Ike Awgu

The American Phenomenon We Should Stay Far Away From

2013-03-19T17:03:55-04:00

Republican leaders on Monday offered what's being heralded by the New York Times as a "sweeping self critique" of their party, acknowledging that they need a new brand of conservatism to appeal to ethnic minorities, younger voters and women. None of this is surprising or particularly insightful to thinking people -- what's unfortunate is that the report, although in some regards stark and honest about the failings of the "Grand Old Party" is nowhere near stark or honest enough.

The GOP is not suffering federally because, as the report in part claims, it fails to have sufficient spokespeople with black, Hispanic or Asian faces, or who are women, but because it has become a farm team for intolerance, anti-intellectualism and undesirables.

This is not to say that all members of the GOP are characters as disreputable as those described above or that even a majority or sizable number of the GOP can be characterized in such a fashion. It is to say however, that a volume of such people sufficient to change the nature of the GOP have infiltrated the party, affecting it in much the same way as a small amount of unwanted ingredient may spoil a perfectly good meal. It doesn't take much chili powder to ruin a bowl of cereal.

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW

The "big three" as I call them (the intolerant, the anti-intellectual and the undesirable) began to migrate to the GOP in significant numbers in 2008 -- shortly after the election of America's first secret Muslim, foreign born, black(ish) President. Although the report released on Monday was conducted by the Republican National Committee shortly after the 2012 election, it makes no mention of the GOP's poor move of embracing racists, conspiracy theorists, theocrats and anyone who was anti-Obama in 2008, regardless their mental salience or moral character. These folks have remained in the party ever since, pushing it closer to their political agenda and off a political cliff.

You can recognize the handiwork of these characters, these unwanted ingredients, in all aspects of Federal GOP policy: they dislike women who are free to control their own bodies and so metastasize legitimate debate about abortion into ideas for how to attack the health of women -- calls to cut Federal funding to Planned Parenthood (who do not provide abortion services with Federal money) are surreptitious attacks against women's health -- and women realize it.

They dislike blacks for the same age old reasons and turn any honest conversation about race in America into a stupid and sordid one -- they are behind attempts to disenfranchise black voters under the guise of "voter fraud" -- but aren't really concerned about voter fraud, they're concerned about blacks voting -- and blacks realize it.

They dislike Hispanics and warp legitimate conversations about immigration reform into attacks against all Hispanics, regardless their citizenship -- because their problem isn't really with illegal immigration, it's with Hispanic illegal immigration -- and the Hispanics realize it.

They are the anti-intellectuals who at the grassroots level empower candidates like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin and Michelle Bachmann. They are faith based on every issue, including physics, geology and biology. They are people who do not understand basic science and yet seek to set America's science agenda. They don't really care about science, they care about theology -- and young voters realize it.

They are the undesirables who attend CPAC conferences and argue that slavery wasn't so bad or that whites are being politically disenfranchised. They carry loaded guns in public not because they're concerned about safety or their second amendment rights, but because they want to threaten their political opponents. They send emails of the First Lady dressed like a gorilla to their friends because they think it's funny. They're odious people who taint anything they touch -- and independents realize it.

No tent so large that it encompasses swamp creatures and troglodytes will be a popular place to vacation. These are the sordid ingredients that have spoiled the GOP brand for many young people, blacks, women, Hispanics and Asians. There will be no GOP unless the party, even if it's behind closed doors, wakes up to its real problems -- the "big three" and does something about them.

There is a lesson here to be learned by Canadian Conservatives who often have similar creatures skulking around campaign events and political conferences -- make it clear that they are unwelcome. This is one American phenomenon that there should be no interest in embracing.

Stop Coddling the Catholic Church

2013-03-14T01:50:26-04:00

We now know who will be the next pope: Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina, Pope Francis. I have no quarrel with individual members of the Catholic Church and I am personally a man of faith. But I do have a quarrel with the Vatican and the toady, obsequious manner in which the media has been reporting on the appointment of the new "his holiness."

Media coverage of the new Pope's selection this past week has been some of the most revolting nonsense I have ever seen on mainstream television or read in popular media. This organization (the Vatican) is suspected to be home to pedophiles and pedophile protectors. It discourages condom use in parts of Africa ridden with AIDS and HIV (AIDS is bad but to the Church condoms are apparently worse). It discriminates against women, gays and lesbians. Its past bad acts are so numerous that they can only be mentioned by way of summary for fear of going mad: the Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of the Jewish people (and silence during the Holocaust), the African Slave trade and the sexual abuse of children in near every region of planet Earth. The details of the sexual abuse of children and the manner in which the pederasts responsible have been protected is as contemptible as it is vomit inducing. These are not crimes that can be brushed off with the occasional reference to how many bowls of soup Catholic charities have provided the homeless, how many alcoholics they've helped give up the bottle or other such good works (and of course, there are many) -- rather, they're serious crimes that appear to have been committed in a systematic fashion and were covered up. Yet this past week bore witness to the media, particularly the CBC, CNN and Fox News, fawning over the Church through largely positive coverage.

I was fortunate enough to have better things with which to occupy my time than the listening to of Pope Francis's first sermon on Wednesday, but I'm confident it did not begin with an apology -- which is precisely how it should have -- a heartfelt, sorrowful, weeping apology for the suffering and misery that his organization has spread around the world. When Joseph Ratzinger, the now retired Pope was Cardinal Ratzinger he was head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where he either covered up -- or at the very least turned a blind eye to -- child rape, indicating that the main priority of the church was not justice for victims but protection of perpetrators. It is no wonder the church is generally most popular where people are the least educated and the most poor (a fact about which it finds cause to boast). Odd as well, is the massive opaque wealth of the Church, odd particularly since it purports to be an organization concerned with the hereafter, but has accumulated wealth (useful only in the 'here now') in a Gordon Gekko/Joel Osteen like manner - the Church may be worth billions, no one really knows.

