A plea for sanity, answers on Bill C-35

Once and a while a policy is proposed that provokes diametrically opposed reactions: its proponents find so infinitely reasonable as to be beyond question, where as I find myself wandering around aimlessly in downtown Calgary hitting myself in the face with a frying pan.  Which reaction is more evidenced-based I can’t say, but one such policy is Bill C-35, which would apparently neutralize legal obstacles to suing foreign states that support terrorism in Canadian courts.  Brilliant, say the proponents: let’s hit them where it hurts.  No, not in the nuts (that provision is contained in the Damaging Terrorist Testicles Act [2008]), but in their pocket books.  Here’s the spiel from Conservative Senator David Tkachuk in the National Post:

It is well known that certain foreign states abuse their vast sovereign powers and resources by financing and sanctioning acts of terrorism, including hijackings, kidnappings, bombings, assassinations and even military attacks on innocent civilian populations. Some states harbour terrorist groups and permit them to openly recruit and train new terrorists. Afghanistan under Taliban rule was such a state, but there have been, and continue to be, many others.

Traditionally, foreign states have enjoyed blanket immunity from civil suits brought before Canadian courts. However, because of the increase in transnational commercial activity — and all the opportunities for crime that entails — Canadian governments have already placed certain limits on the immunity of foreign states. For example, a Canadian citizen can sue a foreign state for breach of contract.

Bill C-35 will create a similar exception to allow Canadians to take civil action against states and other parties that finance or facilitate terrorist activity. It will also empower the federal government to identify and seize assets within Canada for the purpose of enforcing judgments against such states and organizations.

Here’s where things go off the rail for me, from a policy standpoint: what the fuck is he talking about?  Is he really expecting us to believe that foreign terrorist supporting states, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Iran under the Ayatollahs, will honour their obligations to compensate victims of their own terrorism?  He doesn’t really even address that goddamn mastadon in the room, saying only that we can already sue a foreign state for breach of contract (likely the kind of foreign states that don’t normally engage in this).  He goes on to say that with C-35, Canada could identify and seize the assets of foreign terrorist-sponsoring states and terrorism organizations.  Can we not do this already? 

In short, I have no sweet clue what this man is saying, what the government is thinking, or how this Bill is any better than a “Perpetual World Peace Act”, a “Sun Must Revolve Around The Earth Act” or a “Make Britney Spears Wear Underwear in Public Act”.  All admirable notions, but beyond impossible to enforce.  Maybe I’m just missing the point entirely and making an ass out of myself in the process (no rare occurrence), so I’ll ask my readers to please explain to me how this makes any sense to anyone, lest I go completely mental.  Save me from myself.

The imminent danger in disclosing military spending

The government is taking a lot of heat for their refusal to disclose military spending estimates on account of national security, but I think this criticism is unfounded and almost certainly proof that the critics hate our troops and are naive peace-loving moral relativists.  Also, hippies.  Here’s the back story:

In a significant policy shift, the Canadian government now believes that telling the country’s taxpayers the future cost of the war in Afghanistan would be a threat to national security, Canwest News Service has learned.  The Defence Department cited a national security exemption when it censored a request under Access to Information by the federal NDP for the military costs of Canada’s military participation in the NATO-led, United Nations-sanctioned military mission to Afghanistan.

This makes all kinds of sound military sense, and any government that would even consider disclosing the overall costs of it’s military operations would be quite rightly accused of endangering the troops and perhaps putting the entire operation into jeopardy.  As I am wont to do, I will prove my point through dramatic rendition:

Taliban 1: Have you figured out those coordinates yet? 

Taliban 2: Just about dude, will you just chillax?  We just got the Canadian budget allocation figures yesterday, and I’ve been up all night, cut me some slack.

Taliban 1: Well the Canadians could be here any moment and we still have no idea…

Taliban 2: I know, I know, I just have to open up a new worksheet… do a quick vlookup…

Taliban 1: Oh shit!  Did you hear?  Jon and Kate just…

Taliban 2: There, I got it!  According to the calculations on this pivot table which correlates the budgetary expenditures of the Canadian armed forces against allocations, the Canadians are…. HIDING RIGHT BEHIND THAT BUSH!

Taliban 1: Allah-u-akhbar!  *Kaboom!*

This Iran thing is getting out of hand. Someone should do something.

