Omnivore's Frustration

I like to think of myself as a foodie. It's the posh thing for the urban, 20-something, academic to be. But in all seriousness, I've grown up in an ethno-religious culture that places faith, family and food all in the same circle. So it's not like I parade around as if I am some sort of connoisseur. Rather, my relationship with food is built around the tables I eat my meals on and who is sitting with me. Food, as an expression of who we are and how we relate to our family and the community, is the perfect expression of who we are as a people and the timeless avenue for growing relationships. Which brings me to the title of my post, the omnivore's frustration.

I dislike it greatly when vegetarians regard me as a "meat-eater" or "carnivore" when addressing which dishes were brought for them and which were prepared for everyone. Usually, it goes something like this,

Meat Eaters! Remember that the grilled vegetables and the rice casserole are for the vegetarians and if there are any leftovers once we have all had 'firsts' then help yourselves in moderation.

Ok, ok. I can hear your comments already. And, yes, I am going to make a big deal out of a "technicality." I am not strictly a "meat-eater" and I would, believe it or not, enjoy some grilled vegetables and the rice casserole, because when you think about it; the hot dogs and boiled corn do not constitute a balanced, well-rounded supper. In fact, corn is a grain and the hot dogs can only really be considered "meat" in the loosest of terms. I have no vegetables in my meal unless we count the sauerkraut. And yeah, the vegetarians do not have meat either. But then again, that's their choice to fore go that part of their diet.

My response goes something like this:

Vegetarians! Should you host a potluck or attend one, you ought to be prepared that all the omnivores in the room will want some of your vegetables because, guess what, we eat them. And if that means you have to make triple the recipe, then that's what you should probably do if you want to eat all you want. To call all omnivore's "meat eaters" really isn't the correct term. I know, you probably just singling out those who eat meat like you've been singled out all your choice-driven life but it doesn't feel nice. It goes beyond being rude and is straddling the realm of ignorant. And for a people that claim to be "all up" on the food "scene" you really ought to recognize your omnivore brothers and sisters as who they really are: vegetarians who eat nuts, fish, dairy, and meats.

Like any good host, one needs to be aware of their guests. I have a friend who is Muslim and does not eat pork, a distinction which I ought to keep in mind when having a party. If I had a friend who was vegetarian, I'd provide more than a garden salad and a bottle of Kraft's Ranch dressing. In fact, the majority of the food we eat should be nuts, fruits and vegetables. The best thing a vegetarian who is hosting a party can do, is serve a modest portion of meat for each omnivore to accompany a wide spread of vegetables, fruits, and dairy products. If you're serving meat explicitly, like a chicken breast or a pork chop, most omnivores will skip taking a generous helping of lentil soup or chickpea curry. And for good measure, just label those dishes as the "vegetarian option" on a card beside the pot or bowl and omnivores will get it. We don't live in caves (well, not all of us).

And that's my rant. To end, here's a variety of links that I found when Googling "omnivore's frustration" and other fun food related things.

Cheers!

• Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan - Brought to you by The Sun Chaser.

• Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals - Food from a factory farm point of view.

• A response to Omnivore's Delusion - Brought to you by Food dot Change dot Org.

Where have all the Red Tories gone?

It is not so much controversial being a member of Progressive Bloggers to claim Red Tory status, but I'll put it this way: it isn't praised.

Lawrence Martin asked the question "Is there an old-style Tory in the House?" in today's Globe and Mail. And I'm here to answer it: no, Lawrence. There isn't. And who is to blame? Unfortunately, Red Tories themselves, it seems. Well, some of us anyways.

The old Tories have few but themselves to blame for their demise, starting with the 1993 election when they reduced themselves to two seats. Another critical moment came in 2003 when they staged a disastrous leadership convention, electing Peter MacKay by way of a backroom deal with David Orchard. The party left that convention in no shape to continue on its own. This allowed Mr. Harper, the Alliance leader, to move in for the kill.