There will be no substantive Vatican reform unless the Church enacts reforms that change its nature; particularly surrounding vows of celibacy that, as Sam Harris has pointed out, help attract pederasts and sexual sadists. And the media needs to stop handling the Catholic Church with kid gloves, or any organization for that matter that purports to speak to invisible creatures in the sky. For "God's sake," enough is enough.

This Is What I'd Ask Oscar Pistorius

2013-02-22T02:19:27-05:00

By now most of you are familiar with the tragic Valentine's day killing of Reeva Steenkamp by Oscar Pistorius, South Africa's famed "Blade Runner." Pistorius's claim that he mistook Reeva Steenkamp for a burglar, shooting her through a bathroom door, has left me full of questions. Let's take a look at why, starting with excerpts from Pistorius's affidavit (in grey). The full affidavit can be found here.

Let's begin with how Pistorious accounts for the events of the night.

"My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day. After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep."

He knew that his girlfriend was in the house -- she had in fact fallen asleep beside him. Why then he did not first assume what seems most rational -- that it was his girlfriend in the bathroom making the noise? He also says here that he was not wearing his prosthetic legs. With the legs he is 6ft 1/2 inches in height ; without them he should be at least a foot shorter, placing him around 5ft 1/2 inches. This is relevant, because it puts him closer to the surface of the bed, where it is presumably easier to see the outline of a figure (or lack of one) sleeping. He says he had also fallen asleep and so his eyes would have been adjusted to the darkness.

"I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night."

South Africa does have a serious crime problem, but that is precisely why Pistorious lives in a fortress. Doesn't waking in the middle of the night, hearing a sound in the bathroom and presuming it's a burglar when you know you have company and are in such a heavily protected home seem strange? Doesn't it also seem strange not to verify that your girlfriend (who you are deeply in love with) is not safe and in the bed beside you? Further, if Pistorius's gun was underneath his bed as he claims (presumably on his side of the bed), he would have had to reach under the bed with his right or left hand, and in so doing lower his face even closer to the surface of the bed. In that position, shouldn't he have been able to make out the absence of a figure sleeping on the bed beside him (think to your own husband, wife or girlfriend's shadowed figure when you awake in the middle of the night and look over)?

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realized that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside."

So he heard a noise in the bathroom and "realized" that someone was there. Why did he not immediately presume that the "someone" was his girlfriend? Let's take him at his word, however, and presume he did in fact hear something -- why did he not check to see if his girlfriend was still in the bed? Or even turn on a single light? He claims to have felt a "sense of terror," so we would expect for him to behave in a manner befitting a person in such a state. Instead he made his way alone, without his prosthetics and in the dark, to confront what he believed could be an armed and dangerous robber. He did not stop to contact the authorities or wake his girlfriend and face the hallway with the pistol drawn' he instead advanced alone on his "stumps" (his words) into the unknown.

"Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps. I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on. I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."

Too scared to switch on a light but not too scared to confront a criminal alone, with his girlfriend asleep behind him, without his prosthetics and armed only with a 9mm pistol? He claims to have "screamed words" to the effect that [the robbers] should get out of his house on the way to the bathroom. Why didn't Reeva hear his "screamed words" and yell something in return? Such as, "Where are they?!" (the criminals could have been elsewhere in the home). Why didn't she leave the bathroom to try and run to a phone? Pistorius says he screamed for Reeva to phone the police. If he yelled this in the hallway, wouldn't Reeva have heard it and tried to do what he asked? Yet Pistorius says he had no idea Reeva was in the bathroom, which would suggest she remained completely silent as he approached the bathroom door. And why wouldn't Pistorius wake Reeva up first, and tell her to call the authorities, before even approaching the bathroom?

I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realized that the intruder/s was/ were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door. It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet.

I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger.

I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps. I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realized that Reeva was not in bed."

If he was so concerned about Reeva, why didn't he verify where she was? And if he felt so vulnerable without his legs, why did he investigate the sound before waking his girlfriend or contacting the authorities? And if it was pitch black, how was he able to walk backwards without stumbling (and on his stumps) and aim accurately at the door? And if he was capable of seeing enough to do this, how could he not see that his bed was empty?

"That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help. I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights."

Why would it only dawn on him then that the person in the bathroom could be his girlfriend? And why yell for help from the balcony before calling the authorities or even trying to break into the bathroom? Consider, you've just potentially shot and killed the woman you love; wouldn't you first check to see if she is alive before opening a balcony door and yelling for help? Pistorius then (before turning on the lights) put on his prosthetics. If he could put them on in the dark and they make him more mobile (better able to kick in the bathroom door) why did he not put them on when he first heard the suspicious noise?

"I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive. I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom."

The cricket bat was reported to have been covered in blood. How did the blood get on the bat?

"I phoned Johan Stander ("Stander") who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door. I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived."

Why did he phone Johan Stander before calling an ambulance?

"A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms. I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in."

Why did it not occur to him at the time that his girlfriend might have gone to the bathroom while he was outside?

Witnesses 1:

Witness 1 claims to have heard "non-stop fighting" from inside Pistorius's house in the early hours of February 14th as well as a woman screaming.

The defence claims that the scream was that of a man and that the witness was too far away to hear anything like "non-stop fighting". But clearly Pistorious did not think neighbors were too far away to hear, otherwise why run to the balcony and yell for help? And what person confuses the scream of an adult male with an adult female?

Witness 2:

Witness 2 claims to have heard gunfire and gone to his balcony to see "that the lights in the house were on." Witness 2 says this was followed by a female scream and then the sound of two more shots were fired.

The defence claims that the screams were those of Pistorious in distress after discovering he had shot Steenkamp. But according to his own affidavit, Pistorious did not turn the lights on until after he had fired the gun, put on his prosthetics and yelled for help. He claimed he was "too scared to turn the lights on." So once more the screams of a 26-year-old male were mistaken for those of a 29-year-old female? And the witness who claims to have seen the lights at the same time as hearing the sound of gunshots was mistaken? Finally, if Pistorius yelled for help after firing shots, why didn't Witness 2 year him?

