A reader mails:

You know Pieter, it really irritates me to no end how the libs have been jumping all over this as the group against offensiveness towards religions. You remember that whole "Piss Christ" thing years back? Weren't it the libs back then jumping up and down for freedom of expression?

Yes, I instantly remembered "Piss Christ" and when I did some research I was surprised that it was almost twenty years ago that it happened. And it was a double controversy, the left fighting for freedom of expression while the right was furious over the fact that a piece of blasphemy had been funded by the American taxpayer.

My reader is of course right. Our culture has accepted the notion that there is nothing wrong in using whatever means to argue that the dogmas and teachings of Jesus Christ are morally corrupt. Freedom of expression, fine, although we can discuss matters of good taste when it comes to Andres Serrano's now infamous depiction of Christ. Still, that assertion has somehow been accompanied by the argument that it is simply not acceptable to apply any criticism or ridicule to any other religion, most notably the one that finds itself increasingly in the spotlight of recent intellectual and public scrutiny. I leave it to your imagination if Serrano’s original work was somehow amended with another deity taking Christ’s place. I guess we would not be debating freedom of expression or who funded it, we would probably be debating something completely different.

Again, the ability to apply criticism and ridicule are the basic rights of anyone living in a western democracy. As a society we should expect citizens and artists alike to apply a measure of good taste. It is very hard to argue that the Jyllands-Posten's cartoons were offensive, but a case could be made that Serrano's "Piss Christ" was testing the limits of that somewhat arbitrary 'taste measure'. But we didn't kill Serrano, we didn't destroy his career, we didn't ask him for damages and a rectification, no, we debated it and we are still debating it today, twenty years on. That's freedom, that's democracy.

Although I am bullish about the ability of Canada's freshly elected conservative government to effect change, it is David Frum who points out that the entrenched civil service will create many obstacles to frustrate that process. He has made some creative assumptions as to how continued support for the Palestinian Authority will likely be justified:

"As unwelcome as the result is, we must understand why the Palestinian people voted for Hamas. They weren't voting for terrorism, war and the murder of the Jews. They were voting against corruption in government. It is important that we respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people. If we don't, we risk discrediting our own advocacy on behalf of democracy.

"The Hamas charter is repulsive, agreed. But our information indicates that there are potential pragmatists within the group.

"We believe that we can persuade these pragmatists to move away from their support for terrorism. But to persuade them, we have to engage with them. That means keeping dialogue open--which in turn means maintaining our diplomatic links to the Palestinian Authority and continuing our aid.

"We don't fund the Palestinian government directly. We direct our funding to non-governmental organizations and UN agencies. This money serves important humanitarian purposes.

"If we are going to play a role encouraging Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel, we are going to need to maintain our credibility in Palestinian eyes as a fair-minded intermediary. So it will be important to continue our policy of casting critical votes against Israel at the UN.

"Although it is not our job to give political advice, we're sure it has not escaped you that major groups within the Canadian Muslim community have welcomed this election result and are calling on you to respect the democratic process ...."

And it is not just Harper who will be facing this test of wills. Richard Fernandez has an instructive breakdown of funds on which the PA relies. So, the argumentation to continue to fund the authority now that it is under new management is likely not restricted to an obstinate Canadian civil service. A test of wills will be fought in many institutions - notably European and multilateral ones - and it is far from evident that any lessons learned from past dealings with the PA will be taken to heart.

A number of Peaktalk readers have alerted me to the following:

Denmark faced the full fury of the Muslim world yesterday as a long-simmering row over newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad finally erupted.

There were street demonstrations and flag-burnings in the Middle East. Libya joined Saudi Arabia in withdrawing its ambassador from Copenhagen. Islamic governments and organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain, issued denunciations and a boycott of Danish goods took hold across the Muslim world.

The Danish Government warned its citizens about travelling to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and withdrew aid workers from the Gaza Strip.

Last night EU foreign ministers issued a statement in support of Denmark, and the European Commission threatened to report any government backing the boycott to the World Trade Organisation.

One reader actually wondered if I would be willing to help spread the word of a counter-campaign and ask readers to "Buy Danish".

To be frank, this is probably an affair that will blow over and I personally do not put any faith in boycotts, counter-boycotts, consumer-support initiatives or whatever you want to call them. Not since I witnessed anti-apartheid activists destroy the wine collection of a mom-and-pop winestore for daring to carry South African wines back in the 1980s. Or when it was expected that as a pro-war in Iraq voice I should have stopped buying Brie. All total nonsense.

What is far more important is how the newspaper that ran the cartoons responds and according to LGF's Charles Johnson they have been consequent in their commentary. Here's Jyllands-Posten:

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code.

Good for the newspaper to reiterate its original position. It is also instructive that they have discovered that probably some of the cartoons that are now fanning the flames of Muslim discontent probably never even appeared in the newspaper. Anybody care to guess where they came from?

