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.

 
Happy birthday Milton Friedman

Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman turns 94 today. While I have some reservations about Friedman's political analysis from his days as a Newsweek columnist in the 1970s (admittedly I read them 15 years after he wrote them and had the benefit of hindsight), there is no doubting his beneficial influence to the worlds of economics and public policy, most notably school choice and the all-volunteer army. But not influential enough. Here's Friedman on the Bush tax cuts:

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, 'How do you hold down government spending?' Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes."

Fridman understood the problem was never budget deficits but excessive spending. While lower taxes are a good in themselves, Friedman had hoped that lower taxes (and thus tax revenues) would starve the beast of government. It hasn't worked that way so far.

Nonetheless, so many of the ideas for which free market conservatives fight for today are the result of Friedman's popularlizing them. While not all his policies have been implemented, some have and we are probably closer to fiscal sanity than we would otherwise be due to Friedman's advocacy of them.

Here are a few other appreciations of Friedman:

The Tax Foundation

David Boaz (from 2002)

There are a gazillion links to articles about Friedman at the end of the Wikipedia entry on him.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:52 AM

 
The Blue Jays

Sorry this don't go up last night. But here is my take on whether the Toronto Blue Jays should be buyers, sellers or holders. That is do they acquire starting pitching help or a real second baseman; do they trade some of the players who may not fit into their long-term plans (Frank Catalanotto, Reed Johnson, Bengie Molina, Ted Lilly) for prospects. Or should they be patient.

First some perspective. Despite the talk on the weekend on TV and the radio among sports commentators and fans alike that after going 12-14 in the month of July, the 2006 season is a write-off, there is reason for optimism. Yes, the team is six games out of first behind the Boston Red Sox and 5.5 games out of the wild card spot behind the New York Yankees (with the Minnesota Twins and Chicago White Sox between them), but they lead the majors in batting average, on-base percentage and slugging; they are fourth in the AL in runs scored. Combine that league average ERA and you have a team that should win much more than it loses. Johnson and Catalanotto have on-base averages of 425 and 417 respectively and although they both just fail to qualify for batting titles, they would be both in the top ten in BA if they did. Alex Rios is back. Starting pitcher Gustavo Chacín should soon reclaim his spot third in the rotation. A.J. Burnett, while not as consistently good as the Jays would like him to be (or as fans believe he is) is an amazing pitcher when on top of his game; when he is, Burnett and Roy Halladay are as good as any team's top tandom. The team has enough to win, the question is whether a six or 5.5 game deficit is too big. And would it be considered too big if it wasn't the New York Yankees in front of them?

The Jays have a faily easy August, but the first week will be hell: three on the road in the Bronx and three at home against the ChiSox, two of the best four teams in the AL. The rest of the month is better; the play four against the Twins and three against AL West-leading Oakland A's, but the remainder of the month's schedule is against pathetically weak teams (Baltimore Orioles, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Kansas City Royals) and the underachieving Cleveland Indians. This is the time to make up ground because Septembre will be tough: the Red Sox seven times after August 30, the Yankees for a home-and-home series, three on the road against the major league's best team in Detroit, and three against the LA Angels, the AL West's second place team, in California. They also have series against Cleveland, Tampa Bay, and the Seattle Mariners.

There are two ways to look at all those games against the Red Sox and Yankees: either they are serious obstacles because they are superior teams or they are opportunities to gain ground on the leaders. The view that Jays' management takes might dictate what they do (or don't do) before the 4 pm trading deadline.

At the same time, the Yankees and BoSox face off at Fenway for a five game series in mid-August. One or the other could gain some serious ground on the other -- and at the same time, the Jays gain on the losing side. The Yankees have a difficult August. On top of their series with Boston, they face the Angels six times, the Tigers for three and the ChiSox for three (as well as Seattle and Baltimore). They have an easier September, facing the Royals, Orioles and Devil Rays 17 times (as well as the Red Sox for four at home).

