Honestly. Out comes another report from another committee that puts forth the ‘controversial’ position that “hey, maybe if the RCMP is accused of doing something wrong, we shouldn’t let the RCMP investigate it.

From the report:

“Can the current process of the RCMP investigating itself legitimately engender confidence in the transparency and integrity of the criminal investigation and its outcome?

“Based on the results of our research and analysis, the informed commission answer is that it cannot.”

Canada, this is Responsible Government 101, and we’re failing it badly.

When a police force is accused of wrongdoing, it should be investigated by an independent body. Not because the RCMP is inherently bad, or it’s members untrustworthy. Because RCMP officers are human beings and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. (Unless Harper has one hell of an election platform up his sleeve.)

Human beings with their own biases and loyalties and preconceptions and all sort of other baggage.This isn’t even an academic question: the RCMP have shown many times that their internal investigation policies, at the very least, suspect.

That’s why we have police forces, courts and the justice system in the first place – because we figured out long ago that is when it comes to criminal misconduct, you need to have an impartial investigator.

That’s the only answer that will be accepted. No partial marks.

Right, everyone as seen it by now, but it’s always nice to have a refresher.

Anyway, what has me so perplexed is the fact that, unlike seemingly everyone else north of the 49^th, I really wasn’t all that outraged. BlogWorld was on fire. It was all anyone on Twitter could talk about. Even after watching the video a few times, I couldn’t get my finely-tuned sense of indignation to fire. I was Outrage Impotent – a serious and embarrassing condition.

I simply couldn’t bring myself to care too much. Disturbing, because I’m usually the first one out there with the pitchfork when I pick up on a slight, real or perceived. But here…not so much.

Sure, it was ignorant. Sure, it was cheap. Sure, it was extraordinarily insensitive.

But, it’s just that it comes as absolutely no surprise. Red Eye plays on Fox News, after all. I don’t have a great opinion of most news organizations, especially in the US. But Fox is at the bottom of the barrel. Not only that, but Greg Gutfeld’s little comedy show plays at 3am. Three o’clock in the morning. How good can the guy be? They put him up against Law & Order re-runs and extended Snuggie infomercials.

So no, I wasn’t all that outraged. Gutfeld isn’t funny, he isn’t original. He’s got a show that plays like a fratboy trying to impress his friends – he has to try and be edgy. (What’s sad is that he thinks making fun of the Canadian military is ‘edgy.’ It’s not. We do it here all the time. It’s low-hanging fruit.)

Just like you can’t be outraged when an poorly-trained dog takes a shit on your front step, you can’t get mad when a second-rate funnyman tells hack-eyed jokes to get attention. It’s just his nature. We should all be proud of Greg Gutfeld for having the restraint not to have a diaper on his head when he said his little Gregalogue. (Case in point – he actually calls it that. It’s not even a pun, it’s just….hard to say.)

No. I wasn’t mad at Greg Gutfeld before. But then this happened.

“The March 17th episode of Red Eye included a segment discussing Canada’s plan for a ’synchronized break,’ which was in no way an attempt to make light of troop efforts,” host Greg Gutfeld said in a statement issued Monday.

“However, I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize. (emphasis mine)

Fuck you, Greg Gutfeld.

Comedy is about taking down sacred cows, by making people think by poking and prodding at convention and common sense. Comedy does it better than any other form of art.

That’s the one thing you had going for you – you weren’t funny, but at least you gave it a shot. But now you come back with this non-apology. Your “words may have been misunderstood”? Bullshit. You meant every single on of those words. When you did, maybe you thought that clips from your waste of airtime wouldn’t get back to us up here. Or maybe you didn’t think that the backlash would be as strong as it was. (Either way, you were dead wrong.) But you meant to say what you did, and now you’re too much of a coward to stand behind your own words.

That’s what outrages me – public figures that think an insincere statement is enough to fix any situation. “I’m sorry if some were offended…”, “If anyone took my words to mean…”, “I was misunderstood…” We hear it all the time from politicians, from the media, and from washed-up comedians. Those are not apologies, they are conditional statements. A real apology admits error.

A real apology comes with actual regret. A real apology doesn’t just happen to quell outrage.

A real apology isn’t followed by this:

So, Greg Gutfeld, I wasn’t outraged when you poked fun at Canada. Sometimes, I think we’re a bit to sensitive about criticism from the States, so I would welcome more of it. (Although if you could try and make your comedy monologue funny next time, extra points!)

