Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics and religion by Paul Tuns -- in short, everything about the human endeavour from a non-hyphenated conservative perspective.
I am Toronto-based writer and editor, whose articles, columns and reviews have appeared in more than 35 publications. I am editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper, author of Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal and a regular contributor to the book pages of the Halifax Herald.
Archives
|
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Almost SOTU free I wasn't going to blog about the State of the Union address tonight. I've been out of the loop on American politics for the past four weeks, I am a little tired of George W. Bush as I wait for him to advance something like a domestic agenda, and I am a whole lot tired of the Democrats as I wait for them to get serious about anything. I've tried to keep informed about the Alito hearings but I just become frustrated with the Democratic attacks on him. So I vowed not to watch the SOTU, to only read it online after the fact and not watch any of the TV analysis or read blogs about it. And technically I'm not going to. But I do want to draw your attention to The Corner's skewering of Virginia Governor Tim Kane's response (between 10:26 and 10:44 -- go here and scroll down). I have no idea if it is warranted, but it is funny nonetheless. Kaine's line of "There's a better way," wasn't so much of a hit with the NR crowd. Quotidian "Anyone who does not see the vanity of life must be very vain indeed." -- Blaise Pascal, Pensees New home for Political Staples It is now politicalstaples.com instead of politicalstaples.blogspot.com. Change your favourites/links/etc... Only question I have is what the heck is Greg going to blog about without a daily poll from the election campaign? VRWC print edition Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth's blog, is compiling a list of conservative papers by state. (HT: Hugh Hewitt) Well worth a look. The latest find is the Caledonian-Record in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. My thoughts on the Liberal leadership Brian Tobin would rather spend time with his family (never mind that his kids have graduated from college) than with the Liberal caucus in opposition. My thoughts about the Liberal leadership are over at The Shotgun. Hindu extremists attack Catholic bishop, 3 priests in India Indian Catholic reports that Bishop Thomas Dabre of Vasai and three priests, "were pelted with stones as they opened a hostel for tribal children in a village." That attackers apparently belong to Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad and its band of junior thugs, Bajrang Dal. The organizations that used sticks and stones to disrupt the opening of a hostel for children are committed to strengthening Hindu society. Perhaps, as the friend who sent this article to me suggested, for self-preservation, Christians in India should dress up as cows. Shays in trouble? According to Congressional Quarterly's new blog, RINO Rep. Christopher Shays is in the fight for his career. His 2004 Democratic opponent, Diane Farrell, a local politician, is back for a second try and enters the race "with more money and more time to campaign." According to CQ, Shays, "strayed from the party line 33 percent of the time last year on 'party unity' votes that divided most House Republicans from most Democrats," second only to Iowa RINO Jim Leach. Marketing ploy or genuine humanitarianism As Alex Singleton's GI blog remarks about Bono's endorsement of Red brand initiative with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria make clear, they need not be mutually exclusive and that is, as Martha Stewart says, "a good thing." I have to wonder about the left's opposition to corporations gettig behind the initiative: do the likes of War on Want care more about helping the poor or free markets and capitalism? Doesn't McKenna not running for the Liberal leadership say a lot Frank McKenna has chosen to spend more time with his family rather than run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. I read this as a sign that the party's leadership isn't worth having right now. It points to the fact that even many Liberals think that Stephen Harper will be prime minister for a while. Wow! When I began reading this article in the New York Times about how senators are not giving much attention to President George W. Bush's nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, I was going to mention that Senate Democrats are so obsessed with abortion and affirmative action (that is what the fuss about Judge Samuel Alito is about, right?), that they are ignoring a nominee who is probably as important to American life as the judicial appointee. Then I found an anecdote that is deeply disturbing: "The important presidential nominee who is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Tuesday is widely regarded as brilliant, has ties to Princeton University and, if confirmed as expected, will influence the lives of ordinary Americans for years to come. Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court? No, this is the other important nominee — Ben S. Bernanke for chairman of the Federal Reserve. Wall Street may be intensely interested in just about every word ever uttered by Mr. Bernanke, the former Princeton economist and chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers who is President Bush's choice to succeed Alan Greenspan. But in Washington, he is barely on some people's radar screens. Indeed, here is what Senator George Allen of Virginia, who is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, said when asked his opinion of the Bernanke nomination. 'For what'?" If that is true it is amazing. Monday, January 30, 2006
Quotidian "Feelings are not an infallible indicator of fact." -- Peter Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life Political correct recognition in baseball The sons of the late Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Roberto Clemente want MLB to retire their father's number (21) across the board, just as it did with Jackie Robinson's number (42) in 1997 on the fiftieth anniversary of Robinson breaking baseball's colour barrier. While initial reports had it that the Clemente family suggested that their father should be recognized for doing for Hispanics what Robinson did for blacks (never mind that there were numerous Hispanics before Clemente), it now appears that Roberto Jr. and Luis Clemente say it is more about recognizing the humanitarian side of the Pirate great. Roberto Clemente died in a plane crash in 1972 delivering food aid to Nicaragua. Sharon Robinson, Jackie Robinson's daughter, is not impressed, telling a New York paper last week: "To my understanding, the purpose of retiring my father's number is that what he did changed all of baseball, not only for African-Americans but also for Latinos, so I think that purpose has been met. When you start retiring numbers across the board, for all different groups, you're kind of diluting the original purpose." She has a point but she seems awfully catty in her comments. Can't the children of black baseball greats and Hispanic baseball greats just get along? Shocking news: special treatment center for sex addicts didn't work A special investigation by the Miami Herald found that special treatment" facilities for sex addicts, created on Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, have been a complete failure. Perhaps because the centre is under-staffed and perhaps because the guards that do work there are in on the racket, the paper found: "For seven years, Florida taxpayers have pumped more than $100 million into the Florida Civil Commitment Center, a facility set up to treat the mental disorders of the state's most dangerous sexual predators. What taxpayers got: a place where child pornography arrived in the mail, stashed inside transistor radios. Bags of marijuana came in care packages, stuffed in the guts of peanut butter jars, and men brewed gallons of homemade alcohol under the noses of a shoestring staff." Some guards have been caught destroying evidence by erasing security tapes. Others have been caught selling drugs and having sex with the prisoners which the paper insists on calling "offenders" (although considering the behaviour of the guards is a little confusing). It is a mess and the paper blames the legislature for failing to provide the necessary funds. It would seem that with the lack of guards and counsellors, the Herald probably has a point. Of course, another solution would be to close down such minimum security and experimental correctional centres. Bill of Rights for spot and tiger The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK government is considering five freedoms to animals: "The freedoms include appropriate diet, suitable living conditions, companionship or solitude as appropriate, monitoring for abnormal behaviour and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease." The Animal Welfare Bill is expected to soon pass in the House of Commons. The only question I have is this: will fido and his pals need to carry around an ID card? Steyn on Canada's much vaunted 'tolerance' Mark Steyn writes in the Daily Telegraph about revelations that Lib Dem Simon Hughes is bisexual and ties in his future fortunes with what has just happened in Canada: "Two weeks ago, you may recall, I predicted that the Tories would win the Canadian election. They did, and since then I've been asked if I know precisely why. Well, having been totally shut out in Quebec for almost two decades, they suddenly picked up a bunch of seats formerly held by the separatist party. There are various explanations for this, but I note that a few weeks back the separatists elected as their provincial party leader a man called André Boisclair, a homosexual and sometime cocaine addict. When I first heard the coke stories, it was around the time David Cameron was deflecting similar inquiries and I naturally assumed it was a similar long-ago youthful indiscretion. But it turns out Mr Boisclair was doing coke while serving as a Minister of the Crown in the Quebec government. As Maclean's magazine wrote: 'Besieged by reporters, he finally conceded he had "consumed" while in cabinet. He insisted quite vehemently that he is clean now, and always had his wits about him while at work.' Immediately, the press started writing stuff about how the 'Generation X' 'party boy' represented 'the new face of Quebec politics' (Toronto Star) and proved that Quebecers are 'ready to embrace an openly gay premier' (Montreal Gazette). Hmm. A couple of months later and a hitherto all but invisible Quebec "conservative" vote re-emerges after a decades-long hibernation and abandons the separatist cause. Coincidence? Depends what you're snorting. But my sense is that, outside the metropolitan fleshpots, most people are more socially conservative than they're willing to tell pollsters - and that 'tolerance' is not the same as 'approval' and a popular gay soap character or queenly old rocker is not the same as a gay party leader or transsexual prime minister." Benny at Turtle Bay? LifeSiteNews.com reports that Pope Benedict XVI may come to the United States in 2007 and during that trip address the General Assembly of the United Nations. That could be fun considering that the Pope has been a critic of the international organization. Traitorous bastard The New York Times reports that RINO Senator Lincoln Chafee will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. How to steal elections and influence a country Danielle Smith's Calgary Herald column (HT: Adam Daifallah) explains the strange goings-on in Saskatchewan that cost the Conservatives the seat of Jeremy Harrison: "When I heard Jeremy Harrison, the Tory MP from the Saskatchewan riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River, had lost his seat to Liberal candidate Gary Merasty, I was pretty surprised. He had won the 2004 election by a margin of nearly 1,500 votes and, with almost the entire province a sweep of Tory blue, this was a relatively safe seat. Election night results, however, had Harrison losing the race by 106 votes on 24,691 votes cast. Since Elections Canada rules require an automatic recount only if the victory margin is less than 0.1 per cent of votes cast (in this case, 25 votes), it would take something extraordinary for lawyers to make the case there should be a judicial review. Enter the extraordinary Ahtahkakoop reserve. Harrison was leading the race by more than 200 votes on election night, waiting on the last poll of the Ahtahkakoop Cree Nation. It finally came in about 11:30 p.m. It appears that voters on this reserve are among the most patriotic Canadians in the country. While pundits elsewhere were fretting about low voter turnout, Ahtahkakoop's 104-per-cent turnout provides a remarkable example of the enthusiasm with which these reserve residents embraced their civic duty. There were 372 residents on the voters' list in Monday night's election -- and 388 people cast ballots." Strange review The first review at Amazon.com for the Rolling Stones's 12 X 5 album (a great album covering various blues songs, half of which were recorded at Chess Records, the great blues label out of Chicago) confusingly says "'Susie Q' rocks out and closes an album that is a near miss, but a must have," but at the same time reviewer John M. Pugliese, Jr. gives 12 X 5 four out of five stars. Sunday, January 29, 2006
Weekend list 25 favourite Johnny Cash songs 25. Another Man Done Gone (with Anita Carter) 24. Cocaine Blues 23. Cry, Cry, Cry 22. The Night Hank Williams Came to Town (with Waylon Jennings) 21. Wreck of the Ol' 97 20. What is Truth 19. Were You There - When They Crucified My Lord (with the Carter family) 18. Highwayman (with Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Waylon Jennings) 17. 25 Minutes to Go 16. The Matador 15. The One on the Right is on the Left 14. Oney 13. San Quentin I & II (performed live at San Quentin) 12. One Piece at a Time 11. Walk the Line 10. Any Old Wind that Blows 9. The Wanderer (with U2) 8. A Boy Named Sue 7. Folsom Prison Blues 6. Daddy Sang Bass 5. Man in Black 4. Ballad of a Teenage Queen 3. Ring of Fire 2. Starkville City Jail (performed live at San Quentin) 1. Don't Take Your Guns to Town Thoughts on the Liberal leadership race Among the names being mentioned as possible Liberal leadership candidates: Brian Tobin, Frank McKenna, Michael Ignatieff, Martin Cauchon, Sheila Copps, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, Bob Rae. Interesting choices. Some quick thoughts: From what I hear, Tobin doesn't appear to have the money or organization to challenge McKenna if he gets in the race and most people think that as both are former Atlantic Canadian premiers they are going after the same constituency. That isn't really true: McKenna is to the right of Tobin on most issues (economic and social) but perpections matter a lot and Tobin needs to get out of the gates early to take some steam out of McKenna if he wants to be the Atlantic Canada candidate. As Steve Janke notes, McKenna could have a problem with what is sure to be perceived as extreme right-wing, pro-life views. They really aren't. Defunding is too right wing? And the news story Janke uses is from 1988. Hell, Paul Martin was still pro-life in 1988. People change. Especially when they are running for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Ignatieff could have a problem with the Liberal Party base. Ignatieff has a consistent 15-year record as a war-loving liberal. On foreign policy and war on terror, he is out of step with the party so the precise process of choosing the new leader could make a big difference on whether he even runs, let alone how much of a chance he has. That said, I can't imagine that the former Harvard professor would be happy sitting in the opposition benches; he obviously wants to be leader, but his comments about returning to Boston if his political gig didn't work out demonstrates that he might be a little risk-averse. Cauchon has two things to recommend him: he is from Quebec (and perhaps the only candidate from Quebec if Stephan Dion does not run) and he got the gay marriage ball rolling as Jean Chretien's justice minister. Neither will be enough but he might hope to play kingmaker. Copps: you gotta be joking. Stronach is the only Liberal with the personality to make the next election truly interesting. She gets people excited about politics. She obviously doesn't like the opposition benches and she might need the excitement of a leadership campaign to keep herself in interested in politics. Would Brison be considered Liberal leadership material if he wasn't gay? No Liberal in Ontario is mentioning Bob Rae because ... well, they remember Bob Rae. The clamour for a Rae leadership is coming from Quebec Liberals who don't like McKenna and recognize that they don't have their own candidate. It is noteworthy that among the names bandied about are two former PC/CPC leadership hopefuls and a former NDP premier. It says a lot about the Liberal bench which is usually much stronger than this. Wisdom from Maggie Trudeau Margaret Trudeau wants people to stop drinking bottled water because it's not "natural, pure and clean." And it's not regulated. (Of course, everything that is not regulated is evil.) And the bottles take 500 years to decompose. Wait -- hasn't she ever heard of recycling. Quotidian "It is my impression that the clergy of former times devoted their finest efforts to mending the behavior of individuals, but that in recent times they have sought rather to mend social policy." -- George J. Stigler, The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays David Cameron is the new Pol Pot Lord Tebbit goes a little overboard when he says that Conservative Party leader David Cameron is a lot like Pol Pot in trying to expunge the memory of Margaret Thatcher. In a speech to the Bow Group tomorrow, Tebbit is expected to criticize Cameron for going to the "Left of the middle ground." Today Cameron praised British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his efforts on social justice and creating an economically effecient Britain. UK tax too complicated, Canada's to follow Mark Nicholson has determined that 3.8 million British taxpayers are not paying the correct tax rate because of the complications inherent in the system. In a study compiled by City experts for the Bow Group, Nicholson said: "The complexity and chaos of the system shows how much the state bureaucracy has become a Frankenstein's monster. It is out of control and no one seems to have a firm handle on it. Some people are paying too much and some too little." He calls for a reduction of exemptions, the number of tax brackets and in-kind benefits, among other reforms and Conservative shadow chancellor George Osborne says the study proves that, "millions of people are paying the price for Gordon Brown's obsession with complexity in the tax system." Of course, this is what's going to happen in Stephen Harper's Canada with tax deductions for city transit use and sports equipment and determining what proportion of the $1200 handout needs to be paid back in taxes. Meanwhile, the London Times reports that the Commons Public Administration Committee has found that the government overpays poor families with tax credits and then claws back their income following the merger of tax and benefit services in 2003, a chaotic tax situation that could tax years to correct. Skepticism on UK ID cards from former booster The Sunday Telegraph reports: "Lord Carlile, QC, a Liberal Democrat peer who was appointed Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2001 and who formerly backed ID cards, signalled a change of heart when he raised questions about whether it was worth curtailing civil liberties for a project with dubious practical benefits. 'I cannot think of a terrorist incident in which ID cards could have brought the incident to an earlier end,' he told GMTV's Sunday Programme." Orange trees in Saskatchewan sooner than expected This scare-mongering Washington Post reports that "some experts" believe that global warming will be here in the next few decades and that it will be irreversible so we better back some of their solutions now. I for one look forward to the point when we can't head back so the alarmists can be proven right but we won't have to follow their bank-busting policy prescriptions. Darn The New York Yankees were unable to sign catcher Mike Piazza. The San Diego Padres signed the 12-time all star to a one-year, $2 million contract. This seems like a stupid move for Piazza who would have benefited from playing in the American League where he could have split his time between playing catcher and designated hitter. But according to the AP story, the Yankees no longer seemed to be in the hunt as Piazza apparently was deciding between the Padres and Philadelphia Phillies. This sounds to me like he is having a problem admitting he is no longer the great catcher he once was. CNE blogs The pro-free market Centre for a New Europe has four interesting blogs (HT: Globalization Institute blog): Health, environment, intellectual property, and competition. Here are three quick bites: From the competition blog: "The ultimate objective of government regulation is to hamper economic activity to the point that it ceases. If we judge the motives of actions by their outcomes, it is hard to come to any other conclusion." After a brief look at the von Mises blog's comments on Sarbanes-Oxley, Antoine Clarke wonders, "At what point does the excuse of 'unintended consequence' no longer hold? It's not like the notion that government regulation is a bad way of solving economic problems is new." At the environment blog, Dan Lewis says that there is a global shortage not in metals but in investment dollars: "I think this decade is looking more and more like the 1970s. Commodity prices are high because investment in new plants is very low and demand in the developing world is enormous. That’s why, with such long lead times to come on stream, we may not have falling commodity prices until the 2010s." At the health blog, Antoine Clarke looks at the NHS's bureaucracy's war against people with Alzheimers. Okay, that is a bit of a stretch but after reading his post, you'll understand why: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) approved funding for donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine (in the BBC's words) "only when new patients reach a moderate stage of the condition" -- that is, sometimes when it is too late to actually help. (Moderate is not a good thing here.) Clarke says: "What NICE has done is to impose a restriction on the use of Alzheimer's disease treatments that is so monstrous that if it were applied to one ethnic group in particular, would quite reasonably be described as a crime against humanity." Friday, January 27, 2006
