Yesterday’s federal election produced two results – a practically unchanged government and the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history.

While there are those that will shake their heads at that fact and claim it despicable, the stark reality is that a great many Canadians have simply become fed up with federal politics. This was, after all, the third federal election in four years, one that saw the Prime Minister break his own election law in an attempt to gain a majority, and one in which no party leader really stood out as quality leadership material.

After spending $300 million dollars of taxpayers money, this morning Canadians awoke to fact that another Conservative minority government is in power. True, the argument can be made that if more people voted the results might have been different – but then again, it can also be viewed as a lack of confidence and interest in this nation’s leaders.

We live in a democratic country – on paper anyway as perceived by millions of Canadians - and therefore should cherish the power that we have to elect our representatives, there’s no questioning that. But at the same time, there is the very real possibility that many Canadians saw this election for what it was – a political maneuver on the part of the Conservatives to gain a majority. Like it or not, that does not represent the people’s democratic interests, only the vanity of Mr. Harper who took a gamble yesterday and lost. That gamble could very well see Canadians return to the polls in another year, making it four federal elections in five years.

Lastly, there is the fact that this election cost Canadians $300 million dollars in a time global economic crisis. This morning Mr. Harper unveiled a new six-point economic plan to deal with the financial ramifications of the current crisis. Unfortunately for Canadians, $300 million dollars that could have been used to bolster social programs has evaporated for the sake of an additional sixteen Conservative seats in the House. Ironically, the addition of those sixteen seats will no doubt empower Mr. Harper to claim that the Canadian public has given his party a clear mandate to lead, despite the fact that it technically didn’t.

When all is said and done, Canadians have to look at both the last government and this new government and ask a very serious question. If the last one wasn’t working because of political infighting which saw its ability to function diminished, how will this new one be any different? If the Parliamentary blame game is going to continue to consume the House, what did this election accomplish other than the establishment of the status quo?

Analytically speaking, Stephen Harper should have walked away with it. First, he faced easily one of the worst Liberal leaders in that party’s history. Second, he’s an economist, and his expertise, given what has been transpiring financially around the world, should have been far more pronounced. Truth be told, if he couldn’t do it last night he never will, a fact that should be resounding with Conservative supporters this morning - more so than the fact that the party has secured its second minority government in a row. The cold, hard truth is that if the Conservatives possessed the true support of the Canadian public they would have won a majority. Thus, the fact that they failed to do so in the most apathetic election since Confederation speaks volumes.

Leave your opinions in the comments.

Updates:

- CBC calls election - Conservative minority government.
- Conservatives gain slightly larger minority.
- Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, loses her seat.
- Conservatives fail to make gains in Quebec.
- Voter turnout may be one of the lowest in Canadian history.
- Past election stats.
- Twitter Tweet traffic used during CBC’s election coverage.
- Libby Davies re-elected in Vancouver East. Congrats Libby!
- Bloc retains its position in Parliament.
- Election cost $300 million dollars.
- Blackout was broken online.
- Election could produce most women in Parliament in Canadian history.

That’s It

Well, that does it for me this evening. So, do you feel like you got your $300 million dollars worth? There are those that will argue that you can’t put a price tag on democracy. In this instance I disagree. The Prime Minister broke his own election law in an attempt to gain a majority. He failed and nothing has really changed. In the process we lost hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been used to bolster any number of social programs. As far as I’m concerned, that is the price we’ve paid for political vanity.

Today marks the third time in four years that Canadians have gone to the polls. Of course, we won’t know anything for hours, so this entry is rather pointless. I will say one thing – there is the possibility that tonight’s outcome could result in the ability for a coalition government to be formed - not that I think it will happen, but you never know. Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canadian history, that being the Union Government of 1917-1920 - so, historically speaking, odds are against it.

All of that said, I’m going to stick with my initial prediction that this entire venture will have been a waste of time and will simply produce another Conservative minority.