But I’m insulted by your insincere attempts to wiggle out of things, to try and be the provocateur one night and the misunderstood everyman the next. I was okay with you when you were the loud, obnoxious, perfectly-ignorable late-night host. I’m much less down with the cowardly insult to satire.

Of course, guess there is a reason you’re on at 3am, isn’t there?

Just got back from the a delicious Breakfast War with Brittney, Adam, Kendrick and a newcomer – Chris LaBossiere, who was quite nice and fun to talk to, even if he did decide to stay neutral in our morning warfare.

Good times had by all. But, unfortunately, there was a dark cloud out in the horizon. It came in the form of this article in the Globe and Mail:

“Canada’s science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won’t say if he believes in evolution.”

Oh my.

Canada’s man in charge of public funding for scientific research won’t say if he believes in one of the most important theories of the modern age. Well, I’m sure he has a rational explanation for his…oh no, wait. Here it is.

“I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here, Mr. Goodyear. When someone asks you: “Hey, evolution, yay or nay?” they are not asking you about your religious beliefs. They are asking you about your scientific ones. And seeing as you are the top guy when it comes to science and technology in our government, it’s it absolutely appropriate. It’s like asking Peter McKay if he believes in the battlefield usefulness of our shiny new helicopters, or is Bev Oda believes in the effectiveness of international trust exercises. (I have to assume that’s what takes up most of the time for the Minister for International Cooperation.)

The only thing that is inappropriate, Mr. Goodyear, is that you refuse to answer a simple question that directly speaks to your ability to do this important job that we’re paying you to do.

I really don’t care in your religious beliefs. Honestly, I’m not asking that we have an atheist as the Minister of Science and Tech. (Hell, atheism is as unscientific an approach as blind faith, in my books.)

All I want is for the guy holding the purse strings to actually believe in something that the overwhelming scientific community treats as fact. If you can’t do that, you’re not the right person for the job.

Instead, you hide behind religion, acting as if a belief in the scientific method and belief in a higher power are mutually-exclusive. Your faith doesn’t exempt you from having to be qualified for your job. Shame on you.

I was starting to be a little optimistic after the news that perhaps you were getting on track with this whole science thing, especially after your previous missteps. Perhaps I jumped the gun on that.

Update: Ross Prusakowski (@rprus) is a fellow who I don’t often agree with but always enjoy debating with. He brings a fair point to the table: there is no evidence that Goodyear’s beliefs have any impact on the funding choices he makes as minister. That’s true, we can’t say for sure that they have.

But even he is able to keep his personal ideas and his professional conduct completely compartmentalized in a way most people could only dream of, that only leaves us with only one adds another grim option: that Goodyear is allocating funding to research that he has does not think is without merit. If he doesn’t believe in evolution, and yet is still funding it, that’s also a problem. It means that he’s not governing based on good science, or even personal ideology – what else is there but a desire to prevent public outcry. And that’s a bad way of doing things.

So, even if you’re right Ross, I still think that means Goodyear is the wrong selection.

Update II: Wordpress seems to want to eat up all of my line breaks, making me re-enter the HTML every time I edit. Going to try and fix that – if anyone has had this problem before and knows how to fix it, let me know.

Last summer saw a deadly listeriosis outbreak across Canada because of tainted meat from a Maple Leaf plant. And right now, everyone is freaking out every time they get anywhere near peanut butter. (Now I know how the 1% of Canadians feel.)

Now, given all that, you’d think it would be the time to step up and reaffirm the government’s dedication to food safety.

Of course, any astute observer of national politics knows that isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the powers that be think instead it is the perfect time to continue pushing for LESS oversight into the Canadian food industry.

From the CBC:

“Under the proposed changes, called the “poultry rejection program,” slaughterhouse employees would be responsible for monitoring birds as they pass through the production lines, a task usually carried out by veterinarians working for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The changes would also mean slaughterhouses wouldn’t have to make public the reasons why carcasses were rejected, say the veterinarians.”

Okay, I can understand the thinking behind privitazation of social services and regulation. I mean, I don’t agree with it at all – I think it’s a system that is just asking for corruption and abuse. But at the very least, I can understand how someone might (mistakenly) think that it would be more efficient and focused than public agencies.

But I don’t get how this can seem like a good idea. It’s more dangerous than privatizing regulation, and it’s more insulting than simply deregulating.