UPDATE I: Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive round-up of the affair, including the 'offending' cartoons.

UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan takes on Bill Clinton's lame and questionable reaction and argues very clearly about what is at stake here:

These cartoons help expose the brutalization of women, the use of violence in defense of faith, the idiocy of suicide bombers allegedly going to heaven, and so on. If we cannot speak of these things without giving offense, then we have lost our ability to discuss freely the most significant cultural shift of our time: the rise and rise of religious fundamentalism.

It's not the first time that the advent of self-censorship has come up on these pages. It will increasinlgy become an issue of our time and it is perplexing to note that someone like Bill Clinton is actually encouraging a framework on which that practice can be built. From thereon, self-censorship will become the norm, something that will be expected of all journalists.

It’s been a week since Canada’s federal election and a lot of media time has been spent on speculating who will lead the defeated Liberals out of the opposition and back into government. Two of the strongest contenders, former deputy prime-minister John Manley and former ambassador in Washington Frank McKenna have now officially bowed out of the race for that position. This of course has raised a lot questions, especially as both were regarded as “right-wingers” in the Liberal Party. It would actually be safer to call them centrists with an inclination to support policies that have at least one foot based in reality and that probably puts them off-side in today’s Liberal Party. But there are of course many other reasons, and speculation - do check out Coyne and CalgaryGrit – is mounting over the remaining viable contenders.

It strikes me that both men must have taken the view that there is little to be gained from stepping into the remains of Paul Martin’s legacy right now especially given their remarkable unsuitability to attack the new conservative government from the left. They may also have considered the possibility that it will be a while before another election is held. They can always throw their hat in the ring at a later stage, when some of the less than charismatic candidates that are vying for the position now may have run out of steam, or, have already stumbled.

What makes the race for liberal leader so interesting is that it will be an indication of how well the conservative government under Stephen Harper is expected to do. If tier-one candidates are now stepping aside, thereby leaving the field open for a few wild cards, then the Liberal Party may see itself in opposition for quite longer than some of its members would care to admit.

A divided and defeated party that has governed too long for its own good may need time to find the right leader and the right direction. The only readily available comparison is the British Conservative Party which has just inaugurated its fourth leader since it was relegated to opposition status some nine years ago. No doubt Canada's Liberals are more resilient than that, but the parallels must be discouraging enough for some to be very careful with a leadership bid.

This coming Thursday there will be a debate in Dutch parliament about sending a contingent of some 1,200 troops to Afghanistan. There have been some doubts about the project, you see. In the meantime pressure has been building on the Dutch to join the US-led efforts with NATO headquarters and even Kofi Annan weighing in on the importance of a sustained multilateral effort.

As I have discussed before, the current Dutch government can not rely on a very strong majority in parliament. That makes selling a dangerous mission difficult, especially when it becomes clear that casualties and war rather than peacemaking start to feature the agenda. The question the Dutch have to ask themselves though is, why it is that other NATO members should be willing to accept the consequences of a risky mission while they can bail out arguing that the mission is "too dangerous"? More on Thursday.

Via Baroneblog, I came across this highly instructive piece by John Miller about the need to eliminate Indian reservations as a way to eradicate Indian poverty. This is surely one of the other famed legacies of the age of political correctness that has prevented Indian communities from lifting themselves out of poverty. And the reasons are plain and simple:

Maybe we should give land back to the rez-dwellers, so that they may own private property the way other Americans do. Currently, the inability to put up land as collateral for personal mortgages and loans is a major obstacle to economic development. This problem is complicated by the fact that not all reservations have adopted uniform commercial codes or created court systems that are independent branches of tribal government--the sorts of devices and institutions that give confidence to investors who might have the means to fund the small businesses that are the engines of rural economies.

This issue is prevalent in both the US and Canada, but I suspect that entrenched interests in both nations make reform too onerous and risky a process for any sane politician to try his or her hands on. And there is probably little to be gained from allowing some poor Indian families to own their property and help build some equity in their quest to better their lives. But it remains a terrible stain on North America that can only be washed away by promoting certain basic economic freedoms.

Philomathean rounds-up all the news related to the Iran crisis on Mondays, his latest installment is up here.

At least that is the conclusion after two successive electoral defeats of Western leaders who had made anti-Americanism the center of their campaign platform. True, these two men were not the most appealing characters, but at one time their divisive message yielded some miraculous results at the ballot box. No longer. Here's an editorial from WaPo on the topic:

Mr. Martin becomes the second G-8 leader in four months to exit from office after discovering that anti-U.S. demagoguery is no longer enough to win an election. Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, also tried to rescue his political career last fall by parading his differences with Mr. Bush; the result was the victory of Angela Merkel, who has moved swiftly to repair relations with Washington.