The Red Sox face a combination of good and bad teams -- but the highlight is nine games against the Yankees over the next two months. They face the miserable Royals and Devil Rays on the road to begin the month, the Tigers and Yankees for eight games at home in the middle month, and a nine-day road trip on the Pacific coast at the end of the month. They finish the season with five games at home against the Devil Rays and Orioles.

The schedule allows the Jays to catch up in August with a little bit of luck or a cold streak on behalf of their division rivals. The ChiSox and Twins could, like the Jays and Yankees, split their series (they also have to play the red hot Tigers a lot more), permitting the Jays to gain ground. It will be tough, but the talent is there.

So what should the Jays do? Nothing. They might still be in this thing and the cost in prospects and salary of adding the potential of one or two wins might not be worth it. Having a good August -- defined as gaining ground on the division leaders and wild card teams so they can play meaningful games in September -- depends a little less on what they do than how their rivals perform. The Jays can play 600 ball over the course of a month and with their schedule, this is not an unlikelihood. They should stay in there with the team they have, not mortgage the future but neither trade for the future considering the possibility they have of making the post-season this year. Baseball Prospectus still gives them a 10.33% chance of making the playoffs. That is odds worth taking, but not if they have to ante up (admitting that by acquiring someone new they increase their odds slightly). A quick explanation. A better 2B will not contribute enough offensively or save enough runs over the course of the final 57 games to make a difference (few 2B make a difference of 25 net runs over the course of an entire season over other 2Bs, so over the course of one-third a season, the difference is negligible; it is generally assumed that every 10 runs contributed adds one win). A better starting pitcher will play only once every five games, so that is 10-11 starts over the remainder of the season. Considering the difference between a very good and pretty bad third starter is not more than 20% (winning 60% of the time compared to 40% of the time), that makes a difference of two wins, but what are the odds of getting a great third starter at this point?

Jays fans, like the fans of almost all teams, should be patient. If they do nothing, the Jays are in decent enough shape this season and really good shape for next.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:33 AM

 
Bobby Abreu in pinstripes

I like Bobby Abreu. How can't you appreciate a player with career slash stats of 301/412/507? Those are impressive numbers over an 11-year career, the last nine as a full-time outfielder. From 1999-2005 he had at least 35 doubles and 20 homeruns every season. Along with that power, average and on-base percentage he has never stolen less than 22 bases in any full season. He is the only player not named Bonds to have seven consecutive 20 HR, 20 SB seasons (Barry and Bobby both did it). He is patient at the plate: seven consecutive 100 walk seasons. And last year he won a Gold Glove. Impressive. Very impressive. But at roughly $15.5 million a year (pro-rated for the remainder of this season and, assuming the team picks up his option, all of next), is he worth it? Is is necessary? And is Abreu as good as his career numbers indicate.

As good as his career numbers are, Abreau is clearly on the downward slope of his career. This season he is hitting just 277/427/434. He has only eight homeruns this season (in a hitter's park). Last year after the All Star break, he hit a mediocre 260/376/411. He still walks a lot (91 BBs in 339 ABs this year) and steals (20 in 24 attempts). He seems like a good fit for the Bronx Bombers: patient at the plate, potential explosive power, speed on the basepaths. He is an improvement over Bernie Williams/Melky Cabrera/Aaron Guiel. He is insurance in case either Gary Sheffield or Hideki Matsui don't come back in time or aren't 100% when they do. Still, his average is slipping, his power declining and his bat speed slowing. Unless the change of scenery and the shallow right field rejuvenates his career, Abreu should not be expected to work miracles or even return to his pre-2005 production.

Still, even as is, he helps for he isn't Bernie Williams or Aaron Guiel. And as Off the Facade points out, even if Matsui and Sheffield return at 75%, the Yankees will have a monster lineup in September and (assuming the trade works out as intended), October. Indeed, this trade seems more oriented toward having the kind of lineup even the best post-season rotations will have trouble keeping from scoring runs than it does getting to the post-season. After all, it probably sends Matsui down to the 7th spot in the batting order and Robinson Cano, a 325 hitter, to the bottom of the lineup. In the short term this is a good deal. It is divine if it means that Yankee fans won't have to see Bernie Williams' name on the scorecard anymore. It may have clinched not only a post-season birth but the World Series.