One thing that drives me nuts is tough talk. And I don’t mean tough talk like the time in elementary school when Samantha said if I didn’t give her my pizza pop she would beat me up. That’s different. Because she actually did beat me up.  As advertised.  That’s not really tough talk, more like an accurate forewarning of future and highly-embarrassing events which cost me a small fortune in subsequent psychological treatment.  

No, I’m talking about tough talk of the self-aggrandizing, political variety.   And I’m not even talking about tough talk of the self-aggrandizing, political variety where the tough talkers at least deign to propose some sort of action.  A few courageous, outside-the-box thinkers have recently floated the theory that the Iraq war wasn’t the morally-justified, flawlessly-executed operation we were led to expect – however, at least the tough talking neo-cons actually had something substantial to place after their “or else”.  Their tough talk reached its logical conclusion (in a sense, anyway).

Here’s a little example of the kind of tough talk I’m referring to, from an unnamed Canadian commentor who has a great deal of moral authority because he has “friends over there” (in Iran):

When the illegitimate and evil dictatorship of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad finally drives out the remaining Western journalists in the next few days, it will be impossible to know what, precisely, is happening within Iran. But one thing is certain: until we stop them, Ahmadinejad and his Basij will continue to murder innocents. Even children.

Until we stop them?  Who is we, and what exactly would he have we do?  I mean, I’m sure it soothes the conscience to implore we to prevent murder and oppression, but the sentiment is beyond hollow unless you have some sort of plan of action for we to carry out.  The Ayatollah isn’t some lowly blogger that can be sued in Canadian court to collect recompense for a damaged ego, so I have no idea what exactly this brave crusader for human rights is proposing here on behalf of we.  But I do know this is the kind of nugatory rhetoric that is produced when one’s sense of self-importance cleverly outflanks one’s grasp of reality.  We are all concerned with what’s going on in Iran, but if commenters here in Canada could try to avoid the temptation to make it about them, my blood pressure would really appreciate it. 

Huh.  It appears that all of that treatment has made me some kind of an expert on psychology.  Who’s laughing now, Samantha?

Ill-chosen Verb of the Week Award

The eminent Ill-chosen Verb of the Week Award is widely considered one of the most highly sought after prizes in the English speaking world.  It is as if the Nobel and the Oscar got drunk at a party one time and, one thing leading to another, nine-months later they had a love child who was really into diction.  Anyway, without further ado, this week’s winner is Post Columnist John Ivison.

Fresh from the horrors of the Stéphane Dion era, Liberal MPs have been effusive in their praise of Mr. Ignatieff’s mission to build a “culture of belief”.

“Iggy is calm and balanced. It’s far from implausible to imagine him in the big job,” gushed one MP.

As gushing as the statement was, I should warn readers that when you start to gush with the phrase ”it’s far from implausible to imagine”, some people take it as something other than gushing.  For example, one time I said to my girlfriend: “it’s far from implausible to imagine that you’re adequate in the sack when compared to some of the other lovers I’ve had”.  And then she got all bitchy.  What’s her problem?

ADDENDUMDATE: I found that superficial, narrow rhetorical quibble surprisingly fulfilling.  Maybe I’ll try to find another Canadian columnist to lambaste.  Now… if only there was someone who adamantly refuses to make any sense whatsoever even under pain of… oh, hi there, Rick Salutin!

How did coalition become a dirty word in Canadian politics?… I consider coalition a noble, eloquent term in the political lexicon. It refers to groups who put aside differences to achieve something better for all. The Allies of the Second World War were a coalition. Most social advances, like health care or Old Age Security, are won through forms of coalition.

You know what else was a coalition, Rick?  The Axis powers.  And the people who resisted social advances.  The term isn’t “noble or eloquent”, it’s value neutral, you incurable jackass.

Campbell advocates discrimination and the violation of citizenship rights

Normally, I don’t like to condemn politicians who change their minds.  I change my mind all the time.  No I don’t.  See?  As such, I’m not fan of the insult “flip flopper”, as it seems to indicate that as soon as one enters into the political world, their opinions should be established and inflexible for all time, which is beyond stupid.  But Gordon Campbell is really stretching credibility here.  He wrote an op-ed a couple of weeks ago in the Globe that laid out the following argument:

Current eligibility rules require anywhere from 420 to 910 hours of employment before workers can qualify for EI – depending on local unemployment rates. This is clearly discriminatory. It denies many people access to EI benefits simply because they lost their job in an area that supposedly has relatively lower unemployment rates.

