Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Monday, June 28, 2004
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Chretien-Martin the British edition The Telegraph has the latest on the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown conflict. The Telegraph reports: "A blunt warning from the Chancellor that Downing Street attempts to undermine him "will not be tolerated" threatened to reignite the open warfare between Tony Blair and his arch-rival for the Labour leadership." So one side is being petty and responding petty while pretending not to be all while barely under the surface a leadership race is being conducted. Where have I seen this before? British Tories might hope that the seemingly unbeatable Brown wins, if Canada is any guide on how these things end up. Maybe Canada's Greens would take him US Green Party did not endorse Ralph Nader, making his job of getting on the ballot in a majority of states a lot harder. That huge sigh of relief you heard was the the Democratic establishment. Hmmm, here's a thought. The Green Party, unlike Nader, doesn't want to hurt John Kerry's chances by splitting the anti-Bush vote too much. Election round-up Ted Byfield finds that, finally, the New Canada -- what Mark Steyn calls Trudeaupia -- may be coming to an end. Or at least a reconsideration. Technically it's a post about the Red Ensign, but Ghost of a Flea says it is time to repudiate Trudeaupia because trading the world's third largest navy (along with the spirit of exploration and entrepreneurialism) for the metric system and the CBC wasn't Canada's best move. The Edmonton Journal's Jason Markusoff wants Stephen Harper to embrace the Charter so we know he doesn't harbour any hidden agendas. Canadian Comment hopes Lesbo-protesting catches on. At The Shotgun, Steven Martinovich says that Ralph Nader isn't quite getting his facts right when he says a vote for anyone-but-Harper is a vote for timely, quality healthcare. Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren says that Canadians get the government they deserve when they settle for politicians who are "good enough." If you enjoy the standard, mindless, thoughtless, recycled Left cliches against the Conservatives, peruse Vancouver Ramblings. Steyn on Clinton on Hillary No, not a kinky three-way. Mark Steyn reviews Bill Clinton's truth-impaired autobio My Lie by noting a insignificant little lie that says so much about the Clinton: "Is there anything interesting in 'My Life' by Bill Clinton? Oh, yes. Page 870. The Clintons are in New Zealand and finally get to meet "Sir Edmund Hillary, who had explored the South Pole in the 1950s, was the first man to reach the top of Mount Everest and, most important, was the man Chelsea's mother had been named for." Hmm. Edmund Hillary reached the top of Everest in 1953. Hillary Rodham was born in 1947, when Sir Edmund was an obscure New Zealand beekeeper and an unlikely inspiration for two young parents in the Chicago suburbs." You see, Bill Clinton not only lied, as he defenders often said, about an affair as anyone and everyone does, but when he doesn't have to, when there is no "reason" to lie. Not telling the truth is what the Clintons are all about. Personally, I don't believe Bill when he says he loves his mother. That about sums it up Monica Lewinsky on former President Bill Clinton's characterization of their, ahem, "relationship": "... he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet, and he just couldn't resist the dessert." Just one other point about Monica -- this seems a desperate attempt to extend her long overdue 15 minutes. C'mon, sweetie, keep your mouth shut for once. Saturday, June 26, 2004
Election round-up Revolutionary Moderation has made up its mind about whom to vote for: the NDP. Within the endorsement RevMod observes of NDP lost chances: "I'm not happy with how the NDP ran this campaign. I've never seen an electorate so open to new ideas or to changing their vote, but the NDP isn't walking home with those ballots. I'm going to wonder for a long time what would have happened if Layton's first-week momentum hadn't been tripped up by Martin the Murderer and Clarity. But that has nothing to do with who I trust to govern." Paul Wells has two posts of note. In the first, he suggests Prime Minister Paul Martin offer Jack Layton a seat in the cabinet without forcing him to change parties. In the second, he comments on Martin's hypocrisy and the fact that he has no soul (my characterization, not Well's). At The Shotgun, Mark Cameron notes that Martin changed the rules to help benefit CSL and wonders how this is the "safe, do-no-harm choice." Polyscopique describes how the Liberal Party extreme social liberalism resulted in their trading of their reliable ethnic vote for Scott Brison. The Globe and Mail reports this morning the reason for the Liberal turnaround: the Grits rediscovered their self-esteem. God bless Dick Cheney The US Vice President has no regrets over telling Senator Patrick Leahy (D, VT) to f-off while exchanging unpleasantries on the Senate floor earlier this week: "I said it...and I felt better after I said it." Friday, June 25, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
I would too Senator Patrick Leahy claims that Vice President Cheney cursed at him on the Senate floor during an already nasty exchange. Apparently Cheney flung the f-word at the f---ing jack-ss from Vermont who has been blocking Bush's judicial appointees and criticizing the war in Iraq as little more than a large corporate subsidy of Halliburton. Today's students worse off than slaves Enjoyed this tidbit from Thomas Sowell's latest Random Thoughts column: "A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass has footnotes explaining what words like 'arraigned,' 'curried' and 'exculpate' meant, and explaining who Job was. In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today's expensively under-educated generation." Election prediction Entering the fool's territory of election predictions, here's mine; I'm bold (foolish) enough to provide province-by-province breakdown. Newfoundland - Liberals 4; Conservatives 3 Prince Edward Island - Liberals 2; Conservatives 2 Nova Scotia - Liberals 6; Conservatives 3; NDP 2 New Brunswick - Liberals 5; Conservatives 4; NDP 1 Quebec - Liberals 9; Conservatives 1; Bloc 65 Ontario - Liberals 39; Conservatives 57; NDP 10 Manitoba - Liberals 3; Conservatives 8; NDP 3 Saskatchewan - Conservatives 12; NDP 1; Independent 1 Alberta - Liberals 1; Conservatives 27 British Columbia - Liberals 7; Conservatives 25, NDP 3; Independent 1 Territories - Liberals 2; NDP 1 Totals - Conservatives 142; Liberals 78; Bloc 65; NDP 21; Independent 2 Possibility of a surprise: Conservatives take the Yukon. Radical correction if: voter turnout stays at 61% (or falls lower) or NDP vote falls below 16%. If that happens add Liberal seats in Manitoba (1), BC (1-2), Atlantic Canada (2-3) and Ontario (14 from the Conservative side to the Liberal side) and NDP gain 2 seats in Saskatchewan (both from Conservatives). New math: Conservatives 120; Liberals 97; Bloc 65; NDP 23; Independent 2. Crossposted at The Shotgun Election round-up Peaktalk says look to Europe for coalition ideas. Daimnation chimes in, too. (Question for readers: how does Paul Martin and Stephen Harper team up in a national unity government when they've said what they've said about one another over the past month?) All Things Canadian has a novel theory about why the Ottawa ridings are going to go (mostly) blue. Blue Revolution has some thoughts on pitching Stephen Harper. Warren Kinsella says (June 23) he's voting Liberal because he's got Maria Minna in his riding. Outside of blogland, Sun Media's Greg Weston says what everyone knew anyway: the election results will hinge on turnout. And finally, Calgary Grit has a hot, not list worth reading. The silent majority LifeSite reports that according to Gallup, a majority of Americans are pro-life and opposed to homosexual sex. It appears that Americans are not as socially liberal as the media or the cultural elite claim they are. Now when will they begin to demand that their elected represenatives and media represent their values? Good news and bad news The Washington Times reports that beheadings are permitted by Islam in certain extreme circumstances. That's the good news. The bad news: apparently being American or Jewish (or worse, both) are extreme circumstances. Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Here's a surprise Chicago Tribune reports that Mary-Kate Olsen, the skinny brunette of the pair, has being treated for anexoria. The basis of the report are articles in People and Us Weekly. Nice to see what the Tribune, which featured the story for a while today as its top story on the website, is following the lead of such magazines of esteemed journalism. Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Bill's incredibly tedious bio Paul Wells has the best comment on Bill Clinton's biography My Life, the biggest collection of dishonesty between two covers since his wife Living History: "You know how Clinton was a magnetic speaker who managed to hold audiences through long, long speeches, despite their dense content? Well, this book has none of that. It's a great big horse tranquilizer." Everyone expected Bill's bio to be dishonest, but boring? It takes an arts reporter National Post arts reporter J. Kelly Nestruck maintains one of the most enjoyable blogs (On the Fence) in the country. Today he makes a point about politics that, unless I've missed it, every political commentator has missed making: "In Trinity-Spadina, for instance, it's going to be either Liberal Tony Ianno or N-Dipper Olivia Chow who gets elected. If Ianno gets elected, it's just one more seat for the Liberals. If Chow gets elected, it's one more seat for the NDP, which you can add to the Liberal total in a minority gov't situation. So, in a way, an NDP seat is just as good for the Libs as a Liberal seat is." Election roundup Both Colby Cosh and Daimnation has some thoughts about possible coalitions, especially the idea of a national unity coalition of the two major parties. At The Shotgun, Rick Hiebert and Laurent Moss discuss doing the coalition with the Bloc and wonder whether the BQ wants provincial rights or socialism more. Meatriarchy is dubious of poll that shows the Liberals ahead by 6%, an unlikely 11-point swing. David Mader thinks the Conservatives are luckly to still be in a horse-race. Talk Canada has three excellent reasons to vote Conservative. Sad day Italy was eliminated from Euro 2004 despite the win because Denmark and Sweden conspired to play to a 2-2 draw to ensure two Scandanavian teams in the next round. Now I must pin all my soccer hopes and dream on the Netherlands winning tomorrow. Monday, June 21, 2004
Much ado about nothing Canada Free Press columnist Arthur Weinreb says that the only people who care about the leaders' debates are media types. Juxtapose the ink spilt in newspaper coverage and the fact that only 1 in 10 voters watched them; he has a point. Michael Moore go home Activist entertainer Michael Moore is an ideas imperialist, attempting to impose upon Canada his leftist notions. Ex-pat Pete Vere (who, thankfully, is returning to Canada) has some thoughts on Moore's latest rant, the target being Stephen Harper: "We Canadians know how we will vote in the next election. Our votes are not about to change because some journalistic equivalent to masturbation (your entire shtick, in my opinion, is about Michael Moore -- nobody else -- so you don't even have enough credibility to be dismissed as a hack) orders us to do otherwise. Michael Moore, go home! You've made a big enough nuissance of yourself in your own country. Leave Canadians alone..." Sunday, June 20, 2004
Light blogging ahead Less posting than usual this upcoming week due to 1) the fact that my day job will invade my evenings, 2) family responsibilities and 3) the final re-write on my forthcoming book Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal. No election round-up until at least Tuesday. Liberal's both arrogant and scared Richard Mahoney, the Liberal candidate for Ottawa Centre, said in a recent all-candidates' debate, that voters must choose between the Liberals and Conservatives when they mark their ballot because they are the only two parties that can form the government. I hate to say I agree with Carla Dancey, the Canadian Action Party candidate ("It's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it") and Ed Broadbent, the NDP candidate (vote your values, although he worded it in a way that left the impression that the only values worth voting upon are NDP values), but I do. Vote for the candidate that best represents your views. Candians elect not prime ministers or parties but members of Parliament; it is wise to elect the person for the job. Mahoney and the Liberals are trying to nationalize the election, to make it an either/or choice between the devil you know and the scarier devil you don't. This, of course, has its advantages as most of the minor parties are variations on the left-of-centre vision generally shared by the Liberals. And, of course, of most the target audience for the vote-for-us,-not-the-Conservatives campaign, are NDPers. It might work because NDP voters are the only strategic voters. My guess is that they vote for the NDP unless they can be convinced to vote Liberal to help derail the prospects of a Conservative government. That was the message to left-of-centre voters in the 1999 and 2003 Ontario provincial elections: vote for the most viable left-leaning candidate, which in almost all cases is the Liberal. And that is why Team Martin conducted a silly campaign against the Conservatives as socially conservative extremists; voters wanting to prevent Stephen Harper from becoming prime minister will look not to the NDP, but to the Liberals. Unfortunately, the party's stategy to nationalize the campaign could be effective even if it is arrogant as hell. Saturday, June 19, 2004
Fundraiser for Scott Brockie If you live in or plan to be in the Niagara area on June 26, there is a wonderful fundraiser for Scott Brockie, the man who incurred more than $150,000 in legal fees and fines for not printing homosexualist propaganda. Senator Anne Cools is the guest speaker. You can order tickets here, email me at paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com for more information or call Paul Tuns at (416) 204-1687 on Monday. But Monday is the last day to purchase tickets, so act soon. Iraqi torture video The American Enterprise Institute has video from Saddam's days of torture at Abu Grhaib. Because of its extremely graphic nature, you won't be seeing this on the evening news but if it did, most Americans would (or at least should) more strongly support the liberation of Iraq. The New York Post's Deborah Orin covered the airing of the video but did not watch them herself; those who did witnessed, in Orin's words, "savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade — all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises." And then Orin makes an important point about the difference between the United States and Iraq: "But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news. In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it. No surprise, since no newscast would air the videos of Nick Berg and Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl getting decapitated, or of U.S. contractors in Fallujah getting torn limb from limb by al Qaeda operatives. But every TV network has endlessly shown photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib. Why?" Good question and the answer tells us a lot: "But part of the issue is simply that Saddam's tortures, like al Qaedas tactics, are so awful that they're unbearable to watch. If I couldn't watch them myself, I'm hardly arguing that others should have to. Yet it raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling." Because a picture is worth a thousand words, but only one set of pictures are being shown, we are getting only half of the story -- arguably even less than half of the story. Friday, June 18, 2004
Election round-up Even many conservative bloggers are upset at Stephen Harper saying the Liberals and NDP support child pornography; Bob Tarantino has the issue covered over at The Shotgun. Monger has three great posts: on schadenfraud (that's not a typo -- go read it), on how Martin's demonization of Harper as a threat to healthcare will not work and how he cannot so easily give up his addiction to the most recent polls. A few days ago, some blogger (sorry, I forget who) said that Toronto Star columnist/election-time blogger was just a Liberal PR guy. Read Day 27's The Pulse to see why. I think Right in Canada missed an excellent opporunity for joke in a post about prisoners having the right to vote and how most convicts are eschewing voting for the Conservatives; something along the lines that many of the convicts once were Liberals working in Ottawa or Quebec. Writing about the murder of Paul Marshall Johnson Jr. Trudeaupia wishes some leader would talk about the increasing threat of Al-Qaeda. Not in his name An Illinois state legislator wants to rename the Stem Cell Research Act (which permits embyronic stem cell research), the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act, "To honor the memory of former President Ronald Reagan." Of course, Reagan opposed fetal tissue research, so it is no stretch to think he would oppose the deliberate destruction