At least you can beat up your younger brother...

A 5-1 win over a weak cousin team is exactly the kind of thing last year's Edmonton Oilers would have blown. Especially at home.

This team is teaching me that a reliable goaltender is worth more than any other player on your team. You simply can't get by with someone erratic and inconsistent. Right now I'd say the Oilers are having success beacause of the following ordered reasons.

• Roloson's consistent and often spectacular play
• Ryan Smyth and Petr Sykora's consistent clutch goal scoring (meaning we finally have more than just one player who takes advantage of breaks)
• Everyone else is at least buying in and working hard to do the little things.

If some of the others get hot we'll be beating good teams 5-1. But tonight the Edmonton Oilers beat a lousy hockey team, and they need to prove a lot more to me before I'm confident they'll be ready in April.

Special Delivery

Justin Trudeau has given Gerard Kennedy's run for the Liberal leadership some much needed attention with this endorsement. How much Liberals actually value the endorsement is certainly a question no one can answer. I don't think the real value, in the short term at least, is necessarily that it alone will sway voters. However, Justin is a big name and the timing of this means Gerard can maybe get back some spotlight with very little time to go before the vote.

Justin Trudeau initially had me a bit skeptical. He gave a passionate eulogy for his father and the whole country was ready to crown him Prime Minister. I admire a man who can speak well publically, but I must say being passionate about your own father's death is not very unique. However, since that time he's stuck to his words about grassroots politics and gone all across Canada talking to people a lot of others don't talk to. I'm talking about young people and those interested in the future of the country and the Liberal party - but those who have very little power to decide its path. That's what he's been doing, and as a result it makes sense for him to line up beside the man who is championing that renewal.

As for the nation issue, I'm not sure this endorsement has anything to do with that. Kennedy hasn't taken a specific stand on the issue, but it is very hard to imagine he will go against the grain. Too bad. It's interesting to watch the whole thing play out at least, even if it does fill me with dread. (Incidently, saying you think the people of Quebec could constitute a cultural nation does not mean you are automatically going to agree with bringing this motion forward. I never said I didn't think they were myself - I just think it's none of the government's business and politicans are dealing with it for political points ONLY)

Kennedy has taken the tactic of shunning the negative and thus controversial war of words between Ignatieff, Rae and Dion. There are goods and bads politically in doing so. The biggest negative is that mudslinging gets press. Despite being third in delegate support, Kennedy appears to be a very distant fourth in the public eye. Nobody's talking about him outside of Liberal bloggers and the occasional profile piece.

The plus of course is that he isn't engaging in the divisive attacks. Clearly as a Kennedy supporter I'm biased, but how healed does this fractured party look when the leadership candidates are ripping each other appart. This has turned from what was supposed to be a debate about policy to one about character and leaderhip ability. Those are both important to a successful leader, but in the end all Liberals will suffer from the blows the frontrunners have dealt each other if one of them ends up standing above the pack. We also suffer from politicians changing their stances on the fly to win advantage - something unfortunately "perfected" by Paul Martin.

Can we take Bob Rae or Stephane Dion seriously when they shake Michael Ignatieff's hand and say "I back this man 100%!" if the big Iggy takes the top prize? Same thing if Rae wins. The two of them have been the source of and targets of most of the attacks. Dion launches a lot of attacks, but seems to avoid a lot launched back at him. Perhaps because as he gains momentum the top 2 don't want to give him anymore attention.

Regardless, do any of you see a similar problem if Kennedy were to win the leadership? All of his opponents could easily endorse his leadership without reeking of falseness. They havn't been attacking him, he hasn't been attacking them. He's been bringing forward policy initiatives and talking about going back to the grassroots of the party instead of dwelling on the old ways of getting things done.

Meanwhile, the top three candidates are going about doing things the old way.

I'd still chose any of them over the other political options we have in this country. At least as of this moment. However, Stephen Harper is a very skilled politician. He is not to be underestimated and this decision is crucial.