His dominance has been such that, even if he fell on hard times and decided to move on, the right side of the party probably would still be in a strong enough position to dictate a successor. Moderate Tories have a couple of potential leaders. One is Bernard Lord, the former premier of New Brunswick, who would be strong down east and in Quebec. Another is Environment Minister Jim Prentice, who’s trying to maintain his image as a major player while being given nothing to do on the climate-change file.

The question of whether old-style Tories can ever return to claim control of the party is of defining importance. The Canada we know was built by two moderate parties. It was a blend of the centre and the centre-left. If the old Tories don’t re-emerge, the Canada of the future will be measurably different – a hybrid of the centre and the hard right.

What Mr. Martin is calling "old Tories" or "old-style Tories" he really means Progressive-Conservatives or British North American conservatives. Is there a truly BNA conservative left in the Conservative Party? I doubt it. Even those who he has mused as potential succssors to Harper, Bernard Lord and Jim Prentice, would not alone bring the Conservative Party back into the realm of BNA conservative tradition in this country.

To do so the party cannot just hold a leadership change and claim that they are a new brand (or old brand, considering your position) of conservatism in Canada, they'll need to govern. And through governance putting forward a decidedly progressive-conservative cabinet. This new Red Tory PM would need to gut the Harperite and Canadian Alliance loyalists from the party by making it clear that they are not going to have cabinet posts. The guard will have to change.

Consider this, there are a dozen or so former Reform Party MPs still in Harper's government, some in Cabinet. There are a handful of former Progressive Conservatives, like Peter "The Worm" MacKay and Jim Prentice. However, both of these men have done little to shape this government's views on the issues of Foreign Policy, National Defense, Industry or the Environment that is remotely in the scope of progressive-conservative political tradition. They've kept their mouths shut and done what they were told. If either of these two run for leader of the post-Harper CPC, the real test will be their first two weeks as Prime Minister, if they ever get the chance. A dangerous experiment, I know.

And so, I propose that there are very few, if any, Red Tories left in the government. But the few that are do have shining moments. I'd propose that Scott Brison is one of them. Ralph Goodale would have made a great Red Tory. Garth Turner, but he's gone. Jean-Pierre Blackburn could be in the Red Tory camp given his previous tenure in parliament under Mulroney and his loyalty to federalism during the Bouchard revolt. Keith Martin (although he started out as a CA MP). Flora MacDonald flies the Red Tory flag in the Senate.

After that, I can't think of very many. Men like MacKay and Prentice are considered Red Tories or BNA conservatives by default, however their actions in this government have proven that they are more willing to take their lumps from Harper if it means being in cabinet. There are a number of Liberals and New Democrats who, if they were born in a different decade, would have made cabinet with a number of Progressive Conservative governments. The same goes for a number of Green Party members. Former GPC leadership candidate and right-hand-man David Chernushenko would have made a fine PC.

The ultimate test of the PC/CA merger will be the face of the CPC when Harper is gone. The party has not put together a real plan for governance since the 2006 election, and even that is questionable. The CPC has relied on one crucial pillar to their election strategy: we're not Liberals. Remind people that they are NOT Chretienists or Martinites and that will suffice. After all, it was the Liberals that drove the PC and CA parties (despite the PC membership) together in the first place!

What was the 2006 election won on...? Policy? Cutting taxes? Leadership? No, no and no. It was won by the very fact that Stephen Harper was not a Liberal. And the Liberals were equally as policy inept as all they could muster was a tired "hidden agenda" chorus. 2008 was decided on perceptions of leadership; which pitted "weak" Liberals against "strong" Non-Liberals - Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. Policy be damned! To hell with a "vision" for the country! What the CPC is built on is an identity that is "not Liberal" and nothing else.

Letting Harper walk and flushing the party of Harperites and Canadian Alliance loyalists and putting policy first is what will need to drive the progressive revival of the CPC in a Post-Harper party. Anything less and we'll see another Reformer leading the party and the relaunching of Canadian Republicanism.

CPC v2.0 is going to be years away, my friends. Which will trigger responses from Liberals, Greens and New Democrats which will hopefully lead to a better result than that of January 2006.