Cracks in the pan-Canadian consensus? In a new paper, "Replacing the Pan-Canadian Consensus: 2006 Election Analysis," Ray Pennings and Michael Van Pelt of the Work Research Foundation say that the consensus on which electoral politics has been based since Trudeau, is now being, at the very least, questioned. That consensus includes: "* a strong central government unified under the maple leaf, multiculturalism and bilingualism; * an activist government developing new social programs (cf. the argument of some in the recent campaign that national daycare is as desirable as national health care); * an aggressive rights-based polity that identifies with tolerance over definition; * peacekeeping over taking on one's enemies; and * programs targeting the perceived causes of crime over policing and punishment." Does the Tory victory imply that there are cracks in the consensus or that the Conservatives are ahead of the curve? The authors imply the latter and question, "whether the opposition parties have sufficiently reorganized themselves to be considered viable alternative governments in the new reality of Canadian politics." It is by no means clear that they will: "The springtime agreement (and resulting 'NDP budget') between Paul Martin and Jack Layton, plus the blatant appeals from each party for strategic 'progressive' voting, indicate some partisan competition, but more significantly, an attempt by both parties to hold on to the old Pan-Canadian consensus. Both parties advanced in each of these past elections a resistance to the 'scary Conservative social agenda' Â? but with Harper unlikely to significantly push that agenda during this mandate, both parties face a huge challenge in the next election." Stephen Harper, in the meantime, will, if he's smart, work on strengthening his coalition which is much more complex than the social-fiscal conservative divide.Penningss and Van Pelt outline that coalition: "* Libertarians with an emphasis on individual rights and minimal government; *Populist/Democratic Conservatives with an emphasis on structural reform and process; * Social conservatives with an emphasis on social issues. This group is not as homogeneous. There are those for whom immediate action on the hot-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are a practical litmus test, while there are others (for whom a description such as Burkean Conservatives would be more accurate) who advocate a broader social agenda. It would include creating space for institutions other than government to be part of the solution to larger problems. This would include a foreign aid agenda that leverages the relief work of religious organizations; alternative approaches to poverty and welfare issues that recognizes a greater role for community (including religious) groups, and a cities agenda that recognizes a place for the church; * Liberal Conservatives (Reagan democrats) with a self-consciousness based on cultural identity and tradition; * Fiscal Conservatives with an emphasis on fiscal accountability, and less costly government; and * Red Tories with some historic affiliation with Progressive Conservative Party, but otherwise not fitting any of the above categories." They also provide a way to appease the various groups: "The way for Prime Minister Harper to appease the often-conflicting expectations of these groups will not be as much the direct actions of the federal government, but rather the facilitation of actions by others." An example they offer (and explain) is choice in child care. I am not entirely convinced that the pan-Canadian consensus isunravelingg. I hope it is, but I have my doubts. It is in parts of the country but Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere are firmly committed to Trudeaupia. Rural-urban divide Tory MP James Moore notes (HT: Adam Daifallah) that the Conservatives won in a number of cities: "Surrey, Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, Nanaimo, Sarnia, Prince George, Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Brandon ..." First, there are always exceptions to the rule. Second, many of the cities in which the Tories did well have a smaller proportion of immigrants. Third, some of the "urban" ridings the Tories won have both an urban and rural component to them (Kitchener Conestoga and Halifax's South Shore-St. Margaret's). The comments to Daifallah's post overwhelmingly support ditching opposition to SSM to win urban votes. For reasons I stated earlier this week, his is bound to fail. But Adam makes a good point: "The Conservative Party must find out the real reasons for this problem through actual research and study (yes, talking to them!) and then take steps to fix this." This is more than policy, though. It is presence. Most Liberal constituency associations and/or MPs/candidates send birthday and Christmas (or whatever) cards to new immigrants. (How do they get this information?) They show up at their cultural events. And, of course, there is the sense that Liberals are immigrant-friendly but Conservatives are not, not to mention the fact that the Liberals were in power when the new Canadians came here and they fell that they owe the party. My grandfather came to Canada when William Lyon McKenzie King was prime minister and voted Liberal all his life despite the fact that on policy he was always closer to Diefenbaker and Stanfield. Policies of the day are not the most important factor in immigrant voting. Conservatives must become a presence in immigrant communities if they are ever to win in them. This is not about the next election or even the election after that, but a decade or two long project. That is why it won't get done: the way politics is played doesn't not reward long-term commitments. I reiterate that there is probably wisdom in severely restricting the influx of new immigrants although that will be an impediment to bringing those already here over to the Tories. On the Palestinian elections As several people have emailed me, the Palestinian elections were a case of open terrorists (Hamas) defeating closet terrorists (Fatah). I'm not sure where the progress is in that. I think it was The Economist that noted several weeks ago that Hamas is not afraid of retaliation from Israelis in the form of bullets but might be afraid of retaliation from Palestinians in the form of public opinion. Hamas must now deliver public services and will be held accountable for that; there is a limit in which blaming Israel will excuse their conducts/failures. The important question is how will Israel and United States and the rest of the West react? how does it deal with the Palestinian Authority? The Daily Telegraph says they must engage the PA even if it is led by a gang that is dedicated to the eradication of Israel. The editorial says: " They are right to distinguish between a popularly elected party and the murderous designs of its armed wing. But in practical terms there is much to be said for engaging with Hamas, in the hope of steering it towards the renunciation of violence." But within the next two paragraphs it comes down to "root causes" -- that without Israel's support, the Palestinian economy will collapse and out of despair, Palestinians will turn to violence. The paper says that the "radical movement" should be allowed to take the PA for a test drive and let us all hope that it sheds the radicalism that leads to violence. Hamas has respected a three-month old cease-fire in parts of the territories Palestinians claim as their own so why not give them the chance to prove they can do the same now that they represent all Palestinians. It is time, the Telegraph says, to give negotiations another chance. The London Times editorial sees things differently, declaring Hamas's victory a serious setback for the peace process. It notes that while Hamas wants Israel destroyed, the PA has numerous daily interactions with Israel from water supplies to trade. Hamas, the editorial says, "will soon find that without Israeli co-operation it can deliver almost nothing." Israeli co-operation will be determined by the level of security it feels it has. With Hamas, that can't be high. Israel must work with the PA -- as long as Hamas demonstrates that it can work with Israel. The West, the Times says, must do the same and the EU, especially, as the largest funder of the PA, must state that it expects greater transparency in government and Hamas's renunciation of terror. The editorial concludes: "The EU funded Arafat’s corruption. It must not finance Hamas terrorism." Thursday, January 26, 2006
This is a little disconcerting AP reports: "The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has $25 million in the bank and raised $44 million in 2005. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has $10.5 million in the bank after raising $35.5 million last year." I'd be curious to see whether or not money raised a year before mid-term elections has historically been a good indicator of who wins. My guess is that it is, and not because money wins elections (although it helps), but rather because large numbers of donors are likely to correctly determine where their money is best spent. Quote of the day In a decent column on the Democrats backing away from their pro-abortion extremism by that guilty pleasure Ann Coulter one can find this gem: "Even Jimmy Carter, the Democrats' idea of an Evangelical Christian, has allowed that 'I don't believe that Christ would approve of abortions.' (Though Carter added that Christ would approve of abortion if 'the mother's life or health was seriously endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest' -- or if Jesus really, really needed the feminists to vote for him.)" Netherlands deals with its immigration problem Brussels Journal notes that the Netherlands is going to make it more difficult for Muslims, er, immigrants, to get into the country and settle. They'll have to clear several hurdles inluding an Orwellian-sounding Integration Test that is actually quite logical (potential settlers would have to demonstrate some knowledge of the country they hope to settle in). The Netherlands is the first country to require potential immigrants to pass a test. BJ also notes that, "Job Cohen, the mayor of Amsterdam, called for action to deal with 'French situations' in his city." It is yet to be seen whether the immigration restrictions will add fuel to a smoldering fire or whether it is a pot that once it is put on top of the fire, reduces the oxygen that feeds it. 40 things that only happen in movies Nostalgia Central has a great list of 40 things that only happen in movies. Some of my faves, with the first two explaining why undercover agent James Bond has survived 20 movies: #32: "Rather than wasting bullets, megalomaniacs prefer to kill their enemies with complicated devices incorporating fuses, pulleys, deadly gases, lasers and man-eating sharks." #29: "One man shooting at 20 men has a better chance of killing them all than 20 men firing at once (it's called Stallone's Law.)" #25: "You will survive any battle in any war UNLESS you show someone a picture of your sweetheart back home." #17: "If you are heavily outnumbered in a fight involving martial arts, your opponents will wait patiently to attack you one by one by dancing around you in a threatening manner until you have defeated their predecessor." #15: "All grocery shopping involves the purchase of French loaves which will be placed in open brown paper bags (Caveat: when said bags break, only fruit will spill out.)" #11: "Any police officer about to retire from the force will more often than not die on their last day (especially if their family have planned a party). (Caveat: Detectives can only solve a case after they have been suspended from duty.) #6: "If you decide to start dancing in the street, everyone you bump into will know all the steps." #1: "It is always possible to find a parking spot directly outside or opposite the building you are visiting." Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Who will be our man in Washington? Frank McKenna is coming home to run for the leadership of the Liberals and CTV reports that Preston Manning or maybe Michael Wilson will be named ambassador to the United States. I always assumed it would be former finance minsiter Wilson but thought the best choice would be Hugh Segal. He is bright and has thought, written and speechified extensively on security, defense and trade issues. His Red Tory credentials are less of a concern as our representative in Washington than they would be elsewhere. But it is unlikely that this politically experienced insider will be shipped out of Ottawa where Stephen Harper can most easily pick his brain. Nor would Hughie want to leave the cushy confines of the Senate. Amazing SES David Mader notes that the final (daily) SES/CPAC poll was: Con 36.3 Lib 30.2 NDP 17.5 BQ 10.5 Oth 5.6 Here were the numbers at 57 minutes after midnight (CST), when almost all the ballots were counted: Con 36.4 Lib 30.1 NDP 17.4 BQ 10.6 Oth 5.6 That's pretty amazing. Harper is good for feminists: feminist Feminists are bad for women: me Over at CBC.ca, Georgie Binks says that Stephen Harper will awaken feminists from their complacency. Binks says that many Conservatives are pro-life, oppose daycare and never reconciled themselves with women joining the workforce. She thinks that this "real" conservatism will rear its head now that the Tories are in power but that women, especially young ones, will fight to maintain the feminist victories of the past half century. I find it curious, however, that when Binks -- and others -- talks about "women's rights" that two-thirds of her argument is about abortion. Does the advancement of women come down to the denial of motherhood and feminity? And what about the young girls that make up more than half of all aborted babies? Why don't feminists care about them? 'God bless Canada' LifeSiteNews.com reports that Bishop Fred Henry praises Stephen Harper for employing the phrase. No doubt liberals will attack Harper for this American import. Day for Foreign Affairs The case for Stockwell Day being named Foreign Affairs Minister is made by the China E-Lobby: "Therefore, those of us in the pro-democracy/anti-Communist community, both native born (such as myself) and exiles from Communist China, know Stockwell Day very well. Many of us supported the Conservatives in no small part due to the expectation that Day would become Foreign Minister. To saw we would be sorely disappointed is an understatement. However, Mr. Harper and his fellow Conservatives should not merely given Mr. Day the portfolio simply because a bunch of Americans and Chinese exiles want it. Mr. Day should receive the post because he is the most qualified person for the job, and not only because he has served so well as Foreign Affairs critic for nearly four years." (HT: SDA) Liberals are always stealing from others This one isn't even about the federal Liberals. No, this is about Patrick McBrien, a Notre Dame theologian and a darling of Catholic lefties, being accused of committing plagiarism and his university is investigating the charges. The theologian apparently borrowed liberally, so to speak, from a Boston Globe columnist for a syndicated Catholic newspaper piece he wrote on Catholic Charities being protested for honouring Boston mayor Thomas Menino, a pro-abortion and pro-SSM Catholic. In typical lefty fashion McBrien attacks his opponents motivations: "They use any ploy they can to attempt to discredit theologians whom they regard as unorthodox and universities which they regard as un-Catholic according to their ultraconservative perspective." He admits to using information from Eileen McNamara's article but not to actual plagiarism. Fascinating fact From Le Blog de Poliscopique: "Though it may seem surprising, almost as many Quebecers than Albertans have voted for the Conservative Party. According to Elections Canada, 906,741 Quebecers have voted Conservative and so did 930,817 Albertans." Accentuating the positive There are two big pluses resulting from Monday's election results. The first is that the resurgence of the Tories as a federalist alternative to the Liberals in Quebec. Contrary to the worry by some conservatives that a partially rejuvenated Tory vote would result in federalist vote-splitting and increase the Bloc contingent in Ottawa, the Bloc numbers decreased. This hurts the PQ and the cause of separatism and these are phenomenonally good things. As Adam Daifallah noted on Monday night, "Federalism has a chance again." The other good thing is the resurrection of competitive democracy. As the Financial Times editorializes today: "By most countries' standards, the political pendulum would not appear to have swung very far when one minority government replaces another, and both are fairly middle of the road. But the plurality that Stephen Harper's centre-right Conservatives gained over Paul Martin's centrist Liberals in Monday's election is significant because it returns Canada to a competitive system of two national parties that has been lacking for the past dozen years, and it does so in a way that is hopeful for the country's unity and for somewhat better relations with its big neighbour to the south." While the gains are modest numerically and there might not be much progress on a number of public policy fronts, in part because of the Conservatives' own "not particularly ambitious" (to use David Gratzer's phrase) agenda, Monday night showed hopeful signs for national unity, a move away from one-party rule, and (as the FT points out) improved relations with the United States. That's a lot of change in one day. Congratulations Canada. Harper's tenure Like I said below, I think that Stephen Harper is likely to win the next election and the election after that. However, so disagree with Paul Wells, who said: "Stephen Harper will have to continue surprising if he is going to survive long beyond the six or eight months he has been granted by Paul Martin's resignation from the Liberal leadership." The election could come later this year and that might even be wise because the Tories shouldn't give the new leader a time to prove himself in the spotlight of the national stage. The Liberals are eager to get back to the ballot box because they believe that Canada is eager to have them back in power. For the reason I noted yesterday, I don't think that will happen. But every politician's and pundit's perceptions are different and many Liberals believe that the country is already clamouring for their return. They'll want to pull the plug on this Parliament as soon as they can. The NDP perennially believe they get fewer seats than they should have (were entitled to?) so they might join the Liberals. The Bloc will stick its finger in the political winds before voting against the government. Their over-riding concern might be to avoid an election too close to the next provincial elections, worried that if the Bloc again loses seats that their Parti Quebecois cousins might be hurt in the process. Considering that April 14, 2007 will mark the fourth anniversary of Jean Charest's victory, 2006 will look much more attractive to the Bloc than most of 2007. Here's what I'd do if I was Stephen Harper: pass a modest hold-the-line-on-spending budget that includes a 1% GST cut, work with the Bloc and NDP to get a real accountability package through, begin new investigations into government corruption with an eye to finding the missing $34 million that Judge John Gomery couldn't find, and, after the Liberals choose a new leader, introduce choice in child care* and make it a confidence motion. All parties will probably oppose it because they oppose the plan, the Bloc might want the earlier election and the Liberals will want to end the investigations into their spending practices from 1993-2005. * Better yet, and for reasons I explained yesterday, some measure of privatized healthcare could be used instead of the $1200-a-child handout to hand themselves dissolution. In either case, they can go the people with the justification that they need votes to pass their legislation. Private healthcare is popular in Quebec while the Tory choice in child care plan does include subsidies to companies to create new daycare spots which Quebeckers might want to get their hands on. Tuesday, January 24, 2006
