Even the best politicans have bad days. They'll say something stupid, they'll let an offhand remark get caught on camera, and for a few cycles they'll be mocked by geeks who follow politics.
Then there are less experienced politicians. Former academics, noted authors - people like that. When they say something stupid, the real problem is that they think they're being clever. When they do that, you end up with headlines like this:
The past few weeks have seen great strides forwards made in terms of legitimizing same-sex marriage in Canada. You may recall that in 2005 the Liberal government passed the Civil Marriage Act, which legalized same-sex marriage, extending and formalizing the benefits that most cohabitating same-sex couples since 1999 had enjoyed.
As for the steps forward, two sitting legislators married their same-sex partners recently.
Those of you following the great march forwards of Conservatism may be interested to note that Canada's New Government - brought to you by the Conservative Party of Canada - announced their second cabinet shuffle of the term today.
When considering the implications of this, it's crucial to remember the difference between a shuffle in a Parliamentary system (like Canada), and one in he US. On one hand, it's much easier to shuffle a cabinet in Canada than it is in the US: there are no confirmation hearings to worry about, and there's nothing the opposition can do to block the shuffle. On the other hand, it's a very public gesture that there's been some trouble recently.
You may also notice that in Parliamentary systems, it's much more common for existing cabinet members to be shuffled around, as opposed to changing up the membership of the cabinet. This relates to the role of cabinet members: they're almost exclusively spokespeople. Policy is decided by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), and is implemented by senior civil servants; as a result, the only real job of a cabinet member is to sell changes to the public.
At least four people were reported dead following a shooting spree Wednesday afternoon at a Montreal college.
Emergency officials help an injured woman outside Dawson College in downtown Montreal.
At least 16 other people were reported injured.
The "college" in question is Dawson College, in downtown Montreal. I've used quotation marks since Dawson is technically a CEGEP - a type of school that exists only in Quebec, and (effectively) delivers the last year of high school and an equivalent to the first year of University. This particular one is the largest in Quebec, with a student body population of slightly over 10,000.
Recently, there have been a fewcomments around here about how it would be great for the Tories to force an election now, because "the NDP would double their seat count, and have to form a coalition with the Liberals," and how it would be a great victory for Progressives everywhere. The best-cited reason is the projections off of a site called Jord.ca - which projects a near-Liberal majority, with 40 NDP seats. From everything I've seen, that's just not what would happen.
If you read on, you'll see why I don't place all that much stock in Canadian polling, and why an election now isn't the best results for Progressives in Canada.
I can't really comment on this guy. From first "[advocating] the use of force to rescue Terri Schiavo from being starved to death" and "further [advocating] the killing of anyone who interferes with such rescue," Hal's got a whole new target base going on...
Up here in Canada, the march of progress towards full-status for same-sex marriages continues on unabated, despite the efforts of the Conservative party and Steven Harper. In following the news today, there have been three significant developments (all good, in my opinion) that y'all might be in interested in, if you're looking for some good news after yesterday
Two big things concern me this Christmas evening (aside from my stomach, from dinner tonight): the Russians, and the Queen. While I know that's quite the juxtaposition, in the interests of diary conservation I decided to condense the two issue into one - hopefully, it will stay up for that one more minute.
Now that we've all been let down with the Man of the Year selection, perhaps there will be hope in their list of People Who Mattered. In order presented, we have...
In positive news, it seems that our man Hary Reid isn't the bigges fan of Clarence Thomas. When on MTP today, he had some interesting words for a man who's most memorable opinion was that his confirmation hearing was a "lynching for uppity blacks."
While I was watching the Main Event tonight, I would periodically be checking back to look at a small race in Ohio, where a man with no legislative experience had decided to take on one of the bigger fish in Congress. I speak, of course, to the work of our man Jeff Seeman to take out Ralph Regula.
Jeff was always someone I had a fondness for - as much as can be, I considered him one of "us." He was inspired by Dean to answer the call of public service (something I wish I could do, but legally can't) and put his life on hold to do it. He did it with pride, involved the online masses, and for me, was the prime political example of what we stood for.
AP's running the headline Judge Strikes Down Campaign Finance Rules, but dosen't really go into the nitty-gritty of which ones she (Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, of Microsoft and FISA fame) struck down. While I think this is - in principle - a "good thing," some of the small snippets worry me.
What the hell? Last week's Labour/HHS/Education Appropriations bill that cleared the House included language that would prevent any local, state, or federal authority from denying funding to medical institutions or providers that decline to deal with abortions, even (!!!) in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency.
It's GMail invite day, as my counter just went back up to six. So if you'd like one, hit up a reply (if you include a Haiku about your favourite Supreme Court justice, you'll go to the top of the line).
Draft reports by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks portray Attorney General John Ashcroft as largely uninterested in counterterrorism issues before Sept. 11 despite intelligence warnings that summer that Al Qaeda was planning a large, perhaps catastrophic, terrorist attack, panel officials and others with access to the reports have said.
I personally haven't caught any of his testimony, but could this be the start of a plan to shift/plant the blame on the shoulders of Johnny, and thereby direct it away from Bush? Although Ashcroft is the doyenne of the religious right (a market the Administration can't afford to ignore), he's a pretty reviled figure everywhere else.