Mark Steyn has taken a closer look at the phenomenon and explains:

It would be a stretch to argue that Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder and now Paul Martin in Ottawa ran into trouble because of their anti-Americanism. Au contraire, cheap demonization of the Great Satan is almost as popular in the streets of Toronto as in the streets of Islamabad. But these days anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and it's usually a reliable indicator that you're not up to the challenges of the modern world or of your own country.

Yes. It also means that Washington will no longer be alone or solely reliant on Tony Blair and John Howard in stating the morally obvious when it comes to terrorism and the Middle East. Today for instance Angela Merkel - while visiting Israel - made it plain that Hamas can not count on European funds if it fails to recognize Israel while at the same time underlining the threat that Iran currently poses for the world. Expect similar comments from Mr. Harper soon.

And in the spirit of clarity and improved messaging the following came out of Germany yesterday:

It is probably only a matter of time before Europe falls victim to a terror attack with a "dirty bomb" combining conventional explosives and radioactive material, according to Germany's interior minister.

In an interview with a newspaper released ahead of time on Saturday, Wolfgang Schaeuble said the spread of "dirty" material and weapons of mass destruction rendered the threat of attacks by international terrorists "extremely serious."

"The question is probably no longer whether there'll be an attack with a dirty bomb, the question is when and where it's going to happen," he told Germany's Welt am Sonntag paper, citing reports from intelligence services.

I've always considered Europe to be an easier target than North America, but it is surprising that such an acknowledgement would come out of Germany where the terror threat - compared to other nations - should in theory be somewhat lower. Let's hope it serves as a warning for all nations that are a potential target.

Today is the first day of the Year of the Dog. In the past I have ignored the various predictions for the new year, a practice that I will continue. Still, I can’t ignore to highlight how some of the world’s leaders will fare in the coming year:

Osama Bin Laden - He is a weak metal person and he needs the support of earth and metal. His current luck is strong earth, which is favourable and protects him. In 2005, his month and hours of Rabbit clashed, so it was correctly predicted that his deputy and followers would have problems but he would be protected by his strong earth luck. In 2006, the year of fire and earth, he has favourable elements. He will still be protected under the umbrella of the Earth element. As such, it seems he will continue to hide in 2006 without any dramatic change in his luck. However, his current luck of earth will expire in one or two years and his situation will become more difficult.

President Bush – The American President is a weak metal person, who needs the support of earth and fire. The year 2005 was turbulent for him as the Rooster metal activates his water luck to challenge his fire element, which is symbolic of his power and status. The Year of the Dog sees his favourable elements of fire and earth returning to give him support and harmony. Yang fire is a poor element and it combines with his yin metal, symbolising harmony with other world leaders and colleagues. The Dog is earth, which is his resources element, providing him with support and giving him a more conservative and cautious attitude. As such, 2006 is expected to be less turbulent, with President Bush adopting more cautious and harmonious policies, which will bring more control and security to his position.

Condoleezza Rice – U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a strong yang wood person, which symbolises a person of strong principle and someone who does not find it easy to compromise. She needs fire and earth elements as outlets for her strong winter wood energy. At the age of 52, she is just entering the new luck of fire and earth, which is favourable for creativity and money. The Year of the Dog has her favourable elements of fire and earth. So it is a good year for her to display her intelligence, with her even getting involved in economic matters and achieving respect and success. It will be a year in which she demonstrates her strong ability to handle international affairs.

There are more here, and on this site you will find more more background on the sign of the Dog itself.

The Hofstad trial is nearing its end now that the public prosecutor earlier this week put his sentencing demands on the table. They are, for Dutch standards, substantial:

The Public Prosecutor's Office (OM) demanded sentences on Wednesday of up to 20 years for 13 Dutch Muslims on trial in Amsterdam for alleged membership of a terrorist organisation.

Investigators gave the group the code-name 'Hofstadgroep' and alleged they met regularly to plot terrorism. The accused men claim they were just friends who met frequently to discuss Islam.

Jason W. and Ismail A. face the highest sentence. They were arrested after a day-long siege of a home in the Laak district of The Hague on 10 November 2004. The siege developed after five members of a police raiding party were injured by a grenade thrown by one of the two men.

It remains to be seen if the judge will take up the prosectution's wish list, generally Dutch courts will take some of the defense's arguments into consideration and hand out a penalty that is often milder than what was asked for. Sentencing is on March 10.

NOTE: Emerson Vermaat has been following the trial and has written a revealing piece about the group's defense attorneys. That group has shifted its interests from the now defunct Baader-Meinhof and other left-wing activists who somehow ended up in court to jihadists. With that they have tapped into a veritable growth market.

Some have argued that with the Conservative win in this week’s Canadian election there the right-of-center blogosphere would have less to argue and worry about. I suspect the reverse is true, there are new ideas to be explored and we will probably also see a surge in liberal and left-of-center blogging activity. This week started off with a great piece from Kate McMillan over at – of all places, the CBC election site – where she argues for the liberalization of Canada’s media landscape in her trademark trenchant prose:

“ … the single most important change he can make to restore balance to Canadian democracy is to begin breaking down the stranglehold of government and the Liberal apparatchik on the communications industry by eliminating or radically restricting the authority of the CRTC, restoring political balance on the board of the CBC and moving the network to a model of market self-sufficiency, and closing the generous pasture land of government funded "think tanks" where deposed and unemployed Liberals retire to lobby the government at government expense - and inform Canadians of our "Canadian values."