Pistorious is innocent until proven guilty, but for me his affidavit raises more questions than it answers.

La mort de Christopher Dorner révèle au grand jour les problèmes du LAPD

2013-02-15T09:46:29-05:00

Au 19e siècle, les mineurs avaient l'habitude de descendre au fond des mines de charbon accompagnés d'un canari pour mieux détecter la présence de gaz dangereux. Le système respiratoire de ces petits oiseaux est beaucoup plus sensible au méthane et au monoxyde de carbone que celui des humains. Lorsqu'un canari mourait, les mineurs étaient donc avertis du grave danger qu'ils couraient, d'où l'expression «comme un canari dans une mine de charbon».

Je crois que le policier Christopher Dorner est un de ces canaris. Cet homme bien armé et bien entraîné a réussi à semer la pagaille dans le sud de la Californie pendant sept jours. Pour le retrouver, des milliers de policiers ont effectué une chasse à l'homme avec des résultats mitigés. Mais que se serait-il passé si une milice de 10 ou 100 personnes bien armées et entraînées avait décidé de régler ses comptes de la même manière? Pour la police municipale de Los Angeles (LAPD), peu entraînée et incapable de faire face à la menace bien réelle du terrorisme local, la tournure des événements constitue un avertissement très sérieux.

Durant la chasse à l'homme, trois personnes innocentes ont été prises pour cible. Il s'agit de deux femmes et d'un homme de race blanche qui n'ont aucune ressemblance physique avec le suspect.

Les policiers qui ont tiré sur les deux livreuses de journaux ont criblé leur camion de 25 balles. Heureusement, leur incapacité à atteindre leur cible n'avait d'égal que leur incompétence à déterminer ce qui constitue une cible valide. Autrement dit, les deux femmes ont survécu.

La troisième victime de cette chasse à l'homme est un surfeur en route vers la plage, dont la camionnette a été emboutie par une voiture de police roulant à grande vitesse. Après l'impact, les deux patrouilleurs ont vidé leur chargeur sur la camionnette, sous prétexte qu'elle ressemblait à celle de M. Dorner. Encore une fois, la victime s'en est tirée indemne grâce à l'amateurisme d'agents incapables d'utiliser leur arme avec précision.

Dans les deux cas, les policiers ont omis de s'identifier, n'ont pas ordonné au conducteur d'immobiliser son véhicule et ont omis de transmettre quelque avertissement que ce soit. Ils ont tout simplement ouvert le feu. Si ces trois personnes étaient mortes, le LAPD aurait été responsable de presqu'autant de décès que le suspect qu'elle recherchait.

À ma connaissance, les seuls corps policiers qui fonctionnent de cette manière sont situés dans des pays sous-développés et sont généralement appelés «escadrons de la mort» plutôt que «représentants de la loi et l'ordre». Une telle menace à la sécurité d'humbles citoyens est tout simplement inacceptable. Après tout, les policiers ont pour responsabilité de protéger leur employeur, c'est-à-dire le public.

Le blogue d'Ike Awgu se poursuit après la galerie photos de nos collègues du HuffPost américain

Christopher Dorner n'était ni un martyr, ni un héros. Il demeure le tueur présumé de quatre personnes innocentes. Toutefois, les allégations qui figurent dans son «manifeste» méritent un examen attentif, ne serait-ce que pour rétablir la réputation du LAPD.

Loin d'être de simples «ragots diffusés dans Internet», comme l'a affirmé avec dédain le chef du LAPD Charlie Beck, les propos de M. Dorner décrivent des faits précis - dates, lieux et noms à l'appui.

En voici une liste non exhaustive :

Le tueur présumé (Dorner) a été renvoyé du LAPD après avoir refusé de garder sous silence les mauvais traitements infligés à un homme souffrant de troubles mentaux. (Le témoignage du père de la victime souligne que les policiers lui auraient donné des coups de pied au visage et dans la poitrine, ce qui tend à confirmer la version de M. Dorner.)

Les policiers du LAPD s'amusent à photographier les cadavres avec leur téléphone, et jouent à celui qui prendra les clichés les plus horribles.

Les policiers apprécient particulièrement les «appels 187» (signalements de meurtre) car ils se traduisent par du temps supplémentaire grassement payé. Les personnes décédées sont donc affublées des surnoms VTT (véhicule tout-terrain), WaveRunner (une marque de motomarine), RV (autocaravane) ou, tout simplement, «vêtements neufs pour les enfants».

Des recrues auraient chanté des chants nazis glorifiant l'extermination des Juifs.

Les agents impliqués dans les scandales Rampart et Rodney King sont toujours en service, et certains d'entre eux sont même montés en grade.

Les documents relatifs à la comparution de M. Dorner devant le Comité de discipline du LAPD peuvent être consultés ici.

Qu'elles soient véridiques ou non, les allégations de M. Dorner ont eu un impact indéniable sur l'opinion publique. Un groupe de soutien créé il y a à peine sept jours dans Facebook a reçu plus de 16 000 mentions «J'aime».

Le fait que ces allégations soient prises au sérieux par le grand public devrait inquiéter le LAPD. M. Dorner a rendu l'âme, non sans avoir soulevé des problèmes extrêmement graves. Si nous décidons d'ignorer la mort du canari, ce sera à nos risques et périls.

La mort de Christopher Dorner révèle au grand jour les problèmes du LAPD

2013-02-15T09:46:29-05:00

Le tueur présumé (Dorner) a été renvoyé du LAPD après avoir refusé de garder sous silence les mauvais traitements infligés à un homme souffrant de troubles mentaux. (Le témoignage du père de la victime souligne que les policiers lui auraient donné des coups de pied au visage et dans la poitrine, ce qui tend à confirmer la version de M. Dorner.)

Les policiers du LAPD s'amusent à photographier les cadavres avec leur téléphone, et jouent à celui qui prendra les clichés les plus horribles.

