This little light of mine...

While the real newsmen are as happy as pigs in shit that Dion’s party totally fucked up the Quebec by-elections (so they can just change a few sentences in their mound of reprinted “Dion is totally screwed” articles), I feel it is my job as a so-fake-I-don’t-even-pretend-to-be-a-newsman to shine my flashlight into the oft-ignored underbelly of the by-elections. Of course I mean how the Green Party really is falling into obscurity. Sure they got a new leader, got rid of most of their troublesome staff and tend to be asking for a lot more money these days (apparently to get shudders that go with the new house in New Glasgow aka their election “hope chest”) but they have momentum right?

I mean they finally have all the ingredients to actually become the political force they remind us they are/want to be. They have a leader that people: actually know, listen to, and gets press. They have federal funding and a big upsurge in members (at least they should) as well as success in the last round of by-elections (except that they forgot to register that candidate in Quebec – oops). This should be something they eat up and manage to use to their advantage, especially when there is such a major shift in the political landscape. By-elections are where small parties make their breakthrough, so why didn’t it happen here with the Greens?

In fact they’ve reversed their trend as of the last election. All ridings went down in vote percentage except Saint Hyacinth-Bagot. Sure it slipped 0.1% but that’s pretty negligible. Outremont had the Greens at 2.2% from 4.8% and Roberval-Lac Saint-Jean had the Greens at 1.7% from 4.3%. Alarming trends, if I was involved in planning on having a Green Party around after the next federal election.

This doesn’t seem like a party building on its momentum. It should be able to use the base federal funding to drive in enough new members and contributions to send the party out of a consistent last place. I’m sure up until this point the party has just been coming up with many horrifically complex systems to make sure the associations get some of the federal funding rather than go out into the community to fundraise, raise awareness, and attract members and ever better candidates – you know, politics? I know most outsiders looking in are wondering why the party can’t seem to capitalize on its apparent growth and momentum and I guess maybe I know too much and not enough at the same time. Although I’m pretty sure anything I guess and exaggerate isn’t too far from the truth because I’ve seen them operate and tried to fix it for a few years. It’s like trying to teach a cat to play to banjo. After a certain point you just have to admit it was stupid to even try because it simply won’t happen, no matter how stubborn you are.

The candidates will blame the party, the party will blame the associations, they’ll all complain about lack of money, nobody will actually do anything worthy of getting a vote or improving their situation and we’ll see how things turn out in the next election. I think these by-elections are a good litmus test for where the party will end up. I mean things certainly can’t be going well when you’ve got all the ingredients for more success and you’re doing worse.

There was a lot of optimism, in some cases renewed optimism, in the Greens when their leader finished second in the London by-election. Where was she for these by-elections? It makes me wonder how committed she is to the party’s success compared to her own? Why hasn’t the party been able to simply get its shit together and be able to challenge for seats, when people are tuned into the message? It makes me wonder how utterly incompetent you have to be to not be able to come up with an appealing platform to voters who want environmental change?

I guess it is just easier to blame first-past the post for your own failings than actually work hard at becoming appealing to the voters.

It will be interesting to see if the Green Party survives after the next federal election.

---

Oh-oh-whoa that sinking feeling

Hello loyal reader, I'm back from vacation and the co-conspirators have done well in my absence.

I'm now going to explain a metaphor ad-nauseum. Enjoy!

Having just seen the Tall Ships in Halifax, including the remade Bounty for the movie starring Anthony Hopkins and the Anti-semite I don't talk about anymore from Australia, er LA now I suppose, I'm of course talking about rats fleeing a sinking ship. It's just one of those sayings that gets bandied about when people swarm away as fast as they can from some enterprise these days. Well it used to be true. You see, in old wooden sailing ships they all had rats. When they started to sink the rats did what they could to reach higher ground. Sailors would scramble after them if a wave of rats ran by because it usually meant the water was rising fast. You've seen Titanic so you'll know what I'm talking about.

Here's the thing about rats. They're actually kind of smart and a lot like people. Sure they're pestilent but have you listened to anything John Tory has said recently? It's why rats are used in experiments. They're a lot like us in intelligence and genetic make-up.