of an embryonic human being for experimentation purposes. It's more than the sociology, stupid Father [sic] Andrew Greeley argues in the Los Angeles Times that abortion has little effect on the voting habits of Catholics, which is probably true -- after all, the Catholicism of many legislators seems to have little effect on their actions. The more important question is whether or not it should. I think that Greeley is arguing backwards by illustrating that abortion need not influence the votes of Catholics because it doesn't. Clinton still doesn't get it Or he does and he's still a liar. From Kathryn Jean Lopez in The Corner: "Not to obsess on the topic, but Bill Clinton tells Dan Rather re: Lewinsky affair: 'I think I did something for the worst possible reason — just because I could.' Is that really the worst possible reason for doing something you shouldn't do? Malicious intent? Wouldn't that be worse? And, then, of course--I hope Rather followed up--what he did with Lewinsky was not the worst of what he did, contrary to popular belief about what Ken Starr was after. It was the lying. It was the abuse of power....sigh." So is he stupid or a liar or in denial? Watch your weight while we subsidize the sugar producers Ross Clark's Globophobia column in The Spectator exposes the contradictions of government wishes and programs, in this case of Britian's facist attempt to keep people from getting fat all while subsidizing the sugar industry. Apparently you can't have your sugar and eat it too. And this policy hurts the developing world. Thursday, June 17, 2004
Stern v. Bush The Charlotte Observer reports that Howard Stern wants President George W. Bush out of office. The paper reports: "'I'm asking you to do me one favor: Vote against Bush,' he said on one recent program. 'I call on all fans of the show to vote against Bush,' he said on another. 'We're going to deliver the White House to John Kerry'." With endorsements like these, how can Kerry go wrong? Election round-up, mini edition Trudeaupia finds that perhaps the Liberals wish they hadn't passed the gag law now that they need their friends (government hangers-on) to advertise on their behalf. Colby Cosh critiques a criticism that Stephen Harper might begin a new era of stcking the courts. Canadian Comment finds another reason to vote Conservative. James Bow describes the phenomenon of the non-knockout debate. And Jay Currie says the debate about healthcare is not really about healthcare but about the governments monopoly on the provision of what passes for healthcare in Canada. Absolutely the last word on the debate Miles Tompkins, a village idiot at the Citizen's Dialogue at the Globe and Mail thought the moderator at last night's debate did a good job; her lack of control of the children in her care did not bother Tompkins. He writes that "let them play, like a good referee should in a playoff game." And the debate was like a good playoff game: it was useless in helping determine which leader would make the best prime minister. Fellow Shotgunner Alan Rockwell, I presume, would not have approved of her laissez-faire style of moderating. He writes: "I have a suggestion for future debate formats. It works quite well in classrooms across the country. Don't speak while someone else is speaking." So how long until terrorists attack the US from Ontario? The Toronto Star headline: "McGuinty promises U.S. security 'vigilance'" Remember, promise in Daltonese means it won't happen for 24 hours unless he said he would do something and then it won't happen at all. Nicole Kidman v. He-Man? No, this is not some sarcastic dig at the alleged unmaleness of her ex-hubbie. Meatriarchy has some thoughts about Nicole Kidman's bathtub scene with a ten-year-old but nothing as profound as his wonderment with Kidman's celebrity status: "Why is Nicole Kidman such a big star? She looks like Skeletor with red hair." Wednesday, June 16, 2004
We live in strange times Kay S. Hymowitz writes in City Journal about the morning-after in sex-obsessed America and has this priceless observation that says so much in two short sentences of five and seven words respectively: "Madonna is writing children’s books. Gloria Steinem is an old married lady." There is a difference between not supporting and censoring The Washington Post editorializes against the Bush administration's decision to not support as fully as in the past an AIDS conference in Bangkok. The editorial concludes: "... the attempt to deny conference platforms to groups that oppose the administration's view is inimical both to free speech and to scientific inquiry." The administration is not denying a platform to those who believe that condoms are better at preventing AIDS than abstinence, but rather it is chosing not to support a conference that is likely to find come to such conclusions. One can debate the wisdom of the Bush administration's policy (I agree with it) but there should be no debate over whether this is censorship; the AIDS confab is not entitled to enabling support from those on the other side of an issue. It isn't politics when your side does it In The Corner, John J. Miller excoriates Senator Orrin Hatch (RINO, UT) for saying that science, not politics should dictate US embryonic stem cell research policy, but then cites as a reason to go forward with ESCR a letter signed by 200 Congressmen. This is entirely fitting Grenada honours Ronald Reagan. The AP reports: "Prime Minister Keith Mitchell was among the legislators lauding the former president, who died June 5 at age 93. Lawmakers approved a motion saying Reagan played a significant role in restoring peace and democracy. ...'At the initiative of former Governor General Sir Paul Scoon and several Caribbean leaders, a request was made to President Reagan for urgent military intervention in Grenada to restore peace and stability," Mitchell said. "President Reagan responded positively and decisively to the request and intervened militarily'." The black vote Writing in the New York Times, Juan Williams says that President George W. Bush could garner 20% of the black vote in November. If he does, Senator John Kerry is toast. But for the same reasons that Williams thinks Bush could get 20% of the black vote (Kerry does not inspire them, black churches are more friendly to this GOP administration because of its faith-based initiatives, etc...) I think the black vote will be at an all-time low. Instead of voting for Bush or against Kerry, many will stay at home. This is especially true states where there is no Senate race (Michigan, New Jersey), a run-away Senate race (New York) or unexciting Senate race (Pennsylvania and Ohio). There are two exceptions where the black vote might be higher: Missouri where there are close gubernatorial and Senate campaigns and Illinois, where the Democrats nominated a black Senate candidate. But otherwise, blacks, who already vote at lower rates, will stay home at record numbers, which is almost as beneficial for Bush. French imperialism I was going to title this post "Not about the debate" but that would hardly be sufficient description of what it was about. And lest I ramble on like Jonah Goldberg introducing (or in today's case, re-introducing) a column, let's get to the topic at hand. The Daily Telegraph reports that French Polynesia (or, for American tourists, Tahiti) has elected a pro-independence president. Samizdata's Robert Clayton Dean notes France's hypocrisy for condemning American "imperialism" while themselves maintaining a presence in every ocean, not to mention destination of choice for French soldiers and civil servants. France threatened to cut off subsidies to their colony if they elected the pro-independence party to power and sent extra police to fend off any unrest. Obviously there is an immediate need to have the United Nations take over the territory and administer it until Tahitians can take control of their own land. Crossposted at The Shotgun Election round-up: Debate edition, the next morning Adam Daifallah says that his impressions of how each leader performed changed with the passage of time -- a whole 2 hours and 15 minutes. Blue Revolution takes Paul Martin to task for trying to belittle Stephen Harper's promise of hybrid transports by claiming that troops are moved around in airplanes, not boats. BlueRev asks: so where are the planes? Fellow Shotgunner Jay Currie thought Harper was excessively cautious. He says "It sounded to me as if Harper is running for a minority. And that, I'm afraid, is a mistake. If you are the challenger you have to swing for the fences not hit endless singles." But wouldn't endless singles run up the score? Endlessly? And Colby Cosh wanted to slap Paul Martin whenever he employed the stupid smile whenever someone else was talking. Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Reagan just an actor Why does the Left dismiss Ronald Reagan as a president because he was "just an actor" but not dismiss the political views or social commentaries of Alec Baldwin or Barbra Streisand as the ideas of mere entertainers? Really, what were Backstreet Boy Kevin Richardson's credentials to address Congress on the issue of mountain-top mining? About Reagan the actor turn politician Jay Nordlinger makes an observation: "I loved how they called him a "movie actor" — as though he'd stepped right off the Warner Bros. lot into the Oval Office! No two terms as governor of California (a state that, Reagan used to say, would be 'the eighth largest economy in the world if it were a separate nation'). No leadership of the SAG. No leadership of an important political movement. Etc." RIP again Ben Boychuk has some comments on how most observers are getting it all wrong about the passing of the important anti-Stalinist Leftist journal Partisan Review. I for one was surprised that PR had not already died, which by the way was my reaction to the announcement that Ray Charles died last week. Extremism in the cause of killing babies is no vice Trudeaupia reports that CBC has apologized for insinuating that those who support adoption are extremists. What's in a patriot? The Associated Press reports that Teresa Heinz became a Democrat because of the Republican attacks on former Georgia' senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee -- a fact that allegedly proves his patriotism. She is quoted saying, "Three limbs and all I could think was, 'What does the Republican party need, a fourth limb to make a person a hero?'" It is not his lack of appendages that Republicans were worried about but rather his lack of stomach to do what needed to be done to 1) keep America safe at home and 2) fight America's enemies abroad. What would you expect? The Toronto Sun's Bill Brioux interviewed Paris Hilton and about 40 minutes into the exchange asked her about Canadian politics. He recorded the exchange: "Who will win the Canadian election," I asked, "Paul Martin or Stephen Harper?" There was silence on the other end of the phone. Election round-up: The debate edition Canadian Comment gives a letter grade and comment about each leader's performance in the debate tonight. Ghost of a Flea does not share Paul Martin's obsession with healthcare. These guys want to be prime minister, Paul Wells says in disbelief. At BlogsCanada : E-Group Election Blog James Burns had some pretty conventional thoughts, none of which are notable except his discription of Jack Layton's Troy MacClure look. And check out my colleagues and my eight or ten posts at The Shotgun. Live debate blogging Daimnation is live debate blogging. He has some wonderful points and notes some great quotes including this one: Martin to Layton: "do your handlers tell you to talk all the time?" Monday, June 14, 2004
Slagging Reagan or The fall of the Soviet Union was only inevitable after Reagan One way the Left dismisses Ronald Reagan's success was to say that he didn't win the Cold War because the fall of the Soviet Union and its Evil Empire was inevitable. Putting aside the particular Marxist notion of inevitability, for a minute, consider Irving Kristol's Weekly Standard essay on how Reagan expedited the destruction of the inhumane communist regime: "Ronald Reagan rallied the American people to fight the Cold War by holding out the prospect of victory. Without his leadership, it is not so clear that the Soviet Union would have collapsed "on its own," as in retrospect it seemed to do. The Cold War need not have ended when it did, or as it did. It was Ronald Reagan, by his arms buildup and his inability to contemplate anything but an American victory, that persuaded the Soviet leaders they were fighting a losing war. And so they folded their tents and stole away." The whole article is worth reading. As is Peter Robinson's in Opinion Journal, who argues that Reagan forced the Soviet Union's reach to extend beyond its grasp: "Imperial overreach? True enough, the Soviets found themselves stuck with an empire they could no longer afford. But you can hardly blame them. By rebuilding our military, Mr. Reagan had forced the Soviets to spend more on theirs. By arming the contras in Nicaragua and the mujahideen in Afghanistan, he had compelled the Soviets and their proxies to engage in long, expensive wars of attrition merely to cling to territory they'd already come to think of as their own. By supporting the dissident movement in Eastern Europe--Mr. Reagan provided funding and equipment to Solidarity, to name just one example--he had transformed the Warsaw Pact from an asset into a liability." Crossposted at The Shotgun Election round-up Over at The Shotgun, Kevin Steel is soliciting comments on the French-language debate and has some observations of his own. Kevin Jaeger also has some thoughts. Ezra Levant writes about double standards in the Calgary Sun -- the media dropped the Malcolm Azania story pretty quickly; would they have accorded the Conservative Party the same journalistic amnesia? Trudeaupia wonders: why try to regulate greenhouse-causing gaseous emmissions and subsidize Ford? J. Kelly Nestruck takes issue with the Globe and Mail: "My favourite headline today about the debates is from the Globe and Mail: 'Martin has four hours to save campaign, Liberal MPs caution.' Nice try guys, but this election is not an episode of 24 and Paul Martin is certainly no Jack Bauer." Over at BlogsCanada: E-Group Election Blog James Burns finds that the Conservatives have the most fiscally irresponsible platform. Adam Daifallah wonders whether it is criminality or bad judgement that led to the use of an illicit campaign video on behalf of Ed Broadbent. Canadian Comment illustrates how low the Fiberals will go. And not to get ahead of ourselves, but Adam Radwanski has a list of potential Liberal leadership candidates. Don't shed socons to make the Conservatives acceptable A comment to my "Did all of Canada turn gay" post at The Shotgun, from "mgl" says that libertarians trying to suck up to the media/political elite by ridding conservatism of its social conservatism, will never work: "Stephen Harper could come out of the closet tomorrow and declare himself perfectly comfortable with gay marriages performed in abortion clinics, and the CBC and the Star would STILL find reasons to hate him. They're not going to like us, whatever we say, because they don't like (or understand) conservatism." Sunday, June 13, 2004
Not getting it Ghost of Flea is bored with the gay rights debate. So am I, quite frankly. But he misses the point when he accuses me of writing another anti-gay screed at The Shotgun. I did not disparage homosexuality, but rather the presuppositions of a certain gay website's coverage of the Canadian election and the idea that we must all respect (as opposed to tolerate) homosexuals. In his own post, Ghost of Flea would seem to be calling for tolerance ("do what you want, I don't care") while at the same time saying he doesn't care about the issue -- just before writing an entire post and at least three comments at The Shotgun and his own blog, about the gay issue. When it comes to tolerating homosexuals, too many libertarians demand that we respect homosexuality. Saturday, June 12, 2004
Reagan's epitath "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." (Via Steve Martinovich's blog at Enter Stage Right) Jacoby on labels the media use Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby notes the squeamishness of the liberal media to call partial-birth abortion what it is -- the abortion of a partial born child -- without saying that PBA is the term used by abortion opponents. But, Jacoby astutely points out, the media never acknowledges who uses the terms "campaign finance reform," "assault weapons," and "homophobia." Why? Because these terms "tend to reinforce the liberal political outlook most American journalists share." Friday, June 11, 2004
