A Christmas Season Movie Interlude

youIf I'm not thinking about politics and policy, I'm often thinking about movies. So what would interest me more than seeing that there was a call to boycott the movie Chapter 27 Starring Jared "next Johnny Depp" Leto and Lindsay "next Tara Reid" Lohan. Now here's an issue we can really sink our collective teeth into!

The movie is an independent production about Mark David Chapman. He's the maladjusted horrible little man that took John Lennon away from us in 1981. Some argue that the movie should be boycotted because this gives Chapman, who has been in special custody since 1981, the fame he craved.

What's most ironic is that one of the people leading the boycott is Don Murphy. He's the producer of Natural Born Killers. You may remember Natural Born Killers from back when people were busy organising boycotts about it. Anyway, I was on Don Murphy's message board recently - I go there now and then because Murphy is a foul mouthed temper tantrum prone bully - you know, the kind of guy that is ALWAYS fun to read - who is busy turning the new transfomers movie into an episode of Herbie the Love Bug alongside Director, Michael Bay.

Now, Cicero may have a libertarian streak or something but if you want to boycott art you had better have a VERY good reason. I don't think this qualifies.

Anyway, if you go here you can see me fight with him on his message board. Its an entertaining fight. I make points. He calls me "dickbunny", bans me from posting and changes my login name to "cuminginpants". And, oh yeah, tried to release my email address so people could spam bomb me.

If you guys want to know why movies today can be ... problematic... then you might want to check this character out ;-).

Edit: When reading please note a few things. First, I can now no longer rebut him on his message board - hence why he has some unanswered attacks on me on there. And I'm not getting into a big sniping match with him in my own comments section. Second, I also didn't post this blog post there on his message board. He did. Third, he has a bad habit of re-editing earlier posts to close gaps in his arguments. So just be aware of that. Also so far people have been kind enough to not spambomb my email address at all. That proves there is good in the world after all. :) Anyway, I had fun and you will too if you read it. Trust me.

Yet another edit - On January 3, 2007: I didn't know this at the time but Murphy has also spent a great deal of time in the earlier 2000s attempting to get a Charles Manson Biopic off the ground. The fact that someone could produce that project on the one hand and boycott the Chapman project with a straight face on the other....awes me.

Happy Holidays

In addition, Cicero In Pants wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, a Fabulous Hanukkah, an Awesome Kwanzaa, and a "Festivus for the Rest of Us". Whatever your bag is, baby, I hope you get to enjoy some time with family and friends.

Lotsa love and thanks for stopping by.

C.I.P.

What Not To Do With Rona Ambrose

The buzz among the chattering busybodies (like me) that care about this sort of thing, is that a cabinet shuffle is coming in the Canadian Federal government. The ouster of the current embattled Environment Minister, Rona Ambrose, is the central rumour within the rumour. Naturally, since it is so buzzed by this point, it may end up being a self-defeating (as opposed to self-fulfilling) prophecy. All of that is very nice, very political, inside baseball stuff.

But!

The part of the rumour that has suddenly started to concern me but that no one else is scrutinising is the idea that Minister Ambrose may be moved to Intergovernmental Affairs. The reasoning behind this appears to be that before her political life, she was at one point a low level (the "senior" in her old title doesn't mean high level, folks) civil servant in the Alberta ministry responsible for intergovernmental affairs. Therefore, the thinking goes, its an elegant fit to make her that minister.

That might be some bad thinking.

Minister Ambrose's problem is not that she doesn't grasp the environment file. Being a Cabinet Minister is not about your policy expertise with respect to substantive issues. Certainly, to be effective, your ability to grasp your issues and to do your homework is a necessary condition for success, but it is far from sufficient. Prior experience in the area is never seen as anything more than a useful bonus.

Other characteristics are crucial elements. Charisma, will, excellent communications skills, shrewd political judgement, ability to build consensus, knowing how and when to pick fights and when to make alliances, networking. Those are the ingrediants of the ideal cabinet minister. It doesn't mean all cabinet ministers have all of those characteristics but it sure would be nice if they did.

Also, of course, representing a particular part of the country is a huge part of the job that is separate from whatever your substantive Ministry happens to be. Gender, race, age and language will also come in to play. Thats why making a cabinet is tough. There's a lot to balance.Ministry's that have big budgets but no hot button front burner issues are good places to put the Ministers that you have in your cabinet for such purposes.