So, sailors take notice. The rats are fleeing. When the best candidate moves on, and the only one I respected from my time there who improved as a candidate and deserves to win, not on privilege or ideas but on hard work, for greener pastures a watery grave can't be far behind.

---

That horse doesn't look so well...

If you go to their website and read these blogs here, you’ll see that the Green Party members are discussing the whole appeasement thing as well and are trying to circle the wagons with the same indifference and sense of urgency they fight elections with. If you go read a bit of them you’ll start to understand why I left. It’s not that they are discussing this subject or making somewhat well reasoned arguments from time to time, it’s that nobody is actually concerned about what the real issue was. There’s claim that the uproar is that Elizabeth May used the word “Nazis.” Sorry, that’s not it.

The uproar is that she used the word “worse” or “more culpable” which amounts to the same thing. Although, I have to admit, I’m a little uncomfortable that so many of their members are arguing to reclaim the analogy. You might think you can have intellectual non-bias, but you’re arguing to be able to compare things to Hitler and that’s just not right.

Until the environment starts lining up the citizens of Canada to shoot them in the head, gas them in work camps and burn them in ovens, our government is not “worse” than Chamberlain for being inactive on the situation. That's the issue.

Also, from the Globe and Mail we have a quote from Ms. May, "If you can't make a comment about the Second World War without immediately being charged with having said something about the Nazis and the Holocaust, then we really do impoverish the dialogue and our own historical set of references." Here’s the thing Ms. May – you actually did say something about the Nazis, whether or not you were quoting someone else. And just because other politicians did it doesn’t make it any better. I would have to say that referring to organized genocide impoverishes the dialogue this country so desperately needs to enter on climate change.

---

...and then, it Get's Better!

Okay time for a link-dump post on my favourite subject.

Let's see - Paul Wells. Paul, you had me at "emphasis added." Scott Feschuck, again, after the first bit, see his Inviolable Rule of Politics #178. Heck even her new best friend Dion is "uncomfortable" according to The Star.

And I guess if you believe this, then I was cast out of the garden, well more like Orthanc, I guess.

---

More Free Advice I Assumed People Knew Already

Well it seems Scott Feschuck has beat me to it (after the rant about Bob Cole), but I’ll be giving out this handy-dandy list of okay and not-okay moments to bring up the Nazis.

Okay

• You’re a veteran of WWII.
• You are teaching world history and are between the years 1933 and 1945.
• You have just released a book, movie, or television series exploring some aspect of WWII Germany.
• You are doing a news story on neo-Nazi movements, or possibly genocide.
• You are shooting them in Call of Duty 3, or any other WWII based game.
• You are talking about Sgt. Rock beating up Nazis (or Ratzis) with his .50-calliber ammo belts that he uses as good luck charms.
• You are a comic-book creator/fan/collector and are referring to war-time comics with Nazi Gorillas or Cowboys fighting Nazis on the moon.

Not-Okay

• Comparing them to anyone or any group who (and here’s the important part) didn’t try to annihilate an entire people.
• You are seeking election to the House of Commons.
• Referring to the person who keeps playing their music on the boom-box as a Radio-Nazi – see point one.
• Referring to anyone you just don’t like, or agree with, as some form of Nazi – see point one.
• Anything remotely complimentary.

This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it should help. The trick is to not come off as hysterical by making flippant claims because the thing is - Hitler and the Nazis were really really evil. Global warming isn’t great (or totally unavoidable if we’re to believe what you’re saying) but it’s melting some ice and while it could possibly flood the riding you’re trying to win, it’s not organized, intentional and immediate genocide by one group of people on another. Unless the group of people you’re criticizing actually did do something similar, it’s best to leave Nazis out of it. In fact, just don’t ever bring up Hitler and the Nazis as long as you’re seeking election (or running an advocacy group for the environment). Seriously, just don't. Ever. No matter what.

So let’s say you’ve made the mistake of comparing people who aren’t organizing a genocide to the Nazis, what should you do?