More on the hypocrisy of 'choice' Choice is not a principle; it is the picking or presentation of an option of two or more things, not the thing(s)itself. And to prove the point (yet again), Ottawa Citizen columnist John Robson (not available online without a subscription) adeptly skewers the hypocrites: "Let those women seek to inhale pot smoke into their own personal lungs, or just agree to work where there's second-hand tobacco smoke, and see how much Ms. McLellan respects their right to make decisions about their health and their bodies at the beginning of the 21st century. How do you reason with such people?" Liberals and their media accomplices now just shut up The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission has "determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003." The whole report on World Tribune is worth reading, if for no other reason than to prove (once again) a liberal wrong. (Via Let It Bleed) Election round-up On top of the usual shut-the-socons-up advice, Jay Currie offers a strategy that the Conservatives should follow if they are smart: "[they] need to be ready with a set of ads which highlight 1) scandals, 2) waste, 3) the same old gang. These are not so much attack ads as ways of asking whether the electorate wants more of the same pandering and patronage." Pondering the Malcolm Azania story, Andrew Coyne wonders: "Are elections in any other country so regularly blown off course by these irrelevant 'gotcha' stories? Does any other country have as lazy and superficial -- or as concentrated -- a media as we do?" (I would argue that Canadians -- the voters and the media -- have neither the inclination or the intellect to handle substantive stories about the "issues" and thus we get stuck with endless "gotcha" abortion or anti-Semitism stories as opposed to a discussion about abortion or anti-Semitism.) Calgary Grit remembers a classic Tim Powers quote about Paul Martin. Occam's Carbuncle on the odd Liberal strategy of declaring yourself the least sucking party. Polyscopique on the little leader who went oink. The Monger weighs in on a story that claims the Liberals won't push Paul Martin out the door if he loses. How seriously can you take a blogger/columnist (Don Martin) when he gets elementary facts wrong such as the location of the Canadian Krispy Kreme doughnut shop (it's not in York Centre, as he claims, but Mississagua). Look for idiot in the dictionary and you'll find whose picture? Actually, you'll find many people's pictures, but on top of that list in the US editions will be Dick Morris, former toe-sucker, former consultant to the star pol himself, Bill Clinton. In Morris' latest New York Post column, he claims his former client (the presidential one) is the political son of Ronald Reagan: "But it was Clinton, the liberal, who accepted the construct imposed on his presidency by Reagan — a balanced budget, welfare reform and government re-invention and reduction. It was Clinton who boasted that he had pruned the federal payroll to its "lowest level since Eisenhower" — but it was Reagan's vision that made him do it." This might be true but -- and this but is extremely important -- but only because he had to work with a Republican Congress that were true heirs to Reagan. Focus on 'optimism' is central misunderestimation of Reagan From Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post column: "'Optimism' is the perfect way to trivialize everything that Reagan was or did. Pangloss was an optimist. Harold Stassen was an optimist. Ralph Kramden was an optimist. Optimism is nice, but it gets you nowhere unless you also possess ideological vision, policy and prescriptions to make it real, and, finally, the political courage to act on your convictions. Optimism? Every other person on the No. 6 bus is an optimist. What distinguished Reagan was what he did and said. Reagan was optimistic about America amid the cynicism and general retreat of the post-Vietnam era because he believed unfashionably that America was both great and good -- and had been needlessly diminished by restrictive economic policies and timid foreign policies. Change the policies and America would be restored, both at home and abroad." Nagging reporters, dogging questions Fellow Shotgunner Kate McMillan makes an excellent observation about those nasty social issues that are "dogging" or "plaguing" Stephen Harper, which is this: the media has more interest in the social issues than voters. Now my two cents (which is what a blog is all about, right?): the media doesn't like Harper's initial answers to questions about abortion, gay marriage or whatever, so repeatedly re-pose the question. I understand the "hecklers" reaction yesterday -- it had nothing to do with the fact that a Toronto Star reporter asked Stephen Harper about gay rights; it had everything to do with the fact that a reporter was asking the question for the thousandth time. David Olive is an idiot Reporting in his election blog, The Pulse, Toronto Star business writer David Olive shows the usual Toronto Star interest in facts. He notes: "The old saying has it that the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Proof? The overnight CPAC/SEC tracking poll released Tuesday put the Tories four points ahead of the Grits nationally, at 35 per cent of decided voter support. Another sign of surging Tory momentum. But today’s Ipsos-Reid poll shows the Liberals clinging to a slim lead of 32 per cent over the Tories’ 31 per cent - a dead heat, when accounting for the plus or minus 2.2 per cent accuracy factor. How’s this for momentum?" Now Olive should know that the SES tracking poll is daily and the 35% result is at most one day old. The Ipsos-Reid poll is conducted over several days and then takes several days to release. So, despite the fact the Ipsos-Reid poll was released after the SES tracking poll, its figures indeed pre-date the SES figures and therefore Olive's smart-ass comment "how's that for momentum" is nothing but a cheap shot and an erroneous one at that. Very sloppy, but Olive, like his paper, would never let facts get in the way of any shot at the Conservatives. Peretz on Kerry's vice presidential options The New Republic's Martin Peretz is unexcited about anyone on the list of 70-odd -- and I mean odd -- people presented to Senator John Kerry for consideration for the number two slot on the Democratic ticket. Peretz, who thought Al Gore was the greatest thing since Al Gore invented sliced bread, doesn't like any of them -- five Republicans (including the unlikely pick of Christie Todd Whitman), Rep. John Lewis, former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, Senator Jay Rockefeller, retired General Anthony Zinni, former Senator George Mitchell and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Of course, these names are added to the usual suspects: retired General Wesley Clark ("a touch goofy"), Senator Bob Graham ("congenitally incapable of rousing excitement in anyone" whose "aloof dullness is hardly what the Kerry campaign needs more of"), Governor Bill Richardson (who "spent part of a day in 1997 in Washington to interview Monica Lewinsky about a job at the U.S. mission at the United Nations. Why would anyone want to open up that can of worms again"), Rep. Richard Gephardt ("speaks to the Democratic core, but the Democratic core does not win general elections. (It didn't even place him in the top three in Iowa)") and Senator Evan Bayh ("I have nothing to say about Evan Bayh, either for or against, and, I suspect, neither does almost anyone else"). Peretz's pick: New York's charlattan attorney general Elliot Spitzer who reminds Peretz "of Theodore Roosevelt -- not the TR of bluster, but the TR of remedy and of vision." As Ronald Reagan might say: "I knew Teddy Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt was a friend of mine, Elliott Spitzer is no Teddy Roosevelt." Unless, of course, it is the TR of bluster. Don't believe the hype Embryonic stem cells might not be so promising after all. The Washington Post reports, Wesley Smith comments. The Post reports: "... stem cell experts confess ... that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit." But that hasn't stopped ESCR advocates from peddling the promise of Alzheimer's treatment. Smith begins his Weekly Standard essay: "PEOPLE NEED A FAIRY TALE," Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand." Not only is embryonic stem cell research unethical and unprofitable but likely not even employable in medical treatment. Let's give ethical stem cell research, using adult or somatic stem cells (with more examples reported on here), a comprehensive try before even considering going down this nightmarish road -- especially considering that the promise of treatment and therapy seems to have been overplayed. Crossposted at The Shotgun Thursday, June 10, 2004