But some Ministries require a delicate, shrewd touch. In Canada right now, before the election that is almost assuredly happening soon, one of the places where a minister should be most deft, is intergovernmental affairs. Both politically and for the good of the country, please, do not give this portfolio to Minister Ambrose.

Look at the scenario: There is a Conservative government in power in Ottawa. The Bloc Quebecois is leading the polls in Quebec. There is a vulnerable Liberal government in Quebec. The Party Quebecois wants a referendum. Fortunately for Federalists, Boisclair has not been good for his party's fortunes, but there is nothing necessarily permanent about that. In addition, we just went through the great "Quebecois are a Nation" gambit. Finally, the man that Stephen Harper is running against in the next election was a very successful Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who knows the department inside and out. If the environment is his jab, don't be surprised if his uppercut is intergovernmental affairs. Know what I'm saying?

While I grant that the deck has, in some ways, been stacked against Minister Ambrose on the Environment File, a fair consensus has arisen that she has not demonstrated that she is seasoned enough, shrewd enough, or deft enough to be a high profile Minister in a strategic portfolio. The fact that she spent a few years in a cubicle writing briefing notes on Intergovernmental Affairs issues will not save her.

The post is better suited to a trusted Quebec Lieutenant - maybe Lawrence Cannon or Maxime Bernier. As for where to put Ambrose, I don't really know. I'm thinking about it, but I'm not the one who over-promoted her in the first place.

CNN: The Most Trusted Name In Snake Oil?

CNN bills itself as the most trusted name in News. I can prove it. Here's a Logo:



Yet, CNN allows these guys to buy ad time on their network. Lots of ad time:

Head On is Snake Oil. It is a fake headache medicine. Their product is not amazing (as the ad says). Their product is a filthy lie. It's such a lie that they don't actually SAY its for headaches in their ads. oooh sneaky.

I know that its an ad. And I know that running an ad isn't an endorsement. But I think that if you want me to trust you, you need to draw a line somewhere. How about doing it at some point BEFORE you turn your network into the Horse Drawn Buckboard of modern day elixer grifters.

Whew. I've been wanting to get that one off my chest for months. Yay for blogging!

From Face of Terror to Face of Tedium

"Seriously folks. What's the deal with crackerjacks...they aren't crackers - and they
aren't jacks!"

Dear Mr. Zawahiri,

We here at Podworld couldnt help but notice your latest excellent television broadcast. We would therefore like to offer you what we think is a phenomenal deal on a new imac computer, complete with webcam, ipod, microphone, and recording studio software. We believe our product will help you to get your message out there to your public faster - and snazzier! - than ever before. It should certainly be better than your previous method: VHS Tapes hidden in a donkey's bottom. (ed: the ass of your ass? For shame!)

With our products you can make your own myspace page and meet cool people and cute girls! Have something to get off your chest? Why be on TV a mere 15 times a year when you can be on your very own channel every day? The topics are up to you! Whether you want to rant about the plight of the Palestinians or how you can't get Osama to clean up the damn cave. The choice is yours.

We believe this is the next natural step for you. Since you have clearly moved away from your previous strategy - a few carefully timed statements designed to have a big impact - and are now on CNN with the same frequency as David Frum, we think media saturation is the way to go. Please think of us for all your overexposure needs.

Ever so Cheerfully,

Podworld!

disclaimer: cicero in pants doesn't know if there are any companies called Podworld. if there are, Cicero in pants wants you to know that they didnt write this. He did. If they have a problem with that Cicero in Pants wants them to know that he lacks the capacity to give a hoot. Still he hopes it makes people google their name and thereby maybe buy whatever junk it is that they sell. And if his readers do buy their stuff, he hopes it doesn't suck. But really, he has no idea if it will or won't. Caveat Emptor. That 's latin for "don't be a dumbass."

Stupid Slow News Days...(grumble)

Cicero was shocked! appalled! horrified!..well, ok, Cicero was actually mostly apathetic but maybe a little titillated with respect to the news that Miss USA might lose her Crown because she had let loose with all sorts of debaucherous behaviour. He was equally apathetic at news of her reprieve by the Donald but not at all titillated. The Donald is fundamentally creepy.

I believe I speak for many of us when I articulate my actual response to this story: Beauty Pageants still exist? Oh. How... quaint. Since this is the first time we've paid attention to one since, oh, the Vanessa Williams scandal of 1984, do you think maybe Miss USA is on to something here?