But does that make this a good deal? I have my doubts. Next season will likely be a transition year for the Yankees: Sheffield's $15 million option shouldn't be picked up and outfielder Melky Cabrera should be given a chance to earn the full-time RF spot; it is time to usher in some younger starting pitchers and usher out the Mike Mussinas and Randy Johnsons; starting prospect Phillip Hughes will be ready for a full-time tryout; it is time to find and develop the long-term replacements at 1B and CF, begin the development of catcher Jorge Posada's replacement. How does Abreu fit into this? Aside from blocking Cabrera's development, the massive expenditure on Abreu would certainly tempt the Yankees to go for it all again next year. The Yankees need to do some rebuilding and the Yankees are less likely to get to that important task with Abreu and his salary on board.

Now the Yankees are one of the few teams that have the money and talent to rebuild while competing. Before acquiring Abreu, the team was scheduled to shed approximately $40 million in payroll in 2007. That money could have been used to sign a stud starter (Barry Zito, Jason Schmidt) and some bench help in the form of a reliable outfielder and a usable infielder that sports an on-base percentage above 310. But with Abreu, the Yankees are likely to try to fix these holes on the cheap. Nobody wants to see Miguel Cairo return to pinstripes. And Andy Phillips isn't even a replacement level players at the corners.

Without even addressing the four prospects the Yankees gave up, this seems like a very mixed deal. I have few few concerns but they are not great. The Yankees might be giving up a little early on shortstop C.J. Henry, the team's top draft pick last year. He has struggled at A-ball(237 BA, 350 SLG, 86 stikeouts in 76 games) but he's only 19. Still, he has patience and a fair bit of talent. Considering that Derek Jeter's is the team's current SS, Henry could have been given a few years to develop. Matt Smith was a fine reliever, not allowing a run in 12 IP for the Yanks. He can get out lefties and there would always a place for him on the roster or a team that would trade for him down the road. Catcher Jesus Sanchez isn't tearing up the Gulf Coast League with his hitting but the Yanks should have a plan A, B, C and D in developing Posada's replacement such is the unpredicability of young catchers. And pitching prospect Carlos Montaserios put up good numbers in the Gulf Coast League this year: 2.97 ERA and 24 strikeouts compared to 3 walks. None are great right now but because it is difficult to tell which prospects are going to work out and which ones won't, I think the Yankees gave up on too many players too early. This hurts the team's long-term development.

And finally, there is Cory Lidle. He is an over-rated pitcher with mediocre numbers: 4.74 ERA and 1.36 WHIP, both close to his career numbers. But considering he is the team's fifth starter and the nightmare the team has concocted to fill the number five spot, Lidle is an improvement who will unlikely even be on the post-season squad. He might make the difference of a win over the course of the rest of the season but one win might make the difference between October ball and golfing early.

If all I cared about was winning this World Series, I'd be exicted with the trade. I think that over the short term, Abreu makes this a better lineup than it would have otherwise been but not nearly as good as some fans and commentators suggest he does because they have the old Abreu, not the declining Abreu, in mind. But the Yankees have some serious rebuilding to do, payroll restructuring to begin and player development to start. Abreu does not fit into those plans quite as neatly and considering the hefty price tag, I don't think he was worth it. But now that he's in pinstripes, it will be a very exciting final three months of baseball.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:34 PM

 
Yankees bad

The New York Yankees acquired RF Bobby Abreu and starting pitcher Cory Lidle for a bunch of prospects. I don't have the time to get into right now but I hope to explain later tonight why getting a career 301/412/507 hitter is a bad idea for the New York Yankees. I'll also get into the Toronto Blue Jays and whether they should be a buy, a seller or a holder in the final hours before the trade deadline. Will Greg Staples see meaningful games at the Rogers Center in September? And does it matter to the Jays' strategy in the next 20 hours? For non-baseball fans, I'll discuss the Liberal leadership race, the point of which is the Liberal strategists I talk to are apparently looking at a dozen different leadership contests.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:51 PM