As many of you are aware, there are two debates occurring tonight of note. The first is the Canadian English language debate, the second the US Vice Presidential debate.

I have been pondering which to watch in real time this morning and have come to the conclusion that, having watched the French language debate last night, that I’ll be watching the US Vice Presidential debate first and then going back and watching CBC’s archived video stream of the English language debate.

A few days ago I posted an entry that took a swipe at Twitter. Interestingly, I received more negative emails about that entry than I have regarding any other entry in a very long time. Numerous people went to great lengths to defend it, which I found rather interesting. That said; I have decided, for the sake of being fair and balanced (as Fox News would put it), to give the Twitter phenomenon a chance. And while I personally believe that its greatest feature is the ability to poke fun at your friends by using the @ feature, I have decided that during tonight’s debate I’m going to use the website’s Twitter page to comment on the debate as it happens – which is something that many other people are going to be doing as well no doubt.

So feel free to participate or simply follow along.

I first want to make a statement regarding tonight’s debate that has nothing to do with the issues discussed. All Canadians should take a moment and digest the fact that we live in one of the only countries in the world in which political engagements are conducted bilingually. No matter where you happen to come from in this country, that is a point of pride that all Canadians should identify with.

That said; if it were possible to take everyone at that table tonight and somehow combine them into a single person, this county would be in good hands. Unfortunately, being that that’s an impossibility, my opinion of the five party leaders wasn’t altered this evening.

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised that the debate wasn’t entirely focused on the current economic crisis and the participants didn’t employ it as a political fear tactic. It was wide ranging and covered numerous issues, though I found it unfortunate that the war in Afghanistan did not receive more attention given that we are, after all, a nation at war – one that, when the size of our force is put into context with regards to the sizes of other NATO forces involved in combat operations, we have the highest casualty rate.

One definite positive about tonight’s debate was its moderation. Hopefully Jim Lehrer was taking notes.

The Prime Minister is asking that the upcoming debate’s full hour be devoted to the economy, obviously in response to the current crisis in the United States. The NDP is supporting the amendment.

Something that should not escape anyone is the ability to use what is currently transpiring as a tool of political fear. President Bush attempted to cast the crisis in just such a light prior to Congress voting down the proposed bailout package, and he continues to do so. Of course, lost in his rhetoric, and that of many others, is the culpability of those responsible versus those that will ultimately be made to flip the bill – the people.

The United States is our foremost trading partner. But we are not alone in feeling the repercussions, and thus the fear produced, by what is currently transpiring. Markets around the world have been negatively affected by the wanton actions of financial institutions in a single country, and that is something that should not be overlooked. As has been the case for decades, the world’s foremost commodity markets are subject to the strength of the US dollar, and therefore the US economy itself.

One crucial example of US economic dominance is that of the oil market, which is universally represented in US dollars. Not one major oil bourse on the planet exists that trades oil in another currency. Were, for example, Iranian proposals to create an independent bourse controlled by the Euro ever to become a reality the repercussions on the US economy would be devastating – and make no mistake, that is a very real factor with regards to US disdain for Iran, even though it is little reported.

While the people of the United States are facing a crisis in which they may very well end up paying for the wanton greed of Wall Street’s elite, they won’t be the only ones that will be made to bleed for it - average citizens the world over will be there right along side of them simply because of the economic stranglehold that the United States has on the world. And while foreigners might not feel the affects as harshly, the reality remains that what is transpiring right now in the United States is not simply an American problem, but one that will be felt by people the world over.

Here at home, rather than a national debate taking place in which a variety of important issues are addressed, Canadians may very well be treated to an entire hour dedicated to addressing a financial crisis spawned in a foreign country, and all of the political fear mongering that such a crisis makes possible.

We’ll see.

This afternoon I had the pleasure of having the Honourable Libby Davies (Member of Parliament, Vancouver East) over for a light lunch and a fantastic conversation. As I have stated in the past, I do not support any one Canadian political party, but I am firm supporter of Libby Davies, whose heartfelt dedication to this riding is unquestionable.