I know that we’re all living in this post-Obama world of hope and change and good feelings, but no one is so idealistic that this can seem like a good idea. We have food safety rules for a reason – because we think it is important that what we eat in this country meets a minimum standard. If we were confident that the food industry would meet this standard all the time, we wouldn’t need the rules. If we aren’t naive enough to think that the industry will follow this rules, why on earth would we trust them with enforcement of the rules?

The fact is that human beings are hard-wired to cut corners. It is basic evolutionary psychology: an individual that can get the same result using fewer resources is more likely to survive and thrive. That’s why we have regulations in the first place – so that there is a penalty to cutting corners, one that outweighs the benefits.

We leave very few things up to self-enforcement. We don’t trust students to mark their own tests- we have proctors for that.

We don’t trust accused criminals to determine their own guilty – we have judges.

And we shouldn’t be leave the decisions on whether a product is safe for sale to the companies that sell it. It’s not just wrong. It’s absolutely mind-boggling.

This isn’t a partisan issue – this poultry “modernization” (as independent oversight is some how a medieval notion) started under the federal Liberals. But Harper’s Conservatives have embraced the idea whole-heartedly. (Just like his shameful handling of the government probe into last year’s listeria outbreak.)

There is no way the government can be idealistic enough to actually think this will make Canadians safer. So, the only option left is that they are cynical enough to believe that consumers and voters won’t make much of a stink.

And that’s the only thing in this mess they might actually be right about.

Environmental issues used to be at the forefront of the collective Canadian consciousness: it was a huge issue in the lead up to the last federal election (I mean the real one in October, not the will-they, won’t-they soap opera we’ve been treated to recently.)

The issue of a building a greener Canada has, of course, falling to the side after the global economy attempted a high dive into a drained pool. The public at large loses its taste for green initiatives when things are looking dire economically – after all, conventional wisdom is that you can either help the economy, or help the environment, right? It’s a zero-sum game.

Well, like a lot of conventional wisdom, this idea is pretty big on convention and short on actual wisdom. In reality, not only can we give the Canadian economy a jump-start – we can make sure that the booster cables are attached to a renewable energy source.

How? Through feed-in tariffs. It’s concept pioneered by Germany, and had helped make that country into a green energy superpower. In brief, feed-in tariffs are laws that require energy companies to purchase a certain amount of their electricity for a premium from green sources.

Germany’s feed-in tariffs have had the pleasant side effect of encouraging microgrids: instead of large, centralized power companies, smaller individual and community operations have started up. Villages set up solar panels and turbine farms to power their homes and sell the excess back into the grid. Farms and ranches convert animal waste into bio fuel, and use the by-products as fertilizer.

Now, back here, Canada is like Toyland for the renewable energy sect. We have huge tracts of land ideal for wind generation, rivers for hydro, a large ranching industry that produces a literal crapload of biofuel. On top that, in the very northern reaches of the country, we have places where the sun doesn’t stop shining for months at a time. But with all of those resources, we’re still lagging behind in the green energy game. With only 5% of our landmass, Germany is producing 12.5 times the wind energy we do.

Ontario, so far, has been the only province to really experiment with feed-in tariffs, although others are starting their own. The program was, unfortunately, a spectacular failure. Not because the rewards weren’t high enough to get individuals interested – in fact, Ontario’s tariffs were nearly excessive. Instead, the problem was one of infrastructure – individuals were building turbines and solar collectors, but the province wasn’t willing to build the powerlines that would hook these people up to the grid and allow them to sell their excess juice. (The same infrastructure that large, centralized plants don’t seem to have any problem getting built for them.) Without any ability to get connected, microgrids withered on the vine and the initiative failed.

But now, were in a time where the economy has to be jump-started. To do this, the Conservative government will be introducing a budget with healthy amount of infrastructure spending. Increases funding of hard services is one of the basic ways to jumpstart a flagging economy – these labour-intensive projects put money into the pockets of workers and suppliers – with more money in the pockets of these workers, more is spent in the service industry, and the whole economy gets a boost. To climb back of the likelihood of a looming recession, Canada is going to need a new New Deal – public works projects like highways, treatment centres…and power lines.

Right now, the financial situation in this country puts the economy and renewable energy in a rare symbiotic position – both are in need of greater infrastructure to grow. P.E.I, Quebec, B.C, and Saskatchewan are all wither considering or implementing feed-in tariffs – the Harper government should consider allocating some of those economic stimulus funds to encouraging decentralized power production all over the country.

