ridings all won by Conservative candidates.
Apparently, Graves conducted a poll that concluded that, despite the absence of tens of thousands of such complaints, tens of thousands of Canadians -- opposition supporters in all -- were targeted by a highly-organized voter suppression effort.
As it turns out, however, Graves' poll has some very serious flaws in it. Reported, by all people, by Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor.
Ruth Corbin, the CEO of Toronto-based CorbinPartners, has found some very serious problems with Graves' poll. Central to Corbin's analysis is the use of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system which actually does nothing to confirm who is taking the survey. The survey could have been answered by absolutely anyone, including minors. IVR's tend to suffer from receiving very low response rates, posing serious problems for the scientific sampling of respondents, and making the survey very susceptible to a self-selection bias among respondents.
Some of Corbin's criticisms can be accounted for and explained away pretty easily. But this critique of IVR technology isn't. This becomes clear once you realize that Graves, EKOS, and Council of Canadians, for their own part, actually have no good answer this critique. Apparently the best they could do was enlist University of Toronto Political Science Neil Nevitte tp lamely complain that Corbin's critique was "not generous."
Wow. Is that it?
Look deeper than Nevitte's lame complaint. Maher and McGregor clearly didn't. Nevitte himself overlooks the presence of the self-selection bias in the Graves survey. He notes that “If the calls regarding the change in location of polling stations were random, then there should be no differences in the frequency with which people with different partisan inclinations would report that they were contacted.”
That would make sense. But having used an IVR system, what evidence does Graves have to show that his sampling was truly random? And what evidence does Graves have that months of media bluster about "misleading robocalls" leading up to his survey didn't taint the results? What guarantee does Nevitte have? After carefully considering both Corbin's argument, and Nevitte's counter-argument, the answer becomes immediately apparent: given their use of IVR, the answer is "absolutely none." While a poli sci prof may be able to overlook something like that, an industry professional like Corbin would not.
The more you dig into this Council of Canadians case, the less and less solid the evidence becomes. Remember that they have to show that not only were there misdeeds in the 2011 election, but that it likely affected the result.
The evidence they have is far from rock-solid. No wonder they've been trying to bend the rules while looking for more.
Frank Graves is a name that is extremely familiar to followers of Canadian politics. In 2010, Graves gave advice to then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff that he invoke a "culture war" between the Liberal Party and the governing Conservative Party. It did not end well for the Liberal Party. It was serious enough that Graves lamely tried to explain the entire thing away -- although he never really has.
So it should come as no surprise that Graves -- President of the EKOS polling firm -- is also instrumental in the Council of Canadians' bid to overturn the 2011 election results in seven ridings all won by Conservative candidates.
Apparently, Graves conducted a poll that concluded that, despite the absence of tens of thousands of such complaints, tens of thousands of Canadians -- opposition supporters in all -- were targeted by a highly-organized voter suppression effort.
As it turns out, however, Graves' poll has some very serious flaws in it. Reported, by all people, by Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor.
Ruth Corbin, the CEO of Toronto-based CorbinPartners, has found some very serious problems with Graves' poll. Central to Corbin's analysis is the use of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system which actually does nothing to confirm who is taking the survey. The survey could have been answered by absolutely anyone, including minors. IVR's tend to suffer from receiving very low response rates, posing serious problems for the scientific sampling of respondents, and making the survey very susceptible to a self-selection bias among respondents.
Some of Corbin's criticisms can be accounted for and explained away pretty easily. But this critique of IVR technology isn't. This becomes clear once you realize that Graves, EKOS, and Council of Canadians, for their own part, actually have no good answer this critique. Apparently the best they could do was enlist University of Toronto Political Science Neil Nevitte tp lamely complain that Corbin's critique was "not generous."
Wow. Is that it?
Look deeper than Nevitte's lame complaint. Maher and McGregor clearly didn't. Nevitte himself overlooks the presence of the self-selection bias in the Graves survey. He notes that “If the calls regarding the change in location of polling stations were random, then there should be no differences in the frequency with which people with different partisan inclinations would report that they were contacted.”
That would make sense. But having used an IVR system, what evidence does Graves have to show that his sampling was truly random? And what evidence does Graves have that months of media bluster about "misleading robocalls" leading up to his survey didn't taint the results? What guarantee does Nevitte have? After carefully considering both Corbin's argument, and Nevitte's counter-argument, the answer becomes immediately apparent: given their use of IVR, the answer is "absolutely none." While a poli sci prof may be able to overlook something like that, an industry professional like Corbin would not.
The more you dig into this Council of Canadians case, the less and less solid the evidence becomes. Remember that they have to show that not only were there misdeeds in the 2011 election, but that it likely affected the result.
The evidence they have is far from rock-solid. No wonder they've been trying to bend the rules while looking for more.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Just What is "High Noon", and What Does it Mean For Bad Company?
Those following Bad Company through my Twitter account may have noticed me promoting a few links to another blog I've set up, entitled High Noon.
Some of you may be asking: does this mean Bad Company is going to become defunct? Isn't it just a few months old? And defunct so soon, after your last blog ran up more than a thousand posts? I want answers, damn it! Now!
Well, here's the thing. Answers don't give you everlasting satisfaction. Sometimes you need to brace yourself for disappointment. Now think about it. Imagine your favorite TV show. You've been through it all. The ups, the downs, the crazy coincidences, and then: Bang! They tell you what it's all about. Would you be happy? Does it make sense? How come it all ended in a church?
Actually, I ripped most of that last little bit off in its entirety. If you're hip like I am, you'll know from where. Also, it's kind of BS.
Where was I again? Oh, yes. That's right. Answers.
Well, simply put, Bad Company will not be shutting down in any way, shape, or form. High Noon is what I consider to be Canada's answer to Twtitchy. It's a blog about Twitter, as if anyone actually needed it.
It doesn't mean that Twitter shall never again be mentioned on these not-so-humble pages. From time to time, Twitter shall probably merit some kind of mention. But for the most part, expect all the Twitter talk to be relegated to High Noon, while Bad Company shall focus largely on the issues and ideas themselves.
...And don't worry. I will think of something better to use as a background there. All in good time, dear readers.
Some of you may be asking: does this mean Bad Company is going to become defunct? Isn't it just a few months old? And defunct so soon, after your last blog ran up more than a thousand posts? I want answers, damn it! Now!
Well, here's the thing. Answers don't give you everlasting satisfaction. Sometimes you need to brace yourself for disappointment. Now think about it. Imagine your favorite TV show. You've been through it all. The ups, the downs, the crazy coincidences, and then: Bang! They tell you what it's all about. Would you be happy? Does it make sense? How come it all ended in a church?
Actually, I ripped most of that last little bit off in its entirety. If you're hip like I am, you'll know from where. Also, it's kind of BS.
Where was I again? Oh, yes. That's right. Answers.
Well, simply put, Bad Company will not be shutting down in any way, shape, or form. High Noon is what I consider to be Canada's answer to Twtitchy. It's a blog about Twitter, as if anyone actually needed it.
It doesn't mean that Twitter shall never again be mentioned on these not-so-humble pages. From time to time, Twitter shall probably merit some kind of mention. But for the most part, expect all the Twitter talk to be relegated to High Noon, while Bad Company shall focus largely on the issues and ideas themselves.
...And don't worry. I will think of something better to use as a background there. All in good time, dear readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)