Les policiers apprécient particulièrement les «appels 187» (signalements de meurtre) car ils se traduisent par du temps supplémentaire grassement payé. Les personnes décédées sont donc affublées des surnoms VTT (véhicule tout-terrain), WaveRunner (une marque de motomarine), RV (autocaravane) ou, tout simplement, «vêtements neufs pour les enfants».

Des recrues auraient chanté des chants nazis glorifiant l'extermination des Juifs.

Les agents impliqués dans les scandales Rampart et Rodney King sont toujours en service, et certains d'entre eux sont même montés en grade.

How Dorner's Death Brought LAPD Problems to Light

2013-02-14T08:22:34-05:00

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, miners would bring canaries with them into coal mines to warn them about the presence of dangerous gasses. The small birds and their tiny respiratory systems were more sensitive to methane and carbon monoxide fumes than those of humans and so when the canaries would die, the miners knew that something was seriously wrong -- hence the expression "like a canary in a coal mine." Christopher Dorner is one such canary.

One well-armed and purportedly well-trained man was able to wreak havoc on Southern California for seven days. There were thousands of officers involved in the manhunt for Dorner -- imagine the consequences if 10 or 100 well-armed and well-trained men decided to do the same thing? For the officials who appear poorly prepared for the very real threat of domestic terrorism, this is their canary.

During the hunt for Dorner three innocent people who did not resemble the suspect even slightly (two of which were women, one of whom was a white male) were fired upon.

The officers who opened fire on the two innocent women (who were delivering newspapers at the time) unloaded over 25 rounds into their truck. Thankfully the officers were as incompetent at aiming their weapons as they were in discriminating valid targets and both women survived.

The third innocent victim, on his way to the beach to go surfing, was rammed by a police cruiser at high speed. The officers leaped out and began firing at the vehicle. His pickup truck purportedly "resembled" Dorner's. Again, thankfully both officers were just incompetent enough to fail to injure him.

Had these three innocent people been killed, the LAPD would have been responsible for nearly as many deaths as the suspect they were chasing. In both cases the police did not identify themselves and did not ask the vehicles to stop or issue any warnings, they simply opened fire.

The only other police forces with which I'm familiar that behave in this fashion work in the third world and are typically called "death squads" as opposed of officers of the law. This kind of reckless endangerment of ordinary citizens, the folks who are ultimately the police's employers and those they are hired to protect, is unacceptable.

Dorner is not a martyr or hero; he is a murderer of innocent people. The allegations contained in Dorner's manifesto however, merit serious investigation if for no other reason than to repair of the LAPD's reputation.

They are not "ramblings on the internet" as Chief Charlie Beck of the LAPD inaccurately characterized them, but detailed descriptions of events with dates, times and names. A quick and incomplete synopsis of Dorner's allegations are:

• That he (Dorner) was fired from the LAPD for refusing to cover up police abuse of a mentally disabled man (testimony from the disabled man's father supports Dorner's claim that the man was kicked in the chest and face).
• That pictures of recently deceased bodies are taken by officers with cellphones and a game played to see who has the most graphic images of dead people.
• That officers looked forward to 187 calls (murder) so as to accrue the overtime pay and would see dead victims as "ATV's", "Waverunners","RV's" and "new clothes for their kids."
• That Police recruits were singing Nazi songs celebrating the burning of Jews.
• That officers involved in the Rodney King or Rampart scandals have been promoted or are still employed with the LAPD.

All of the court documents are available here.

Regardless of whether or not they are true, these claims have resonated with the public -- Dorner's Facebook group has over 14,000 likes and was founded only seven days ago.

The extent to which his claims have found currency with ordinary people should be extremely troubling to the LAPD. Dorner is dead and gone but he is a warning of far more serious problems that must be dealt with. We ignore this canary at our own peril.

How the Death of the American Family Led to Hadiya Pendleton's Murder

2013-01-31T12:48:19-05:00

On Tuesday January 29, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, an honour student who had just performed at President Obama's inauguration, was gunned down in a Chicago park. Hadiya was described by her father as a "shining light", and she dreamed of becoming a lawyer. Now her light has been put out and her dream is over.

Hadiya Pendleton wasn't in any kind of a gang; she was a young girl who had been let out of school early on Tuesday after an exam and was huddling under a canopy to escape the rain. The human refuse who killed her had apparently been targeting someone else, but as is often the case with these troglodytes, was probably too stupid and cowardly to discern the identity of the target before showering her with bullets. Hadiya Pendleton, who could have been your daughter or your sister, was shot in the back in the rain, killed with less compassion than the humane society shows when it puts down dogs or cats.

Hadiya Pendleton

This brings the number of gun deaths in Chicago since the New Year to 42 -- the deadliest January for the city in 10 years. Last year, Chicago bore witness to over 500 gun-related homicides -- and if trends continue, this year's total will surpass that. For those among you whose brains are already so eagerly tap dancing to the tune of handguns being "the problem," know that handguns are essentially banned in the city of Chicago.

Gang members and criminals appear uninterested in the law's opinion on the legality of their firearms. Those of you who remain unconvinced and still blame handguns are welcome to believe what you like -- as doing so is likely in your nature. Others may now be turning to another proverbial bogeyman -- the immemorial slander on the poor that "poverty" is the cause of these violent murders or that gangs are to blame. Although both of these variables contribute to violence, both are also symptoms of an underlying and more serious problem. I believe that but for that underlying problem, both poverty and gangs would be reduced in scope to such an extent as to render them near irrelevant to the lives of people in low income areas of Chicago.

About 72 per cent of black Americans are raised in single parent households. The "single parent" in these households is usually a single mother. This is relevant because when one talks about "gun violence in Chicago," what one is really talking about is young black men murdering one another (and innocent people in their neighbourhoods). And when one talks about "young black men," what one really means, in many cases, is children from the homes of unwed single mothers murdering children from the homes of other unwed single mothers.