There are three Canadas My initial reaction to the election last night? A good result. The most important thing was not for the Conservatives to win but for the Liberals to lose. They did. Not as much as many of us would have liked but enough to signal a potential significant political shift is underway. There might be a political realignment going on. Might. We'll have to wait 12-18 months to see. Some -- Bob Tarantino and Colby Cosh -- wonder whether Stephen Harper will be John Diefenbaker or Joe Clark; that is, will he parlay the minority government into a majority government or go on to a crushing defeat. There is a third possibility: a series of minority governments. My guess is that the last option is the likely one for reasons I hope to write on later but is essence comes down to this: there is a blue Canada and a red Canada that is roughly rural/exurban and suburban/urban. Outside Alberta, the "city seats" that the Tories won (for example Kitchener Conestoga) are parts of cities with a large rural component. The Tories were shut out of Halifax, Montreal London, Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Hamilton, Windsor, Vancouver, Victoria, and large parts of Winnipeg and Regina, not to mention smaller cities such as Fredericton, Moncton, Saint John, Brantford, Guelph and Kingston. There are a few exceptions (Oshawa and parts of Ottawa and Winnipeg) but not many. City slickers are liberal -- not just socially but with most of their public policy premises. Single women want abortion and the state to take care of them in the absence of a husband. Immigrants won't vote Conservative because of the party's perceived pro-American sentiment. I'm told that the number one issue for Muslim voters was the no-fly list and that it was the priority issue for nearly three-quarters of Muslims surveyed. Urban voters want money for institutional daycare and urban transit; they care about the environment (perhaps because they look at large buildings all day); they believe that abortion and same-sex marriage are just dandy; they think that to solve the crime problem you just have to figure out the root causes puzzle; they want funding for elite cultural institutions such as art galleries, the CBC and universities. And if all this is delivered, it doesn't matter how the government behaves, whether or not they rip off taxpayers to pad the pockets of their friends. Voters outside the large and medium-size cities, by contrast, think there is something a little perverse about two homosexuals marrying, that abortion is not something to be indifferent about, that parents can be trusted to make the right decisions about their children's care, that government-led anti-Americanism has real consequences (fewer US visitors in places like Niagara Falls and Stratford), that gun control doesn't work, that criminals deserve to be punished regardless of whether it deters crime, and that government shouldn't rip off taxpayers. City voters and rural/exurban voters both vote their values but those values are quite different. SSM was not an issue in Toronto but was in most of the rest of the province. Abortion may not be a political issue but a candidate's position on it may signal to voters that he is worried about the moral trajectory of the country. By contrast, as a friend told me this past weekend, Torontonians get very upset if someone sends a poopy diaper to a landfill. These are two completely different cultures. I think that for the foreseeable future, both the Liberals and Tories have 90 seats as their base, the NDP probably has a base of 20 seats and the Bloc 40 (for now but, I predict, not for long -- more about this below). That means the election is fought over 68 seats -- not enough for anyone to win a majority unless a party take almost every one. A Conservative strategist told me today that the Conservatives can win city and suburban votes by embracing a national daycare scheme, unabashedly praising SSM and abortion, adopting a "soft-on-crime approach," praising open immigration policies, spouting anti-Americanisms, calling for more money for the CBC and the arts, announcing funding initiatives for cities and universities. To convince such voters they will have to "out Liberal the Liberals." And, he added, if they do this they will turn half of their current seats into two or three way races because with no one representing the values of non-urban Canada, such voters will vote for the least bad option. With Conservatives out Liberaling the Liberals, they cannot be guaranteed these seats. This is not promising for the Tories because they cannot make inroads in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and the GTA. The last three, at least, is because immigrants won't vote for the Tories. Now I'm actually generally in favour of immigration. Limiting immigration is a little too statist for my liking but it is having (at least) two deleterious effects. First, it is slowly changing our culture in ways (the usual PC stuff) that harms the polity. Second, it decreases democratic competitiveness and that harms our politics. As Tim Denton notes (#5), a smart Conservative Party would work to slow the supply of ready Liberal voters by curtailing new immigrants. I do not believe that there is anything the Conservatives can do in English Canada to win over enough immigrant and urban/suburban voters. But Quebec is different. Polling suggest that two-thirds of Quebeckers are open to privatized health care -- or at least the option of private care. Stephen Harper could pickup a large number of seats with a moderately social conservative agenda to keep his non-Quebec base along with an ambitious private healthcare agenda. In Quebec he can "hide behind" the Chaoulli decision to advance this cause. It could reap great rewards, break the Bloc lock on the province and secure the Tories in a longer-term majority situation. It would be a gamble but not as great as the chronically timid Tories probably believe. Canada, I think, is headed for a number of years of minority governments. In time, it may be necessary to form an Angela Merkel-like national unity government. The Conservatives could change this but I think it is unlikely that the Liberals can. My prediction is that we will see a Conservative majority before we see, again, a Liberal majority but the former can only happen if the party embraces private healthcare; the latter can happen only after a series of minority governments and patriotic non-urban voters (for patriotism is a conservative value) vote Liberal in order to secure some political stability. Sharply divided electorates end up a period of minority government and Canada has become sharply divided among three voting blocks: conservative, liberal and Quebec. When the Conservatives realize this, they can turn it to their political advantage. Monday, January 23, 2006
Daifallah's predictions Adam Daifallh's predictions are pretty close to mine: Conservative -- 134 Liberal -- 79 Bloc -- 58 NDP -- 36 Indep. -- 1 (André Arthur in Portneuf) 'The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed' That's from NRO's Roe editorial marking 33 years of unadulterated killing of the unborn. The hysterical rantings of the pro-abortion crowd here in Canada notwithstanding (Martin doesn't want to get rid of the word, does he?), this country is very far from even beginning a debate about restricting abortion. Liberal friend responds to my predictions Maybe not a friend, but certainly an acquaintence who holds a position on an eastern Ontario riding association wrote to say that I have under-estimated the Conservatives and over-estimated the NDP and Bloc. He called my predictions "safe." He says that the Conservatives will pick up a total of 8-10 in Atlantic Canada, including several in New Brunswick (I predict that the Tory lead won't translate into any new seats in NB but that the party picks up five in Atlantic Canada). He says that the Bloc will lose seats to the Tories and the Liberals are more vulnerable -- "just eight?" losses for the Libs he questioned. He thinks Minna and Ianno are safe in Toronto but congratulated me for being one of the few to recognize how seriously in trouble Bulte is. He said I am "dead wrong" on predicting NDP victories in the Yukon, West Arctic, Kenora and London: "Voters there are not going to support a party with a leader who looks like a fag." Interesting comment, the substance of which I have heard several times in the past few days. He thought that Andrew Scheer loses to Lorne Nystrom and that the Robinson/Fry race is "closer than anyone suspects." He didn't rule out the Tories gaining several Manitoba ridings and perhaps Goodale's, noting that the finance minister hasn't really campaigned hard in the last few days. I've heard this several times in recent days, too. The same goes for Pierre Pettigrew and perhaps others. My correspondent also predicts a Conservative gain of 3-6 in BC and larger than I'm predicting in Ontario. The end result, according to this Liberal riding exec is that the Tories break 155, perhaps going as high as 165. I am dubious but I didn't take into account the fact that some Liberals might not be really campaiging with their all if getting elected means time on the opposition benches. Also: I've just gotten an email from a Tory operative in Toronto that says that six Toronto ridings are seriously in play and that they are asking for volunteers from other Conservative campaigns in the area that don't have a chance to win to come and help them with final GOTV efforts. If the Tories are seriously thinking they have a chance at a half dozen Toronto seats -- that's one-quarter of a city that originally they were writing off -- then there could be a massive Tory tide across Canada. I'm still dubious. Last time, the Conservatives worked darn hard to defeat Jean Augustine because they "had a chance to upset her" and indeed John Capobianco did better than any other Tory in Toronto but he was still 30 points behind. I'm sticking with my prediction acknowledging that it is the safe one. Several people also noted that I haven't predicted Belinda Stronach v. Lois Brown. You are right, I didn't. I'm leaning toward choosing Brown but Belinda has the resources of a large regional employer at her disposal. The heart says Brown, the head says shut up and be safe. Correction In my predictions post I said that Claude Drouin will lose. He most definitely will not; as several readers noted, he is not running again. Also, I should have said that Paul Zed's Saint John seat is safe for the Liberals, not that Saint John will keep the riding of Paul Zed. Sunday, January 22, 2006
Weekend list 12 election predictions 12. The Conservatives surprise the Liberals and finish a strong second to the NDP in both Windsor ridings and several northern Ontario ridings. 11. As many as two independents could will win. Andre Arthur in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier and Bev Desjarlais in Churchill. More likely just one of them will. 10. NDP pickup two seats in the territories (Yukon and Western Arctic) despite the leadership of Jack Layton. 9. NDPers trying to make a comeback who lose: Svend Robinson (Vancouver Centre) and Lorne Nystrom (Regina-Qu'Appelle) 8. Former NDPers trying to make a comeback who lose: Chris Axworty (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) 7. The Conservatives lose two seats they now hold in BC but pickup three others. 6. The Conservatives could pick up five seats in the provinces between BC and Ontario: two in Edmonton, Goodale's in Regina and two in Manitoba. Could. More likely will be a modest gain of three. 5. Exactly half of the NDP's gains are in Ontario: three Toronto seats (Peggy Nash beats Sam Bulte by 5000 votes, Marilyn Churley beats Maria Minna and Olivia Chow defeats Tony Ianno), the other two Hamilton ridings (Hamilton East-Stoney Creek and Hamilton Mountain), London Fanshawe (Pat O'Brien's old seat) and Kenora. 4. The Conservatives pickup at least five seats in Atlantic Canada including at least two in Prince Edward Island (Stephen Harper visited the province twice; Shawn Murphy loses Charlottetown and Wayne Easter loses Malpeque), two in Nova Scotia (Kings-Hants and West Nova) and one in Newfoundland (Avalon where Fabian Manning wins John Efford's seat). Despite leading in New Brunswick according to recent polls (42-41), I doubt the Tories are able to defeat Andy Savoy (Tobique-Mactaquac) or Saint John (Paul Zed). 3. The Liberals will lose eight seats in Quebec, including cabinet ministers Jean Lapierre, Pierre Pettigrew, Jacques Saada and Liza Frulla. Pettigrew loses by double digits. Former cabinet minister Denis Paradis, Claude Drouin (parliamentary secretary to the prime minister), David Smith and women's caucus chair Francoise Boivin also lose. 2. Ontario: Conservatives 48, Liberals 43, NDP 15 1. National: Conservatives 137, Liberals 79, Bloc Quebecois 59, NDP 33, independent 1 Quotidian "The Liberal ice age need not be permanent. It need not proceed undisturbed. They have put cracks in their own surface, their own protective layer. With humanity, civility, a belief in community and innovation, Conservatives can pursue with determination and confidence what all who have been constrained by the ice want a political party to achieve -- a genuine and real breakthrough." -- Hugh Segal, No Surrender: Reflections of a Happy Warrior in the Tory Crusade 218 reasons to vote against the Liberals Linda Williamson enumerates them in the Toronto Sun. Consider especially 211-218 -- how we are getting worse in international comparisons in areas such as ethics, peacekeeping, taxes and healthcare effeciency. I got nothing No post Saturday evening and probably not much today (Sunday) or Monday. I'm busy with my three r's: reading, 'riting and relaxing. I'll probably post a quote tonight and tomorrow and put up my predictions sometime before the results start to trickle in on Monday evening but otherwise I expect that blogging will be light as I have to write several stories about the election for The Interim -- and edit those which I am not writing. In the meantime, check out The Gods of the Copybook Heading where Publius has his usual weekend links and commentary. Saturday, January 21, 2006
Funny ads The Subliminal Party of Canada has some great ads playing on the Liberal theme that Harper is scary. I particularly liked this one and this one. Friday, January 20, 2006
I thought that pro-lifers were the ones obsessed with the abortion issue CTV reports that Paul Martin is hammering away at the Tories over the abortion issue. Also, click on Tom Clarke's report on the right, "Martin's repeated attack," to hear how Martin has become a single issue (pro-abortion) candidate. Against David Cameron Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf is quite critical of David Cameron. He begins by suggesting that the last thing the UK needs now is another party to crowd the centre: "The UK has a social democratic party: New Labour. It has a liberal democratic party: the Liberal Democrats. Now it is on its way to having a social liberal democratic party: call it the New Conservatives. The centre ground is crowded. Good, many will respond: that is just where the political debate should be. I would agree if I were confident the ground there was firm. I fear it is a swamp ..." Wolf takes Cameron to task for not believing in anything. His acceptance of the consensus is "of a vacuity stunning even by the standards of contemporary politics." That is not necessarily a bad thing if the goal is merely to obtain office, but Wolf warns that once elected, an "empty government" is easily "blown over." All sail, no rudder. The central problem with Cameronism is that "in failing to identify a philosophical approach that could help the party respond to the challenges the next government is almost certain to confront," not only would Cameron's government blow in the wind, it would be impossible to hold to account. Cameron said he believes in trusting the people and sharing responsibility, which as Wolf quite rightly noted, does not ensure that if he is elected prime minister that Cameron can be held to account. Sounds like a formula for escaping responsibility and avoiding accountability. In defence of David Cameron Bernard Jenkin, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, writes a longish piece at The Speccie's blog in defence of the party's new leader, concluding, not very convincingly: "The new direction and new language adopted by David Cameron will seem unfamiliar to some, but he remains wholeheartedly committed to Conservative principles: capitalism and free markets as the most effective system of wealth creation; choice for individuals, even if the State accepts responsibility for the provision of a safety net; enterprise, fostered by a low tax, low inflation economy; individual freedom, guaranteed by the rule of law, administered by an independent judiciary; and national sovereignty, to determine our own policies. These are the principles that were the foundation of one of the longest sustained periods of radical and reforming Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher. And they remain at the heart of the modern, compassionate Conservative Party led by David Cameron." It's kind of pathetic that Mr. Jenkin has to write this at all. Canadian environmentalists needed American help CTV's story on how Paul Weyrich did not send an email suggesting his fellow U.S.-based conservatives to not to talk to hostile Canadian media that might hope to connect Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to those scarey American right-wingers, buried at the end of the report news that the Sierra Fund did, in fact, request their U.S. counterparts to help get out the word on environmental issues. You would think that if U.S. influence in Canadian politics was an issue, that CTV would highlight the admitted link first. It's great when this type of headlines aren't about the Tories Toronto Star: "Etobicoke Liberal riding president throws support to Conservatives." Those crazy right-wing Tories Eli Schuster had a good column in the Calgary Herald earlier this week on the Tories have tacked to the centre, perhaps even the centre-left. Schuster begins his piece thusly: "Ask yourself: what would America's right-leaning pundits and news media: the Washington Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and National Review, say about a politician who: a) called for more foreign aid; b) blasted the very idea of private health care; c) advocated raising income tax rates in order to offer targeted, Clintonesque tax credits for daycare, children's sports, and the regular use of public transit; d) called for banning corporate donations to political parties; e) believed in civil unions for same-sex couples, and f) promised no cuts to social programs? Chances are the so-called Right-Wing Noise Machine would immediately brand such an individual as a left-wing extremist, while moderate Democrats would attempt to distance themselves from the person in question. It's doubtful that even Ted Kennedy would sign on to item b. Here in Canada that agenda is the official platform of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Amazingly, in spite of Mr. Harper's relative moderation, his party is still accused of being dangerous and out-of-the-mainstream by the Liberals and the NDP." It's hard to see clearly with your head in the sand The Japan Times editorializes about Iran's nuclear ambitions and offers some free advice to all parties on how to avoid a confrontation and defuse Tehran's nuclear ambitions: "Iran should not underestimate or miscalculate such diplomatic efforts. The international community needs to increase its diplomatic pressure in order to enforce compliance with existing agreements. Iran, for its part, should refrain from enrichment-related activities and return to the negotiating table. That is the only viable option it can take." Except it is not viable. It's been tried and failed. Diplomacy didn't work. There are other options, more realistic (if still unlikely to succeed) options. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, two Iranian freedom fighters say democracy could make their nation less threatening but it appears that they underestimate Tehran's nuclear progress; the fact is the rest of the world doesn't have the time for democracy to take hold and replace the mullahs. Over at the Daily Standard, Vance Serchuk wants to conscript the World Bank in the effort to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Cutting off its Bank for Reconstruction and Development loans would reinforce the notion that Iran is a pariah state. U.S. politics Trent Lott is running for the Senate again, seeking a fourth term. Laura Bush, according to her husband, has no interest in one day becoming Lott's colleague. Lott, who has been in Washington for 33 years, elected to the House of Representatives in 1972 and the Senate in 1988. Lott would do well to follow the example of Mrs. Bush who knows that there are forms of public service (promoting literacy) that does not require one to spend a lifetime in elected office. The worst dictators Parade has a list of the 10 worst dictators, led by Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Kim Jong Il (North Korea). Robert Mugabe is only #9. Fidel Castro doesn't make the list. Thursday, January 19, 2006