• Apologize as soon as possible for trying to be sensational thus being flippant to the victims of the Nazi regime. Don't equivocate or claim to be quoting someone else because it makes any criticism of you easier to stick.

Of course there are less effective approaches, such as:

• Try to get Harper or Baird to refer to someone as a Japanazi thus making him look worse in terms of WWII-regime comparisons.
• Making a joke about how there should be a Stalinist party to go with the other two communism-based parties in Canada.
• Getting the former leader to blog on your party’s homepage where he compares a provincial leader grabbing a seat in the gallery of the provincial legislature to veterans giving their lives to defend democracy.
• Standing by your comments and hoping voters will understand.

---

#1 Thing to Never do as a Politician

Okay, I wanted to write something about the City with Stagger trying to pass a by-law that makes businesses liable to clean graffiti from their own walls or face fines but Elizabeth May has decided to open her mouth and insert a jack-booted foot.

For the party that claims to have revolutionized politics with internet technology I’m amazed nobody ever mentioned Godwin’s Law to Ms. May. You never ever bring up the Nazis in comparison to anything without losing all credibility instantly - you've run out of anything relevant to say. I could say that she has just invalidated any claim the Green Party had to comment on the environment because of this, but who am I to make such claims? The moment someone feels required to, or simply chooses to, bring up the Nazis for comparison it ends the conversation/debate/validity of the speaker's opinion. It has lost all possible cache it once had. Rounding up specific groups of people and trying to eradicate them is not the same as melting the polar ice caps with car emissions – out of context or not, it was still foolishly used as a comparison. And this isn’t about being new to politics, it’s about not being a total jackass.

If you want people on your side on any issue - don't bring up unequivicle genocide. Don't compare your opposition to one of the most brutal regimes in history if you want people to deal with things in context. By bringing up something so horrific you've removed all context of any point you were trying to make.

I do have to say that my time spent working for the Greens was peppered with just a few too many people who constantly brought up the Nazis. I was at council meetings where people brought up the Nazis, I would be on the phone with potential candidates who would bring up the Nazis, I’d get anonymous e-mails comparing high-end donors to Nazis, it was a bit disturbing really.

But on a lighter note, I have to say that John Baird takes the best photos of a politician ever. Seriously, he’s always totally freaking out, and that, is awesome. If you follow the link he looks like he’s trying to impress his frat brothers by forcing out a fart or someone just ate his last can of ravioli.

---

Green Party gets crap together - for about five minutes

The only thing I've ever seen the Green Party do effectively was get rid of people. They've managed to actually do it in a fairly effective manner this time with Kevin Potvin. Now it's only a matter of time before the rest of them chirp up.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Dan Baril has thrown in the towel. Why hire political advisors and strategists when you can do it all yourself?

---

Green Party 2, Sanity 0

Well I wanted to get a proper introduction post ready before going live but those wacky Greens forced me to jump over the top early. As you can see the kinks are still being worked out here as I populate the sidebar and finish inviting the other contributors.

So I’ll give the most cursory of backgrounds then jump right in to what will most likely be a running theme in my posts – The Green Party is Stupid. You see, I worked for them for the last three years, and the two most important general elections for the party to date but I left out of utter utter frustration. Yes, I used two utters they are that frustrating. So, there’s that plus I just wanted to kind of have an outlet to talk about Ottawa and pretty much anything else that strikes my fancy. I’ll get into more details on the real intro post.

So while we have an acclaimed candidate out west claiming 9/11 was beautiful, and he stands by those claims we have Elizabeth May making a coalition of the willing. If I actually had a membership in the Greens I’d be asking for some answers pretty damned quickly or turning it in and just jumping to the Liberals, which is apparently okay – well from what Dion and May are saying anyway. There is no need for a Green Party when the leader is endorsing the Liberals and the Liberal leader.

There is a difference between doing politics differently and doing politics poorly. Guess which one it is when you’re supporting the competition? Oh well, at least they don’t have the party structure or apparatus to get rid of the guy who thinks passenger planes smashing into buildings killing thousands of New Yorkers is beautiful.

You know those stories of people who survive grizzly bear attacks? Today, I understand. I'm grateful to be alive and out of its grasp.

---