If you pay attention to the funerals of young men murdered in gang violence, you will see a parade of grandmothers, aunts, sisters and perhaps the occasional uncle, but fathers are a sight as rare as a pink diamond. Being born to a single mother is a greater predictor of crime than race or poverty. The increasing out-of-wedlock birth rate in the United States, across all ethnic groups, is likely the precursor to an increase in social problems -- more high school drop outs despite more money for schools, more juvenile delinquents despite more money for rehabilitation, more underachievers despite more money spent on teachers. This is not just a black problem; It's a family structure problem. But because black Americans and Hispanics do not have white privilege to help offset their missing father figures, they are hardest hit.

Resistance to the very banal notion that inadequate parenting is more closely connected to young boys murdering one another (and unlucky strangers) than handguns or poverty is indicative of the extent to which the people who can least afford to make poor decisions when it comes to parenting (the lower to middle classes and visible minorities) are being led astray. There is an industry permanently employed and entirely vested in proving the traditional two-parent family an anachronism. Those who suggest the heresy that perhaps the reason crime in areas of Chicago is so high is because the children there are being raised in high proportion by single mothers can expect the typical slurs, slanders and rigged "studies" hurled in their direction. Hadiya Pendleton's death is for me the last straw.

The President, who is himself the head of a beautiful family, needs to tell to America's face not the truth it wants to hear, but the truth its needs to hear right now -- when it comes to handgun violence in places like Chicago, marriage and fathers are the answer.

Why a Man Can't Act Like Hillary Clinton

2013-01-25T17:03:07-05:00

Supriya Dwivedi wrote an interesting column titled, "Why Hillary Clinton Can't Act Like a Man." In it she complained, as such columns do, of the prejudicial treatment women endure at the hands of a sexist media and of course other injustices like income inequality or the overwhelmingly maleness of our legislatures.

This is all of course at least partially true, but in an attempt to be different, let's consider: Why a Man Can't Act Like Hillary Clinton. Imagine Joe Biden was Secretary of State and he began to tear up while giving testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the murder of American's in Benghazi. Certainly, some would be touched, with many sympathetic to a man expressing his deep feelings of sorrow -- but folks would publicly and privately be unimpressed. Women crying elicits sympathy; men crying elicits ridicule -- and not only from other men, but from women too.

I don't know a single man who cares, at all, what Michelle Obama is wearing each week. I don't know a man who cares about her hair, her clothes, or for that matter the clothes and hairstyle of any female politician -- it seems to me as though it's women who drive interest in the personal attire and effects of female politicians -- and I do not blame them for it. Largely because the sexes are different and most people, regardless their political inclinations, surreptitiously acknowledge it.

When a ship is sinking who gets on the lifeboats first? Women and children. If a house is burning down and a firefighter has to choose between saving the life of a woman trapped in a room or a man, who do they choose? Women, we know, have priority for very natural reasons. The expectation that both sexes should be equal in every regard is a slightly obtuse one. There are explanations for our differences that extend beyond the malevolence of sexism. Double standards swing both ways.

There's No Ban-Daid Solution For Assault Weapons, Obama

2013-01-16T08:38:24-05:00

President Obama will be making a public address on Wednesday to discuss the recommendations brought forward by Vice President Biden's task force on gun violence. Many suspect that a new ban on assault weapons will be part of his proposal. If so, be prepared for the fix that will fix nothing. And make no mistake, the President knows it.

Acknowledging reality is not an endorsement of reality; so let's acknowledge some facts I don't endorse: the United States cannot prevent people from crossing its borders illegally. It cannot prevent drugs from entering its borders illegally. It cannot prevent underage Americans from acquiring alcohol illegally or for that matter, acquiring virtually anything that is illegal for which there is significant and broad demand.

Despite this many Americans, and Canadians too, believe that an assault weapons ban will actually prevent Americans from obtaining "assault weapons" or could be a panacea for mass shootings. There are at least 2,446,294 domestically produced AR-15 assault rifles in the United States. If you take into account foreign made AR-15 models, that number skyrockets to at least 3,261,725. Any proposed ban would have to grandfather in this enormous number of rifles, unless of course the plan is confiscation, which would lead to more bloodshed than was witnessed in Connecticut. This is the AR-15 model alone mind you, not the equally popular AK-47 or countless other models that are just as lethal and also semi-automatic. Draining this swamp is near impossible.

The problem with bans is that capitalism and the supply and demand cycle are smarter than government -- so long as sufficient people desire assault rifles a ban on assault rifles will enjoy the same success as the bans on marijuana, cocaine and handguns currently enjoy. And such consideration about the effectiveness of a potential assault weapons ban exists most principally in another universe -- where the physical laws of politics operate sufficiently differently as to allow such a ban to even be possible -- because the United States in this universe and at this present time is not such a place.

Approval from Congress for an assault weapons ban will not happen. The President knows this, which is why much of what we will hear on Wednesday will ultimately be about reassuring his base and a slightly broader group of Americans that he tried to do something. That his administration at least made an effort -- an effort that when it fails will be blamed on the NRA and Republicans, who will be portrayed as cold-hearted obstructionists in reporting that will dominate the news cycle right up to the debt limit talks, where Republicans look even worse.

Although many Canadians are disturbed by guns, its important to understand that many Americans view them as heroic possessions. Many AR-15's were given out as Christmas presents last year, the way Canadians give out hockey sticks. Prohibition against a manufactured good this socially acceptable and this widely in demand cannot hope to be effective. Demand always wins -- gun manufacturers will spend time and money (they've done it before) reworking and renaming the rifles before they sell them to the exact same public.

What we're most likely to hear from the President, aside from an assault weapons ban, will be a federal registry of all assault weapons (which is as likely to pass through Congress as this humble writer is likely to be crowned the King of Chicago), the restriction of high-capacity magazines, registration of ammunition sales (perhaps with background checks) and improved, coordinated screening for mental illness or criminal records at gun shows and elsewhere.

I expect to hear a cocktail of suggestions for decreasing gun violence -- legislative solutions such as prosecuting people who lie on applications, mental health initiatives to ensure the psychologically ill receive treatment and general prevention that focuses on cultural issues and the promulgation of violence.