Of course there's a reason President Bush wins election after election after election - and its not because he plays nice. There's a reason Warren Kinsella writes a book about kicking ass in politics and talks about the success of going negative. It's a risky strategy. One I think surely best suited to someone who doesn't have as much support as the top 2 guys and who could sneak up on people as a sort consensus candidate.

Lets also not forget that a leadership race is different than an election between rival parties.

The real question is after the bottom 4 (Joe, Ken, Scott and Martha) drop off, who is going to have the least amount of votes in the next round? Seems like the stars are lining up for Dion and Kennedy to join forces when that happens - and it's just a matter of who it's behind.

When that happens it's up to Bob Rae to either shake his old friend and new rival's hand and crown him king - line up behind the others - or just let his delegates fall where they may. Given how ardently anti-Ignatieff Rae has been, it's hard to imagine that's where they'd go even with an endorsement.

So watch for it... when it's down to the big 4... 3rd or 4th may be the difference between leader or also ran. Justin Trudeau is one card Kennedy's team is playing now so that the bottom 4's delegates don't forget his name.

One good way to do that? Stand next to someone with the most recognizable name in Canadian Politics. But that's not going to be enough, and this week will be a real test of Kennedy's political savy. Should be fun.

Govern the state, leave the "nations" alone.

So Stephen Harper has introduced a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation "within a united Canada."

In case you were wondering where this all started, look no further than the Liberal leadership race. Michael Ignatieff somehow decided what this leadership race needed was a big heaping of the old "how to appease Quebec" debate. Lets do that instead of winning them over with - I don't know - good policy and fair government. His stance? Eventual recognition of Quebec as a nation within the constitution of Canada. What did that mean? Not much. Now, I've had good impressions and not so good impressions of Mr. Ignatieff throughout his tenure in Canadian politics. One unfortunate thing about him is that he's not very good at staying on message. As a result, it's kind of hard to figure out the specific actions he would really take when tracking his new statements on the subject from day to day. However, my initial impression is that the constitutional change would actually mean nothing. It's a mere symbolic recognition to show Quebec uh... I suppose... that we understand them and love them in their special uniqueness? Of course that alone would not be enough to get Quebec to sign the constitution as it exists today. That means with any nation policy there absolutely would have to be other changes. But Ignatieff said there would be no concessions made as a result of the policy. Put two and two together and the whole idea is impossible and thus pointless.

Quickly leadership candidates came out publically against the idea of re-opening constitutional talks. They were messy last time. How messy? When they fell appart it started the ball rolling towards us nearly losing Quebec. But hey, they havn't signed, so that symbolic gesture is surely worth opening up the pandora's box again isn't it? Sure the country is rolling along relatively fine, and that lack of signature hasn't actually stopped us from using the constitution in governing, but we NEED them to sign for some reason. Ego?

In response to these criticisms, Ignatieff stated that he didn't mean we should re-open the constitution anytime soon... just sometime. When is that sometime? Whenever the conditions are apparently in place. What are those conditions? Doesn't seem to be remotely clear.

Despite that, there appear to be statements from all four frontrunners in the leadership at one time stating their belief that Quebec is in one form or another a nation within Canada. Bob Rae has also said in the past we should re-visit the constitution, but has said recently we shouldn't - at least for now. Stephane Dion had been the strongest against the idea, but he's all ready close to backing Harper's motion. Funny how these Liberals seem more willing to unite behind the Conservative PM than each other.