Fools or liars Roger Kimball wonders what category Ronald Reagan's critics fit into. NRO reprints Martin Anderson's 1992 consideration of the fools and liars who criticized the Reagan economic record. Anderson says: "I think the prime reason so many in the media persist in retelling the Reagan myths is that our academic intellectuals, those who profess to tell us the comprehensive truth free and clear of political prejudices, have lost their integrity. And when professors from Princeton and Harvard and MIT distort the Reagan economic record, it is not surprising that many in the media get it wrong." So, in short: the economists and historians are liars and the media who uncritically use them as sources are fools. Much ado about nothing I have to disagree with those who think that Paul Martin not going to Ronald Reagan's funeral is somehow a big deal. Here's a little known fact: Martin is not the head of state. As a small-r republican I hate to come to the defense of Canada's silly system but Adrienne Clarkson is the head of state, not Martin, who is merely the head of the government. Canada is being represented at the funeral and indeed represented by the person who should be there. Furthermore, unlike many of Clarkson and John Ralston Saul's previous jaunts, this is a legitimate flight expense for our regal couple. Liberal hypocrisy Ottawa Citizen columnist/election-time blogger Susan Riley is so clever when she points out that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives don't "want the state interfering in business, but [they have] no problem with government regulating our personal lives." This line is often used against conservatives, so I'm wondering why don't conservative ever turn this around? Liberals want to regulate the affairs of business but don't want to interfere in the personal lives of individuals. Why, is the so-called inconsistency ever a problem in reverse? Why is it assumed that it is a matter of indifference to the state that marriages break up, that women kill their babies and whatever else might happen in one's "personal life" while everything a business does is the state's business? Of course, liberals don't really believe that the state shouldn't interfere in our personal lives or they wouldn't regulate guns and cigarettes and a million other "personal" activities. Compassionate conservatism or political opportunism? Stephen Harper wants to make it easier for foreign-trained immigrants to work in Canada. But as the Toronto Star reports, "The Conservative leader will also need a larger share of the immigrant vote if he hopes to take the lion's share of seats in the suburban belt around Toronto." While it might be politically expedient to promote such a policy, why are the possible politicla motivations of the Liberal Party never questioned? The election round-up We are at the midway point of the election or what news readers are calling a possible "pivot point" of the campaign. Well thanx all, for that analysis. For more thoughtful commentary you should check out some of the following. David Mader on the gender gap one week into the Liberal scare-campaign on social issues. Jay Currie also has some thoughts on the gender gap and notes, among other things, that women have a keen ethical sense and that "The waste and corruption of the Liberals can and should offset the split issues like Iraq and abortion." Adam Daifallah is remarkably pithy on the "high profile" Tories backing Annie "Get your gun" McLellan. Trudeaupia says of the Liberal attack ads: "I took a quick look at the ad, and I have to agree. Resorting to already debunked lies about aircraft carriers, and scaremongering about teenage pregnancies is just pathetic. Their problem is their integrity, which is not enhanced by piling lies higher and deeper." Bob at Canadian Comment plants tongue firmly in cheek and wonders why Joe Clark wasn't made King of Canada. At The Shotgun, Alan Rockwell suggests some parties Clark might want to support now that the Conservatives are too extreme for the former Progressive, er, what was the second word in the political party he used to belong to? Paul Wells notes the irony in former separatist Jean Lapierre needing the ethnic and anglos to get elected as a Liberal in Outremont. In a post yesterday, Wells sinks to a new low in trying to link Stephen Harper to the abortion cause and "US-style negative campaigning" -- a term that I think is trademarked now by the Globe and Mail or CBC. Polyscopique notes a genuinely conservative proposal from the Conservative Party that flew under most people's radar screens. Don't believe the polls Or at least the headlines about the polls. The Los Angeles Times headline screams "Kerry has Solid Lead." The story reports that President George W. Bush trails Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) 51%-44%. However, reading the not-so-fine print in the second paragraph reveals that Bush is ahead in Missouri and tied in two other key states (Ohio and Wisconsin). In other words, in the Electoral College, Kerry does not have a solid lead; indeed, it is a close race. Also note this finding, as the Times reported it: "Also, while Bush narrowly led in March when voters were asked which candidate 'has the honesty and integrity to serve as president,' the two now are essentially tied, with Bush attracting 41% and Kerry 40%." Notice that Kerry is polling 11% ahead of the number that consider him to have the integrity and honesty to serve as president. Reagan on the $10 bill? The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti says that Grover Norquist notwithstanding, Ronald Reagan wouldn't want Alexander Hamilton dropped from the $10 bill. In Continetti's reporting, Norquist, who heads the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, says that Hamilton should go because he would be easy to get rid of -- as a Federalist (i.e. not a Democrat or a Republican) there is no constituency that would raise a stink about Hamilton being dropped. Continetti, however, notes that Reagan praised Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers: "...it is easy to see that Reagan's patriotism, his worshipful attitude toward the power of the American idea, flowed in part from the reverence he felt toward the Founding Fathers--Hamilton among them. Still, the sad fact is that Norquist is right. The Founders don't have much of a political constituency these days. With Ronald Reagan's death, that constituency lost yet another member." I don't see how it is a service to honour Reagan by ridding from the public consciousness one of the people he admired. Surprise, surprise The Guardian reports that France opposes US plans for Middle East and aligns with the Arab dictatorships. And after 16 months of complaining about the US to be all multilateral (read: have the endorsement of Paris), French president, Jacques Chirac, says greater Nato involvement in Iraq would be neither "timely nor well understood." What does that mean? Has France abandoned multilateralism? How do you say bastard in French? More celebs like Rachel Hunter, please And not for the obvious reasons, either. A New Zealander, She said: "If I could, I would vote for Bush. He has done what needed to be done because if Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had their way, none of us would be around in 10 years. Clinton had a lot of tea parties with celebrities, but [right after] his term, somebody flew two planes into the Twin Towers. What do you want - somebody who keeps your children safe or somebody who throws nice tea parties?" (Via The Corner) Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Get rid of the G8 Great idea, although a replacement, as suggested by AEI's Claude E. Banfield, a G3 of the United States, Europe and China, is a bad idea. What do these regular meetings accomplish? Of note, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has suggested enlargening the G8. What would larger meetings accomplish? Such get-togethers are holdovers of the 20th century when meetings were a substitute for action. It is time to end the international photo-ops. Which, by the way, must be the motivation for Paul Martin wanting to increase the size of the G-whatever: the president of the United States and prime minister of Japan or the United Kingdom are too busy to take many photos with, but the leader of Turkey might make time for the Canadian prime minister. Maybe. Perhaps it should be the G99. Just an idea. Election round-up lite Fellow Shotgunner Kathy Shaidle has seen the Liberal attack ads against Harper and wonders if they might not have unintended consequences. Both Let It Bleed and Jay Currie comment on Carolyn Parrish's strange political model: Kim Campbell. Good old Tories get behind their gal Anne McLellan. And finally, J. Kelly Nestruck says that summer elections might be better for the Green Party. Tuesday, June 08, 2004