 
Comments

Send them to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:37 AM

 
The limits of Cameronism

I am entirely open the David Cameron/George W. Bush/Stephen Harper soft-peddling on conservatism approach to politics but am not entirely convinced that it will pay the political dividends the strategists hope it will. The worst offender is, of course, Cameron, who has actively distanced himself from the Thatcherite heritage of his party. For a whole bunch of reasons Cameron is likely to fail where Harper and Bush have succeeded. Norman Tebbit explains why in The Speccie:

"... Mr Cameron has been doing his best to distance the Conservative party from both its bedrock core vote and its 4 or 5 million estranged former voters. The Modern Conservatives give the impression that respectable working- and lower-middle-class supporters in the suburbs, country towns and villages are not quite good enough for the new 'A' list, Notting Hill party. The strategy seems to be aimed at persuading Liberal and Labour voters that the Cameron party shares their beliefs and aspirations and would deliver Blairism where Blair has failed."

But pointing to last month's by-election in Bromley, Tebbit doesn't think this strategy has worked because, "while Conservative voters do believe that the new Conservative party is unlike the one they used to support, Mr Cameron's target Labour and Liberal voters do not, and the Tories are in danger of missing the electoral opportunity of a lifetime." In other words, his compromises have not had their intended effect. Too bad; as the Daily Telegraph notes, since 2002 Britons have gotten poorer, as the average household has £82 less to spend each month than four years ago. The Telegraph also reports that the more people see of David Cameron, the less they like him, although the numbers fall within the margin of error and his party's popularity is ahead of Labour's (just not enough to make a difference electorally).
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:22 AM

 
Commies can't deliver workers' paradise

The opening 'graph from an AP story: "Dozens of workers were detained after a two-day protest over pay and working conditions at a toy factory, a labor monitoring group reported Thursday." Any guess where this happened? Red China.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:15 AM

 
Andrea Yates

From NRO's Window on the Week:

"Andrea Yates systematically drowned her five children in the family bathtub after her husband left for work one morning five years ago. This week, in retrial, a jury declared her not guilty by reason of insanity. Her ex-husband, Rusty Yates, is delighted that this 'loving' mother and her public image are on the road to recovery. While we have no doubt that Yates is a deeply disturbed woman, we will not join the parents in their declared happiness at the verdict. Over the past five years, the cult of victimology has been hard at work to soften Mrs. Yates’s image. We prefer to remember the real Yates family victims — Noah, John, Luke, Paul, and Mary, whose lives were brutally ended by their mother at ages 7, 5, 3, 2, and 6 months."

I, too, prefer to remember the real victims -- five helpless children age seven and under -- and am outraged that this murdering mother escapes jail. I am disgusted that the heinous nature of her crime probably contributes to the view among the public and perhaps the courts/jurors. Fortunately, there's always hell.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:10 AM

 
Water and electricity restored in Liberian capital

Quite some stories. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, had pipe-borne water and electricity restored this week after a 14-year absence. Water and electricity facilities were damaged during the civil war in the early 1990s and not repaired until this month. The whole grid won't be up until December but this is definitely good news for the troubled African nation. However, I was shocked by a detail in this story about the country's Independence Day celebrations: the city had trouble fighting fires because it doesn't have an operational fire department.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:57 AM

 
Idiot sports writer

As an example of five trades teams should make, Yahoo sports columnist Jeff Passan says the Florida Marlins should trade pitcher Dontrelle Willis to the New York Mets for a pair rookies, outfielder Lastings Milledge and pitcher Mike Pelfrey. May or not make sense in terms of giving each team what it needs, but this trade cannot happen this year. It won't happen. I'd bet my lifetime earnings against any sports writer's salary on this.