If you’re out of work, you should know that your EI eligibility entitlements are the same as all Canadians – one country with one set of citizenship rights. If 420 hours of work is sufficient to qualify for EI in one province, that should be the standard for every province. If the cost of that universal standard is too prohibitive, the federal government should establish a common eligibility period that is affordable without increasing employer costs…

The federal government and provinces should work in partnership to do the best we can for all of Canada’s workers, regardless of where they live or are employed. They pay equivalent national taxes and all should receive equivalent national benefits.

So, one Canada, one standard, no exceptions.  Anything else is discriminatory and violates ones “citizenship rights” (whatever those are…).  Campbell isn’t willing to budge on this ultra-egalitarian principle one iota!  No iota budging!  Our rights are at stake for the love of… wait, nevermind:

Mr. Campbell’s proposal would instead establish two nationwide standards for EI payments: one for urban areas, and another for rural areas that are typically dependent on sagging natural resource industries. Workers in big cities, where labour markets are larger and more fluid, would have to work more hours to qualify for EI than those in rural areas.

Obviously, Campbell’s new proposal is built on precisely the same logical foundation as the current policy that different regions should have different EI standards: that its easier to find jobs in some regions than others.  Maybe he has changed his mind on how pernicious and discriminatory such a notion is.  But if that’s the case, consider this a cautionary tale for politicians: if you’re a bit wishy-washy on policy position, you should probably avoid describing it in a national newspaper as based on some immutable standard of cosmic justice and inviolable rights.

Me fiddling while Tehran burns

Holy shit, are you folks watching what’s going on in Iran?  There seems to be developing what political scientists refer to as a “wee kerfuffle”.  This situation appears both significant and complex, which is precisely why I don’t plan to touch it with a 10 foot pole, lest my almost imcomprehensibly vast ignorance regarding anything that happens outside of my immediate sphere of expertise (which is largely confined nowadays to Clint Eastwood movies – big ups to the Outlaw Josey Wales!) be made all too clear.  Instead, I will comment on that which couldn’t be less complicated or insignificant: whatever Ken Lewenza says!  See if you can find the problem with the statement:

When governments use public dollars to purchase goods and services, a portion of those funds should be invested back into our economy. This is the principle underlying the Canadian Auto Workers’ Buy Canadian – Build Communities resolution, which encourages municipalities to maximize the Canadian content of goods and services purchased, including at least 50 per cent Canadian content for new transit vehicles.

Many jurisdictions understand this. Quebec and Ontario have content provisions for transit projects. So has Mayor David Miller in Toronto, along with more than a dozen other Canadian municipalities. Unfortunately, Ottawa has not followed suit. This refusal widens the gap between free trade and fair trade.

First of all, it takes a lot of gumption to appropriate a term, fair trade, that is generally used to describe policies directed to the benefit of the developing world, and redefining it as “trade policies Ken Lewenza likee”.  But no matter, the real victims of trade are poor downtrodden Canadians who can… oh God I promised myself I wouldn’t cry… barely afford a 40 inch plasma TV!  How can they ever expect to keep up with the Joneses under such massive financial strife?  Fucking Joneses, I hate those pricks.   Think they’re so smart. 

Back on track now, the problem with this statement, which we will very generously call an “argument”, is that it begs the question.  He asserts an opinion (”When governments use public dollars to purchase goods and services, a portion of those funds should be invested back into our economy”), and then suggests that this is something to be understood as factual (”Many jurisdictions understand this”).  Hey, jackass, we all “understand” your opinion, in so far as that means we understand your assertion that you think something is good.  It’s not goddamn rocket science.  Here is my impression of all the jurisdictions who don’t understand Lewenza’s complex logical formulation.  

Q: What does he mean when he says he “wants” Buy Canada provisions? 

A: It means he wants Buy Canada provisions. 

Q: Ok, so what you’re saying is he’s against buying stuff made in Canada? 

A: No, he is in favour of Canadian governments buying stuff made in Canada. 

Q: Riiiight… but does he have an opinion on procurement policies with regards to national origin of those goods?

A: Yes, he wants them to be made in Canada.

Q: Yea… ok… I don’t get it.  Way too complicated.  Who am I, Hammerstein?  Can you perhaps dumb it down a bit?

A: Lewenza likes Canadian products and thinks they should be purchased by Canadian governments.