On Reagan National Review -- NRO and The Corner and presumably the dead tree version in a week or so -- is the place for Reagan commentary. K-Jo notes in The Corner an item from NRODT from April 29, 1988: "Poet Allen Ginsberg declares that the Reagan Administration has loosed an era of 'troglodytes and fundamentalists,' with the 'moral minority trying to control what the majority hears.' Quite so, but those are unduly polite terms for the liberal moralists trying to undo two Reagan landslide majorities." I love Reagan in that manly, conservative way as the next manly conservative guy but I agree with Richard Brookhiser that Reagan does not belong on the $10 bill: "I think he [Reagan] was a great man. But Alexander Hamilton is the founder of our prosperity and our national strength. Keep him where he is." William Buckley remembers Reagan; this memory is a great mini commentary not just on Reagan but the National Catholic [sic] Register: "One day, half way through his term of office, he called and said he had seen criticism all his life and understood it, but what he had read just now, printed in the National Catholic Reporter, was a bit much, an article by Alden Whitman which said that 'resident Reagan is bringing fascism to America as certainly as Mussolini did to Italy.' I told him the Catholic bishop in Kansas City was suing the National Catholic Reporter to make it remove the word "Catholic" from its logo, since the weekly had no connection with the Church. And I told him that Whitman, who wrote obituaries for the New York Times, had taken the Fifth Amendment when asked if he was a member of the Communist Party. He said that information made him feel a whole lot better." John O'Sullivan remembers Reagan as the leader of the free world and the man who made it freer. The 40th president takes his place among the enemies of the enemies of man: "Reagan did not stand entirely alone against these chic appeasers. Even an abbreviated list of his allies would have to include the Pope, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, some politicians whose staunch role is unappreciated outside their own countries such as Italy's Francesco Cossiga, dissidents of great courage such as Vaclav Havel and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Western sovietologists like Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes, and the enslaved peoples of the Soviet bloc. But Reagan was the leader of the free world." William Bennett urges us to celebrate Reagan's accomplishments and suggests they were all the more unlikely because of the former president's seeming contradictions: "In thinking over just what it was that made Ronald Reagan so unique, it is hard to improve on what so many have said. But, one thing that has not been spoken about Ronald Reagan was his uniquely American life of irony — both personal and political. This 69-year-old man was elected to the presidency when Americans felt that their country had, perhaps, seen its best days. Reagan changed that. This, the oldest man elected to the presidency, made America — and Americans — feel young again; he rejuvenated all of us. He was a Protestant who received a great many votes from Catholics; a Christian who received unprecedented votes from Jews. He was a Hollywood movie star who was comfortable with Middle America, and who Middle America felt was one of their own. He was elected governor of California in the protest, left-wing culture of that state in the mid-'60's. And, he was a conservative Republican who peeled away unprecedented Democratic voters from their party of Roosevelt." I'm back I'll be posting at The Shotgun and here more now that my computer is back. Except on Wednesday when I'll be watching the Dodgers beat the Jays. In the meantime check out my post on the devoutly pro-abortion Paul Martin and Bishop Henry's response to pro-abortion Catholics and my post about so-called gaffes. Election run-down Toronto Star columnist/election blogger David Olive, who doesn't provide links to each post/day, noted on Day 16 this great quote of the day by John Baird, an Ontario MPP and Ontario co-chair of the federal Conservative campaign: "Gary Carr’s reinvention as a Liberal candidate in Paul Martin’s election campaign is probably the first time in Canadian politics that a rat has jumped on a sinking ship." Blue Revolution on the media blind spot on the real difference between the Liberals and Conservatives: "The Liberal Party exists for the sake of power: while Stephen Harper proposes free votes in the Commons to satisfy his party's spectrum of different views, Paul Martin runs on a platform that even some of his fellow Liberals aren't supporting. The question is how long until the media notices the distinction, or will they keep blathering away about Harper the 'extremist' until the 28th." J. Kelly Nestruck on the nuts at Rabble.ca blathering on about the nuts in the Green Party, whom, forgivably, Nestruck has taken a liking to: "Here's a fun thread over at rabble.ca, where a bunch of lefties deride the Greens for lacking 'an anti-capitalist class analysis.' Sweet!" Fellow Shotgunner Kevin Jaeger notes the limits of Liberal concern for a woman's freedom. Laurent Moss has some thoughts on the Liberal campaign to demonize Stephen Harper as Stockwell Day 2.0 which is long but worth reading and not just because he links to my analysis of the Paul Martin cabinet in the January issue of The Interim. And finally, in the Globe and Mail, Hugh Winsor says that the media are accomplices in the Liberal campaign to smear Harper and company as socially conservative extremists. Of course, he fails to mention that the whole abortion-as-an-election-issue began when his paper ran a frivolous front-page story on Rob Merrifield's answer to the Globe reporter's queries on abortion. Liberal Party loss is Conserative Party gain Senator Anne Cools, whom John Robson once called Trudeau's greatest legacy, has jumped from the sinking ship SS Liberal Party of Canada to the Conservatives. Toronto Star is cheeky: "In 1984, Pierre Trudeau appointed her to fill an Ontario Senate vacancy, making her the first black to serve in the Upper Chamber. She has been a colourful legislator, noted for her outspoken attitude and gregarious nature." Get it: first black in the Upper Chamber, colourful legislator. Very clever, indeed. ___________ is to Canada as Israel is to Palestine Canada Free Press has a story on anti-Americanism in Canadian textbooks and its consequences: "This explains where little Paulie (Martin), little Johnny (Chretien) and the plethora of anti-American Canadian journalists got their base for Yankee bashing. They, too are among the masses, which were educated in Canadian classrooms." Common misperception about the Catholic Church Trudeaupia is the latest victim of erroneous thinking about what Catholics are taught, or, more properly, how they are taught. Discussing Paul Martin's criticism of Stephen Harper as not being pro-abortion enough, Trudeaupia says, "You've got lots of people in your party who consider abortion morally equivalent to murder. The NDP has a Catholic priest as a candidate who preaches exactly that morality, and if you pay attention in mass in your Catholic church you'd have heard exactly that comparison being made many times over the years." Now I've been going to Church since before I was born and although I cannot say how many times priests gave sermons on abortion before I was born, since I have had the capacity to listen to and understand the homily, I can count on two hands the number of times I've heard abortion mentioned from the pulpit. Despite the common misperception that Catholics are lectured on this topic endlessly, we ever hear about it in any official capacity in the church; indeed, that seems to be part of the problem. If Paul Martin and other Catholic politicians were properly catechized, perhaps fewer of them would be advocates of legal abortion. Friday, June 04, 2004
Election notebook Laurent Moss finds some difficulties in Jason Kenney's suggestion that Mario Dumont might be put into a Conservative cabinet. The Meatriarchy describes Paul Martin's challenge to hold onto even a minority government. Canadian Comment sets its target on manipulating, er, encouraging the youth vote. And so much for Jean Chretien's "social peace" on abortion" -- a number of blogs chime in on the abortion controversy, the best being Trudeaupia's condemnation of the Toronto Star (the "house organ of the Liberal Party") which is "alarmed at the prospect that, if elected, Stephen Harper would allow the basic function of a Westminster style democracy to perform its role as intended. That’s right, he would allow an elected member of parliament to bring forward a bill and allow other members to vote on it, even if the bill contained measures addressing abortion. It appears that in some eyes this paints him as an extremist, while a hardline commitment to ensure any discussion on the topic is killed at source is the reasonable, mainstream thing to do." Daimnation finds Martin failing the abortion component on the democratic deficit test. Brock on the Attack finds abortion a non-issue, although for a non-issue there is a lot of ink being spilt. Thursday, June 03, 2004