Why am I so confident? Because Pelfrey signed his first contract in January and Major League Baseball rules forbid the trading of players in the first year of their contract after being drafted to prevent teams from working around restrictions on trading draft picks. There are few baseball writers who know this rule and thus there is rampant speculation about impossible trades. But if they get this wrong, something that could easily be looked up (how many sports writers look at the rules and regulations of MLB?), it leads you to wonder what else they get wrong. What basis is there for the rumour in the first place, other than the sports writer's imagination) if it is simply impossible according to the rules? Certainly those in the know within the baseball club would know MLB's rules.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:32 PM

 
Calm down Yankee fans and sports writers

It is the birthright of every New York Yankees fan to see their team in the post-season so when they are not in first, they become a tetchy. As New York Post baseball writer Joel Sherman says in his column: "The Yankees are a second-place team and even making the playoffs is tenuous. So there is a sense of urgency to act." Sherman cautions readers and the team not to make a stupid trade as he notes by position the talent the Yankees have traded away (although without the context of what was achieved by the players the team acquired to make such a list meaningful). A little perspective is in order for those who want the Yanks to make a big trade -- or even a little trade, caring little about the young talent the Bronx Bombers would give up for a short term fix of dubious necessity:

* The Yankees are second in the AL East, sure, but they are just 1.5 games behind the Boston Red Sox and 0.5 games ahead of the Chicago White Sox for the wild card spot. Furthermore, for all their troubles (most games lost to injuries, slumping superstars such as Alex Rodriguez and Jason Giambi), they have the third best record in the majors. If they played in the senior circuit, their record would be good for first overall in the National League.

* They have scored the second most runs in baseball.

* They have the third best on-base percentage in the majors (359) behind only the Red Sox and Toronto Blue Jays. This despite playing Bernie Williams (325), Andy Phillips (277) and Miguel Cairo (275) regularly.

* The Yankees have the fifth best ERA in the AL and fourth best WHIP. In both measures they are ahead of their divisional rivals.

* According to some experts' analysis, they have the easiest schedule of the three AL East contenders.

* Outfielder Hideki Matsui is returning earlier than expected, reliever Octavio Dotel is almost ready to pitch his first game in pinstripes and Triple A pitching prospect Philip Hughes might be ready for the majors.

A lot can go wrong. If Derek Jeter (who deserves the MVP award this year) were go down with an injury or Mike Mussina were to have an awful August or Giambi lost his power, the Yankees would been in serious trouble. But there is still a lot talent on this team, scrubs are making important contributions when they have to and the team finds a way to pull out victories such as scoring two runs in the ninth against the Texas Rangers last night to come from behind and win 8-7. Great teams do that and the Yankees, though not without flaws, are a great team.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:01 PM

 
Barkley switches teams

Charles Barkley, the hot-headed former star of the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers and Phoenix Suns, has switched party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and may run for governor (some day) in his native Alabama. It is funny to read the reaction from party officials. The Dems think he is great guy and the GOP is now suggesting that he could never be a credible candidate.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:42 PM

 
World War IV

Our enemies understand the global nature of current conflict. CTV reports that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second-in-command, says that his fellow jihadists see "all the world as a battlefield" that is "open in front of us." It is wise for us (that is, our political and military leaders) to take al-Zawahiri at his word.

(HT: Political Staples)
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:37 PM

 
Another Liberal leadership contender?

I wasn't sure whether I was reading the Toronto Star or a Canadian version of Scrappleface:

"Less than a week after bolting from Joe Volpe's troubled campaign, controversial Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis is considering making his own bid for the Liberal leadership.

Karygiannis said Wednesday he's determined to fill a foreign policy 'vacuum' that he believes exists among the 11 declared contenders for the party's top job.

The unilingual, cigar-chomping 'Jimmy K,' known for his hardball but effective organizing tactics, said filling the vacuum does 'not necessarily' mean throwing his own hat in the ring. But he would not rule out that possibility."

When you think Jim Karygiannis and the Liberal leadership do you think "not necessarily" or "not possible"? Just wondering. I would think that Jimmy K, whatever his position on foreign policy, is less credible than the candidate's team that he just left.

