Born That Way

They can't help themselves.

Conservatives I mean. The media reported recently on a study in the on-line edition of Current Biology that there are differences in the brain structures between those with liberal and those with conservative views.

This isn't the first study to suggest such a difference. Another one a few years ago in the journal Nature Neuroscience reported similar findings.

Seems Lady Gaga was correct: "I'm on the right track baby; I was born this way."

Now I know some of you are thinking, "Being Conservative is just a lifestyle choice. With intensive therapy, they can be changed; they can become moderate, tolerant, sensible, even."

Me, I'm not so sure. Anyway, most of them seem perfectly happy the way they are.

Besides, how do you get through to someone who believes that the poor have too much and the rich have too little?

Or that access to health care should depend on your ability to pay?

Or that higher education should be beyond the reach of all but the offspring of the elites?

Or that billions need to be spent on new jails despite falling crime rates?

Or that "strong leaders" make elections unnecessary?

But if conservatives (and by extension, Conservatives) are "born that way", I guess as a liberal, compassionate, reasonable person I really ought to stop picking on them; it's not their fault.

Actually, just as long as they stick to their own hangouts (boardrooms, donut shops, Coach's Corner), I really don't care. What bothers me is their openly flaunting their Conservativist lifestyle, or forcing it on others.

It's not like they're in the majority or anything.

How Conservative Are You?

Newsflash: turns out that a lot of people who thought they were Conservative really aren't that conservative.

That's one way to look at the reports that many Conservatives who have tried the CBC's Vote Compass have found they actually prefer Liberal or NDP policies.

There have, of course, been cries that the Vote Compass, prepared by a non-partisan group in the Social Sciences Department at the University of Toronto, is a commie CBC plot to pollute the hermetically sealed hearts and minds of the true blue.

I suspect it's more a case that some people with not-entirely-conservative views were persuaded by Conservative attack ads that depicted Michael Ignatieff as the anti-Christ.

Anyway, 500 Words was way ahead of the CBC and the U of T on this one.

Way back last October, we told you how to tell if you were turning into a Conservative.

Then, about six weeks later, we responded to readers who wondered if they were showing symptoms of creeping Conservatism.

And most recently, we explained how to be sure you're not a Conservative.

But with the election on, it seems the Vote Compass has revealed there's still a need for our, ahem, direction, so here are some more ways to tell whether or not you're a Conservative:

• If Jack and Gilles were your friends in 2004, but you don't want Iggy to play with them in 2011, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If you have friends who are crooks and liars, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If you do security checks on all your houseguests' Facebook friends, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If you believe that R.C.M.P. stands for 'R Conservative Meeting Police, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If you think that elections are fine for Arabs, but unnecessary for Canadians, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If your edition of Trivial Pursuit has only five questions, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If your shoulders ache from shrugging, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If all of your promises begin, "Maybe someday…", you might be a Conservative.
  
• If you have a license to drive, fly, hunt, fish, trap, and serve alcohol at your stag; and for your car, plane, boat, dog, software, ham radio, and marriage; but there's no way you're getting one for your gun, you might be a Conservative.
  
• If your vision for the future of Canada is more of the same, only worse, you might be a Conservative.
  

Go ahead; take the test. The country you save may be your own.

Tory Torpedoes of Truth are Duds

Conservative supporters should ask for their money back.

I know Harper's people decided to "go rogue" right out of the gate in this campaign, smearing and fear-mongering left, um, centre, and centre; but so far the Tory torpedoes of truth have been duds.

Their latest TV spot, released Thursday, is still fixated on coalitions. This after an entire week when the other parties beat Stephen Harper over the head on the question of his hypocrisy in proposing just such a coalition with the NDP and Bloc when Paul Martin led a minority Liberal government.

Thanks for reminding us.

And then there's the radio spot. I suppose the intent is to make me recoil in horror at the very mention of the name Michael Ignatieff, but the visceral reaction just ain't there. What happens instead is this soundtrack starts up in my head, playing the ad back at itself. For instance:

"Fact: a vote for the Liberals is a vote for Michael Ignatieff." Uh, sure, OK, and let me guess, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Stephen Harper? No, no, don't tell me: a vote for the NDP, is a vote for Jack Layton, right? The Greens, just a minute, I know this one, uh, Elizabeth May? Boo-yah! High five!