Which in turn prompted a counter response from left-liberal blogger Tim of “Peace, Order and Good Government” who laments that the Conservative party actually listens to the opinions and ideas that Kate puts forward. That in itself is an interesting and encouraging observation, but the urgency of his post leads me to believe that the left in Canada is, despite the belittling rhetoric about the size of it, concerned about the conservative success. Kate’s post actually has an urgent nature too; the mandate Canada’s conservatives won earlier this week may be short lived, so the window of opportunity to effect profound change may be limited.

So here’s a confident right and an alarmed left, both in a hurry. Just look at what happened after Bush’s marginal victory in 2000 and how that intensified the left-right debate. It appears to have arrived in the north.

In my report on our visit to Ashland, Oregon I didn’t mention we were approached by a woman and her children begging for money. When it happened I was somewhat surprised as she didn’t really fit the standard homeless, desperate on the street type of person, but I didn’t think much of it. Well, she probably was one of the affluent beggars which Matt Rosenberg discusses here and here.

Yes, you can make $30-40,000 a year (no doubt tax-free) on top of food stamps and other government hand-outs, together constituting a nice package that enables you to live a decent middle class life style. That is, if you find enough compassionate people on the street to help you fund it.

It’s been a very busy day and my plan to come up with a lengthier analysis on Hamas did not come to fruition. Not to worry of course, here are some random thoughts.

Have we been here before? Are we up for another transformation and witness how a terrorist group makes the almost impossible transition and becomes a democratically elected government? There’s strong case to be made that Hamas has learned from what came before it. It benefited royally from Arafat’s disingenuous approach to peace, not to mention his inability to forge any coherent social-economic policy. Hamas played the radical card which probably deteriorated the livelihood of average Palestinians even further, but as the opposition it could always claim it would some day be able to deliver a better alternative.

So, is that alternative rooted in a journey to moderation and co-operation or in unrestrained radicalization? Despite the disappearance of prominent figures such as Sheik Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas appears not to have lost any of its ideological fire. However it should be noted that the group is not as cohesive as we sometimes assume and the sudden sweep to power could well spark an internal battle between pragmatists and purists.

The purist’s message is simple, war and the destruction of Israel, at any cost. The question is who will bear the cost as such an approach would further destroy whatever is left of the Palestinian economy and forever dry up the steady stream of international aid. It would make the Hamas-lead authority susceptible to very unsavory donors which would further precipitate the Palestinian journey into the abyss. At that point by the way, Israel will long have disengaged from any roadmap or unleashed some real destructive power onto its direct enemy.

It’s not an unlikely scenario. Pragmatists do not have a great track record in steering their party in a direction of common sense once it has freshly gained power. The history of Soviet style communism and Mao’s purge of those who strayed too far from the book are clear examples of how internal battles in totalitarian groups can end. Pessimists may even argue that the struggle between radicals and moderates was actually waged over the past decade and that today’s result concluded that fight in favor of the hard-liners and the irreconcilable nature of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The latter is not a foregone conclusion, but Hamas ascent to power must even give the staunchest optimist food for desperation.

NOTE: There a solid round-up of reactions over at Pajamas Media, and of individual blogger reactions. In addition to those I would point to the Head Heeb and Dutchblog Israel for some sound analysis.

Initially it seemed very plausible that Saddam moved part or all of his WMD arsenal to Syria. Later on doubt set in, yet it continues to be a persistent rumor. Barcepundit has the latest and eleaborates.

David Warren discusses the fact that the Conservatives won the election, but failed to win any seat in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. With that the red state/blue state debate has formally entered Canadian life. Warren notes that "the difference between Vancouver and the B.C. interior is night and day". Yes, but then most of you were already quite aware of that.

As I have said before, abandoning the constraints of political correctness is great, but be prepared for some pretty absurd initiatives as a result. Mandatory Dutch in all public places is surely one of them.

We've been a little obsessed with the election here at Peaktalk, (okay, I have). So here's something completely different. An idea I genuinely hope can work: CarHarbour.

Right now it's just vapour-ware. But the idea is so simple. Identify an unused parking space (like your driveway) to a central server, and let people pay for it with their cell phones. (Description from TechCrunch.)

I can already spot some issues (payment enforcing, time limits etc.), but the implementation seems straightforward. Considering the interesting things people can do with the Google Maps API, I can easily envision a web-enabled cell phone where you can check for available spaces based on your location. And there wouldn't be any issue while it was still getting going. Even while inventory is low, if checking for available spaces is quick and easy, there's no downside.