And one more thing: there are 11 leadership candidates. What foreign policy position is missing? Not that there has been any serious foreign policy debate in the leadership race, but it is difficult to imagine that 11 candidates could have that similar positions on foreign policy to have Karygiannis even consider (maybe) his own leadership bid.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:30 PM

 
Add Frum's name to the list of Cameron-skeptics

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary for the Tories, launched an incredible attack on Britain's allies -- including Britain's conservative allies -- America, the Bush administration and Israel. It is not the first time the Tories under David Cameron has been critical of someone or something about which they should be much more positive. Anyway, David Frum chastises Hague and Cameron while holding out the (slightest) hope that Hague was not speaking for the leader and party. That seems implausible and such a charitable interpretation is possible only if Cameron distances himself from Hague's remarks and (preferably) fire him from this critic's post. (To be clear, that previous sentence are my thoughts, not Frum's.) Frum asks some tough questions of the British Tories, however:

"What precisely is the attitude of the new leadership of the Conservative Party to the Anglo-American relationship? Will their abrupt move to the left on domestic issues, whether principled or opportunistic, be followed by an equivalent move to the left on international security?

Is David Cameron an Atlanticist in the Thatcher-Blair tradition? Or will he follow the path marked out by Hague toward a more Brussels-style politics?"
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:18 PM

 
Americans believe Saddam had WMD

The Washington Times reports on a Harris poll that finds that 50% of Americans think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, up from 36% who thought that last year. Fine. This probably helps President George W. Bush's approval ratings and might even help the Republicans in the November midterms, but is the presence of WMD really a matter of opinion? Isn't whether there were WMD (and there were) a matter of fact?

Other good news for the administration from the poll:

* 72% think the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam Hussein, down slightly from 76% in 2004 but still a healthy number;

* 64% thought Saddam's regime had "strong links" with al-Qaeda, up slightly from 62% two years ago;

* 55% said "history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq."

* 37% thought democracy will succeed in Iraq, up from 32% late last year.

Again, none of this matters in terms of the justice of the war and whether it was a good or bad thing, but it does show 1) Americans are paying attention to what is happening in Iraq and 2) the Republicans may not suffer as badly as some pundits thought the party would come November. As I have said many times before, most Americans do not oppose the liberation of Iraq as much as they are concerned they are not going to win the war there. The Democrats have no plan to win (leaving is surrender not victory and voters will never go for that) and the Harris polling data indicates that many Americans view Iraq as justifiable and winnable.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:30 PM

 
Wouldn't it be cool if Israel did hit a UN post on purpose?

The Associated Press:

"An Israeli bomb destroyed a U.N. observer post on the border in southern Lebanon Tuesday, killing two peacekeepers and leaving two others feared dead in what appeared to be a deliberate strike, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.

The bomb made a direct hit on the building and shelter of the observer post in the town of Khiyam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL."

Now I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for this. And getting back at the UN for its history of anti-Zionism would be reasonable.

Secretary General Kofi Annan has never condemned the actions of a member state as strongly as he did Israel's bombing of the UN observer post, and while it may have been deliberate, the fact is the Secretary General cannot possibly have had that information when he issued his statement:

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two United Nations military observers, with two more feared dead.

This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked United Nations post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that United Nations positions would be spared Israeli fire. Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the United Nations Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular United Nations position from attack.

I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident, and demand that any further attack on United Nations positions and personnel must stop."

And then it dawned on me: those who want the UN to act decisively in stopping genocide in Darfur should convince Turtle Bay that the Jews are actually behind the atrocities.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:18 PM

 
Authoritarians look alike

The London Fog has video at YouTube from when Pierre Trudeau became prime minister. Quotulatiousness notes that Trudeau and Vladimir Putin look similar.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:44 AM

 
The greatest prime minister that never was

Calgary Grit is running a contest for the title of "best Prime Minister Canada never had." Bios are available and (for now) you can vote for up to 16 people per day. I hope that Robert Stanfield, the man born for this cliche, doesn't win. Conservatives vastly over-rate him. For me this is a race between C.D. Howe and Stockwell Day. And while there are other significant conservatives -- or at least Conservatives (and Reformers and SoCreds) -- I don't think any of them (Preston or Earnest Manning, Ralph Klein, Don Mazankowski) deserve the honour of the "best Prime Minister Canada never had." Well, maybe Maz.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:30 AM