Hmm...I wonder what else is on TV.
(Cicero changes channel)
Oooh...Real World Denver starts tonight "with Sex . More Sex. And Drama." Ya don't say.

Cicero Summation

For those of you who have neither the time nor inclination to read long rants, I hereby summarize the preceding post:

Gay Marriage: Yaaaaaaaay! Goooooooood!

Opponents of Gay marriage: Booooo! Baaaaad!

Don't ever tell me I don't care about my audience's time.

Lotsa Love,

Cicero

Cicero in Rants

Happy Monday, my pretties.

Having kissed Harper on the lips in my last post, in this one let me throw a brick at his head. I'm going to self indulgently rant about gay marriage. Is it trite? Has it been done to death? Is the issue settled in Canada now?! YES, Dear Reader. But its my blog and everyone else got to do it, so why not me? I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it house cats like me.

Here is my thesis. My position. The way I want to be remembered years from now. The thing I've been ranting privately for years. I will say it loud. I will say it proud: There is no good argument opposing gay marriage. Now while this is FINALLY settled in Canada, its still an issue in the good old USA. Want to know who has the same position on gay marriage as not only Stephen Harper, but also Stockwell Day when he was Canadian Alliance Leader (and the Liberal Party of Canada less than five years ago): Barack Obama.

The fact is that large scale opposition to gay marriage comes from only three places:

1) Bigotry against gays and lesbians and
2) the desire to manipulate or curry favor with groups of people who possess bigotry against gays (voters/doners).
3) Slippery Slopers. I'll get to them.

Look, Its all a numbers game. There are far less gay people than there are old people. Acceptance of gays and lesbians is really brand new in our society. People beating the crap out of people because they have an internal physical revulsive reaction to same-sex affection, I'm afraid, is as old as the hills. So it shouldn't surprise anyone to find Leviticus calling such acts an abomination. And it shouldn't come as any surprise that clever populists will call out "tradition!" in order to get people to vote and write out $500 donations.

And if you oppose gay marriage and think being called a bigot is grossly inflammatory I understand but I respectfully disagree. Look, all of us deal with our own internal bigotry. Its a natural part of being human. It doesn't mean you are pure evil. But you have a responsibility to rise above base impulses. Thats part of being human too. I'm just tired of people pretending that this argument is about something other than our society's emotional discomfort with homosexual activity. And I'm just not having it.

So lets break down the arguments.

Pro:

First: Why is gay marriage important?

Its important because its a symbol of societal acceptance of gays and lesbians. A diplomatic gesture. A message to our hillbillies not to gay bash anymore. Its about an end to them feeling like there is something wrong with them even though no one on earth is being harmed by their existence. But the symbol argument can go both ways. Its basically cancelled out by the "tradition" argument on the other side. Its a value judgement. I value this side of the argument much more and don't buy the other side of the arguments at all, but the traditionalists value the symbol of the family unit and think this sends a signal that encourages the society to engage in all sorts of sex-disease and crime causing debauchery. So gay marriage won't win on this alone. What about the policy though? That leads us to number two:

Second: It is concretely about family laws relating to divorce. Yes, gay marriage is really about gay divorce. When people co-habit, they co-mingle assets. When they stop cohabitation they need to split those assets between them. They have real problems that require real laws. There is no good moral reason to preclude same sex-couples from access to those rules. In fact morality requires that we do allow them such access. The first gay divorce that happened wasn't an argument against gay marriage. It was the main reason we should have it.

Third: It hurts absolutely no one else. It infringes on noone else's right to do anything. It certainly infringes on a bigot's right to be free from offense, but without a better policy reason to back that up, I speak for all tolerant people when I say "this is me playing the world's tiniest violin for you."

And the Arguments against it:

1) Tradition:

Tradition is no argument for anything. A tradition gets to persist, like any policy, when the good it does outweighs the harm. Like pretty much everyone reading this, I'm very happy to see the tradition of celebrating Christmas traditions making a comeback against the fools of political correctness. But this tradition doesn't pass the same test. No heterosexual marriages are adversely affected.

In fact, this is the first good thing to happen to the tradition of marriage in years. Some Gay males, who have generally been castigated by their bigot opponents for being promiscuous disease spreading debaucherers, want to settle down to a life of monogamous love. Why would so-cons want to oppose that? My goodness, They want to demonstrate their commitment to each other with a binding contract. They want a firm symbol of devotion. They want marriage. Praise the good lord Jesus brothers and sisters! Honestly, in 32 years this is the first pro-marriage advancement Ive seen. Mostly I see divorce rates at 40% to 50%, common-law marriages, and a growth in the number of single moms appearing on the Maury Povitch show in a desperate attempt to find out who the daddy be.