File under 'Damn, why didn't I think of that?'

We haven't heard a lot from David Frum recently, but his piece on a new era in American-Canadian relations is a gem. So do read Putting an End to Ottawa's Brat Act.

At first I was disappointed in election the results. Then I remembered that even 6 months ago, a Harper victory was unthinkable. Pundits spent the summer calling for his head, and insisting that a leadership change would be required before Canadians would ever elect a Conservative government. And now we are disappointed with a minority! While it is not yet Morning in Canada, as Pieter points out, Harper has a chance to prove to voters that more than one party can be trusted to govern.

Adam Radwanski has an excellent piece in the National Post this morning, describing the Tory turning point.

It was 10 months ago, and the Conservatives seemed to be falling apart at the seams. As the local media snorted contemptuously at the party's decision to hold its first national convention in a province where it was a non-factor, dissidents patrolled the convention floor's hallways campaigning against Stephen Harper while social conservatives handed out anti-Charter buttons. Deputy leader Peter MacKay was openly picking fights with Harper while his equally ambitious girlfriend, Belinda Stronach, threw a lavish party designed to upstage the rest of the weekend's events.

Through it all, Martin's cadre of advisors were having a good laugh. What they didn't realize was that the Tories had one big advantage: They were capable of learning from their mistakes. And that weekend was their turning point.

So who should be learning from this example?

The US Democratic Party. Liberal pandering aside, Canadian and American voters are not really that different.

Harper and the Conservatives have shown that voters respond to calmly delivered policy, not angry rhetoric. They've shown that in order to be elected, you need to look and act like you might not trash the place. If you do that, you can convince voters to give you a chance. It's even better if your opponents don't respond to your strategy, and only rely on attacking you personally.

Harper proved that vitriol, as satisfying as it may be to the party faithful, will never win over an undecided.

But the Democrats were completely unable to learn this lesson after the 2004 defeat. There's still time for 2006, but given the recent hysterics, there's no evidence anyone in party HQ is even talking about calming down and acting like they could actually govern.

When all you do is oppose, you will be the opposition.

James Na of Guns and Butter reminds me that the GOP used to be the “blue party”:

Actually, the color scheme was the same here too. The GOP was blue (after all, blue is the universal color for conservatives everywhere) and the Democrats were red (as are the Social Democrats in, say, Germany).

But the media sprang the change on us a few years ago. I am not easily given to conspiracy theories, but I smell the rat here. Red usually connotes danger, blood, radicalism and so on, usually all bad things. I think the media in the U.S. flipped the color scheme to tar the Republicans with the negative connotations.

I’ve always associated “red” with communism and socialism and blue with conservatism (like in Britain) or classical free-market liberalism (in The Netherlands). It's odd that in this case American exceptionalism may be a mainstream media construct.

A few more notes about last night before we move on to other things. My first thought when results rolled in yesterday evening, was also my first thought this morning: it’s the beaten-wife syndrome, again. Or why does a significant slice of the Canadian electorate (a robust 30%) willfully return to its Liberal abuser time and again? In the face of an abundance of evidence of corruption, nepotism, arrogance and government waste?

Until very recently no one believed Stephen Harper could ever become prime minister, so it would be folly to accept the equally strange notion that Canada is forever married to the Liberal Party. No one can stay bribed forever. So on that note, read Andrew Coyne’s upbeat assessment of the election results and what it bodes for Canada’s future.

Can't resist a brief liveblog ...

As it stands right now, the Conservatives will become Canada’s largest party and form a minority government, but barely so. The preliminary conservative seat count (now at 8:33 PST) hovers around the 122 mark and for the defeated Liberals around 105. For Harper’s Conservatives this is at the very low end of expectations. And the re-alignment of the left has not materialized either. The bottom line is simple, the Liberals have done far better than expected. More later.

8:57 Rumors are that Paul Martin is not going to concede. No suprises here, I was expecting him to do a Gerhard Schroeder-like routine regardless of the size of the loss. But Martin has fought two elections and lost a significant number of seats in both. The consensus is that he's finished. And, leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff won in his riding so there you go. Conservatives can start to govern while the Liberals can rethink their future.

9:16 Well, that was indeed only a rumor. Martin called Harper to concede and he will step down as Prime-Minister and party leader.

9:24 The major news is that the Conservatives have forced their way into Quebec and that the Bloc Quebecois has captured less than 50% of the vote in that province.

9:33 The Peaktalk predictions (both Ginna's and mine) were off. The CTV screen now says 124-103-51-29 and one independent. Expect some minor adjustments (a number of races are very tight) later on.

9:43 Jack Layton's speech. Layton is diametrically opposed to anything I believe in, but I am beginning to like him as a politician. He ran a smooth campaign and he deserved to pick up more Liberal votes. More importantly, in the minority situation he can be a partner for the conservative government in cleaning up the institutional mess and finding ways to really address the democratic deficit (like an elected Senate for instance).