Q: Dumber…

A: Canada products good.  Other products bad.

Q: Oh! I think I… nope… nothing. 

A: God I hate you so much.

END SCENE

I’ll tell you what’s so-o-o boring…

…the whole “you have to view every issue, circumstance, occurrence, thought, institution, physical object, and off-the-cuff comment through the gender prism” mentality.  Witness The Star’s Linda Diebel, on the outrageously boring “Raitt-gate”, somehow managing to make the issue even more eye-rollingly vapid:

Why are some women so eager to diss other women?  It gets so-o-o boring. Natural Resources Minister Raitt  takes a stab at sugarcoating her putdown of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq with, ”She’s so capable.”  There’s a “but.”  Raitt goes on to say, ”but it’s hard for her to come out of a cooperative government into this rough-and-tumble.”… Raitt continues: ”She had a question in the House yesterday, or two days ago, that planked. I really hope she never gets anything hot.”  Oh yes, of course, that’s exactly what she hopes.

The whole thing is such a female putdown. She’s not strong enough, can’t take the heat. Would Raitt have chosen the same approach to slam a male health minister?  The best women support other women and, thankfully, my life is full of these great people. But enough already with holdovers from prehistoric times. A tedious mindset. Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

Oh Lord.  Let me get this straight: Raitt didn’t criticize (in a very innocuous and friendly manner almost unworthy of the term “criticize”) Aglukkaq because she was the other minister involved with the issue and her performance is directly pertinent to the topic being discussed, she criticized her because she’s a woman.  If Aglukkaq had been the Minister of Veterans Affairs, she still would have felt the wrath of Raitt’s prehistoric anti-women worldview amidst a conversation about sexy isotopes.  And calling someone infirm is “such a female putdown”, as if she didn’t witness the slow motion trainwreck that was Stephane Dion.

The baseless projection of catty motives is galling enough (”yes, of course, that’s exactly what she hopes”), but Diebel really outdoes herself with this line: “The best women support other women.”  Yes, surely, the best of the best.  The best women don’t have values of their own, ambitions of their own, opinions of their own, any of which may on occasion find themselves in conflict with those of other women.  These characteristics of an individual are to be considered a luxury subordinate to the overall cause of women’s solidarity. 

Let’s be even more clear: it is people like Diebel, and the myopic mindsets which animate them, that are holding women back.  No one is talking about Raitt as a woman, per se, no one is impugning her reputation based on what are considered feminine stereotypes, no one is suggesting that her motive in slagging another Cabinet member is their common gender, no one except Diebel.  Everyone else is talking about Raitt as an individual, as a politician with ambitions, poor interviewing skills, strange nuclear fetishes, and a tendency to be a jerk in private conversation (as opposed to most other MPs, who prefer to be jerks in public as well).  Everyone else has at least begun to move on from seeing women as women, instead of as people; as token curiosities in Cabinet instead of capable individuals in their own right, to be held responsible on that basis.  And then along comes Diebel to drag us all back to the 1960s.  But yea, Raitt is the one with the outdated mindset.

INCIDENTALLYDATE: I’m (uncharacteristically) with Blatchford, and (characteristically) with Feschuck.  These tapes are beyond mundane.  I’d rather watch an episode of Two and a Half Men, twice consecutively, then read a transcript of the entire first season, than listen to these tapes.  Also, if those braying jackasses in the media or the House of Commons sincerely think this is something to gripe over, let them volunteer to have all personal conversations (about their spouse, colleagues, children, family, superiors, etc.) recorded and put on the internet.  Surely they’d never issue a meagre, backhanded compliment at the worst of times.  I would though.  If anyone had any idea what I said to people in private in any context on any issue, I’d be summarily tarred and feathered with the official sanction of the Supreme Court.  I could be talking about the fine weather today in Calgary and the sheer offensiveness of my language would be sufficient to make Ice Cube blush.* 

* People still listen to Ice Cube right?  I hope that’s still considered a contemporary reference.

The silent majority rules in Alberta. Silently. Like ninjas.

I figure I should comment on this whole Alberta “parents rights” law, because if I don’t, how will everyone know what to think?  The gist:

Alberta’s controversial move to add parental rights to the Human Rights Act — over the objections of teachers and other critics around the province — may very well be blazing a new trail for Canada, Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett says.  “There’s some people that laugh, but there’s many people who are in favour of it — the silent majority,” he said Tuesday.