Election roundup Adam Daifallah finds that Paul Martin is showing his true colours and they're bright red. (Martin says you can't have Canadian-style healthcare with US-style taxes; but Canadian-style taxes will give you so much more, too.) I can't tell if Laurent Moss finds that more free votes on issues such as abortion are a good thing but nonetheless makes an important point: if Stephen Harper wins, pay attention to what the local candidates believe. I'm not sure people are going to like a Parliament with a less dominant PMO. Steve Martinovich comments on the politics of private healthcare. Living in a Society says there is more to life than politics. I'll find out after June 28. Over at The Shotgun, I wonder what will Canadians go for: nuts, scary or corrupt. Lastly, I'm not the only one to find Paul Martin is an ass. Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Technical difficulties I had a post on Conservative candidate Rob Merrifield's comments on here earlier but when I tried to correct the date (which was showing January 1, 2006), I lost the post. I'm trying to fix it. Back later. Sorry for any inconvience. Countdown to the return of good government in Ontario 1218 days left in the Dalton McGuinty government. The War on Terror is not a distraction on the War on Terror Too many liberals think that prosecuting the War on Terror will cause more terror, that the world is more dangerous today than it was September 10, 2001 because we dare challenge those who seek to kill us. Joshua Muravchik wrote in the Los Angeles Times that we may not be safer now than then but it is necessary danger: "Are we safer now than we were before we began to fight back against the terrorists? Perhaps not, just as we were not safer when we began to resist Hitler, prompting him to declare war on us. Back then, we were not safer until we had won. And we will not be safe now until we have defeated the terrorists and their backers." Welcome If you're visiting because you saw my post reprinted in the National Post, welcome. Come back and visit regularly. I cover anything that catches my fancy which is usually politics, the culture, religion, sports, entertainment -- basically anything you find in a newspaper. Please send comments to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com Serving up the Liberals and other election commentary Kevin Jaeger wonders how you like your Liberals cooked. J. Kelly Nustruck wonders why the Marijuana Party kicks off quoting George W. Bush. David Mader notes the similarities between the Martin Liberals and Eves Tories. Warren Kinsella says his old party is in free fall and that the column he wrote earlier this in the National Post week may be a tad optimistic. Another Liberal, Calgary Grit, thinks that Paul Martin might pull a John Turner. Paul Wells says the media is ignoring big news in Quebec. Also, Laurent Moss noted that the Conservatives have candidates in every Quebec riding but one. Vicki Smith says the "on the campaign trail" coverage is mimicking reality TV. (It's sad when election coverage is like reality TV, isn't it?) Tuesday, June 01, 2004
There is no such thing as just reporting the news or Globe becomes a Liberal accomplice? The front page of the Globe and Mail today is scandalous because of the juxtaposition of two stories. At the top, the headline raises the possibility of "a government led by Stephen Harper." Below the fold, a headline announces "Tory critic wants new abortion rules." No doubt to the editors of the paper, these are both frightening possibilities. But the second story deserves some scrutiny. First, the Conservative Party has no position no position on abortion. Its leader describes his own views as somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life. Today, Harper responded to questions on this issue and reiterated that his government would not initiate abortion legislation nor seek a referendum on it. The impression that a Conservative government would restrict abortion is wrong. What Merrifield called for was third-party counselling on abortion, to ensure that women seeking abortions would be presented with all the information about the procedure including potential health risks. What is wrong with that? Why is that so scary? Or controversial? The story by Jill Mahoney -- not just its place on the front page -- deserves quick comment. First, three pro-choice sources (Henry Morgentaler, CARAL and Planned Parenthood) are quoted but only one pro-life source (Campaign Life Coalition). Second, the story refers to Merrifield as a "50-year-old former businessman and farmer." Readers can dismiss the ex-farmer as unsophisticated, the 50-year-old as from a bygone era. But Merrifield is also a former member of a regional health board and former co-chair of Parliament's Standing Committee on Health. He's no dummy. Thirdly, the reporter left the impression that rule on third party would restrict abortion access but in reality it would do no such thing. All it does is allow women to make fully informed decisions. Didn't feminists of the 1960s and 1970s argue for abortion counselling for pregnant women so expectant mothers could make "informed choices"? Lastly, and this does not come out clearly in the story, Merrifield answered a question about abortion funding and he moved to his issue. It was not the Conservative Party that brought up the issue but the reporter. Is there an agenda in putting out this story now, with the Conservatives in a virtual dead heat? In 2000, when the Canadian Alliance polling numbers were improving, the CBC broadcast a hatchet job on Stockwell Day (The Fundamental Day) that attacked the former CA leader for his religious views; within days, the Chretien Liberals went on the attack on Day's social conservatism. Will the Liberals and their media accomplices use abortion as a wedge issue now that their desired election results seem in doubt? Would one of our national dailies stoop to such lows and cooperate in the Liberal Party game plan? There is no such thing as just reporting the news or Globe becomes a Liberal accomplice? The front page of the Globe and Mail today is scandalous because of the juxtaposition of two stories. At the top, the headline raises the possibility of "a government led by Stephen Harper." Below the fold, a headline announces "Tory critic wants new abortion rules." No doubt to the editors of the paper, these are both frightening possibilities. But the second story deserves some scrutiny. First, the Conservative Party has no position no position on abortion. Its leader describes his own views as somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life. Today, Harper responded to questions on this issue and reiterated that his government would not initiate abortion legislation nor seek a referendum on it. The impression that a Conservative government would restrict abortion is wrong. What Merrifield called for was third-party counselling on abortion, to ensure that women seeking abortions would be presented with all the information about the procedure including potential health risks. What is wrong with that? Why is that so scary? Or controversial? The story by Jill Mahoney -- not just its place on the front page -- deserves quick comment. First, three pro-choice sources (Henry Morgentaler, CARAL and Planned Parenthood) are quoted but only one pro-life source (Campaign Life Coalition). Second, the story refers to Merrifield as a "50-year-old former businessman and farmer." Readers can dismiss the ex-farmer as unsophisticated, the 50-year-old as from a bygone era. But Merrifield is also a former member of a regional health board and former co-chair of Parliament's Standing Committee on Health. He's no dummy. Thirdly, the reporter left the impression that rule on third party would restrict abortion access but in reality it would do no such thing. All it does is allow women to make fully informed decisions. Didn't feminists of the 1960s and 1970s argue for abortion counselling for pregnant women so expectant mothers could make "informed choices"? Lastly, and this does not come out clearly in the story, Merrifield answered a question about abortion funding and he moved to his issue. It was not the Conservative Party that brought up the issue but the reporter. Is there an agenda in putting out this story now, with the Conservatives in a virtual dead heat? In 2000, when the Canadian Alliance polling numbers were improving, the CBC broadcast a hatchet job on Stockwell Day (The Fundamental Day) that attacked the former CA leader for his religious views; within days, the Chretien Liberals went on the attack on Day's social conservatism. Will the Liberals and their media accomplices use abortion as a wedge issue now that their desired election results seem in doubt? Would one of our national dailies stoop to such lows and cooperate in the Liberal Party game plan? |