10:00 The consensus appears to be that there will be little appetite for another general election anytime soon. That may be true if Harper plays his cards right and that can only mean a fairly centrist approach. And the parties that hold the balance (Bloc and NDP) have probably very little appetite to bring Harper down quickly.

10:13 OK. I am getting a bit more optimistic, Harper now has a chance to prove himself and the Liberals may indeed need years to overcome another leadership struggle.

10:18 Here's Harper. He delivers a unifying speech, reaching out to all regions and all parties. If he can deliver on his platform, maintain his promises he may actually be able to tilt the center a little to the right and position his party for real success in the future. And although he reached out to all regions, the twinkle in Harper's eyes grew when he raised his voice and said "The West Is In". And, totally new for Canadians, better get used to it: "God Bless Canada"

Final note: popular vote 36-30. Seems like SES got it right.

In Summary
Canada voted for change, but very cautiously. The Conservatives have a tenuous mandate, but will probably have some time to prove that they have what it takes to lead the nation and earn its confidence. Expect them to start delivering on the easier (read: more centrist) parts of their platform. If they can do this successfully they may be able to expand on their newfound popularity in Ontario and Quebec and become a truly national party with future potential to win a majority.

There will be quite a few written in the days ahead, but Warren Kinsella couldn't wait until the outcome of this election to write his. For a former Chrétien staffer there must be some sour grapes here, but I think his portrayal of Canada's soon to be former Prime-Minister is pretty accurate. And entertaining.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn notes that the root of the Liberal woes can indeed be found in the regicide that took place a few years ago:

It's clear that - as with the British Tories and Mrs Thatcher - dumping Chretien came at too high a price for party unity, discipline and effectiveness. None of that is going to improve until Martin's gone. If the Liberals against all the odds come out with more seats than the Tories on Monday night, what are the chances of getting rid of him swiftly?

While we're all awaiting the outcome of the Canadian federal election, take some time to check out The Augean Stables. Richard Landes and Pedro Zúquete have lots of new and interesting posts dealing with terror, the Israeli-Arab conflict and the way western media treat these issues. In particular I would recommend their file on Cognitive Egocentrism.

So today Canada is going to vote, hopefully for profound change. Below is Ginna’s projection and I have taken her spreadsheet and run my own numbers and arrived at the following outcome:

Conservatives 139
Liberals 70
Bloc Quebecois 56
NDP 43

Yes, it’s a conservative minority and the far-left NDP will do quite well, helped by the moderate tone of their campaign and the Liberal collapse.

UPDATE: My numbers are not far off from Mark Steyn's 138-71-58-40. More number and riding crunching links over at Coyne's.

On a side note, my daughter without me ever prompting her has now registered so much of the activity that she told me yesterday that the “blue guys will win”. For the American readers, the right here is blue and the left is red, as opposed to the US. Strangely enough, that reversal also applies to Honda dealerships: red in Canada, blue in the US, but now I really digress.

Campaign Thoughts
The projected electoral shift is of course largely a result of Canadians waking up to the corruption and arrogance with which the Liberals have run the place since 1993. The beacon of hope, the fiscally conservative nice guy, Paul Martin, turned out to be a phenomenal disappointment. The shallow nature of his journey, which did nothing but perpetuate Canada’s stifling status quo, revealed itself painfully during this campaign and will now finally allow middle Canada to make a positive choice. Canadians are wiser, freer and more creative than the Liberal party has ever given them credit for.

Given the country’s relatively decent economic shape it should be clear however that the choice for Conservatives is therefore not necessarily policy driven. And if you need any evidence of that, just consider the fairly centrist message that their leader Stephen Harper has been banging out over the past two months. Yes, Canada wants a change of leadership, but not necessarily a change of course.

So if it is going to be morning in Canada - here's hoping - it is not because a center-right visionary leader has rallied his base and captured the center with a great and unifying vision for the future. No Gipper North so to speak. Rather than that, the Conservatives have run a strong and well-scripted campaign that will have sufficient momentum to give Harper a shot at cleaning house. It remains to be seen if he has the opportunity to address the nation’s most pressing needs – tax reform, reinvigorating healthcare, US relations – or if Canadians will buy into his approach over time and hand him or any of his successors a real mandate further down the road.

Results and Coverage
Any meaningful results will not start to roll in until about 7:00 PM Pacific Time as it is illegal to start posting results from one end of the country where polls have closed, if polls on the other side are still open. I probably will not be liveblogging this, but others have announced they will, so do check out:

Kate McMillan
Ed Morrissey
Bob Tarantino

Of course, there will be analysis and comments here once the final results are known later tonight/early tomorrow morning.

Since everybody is playing this game, I'll give you mine. This is the latest from my personal spreadsheet. (Colby Cosh is perhaps my only serious blogosphere rival for personal spreadsheet usage.)