Parents have always had the right to choose their children’s schools, religions, friends and clothes, the minister said. “For those people around the country that think that’s somehow wrong, we in Alberta believe in family values, because the family’s at the core of what makes a great community. . . . We’re taking a lead, here.” Politicians wrapped up late-night discussions of Bill 44 at 1:30 a.m. local time Tuesday, officially protecting gay rights and enshrining the rights of parents to pull their children from classroom lessons on human sexuality, religion and sexual orientation.

See, that’s the beauty of the silent majority.  Because they don’t say anything – indeed, by virtue of their very silence – you can quite easily argue that they think exactly what you think.  I would argue that the silent majority is in favour of Jessica Alba and I getting married, for example, and if she has any respect for the will of the people, she should immediately accept my many, many breathless propositions.  How could she ever reject such a water-tight argument?  Well, with a highly effective restraining order, as it turns out, but that is really beside the point.  All successful politicians, from Nixon to Blackett, have long known that the silent majority is unrebuttable!  They’re the majority for Christ’s sake!  Just because they don’t actually tell you what they think doesn’t mean you shouldn’t accede to what they might hypothetically be thinking!

As a member of the vocal minority, however, there are a few reasons why this law bothers me.  First of all, on a purely rhetorical level, I strenuously reject to calling every entitlement or opportunity provided to citizens a “right”.  I’m with Bentham on that one.  On a more substantive level, I don’t care for this for a number of reasons.  Reasons a), and b), for example.

a) I have no patience for parents directing the curriculum, or choosing what aspect of learning with which their children should be provided. It’s almost exclusively the anti-science contingent of the “silent majority” who are clamouring for this return to pre-enlightenment times.  If they want to actively stifle their children’s education and development, there’s little we can do, but I don’t think the state should be complicit in the dumbing down of society, because we’re perilously close to rock bottom as it is.  If people want their kids taught according to the eternal dictates of St. John or Muhommed or Ronald Reagan, fine, they can home school them.

b) If we in Alberta believe in family values, and that the family is at the core of what makes a great community, why on earth should our parents’ dominion be arbitrarily limited to those subjects of religion and sexuality?  Certain aspects of history, or science, or gym (is kickball a righteous or sinful pastime?) are controversial, and many parents may believe their child shouldn’t be subjected to uncomfortable subjects.  Why not have a checklist at the beginning of the year and let parents pick and choose every potential subject they think their kid needs to know?  I can’t see that resulting in any sort of administrative complications or inefficiencies.  Some people would call reason b) a lazy, slippery-slope argument, to which I respond: and how!

On a completely unrelated topic, if you’re my kind of conservative, you should really be reading David Thompson (this post is a killer), who was pointed out to me, strangely enough, by none other than Canada’s favourite pinko, Dr. Dawg.

Gunter courageously speaks out against the burden that is democracy

So I woke up this morning at 5:30 to begin my pre-work routine: shower, get dressed, grab a coffee, have a smoke and read the front page of the Calgary Herald, brush my teeth, stylize my hair, stare at the mirror with determined self-loathing in anticipation of the day ahead, and then head off to the bus.  Everything was going smoothly until I stumbled upon Lorne Gunter’s column which threw me into a fit of seething rage.  I’m not going to say that the whole column wasn’t stupid, but there was one aspect I found particularly infuriating:

I was recently out of the country for three weeks. When I returned, I was stunned to find the political air crackling with election talk, the way a Prairie sky bristles with static potential just before a summer thunderstorm.  It is a mark of how disconnected from voters our political class has become if they think there is any appetite at all among Canadians for a fourth election in five years, particularly one that would be fought during our already too-brief Canadian summer and which would almost certainly garner no party a majority — again.

Hey, fellow citizens, let’s not camp by a lake, hang out at the cottage, spread out our blankets at an outdoor music festival, invite neighbours over for a barbecue, sit on the sidelines at our kids’ sporting events, lay down and stare at the stars, roast marshmallows over a bonfire, fish, hike, bike, golf or go on a holiday. Na! That’s boring and old school.

Let’s do something really exciting for a change. Let’s have a summer election! That wouldn’t drive down our already pathetic voter turnout. After all, everyone feels as our politicians do that it’s way more fun to watch leaders debates than baseball or football on the television. Come on, put down that burger flipper and pick up a lawn sign. You know you want to.