Quotidian "When I was sixteen I was already writing articles and offering them to any kind of editor whose address I could discover. These articles were of two kinds. The first, which I signed portentously 'J. Boynton Priestley,' were serious, very serious indeed, and were full of words like 'renaissance' and 'significance' and 'aftermath,' and suggested that their author was about a hundred and fifty years old. And nobody wanted them. They could not be given away. No editor had a body of readers old enough for such articles. The other kind were skits and burlesques and general funny work, written from the grimly determined humorous standpoint of the school magazine. One of these was accepted, printed and paid for by a London humorous weekly. I had arrived." -- J.B. Priestley, Essays of Five Decades (edited by Susan Cooper) Who's Chirac trying to kid? Reuters reports that French President Jacques Chirac is threatening use of nuclear weapons against rogue states, namely those who might sponsor a terrorist attack on France. Sure. Two points. 1) It doesn't make sense to try to persuade rogue states (read: Iran, perhaps North Korea) from acquiring or using nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction by threatening such countries with nukes. It's a credibility thing. 2) Who believes that France -- France! -- is going to go on the offensive? It's just not a credible threat. It is notable that the story alludes to the fact that Jacques Chirac has come under attack for France's expensive nuclear weapons program. Might his newfound bravado be a political ploy to defend the costs of keeping such weapons? Shocking news -- Iran supports Syria and vice versa The Daily Telegraph reports that Syria backs Iran in its despute with Europe and the United States over developing a "peaceful" nuclear capability (read: low enrichment uranium for energy purposes that could easily be transformed into weapons-grade uranium). The Telegraph reports: "The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, welcomed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said the Iranian leader had the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. In turn, Mr Ahmadinejad asserted his host's right to freedom from foreign interference." That's rich. Iran asserting that Syria should be free of foreign influence. Can Mr. Ahmadinejad say "Lebanon"? Bloc Quebecois is officially pro-euthanasia A letter from Nadine Charbonneau, "correspondence coordinator" for the Bloc Quebecois, to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition executive director Alex Schadenberg can be found here (pdf). Question: Is it a good idea for a party committed to nationhood of dying (depopulating) province to advocate euthanasia? Former Campagne Quebec Vie president, the late Gilles Grondin, often noted that with abortion and contraception, la belle province was committing cultural suicide. Euthanasia only adds to that problem. What is about people named Martin? CanWest journalist Don Martin takes on The Western Standard's Kevin Steel and loses. Kevin Libin has the details at The Shotgun. The story comes down to this: Martin practices what Libin accurately describes as a Clintonian evasion while attempting to deny that Paul Martin spokesman Scott Reid told Martin, the CanWest journalist, that Alberta could "blow him." The problem for Martin -- the journo, not the prime minister -- is that he left a voice mail message with Kevin Steel and thus a little bit of evidence that contrary to his denials, Reid did in fact say what it was reported he said. Libin says that Don Martin denied the story because he wanted to suck up to the PMO because he thought that the Liberals were going to win re-election and he didn't want to lose his sources. Nice journalism. Liberal dirty tricks LifeSiteNews.com reports: "The Liberal Campaign in the Saskatoon-Wanuskewin riding of Saskatchewan has reached a boiling point after the campaign office was caught calling in to a television show falsely accusing the Conservative candidate of sexual abuse. Tuesday night on Shaw Cable, a caller phoned in falsely accusing front-runner Conservative incumbent MP Maurice Vellacott of sexually assaulting his church secretary at North Park Church. Vellacott has never been accused by any woman of sexual assault and was never a Pastor at North Park Church." Looks like Chris Axworthy's campaign is a little ... what is the word? ... desperate. Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Nicholls on the attacks against the Blogging Tories A pair of malcontents are complaining to Elections Canada that the Blogging Tories, a group of, er, blogging Tory supporters, might be in violation of the gag law. The NCC's Gerry Nicholls reacts: "Is this the kind of society we are evolving into? Do people really think it should be illegal to express opinions on a website?" Gerry says that the bloggers have nothing to fear -- for now. Noting that the gag law is designed to limit the influence of money in politics, Elections Canada can't do much about it. (For an explanation of how much money is needed to run Blogging Tories -- and more -- read the outfit's co-founder Stephen Taylor's response to the complaint, here.) But, Gerry warns, if the Liberals are re-elected they might turn their sights on blogs and attempt to regulate their election-time activities. New ground for the Club for Growth The Hill reports that the Club for Growth, the pro-free market, pro-free trade, anti-tax lobby group, has, for the first time, endorsed a Democrat. It noted that Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat who backed CAFTA, repealing the estate tax and reforming public education, was worthy of support in his March 7 primary against former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. Pat Toomey, the Club's president and a former Congressman, said of Cuellar: "This is a guy with guts and commitment to the principles he believes in." SCOTUS abortion decision -- not an abortion decision after all Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has a thorough analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States decision loosening (but not overturning) New Hampshire's parental notification law. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the unanimous decision which did not "revisit [the Court's] abortion precedents. As one commenter to Denniston's blog pointed out, it is noteworthy that neither Justice Antonin Scalia nor Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that commented on the question of whether abortion is a constitutional right. Beyond the politics of the day CTV reports that Bloc Quebecois support has dropped below the 50% threshold separatists had hoped for. With support for the Conservatives well above 20%, Bloc support has fallen, in some polls, to the mid-40s. As Adam Daifallah noted, this is a victory for federalism. More government programs that will survive the Conservative chopping block On Sunday I wrote that I was more than a little displeased that a Conservative candidate indicated that FedNor will not be cut by a Stephen Harper government. Today the Halifax Herald reports that political science professor Donald Savoie says that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, too, is safe following Harper's recent statements in Atlantic Canada that he has no intention of eliminating the development program. I particularly enjoyed this line, once again demonstrating that conservative parties are redudant: "It was a Conservative — John Diefenbaker — who started federal economic development in Canada, and Brian Mulroney continued the tradition, launching ACOA." Journos are idiots Jay Nordlinger in his Impromptus column yesterday: "People are always misusing 'fulsome' — they think it means 'really full' — and I spotted another misuse in an AP story. The story concerned President Bush and Chancellor Merkel — and it stated, 'Bush was fulsome in his praise of Merkel as smart, spirited, and "plenty capable".' 'Fulsome' means 'offensively flattering or insincere.' I doubt Bush was that. Anyway . . ." Years ago William Safire, in his New York Times language column, noted the misuse of the word fulsome by some journalist and a friend with whom I was discussing the piece said that he thought the word fulsome was the most misused word after "hopefully." Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Quotidian "Democratic politicians rarely feel they can afford the luxury of telling the whole truth to the people. And since not telling it, though prudent, is uncomfortable, they find it easier if they themselves do not have to hear too often too much of the sour truth. The men under them who report and collect the news come to realize in their turn that it is safer to be wrong before it has become fashionable to be right." -- Walter Lippman, Essays in the Public Philosophy Perfect illustration of how the left thinks today A London Times story on the Tony Blair government legalizing brothels that allow up to three prostitutes to ply their trade in a particular establishmnet has this paragraph: "The Government will scrap the term 'common prostitute' and create a new offence for those convicted of prostitution that provides them with help for drug and alcohol addictions. Ministers want to prevent prostitutes having to go back on the streets to pay fines." In other words, the government will have non-punishment for violators of the crime as it tries to get to the root causes of the non-offending offense. I wish Harper had a hidden agenda Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, the one-time democrat who believed that backbenchers were somebodies, has said that he will do everything he can as prime minister to prevent private members' bills on abortion from coming to a vote. Unfortunately, he probably means it. LifeSiteNews.com has the story. Iran was been warned CNN reports that acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us [to] have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence." Remember when Headline News presented ... headlines and news CNN reports that Philadelphia radio talk show host Glenn Beck is joining Headline News for a daily one-hour "unconventional look at the news of the day" show, including guests and produced segments. Not that I watch CNN or Headline News, but isn't the purpose of Headline News to provide regular updates of brief news stories throughout the day? Sweden's lying about its unemployment stats The Globalization Institute's Alex Singleton has the details, with a hat tip to Johann Norberg's work. Instead of a British-like 5.4% unemployment rate, Sweden actually has a worse-than-France 10.3%. It's all about how Sweden ignores International Labour Organization standards (er, suggestions) on how to measure unemployment. Sweden does not count unemployed people, who are looking for work but who are also studying. Also, people who are in government programs designed to increase their employability are not included in the numbers. The law is not the problem, it's the non-enforcement Tart Cider on the Justice Department-initiated study that suggested legalizing sodomy: "I am wading my way through the 278-page study collection of studies unearthed by the Canadian Press and subsequently released by Status of Women Canada, but the overall impression I'm getting is that the authors feel that since the current laws aren't protecting women and children from the negative effects of polygamy, we should scrap the current laws. My overly obvious response is that no law that the authorities refuse to enforce has, in the history of the world, protected anyone from anything." (HT: Let It Bleed) Have the Liberals returned the $1.14 mil? Eric Sorenson is trying to find out if the $1.14 million the Liberals promised to repay the taxpayer following the release of the Gomery report in November has, in fact, ever been repaid. Not surprisingly, he's having difficulty finding out. (HT: Political Staples) Been there, done that The Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail , and Toronto Star all run stories about abortionist Henry Morgentaler saying that he is scared about the prospect of a Conservative government because he believes that Stephen Harper harbours a hidden agenda on "choice." The National Post ignores this story, perhaps because Morgentaler made the same kind of statements during both the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns. In 2000, the announcement came, like this time, in the final week of the campaign. Most significant polling number this campaign According to a Strategic Counsel poll, 55% of Canadians think that a Conservative majority would be a good thing for the country. It's 45% in Ontario (compared to 45% who think it would be a bad thing), but a phenomenal 64% in Quebec. The Globe and Mail highlighted it in a huge front-page headline: "55% would welcome a Harper majority." Question: Does anyone recall a pollster asking Canadians if a Liberal majority would a good or bad thing for the country? Monday, January 16, 2006
A clarification In the two posts below, as one reader astutely and quickly noted, I seem to contradict myself. Or at least the tone of the two posts don't quite jive. On the one hand, I refer to the presumed Conservative victory next week as a "liberation" and on the other I lament that not much will change. Notice I stressed that not much will change policy wise. I don't expect the Tories to create massive kickback schemes to enrich their friends and maintain their power. But that, really, is a minimal expectation -- I don't want the federal government to rip off taxpayers. Canada will be spared the banana republic-like behavior of the federal Liberals. We will be liberated from a corrupt and arrogant party. That is worth celebrating. But we will still (I am predicting) live under a set of laws, program, taxes and regulations that hurt our productivity, dampen the entrepreneurial spirit, and punishes excellence. That is worth lamenting. Reason 7,256 that while I'll vote for the Tories, I don't support them From this Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal (via Bourque) story comes a disturbing but typical hint of what the Harper regime will be like: apparently we should not expect any cuts to FedNor. FedNor is, according to its website, "a federal regional development organization in Ontario that works with a variety of partners, as both a facilitator and catalyst, to help create an environment in which communities can thrive, businesses can grow and people can prosper." Great -- the Tories support the federal government holding the hands of Ontario communities. Once upon a time I thought that to facilitate the creation of environment where businesses can thrive, conservatives would have called for tax cuts and less regulation. Just a minute. I thought Ontario was a "have" province. What are they doing with a development agency? And more importantly, what the Conservatives doing even considering keeping it around? I guess it is yet another compromise the Conservatives have to make to achieve power. The specific context of the following quote is about FedNor (after area Liberal MP Joe Comuzzi said he has assurances that Stephen Harper won't touch the program): Conservative candidate David Leskowski said, "Nothing will be scrapped, but we want accountability." I'm afraid that will be the Conservative attitude toward ... everything. Once again, Conservative parties are proving themselves redundant. I still haven't made up my mind about how I'm voting. I'm inclined to vote against Ken Dryden but I may decline or wreck my ballot (as I often do). The Conservatives won't be (can't be!) as corrupt as the Liberals but I hold no illusions that they will control spending, significantly lower taxes or eliminate regulations, reduce waiting times for most surgeries or improve federal-provincial relations. What changes they make will be on the periphery with perhaps a single exception: Harper's choices for the Supreme Court will not be nearly as dangerous to Canada as those Paul Martin would appoint. But balance that with the fact that FedNor will not be cut and it won't be difficult to imagine a Canada five or ten years from now that looks too much like the Canada of today. And that's too bad. One week until the liberation Or perhaps considering my NFL predictions yesterday -- I was wrong on both of them -- I should refrain from predicting the federal election. Sunday, January 15, 2006
NFL predictions Part II I was correct in both my predictions yesterday. I meant to say that I thought both teams would beat the point spread and, indeed, both did. So what's going to happen today? I like the Pittsburgh Steelers but they are no match for the Indianapolis Colts. The Colts defense is lousy against the running offense and yet when these two teams met in November, Indianapolis shut down Pittsburgh's running game. Unfortunately for the Steelers, QB Ben Roethlisberger had trouble making passes longer than 12 yards. To win, coach Bill Crowther has to shake things up by abandoning the team's first run offense. Not going to happen; Roethlisberger and Crowther are the least imaginative brains in the NFL. The Colts, on the other hand, have Peyton Manning, a very smart and creative QB, able to adjust to plays at the last minute. The rested Colts have dominated the league all year and will dominate the Steelers today. Don't expect much offense in the Carolina Panthers-Chicago Bears matchup. When they met last month, the Bears won 13-3. Some are predicting that the Panthers, which have scored 67 points in their last two games and combined for 395 yards, could open the game up. But offensive outburts can be blips (and flukes -- the Atlanta Falcons have a miserable defense and the New York Giants were missing its top four linebackers) and the Bears had the best defense this year. Defensively, Carolina had the best short-yard prevention rate and the Bears finished 28th in short-yard carries. By some measures, Carolina's defense is second only to the Bears. A big, spectacular play or capitalizing on an untimely mistake will make the difference in this low-point game and I'm guessing that Bears will be the one to pull it out of the hat even though they are starting QB Rex Grossman who has played just six quarters all season. They don't, however, beat the point spread. Saturday, January 14, 2006
NFL predictions Two-thirds through the season it looked like a miserable year for the Washington Redskins. They were 5-6 and had injuries. With some playing through injuries and others on the bench, they had a gritty comeback, winning their final five games and the wild card to advance to the playoff's second round. But the Redskin season is about to end. The Seattle Seahawks are by far the superior team. It doesn't help that the Redskins offensive spark is running back Clinton Portis and he is about to face LeRoy Hill, a great rookie linebacker that will probably stop the running game. Seahawks fans have not witnessed a home win in the playoffs in 21 years but they will today. If the Redskins were healthy, it would be a great defensive team against a great offensive team. But the 'Skins aren't healthy. The 13-2 Denver Broncos and 10-6 New England Patriots are thought by many to be closer than their records indicate. The Patriots are better than their record implies and never count out QB Tom Brady. I agree with the sentiment but a look at their comparative defense and offense illustrates that Denver has the edge. They won their seasonal matchup 28-20 but were leading at the end of the third quarter 28-3 and laid back. Denver's run defense is weak but the Pats' running offense is terrible. The Broncos have been underestimated all season and will win this game today. If the Patriots were playing at home and didn't have to play the wild card game last week, this game could go their way. But those ifs didn't happen and neither will a third straight Super Bowl. Housekeeping You can send them to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com Also, you can order my book, Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal directly from the publisher or from Amazon. I know I said I'd take a little blogging break this weekend. That begins right now. Canadian Islamic Congress' hidden agenda Now, a Toronto alternative weekly, reported (scroll down) this week that the Canadian Islamic Congress did not endorse two NDP Muslim candidates (Gary Dale of Pickering-Scarborough East and Ali Naqvi in Etobicoke North), the Congress says, because of the candidate's support for the party's position on gay marriage. The Muslim Canadian Congress wonders whether it might be something else considering that the CIC did endorse NDP candidate (and non-Muslim) Svend Robinson, a homosexual activist and active homosexual. The CIC also endorsed Mary Woo-Sims, who supports same-sex marriage. Now says that CIC's refusal to endorse Dale and Naqvi "probably has more to do with the fact that neither candidate supports, as the CIC does, sharia law in Ontario or the idea that Israeli civilians are legitimate military targets of Palestinians." No wonder CIC representatives, including Mohamed Elmasry did not respond to the paper's request for an interview. It is hard to hide the agenda when reporters are asking tough questions. (Cross-posted at The Shotgun) Friday, January 13, 2006
Blair for UN chief? Clinton says yes AFP headline: "Clinton backs Blair as future UN chief." But in truth, the former US president was asked if he thought the British prime minister would make a good Secretary General and he responded, "That would suit me." That is hardly a ringing endorsement. Nor is it really a story. I can't stand when journalists ask unlikely hypothetical questions and treat their subject's response as serious news, often making the headline. The Left may regret getting their gag law wish Gerry Nicholls explains that if it wasn't for the gag law, anti-Conservative groups could pool their resources and launch a massive ad campaign. I bet Martin sticks around I have long said that even if Paul Martin loses this election, he'll try to stick around for another one, especially if the Conservatives only get a minority. Here is a summary of my thinking: 1) He fought all his adult life to become the prime minister. 2) He doesn't want to remembered as a loser and would like to lead the party back to office. 3) In a minority situation, it is too risky to run a leadership campaign. 4) Team Martin took total control of the party; even if some MPs wanted Martin to go, it will be difficult to force him out. 5) Martin's team is unlikely to let him quit. 6) The likely challengers to Martin lack organization (Brian Tobin), lack money and organization (John Manley), are otherwise pre-occupied (Frank McKenna, Allan Rock), not in Parliament (Michael Ignatieff), too young (Justin Trudeau), or are unwilling to openly challenge him (Anne McLellan, Ralph Goodale). 7) You don't get to kill the king and be the king, and there are few people in a position to be seen as part of a coup who don't want the job for him or herself. 8) He's got unresolved daddy issues. Today I read in this CP story about the speculation of whether the Liberal leader will stay or go: "Another former minister, who didn't want to be named, predicted Martin would try to hang on no matter the election's outcome. Martin has spent so many years plotting to ascend to the throne, he's not about to give it up without a fight, the ex-minister said. Other Liberals privately contend that even if Martin himself is willing to throw in the towel, his tight inner circle of advisers won't let him. Many have devoted years to getting Martin into the prime minister's office and will want another chance to prove they can get it right." I'll bet a beer with the first person to email me at paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com that Martin is still leading the Liberals on December 31, 2006. Nordlinger on the Alito hearings From Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column yesterday: "Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democratic giant from Illinois, said that Judge Alito was a man with 'a mind that, sadly, is closed in some instances.' Really? This is shocking, given that Alito is 55 years old. Anyone who hasn't closed his mind on certain matters by that time has weird problems. I'm reminded of something I heard Bill Buckley say, many years ago: The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." Blogging will be sporadic I have a number of writing projects I'm finishing up, books to read, magazines to puruse, and my parents are visiting from out of town. I hope to have a few posts up on the weekend but blogging will be lighter until early next week. Also, quotidian returns on Monday. Socons told you so Social conservatives warned that gay marriage would lead to polygamy. Socons were told to 'get with it' and accept gay marriage and that no one would ever advocate polygamy. Last May I even witnessed a journalist yelling at a evangelical minister to making this argument during a television interview. She berated him: "No one is talking about polygamy but you. No one is ever going to advocate polygamy in this country." Yesterday, the Canadian Press reported that a federal Justice Department-funded study is promoting the legalization of ... no prize for guessing correctly ... polygamy. The study, which was also funded by Status of Women Canada (a federal agency that should not to be confused with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which is funded by Status of Women Canada), says that the potential harm done to women could be addressed if Canada's polygamy prohibitions were repealed. I guess you have to be a lawyer to understand how giving the state's stamp of approval and making polygamy easier (and therefore, likely, more prevalent) will protect women in such relationships. Incredible fact According to the Yale Daily News, in the 2000 presidential election, Ralph Nader did better than George W. Bush in Ward 1, which is almost made up entirely of the university's students (17.8% to 15.7%). (HT: Oxblog) UN can act in Darfur if the genocide's enablers agree Reuters reports: "The United Nations wants the United States and European countries to help form a tough mobile force that would stop the bloodshed, rape and plunder in Sudan's Darfur region, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday. But Annan said that first the Sudan government, the 15-member Security Council and the African Union, which has sent the only foreign troops to Darfur, had to agree." In other words, there will not be a tough mobile force stopping the bloodshed, rape and blunder in Darfur. Foot dragging on Iran The UN News Service reports: "Asked how the issue should be dealt with, Mr. Annan said: 'First of all, I think we should try and resolve it, if possible, in the IAEA context.' He noted that Mr. ElBaradei is working to find a solution. 'Once that process is exhausted, it may end up in the [Security] Council and then I would leave it to the Council, to decide what to do, if it were to come here,' the Secretary-General said. 'I wouldnÂ?t want to pre-empt them.' Mr. Annan said he would pursue his personal efforts as well. 'I have been talking to all the parties, doing whatever I can to encourage a negotiated settlement and really keeping people at the table and trying to discourage escalation, and I will continue to do that,' he said. 'My good offices are always available; if I need to do more, and the parties so wish, I will do it'." If I were Kofi Annan, I would avoid referringg the secretariat as "my good offices" -- right now such phraseology does not have a lot of credibility. And neither will the United Nations as long as it is committed to relentless talking while Iran conducts nuclear "research," as it thumbs its nose to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community of listeners. Thursday, January 12, 2006