2) The bible says so

Mister, do we need to go through all the abominations listed in Leviticus? You and I both know that you are cherry picking so that you can excite the flock and thereby fill your coffers or your voting box. We also both know that by doing it you are engaging in patently immoral minority bashing. To those of you who actually do believe that this is part of christianity, you have to accept that it is a VERY peripheral part of a religion whose central tenets are tolerance, forgiveness, peace and love. Otherwise, I want to see how your life measures up to the Leviticus dictates. There'll be a test on Friday.

I have no problem with churches refusing to marry gays and lesbians in the church. I think it's disappointing that any church is still giving credence to such ancient commandments of hate based on the dictates of the Invisible Mister God, but Church marriage is different than state marriage. If your church wants to maintain marriage as solely between a man and a woman than that's your prerogative, and I will fight to maintain your right to refuse to perform or acknowledge such marriages. But opposing the recognition by the state is well outside your jurisdiction

3) Being gay is a choice

No. Being gay is not a choice. Engaging in gay sexual activity is a choice. I always want to ask people that purport to believe this, how often they pray to God to stop them from indulging their homosexual urges. I'm heterosexual. I don't get homosexual urges. I'm not in denial. I just don't have them. I'm betting most so-cons don't either. (yes, I am aware of the conspicuous outed exceptions). I think so-cons and gay rights activists have always been talking past each other on this point, with the so-cons meaning gay actions and the gay rights people meaning gay urges. Either way, though, there is no harm here. If the Good Lord above has a problem with gays and lesbians then that is an issue between them and their maker. The government doesn't need to intervene.

4) Marriage is about procreation

No. It really isn't. Most married couples procreate. Some do not. They are under no obligation to procreate or adopt within a certain period or have their marriage annulled.

4) The Slippery Slope:

This is the only almost good argument of the bunch. That doesn't mean I agree with it. I just mean its the least despicable. I mean, at least it contemplates actual harm to the society.

On the one hand, they fear a rise in polygamy. On the other, they fear a rise in general moral decay. But slippery slope is not a good enough moral reason to deny important rights to individuals who are behaving responsibly. If there is a debate to be had against polygamy or against the marriage of two roommates who prefer the tax implications, or against some wider moral decay, than those are policy debates that need to happen based on their own merits. Don't go complicating the lives of gays and lesbians over the spectre of problems in another policy area. Its not fair. The answer to the "slippery slope" question of "where does it end" is always the same: it ends when the harm outweighs the good.

The reason gay marriage is arriving, and will eventually win everywhere, is because it is so manifestly and clearly the right thing to do. Social conservatives should like it because its responsible and anti-promiscuous (generally), libertarians should like it because it does no harm. The truth is that conservatives should all back gay marriage or at the very least find something positive and helpful to do with their time and leave this issue alone. Honestly, you folks are embarassing yourselves. Its also the reason I stopped calling myself a conservative. I was a conservative when it meant pro-NAFTA, and pro-good fiscal policy. I refuse to be painted with the brush of narrow-minded bigotry.

And mark my words to those of you who think what I just wrote is all wrong: You are on the wrong side of morality and of history and are the Strom Thurmonds of the future. Find a new soap box. Quickly. You don't want this coming back to haunt you later.

As always, thanks for stopping by.

Cheerleading Stephen Harper

Before I forget: Stephen Harper held his first press conference in months yesterday. It was excellent. He was forthright, articulate and intelligent. At the risk of alienating lots and lots of young left leaning readers, I have to tell you that Harper is my favorite Prime Minister in many years - which isnt to say I'm thrilled with everything he is doing. It just means I'm even less thrilled with many of his predecessors.

For those that now want to wretch, cast aside any ideological blinders you might possess and find a way to watch yesterday's press conference (this is all I've found so far. Can't find a video link.) Afterwards watch George W. Bush in action. Then count your blessings as Canadians.

My order of favorite recent PMs so you can have some context

1) Mulroney - Free Trade Agreement, Doing a lot of the heavy deficit lifting that Martin got to take credit for. Noble if misguided attempts to fix the structural problems in the country with Meech and Charlottetown. Deserves a lot more credit than he gets and pretty much none of the hate.