If the Obama administration is to use this moment in history to its utmost potential, they will focus more on the latter of these solutions than the former. Congress is more likely to agree that background checks, cultural problems and mental health can be improved than pass an assault weapons ban, though there may be some movement with the restriction of high- capacity magazines.

But let there be no confusion -- no one serious expects an assault weapon ban to occur. It's theatre for the voters. Let's hope this moment in history isn't squandered.

Why Are Aboriginals Afraid of Integration?

2013-01-04T17:01:21-05:00

Stephen Harper blinked first. On January 11, 2013 the Prime Minister will be meeting with Theresa Spence and a delegation of First Nations leaders coordinated by the Assembly of First Nations. It would be wonderful if the meeting was televised so ordinary people could watch the artful way in which difficult work is avoided, hard questions are unasked and the theatre continues.

At some point, aboriginal Canadians need to consider that the best hope of a future for their children may be integration into the mainstream of Canadian socio-economic life. They need also understand that integration is not the same as assimilation.

The latter is the process by which one group's culture and language disappear and are lost under pressure to become part of another dominant group. The former is the process where one culture gains ideas, technologies and products from another without losing its own uniqueness and becomes part of a greater whole.

No one is forced to assimilate in modern Canada. Tens of thousands of people from all over the world, from places that have living conditions worse even than those found on reserves, immigrate to Canada and find success. These people care no less about their culture of origin than aboriginal people do theirs. They care no less about their history than aboriginal people do theirs. They care no less about their traditions and language than aboriginal people do theirs. Have they been "assimilated"?

If so, tell it to the Chinese community in Vancouver or the Lebanese community in Ottawa. Tell it to the Indian community in Brampton or the Portuguese community. This may be a fact that is inconvenient for the aboriginal industry, who profit off the continued misery of native people, but I don't like the fact that chocolate makes you fat and the chocolate I eat doesn't seem to care.

No amount of meetings with the Prime Minister, "white papers", renovated treaties or twitter campaigns will give to Aboriginal people a standard of living commensurate with that of ordinary Canadians if they choose to live in the margins of society far away and disconnected from the mainstream of Canada.

Hunger strikes and the leveraging of guilt or historic grievances will only secure more face time with politicians and perhaps, if public pressure makes them amenable to the idea, brand new "study groups," committees and white, green, blue or rainbow papers.

Appeals to guilt, by the way, will become increasingly unsuccessful over time as Canada changes and people become increasingly removed, both temporally and demographically from the origin of the grievance. This fact might be unpleasant, but it is true and inevitable, much like another unpleasant fact connecting good health to exercise; I don't like this fact -- my waistline seems oblivious to the displeasure.

Whatever compensation or land that is owed to Aboriginals according to signed treaties should be paid to them. But their future lies in independence, the independence gained by wealth, success and yes, integration.

#IdleNoMore: A Movement of Platitudes?

2012-12-28T08:02:40-05:00

Justin Trudeau, minister of nothing and Liberal critic for "youth, post-secondary education, and amateur sport" requested a meeting with Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence and received one.

John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for the Government of Canada requested a meeting and has been ignored. #idletousefulmeetings? Currently on day 16 of her hunger strike, Chief Spence has also refused to meet with Patrick Brazeau, former national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or government officials and their representatives.

Were this a complete blackout of all political parties it would perhaps carry substantive meaning (a condemnation of the Canadian system in its entirety) but Chief Spence has instead had no problem meeting with members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) or the Liberal Party for what appear to be little more than photo opportunities.

This is the same Liberal Party, mind you, that has had a federal majority government for the lion's share of the last quarter decade -- in other words, all of the time leading up to, and likely while, Attawapiskat was in tatters or on its way there.

#IdleNoMore has a temporary momentum, but unless it answers three basic questions its momentum has a very real expiry date:

1) What are the specific demands of the #IdleNoMore movement? Chief Spence has said that her strike is ultimately about "respect." Well, feeling respected is an emotion -- what specifics are the Idle No More movement looking to change? Repeal of Bill C-45? Removal of the Indian Act? Platitudes about "respect" require detail unless you are Aretha Franklin.

2) Why should the threat of self-harm be considered a legitimate tactic with which to obtain a meeting with the Prime Minister? If ambassadors from the Campaign Life Coalition decided to go on a hunger strike until the Prime Minister agreed to meet with them and discuss the prospect of rights for the unborn, I suspect that a large number of Canadians would be talking about "bad precedents" and "extortion." Idle No More may very well be somehow different -- tell us why.

3) Is this about improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians or using their suffering to improve the lives of aboriginal elites and score political points against the Conservative government?

There is an aboriginal poverty industry in Canada that makes money off the suffering of aboriginals just as there is an urban poverty industry in the United States that makes money off the suffering of black and brown people. Both are industries that always focus on funding or money ahead of initiatives that change behaviour or habits.

In both industries, the primary beneficiaries are bureaucrats who administer "programs" and people from poor communities who maneuver themselves into positions where they benefit from members of their community remaining poor and uneducated. If Idle No More is different, and perhaps it is, tell us why.

Conditions for aboriginals in our country must improve and the status quo is unacceptable. Including a status quo that trades on platitudes and empty words instead of concrete solutions.

Blaming Violence on Guns and Mental Illness? Too Easy

2012-12-21T12:35:19-05:00

The tragic shooting in Connecticut, like the tragic one before it in Colorado, once again has the public seeking answers and pundits seeking the easiest answers to give. Guns and mental illness -- these are the issues on the tip of the average tongue.

The notion that mental illness is a prerequisite for mass murder or could even serve as a complete explanation is a strange one that appears to have surreptitiously become entrenched in the public consciousness. Like a number notions entrenched in the public consciousness, it's untrue, as having a mental illness increases the chances that you will be a victim of violence as opposed to a perpetrator.

Should we be seriously concerned about mental states and murder, we would be best served in discouraging the consumption of alcohol as few other things are so ubiquitously associated with violence. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, as many as 86 per cent of homicide offenders were drinking at the time of offense. The American Journal of Public Health found that communities and neighborhoods that have more bars and liquor stores per capita experience more assaults.