Tax cuts -- for the rich! Gary Wolfram writes at the Free Market Project in defense of tax cuts for the rich. After examining how tax cuts have led to economic growth and lower unemployment, Wolfram explains that this is not due to any trickling down but from the dynamic of incentives: "Why does a reduction in the highest marginal tax rates improve the living standards of all of us? It does not occur due to some trickle-down theory that rich people will spend more money on goods and this will create jobs for the rest of us. There simply aren’t enough rich people for this to make sense. The real answer lies in an understanding of how markets work. A market economy is based on voluntary exchange. I cannot force you to buy something that I produce, and you cannot force me to produce something for you. The only way you can get rich in a market economy is to produce something that others want and are willing to pay for. Since there are not a lot of rich people, you are more likely to get rich producing something for the poor and middle class that they will want and at a cost that they can and are willing to pay. The marginal tax rate is the one that affects your incentive to do this. It tells you how much of the next dollar the government will take and how much of the next dollar you get to keep. Lowering the marginal tax rates creates a greater incentive for people to find a way to produce things for the poor. This is what happens in any market economy, be it the United States or Estonia (which is growing rapidly after reducing its top marginal tax rates). It also makes it easier for people who are poor to become rich, thus increasing their willingness to work hard and risk their assets to produce what others will want." Why minorities are reconsidering the Liberals Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui notes one of the reasons that minorities are no longer supporting the federal Liberals: "If minorities are deserting the Liberals, it is principally for the same reasons as other Canadians are (sponsorship scandal, etc., perhaps more so, given that many came here from corrupt nations) and also because the Liberals seem to have developed a tin ear for minority grievances, while the other parties have fielded minority candidates and offered specific policy promises." Here's another: the social conservatism of many immigrants. Anecdotally, at least, I can tell you many visible minorities are not happy with the Liberal redefinition of marriage. But Siddiqui's politically correct pieties will not allow him to consider such possibilities. The Age impersonates The Onion No, apparently not. At first sighting I thought this was satire but, no, it is news. Real news. Well, at least real, unlike parts of Pamela Anderson. This is from The Age: "Actress Pamela Anderson wants the world to know that she's opposed to unnaturally large breasts - on chickens." The story continues, noting the actress criticized Vietnamese farms that supply KFC for their, "selective breeding for birds that have the large breasts consumers love." Anderson wrote to KFC's boss in Vietnam, "Chickens who are raised for KFC are bred and drugged to grow so large so quickly that many become crippled under their own weight," and that they are so top-heavy that their little legs cannot hold them up. The New Asian Order? Keizo Nabeshima, a former lead editorial writer with the Kyodo News, writes in Japan Today that Japan must change the focus of its foreign policy from a Tokyo-Washington axis to a Tokyo-Beijing (and possibly Seoul) axis, focusing on creating an east Asian version of the EU. Why this is necessary Nabeshima does not explain. Becoming better neighbours is a worthwhile goal but does there need to be an oriental Brussels? Iran wants nukes because it wants to use them Military historian John Keegan in the Daily Telegraph: "Saddam merely pretended to have weapons of mass destruction, largely to feed his own fantasies of power. Iran is actually turning itself into a nuclear weapons state, a fact disputed by none of the players on the international scene. Iran, moreover, does not seek such weapons for psychological reasons. It wants them for practical purposes, including, according to a statement by its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former revolutionary guard, to 'wipe Israel from the map.' Islamic extremists are, of course, given to blood-curdling rhetoric. Nevertheless, Iran's record must cause not only the West but all Iran's neighbours to take the threat seriously." Keegan says everything up to and including military strikes must be on the table even though he doubts that censure by the Security Council or economic sanctions will work; he doubts the U.S. is ready for another military venture and suggests that the current political turmoil in Israel prevents Jerusalem from acting. When I was on Behind the Story on the weekend, the host said that unforutnately the United States can't act on Iran because they've wrecked their credibility on intelligence and WMD issues in Iraq to which I said, just as the closing music began, "thank God for Israel." Fortunately, they don't have any qualms about self-preservation. Political turmoil or not, Israel will not act if the rest of the West lacks the guts to do so. Or at least I pray that it still does. Me on Martin notwithstanding gambit Over at The Shotgun, I hazard a guess as to why the prime minister said he would gut the Charter to save the Charter. Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Lieberman's GOP support According to a Quinnipiac poll, Senator Joseph Lieberman would be easily re-elected to another term with Connecticut Republicans saying that the Democratic senator deserves another term. Three in four Republicans say Lieberman should be returned (75%-18%) compared to fewer than six in ten Democrats (59%-29%), with independents backing him 61%-24%. Lieberman would trounce yesterdays' Republican, independent Governor Lowell Weicker, 65%-21% (with 72% of Republicans claiming to support the Democrat over Weicker if the Guv runs as an independent. These are really stunning numbers. Most pundits -- and even the Quinnipiac pollsters -- say this GOP support is the result of Lieberman's enthusiastic backing of the War for Iraq. That is part of it, but so is having the integrity to buck the Demcratic leadership on the issue. (HT: No Left Turns) The only baseball rule more complicated than the infield fly rule explained Optional assignments are explained by Thomas Gorman at Baseball Prospectus. For the uninitiated: "The optional assignment language signifies that the team has reserved a 'right of recall' and can recall the player to the active list of their major league roster. Optional assignments are not subject to waiver approval from the other 29 clubs, and they give a team a great deal of freedom to move players onto and off of their major-league active rosters." Gorman then explains the ins and outs of how it works. If there was a prize for sanity in politics, Jeff Flake would win it every week Here's the Egregious Earmark of the Week press release from Rep. Jeff Flake (R, Arizona): "This week’s egregious earmark: $250,000 to the City of Peoria, Illinois for design and construction of an Africa exhibit at the Glen Oak Zoo. 'Pork projects like this make me think we need signs around the Capitol reading: "please don’t feed the animals",' said Flake." The Right is gaining on the Left (on the issue of international development) Alex Singleton writes at the Globalization Institute blog that the Right had ceded the issue of development to the Left by appearing to negative although that is beginning to change. A thoughtful post that captures the changing attitudes about the third, er, developing world by libertarians and conservatives, both of whom must do -- and are doing -- a better job selling the free market as beneficial to the average person. Singleton notes how two examples of "enterprise-based approaches to development" (microcredit and Technoserve) "are vastly more effective than the top-down help of which the government, unfortunately, is still far too fond." Whether north or south of the equator the best social program is, as always, a job. Liberals are past their best before date Paul Wells: "The Liberals continue to mis-characterize their own platform on their own website. It's a little thing, really. They say there's a promise in their platform, and the promise isn't in their platform, and they make no correction. They insist they never intended to impugn the Conservatives' plan to put soldiers in Canadian cities, and they leave up a French-language ad that impugns the Conservatives' plan to put soldiers in Canadian cities. At some point they have to ask themselves why so many Canadians are so eager to see the back of Paul Martin. Including Canadians who agree with Paul Martin on the issues. But that would take some introspection." Best post on the French-language debate J. Kelly Nestruck: "Mixing up Harper and Layton like Martin did, that's one thing. 'Accidentally' calling Martin Chrétien like Duceppe did: Priceless. Albeit inaccurate." Anti-Americanism as a slogan and tactic Bob Tarantino: "Am I the only person who thinks that the new Liberal slogan ('Mr. Harper, the United States is Our Neighbour, Not Our Nation') is particularly dumb? I mean, first off, it doesn't really flow: it seems too syncopated. Besides which, when has Harper ever said that the US was 'our nation'? What does that even mean? By the way, the Liberals may want to give Gerhard Schroeder a call and ask him how well warmed-up anti-Americanism works as a campaign tactic the second time around." Also, is Let It Bleed the only blog in which the word "syncopated" appears? I think it is. The terror network Dan Darling has a piece at the Daily Standard examining various Saddam Hussein-connected groups (Ansar al Islam, the Algerian Salafist Group for Call and Combat, and the Sudanese Islamic Army) and al-Qaeda. Latest listening Here's the last hour or so from my IPod: You Will Always Miss the Water (Ray Charles), Glory Days (Bruce Springsteen), Wabash Cannonball (Johnny Cash), Nature Boy (Sarah Vaughan), Yawning or Snarling (Tragically Hip), Luxury (Rolling Stones), Romeo and Juliet (Dire Straits), Concerto for Two Horns - Vivace (Telemann), A Boy Named Sue - Live (Johnny Cash), April in Paris (Ella Fitzgerald), You Gotta Be (Des'ree), Medical Love Song (Monty Python), Tears of a Clown (Smokey Robinson), That Certain Party (Dean Martin), Missa Papae Marcelli - Gloria (Palestrina), What a Woman (Howlin' Wolf with Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts), Allegro - Keyboard Sonata I. 465 (Scarlatti), Another Girl (The Beatles), William F. Buckley on Whittaker Chambers from Miles Gone By, Any Man of Mine (Shania Twain), Hand Jive (Eric Clapton), Come Fly with Me (Frank Sinatra), Communication Breakdown - #2 from the BBC Sessions (Led Zeppelin), Eilt - Passion of St. John (J.S. Bach), Wendell Gee (REM), I Wanna Talk (John Lee Hooker), In the Ghetto (Elvis Presley). Tuesday, January 10, 2006
'Time to take our country back' -- Interim election editorial Here's the lead editorial from the January 2006 election edition of The Interim: Time to take our country back Elections are opportunities – opportunities to speak up on the vital issues of the day and to influence the political process by choosing our elected representatives. Between elections, it can often seem that we, as citizens, are powerless. Too many political leaders ignore what Canadians want and pander to noisy special interest groups or manoeuver to get themselves re-elected, with little concern about the needs of the nation. The mainstream media exclude socially conservative voices. Too often, we are like spectators watching political games being played before our eyes, but which we are powerless to affect. But on election day, we can become involved and make a difference. And we must. For the past dozen years, the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin-led Liberals have been arrogant. They have treated Canada as their own private property. In the sponsorship kickback scheme, nearly half of the $250 million spent on promoting federalism in Quebec ended up in the bank accounts of advertising and PR firms connected to the Liberal party or sometimes, even the Liberal party itself. Judge John Gomery himself called it a kickback scheme, when he noted that simple oversight procedures were not put in place, which made it easy for the program to be exploited by the government for partisan gain. To the Chretien Liberals in charge of the scheme, it was only natural that the public treasury be raided to benefit their corporate friends and themselves. After all, the Liberals began to believe what political scientists have long said: the Liberals are the natural governing party. Believing that is dangerous to a democracy, but the Chretien and Martin Liberals went further. Instead of succumbing to the Liberal belief that Canada was theirs to govern, the leadership believed that the country was theirs to do with what they wanted. And if the public purse is not off limits from partisan raids, why, then, should anything else be? Last year, the National Post found that 60 per cent of judges appointed by the two Liberal prime ministers since 2000 made contributions to the Liberal party in the years leading up to the appointments. Furthermore, if you took professors and public servants out of the mix, 72.4 per cent of lawyers making it to the bench contributed financially to the Liberal party. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler’s response (five months after the revelations) was to belittle these findings’ significance: “You could probably find out that 60 per cent of people who applied for a judgeship go to hockey games. So what?” What condescension. The difference, of course, is that hockey players do not appoint judges. But the Liberals don’t even pretend anymore to care about being accountable – to anyone. Thus, the party that thinks it can get away with using taxpayer dollars to finance its own re-election bid or handing out judgeships to party supporters will have no compunction about imposing the leader’s views about what marriage is upon the whole of Canada. After all, Canada is here for them to do with whatever they wish – some social engineering here, a little social engineering there and the Canadian furniture will be set up exactly how the Liberals like it. But Canadians must know that while Paul Martin hid behind a Supreme Court reference decision, the fact is that same-sex “marriage” was pushed upon this nation by the prime minister and his justice minister, Irwin Cotler. They ignored five millennia of human history, the teachings of every major religion, the entire common-law tradition and Canada’s own statutes on the issue to impose their own definition of what marriage is upon some 32 million Canadians. By the time the current election campaign was under way, Liberal party president Mike Eizenga was claiming that same-sex “marriage” is “anchored” in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the Charter is the essence of Canada, “a fundamental aspect of our national character.” Thus, to be a real Canadian, one must embrace same-sex “marriage.” Martin expanded on this idea in the first leaders’ debate, when he suggested that those who do not endorse same-sex “marriage” are unqualified to run for public office – although he backed off from those comments when it was pointed out to him that about one-quarter of his caucus opposed same-sex “marriage” in the vote last June. Raiding the public purse. Selling judgeships. Redefining marriage. Defining who is a good Canadian. All in a day’s work for the Martin Liberals. And why not? As the party in power, is Canada not there just for the Liberals to do with it whatever they want? No, it isn’t. The Chretienites and Martinites may think so, but we are still a sovereign people. We still choose our representatives. And our participation in the democratic process lends their authority legitimacy. Canada needs men and women of integrity in Parliament. We need MPs who will stand up for life and family and stand against the kinds of leaders who will impose their personal and partisan agendas upon the nation. MPs and candidates who defend the sanctity of human life and the uniqueness of the opposite-sex definition of marriage are precisely such people. If they are willing to do the right thing on these moral issues, there is good reason to believe they will do the right thing on government ethics and accountability. The MP who respects the commandment to not kill is also likely to respect the commandment to not steal. It is not often the elected elite ask for our opinion, but on election day they must take notice of what we say. We can demand decency and integrity. We must demand it. It is our right. Canada deserves better than what Martin (and Chretien before him) have had to offer. On the other hand, we wonder where the moral leadership is on the part of the Conservatives. Stephen Harper is willing to mention the topic of same-sex “marriage,” but seems unwilling to do anything about it, having already conceded that he will not use the notwithstanding clause of the Charter to override a judicial commandment to enact same-sex “marriage.” The Interim endorses no party and no leader. We encourage you to become informed about the issues and the candidates. Check out the Campaign Life Coalition Voter’s Guide online at www.campaignlifecoalition.com or call CLC toll free at 1-800-730-5358. Engage your local candidates when they are stumping for your support or during all-candidates debates. If all men and women of goodwill joined in voting only for pro-life candidates, Parliament would have a pro-life majority and the politics on the Hill would be radically different – that is to say, better – not only because we would have the numbers to enact legislation protecting innocent human life and defend family, but because, no doubt, there would be more ethical people in the House of Commons. It is not only the unborn babies and those vulnerable to euthanasia that need pro-lifers to vote their principles this election, but all of Canada. Review of Rescuing Canada's Right Rory Leishman, a London Free Press columnist and the national affairs columnist for The Interim, the pro-life, pro-family newspaper I edit, reviews Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin's Rescuing Canada's Right. Not surprisingly, he focused on what our audience would care about: social issues. He is disappointed that Adam and Tasha accept the standard media line that social conservatism is an electoral albatross although he is using fighting words when he describes the authors as "libertarians masquerading as conservatives." Still I think he has a point with these two paragraphs near the beginning of his review: "Kheiriddin and Daifallah have been led into error by a misunderstanding of small-c conservatism. They describe it as 'a political philosophy loosely based on the ideas of classical liberalism, as outlined in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith and more modern thinkers, such as Friedrich Hayek. It emphasizes free markets, individual rights over collective rights, limited government, private property rights and personal responsibility.' Notably missing from this list is the core attribute of British, Canadian and American conservatism; namely, a due regard for the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors, especially as enshrined in the common law and the traditional principles of Judeo-Christian morality. In this sense, Locke, Smith and Hayek were all conservatives." I think the authors are mistaken in their assessment that social conservatism costs the Conservative Party elections; as I've noted before -- and in commenting on the book on TV on Behind the Story in November -- a well-articulated and principled social conservatism hasn't been tried at the federal level so, at best, we are agnostic about its electoral chances. I think that Leishman is correct to say that, "To rescue the right in Canada, libertarians and social conservatives must co-operate in supporting key policies that can win popular support." Leishman warns that if Stephen Harper were to abandon his pledge to revisit (presumably with an eye to rescinding) gay marriage, it would destroy the Conservative Party. Sick perverts deserve death The Daily Telegraph reports that two babysitters -- a 40-year-old man and his 19-year-old girlfriend -- raped a 12-week-old girl and took photos of the assault. He gets life in prison, she gets five years for committing the same crime but both got off easy. Perhaps he doesn't play because he's a jerk Benfica's Andrei Karyaka, a