2) Trudeau - Charter of Rights, a winning Yes referendum, nipping FLQ terrorism in the bud. All of this trumps the bad economics and the NEP.


3) Harper - Its only been a year. Its the way he handles his office and issues that truly impresses me. His command of his files and his desire to steer the country is truly impressive. With more time and more cabinet talent I think he would rise in the rankings for me. As a person he exceeds Mulroney and matches Trudeau in my opinion. He just doesnt have the achievements necessary to justify a higher ranking. Its funny how he is getting killed on the environment file after doing more than the Liberals ever did. More on that another time though.
4) Pearson - Nobel Prize Winner. Put Canada on the Global map. Need more be said?

5) Chretien - good politician, but nothing very memorable in the way of policy until the legacy agenda of the last 18 months. Biggest accomplishments were winning elections and the deficit cutting credit he needs to share with Martin and Mulroney.

6) MacKenzie King - Successful PM, but ever so crazy.

7) Clark - I have met Clark on numerous occasions. I'm sure he has his good points. Honest.
Confuses intractability with integrity.

8) Diefenbaker - You were a grand old campaigner sir, but you were crazy.

9) Martin - Let me be VERY CLEAR. It is my TOP PRIORITY to mention that you are not one of my favorites. Loved you as finance minister just like everyone else did.

10) Turner - He may have made a fine PM but he really didn't get any chance to demonstrate that.

11) Kim Campbell - sorry Kim, I actually almost forgot to add you to the list.

Senate Reform Needed!

...In the United States! (Sorry, I couldn't resist. I know there's a big Canadian senate reform story but that would take more time to go into than I have today. This is just a quick fun one.)

Yesterday this was going on. A Democratic Senator is in the hospital having brain surgery. Now it looks like he will pull through, but this gave rise to an instant balance of power issue in the Senate. Just as an explanation, the balance of power in the Senate isn't important just because of votes. Its all about collegiality, unlike the 435 bloody mouthed hyenas that make their home in the US House of Representatives. The reason that this is important is that it has all sorts of procedural effects. For instance, it would change committee chairmanships and how many people from each party are on each committee. that stuff can affect such issues as what gets voted on in the first place. So, the sick Senator's one vote is actually a very important issue.

But here's the really interesting sentence from the article:

"Should Johnson not be able to complete his term, which ends in 2008, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, would appoint his replacement, which could shift the balance of power in the Senate."

Umm...what?

Forget about the procedural aspects. Fine, the US doesn't do by-elections. What is interesting to me is that the Governor might find it acceptable to appoint a Republican in the first place. To me, that seems to be a small form of corruption. The governor may be a republican, but he is also an elected representative of the United States of America. My thought is that if you are going to sound off as the paragon of democracy to the world, you should be democratic (no dear reader, I don't mean Democratic). Wouldn't it be great, and statesmanlike and wonderful if he came out with a speech talking about the will of the voters and that he felt it was important to appoint a person who could stand in the shoes of the sick senator, and then he appointed a democrat with similar positions?

Yes. I know how naive that is. But a man can dream can't he?

Trees die to print this stuff?

Dear Parliament Hill Press Corps, do you think it might be worth considering that it is pettiness like this that got you sent to the dog house in the first place?

Extra! Extra! Read all about it: the Prime Minister of Canada has a staff! That staff is made up of humans! Busy humans make errors!

Whew, that Harper must be some incompetent. How could anyone EVER vote for him after a scandal like this?

I shall endeavor not to be shrill all the time, dear readers. people deserve kudos as much as they do brickbats. But whenever I read about Harper and the Press Corps I feel like the dad on a road trip. "Don't make me pull this car over, you two! Do I have to go back there?"

"Cicero in Pants?" Cory, Why on earth? That's just...weird.

Once upon a time a young man (it was ME, dear reader!) was trying to sign up to some thing or other on "teh interwebz" as the kids call it today, and was trying to think up a username pseudonym. As far as I know, pseudonyms are the only thing that Internet geeks have in common with superstar rappers. Don't take it away from us. (If you know of any others the comment section is open below).

I tend to like naming myself after old Greeks and Romans. Why? I don't really know. If I ever get a therapist, I promise to explore that. But Coriolanus and Cicero have always been favorites of mine. Coriolanus because I suppose I can empathise with the character's prickly side. Cicero because I spent a lot of time in University doing debate and public speaking and other Ciceroesque pursuits.

