A Thought on Campaign Slogans

We're in turbulent times. Economically uncrertain. People are worried about their jobs. People want certainty. Comfort.

Canada just elected a stay-the-course Prime Minister preaching exactly that.

So, here you are, trying to come up with a theme for your opposition political leader in an upcoming provincial election.

And the theme you choose is 'Change?'

You call the policy book 'Changebook?'

Your advertised Twitter hashtag is '#changevote?'

Your campaign bus says '[change]' all over it?

Your candidates have roads signs on their pamphlets saying 'Change Ahead?'

Is this wise?


Compare and contrast:

PCs: Change
NDP: Change that puts people first
Greens: It's Time
Liberals: Forward. Together.

The NDP slogan reads like PC-lite. Even my beloved Greens are working on a 'change' theme.

Look at the Liberal slogan. Isn't that safe? Secure? Together, going forward, which is always good, right? It's safe, it's optimistic. It visions, even. We are given a positive direction, and none of us are alone.

Do people really want change now?

They don't want change. Change isn't safe. They may want BETTER, but they'll stick with being safe. Stay the course (FORWARD). TOGETHER.

You know what? That's a good slogan for the times.

Change isn't. Change is scary.

My Optimistic Debate Analysis

I didn't watch the debate. I couldn't. I happily lack cable. I don't have an antenna attached. And if I did. it couldn't pick up the new digital broadcasts if I tried as I lack the gadget. Anyway, I had better things to do.

I was enjoying a fine steak dinner bought by a friend for my birthday.

I didn't think of the debate once.


What a wonderous birthday gift that was!

(I have happily discovered the joys of borrowing DVDs from the library, BTW. The downside is I'm waiting ages for Buffy Season Two to show up. Everyone has it on hold!)

I hate debates. So much do they drive me crazy, that if I were to watch, my television would implode (it's a tube set) under the onslaught of cutlery, plates, books and whatnot thrown at it. And for what? My analysis of 'who won' is useless. As a political watcher and former PR hack, I know far too much, and am far too cynical, to be caught by turns of phrases, or statistical tricks. My view doesn't reflect the public will at all.


So, then, what of John and Jane Public? What did they think?

Watch for the next set of reliable post-debate day polls, and then you'll know (not this one -- it's an online poll). Maybe. You won't know if it'll last, though, assuming there's any significant movement in the polls at all.

If you insist on figuring it out, don't read newspapers, watch television. If the talking heads say no one won, then the public will likely agree.

Heack. Don't bother. Wait for the polls.

And, why care? If your leader 'lost' -- assuming your leader was even in it -- what are you going to do about it anyway?

Okay, fine. I'll give you my optismistic take.

McGuinty won.

I can tell because he isn't being stoned to death this morning.

I'm sure this is a frustrating election for conservatives and dippers. There's all this ammo, and McGuinty should be long dead from the gunfire. eHealth! Taxation! Debt! But, he keeps on going. It's like he's a zombie. Or Harper. LOL.

Oxymoronic 'Ethical Oil' Meets Irony

I hate promoting the severely flawed concept of 'ethical oil', so much so that I don't even like using the phrase as it spreads the meme. Still, with the Keystone XL pipeline in the news these days, here's a fact worth punting your way.


The toxic, corrosive Tar Sands crude to be transported by that pipeline will be processed by two refineries.


One of those refineries is half-owned by Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia.


Given that the 'ethical oil' propagandists are pushing the false fact that more tar sands oil will mean less oil sold by human-rights-abusing, terrorist-funding Saudi Arabia, this is quite an inconvenient truth. After all, the point of oil is profit, and Saudi Arabia will profit directly from this so-called 'ethical oil' pipeline where it would have made nothing before.



Of course, there's nothing ethical about oil production and consumption.

It drives untenable infrastructure.

It causes, and will continue to cause, armed conflicts, which we will still be involved in because the Tar Sands actually can't produce enough for all of our needs. Heck, looks like it's just going to be refined and largely exported. Meanwhile, Eastern Canada will continue to import oil from abroad.


Oil production and consumption pollutes.

It produces greenhouse gases. The production of crude from the Tar Sands is the most greenhouse-gas intensive way of making crude. It leaves a highly toxic goop behind that we store in huge lagoons. We have no idea what to do with the goop, but we gleefully make it anyway.

It severely disrupts the ecosystem when they extract it (remediation efforts to date are very modest).

And, no matter how much we make, Saudi Arabia will have no problem selling all the oil it wants to somebody. Like the emerging economies of China and India.



The only true point to the 'ethical oil' frame is to shut down debate with a false argument propagandists hope will be of appeal to the masses.


Remember, guns are legal too.

Is a gun made ethically any less deadly?

Conservative Party Promoting on Our Dime, Again

Well the omnibus crime bill is out. It's an expensive pile of solutions looking for problems, but I'll leave that to  others.

Instead, let's talk about under-reported 'crime':

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson unveiled the bill at a Brampton news conference, not in the House of Commons. A series of cabinet ministers marched before cameras to promote the moves.

I'm reminded of Ernie Eves presenting a provincial budget at a car parts plant. The point is to frame and control the message by taking the process of presenting a bill out of Ottawa, where it belongs, and to a controlled audience.

We, of course, pay for this, while still paying for Parliament, where the introduction of bills belong. We pay for airfare, staff, equipment and the "parading of cabinet ministers." No mention of gazebos.


Austerity, indeed.