I predict that the Conservatives will win a minority tomorrow, mostly by picking up seats in Ontario. Here are my province-by-province totals. I have them riding-by-riding, but am far too lazy to go in and clean up the garbage HTML Excel spits out.

Foreign writers, please stop acting surprised whenever the Dutch do not live up to the stereotype you have of them. Stop mentioning "the country's liberal stances on marijuana and prostitution" in the first paragraph of a piece on immigration and Muslims. And stop pretending that the stereotype used to be true, but now, alas, things have changed.

This is Jasper Emmering at his Hollandaise blog. He’s right and his comments capture exactly my sentiments which I’ve been expressing here and elsewhere for quite a while now. North American mainstream media dived into The Netherlands in the years following the Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders and most articles started off with exactly the same lame introduction that Jasper highlights. The above quote is actually in response to yet another North American journalistic foray into The Netherlands - this time by The New Republic's Abigail Esman – and Jasper emphatically tears the piece apart.

One would have expected that the renewed interest in the lowlands at the very least would have sparked some more creative reporting and objective fact gathering. It’s interesting, but I have been doing exactly that for a period of three years on this is site, for free, with hardly any interest from mainstream outlets. One that I should mention however is The Economist – actually one of the better and more informed sources – where at one point I discovered one of my ideas recycled in a piece about the Dutch troubles. For a lot of media here there is no budget to get some dedicated reporting out of The Netherlands. For instance, I know of one major New York based newspaper which gave exactly that reason when someone approached them with the idea to become a dedicated reporter on the ground in Amsterdam (no, it wasn't me). Still, financial considerations should hardly be an excuse to serve up poorly researched clichés.

The downside of this flawed reporting is that even in the blogosphere some very faulty conceptions gain favor. When I was in New York for the Pajamas Media launch there were many observers who, like TNR, believed that the Dutch had now sharply moved to the right and that the small nation was in the vanguard of fighting the war on jihadism. If only. If elections were held today the left – consisting of Labour, Green Left, and Socialists – would take parliament by storm and have no trouble replacing the shaky center-right coalition that is now in place. The remains of Fortuyn’s party would be swiped away and the natural heirs to the professor’s platform - the Free Market Liberals - would suffer a very embarrassing defeat. There’s no need to get into the why of it, the point is that the Dutch are not moving to the right, they’re now even balking at sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Sure, the country overall has abandoned some of the politically correct paradigms that used to stifle debate and all political parties have become much more pragmatic in order to find new solutions. But that doesn’t mean a strong rightward turn as the TNR’s Esman suggests, or as Arjan Dasselaar argued last week: it’s all talk and precious little action. And, as Jasper Emmering points out, a lot of what now is identified as hard-right policy was in the making long before the Fortuyn/Van Gogh murders swept the country off its feet.

So, beware what you read. There are a few part-time bloggers out there who have so far provided far better and more accurate coverage about The Netherlands than some of the more established media have.

David Warren gives - of course with some of his trademark pessimism - a fair assessment of Monday's stakes. He also highlights the important role that the blogosphere has played in debunking liberal scare-tactics. Read the whole thing.

Although Paul Martin is already billed as the biggest loser of Monday’s election, I can’t help but thinking that it is the ‘old left’ in general that will be dealt a blow of historically significant proportions. As such, Martin will have to share the losing honors with union leader Buzz Hargrove who made a gross strategic error by severing ties with the resurgent and popular left-wing New Democrats (NDP). Instead he devoted his energies to propping up the faltering and clueless campaign conducted by the Liberals, something to which 'the Buzz' himself vigorously contributed.

The NDP – no longer directly beholden to union interests – has capitalized on the Liberal fall by surging in the polls and by delivering a surprisingly centrist campaign. Any change is of course hard and terribly slow, but by promoting mandatory sentencing and a commitment to not raise taxes there are promising signs of the left's incipient common sense. And their leader, Jack Layton, is not a fool. Layton correctly sensed that there was little to be gained for his party by attacking Harper’s conservatives, but that there was a far bigger chunk of disgruntled Liberals to be had. And judging from the numbers, he’s getting them.

By running a positive and palatable campaign - boosted by Hargrove’s gift that kept on giving – the New Democrats may have started to entertain thoughts of outpolling the Liberals and form the opposition. A hard-left that rejuvenates itself by severing union ties and which focuses on issues that motivate its often urban base (taxes, crime) may be turning itself into a modern and more flexible force, as Tony Blair has proven in Britain.

The “Canada’s Blair” moniker was therefore probably a little too prematurely handed to Michael Ignatieff. The Independent has taken a closer look at his foray into politics, and highlighted the problems the politician- philosopher has run into during his first campaign:

Nonetheless, wherever Ignatieff goes on the trail these days, he is dogged by protesters, some dressed in the orange jump-suits worn by inmates of Guantanamo Bay. There are other allegations against him, that he is too pro-American and most relating to his role as one of the left's lonely supporters of the Bush-Blair decision to invade Iraq, without UN support. For many grassroots Liberals in Canada, this is too much.