The costs associated with the tariffs are minimal – looking back to the Germans, they are now to the point where 12% of their power consumption is produced through renewable means, and it has ended up raising the average power bill slightly over $2 a month. But this cost would be more than paid for in the economic boost Canada would see not just from infrastructure spending, but through a growth in a new, green industry. Estimates tag the jobs created by renewable energy in Germany to be around the 215,000 mark – more people than are directly employed by the auto industry in Canada, which was so vital to the country that it warranted a $4 billion bailout (which is likely to grow).

We’d not be asking for much under the tree – just some funding in the January budget for infrastructure and a push to institute feed-in tariffs country-wide. Because anytime we can get a little greener while giving the economy a boost – well, that’s pretty much a Christmas miracle.

The Leaders: Harper Re-elected – Dion Re-elected – Layton Re-elected – May Defeated- Duceppe Re-elected

6:51 – The blog lives! And less than ten minutes before CBC’s election coverage starts. I think that shows the lack of preparation and forethought that will become the hallmark of this Internet adventure. Fitting.

And now, the search for themes begins.

6:59 – WE HAVE AN A ELECTION! Peter Mansbridge didn’t even get through his little introduction rhyme without making fun of Harper’s sweatervests. It sounded like Dr Seuss wrote it.

Also, Mansbridge’s head is like a shining beacon of democracy.

7:04 – 22 Minutes was interviewing Dion, and he was wearing aviators! He looked like professor fighter pilot! I would like to change my vote.

7:13 – I was elated when they said that George Stroumboulopoulos had the night off. They actually just meant that The Hour had it off, and old Stroumby is handing out “Darts and Laurels” to the individual candidates. It’s like thumbs up/thumbs down, but far more awkward to say. Still painful.

Although saying that Australia’s Prime Minister ripped off Harper’s speech three days before he made it. I’ll give you that one, Stroumboulopoulos.

7:19 – NEWSFLASH: Young people use Facebook and Twitter! Thanks CBC.

I need a drink.

7:20 – I got a drink.

7:23 – Airfarce takes the stage. Mike Otto :” Bring back Dave Broadfoot.” I concur.

7:30 – Results! Here it comes from Atlantic Canada!

17 LIB – 10 CON – 5 NDP – 1 BLOC – 1 OTHER

The Liberals were the big losers in Atlantic Canada, it looks like. Lost three seats, which left the Conservatives, the NDP and an Indy to pick up one more each over last year.

Elizabeth May didn’t even come close to kicking Peter McKay out. Not even a contest in Central Nova. Ouch.

7:37 – CBC’s commercial buffers are really dark, panning night shots with a very foreboding music. I think Christopher Nolan directed this election.

7:40 – Mike Kendrick: “McGarvey looks likes that guy from the Full Monty.”

7:42 – The CBC definitely wins the contest of the graphics. CTV’s Global’s vote total counter looks like it was designed for a freeware program.

7:47: Conservatives and Liberals are now in a dead heat. Predicted at 41 seats a piece.

7:48: That was out-of-date before I even saved it. Conservatives are ahead now.

7:49: Liberals down almost EIGHT points in Ontario. Jesus.

Thanks to the technology on loan from the CFL broadcasts, they can now draw on their charts with big, thick yellow lines.

Thanks Peter. Without those little yellow lines, I would have NO IDEA where the Liberal votes went. I know that the Cons, NDP and Green all gained, but no way I could make the connection.

7:55 – It’s an early poll, and therefore meaningless, but right now Edmonton – Leduc is leaning NDP with a slim lead. That’s surprising to say the least.

7:57 – Jim Prentice is coasting into an easy win in Calgary-North. Not at all surprising, but it is still disappointing.

8:00 – Polls closed in BC. Now comes the counting. The endless counting.

8:04 – The Edmonton – Leduc anomaly is fixed – solid Conservative win predicted. But right now, Con Jaffer and NDP Duncan are in a DEAD HEAT in my personal riding, Edmonton- Strathcona.

8:06 – CBC has officially predicted a Conservative minority. No surprise. Guest Reporter Brittany LeBlanc confirms the Canadian Press is saying the same thing. At this time of writing, Cons have 118 projected seats.

8:12: More from Brittany Brittney – Harper and Dion both re-elected.

8:27: Layton re-lected easily. Also, I’m quickly losing steaming.