Furthermore, If we expect our already struggling and overburdened teachers to also screen children for mental health issues, all the while wrestling with students -- many of whom have behavioral problems -- we might as well go full bore, double their pay, give them custody and call them "parents."

The second easy answer is that guns are the problem -- but mass shootings make a very poor case for gun control. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in America, as does the city of Chicago. In a particularly confusing juxtaposition, proponents of gun bans are often opponents of drug bans and argue that drug bans "don't work" when it comes to substances like Marijuana (and they're right). The curious fact of this juxtaposition seems to be missed by them.

In any event, regardless of an environment that is often not in opposition to restricting access to handguns or automatic weapons, there has been an increase in mass shootings and in some cities, an increase in shootings, period. In 2012 there were more Americans killed in Chicago than Afghanistan; the city has over 400 homicides (usually involving handguns) and some of the strictest gun laws in America. This despite the fact that handguns in Chicago are effectively banned.

So far as mass killings go, a majority of the people involved have no criminal records and obtained their guns legally. Criteria that would deny them gun ownership would also deny it to ordinary people who have done no wrong. The level of planning involved in the average mass shooting -- the killers are arriving in body armor and in black fatigues -- makes it unlikely they would have been prevented from carrying out their massacres if gun bans were in place.

Extensive background checks, waiting periods and other initiatives are more effective at preventing ordinary crime than extraordinary planned violence. Killers in mass shootings typically arrive with multiple guns and have a fair amount of time to carry out their shootings.

The difference in the total number of casualties is not impacted by the availability of automatic weapons over semi-automatic (automatic weapons fire continuously when the trigger is held down, semi-automatic weapons require the trigger to be pulled for each bullet to be fired). This is not to say there is no room for improvement in the manner that guns are distributed, or perhaps a waxing of the American obsession with guns, but it is to say we need to look to some of the less easy answers if we are interested in stopping these incidents.

Mental illness is not a new or exclusively American phenomenon. Neither is widespread gun ownership (look at Switzerland). Neither is crime or bullies (both at schools and in the workplace).

Economic instability is also not new, America's economy has, like ours, oscillated between good, bad and back throughout its history. What has changed, in a manner difficult to put to words, is the way parents raise their children and the way individuals treat one another.

It feels as though these killings are in some ways evidence of America's general moral decline. Families are the building blocks of a society. And in the United States, those building blocks have become increasingly broken and fragile, with many children born into divorced or broken homes.

When the children in these homes have underlying mental health issues or are bullied (Amanda Todd's tragic death is another example) there are fewer resources to help them overcome these obstacles and they are more vulnerable to tragedy.

Mass killings do not make a good argument for gun control, but they might make a good argument for taking steps to make sure that our homes, the incubators of future citizens and where all of these young killers began their lives as young innocent children, are up to the serious business of raising them.

Post-Election, America Should Be Ashamed

2012-11-06T23:47:04-05:00

This Presidential election was a cacophony of noise, nattering and nonsense from its start to its ignoble and therefore entertaining finish. It was a success for Canadians in that it achieved two great things: the first, our entertainment, and the second, a reminder that despite the fact that it is sometimes very boring here, Canadians have it pretty good.

America has become an increasingly broken country filled with increasingly broken people from increasingly broken homes, attending increasingly broken schools and living in increasingly broken communities. The wake of this election will prove the increasingly broken nature of the very method they vote and the increasing number of Americans who question the very nature of American democracy -- with talk of "election rigging," or "people voting for handouts" to be ubiquitous in coming months.

This election has reduced American prestige in the eyes of many Canadians. Not because of who won, but because of everyone who lost -- observers interested in bipartisan solutions to America's problems.

BLOG CONTINUES BELOW SLIDESHOW...

As I predicted, the introduction of Paul Ryan as a running mate not only made Obama's victory inevitable but also failed to make the national conversation about reforming America's entitlement programs any more substantive. It instead, as I predicted, made those conversations all the more frivolous.

The media talk is of course always about how politicians are failing America but never about what a sad failure so many Americans have become. Many, it is clear, will not only believe things without evidence and consider this a virtue, but have no concept of what evidence is in the first place.

This explains what was the initial popularity of Donald Trump and the Birther crowd, the pseudo-intellectual and self-absorbed indolence of the Occupy Movement, the low-brow bigotry of the Tea Party and other entertaining contributions to the campaign from luminaries like Herman Cain or Rush Limbaugh. This Presidential Campaign generated enough heat to warm the oceans but barely enough light to brighten a darkened room. We saw an America faced with enormous problems and how small it has become in the face of them.

And how could anyone forget the voter focus groups?! It was at times torture to listen to the contemptible "voters" slumped in their chairs on CNN, MSNBC or Fox news saying they were "undecided" despite all the available information about either candidate. All they were truly undecided about was how to maximize their time on television.

These elections were entertainment of the vulgar, yet engrossing kind, much akin to watching episodes of the Maury Show subtitled, "Are YOU the father?" Further, we learned something about the American voter that will be used in future campaigns courtesy of the Romney campaign: facts can be ignored and there will be no consequences.

If there were 300 million Canadians would our politics be equally sordid? Would our crime levels be as high? Would we be accusing the Prime Minister, were they born to a parent from Africa or Asia of being secretly born in China or Zimbabwe or being *gasp* a Muslim?

Would the trumpets of our hatemongers sound as loud as their American counterparts? I don't think they would. We hear a great deal about American exceptionalism but I think that perhaps it's Canada that's "exceptional" and perhaps time we began behaving that way. Congratulations President Obama.

Will Debates Teach Canadian Politicos the Value of Sass?

2012-10-17T08:21:54-04:00

Four years ago Senator Obama squared off against Senator McCain in a town hall meeting for their second debate. Four years later many things were surprisingly similar -- the President was again in a debate with a challenger who it appeared did not like him personally, again facing an opponent who was older than he, and again Canadians were glued to their seats.