Russian national, is upset with his lack of playing time and blames ... Portugal: "Portugal is a backward country. I think Lisbon is about 20 years behind (Moscow). It's a big village. There's no place for children to play outside." No room for children to play. That may explain Karyaka's situation. Congrats to Bruce Sutter In his 13th year on the ballot, Bruce Sutter was elected to Hall of Fame. He is the first pitcher to be selected for this honour without starting a game, he popularized the splitter, had 300 career saves, six All Star game appearances, a Cy Young, etc... He deserves the honour although I find it hard to justify him being included without Goose Gossage (310 saves) and Lee Smith (478 saves) being similarly honoured and actually, Sutter agrees. I don't think that 300 saves is a magic number; it doesn't bestow automatic entry into the Hall of Fame as 300 career wins have (until Bert Blyleven, that is, who will eventually be in the Hall). But Gossage and Sutter were two of the first three relievers to achieve that milestone (along with Rollie Fingers who is already in Cooperstown) and Smith is the career saves leader (at least until Trevor Hoffman and eventually Mariano Rivera overtake him). More importantly for Hall of Fame consideration, Lee Smith was the first to reach 400 saves and has been the career saves leader since 1993. But today is Sutter's day to celebrate. He deserves it. Easy money Reuters reports on a Consumer Federation of America and the Financial Planning Association-sponsored survey that found that 21% of Americans believe that winning the lottery is the best way to get rich, 11% say it is inheriting money, and 3% said an insurance settlement was the way to go. Just 55% believe that saving is the best route to riches. Sadly, 38% of the poor (those earning less than $25,000 a year) was "the most practical way to gain wealth." It can get worse? MosNews.com reports that relations between Russian and Ukraine could worsen. How bad can they get considering that it is probable that Vladimir Putin poisoned and tried to kill Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko? Moscow is trying to influence Ukrainian parliamentary elections scheduled for March and may bully its western neighbour by witholding oil although Italian-based economist Sonal Desai says that Putin might try something more "subtle." Mitterand's legacy Frederic Sautet at The Austrian Economists reflects on the legacy of Francois Mitterand: "The social aspect of Mitterrand’s world view, perhaps more than any other aspect of his policies, has deeply influenced the French mental model. Today the French are paying the price of Mitterrand’s bad policies and bankrupt moral code which made plunder via taxation and regulation (i.e. legal spoliation) even more acceptable values to pursue. Because of his decisions, social change is now more difficult than ever, as any reform is opposed by the well-organized beneficiaries of government redistribution." Mitterand's legacy Frederic Sautet at The Austrian Economists reflects on the legacy of Francois Mitterand: "The social aspect of Mitterrand’s world view, perhaps more than any other aspect of his policies, has deeply influenced the French mental model. Today the French are paying the price of Mitterrand’s bad policies and bankrupt moral code which made plunder via taxation and regulation (i.e. legal spoliation) even more acceptable values to pursue. Because of his decisions, social change is now more difficult than ever, as any reform is opposed by the well-organized beneficiaries of government redistribution." The importance of maize James C. McCann has an interesting piece at The Globalist (it seems to be an excerpt or precis of his book, Maize and Grace: Africa's Encounter with a New World Crop, 1500-2000) on how enterprising African farmers have incorporated maize into their seasonal farming system with some success, to the point that although the Americas produce more of it, nowhere in the world is maize as important to meet its population's nutritional needs as in Africa. McCann looks at the changing climate and less-than-ideal soil conditions in explaining the need for farmers to include maize in their patchwork plots to match changing moisture conditions and the erosion of the land. J.S. Bach biography Apropos of nothing, here's a great website for biographical information on J.S. Bach. Three problems with banning the notwithstanding clause According to Le blog de Polyscopique they are: 1) The clause is a "useful mechanism" to balance the powers of the courts and Parliament; 2) The federal government has never abused the notwithstanding clause (indeed it has never used it); 3) it needlessly opens up the constitution and imperils national unity by failing to address Quebec's issues with the constitution. Harper viewed more favourably in Atlantic Canada The gist of this Halifax Herald story is that complaints about Stephen Harper's remarks about the "culture of defeat" in Atlantic Canada are now seldom heard at the doorstep by Conservative candidates on the campaign trail because the Tory leader has ran a smooth, no-rough-edges, policy-driven campaign. Mostly, it seems, they are not worried that he will gut the East Coast's pork-laiden programs, er, funding agencies. Outright lies from the leadership debate Stephen Taylor noticed this one: Paul Martin claimed that the Tory plan to assist families with young children amounts to just $1 a day. As Taylor says, "I didn't know that there were 1200 days in the year." Monday, January 09, 2006
Impeach Blair to increase confidence in British Parliament? General Sir Michael Rose writes in The Guardian that there is little faith in the democratic process in the United Kingdom today and that the way to fix it is for the House of Commons to admit it made a mistake in supporting the Iraq War and that it made that mistake because it was misled (wittingly or unwittingly) by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Sir Rose says that Blair's negligent handling of the intelligence should be examined. But Rose goes from suggesting a vigorous examination of what Blair knew and what questions he asked (and didn't ask) about the intelligence he used to justify the war in Iraq to a conclusion one cannot support ("the impeachment of Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest in the democratic process") until we have those answers. Because the kind of people who would suggest hearings in the first place are the ones who have already come to the conclusion Sir Rose has, it would be impossible for such hearings not to be a joke. Is that going to increase confidence in Parliament? Glamorous ideas not glamorous leaders That's the point of Mark Steyn's Daily Telegraph column. In other words, Stephen Harper is in, David Cameron probably won't be. Another day, another reversal for Cameron The Daily Telegraph reports: "David Cameron reversed decades of Conservative education policy yesterday by ruling out the creation of more grammar schools and endorsing the comprehensive system. He promised that there would be no return to the 11-plus under a future Tory government and ditched the free-for-all on admissions that was a major plank of the party's education manifesto which he wrote for last year's general election." Cameron wrote the education plank the Tories ran on just eight months ago -- the one the party is turning its back on now and the one that included vouchers (pupil passports in Cameron's words), another policy the Tory leader has repudiated. The Telegraph editorializes that it might be good politics -- blurring the distinction between New Labour and New Conservatives so the choice isn't between the Left and Right but Backward and Forward -- but bad policy. The paper says: "Mr Cameron's announcement was astute politics. But clear-sighted tactics in the short term can mean strategic myopia in the long term. It can also be plain wrong. In restricting the spread of grammar schools, Mr Cameron is repudiating the most successful educational model in our history. The decline of social mobility - a child born poor today is more likely to grow up and stay poor than a child born poor in 1950 - is directly attributable to the introduction of comprehensive education in the 1960s." But what good is good policy if it doesn't win votes? Conservatives may not support people's right to know about candidates LifeSiteNews.com reports that the higher-ups at the Conservative Party may be telling candidates not to respond to questionnaires from socially conservative groups such as Campaign Life Coalition (note: I do freelance writing for CLC). LSN reports: "Growing numbers of Conservative Party candidates in Northern Ontario, South Western Ontario, the Greater Toronto Area, Alberta and British Columbia are refusing to answer questionnaires put out by pro-life, and pro-family groups, and some are refusing to answer any questionnaires at all. While some Liberal and NDP candidates have also refused to answer questionnaires, Conservative candidates are unique in blaming their refusal on policy or directives from Conservative Party headquarters." The pro-life news service obtained a memo or directive from the head office stating that "Candidates are asked not to sign written 'pledges' of any kind during the election period." In an interview "Jennifer" (Jenny Burns from the party war room) denied there is a policy that prohibits candidates from signing questionnaires. CLC (and other groups) have long sent out questionnaires and while many candidates dislike returning them, they provide vital information to voters on both sides of the issue. It would seem odd that party officials would deny voters this information, especially considering the Conservative Party's advocacy of openness, transparency and democratic rights. I thougth Vision TV was something like a religious channel LifeSiteNews.com reports on the Canadian network's anti-Catholic bias. Anti-Americanism as an election tactic Writing in the Washington Post on the weekend, Anna Morgan says that Canadian politicians turn to America-bashing to avoid discussion -- or even examination -- of its "homegrown"problems. She says that while the political leaders in Canada object to Washington not living up to its NAFTA obligations, Ottawa has not fulfilled its Kyoto treaty obligations to reduce GHG emissions. The Liberals run on an anti-US foreign policy to divert attention from Adscam. Furthermore, Morgan identifies the potentially serious consequence of America-baiting during the election: "In this electoral season, the public is looking for bellicose rhetoric, but Canada's security cries out for sober management. Whoever is elected will have to work publicly with the United States, not just against it, to reduce anti-American sentiment while addressing the problem of terrorism and cross-border control. If the real need for cooperation with Canada's southern neighbor can't temper the public's demand for criticism, the nation will be in for some stormy weather in the next few years." In a sidebar story Morgan described how not being an American does not necessarily immunize oneself from anti-American attacks: "Anti-American sentiments are so robust in Canada that you apparently don't even have to be American to feel their sting -- American-by-association will do. Take the case of Michael Ignatieff, the Toronto-born political scientist and human rights expert who spent the last couple of decades teaching at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. When he returned to Canada late last year to run for Parliament, did he get a warm welcome home from the locals? Hardly. Ignatieff had to stand down hecklers shouting 'American, American!' -- and this was at the candidate nomination meeting for his electoral district, from grass-roots members of his own Liberal Party." Regulating the censors Reporters Without Borders suggests regulating businesses that enable or otherwise cooperate with government attempts to censors the internet, pointing to Microsoft's closing down of a journalist's blog. Mike Masnick at the Globalization Institute's blog responds: "This seems incredibly unlikely to happen. While the situation with US companies helping China with censorship is problematic, it seems quite unlikely that any regulation will come about to stop it (either self-imposed or via government). Instead, it seems likely that solutions will present themselves in other ways. Already people have worked on tools to let those in China get around the censorship - and all of the press following Microsoft's closure of that blog means that anyone with anything important to say in China knows not to use Microsoft. The end result is likely to harm Microsoft more than any set of government regulations." I hope that Masnick is right but even if he isn't government regulation is not the answer. Perhaps there isn't one (an answer, that is) except the development of a conscience on the part of Microsoft. But government is not and cannot be the solution to every problem. Inviting more government participation doesn't make the marketplace of ideas any securer. Gaddafi's son heads home The BBC reports that Al Saadi Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan dictator, is likely to end his Italian soccer career after just one Serie A match (a 2003 game with Perugia). He was later suspended after testing positive for steriods. Gaddafi the Younger has been offered a government job back home. Sunday, January 08, 2006
The Alito hearings Here's how the New York Times begins its editorial on the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito: "Judicial nominations are not always motivated by ideology, but the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito certainly was. President Bush's previous choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, was hounded into withdrawing by the far right, primarily because she appeared to hold moderate views on a variety of legal issues. President Bush placated Ms. Miers's conservative critics by nominating Judge Alito, who has long been one of their favorites." Much could be said about this paragraph and the rest of the editorial but I have two quick points about this introduction. A) Miers has "hounded into withdrawing" not because she appeared to hold "moderate views" but because 1) we were unsure of her views on many issues and 2) she wasn't qualified for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. B) I don't recall Judge Alito being among the favourites of the "far right" until he was nominated. Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell and Michael Luttig were at the top of the list, not Alito. The Times doesn't get the right at all. If it isn't the Times being all nutty, it's Senator Charles Schumer. I heard him say on the radio this week that Judge Samuel Alito had to be intensely scrutinized by the Senate judicial committee -- that Alito had the "obligation to answer questions" on abortion, etc... -- because he had a long record to defend. I recall Senator Schumer over the summer arguing that Judge John Roberts had to be grilled intensely by the Senate judicial committee because he didn't have much of a record to go by. It's clear that Senator Schumer wants hearings hoping to trip up President George W. Bush's judicial appointments; that after talking for hours answering inane and repetitive questions from the brain-dead senators of the Left, they'll have contradicted themselves or said something that Democrats can use to justify opposing their confirmation. It's pathetic. The Telegraph's great blogging experiment It probably isn't fair to call it an experiment. The Daily Telegraph is having some of its foreign correspondents blog: Brussels, Beijing, Delhi and elsewhere. Peter Foster, the paper's South Asia correspondent, explains the benefits by introducing the fact that Asia is a dynamic place and the question of how to relate that story: "Through the monolithic, fixed formats of an old-fashioned newspaper story (which often struggle to accommodate complexity) or by taking the readers down the back-lanes and by-ways of life in India and South Asia as it is being lived here and now? The answer is a bit of both, but the blog will have an ever-bigger part to play. With a blog the reader gets to challenge, ask questions, disagree, fire in arguments and counter arguments. No more news by the spoonful - because nanny knows best." The idea of journalists being more accountable is an attractive one but I wonder if its true. It might be difficult for authentic and true (or truer) stories to get noticed among the gazillions of blogs out there. I hate the condescension of the media elite who deride bloggers as idealogues who don't have editors to keep them in check but there is sometimes something to this particular complaint. Remember all the "reports" that were simply untrue coming from the citizen journalists in New Orleans? Perhaps having journalists from the established media present stories and ideas using the new media format will provide the best of both media worlds. Me on TV I'll be on Behind the Story on CTS tonight at 7pm. We talk about the 10 biggest religion and ethics stories of 2005 and the Canadian election. I'm also on @issue on ichannel on January 10 at 8 pm discussing the decline of the Liberal Party of Canada with George Jonas, Michael Taube and Senator Anne Cools. 2005 is not 1987 or 1991 Steven Hayward at No Left Turns: "The Democratic attack on Alito will get no traction, and he will end up getting confirmed readily, after lots of delays and huff-puffing. The Bork-Thomas phenomena is receding, and we are slowly returning to a more normal and sane confirmation process. If the Dems filibuster, they’ll look even worse than they do taking the Murtha line on the Iraq war. I doubt they can sustain a filibuster." Let's hope so. Saturday, January 07, 2006
On cue, child care lobby supports Liberals Small Dead Animals notes that the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, which came out against the Conservative child care plan of supporting families with children under six with $100 a month, gets its funding from ... the Liberal government. The best thing going for Cuba is not all that's its made out to be Western liberals have long defended Cuba with the rather silly argument that it provides quality universal healthcare. Apparently Havana doesn't even have that going for it anymore. CubaNet passes along this news: "The health sector is the most critical point of the present crisis of services in Cuba. The authorities have as their political strategy to show that the island is a world power in public health; but the reality is very different. Polyclinics, hospitals, rehabilitation centers and pharmacies have as a common denominator the scarcity of the most-needed medicines. But where the deterioration in medical services reaches its climax is in the treatment of patients and visitors to those centers. The stomatology clinics have been turned into real torture chambers, due to the fact that in nearly all of them there's no anesthesia needed for tooth extractions and other procedures. The situation gets worse for residents of the most vulnerable sectors of the population, since the best conditions exist for three groups: foreign tourists, members of the government hierarchy, and citizens with excess monetary resources who can pay the doctors and paramedics for the services rendered. The slogan, 'Free health care for all,' is a constant bad joke in the face of the reality lived out." Identity card madness I don't know if I'd believe this if it wasn't in the Telegraph: authorities will be given the power to search Britons' homes to ensure that everyone has their ID card and fine those that do not if the government suspect them of not maintaining a proper identification card. The Tony Blair government has said that ID cards will be voluntary but a Whitehall consultation paper obtained by the Telegraph indicates otherwise. Late last year, the Home Secretary said the government's identity card scheme would not "create Orwell's Big Brother state," but the Telegraph reports: "At present the Bill requires people to submit their details to a new national ID Card Database when they apply for a passport, in effect making registration compulsory. The small print of a consultation paper published by Lord Falconer's Department for Constitutional Affairs, released during the Christmas holiday, reveals that town hall officials will be asked to police the scheme by using the Electoral Register to identify homes and individuals without cards. The register will be cross-checked against the proposed Identity Card Database in what the Conservatives are calling 'Big Brother' tactics. Those who fail to register for a card or to keep their details up to date when, for example, they change address face fines of up to £2,500. In baffling language, the document proposes a shadowy sounding system called 'Core' - and discusses the need for 'data sharing' and 'unique, personal identifiers'. (Core is a new centralised, electronic electoral register to replace the current, locally managed registers.) It suggests that electoral registration offices (EROs), at local councils could help to provide information for the proposed ID Card Agency by scouring their systems. 'With a Core consolidated dataset, it should be possible to check elector records against a dataset requiring much higher levels of verification. The other dataset might also make notification of changes to personal details or addresses a requirement and discrepancies could be referred back to an ERO for investigation. 'The anticipated high level of security checking and intended requirement for citizens to notify changes may make the ID card register dataset a particularly useful comparator'." Cameron moves to the center guarantees Brown victory on '09 Mark Steyn has often said that the problem with conservative politicians moving to the political centre is that the political centre then moves leftward. True conservative leaders (Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Mike Harris) moved the political centre toward themselves. And won. Norman Tebbit writes in the Telegraph that Tory leader David Cameron moving to the political centre benefits Gordon Brown because it makes it easier for the chancellor to move closer to his disgruntled base: "The idea that the Conservatives could win in 2009 by squeezing Labour's vote (already at its lowest for 20 years) or even that of the Lib-Dems is moonshine. Mr Cameron's plan seems to be to take the Conservative party Leftwards onto the 'middle ground'. That would shift the whole political spectrum - including the middle ground - to the Left, further away from the disgruntled Tory abstainers and nearer to the prospective prime minister, Gordon Brown. Mr Brown, as prime minister, would then be able to move Left a little himself to be closer to the one-time Labour voters who put Labour into office in 1997 but stayed at home last year. And there are 4 million of them." UK to use satelites to ensure everyone is paying their full taxes Via Quotulatiousness, there is this story from The Independent: "John Prescott has told tax inspectors to use satellites to snoop on householders' attempts to improve their homes. Images of new conservatories and garages taken from space will be used to hike up council taxes and other property levies, official guidance obtained by The Independent on Sunday reveals." As Quotulatiousness says: "UK government to crack down on illicit home improvements." This may be my first football post It's Wild Card Weekend in the NFL. The Patriots are leading the Jaguars and the Red Skins beat the Bucaneers. Anyway, the Pro Football Hall of Fame has a great decade-by-decade history of the NFL. Even casual fans of the game (such as myself) can enjoy it. Make sure you click on the specific links for more information about each significant event. The site also has a good history of the NFL wild card. The Skins, presumably the Patriots and the winners between the Steelers and Bengals, Giants and Panthers have a difficult road ahead of them. Since 1970, only seven wild card teams have made it to the Super Bowl and only three of them have won it. And with all that I end with a George F. Will quote on the unloveliness of football. He says that it combines two of the worst elements of American society: violence and committee meetings. Which is why I restrict my intake of football to January. Friday, January 06, 2006