 
Comments

Send them to paul_tuns[at]yahoo.com
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:24 AM

 
This is scary

Investor's Business Daily highlights the global nature of the war against Islamofascism to demonstrate how this is indeed World War IV (IBD calls it WW III). Consider this from Canada: "The Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations urged Muslims not to apologize for the activities of terrorists or cooperate with security in terrorist investigations." Why would that be?
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:20 AM

 
Me back at The Shotgun

It's been a while since I've posted anything at The Shotgun, the group blog of The Western Standard, but tonight posted something on the Order of Canada announcement made today by Governor General Michaelle Jean.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:53 AM

 
The Interim has been updated

After not being updated for six months, the July issue of The Interim is up on the website. Some stories of note:

"Chipping away at abortion: The case for incrementalism," by Paul Tuns

Our lead editorial counters the argument by the proponents of same-sex 'marriage' (and the timid opponents of SSM) that it is wrong to reopen the issue because it is divisive. (Aren't all issues divisive? If they aren't, you can be sure that politicians are colluding against the public.)

An comparison of the way the media treats terrorist suspects and pro-lifers by Interim assistant editor Tony Gosgnach.

Our national affairs columnist, Rory Leishman, says that pro-lifers should never despair of society's ills so much that they give up the fight to defend innocent human life.

I want to go back to the editorial on SSM's divisiveness. Here is it's conclusion:

"In spite of what advocates of SSM argue, a divisive issue does not require a divisive debate. Just because an issue is polarizing does not mean that it cannot be handled with maturity, clarity and goodwill by our elected representatives. In fact, divisive issues are what politicians are elected to debate. The issue of SSM is divisive, which is precisely why it is so important that the debate be fair, honest and exhaustive – and not shut down the debate before it was begun simply because our elected officials have different opinions about it."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:41 AM

 
Bringing conservatism to TV

Calista Flockhart is going to play a conservative radio talk show host turned TV pundit on ABC's Brothers and Sisters to appear this Fall. According to Editor and Publisher, Flockhart is not going to play a Ann Coulter type because the character is "not insane." And before the show has even appeared, producers are implicitly apologizing for the character and making their "conservative" something of a respectable, moderate conservative in the "Eisenhower Republican" mold. And, to make her extra safe, she's a humanist.

The most interesting part of the article, however, was the admission that Hollywood is out of touch. Writer Jon Robin Baitz is reported to have said:

"... it's very, very interesting and compelling to us to try and understand this, to leave behind some of the smug presuppositions of the two coasts, ... to look at evolving patriotism and evolving traditionalism ... For years and years, the left has looked at the right in complete incomprehension and felt, 'We just can't connect.' And maybe there's an effort in the show to try and bridge that in some way."

Any way you slice that, Baitz is admitting that those involved with producing the show had no idea what conservatives are really like. This show will be horrid: recall every stereotype liberals have of conservatives and look for it to be on display in the first few weeks. It won't be funny because the characters are unlikely to be recognizable to anything in the experience of most American TV watchers; after critical reviews from the adoring press on both coasts, it should be off the air by January.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:31 AM

 
Missile defense and the failure of imagination

Brian T. Kennedy writes in Investor's Business Daily (via No Left Turns) about America's missing missile defense system:

"Most Americans would be quite surprised to learn that America does not have a national missile defense. Only the most rudimentary land-based system is being built and deployed in Alaska and California — and it lacks the full complement of radars and satellites to ensure its success.

More effective sea-based defenses are woefully underfunded despite several successful tests. The most effective and necessary component of layered defense-space-based interceptors are but wishful thinking and not even scheduled to receive any serious support for the next decade.

The simple reality is missile defense was never built under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. — despite the now-acknowledged lesson that the mere proposal of building a missile defense helped precipitate the demise of the Soviet Union.