Police Chiefs: Enemies of the Harper State

The War on Information rolls on.

First it was the Blitz: a "Shock and Awe" campaign to blindside policymakers, industry, churches, universities and the general public by castrating the mandatory long-form census.

As things spiraled out of control, Harper sent in the troops led by General Tony Clement. Casualties began to rise. Canada's Chief Statistician resigned. And so, Tony marched back to the House. Only a small group of Francophones found a "chink" in the chain of Tony's armor. However, the diversion was exactly what the government needed. Tony shuffled some questions to appease this group while the issues remained in silence.

All was quiet on the Western front. And the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police blasted the government opening up a second front Harper will have to fight in the War on Information.

"Our support for the long-gun registry is because we use the information contained in that registry virtually every day -- we use it over 11,000 times a day,"

"Our police officers use that information to conduct criminal investigations, they use it to keep communities safe, and they use it to keep themselves safe."

Association members voted on a resolution based on that report, calling for improved communication with police officers and the public on gun-safety issues, better information and intelligence sharing, improved training and operations, as well as the association's "support for the retention of the Canadian Firearms Program in all of its components, including the long-gun registry," Blair said.

The association voted unanimously to adopt the resolution, which calls on police officials to promote the registry's value to both politicians and the public.

The CPC drone turned libertarian will bark that regardless of the CACP's support of the registry it costs too much and that farmers are being victimized through fees and threat of jail time for non compliance. (Sound familiar?) They'll also claim that criminals do not register their guns so how useful can the registry really be?

I had an experience with these situational libertarians. You know, the type that doesn't think same-sex couples should have the ability to get married or that a mosque should be built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero - meanwhile, voter-based subsidies and long-gun registries are socialist programs designed to privilege the liberal "elite" and stomp on the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

Libertarian X feels that the gun registry is an intrusion on their life. They shouldn't have to face fees and the possibility of jail should they not tell the state if they have a gun in their house. After all, owning a gun is their business and since they are a law abiding citizen the state should have no reason to be suspicious. In fact, Libertarian X would go so far as to say that when the government starts to monitor the guns civilians have, we are witnessing the beginning of a police state.

But I ask every situational libertarian a hypothetical for their "principles": If you were a cop and were arriving on the scene of a domestic dispute, would you want want to know if there was a gun in the house?

For years I came to my mailbox and received 10-percenters exclaiming that the local Liberal MP was "soft on crime." Today, the government will dismiss the concerns of the CAPC. Conservative supporters will claim that the police are here to serve us and will do as they are told by their legislative masters.

It is clear that in the case of the gun registry and the census the government is ignorant to common sense, rational thought, practical applications. Straight up: good judgment is thrown out the window.

I want to be clear, the direction the government is leading the country in is dangerous. The origins of this War on Information are becoming clearer. Certain governance mechanisms, the long-form census and the gun-registry, are perceived by this government as Liberal institutions regardless of the universality of their application and use by both public and private sectors. Eliminating these mechanisms serves a dual purpose: I.) it affirms a base that has been largely ignored by this government since being elected in 2006; and II.) actively skews information available to ministry staff, placing greater discretion on the opinions and beliefs of elected officials in policymaking.

One of the father's of Canadian foreign policy once said, "when threatened, people in power often regard the truth to be so precious, it needs to be protected by bodyguards of lies."

I believe this ought to be the tagline for Harper's War on Information.

The CFL needs the Tiger-Cats

If the City of Hamilton and Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young do not come to some agreement, we could see the loss of another historic CFL team.

The 12-3 decision by Hamilton City Council to put a new stadium on the West Harbour, to kick-start a downtown renewal, isn't the ideal place for Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young. The city and the 'Cats have seen 10 proposed locations for a new stadium in Hamilton, but only 1 does not work for the team: West Harbour. And while it will provide the city with a new foci for a new 21st century downtown (have any of you been to downtown Hamilton lately?), the West Harbour location is difficult for Tiger-Cat fans to get to and would not give the team the financial edge needed to compete with their opponents in the league.