What irony to see a representative of Canada’s left-liberal establishment run into potential electoral trouble against a conservative because of the humane instincts that led him to support the liberation of Iraq. But it wasn’t just that particular issue that affected his chances. Since Liberal Party arrogance is one of the major themes of this federal election, the way Ignatieff was parachuted into the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding was due to come under some form of scrutiny. Therefore it is Ignatieff’s association with the incumbents that may prove to be the millstone that is dragging down his efforts, or as Colby Cosh argued a while ago:

But Ignatieff regards the Liberals the same way all Liberals do, though he is more candid than most. He sees them as "the governing party", period. It's a matter of religious faith. So while he might be capable of quarrelling with the Liberals on fine points of post-Pearsonian foreign policy, he is utterly unprepared to offer a comprehensive critique of the party's history.

And with that Canada’s future is probably best served by a Conservative government, counter balanced by a left-of-center opposition that is no longer encumbered by a heavy institutional history or demands - read organized labor - that no longer have a solid footing in today’s reality. Canada's renewal will have to come from both the right and the left. On Monday we will see if the re-alignment of the left is siginificant enough to contribute to that much needed process.

Macleans is proposing that Canada raise the voting age to 21 because, as I understand it, so few people between 18 and 21 vote. So preventing those who actually do is clearly a pressing issue. Or something. J. Kelly Nestruck deconstructs this argument quite ably, so I won't dwell on the proposal itself.

What interests me is that it's coming up at all. The authors propose two conflicting reasons for such a proposal. First they state that young people are innately too immature to vote:

But there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that's a wrong-headed approach. Scientific, sociological and demographic evidence indicates that young people are, in essence, too immature and too detached from functioning society to be entrusted with the vote. What if the move to lower the age from 21 to 18 was wrong in the first place and ought to be reversed?

By 'scientific' they must mean biological, but quote no evidence. I spent last weekend with my stepfather, who left school at 13 in 1940 to support his family. I loved telling him that there's 'scientific' evidence that teenagers are not even mature enough to vote, let alone hold down a job and shoulder adult responsibilities.

But just a few sentences later, our intrepid authors come up with another reason:

But kids today aren't what they were in 1970 -- not the stakeholders in the political process, nor the models of civic engagement their boomer parents once aspired to be..."The traditional adulthood of duty and self-sacrifice is becoming more and more a thing of the past," James Côté, a sociologist at the University of Western Ontario, explains. In 1970, adolescence ended abruptly after the age of 19; now it languishes well into one's 20s or 30s.

So it's purely cultural? That I can buy. Basically 18 year olds don't vote because voting is like, pretty hard.

My own opinion is that young people don't vote because no one really expects them to. When I was growing up, political engagement was mandatory. Our house subscribed to several papers, and we were expected to read them and have an opinion to express at the dinner table. And woe betide us if our opinions were unformed. As I turned 18, I was firmly expected to vote at the earliest possible opportunity. Federally, this meant the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord.

I realize we were anomalous. Society doesn't really expect very much from teenagers these days, even older ones.

But then, the history of western society over the last 50 years has been the gradual reduction of personal responsibility. We hardly even expect very much from adults any more. Having absolved adults from taking responsibility for the important aspects of their lives, is it any wonder that voter turnout is decreasing?

In the meantime, we marvel at situations where we actually do have to step it up. From another article in the same Macleans issue, this one on school reform:

"Sometimes it's a little scary," [principal Jane ] Klaray says. "You're treated as an adult. You're given a great deal of responsibility. The expectations are very high and you're judged on the results."

In a country where school principals marvel at being treated as adults, it should not be very surprising that teenagers expect to be treated like children.

Interesting Gallup poll, the results of which carry the title Can a "Reagan Revolution" Happen in Canada? The answer to that is probably 'yes' when it comes to lowering taxes and trying to deliver government services more efficiently. But there are some diverging points as it may be harder to sell a "peace through strength" message to Canadians who still haven't woken up to the various global threats.

Furthermore, as Gallup notes, there is a divergence between Americans and Canadians when it comes to social issues. The odd thing however is that Canada is now poised to vote a Prime-Minister into office who on the social paragraph definitely stands to the Gipper's right. Money quote from Galup:

Martin attacked Harper during a recent debate for being too "American" in his views on tax cuts and government spending. According to one report, "Martin said Harper would create a 'fend-for-yourself' society, while the Liberals would look out for everyone with programs like child care and massive tuition relief for students."

However, it is easy to see how that strategy may backfire on Martin. A Gallup Canada poll conducted last spring found nearly three-quarters of Canadians (73%) complaining that their federal income taxes are too high.

As indeed they are. Morning in Canada? We'll have the answer on Monday evening.

But not to worry, it remains sizeable.

UPDATE: Conservatives will win (via Nealenews).