I have one simple, profane question: how fucking dumb is this?  First of all, on what planet does an election require that all family and leisure activities be suspended for the entire writ period? Is there an interdiction preventing citizens from hanging out at a cottage, flipping burgers or watching a sporting event merely because there is a vote 2 months away?  What the hell is he even talking about? 

The worst part is, this isn’t just asinine, trademark, Gunter-grade prattle.  You hear a similar message quite frequently.  You hear it from the media, the politicians, and worst of all, you hear it from regular citizens.  People always make such a massive deal out of an election that requires each individual citizen do absolutely nothing he or she doesn’t sincerely want to do.  If you don’t want to volunteer, watch the debates, pay attention to the news, or even take 1 hour out of your incomparably busy and important life to vote, you most certainly don’t have to.   The most extreme burden that may be involuntarily imposed on the average jackass is that he or she may be subjected to an attack ad once in a while instead of some bullshit Panago pizza commercial with some obese asshole chef wearing a hardhat for some inexplicable reason trying to be charming but only really succeeding in being fat. 

So, people, please stop your God damn bitching and moaning.  If you, you personally, aren’t interested in having an election, don’t vote, and just go along your merry way.  But please, for the love of God, don’t attempt to speak for the rest of us who would happily exercise our democratic rights far more often than we’re giving the opportunity.  20 years ago today, in China, people died under tank treads and a hail of gunfire for the opportunity to vote in elections, and Canadians routinely treat the very same opportunity as some unconscionable fucking annoyance.   That’s a greater condemnation of our democracy than just about anything I can imagine.

Ignatieff’s time abroad confers as many pluses as minuses

Regular commenter Jason Bo Green asked in a previous thread, with regards to Ignatieff’s… um… substantial time abroad and my contention that it has both pros and cons: “but what are these pros in Ignatieff’s case?”  Here I go!  Actually wait, first of all, I should preface this discussion with my impression that were he not at least somewhat convinced that he would have a shot at the Liberal leadership, and the Prime Ministership thereafter, Ignatieff wouldn’t be on this side of the border right now.  That doesn’t seem to bother me.  I will leave enumerating the “cons” to other observers, but I think it’s worthwhile to acknowledge the “pros” of his protracted ex-patriotism.  Now here I go!

1) His experience abroad is in itself a plus.  I think it’s important for everyone to develop a more global conscience and understanding to the degree that they’re able, instead of the insular “I only care about myself, my family, and my neighbours” approach.  Too often, the latter leads to provincialism, regionalism, NIMBYism, and parochialism, none of which I consider meritorious qualities.  In an increasingly globalized world, it makes sense to consider an increasingly globalized mind an advantage, as opposed to a detriment. 

2) His experience playing with the big boys and girls at his assorted university placements is also, to me, a plus, as it seems to indicate he’s a world class mind, whatever his other faults may be.  Being smart is a good thing, I seem to think – there’s already superfluous levels of mediocre-boarding-on-stupid floating around Ottawa, and I’m not sure adding to that surplus is a great idea.

3) His separation from Canada, and all of our petty, foolish squabbles over the past 30 years is also, to a certain degree, a plus.  Many of the underlying pathologies that plague our particular democracy can be difficult to tear oneself away from unless it is a literal, physical detachment.  Partisanship and regionalism can be something that pervades a political animal’s character, and insults that were felt decades ago can linger, to the aggrieved individuals’ detriment (think Alberta and the NEP, Newfoundland and Churchill Falls, Quebec and anything that’s happened to Quebec in the past 250 years).  I think, at least conceivably, and in spite of his efforts to paint himself as the most Liberal Liberal who ever Liberaled, he may not be as infected with the visceral animosity that clouds the minds of so many partisans in Canada, and that would be a plus.  I would argue that Harper’s mind is just so clouded, and it impedes him functioning as what scientists call a ”normal human being” (indeed, if he could get over that, he might actually be good at his job).

Of course, all of these assorted “pluses” have corresponding “minuses”, but if he can leverage (buzzword!) the pluses and try to mitigate the minuses, he may be placed in good stead as a leader.  I probably still would never vote for him, since I frequently disagree with his party’s positions (plus, he’s a Liberal for Christs sake and the Liberals brought in the NEP which crippled Alberta’s economy in the 80s AAARGGGHHH!), but I’m at least willing to grant he may not be an illegitimate foreign usurper.  Many of his detractors should do likewise.