Unfortunately if you break the syllables down in Coriolanus you get a very unflattering description of me. And while I'm not saying that Cory is NOT an Old Anus - many are emphatically of the opinion that I am - that started to give ol' Cicero the edge in the nickname races. (interjection: Alcibiades, stop calling the house. the answer is still no.)

As you might guess, Cicero isn't that original and has already been taken as a nickname in most forums. So once when I was stuck deciding between random numbers like Cicero337 or Cicero666 (orator of the beast?) I whimsically and in a moment of madness made myself Cicero in Pants. Why? Because Romans wore Togas - at least at the office. I, on the other hand, wear pants. Its an updating to modernity reference. "Cicero-with-hot-water-electricity-and-stick antiperspirant" just wouldn't fit in the username field.

I eventually asked Andrea Bruce, who is a wonderfully talented illustrator, to draw me a little CIP icon that I could put on my livejournal based on the theme. Icons are "the thing" on livejournal and I felt naked without one. If you check the livejournal out now, you can see that I wasnt thinking of it as a very serious project. Its all just a parking place for Youtube links (as of December 13, 2006) and an avenue to some carefree online forums. I would have been happy with a drawing of a stick man.

Instead Andrea's work exceeded my expectation so much that I decided to stop waiting to design the perfect blog and decided that this was more than perfect enough. It was time to stop dilly dallying and start ranting. I asked her to turn the icon into a banner and help me wrestle Beta Blogger into submission. Which she did. So, here I am and there it is. Accidental, yes. Weird? maybe. But I'm very happy with the whole thing.

So consider Cicero as an inspirational figure for this blog in substance if (clearly) not in form or talent. He was fascinated with policy and politics, liked to talk, and had trouble picking sides. I can empathise. I am NOT equating myself with the man's greatness. I hope you will accept that fact. In return I agree to accept that just because your username pseudonym is Incredible_Hulk_in_Idaho you don't think you are a big green monster with a fetish for fresh potatoes.

...If its still an issue for you, I guess you should ask yourself why you want me out of my pants so badly.

----------------------------------------------
I'm off for an office Festivus party that promises to be fantastic - and what better time of year to start Airing My Grievances! Its fate I tells ya. I'll see you all on the morrow. Lotsa Love and thanks for dropping by.

Cicero In Contrarian Pants

Have a look at this Slate article by Christopher Hitchens following the death of Augusto Pinochet. Needless to say, Hitch is no fan of the old tyrant. Here's the interesting point though. Hitch is a leftist who has been vilified by the left for supporting the war in Iraq because he saw Saddam as a a dangerous fascist tyrant who could use a good deposing.

Hitch is my hero. Not based on what his opinion actually is from subject to subject. Cicero has never worn socialist pants, I can tell you. Its because Hitch is a contrarian whose opinion process is based on starting from a set of values and following the implications of those values through to logical policy conclusions. His Gods are his principles and the truth (and whiskey but that's another story).

Believe it or not, its a rare gift that many people don't tend to follow as well as they might. We, as human beings, have an instinctive need to belong. We want to be on a team. Once on the team our principles become...well, lets just say, malleable.

This is the reason why you have the odd undercurrent of left and right extremists defending their own dictators. You don't need to talk for long before you hear someone say that Pinochet saved Chile. The person who said that has an ideological opposite who would spit on Pinochet's face and then return to his rant about how Castro saved Cuba and Stalin was just doing his best. Each side figures that the end justifies the means.

Hitch isn't having it. A pox on all your tyrants says he.

There's a lesson in that.

Citoyen Dion

The question of the day is now Dion's dual citizenship. Because Dion's mother is French, Dion inherited French citizenship at birth. The Toronto Star (which backs the NDP) says he should get rid of it. The National Post (which backs the Conservatives) says he should get rid of it. The Globe and Mail (which backs the Liberals) said that questioning his loyalty to Canada was shocking but that he would probably have to get rid of it. They grumbled it like they had a mouthful of glass shards.

So its all pretty typical. I'm not going to add yet another editorial on the subject.

On the merits, though, I started to wonder why it felt right for Michaëlle Jean to give up her citizenship, and yet it feels so wrong to make Dion give up his. I'm betting that mine isn't the only gut that's feeling that way. Really, can a country that puts the Queen of England on its dollar coin be this insensed at our prime minister having ties to the other founding nation of our great country?