See what I mean? Just not feeling the fear here, dudes. Not smelling the old blood in the water.

Or, "Michael Ignatieff, he didn't come back for you." Of course not; he doesn't even know me. Anyway, I suppose he came back (oh, about six years ago, now), because he wanted to be the target of personal attacks. Or maybe it was to get into politics. Maybe even become Liberal leader and run for the prime minister's job.

Just like Stephen Harper gave up his job as a mouthpiece for Alberta separatists because of his burning desire to transform the rest of Canada into his version of the American Dream.

I say tomato; you say to-mah-to.

At least Ignatieff had seen the rest of the world. Before he became prime minister, the Albertan from Etobicoke (Rob Ford and Stephen Harper; boy, does Etobicoke have a lot to answer for) hadn't been anywhere else except for a few trips to the U.S. so he could tell American hard-rightists how much Canada sucked.

So I've gotta say I'm a little disappointed. The Conservatives are definitely off their game; Harper is back on his heels. We've come to expect real top-quality nasty from these guys. Where's the stomach-churning vitriol? The puerile fratboy pranks? The bird poop? The making fun of facial paralysis?

Come on, guys; you can do worse. We're all counting on you.

It’s Been One Week

The 2011 federal election campaign is barely a week old, and the big story is how badly (in the double sense) Stephen Harper has performed.

Harper kicked off the campaign by attacking his main rival, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, claiming Ignatieff would form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québecois, even if the Conservatives won a plurality of seats. Ignatieff promptly disavowed any such intention, but Harper kept, um, harping, on the subject.

When confronted with the letter to the Governor-General that, along with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, he had signed in 2004, Harper denied that it was intended to propose a coalition as an alternative to the Paul Martin Liberal minority government. I referenced that letter in a previous post. You can read what Harper had to say on that occasion and be the judge of his intentions then and whether he's being truthful now.

This isn't the first time Harper has "reinterpreted" an earlier position. There was the essay in which he called Canada a "second-tier, socialistic country" back in 2000, and the infamous "firewall" letter of 2001. Understandably, he doesn't talk (openly) like that today, which is what fuels talk of his "secret" agenda.

So, OK, against Canada in 2000; in 2011, "Canadians first and only". In 2004, in favour of a coalition with "socialists and separatists"; in 2011, agin' 'em.

But Harper has set a new personal best for reversals, and lying about them, with this week's flip-flop on one-on-one debates: on Wednesday, he was issuing challenges; by Thursday, he was chickening out. Which led Maclean's blogger Scott Feschuk to dub the Conservative campaign plane "Chicken Wings". This one could stick around to haunt Harper: people can't always tell a liar, but they sure know a coward when they see one.

Harper's big campaign promise of the week landed with a giant thud. The offer to let select – only 13% would qualify, and only the richest would benefit – families income split to save on taxes had a couple of big ifs and whens attached: if and when he gets re-elected (twice), and if and when he eliminates the deficit. Voters can probably figure out for themselves whether the guy who managed to turn an inherited $14 billion surplus into a deficit of $55 billion is likely to ever balance the budget, especially after the corporations get their tax cut, and the jets and jails get paid for. Maybe Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, as a former Mike Harris operative, can explain to Harper the effect tax cuts have in creating permanent "structural" deficits.

Now it's revealed that Harper has alienated the media following him by restricting them to five questions a day: two in French, two in English, and one from a local reporter. And there'll be no questions about ethics allowed. That oughta keep the press conferences short.

It's still early in the campaign, of course, and voters may not yet be paying attention; or Harper and the Conservatives may yet find their feet; but it will be interesting to see what the polls reveal about the effect of the first week's gaffes.

Party Politics

This election driving you to drink? Yeah, me too.

I tried the Coalition Drinking Game the other night. Every time the word "coalition" was mentioned, I took a drink. The last thing I remember, Peter Mansbridge was talking about an airstrike in Libya.

Anyway, I don't think it's fair that the politicians should have all the fun, and burger polls are so 2008, so let's put the party into party politics with Political Cocktails 2011.