Five strange things about me Bob Tarantino tagged me in this wonderful meme: list five strange things about myself. 5. I liked getting tagged for these things. 4. I hate bananas -- the smell, taste and tecture of them, I can't even clean up my kids after they've eaten one -- but my favourite flavour of popsicle is banana. 3. I once watched Star Wars (the original) 13 times in a row. I've watched the movie more than 150 times. 2. In August 1997 I drove to Prince Edward Island for the weekend with a friend. On principle we wouldn't drive through Quebec so we took a longer route using backroads through New England. 1. I have an incredibly sensitive gag reflex. Until a year or so ago I couldn't clean up anyone else's dishes in my family because I would gag. I gag in the shower if I have brushed my teeth immediately before entering the shower but not otherwise. I gag every time I take the garbage to the curb. I have to tag five others: Eli Schuster Publius at Gods of the Copybook Headings Russ Kuykendall J. Kelly Nestruck Adam Daifallah Thursday, January 05, 2006
Latest hour or so of music from my IPod Mercy Street (Peter Gabriel), Stone Cold in the Market (Ella Fitzgerald), And Your Bird Can Sing (The Beatles), the Prelude to the Well-Tempered Clavier (J.S. Bach), Praise (Marvin Gaye), Pick the Wildwood Flower (Johnny Cash and Mother Maybelle Carter), My Girl (Rolling Stones), Superman (REM), Sanctus from Palestrina's Allegri: Choral Works, Voodoo Child (Jimi Hendrix), Don't Let the Stars Get in Your Eyes (Dean Martin), Obscured (Smashing Pumpkins), Et in terra pax homnibus from Vivaldi's Gloria in D Major, All Along the Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix), When It's Sleepy Time Down South (Louis Armstrong), Cut Every Corner (The Simpsons), Rock Island Line (Johnny Cash), Move (Live by Miles Davis), Too Much (Elvis Presley), Any Time At All (The Beatles), No. 2 Arioso for Tenor from Handel's Messiah, Little Girl (John Mayall), We'll Go Too (Tragically Hip), I've Got Two Legs (Monty Python), Hide in Your Shell (Supertramp), I'm So Excited (John Lee Hooker), What Do You Do For Money Honey (AC/DC). Great tunes but I will say it is a little disappointing when the shuffle brings up part of the Messiah or the Well-Tempered Clavier or Mass in B Minor and Led Zeppelin or even Sarah Vaughan come up next. Politics I don't have time to post much tonight so I just wanted to draw your attention to several items. Gerry Nicholls has a list of the top 10 people he wants to see defeated on January 23. His top 3: a pair of turncoats and a jewel thief. I'd add Ken Dryden to the list but I'd be hard-pressed to remove anyone. Tasha Kheiriddin and Adam Daifallah are blogging for Macleans.ca for the duration of the election. Adam has a good post on five things that are different this time around for the Conservatives. I hope to have more about this on the weekend. Over at the Washington Post's The Fix, Chris Cillizza has a great post on Harold Ford Jr. and his bid to replace Senator Bill Frist (who is not seeking re-election). The gist is that Ford, touted by some as a future Democratic presidential candidate, is under-rated in the Tennessee contest. But I think that Cillizza himself under-rates Ford's chances. He concludes: "Tennessee race remains a difficult pickup for Democrats but Ford's surprisingly solid candidacy has given the party a legitimate chance." I think that Tennessee is one of only three Senate seats (along with Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) that the Dems have a chance of picking up in November. US Chamber clamours for more immigrants The AP reports that U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Thomas Donohue said: "We have yet to secure an adequate supply of working taxpayers to run a growing economy and support an explosion of retirees." He said that a new immigration law with guest worker program will be a top Chamber legislative priority this year. So far vdare's blog hasn't had anything to say about this news. I think the Chamber is thinking too short term. How about thinking long term and supporting legislation that could reverse the birth dearth such as scaling back abortion-on-demand and advocating lower taxes for families so they can afford more children. I don't think birth rates will increase astronomically but I think they can be returned to replacement level. What I find befuddling is that business groups and the media (especially The Economist) never consider pro-natal policies as a solution to the declining workforce/taxpayer base that is plaguing most of the developed world. So what if Tories don't win the felon vote? Leith Coghlin on news that inmates don't intend to vote for the Conservatives: "The fact that crooks and felons are voting for those other than we Tories that actually believe in punishment makes me proud to be a Conservative. I wonder for whom they'll vote? Perhaps the Liberals? Seems ironic in that more than a few Grits could potentially be joining them in the near future." US hits Iran Sort of. Reuters reports that Washington has imposed sanctions on Novin Energy Company and the Mesbah Energy Company, two affiliates of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran. They are accused of helping Tehran achieve its nuclear weapon ambitions. Under conditions of the sanctions, a result of a presidential executive order, company assets held by U.S. persons or firms to be blocked or frozen. Anti-capitalist motivation in free market approach to traffic congestion Johnathan Pearce at Samizdata on news that Stockholm has imposed a London-like traffic congestion charge: "The Swedish city of Stockholm - in which I spent an enjoyable short stay last year -- has introduced congestion charges, much like those which now operate in central London. The supposed aim (supposed being the key word) is to reduce car use and get people to use public transport. Public transport is said to be very good in Sweden and I found it to be so, though it comes with a heavy tax bill. The congestion charge issue is an interesting one because on one level, free marketeers can see a lot of merit in the idea of treating use of a road just like any other commodity. However, in today's world, road tolls tend to be more of a revenue-raising device than part of a free market approach to transport. Roads are not built with the consent of other property owners, but mostly built at the behest of public authorities using compulsory purchase powers (what is called eminent domain in the United States). So the idea of road pricing, nice though it may sound in some sort of capitalist utopia, is in reality bound to operate in a monopolistic environment." Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Will Israel be the world's saviour? This Washington Times editorial notes that if the United States will not militarily take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, Israel is probably prepared to do so. The Times says: "It may well be that Washington is working behind the scenes on some kind of plan for military action against Iran's nuclear program -- with or without coordinating it with Israel. But from outward appearances, it appears as if Washington has decided for now to continue working on the diplomatic track with the European Union -- something that has yet to bear fruit. As a result , Israeli strategists have begun talking much more openly about the possibility of Israel acting against Iran on its own -- even as Mr. Sharon continues to emphasize that Israel wants to resolve the problem diplomatically. But once Israel concludes that diplomacy cannot deter an Iranian nuclear attack, it has two major options: The first is to absorb a catastrophic first strike and retaliate with nuclear weapons hidden on Dolphin-class submarines. The second is to launch a pre-emptive attack with the aim of destroying as much of Iran's nuclear-weapons infrastructure as possible." I hope so. ACORN hypocrisy Bruce Bartlett has a great column in the Washington Times on the hypocrisy of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which seeks increases in the minimum wage but argues for an exemption for itself so it can continue doing its important work like advocating for increases in the minimum wage. Only in America? In December, Eric Pettine wrote an op-ed for All About Jazz about whether Jazz was (is) too hip for America. It is a horrible, horrible opinion column that is woefully ill-informed. I especially liked this: "Only in America, it seems, would we have a hit TV show entitled 'American Idol'." The problem is that a gazillion countries have "Idol" shows and there was even an international idol contest. Instead of complaining that jazz music doesn't sell as much as pop/rock -- which Pettine says is because pop sells image whereas jazz is about the music (never mind Dizzy's beret and glasses) -- Jazz at Wingspread is developing a three-year plan to increase interest in the genre. Quote of the day "It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument will play itself." -- Johann Sebastian Bach (via All About Jazz) I'll bet Bob Tarantino Bob Tarantino says that if he was a betting man he'd wager that Michael Ignatieff will lose. While I think that Ignatieff is the Liberal most likely to lose to a Conservative in Toronto, I don't think that is likely to happen. So, Bob, want to put a beer on it. I'll take Ignatieff in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. That way, I win no matter what: I'd gladly sacrifice the price of a pint if John Capobianco wins. Alex Singleton on cheap laptops Over at the Globalization Institute blog, Alex Singleton writes about plans to distribute $100 laptops in the developing world: "The designers of a $100 windup-powered laptop, targeted at children in developing nations, want governments to buy them in shipments of millions, with them handed out for free. And that's a key problem with the scheme. Governments and donor agencies do not have unlimited resources, so it is key they proritise (and focus on the poorest countries) - and it's unlikely that giving out a computer to every citizen in the developing world is high up on their lists. Yet this proof of concept is important for developing countries. Technological advances in the developed world often have an important role in developing countries: the mobile phone is a huge boost in facilitating trade in Africa. Bill Gates' financial support to find a vaccine for malaria is important and will make a real difference to people's lives. And advances that make technology cost less - like the $100 computer and the free Linux operating system it runs - will have an important role in increasing access to information technology across the developing world." It will be next to impossible for poor Africans to become customers and few governments are going to buy laptops for kids, so Singleton is right to suggest that aid organizations see the importance of getting these increasingly important educational and economic tools in the hands of the poor. Important but unlikely. How long until such groups complain that there is some "catch" to practically giving away these computers and it is all part of some capitalist plot? Voting vs. US at the UN and economic freedom Here is a list, published December 20, 2005 by the Human Events Online, of the 10 countries who vote most often against the United States at the United Nations (what's Iraq doing there?) and the percentage of votes that they oppose the US on: 1. North Korea (96.7%) 2. Laos (95%) 3. Iraq (94.4%) 4. Turkmenistan (94.2%) 5. Vietnam (94%) 6. Congo (93.5%) 7. Bhutan (92.9%) 8. Saudi Arabia (92.8%) 9. Zimbabwe (92.8%) 10. Cuba (92.6%) Here's a list of the 10 least economically free nations according to Index of Economic Freedom released today by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation: Turkmenistan (148th) Laos (149th) Cuba (150th) Belarus (151st) Libya (152nd) Venezuela (152nd) Zimbabwe (154th) Burma (155th) Iran (156th) North Korea (157th) Turkemistan, Laos, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea are on both lists. Coincidence? And I'm sure that Venezuela and Iran are not far behind Cuba in lining up against the United States at Turtle Bay. RINO list The Human Events blog has a list of the top 10 RINOs. Mostly the usual suspects (senators Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, Rep. Chris Shays and Gov. George Pataki), but also Gov. Mitt Romney who will likely seek the GOP presidential nod in 2008. It is notable that other if it wasn't for Rep. Jim Leach from Iowa, Specter, from Pennsylvania, would be the most "western" on the list. Celebrities and their politics Wikipedia has a list of Republican and Democratic celebs (HT: Club for Growth blog). I used to think that the Democratic list had a more impressive "cool factor" but not anymore although in terms of music celebs, the GOP is heavy on country and western whereas the Dems have the pop artists. Still, the Republicans have the edge in former Charlies' Angels stars (although the Dems have do better among the movie version Angels), former soap stars, and babes. I'm dubious about Roseanne's inclusion on the GOP list and wonder on which list Ron Silver, a registered Democrat who supports President George W. Bush, belongs. Former football great seeks GOP nod in Pennsylvania Former Pittsburgh Steelers receiver Lynn Swann announced that he will seek the Republican gubernatorial nomination next year. He opposes high business taxes and abortion-on-demand but not much else is known about the star candidate who will face Ed Rendell, the current Democratic governor, if he wins what is thus far a four-way GOP primary. Notably, Swann said that the Democrats have taken the black vote for granted. Swann's website is here and his campaign blog here. I am very pleased to see that he actually used the word "conservatism" on his website in the section on his vision for Pennsylvania. Lawsuits gone wild Walter Olson at Overlawyered notes: "Restauranteur (see comments) Phil Romano has agreed to drop his lawsuit against the Dallas Morning News over its review of his local eatery, Il Mulino, in exchange for the paper's promise to run a second review of the restaurant in coming months. 'While [reviewer Dotty] Griffith handed out 4-star ratings for service and ambience, Mr. Romano took offense at her criticism of some of the restaurant's main dishes, including entrees featuring its Bolognese and vodka sauces'." Full story from the Dallas Morning News, here. Robert W. Mong Jr., editor of the paper said, "This is a big win for our readers and for anyone who values the free exchange of information and opinion." I don't get it: its a victory for readers if a paper says it will do another review to satisfy a restaurant owner whose establishment didn't deserve a good review in the first place? And is the "free exchange of information and opinion" on vodka sauces vital for the survival of the Republic? ABA endorses Alito CNN reports that the liberal-leaning American Bar Association has accredited Judge Samuel Alito as "well-qualified," the organization's highest rating for judges. Imagine the political pressure this Democrat-friendly organization must have received in order to give Democrats cover in opposing the Bush nominee to the Supreme Court. Canadian media chain joins fight for freedom Sun Media has joined the fight against the ridiculous and out-dated blackout law. Paul Bryan is fighting against Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act which prohibits the broadcast of election results before all polls are closed. Gerry Nicholls of the National Citizens Coalition (which has also joined the fight) has more. The Ottawa Sun's report says, "Elections Canada believes that could influence how a person votes in B.C." I have a question. Do we know that this is true? And if so, how do we know this is true? Since when should the unsubstantiated assertions of a government official be taken at face value? JO'S touts Niranjan Deva-Aditya for UN post John O'Sullivan suggests that Sri Lankan-born, Europarliamentarian Niranjan Deva-Aditya be considered to replace Secretary General Kofi Annan. It is, by tradition and in theory, Asia's "turn" for the top spot at the international organization and other rumoured candidates will be opposed for this or that reason. I doubt that an Asian whose professional life is European has much of a chance. Everything I needed to know I learned from the Abramoff affair Doug Bandow, who accepted money to write columns supportive of the positions of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients, writes in the Los Angeles Times that he has learned his lesson and that he will try to regain his credibility. Good luck with that Doug. One thing that should be understood, though, is that Abramoff's payments never affected Bandow's positions, only the subjects he wrote about. Bandow writes: "Later, Abramoff said: Look at these issues. If you agree and want to write on them, we'll help. I never took a position contrary to my beliefs. I wouldn't have had the luxury of selling out even had I been so inclined. My biases are too fixed and well known to allow a convenient conversion." I think that this is comparable to the issue of campaign finance reform. Groups give money to politicians who already share their views. I don't think any amount of money from the National Right to Life Committee is going to get Hillary Clinton to support a ban on abortion. But perhaps money from anti-gun groups may lead her to promote gun control more actively than she would otherwise. I just don't see organizations and individuals giving money to people who disagree with them. Money might buy access and favours but I doubt that it easily buys principles and new worldviews. Cameron is an idiot I'm not the only one to break my New Year's resolution to give David Cameron another chance. The Scotsman columnist Margo MacDonald complains about Cameron's allergic reaction to "isms." She says: "According to the Tories' blue-eyed boy, he doesn't believe in 'isms.' Communism, capitalism, socialism and republicanism, according to the Conservatism-lite Cameron, all simply indicate extremism. He should have finished the book on political philosophies made easy. The 'isms' he complains about are descriptive nouns that convey to the listener, reader or observer which choice has been made, or is likely to be made, about how a defined social, political or economic objective is achieved. ... And that's OK, provided each knows when that tactic, as opposed to hunkering down inside their respective "isms", will blow them completely off course. Because, to be consistent, and trusted by colleagues and those they govern, politicians have to know when to stand firm on their basic principles. David Cameron says he won't be imprisoned by the Tories' ideological past - presumably, the principles on which his party rests and from which it has evolved. He says, instead, under his kind of Conservatism, Tories will be guided by two values . . . trusting people and sharing responsibility." I have never trusted anyone who says he doesn't believe in left or right, capitalism or socialism, liberalism or conservatism. Generally, they end up being pro big government. While voters may say they don't like idealogues, having an ideology gives voters some way by which they can guess how a politician will act once in government. Capitalists will favour policies that unleash the dynamics of free people, socialists will seek solutions in state-run programs. Voters should know what to expect. The problem with Cameron is that there is no reliable guide, no hint of what he might do if he were to become prime minister. Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Liberalism has nothing to offer but opposition to conservatives The Nation wants President George W. Bush impeached. Katrina vanden Heuvel ends a recent blog post with a call to arms for the Left in America to help elect a Democratic Congress: "There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed?" Political Correctness run amok Jay Nordlinger on the glaring colour-blindness of the media: "Longtime readers know of one of my favorite moments in life. It occurred in 2002, during the Salt Lake City Olympics. (These were Winter Olympics, of course.) An American woman won a gold medal in the bobsled, and she was the first black woman to win a gold medal in the Winter Games. But the TV network — NBC — had no way of expressing that: because they can't say 'black,' or think they can't say 'black.' They have to say 'African-American.' So they had no way of telling people that this dear girl was the first black woman ever to win a gold medal in the Winter Olympics. The announcers were reduced to saying, 'She's the first African-American woman from any country to win a gold medal!' Gosh, I loved that. Laughed my hiney off, for ages. I was reminded of this when I read an article in USA Today about the businesswoman B. Smith and the 'African-American angel' that adorned the top of her Christmas tree. (Holiday tree. Whatever.) An African-American angel, huh? Interesting that that angel had a nationality. What are white angels? Are they American, too? Or are they Danish, French, or Russian? Just asking." Liberal values Liberal leader Paul Martin says that the election will be a choice between Liberal values and the (presumably unCanadian and thoroughly evil) vision of the Conservatives. Proud to be Canadian wonders what values those would be: * The Liberals’ self-proclaimed “Canadian value” of unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions which can occur at any time in any pregnancy—even at the ninth month—for any reason or no reason at all whatsoever as many times as any woman at any age decides, and all in taxpayer-funded socialist public hospitals—and yet even at private abortion mills which are suddenly perfectly OK in this instance. Maybe they mean that “Canadian value”? Yeah I sense a difference between the liberals and conservatives on that one. And I sense that conservatives are the party of values here. * Or the “Canadian value” as created by liberals who decided that what Canada needs urgently at this time is to change the definition of “Canadian family” and “marriage” to further destroy the value of the Canadian family in favor of reverence of government instead? That value? I detect a difference there. I favor the conservative outlook on traditional marriage and family. Conservatives traditionally stand for family and family values. That’s a fact. * Or maybe he means the liberals’ plans to make prostitution legal in this country. That grand “Canadian value”. That’s a winning strategy for our great country. * Maybe he’s talking about their plans to enable the kids to more easily smoke pot on the streets. That “value” is sure to help attract the best and brightest to our country—and help grow and nurture another great liberal value—of gettin’ high on pot. I sense that I like the conservative take on this one. It’s an actual Canadian value and pro-family at that. That’s my kind of values. * Or maybe he’s talking about their Supreme Court division, which just decided in December that another “Canadian value” is to encourage the growth of clubs at which Canadians—perhaps whole families—can get together and watch group sex, participate in the group sex if they feel the urge, and swap wives back and forth. That’s a “value”? That a good Canadian “family value”? Is that what “values” he’s talking about? I really think the conservative outlook on this would appeal to most Canadians. * Maybe he’s talking about the treasonous “Canadian value” of decimating our national military defence forces to the point where they’re practically bankrupt and approaching full “rust-out”. Purposely underfunding it and to the extent that Canada can no longer effectively defend its own borders, much less fight effectively abroad for freedom and democracy and against terrorism. I don’t dig that “value” much. That doesn’t help Canadian families or our nation at all whatsoever. In fact I would say that Canadian liberals in general should be put on trial for that “value”. * Maybe he thinks we dig the “Canadian value” in which he himself avoids paying corporate taxes in Canada from his Canada Steamship Lines to the extent that he can, because the corporate taxes and laws are too high for him here, and so he hides his business interests in tax havens and avoids all the stringent working conditions that good Canadians abide by happily here at home. That “value” provides HOW much “value” for Canadians? He’s going to lecture us about “values”? * Maybe he’s talking about the sponsorship corruption “value” that the RCMP are still investigating on a criminal basis after his Liberal government operatives have been shown by the Gomery inquiry to have stolen taxpayer cash and used it to fuel their own party. It’s really as if they were a bunch of fascist gangsters, and as if they were totally corrupt—and hey whadyaknow, maybe they are. We know nothing about this sordid tale in actual fact. By design. Maybe that’s a “value” he hopes to encourage among all Canadians so that the depravity of his own party will pale by comparison. Personally I don’t go for that “value”. But you go, Mr. Martin. Keep talking. The more you talk, the more hideous you become. * Maybe they think that Canadians value state-run media like they have in communist countries. Maybe they figure Canadians don’t value the BILLION dollars per year that the spend on the state-run CBC or it’s many web sites. And this is to say nothing of the ideology behind it—the mindset that approves of state-run culture-pushers and state-employed news gatherers and state-employed official state opinion-makers. That’s freedom? Democracy? That’s your values? Not mine, mister. * Or they may well be talking about the value of waiting in pain for months or years for horrible health care, if they even make it that far without dying first. That “value” is the biggest corruption scandal, in reality, but the liberals and the liberal-left in general paint it as a “Canadian value”. They hope to model another socialist effort on that failed model of left-wing liberalism—their “value” which includes plugging your kids into a state-run “childcare” and “early-learning” institution—Soviet style. Rely on the state, is what they say we value, rather than on family and on ourselves. * I don’t know, maybe it’s the value in which now, in my once far greater country, you can hardly find a Canadian or a Canadian company that doesn’t fully or at least to some great extent rely on the liberals’ government. They either work directly for the government, or are subsidized or aided in some way by the government. That sounds like a communist “value” to me. I like the conservative form of that “value”, which is manifestly the opposite of that liberal(?) “value”. Objectivists celebrate! New Ayn Rand book: Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A edited by Robert Mayhew. Great. That's sarcasm. Still, for those that are intersted, Laissez Faire Books has the details. Drink and politics go together like a horse and carriage Earlier this week, Steven Hayward noted at No Left Turns: "On yesterday’s radio broadcast, Paul Harvey reported the tidbit that the 831 members of the British Parliament (831?? Can that be right?? That must be Lord and Commons members together. . .) consume 800 pints of liquor a day. He thought that amount considerable. I think it means at least 31 members of Parliament aren’t doing their part; they should average at least one pint a day per member." With that much drinking going on, you can understand why government (and politics) is the way it is. If there is anything to that thesis, imagine what the alcohol consumption by Canadian parliamentarians must be. The 'Fact You' game First to yell out "Fact you" when Paul Martin says "the fact is" wins. Check out Proud to be Canadian's promotional video for the game. (HT: Gerry Nicholls) Sowell on Iran and the nuclear threat Thomas Sowell makes the excellent (and I would have thought self-evident) point that you don't wait until the smoking gun of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists ends up being the mushroom cloud over America or Israel before acting: "When you are boating on the Niagara River, there are signs marking the point at which you must go ashore or else you will be sucked over the falls. With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage. Yet there are few signs of alarm in our public discourse, whether among politicians, the media, or the intelligentsia. There is much more discussion of whether government anti-terrorism agents should be able to look at the records of books borrowed from public libraries. The Iranian government itself is giving us the clearest evidence of what a nuclear Iran would mean, with its fanatical hate-filled declarations about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. ... We will truly have passed the point of no return. What will future generations think of us, that we drifted on past the warning signs, preoccupied with library records and with giving foreign terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens? We could deter the nuclear power of the Soviet Union with our own nuclear power. But you cannot deter suicidal terrorists. You can only kill them or stop them from getting what they need to kill you." Monopoly offers the wrong lessons Russell Roberts of Cafe Hayek had a piece yesterday on NPR on the bad economics of the game of Monopoly: "Monopoly is the ultimate zero-sum game. You profit only by taking from others. The assets of its world are fixed in number. Yes, you can build houses or hotels, but somehow, the greater the supply of places to live, the HIGHER the price, an absurd contradiction to real-world economic life. In Monopoly, hotels never get a makeover and railroads, unlike Amtrak, are always profitable. In Monopoly, getting rich and succeeding in business only comes from exploiting unlucky suckers who randomly enter your life. There's no role for hard work or creativity— figuring out what customers might want to buy that isn't being offered by a competitor. There’s no competition." Read the whole thing here. Corruption in Africa Well, it continues to be a problem. It is such a chronic problem that it often isn't even news anymore. Still, the BBC reports (HT: Alex Singleton at the Globalization Institute blog): "After announcing in 2002 that Africa was losing $150bn a year to corruption, the African Union drew up a convention to outlaw bribe-taking and bribe-giving. So is corruption a big concern for governments? Well, no. Most African states are yet to sign the convention, or a similar protocol launched by the United Nations. And the anti-corruption lobby, Transparency International (TI), still rates African countries, along with Asian states such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh, as among the worst offenders in its world corruption rankings." Corruption is often, by too many, viewed as a "theoretical problem" without everyday consequences for citizens. But as the BBC reports, in Kenya, the return of Mwai Kibaki in 2002, an estimated $500 million has been lost to corruption -- or the equivalent of 10,000 primary school spots for Kenyan children. Kibaki vowed to institute universal access to primary education in 2003, a promise he hasn't kept. Connection? Conservatives were right about releasing their platform: the Liberals do steal it CP reports: "Prime Minister Paul Martin will announce a so-called "patient charter'' guaranteeing health care within time limits, even if it requires moving patients from their home area, sources have told The Canadian Press. The plan would include a mobility fund to cover travel and would get one-time funding beyond the $4.5 billion provided for reducing wait times in last year's first ministers' health accord. The concept is similar to the care guarantees promised by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who also would provide out-of-province travel costs through the $4.5-billion wait-times guarantee fund." But I thought the Charter was sacrosanct When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul Martin says that once the Charter of Rights has impinged on an issue, it is policy forever. But when it comes to gun-toting criminals, their Charter rights can be violated. At least during an election campaign. Bob Tarantino looks at the law, here, and says it likely wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Regardless of what the Charter says, Clayton Ruby says it doesn't matter. The Toronto Star quotes him saying, "reverse onuses don't generally make a lot of difference" (as the Star says, "because judges tend to take into account the circumstances of the alleged offence and the accused") but that the policy, as Ruby says, "sounds good, which makes for good politics, but it doesn't make much difference." So either Paul Martin cynically supports a policy that has no substance to it or it has substance but violates the Charter of Rights. When the going gets tough, the UN gets up and leaves The UN news service reports: "The situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea has reached a dangerous stalemate, warns Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a new report to the Security Council, holding out the possibility of withdrawing the United Nations mission (UNMEE) deployed to keep a five-year truce between the two countries." Okay, so there is conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the UN is ready to abandon the process. What leadership! Meanwhile, the UN-backed Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora will not put its stamp of approval on export quotas for caviar. In other words: sturgeon eggs get UN protection but East Africans don't. Hillary's competition Remember how John Kerry was chosen by the Democrats in 2004 because he was seen as a moderate alternative to Howard Dean? In 2008 he'll try to squeeze between the "moderate" Hillary Clinton and leftist Howard Dean. He's gearing up for another run because the '04 edition went so well. Kerry obviously believes two things for him to consider running again: 1) that he was close in 2004 and could have won and therefore should get another shot and 2) that the attention he gets as the party's de facto leader as its last presidential candidate makes him a "leader" within the party. Indeed as the AP story says: "While most losing presidential nominees quickly fade into the political landscape, Kerry has worked hard at maintaining a high public profile." But that is because the party doesn't have much else to offer; Dean is nutty and Hillary doesn't stick to the script. Who else does the party have? Biggest non-stories of 2005 Over at FrontPageMag, Ben Johnson has a list of the top 10 non-stories of 2005 including Cindy Sheehan, the indictment of Tom DeLay, President George W. Bush's negligence over Katrina and Jimmy Carter's opinions. About the last item Johnson says: "Carter is the worst president of the 20th century, perhaps the worst president ever. He has no business giving anyone advice on anything, period." Johnson also lists the 10 most under-reported stories including the battle for academic freedom and the CIA's "war on Bush." Monday, January 02, 2006
The mass surveillance state James Glassman writes in Newsday about one of the great emerging issues of tomorrow: "This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular. Revelations about the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping rocked the civil liberties establishment, but the country as a whole didn't seem upset. Instead, the American people, mindful of the possible danger that we face, seem happy enough that Uncle Sam is taking steps to keep up with the challenges created by new technology. Ask yourself: Do you think it's a bad idea for the feds, as U.S. News & World Report mentioned, to monitor Islamic sites inside the United States for any possible suspicious radiation leaks? The Council on American-Islamic Relations is up in arms - but are you? If you were to read in the paper that some FBI agent has gotten in trouble over pointing a Geiger counter at a mosque, would you be inclined to give the FBI agent the benefit of the doubt? I thought so. Or take another example: Wednesday's USA Today details government plans to deploy security agents at major airports to engage in 'behavioral screening.' That is, agents chat up passengers, looking for anything suspicious. It's a tactic that's worked in Israel for years, and it's being introduced here, starting with Boston's Logan Airport. That airport, some might recall, was the departure point for two of the doomed flights on 9/11." I support reasonable surveillance measures to keep an eye on possible (read: Muslims) terrorists but the idea of the age of mass surveillance makes me nervous. UN gets tough with Palestinian Authority After Palestinians attack a UN recreational facility. The UN news service reports: "The Secretary-General called on the Palestinian Authority 'to take all possible steps to bring the perpetrators to justice, prevent such attacks from recurring, and ensure law and order,' the spokesman said." They, the Palestinians, still have licence to target Israelis. What are the researchers afraird of? In this unsigned CBC "analysis and commentary" on the "immigrant vote," the views of Christian Bourque of Leger Marketing are summarized: "Bourque describes the question as 'under-researched,' partly because obtaining a large enough sample size within an ethnic community is difficult and therefore expensive." I would suggest that if the polling/research firms wanted to know -- or if one of their usual clients (the mainstream media, political parties, etc...) -- they could find the money. But perhaps they are afraid that their stereotypes of immigrants being liberal and Liberal voters will be shown to be false. Or they are afraid of the stereotype being confirmed and thus give Canadian-born voters a scapegoat for continuing Liberal corruption. I just don't buy that the money isn't there to look into immigrant voting patterns. If it is "under-researched" its because they want it that kept that way. Cameron the 'Conservative' One of my New Year's resolutions was to give the new British Tory leader a second chance. Well, it took my exactly one day for the resolution to be chucked aside. The Daily Telegraph reports that David "Modernizing the Conservatives into Irrelevance" Cameron proposes to ditch Thatcherism. The paper reports: "David Cameron, the new Tory leader, announced a dramatic break with the party's past yesterday as he promised to ditch the ideology of Margaret Thatcher and place the interests of the poor above those of the rich. Stepping up his modernisation drive, he threw out his predecessor Michael Howard's flagship health plans, under which patients would be subsidised for going private, and rejected the notion that the Tories would always stand up for big business." Again I ask: are conservative parties redundant? Sunday, January 01, 2006
Doom and gloomer strikes again Writing in the Washington Post, Bill McKibben says that we are about to reach the limit where our natural resources will sustain man -- that hardy perennial question: "Do we have enough to go around?" Someone buy McKibben a copy of Stephen Moore and Julian Simon's It's Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years. 2005 -- worth celebrating So says James Glassman. Despite natural disasters and the terrorist attacks in London, Glassman says that 2005 was a very good year. Economically speaking. On the other hand, writing in the London Times, Anatole Kaletsky says that there will not be much to celebrate in 2006. Economically speaking. Quote of the day "Pre-university-educated journalists did not, I suspect, feel that the papers they worked for existed as vehicles through which to advance their own political ideas. Some among them might have hated corruption, or the standard lies told by politicians; from time to time they might even have felt a stab of idealism or sentimentality. But they subsisted chiefly on cynicism, heavy boozing, and an admiration for craft. They did not treat the news—and editors of that day would not have permitted them to treat the news—as a trampoline off which to bounce their own tendentious politics." -- Joseph Epstein, "Are Newspapers Doomed?", in the January 2006 Commentary 'Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots' In yet another great essay (pdf file) in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz wonders why all the doom and gloom over Iraq, including among those who originally supported the project. Great reporting, extensive quoting, required reading. NYT -- no more talk, just do! The first editorial from the New York Times in 2006 looks at global poverty and concludes: "The world needs no more speeches in 2006 about global poverty. The six million children under 5 who die every year of diseases that can be easily and cheaply treated do not need more lofty goals. Nor do the 40 million young people still unable to go to school, or the 300 million Africans who lack access to clean water. The time for talking is over. Our resolution for the new year is to keep track of how many of last year's promises turn into something more than words." Of course, the paper misses the point (as it often does). Most everyone agrees what the goals are; the talk is about how to best achieve this. The Times assumes it is a massive global weath redistribution scheme whereas more sensible people know that it is the more equitable spread of freedom and capitalism. UN says it is really serious about human rights tribunal reform And the New York Times believes them. Of course there never will be reform as long as close to a majority of member states worry about being brought before such a tribunal for examination of their own human rights records. Top 10 stories of the year that will matter over time Canada 4. Government enacts same-sex "marriage" -- changes society by altering its foundational institution 3. Gomery Commission of Inquiry hearings and findings -- it might alter the Canadian political landscape in the short term (and thus the long term) and has reignited separatist sentiment in Quebec 2. Supreme Court's Chaoulli ruling -- could radically change the healthcare debate 1. Liberal government pushes a national daycare scheme -- creates a new class of dependent voters, damages familial relationships and opens the door to propagandizing children International 6. The continued utter unseriousness of the Democrats on foreign policy -- ensures GOP victories in 2006 midterm election and 2008 presidential race 5. The realignment of Israeli politics -- will affect Palestinian-Israeli relations (just not sure how, yet) 4. Voters in the Netherlands and France reject the EU constitution -- the European project is on hold and the political future of the continent may change, if for no other reason than it slows the EU's growth eastward 3. President George W. Bush appoints two Supreme Court justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will provide the right-side of the SCOTUS with greater intellectual firepower; Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are four formidable minds 2. Three successful elections in Iraq -- democratic beachhead in the Middle East closer to fruition 1. Elevation of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI -- John Paul the Great is dead, long live John Paul the Great |