I'm not saying the city should do whatever Bob Young wants, because it's pretty tough to justify a brand new stadium for a team that only brings 9 games of 25,000 fans to the site; but losing the Tiger-Cats in Hamilton would be a huge blow to the city and it's history.

There are rumors that the team would go to Quebec City or Halifax or Moncton if a deal isn't reached. But as many TSN analysts have said, why would Young move the team from a city with an inconvenient stadium to another with no stadium at all? Furthermore, sites like London, Quebec City, Halifax and (dare I say) Victoria; are great places for the league to expand, not to absorb current teams with historical baggage.

As Ottawa prepares to bring the CFL back to their city in 2013, Bob Young is threatening to move the Tiger-Cats for 2011. This is counter productive to the vision of the league that many of us have: a league with 10 teams.

Five in the east (Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax/Moncton) and five in the west (BC, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg). Twelve teams are possible if Quebec City or London become interested in having a team in the east; and if Victoria ever finds it palpable to have one for themselves on the island (with a metro population of 300,000 the fan base is certainly possible, yet, the question always rests with corporate support). (The only other Western location for an expansion team would be Saskatoon . But we all know they would never choose to cheer for a team other than the Roughriders.)

Losing the Tiger-Cats would be a devastating blow to the CFL and set back the reality of a new expansion team in the Maritimes considerably. If a location like Hamilton, with it's rich CFL history, cannot sustain a team and a stadium, the possibility of a new expansion in Halifax/Moncton would be bleak.

I urge Tiger-Cat fans to email their Mayor and City Councilor and urge them to find an agreement with Tiger-Cat owner Bob Young. Young has done a lot for the city since 2003 and he's prepared to do a lot more should the deal be done right. Urban revitalization is important, nay, it is key to the future of a city like Hamilton. However, taking the Tiger-Cats out of the picture is stripping away part of the past on a gamble that the future won't need them.

Like the caboose of a train...

Diane Ablonczy will plod along with the rest of her comrades in the Harper Party and do as she is told and support the changes to the long-form census.

It must be hard to wake up everyday and go to work when you know that upon your resignation a Jack-O-Lantern could run as the Conservative candidate in Calgary Nose-Hill and win.

Here's the email that was sent to me a few days ago from Jason Ritchie on her behalf:

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Hon. Diane Ablonczy, regarding your concerns with the recent announcement of changes to the 2011 Census that made the filling out of the long-form voluntary.

The government’s reason for replacing the mandatory census with a voluntary national survey is clear. We do not believe that it is appropriate to compel Canadians, under threat of punishment, to divulge extensive private and personal information.

The data collected through the former long-form census will now be collected through a new voluntary survey, called the National Household Survey. The questions that will be asked in the new Survey are identical to the questions that would have been asked in the mandatory long-form census.

I have shared your e-mail with Ms. Ablonczy and she appreciates you taking the time to share your thoughts and advise with her.

Once again, thank you for writing to Ms. Ablonczy.

Sincerely,

Jason Ritchie
Executive Assistant
Hon. Diane Ablonczy, MP
Minister of State (Seniors)

It is only fitting that the entire country be run the same way as the Conservative Party of Canada, the blind leading the blind.

Things the census (mandatory or voluntary) doesn't tell you

Well, Stockwell Day has recently fired the first real shot at the credibility of the census in Harper's War on Information.

Apparently, people are not reporting enough crime. (Like getting your neighbour blacklisted as a terrorist or Liberal.) And therefore, we need more prisons for the convicts that are not being reported. Ah, the logic.

Meanwhile, the Treasury has frozen the budgets of nearly every government department. Except for the 9.89 million dollar budget for a team of media and political advisers needed in the Prime Minister's Office. Go figure.

The War on Information is underway. More media straight from the PMO. Statistics Canada gutted. And when the facts don't fit the fury of Harper's ideology, they'll just cook the books to rationalize spending billions to imprison criminals that no one is reporting.

Welcome to Harper's Canada.