For you Conservatives, we have the Jets and Jails Julep. Start with 1½ ounces of Alberta rye whisky (what else). Add a dash of day-old Tim Hortons coffee, black, to give it that bitter edge. In keeping with Stephen Harper's personality, the drink should be neither shaken nor stirred, but served over lots of ice. Makes one minority strength drink. Or try it majority strength: adding 3 more ounces of rye turns it into a Harper Hangover. But, be warned: try it and you'll be sorry.

Or, there's a Liberal libation called the True Grit for those in the mushy middle. You say you're not sure what's in it? Doesn't matter; you can put whatever you like into this drink and change the ingredients to suit your mood and the occasion. Just be sure to use a muddler (you do have a muddler, don't you?), so everything gets thoroughly, well, muddled. Usually served on the rocks.

How about a You Don't Know Jack? Everyone says this one sounds great, but few people are willing to try it. Its fans prefer it straight up.

Available only in Québec, the Bloc Buster is one distinctly differently cocktail. In a tall glass combine 1 ounce pique, 1 ounce insouciance, and a dash of je ne sais crois. Gilles Duceppe finds this one great for washing away the taste of humiliation every time he demands another tanker load of money from the rest of the country.

Green Party supporters can try the May-be Someday. To an ounce of wheat grass juice, add 4 ounces of water from a melting glacier. But since it doesn't contain any alcohol, I don't know why you'd bother.

Our first prime minister, John A. MacDonald was a noted drinker. One evening, while on the campaign trail, an over-refreshed MacDonald threw up on the platform. Responding to his opponent's scornful accusation of drunkenness, MacDonald told the audience, "I get sick sometimes not because of drink or any other cause, except that I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent."

I know how he felt.

First Casualties

Truth is not only the first casualty of war, there's a great big bull's eye painted on its back during election campaigns as well.

The 2011 federal election campaign is only a few hours old, but already the baloney is being sliced thick and fast.

The Conservatives have been trying for a long time to demonize the idea of a coalition among the parties that represent the votes of nearly two-thirds of Canadians. Stephen Harper, in fact, kicked off his campaign by denying that he had been willing to enter into a coalition with the Bloc Québecois and New Democrats in 2004 when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. Here is the text of the letter that he, Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton sent to the Governor-General at the time. You be the judge.

He pretended to be gracious, retreating from his earlier position that a coalition would not be "legitimate" (he shut down Parliament to prevent the opposition parties from forming one in 2008). But, referring to the Bloc, he contended that it would not be "principled to have a party dedicated to the break up of our country having a hand in running the government."

He's onto to something here: Canadians outside Quebec are extremely uncomfortable with the notion of a coalition that includes the Bloc.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff promptly tried put the coalition issue to rest, going so far as to state, "We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties."

In an election campaign, no one runs hoping to form a coalition. Both Harper and Ignatieff are hoping to gain a majority, but you can bet we haven't heard the last of coalitions from the Conservatives.

Another major theme of the Conservatives' campaign appears to be that the opposition is threatening the viability of the Canadian economy by defeating the government. They point to their stillborn budget as the blueprint that would have ensured prosperity for all.

But the Conservatives' own Economic Stimulus Program, on which they spent $26 million in public money to promote with an avalanche of advertising just this month, expires in five days. Their budget, a combination of corporate welfare aimed primarily at the big banks and oil companies and "boutique" tax cuts for select groups, was designed to push a few votes their way during the election campaign they knew it would provoke.

And in 2008, Harper was untroubled by the uncertainty an election would cause when he called an election just as the world economy was sliding into the Great Recession.

Canada survived that crisis better than most nations mainly because our banks (for once) didn't engage in the risky practices of their American and European counterparts, and because of the credibility of our central banker, Mark Carney. Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty had to be forced kicking and screaming to adopt the Liberal and NDP measures that came to be called the Economic Stimulus Program.

Am I being more critical of Harper and the Conservatives than I am of the Liberals and NDP? Well, yes. But that's because Harper has a record in government for which he must be accountable. All we can do with Ignatieff and Layton is try to take their measure based on how credible they seem.

Harper would like you to ignore his record. That's why the Conservatives are trying so hard to smear their opponents. Hold on: this is going to be one dirty campaign.