Libby is, without question, the real article. I invite those interested in learning more about her to visit her official website.

Given that I don’t have a television, and thank God for that, the only time that I get to watch Canadian television news is when I’m on the road and in a hotel room. That said; I have to be honest and admit that listening to any of the party leaders currently vying for the nation’s top office is akin to hearing the voices used to portray adults in Charlie Brown cartoons.

Elections in Canada mean one thing – promises that are sure to be forgotten unless they somehow involve those that have significantly contributed to campaigns. In between stump speeches given in which such promises are made, rather boring dirt is clinically looked for to give the public something to discuss while half cut at their local watering holes after work…

‘Did you hear about that guy the NDP canned because he’s a pot activist?’

‘No. But I did hear about that guy that made those jokes about that meat contamination thing and how Harper’s not going to sack him.’

‘No one can take a joke these days.’

‘Ya, I guess…wait, what party are we talking about?’

Don’t get me wrong, the leadership of this country is a very important issue. But before it can seriously be addressed as one, Canadians need leaders that they can actually believe in, and not simply because they happen to be the only options available at present.

I sound jaded. No argument there.

I have to admit, as much as I despite politics, I absolutely love how it exposes our stupidity and unwillingness to call a spade a spade. If you’re honest with yourself, how much time do you spend on a daily basis thinking about the elected representatives that run this country? How much time do you spend wondering what it is that they’re up to and whether or not it’s actually in your best interest, let alone in the interest of others that are, for example, violently affected by the foreign policies of nations on the other side of the world, the majority of whose citizens could care less what befalls them?

Politicians are, for the most part, little more than used car salesmen. Their primary focus, like that of most people, is remaining employed, not dedicating themselves to the real task of public service. In many cases, public service is simply a stepping stone to lucrative employment in the private sector, which is commonly secured by way of making contacts while serving in government.

If one examines the current race for the White House, the falsehoods being employed are as thick as tar, yet how many Americans will actually bother to check if the information being presented them is factual?

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman examines some of the duplicities being foisted upon the American public this election season…

“Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Lipstick on a pig. Now there’s something I’d vote for.

Here are a few things of interest today…

The Azizabad Air Strike

Initially the US military denied that they had made a mistake. In fact, they continued to deny that they had made a mistake for days following the devastating air strike on the village of Azizabad in the Afghan province of Herat that left some 90 people dead, including women and children – which was independently confirmed by the United Nations.

That said; authorities in Afghanistan have arrested three men suspected of providing false intelligence regarding the strike, claiming that there was a Taliban presence in the village. The US continues to assert that a top Taliban commander and other insurgents were killed during the attack.

More from Tom Dispatch.

Harper Promises To Withdraw Canadian Forces In 2011

Campaign promises are one thing, following through on them is another matter altogether.

Two days ago, while campaigning in Toronto, the Prime Minister pledged to withdraw the majority of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in 2011, which is when the current mandate ends…

“He said that by 2011, Canadians will have been in Kandahar for six years. He acknowledged that neither the public nor the troops themselves had any appetite to stay longer and that only a small group of advisers might remain.

Mr Harper made his pledge as recent opinion polls showed that there was lukewarm public support for the mission.

Canada has lost 97 soldiers and a diplomat in Afghanistan.

Mr Harper faces the very real possibility of the number of Canadian soldiers killed there rising to the symbolic figure of 100 during the election campaign.”

Take note of one very important assertion in that quote – “He acknowledged that neither the public nor the troops themselves had any appetite to stay longer”.

That, right there, is something that should not be forgotten in the future if Harper remains Prime Minister and uses the deaths of more Canadians as justification for ‘seeing the mission through in their name’.

FBI On The Verge Of Being Granted Unprecedented Powers

From the New York Times…

“The Justice Department made public on Friday a plan to expand the tools the Federal Bureau of Investigation can use to investigate suspicions of terrorism inside the United States, even without any direct evidence of wrongdoing.