8:28: Wendy Mesley just lost in on air when talking about the Bloc. She sounded like Micheal Geist for a bit there.

8:30: Fortier is owned by the Bloc. Looks like Harper will be sending him back to the Senate.

8:33: Fixed the name of this post. “Living Blogging the Election?” Good job, Scott. Good job.

8:34: Update on Edmonton-Strathcona: Con – 3945 NDP – 3180

Also, close, close race in Sherwood Park between Acceptable Right Wing Uppal – 1384 vs Crazy Right Wing Ford – 1410.

8:42: As the Conservatives gain more seats, I find that my drinks contain more rye and less Coke. Further study into this phenomenon is needed.

8:46: CBC is predicting a minority government for Harper. I’m predicting that Rick Mercer wears out his Blackberry keyboard before the game is done. He is intense into that shit.

8:52: Up until this point, CBC’s election coverage didn’t have close to enough shots of the back of Jim Flaherty’s neck. Thanks for rectifying that one, cameraman. I’m glad that my tax dollars paid for your on-the-job training.

8:59: Baird’s back. Idiot.

9:04: Strathcona update: Looks like it’s going to be Jaffer. He’s up 10,874 to Duncan’s 9,576. Le sigh.

9:10: CBC finally gets around to talking about the Uppal/Ford battle. Must have run out of ridings to discuss in Ontario.

9:12: I’ve decided to follow Dan Rather’s lead. Scott +4. Look it up.

9:13: CBC is talking about Twitter. An indepth analysis of TWITTER STATISTICS! This is intense. Also, best headline ever – “Tweets Dump on Dion.”

9:26- Results aren’t shifting too much, so updates are going to slow down a little bit. I’ve got a midterm tomorrow that I need to study for, and I’m already +5. Will update with any big developments, or if CBC tries to understand the Internet again.

9:31: Mike Otto is taking over as guest live blogger for a bit. He’s emotionally fragile, so be gentle with him.

9:33: Yes while Lilwall is “studying” I’ll keep you updated. By you I mean Brittney, because honestly who else is reading this. SHOUT OUT! Peter has a phone call. It’s for some senator. Also Linda Duncan is narrowing the gap and I remain optimistic.

9:35: Scott: I haven’t even closed the window, and I’m already regretting the Mike Otto Experiment.

9:39: Mike: Jaffer’s lead has been consistently narrowing. 1200, 1100, 1000, 900. Now down to 700. I’m at half mast.

9:41: Mike: Jaffer’s party is at the Ranch? What the hell? Who is this guy? Is he catering to the douchebag-motherfucker demographic?

9:43: Scott: Hope remains. Duncan is closing the gap in Edmonton- Strathcona, and she’s now within 550 votes. May the floors of The Ranch run slick with tears. (The Ranch, seriously?)

9:49: Mike: Quebec’s language is French? THATS UNPOSSIBLE. (Thanks Gilles)

9:53: Mike: CBC is pretty much ignoring the fact that the NDP is owning shit. I am told they had 29 seats last time around, +9 is an impressive gain.

10:01: Mike: The NDP speech cliché cache ’stache: ordinary families check, kitchen table check, boardroom table check, ordinary working families again, ordinary working canadians, real economy, blah blah mwah mwah. UN LEADER SOLIDE!

10:07: Mike: Okay we’re going to play Diplomacy and kill each other. Conclusion: Liberals shit pants, Conservatives/NDP pick up the slack. Green shift? More like blue/orange shift.

10:10: Mike: Super reportress Jen Huygen says Duncan and Jaffer are one vote apart. If she is lying we are no longer friends.

10:20: Mike: Elections Canada reports Duncan on top by 400. I am now fully erect.

11:10: Peter Mansbridge doesn’t understand melancholy?

11:12: Linda Duncan is now up after the Journal reports Jaffer giving his victory speech. Only three polls remain, she leads by 430. Thanks for mentioning it CBC.

Sober thoughts the morning after (Mike): In conclusion, Liberals fail, NDP/Conservatives succeed. Greens sadly still irrelevant. Linda Duncan defeats Jaffer by 442 votes. Congratulations Linda, you get the job of representing all the Liberals, Greens, and NDP folk in the province. CBC fails in spectacular fashion by calling a Jaffer victory, then completely ignoring the biggest upset in the election for a solid hour. Conservatives still have a minority, so thanks Harper, thanks for wasting our time. We’ll see you again in six months.