President Obama won his first town hall debate against Senator McCain by making him appear ill-tempered and at times, unhinged. The President's constancy and even temper which have been assets for him in prior debates, were at times in question on Tuesday night when he appeared desperate to speak over Governor Romney. Still, the performance was sufficient for the President to emerge the victor and halt his opponent's dangerous momentum. Romney fumbled badly at times, particularly when saying in-artful things like, "Government does not create jobs", while running for head of government and promising to create jobs. Or referring to troubling sources of American energy as coming from "The Arabs," a point on which many around me visibly cringed.

This election is surprisingly close -- 11 battleground states (totalling 141 electoral votes) were up for grabs going into Tuesday's contest. In the 2008 elections Senator Obama was leading John McCain in every single one of those battleground states, and in some of them he was ahead by double digits. Now he finds himself behind or in a position too close to call, often within the statistical margin of error. Obama succeeded Tuesday in convincing many Americans in key states like Pennsylvania or Colorado to give his candidacy a second look.

BLOG CONTINUES BELOW PHOTOS

It is easy to understand why Americans cared about these debates -- it is their country, after all. It is easy to understand why 67-million Americans watched the first Presidential debate and a similar number probably watched the second. What is less easy to understand, and more interesting, is why Canadians did. Four years ago we were glued to our seats watching Senator Obama debate Senator McCain and four years later, at the pub where I watched the debate, dozens of 20-somethings were glued to their stools and attentive to televisions that would ordinarily be airing hockey games or UFC fights.

These folks (I checked) had no idea what a Pell Grant was -- only that they were in favour of more of them. They had no idea what either candidate meant by "clean coal" or how The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would ration healthcare -- though they were in favour of that too.

Another group had no clear understanding of how the U.S. Senate worked or where precisely Libya was, with many thinking it was in the Middle East. And yet there they sat -- enamored with both speakers, transfixed and opinionated. There was to them one candidate who shared their values and one who did not, one candidate who they wished desperately to win and another whose every stumble they applauded.

Part of the Canadian attraction to American political discourse is of course the tremendous importance of our trade relationship. And another perhaps the historic nature of Barack Obama's Presidency, but neither of these reasons are satiating. Canadians are watching these debates because they are convinced that America and its values matter in the world, and that our proximity to those values means that by osmosis they are at least in part, Canadian values. When America behaves poorly we feel betrayed and embarrassed. When it appears ugly and intolerant, we feel the need to be its opposite, in part, because we believe that our mere presence to its North creates some compensating effect.

If Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper or Thomas Mulcair seek to inspire Canadians they would do well to take a page from our neighbours to the south and convince Canadians, no, tell them, that we are not just another country. That we are not another Norway or Iceland or some state in Europe that although it has a great reputation doesn't really matter. That Canadians have an important role to play the future of, as grand as it sounds, humankind. Americans already believe they do.

Why Justin Trudeau Is the Liberal Party's Biggest Liability

2012-10-05T12:07:28-04:00

The American Presidential debate was really interesting but I wonder why Mitt Romney or Barack Obama didn't address the most vital issue for the future of Americans -- Justin Trudeau. I live in Ottawa, our nation's capital. I was walking home the other day when I saw Justin Trudeau walking a few metres away from me -- on the water. I had a dream the other night that I'll never forget -- I saw Jesus kneeling down, praying to a figure in the distance. After focusing on the figure in the distance I realized it was Justin Trudeau, Jesus was asking Justin Trudeau to save him.

If the Liberal party thinks they will be saved by Justin Trudeau, the Liberal party is in for a rude, but potentially hilarious, awakening. He may very well be a good candidate for leader and everyone I know who has met him has nothing but positive things to say, but any misstep for him, presuming he wins the nomination, will be disastrous for the Liberal party.

Trudeau is like a nuclear missile -- he's great to have in your pocket, no wait, that analogy makes no sense. Trudeau is like something that could blow up in your face, destroying everything around you or, if used properly, save you from being eaten by zombies or dragons or you know -- some kind of carnivore.

Trudeau is dangerous because he can be easily caricatured by the Conservatives and the NDP. The Liberal party will have to be incredibly careful in shaping his narrative -- his story, because if they're not, if they allow his opponents to define him, he will do horrible damage to the Liberal brand.

Justin Trudeau is not Barack Obama -- he was not born into poverty, he did not spend years being a community advocate or overcome some enormous burden. He did not accomplish (near as I can tell) anything to suggest he is terribly special or unique. There is no compelling narrative, no story here that is inspiring to a normal person.

Most Canadians in their 20s or 30s have no memory of Pierre Trudeau. All that Justin Trudeau is to us is a good-looking young guy whose dad was Prime Minister and our parents or grandparents mentioned while eating turkey on Thanksgiving that one time. If the Liberal party can shape the narrative around Trudeau, make his story appealing to the common man, make his story our story, then they have a serious chance of serious success.

If I was an advisor for the Conservatives or NDP I would be salivating at the opportunity to define Justin Trudeau to Canadians. Think of the odious narrative you could construct about "Prince" Justin Trudeau. How can any ordinary person relate to being born into the equivalent of Canadian royalty? If the Conservatives or NDP paint him as a spoiled brat who believes he is destined to be Prime Minister because it is owed to him, that he has never accomplished anything but expects everything, it will be the end of him.

In fact, Trudeau's popularity is largely due to Harper's incredible unpopularity. To a significant number of Canadians the man cannot catch a break; it doesn't matter how well Canada is doing compared to the rest of the G8, it doesn't matter what we do in Libya, or whether our banking system is sound or whether our currency is strong, if Steven Harper said that water was his favourite drink, these people would die of thirst.

And therein lies the future for the Liberals -- they have an opening. Many voters plugged their noses and voted for the NDP simply because they hated Steven Harper. People are looking for another place to park their vote -- it's up to Trudeau and the Liberals to convince them that their parking spot has the best view.

Wow -- what was that!? Outside my window as I write this blog post Justin Trudeau has just flown past. He can fly?! Behind him are a red and white flash of colours and the sound, I think, of angels singing.