Justice Department officials said the plan, which is likely to be completed by the end of the month despite criticism from civil rights advocates, is intended to allow F.B.I. agents to be more aggressive and pre-emptive in assessing possible threats to national security.

It would allow an agent, for instance, to pursue an anonymous tip about terrorism by conducting an undercover interview or watching someone in a public place. Such steps are now prohibited unless there is more specific evidence of wrongdoing.”

I can just see it now. Some xenophobic asshole that’s having a dispute with his ‘ethnic’ neighbour over a tree’s branches extending over his back fence is going to be on the phone with the local Bureau Office claiming that suspicious activity has been taking place next door.

Polar Bears

It’s God’s world, we just happen to live in it. Which means that global warming is a myth, despite the fact that chunks of Greenland are falling into the North Atlantic and a whole host of other fun stuff. To those that believe it a ‘leftist hoax’, the earth has undergone changes in the past and therefore there’s really no need to panic. It doesn’t matter than the world’s scientific community overwhelmingly believes it to be a real threat, nor that they represent the world’s preeminent experts on the subject. Any fool with a computer can discount global warming by doing a Google search and finding ‘evidence’ to the contrary.

For every scientist out there that believes it an ‘overblown’ issue, there are a thousand that don’t. That right there should say something.

Moving on to the affects of global warming on the natural world, some of you might recall that not too long ago the government of Alaska moved to counter the Polar Bear being listed as a threatened species. As The Nation’s Mark Hertsgaard points out, we shouldn’t overlook who played a key role in Alaska’s opposition to it…

“It wasn’t much noticed at the time, but three weeks before she was chosen as John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin played a key supporting role in the latest episode of the Bush Administration’s eight-year war on the Endangered Species Act, one of the cornerstones of American environmental law. On August 4 Alaska sued the government for listing the polar bear as a “threatened” species, an action, the lawsuit asserted, that would harm “oil and gas…development” in the state. In an accompanying statement, Palin complained that the listing “was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available” and should be rescinded.

The Bush Administration had not wanted to designate the polar bear as threatened in the first place; now Palin’s lawsuit provided cover to backtrack on the decision. The Interior Department had issued the listing only after environmental groups filed two lawsuits, and the courts ordered compliance. While the polar bear population was currently stable, the plaintiffs argued, greenhouse gas emissions were melting the Arctic ice that polar bears rely on to hunt seals, their main food source. A study by the US Geological Survey supported this argument, concluding that two-thirds of all polar bears could be gone by 2050 if Arctic ice continues to melt as scientists project. The listing was the first time global warming had been cited as the sole premise in an Endangered Species Act case, and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne clearly wanted it to be the last. When Kempthorne announced the polar bear listing on May 14, he emphasized that it would not affect federal policy on global warming or block development of “our natural resources in the Arctic.”

A week after Palin’s lawsuit, Kempthorne delivered on that pledge. On August 11 he proposed new rules that could allow federal agencies to decide for themselves whether their actions will imperil a threatened or endangered species. The rule reverses precedent: since passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service have made such determinations independent of the agency involved. Under the new rule, if the Army Corps of Engineers is building a dam, the corps can decide whether it is putting species at risk. To make sure no one missed the point, Kempthorne told reporters that the new rule, which he termed “a narrow regulatory change,” would keep the Endangered Species Act from becoming “a back door” to making climate change policy.

Hated by the right wing as an infringement on property rights, the Endangered Species Act has been on Bush’s hit list since the beginning of his presidency, when he chose Gale Norton as his first Interior Secretary. A Republican woman of the West like Palin, Norton assailed the act and did all she could to undermine it. “The Bush Administration has listed only sixty species as threatened or endangered, compared with 522 under Clinton and 231 under the first President Bush,” says Noah Greenwald, science director of the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead plaintiff in the polar bear case. “And it took a court order to make each of those sixty listings happen.”