Doesn't all of this just sound like they were spinning their wheels? The leadership race was going fine before all this talk. What has any of this accomplished? Are we discussing real issues facing Quebecers in their everyday lives? Are we asking what kind of policies could the party build that would win over Quebecers? Instead we've focused on the rhetoric about an issue that as far as I can tell means absolutely nothing - and only serves to further magnify the divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

There are polls out that say the majority of Canadians don't agree with recognizing Quebec as a nation. Look what opening this issue has done. Here, instead of talking about real issues and real policy that change our every day lives - we're talking about a symbolic gesture. In so doing we have opened up the public divide and old wounds. If Quebecers wern't thinking as much about how the rest of Canada felt about them these days - they sure had to think about it again when people started arguing about how to define them again. They sure had to think about it again when polls started appearing saying that once again the rest of Canada is rejecting them in some way. Even if that's not how they meant it, surely those polls stirred up some anger and some resentment on both sides of the old debate.

All for what? Are we going through this battle to dramatically change the way we deliver public services? To fix our social safety net? To modernize our economy? Nah, instead we're doing it in a game of political upsmanship with no practical or measurable goal in the end.

The door now opened - the Bloq jumped through it. They present a motion to the House of Commons saying Quebec is a nation. As a response, the Prime Minister presents his own motion saying Quebec is a nation... within a united Canada. Harper tried very hard to avoid the issue. He tried to never say a word on the subject. But faced with a Bloq motion on the subject he balked. He didn't want them or the Liberals to define anything, so at the very least Harper would get the jump on them. Good for him, he's done just that. However, this only serves to further a ridiculous issue that accomplishes nothing for anyone. What does his motion even mean? As the Bloq has all ready said, if they're a nation in Canada who the hell is to say they're NOT a nation outside of Canada? That makes no sense. It's an absurd wording that must have seemed very clever, but frankly changes nothing.

Oh, and am I the only one who remembers the house all ready passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society? Are we going to have to pass meaningless motions like this every 15 years so new politicians can puff up their chests and say they too love la Belle Province?

Lets stop here and look at the concept for a second - at least as it's being proposed. What exactly does this definition of nation mean? When they state it comes with no powers or distinct representation, it seems to simply be a way in which someone from or living in Quebec could identify themselves. So the government of Canada is essentially saying "go ahead, it's OK to identify yourselves as a part of the Quebec nation - because as long as there's a united Canada, we agree with you that it does indeed exist."

And so what? We need permission now to identify ourselves as part of something? If I idenfied myself as a member of the Quebec nation before this motion, I won't give a shit if the federal government agrees with me or not. This definition of nation seems to be simply something one decides they are or aren't a part of. What place does the government have in that discussion for anyone?

If you are publically recognizing the nation of Quebec, are you now saying other nations don't have the same value? Are you saying other nations within Canada don't exist or aren't legitimate without government recognition? Are you saying that anyone in or from Quebec is a part of this nation whether they like it or not?

I'd love to answer any of those questions for you, but there are no answers. It's not a part of the motion. Nor should it be part of any motion.

If these nations of people are basically the ones we self-identify as being a part of, then the government has absolutely no right to even talk about which are or aren't official. Call it what you want - recognized, legitimate, official, etc - it's a statement of value for one over all others that only serves to stir an emotional pot rather than accomplish anything substancial.

What happens next? We officially recognize The First Nations. But what, what about those who would say there is no one First Nation - there are over 600 tribes who don't necessarily identify themselves with the others. However, perhaps there are some who like to be associated with the whole. So who decides which view is the legitimate one? Does the government now have to have a say in how we view ourselves and our heritage?

Why would they bother if it actually means nothing to how this supposed nation is governed? Isn't that their job - governing? Govern the state, leave the nations alone.

This "nationhood" is none of the government's business. It only is on the radar today because of politics and a game that all four federal parties are playing with the fabric and emotional tensions in our country. But they all bought it - the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservativse - all of our national representatives took the leap. Shame on ALL of them from every province and any nation they want to belong to for creating this silly mess just to score political points on each other.

What is it about Quebec that makes generally sane politicians so absolutely stupid? I promise you, we are only in a worse place in Quebec because of this when we were when no one was actually talking about seperation anymore. Thanks for bringing it back up guys!

Lets just all vote Green, at least they havn't screwed up yet.