So at first, I thought "well - its because the governor general is a symbol of all that is Canadian etc. etc. etc." I quickly realised that that wasn't the reason. It didn't ring true. And then I remembered how this really all happened!

Michaëlle Jean and her husband were shown to be possible separatists shortly after the announcement that she would be governor general. Then while the issue of her loyalty to Canada was already at issue, the information about her dual citizenship came to light. At that point, giving up her french citizenship became a symbolic necessity for her and for the Martin government that appointed her (in an attempt to clone Adrienne Clarkson perhaps?).

So now, because of that scandal the precedent has been set. A potential (highly probable) future prime minister, who has demonstrated his loyalty to Canada more visibly and vigorously than most of us ever get the opportunity to do, may need to give up that citizenship for reasons of "perception" that no one is actually perceiving.

Ain't the Law of Unintended Consequences grand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quick addendum: what would you "perceive" as giving rise to a greater "actual" conflict of interest situation: having dual citizenship, or having to suck up to the nation whose citizenship you gave up so that you can get it back later?

Cicero in two pairs of pants

The point of this blog will primarily be to give me a forum to respond to the exciting stories of the day, whatever they are. The focus, therefore, will shift from Canadian politics to American to International depending on where the action is. For non-political ranting I will keep my posts over on cicero-in-pants.livejournal.com. I may cross-post a link from time to time. For now, the action is in Canada so on to post two on Stephane Dion:

"I called it" - Stephen Colbert

So two comments on Stephane Dion. Here is the first:

I called it. Yes I did. Months ago. And I did it in 'public'. OK, it was a tiny public - my friends, my MSN name, and of course any people on the bus that I could corner into a discussion on politics. (boy oh boy, do they get awkward!)

Now I need to make a big caveat. I waffled between when I called it and when it happened. I waffled a lot. On the day of the convention I waffled all day. I mean, I thought that the math pointed to a Dion win, but only if Dion and Kennedy stuck to a deal. I worried that Kennedy might decide to king-make someone else. The Prisoner's Dilemma was a serious complicating factor. In addition, what was to stop the "big kids" - the ex-roommates from University of Toronto - from ganging up on their little brothers and kicking them out of the sandbox?

Nevertheless, all year and all day, as the campaign went on my gut kept pointing to Dion. Why?

- Because Ignatieff ran the most ineffective Air Campaign since the German Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.

- and Because he came across as a carpetbagger who wouldn't want to live in Canada unless he got to lead it. I mean its not like he seemed to be thinking about us. If he was would he have made so many garish errors whenever he opened his mouth.

- Because as perfect as Bob Rae is in that "I look and sound like a leader would on a TV show" way - he is still Bob Rae: a lifetime foe of the liberals who is perceived by many as having been a disaster the last time he was given similar responsibility. For a lot of voters that added up to "Bob Rae? Really? We're seriously considering BOB RAE??"

- Parce que Gerrard Kennedy ne parle pas francais.

- Because Paul Martin is an Anglophone from Windsor, not a Francophone from Quebec and the Liberals like to alternate leaders. (by the way, I don't know if you folks have noticed but that pattern since Trudeau has been Francophone winner, Anglophone sacrificial lamb. rinse repeat.)

- Because the negatives people kept mentioning (bad English and seen as a traitor in Quebec) were exactly the same negatives I used to hear about a guy named Jean Chretien.

- Because everyone's best strategic moves, when looked at clearly still pointed to a Dion win.

So in my mind Dion was the guy to beat. I just kept expecting someone to perhaps come up with a strategy to beat him. I guess they ultimately couldn't. It makes me wonder why there were so many "no one expected this!" headlines the next day. (Particularly since lots of pundits were heard to predict it immediately following the delegate selection meetings. Rex Murphy, Chantale Hebert, Andrew Coyne - I'm looking at you.)

So I get to type "I Called It."

A new blog

Welcome to Cicero In Pants!! I'm so glad to see you. Come in. Pull up a chair and... oh...well, I suppose if you are on your computer your chair is already pulled up. And if you are on your bed reading your laptop, thats cool too. Don't get up. Can I get you a coffee or something?

Anyway, This wont be my only blog but this will be the one that focuses on politics and policy. Some Canadian, some international. If you aren't Canadian, that's OK. We're really a lot more interesting than you've been told. Seriously, we do things with maple syrup and bacon you would NOT want to tell your mother about. Oh yeah.

So stick around. And visit regularly. I talk a lot.

I'll provide some biographical details as I go along but not now.