Missile defense was actively opposed by the Clinton administration, which killed or crippled any serious program. Only after intense pressure in 1998 by congressional Republicans did Clinton begin the modest land-based system designed to deal with a handful of missiles launched at the U.S. Bush is continuing the effort.

The most charitable explanation for our lack of a missile defense is the failure by Republicans and Democrats to think beyond the corrupt Cold War mentality that nuclear war is somehow inconceivable and that the threat of mutually assured destruction can by itself protect us.

Because no nation would risk a nuclear exchange and the resulting loss of life, the thinking goes, no missile defense is necessary and indeed may lead to an arms race or pre-emptive nuclear war. Just five years ago it was unthinkable that terrorists would fly airplanes into our buildings. It is important to heed the admonition of the 9-11 commission: We failed to prevent that catastrophe in part by a 'failure of imagination'."

Kennedy then outlines a number of scenarios where it might be kinda nice to have something that could shoot down enemy missiles, especially of the nuclear kind. It doesn't take much to consider North Korea a serious threat, at least under the current psycho-leadership of Kim Jong Il. It actually doesn't take much imagination. But what other belligerents-in-the-making are there? Will Red China always be peaceful? Could Russia, the second largest nuclear power, ever revert to an Evil Empire? What if Iran obtains long-range missile capability after it has acquired its nuclear warheads? A little imagination is necessary to carefully consider the possibilities ten or twenty years hence. It is folly to think that the global situation will be static and when the threat is real and imminent, there won't be time to develop missile defense.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:12 AM

 
On the limits of Paul Wells

I've never been impressed by Paul Wells' punditry. It's always too cute by half, trying to hard to spin a clever phrase or looking for a novel (but sometimes incorrect) way of looking at politics. His latest Macleans column falls under the novel but wrong approach to punditry. Yeah, he makes a funny point about Stephen Harper complaining about the unfriendly press in a softball interview with Reader's Digest, edited by Harper fan Peter Stockland. And that even needed to be said. But a few examples of being a little too cute and a little too wrong.

About NDP leader Jack Layton: "... the resentment of leftish voters who think he caused Liberal weakness is Layton's biggest problem." Really? Do leftish voters really blame Layton for the fact that the Liberals no longer govern the country? Or for that matter, do leftish voters care that the Liberals no longer govern? The impression I have been left with after my conversations with centre-left voters in recent years is that they were bitterly disappointed time and again with what they perceived as a Tory party in red ties. And most Liberals I talk to think that Paul Martin not Jack Layton lost the election for the party. Arguing, as Wells seems to be doing, that Layton divided the centre-left vote and is therefore responsible for the Stephen Harper government seems to have very little basis in fact.

Wells also refers to Harper's "recklessness abroad." He then lands a few cheapshots on Harper's handling of Afghanistan, Israel and Iran (Zahra Kazemi, not nukes). I'm not sure whether an act of political opportunism (Afghanistan and fixed election dates), bumbling (Iran and asking Germany to hand over an Iranian prosecutor involved in the Kazemi case) and unforeseen circumstances (calling Israel's response to the Hezbollah attacks 'measured' just before eight Canadians were killed in Israel's bombing of Lebanon) qualifies as recklessness as much as extraordinarily minor gaffes. Wells' criticism of Harper on the Canadians who died after the prime minister called Israel's actions 'measured' is so incredibly cheap that Wells' foolishness insults me more than Harper's slight bumbles.

I have other criticisms of Wells' other work, too, especially his long Macleans article on the 2006 election. I cover this to some degree in the book I'm working on, but here's the Coles Notes critique: Wells is good as far as he goes in dissecting the success of the Tories in 2006 but unfortunately he doesn't go very far at all. He viewed the winning Conservative strategy as a matter of tactics, instead of examining how the carefully considered policies were designed to speak to the values of particular voters. Wells considered each policy announcement only as a tactic (getting good press, controlling the message, setting the terms of debate, putting the Liberals on the defensive) without any serious consideration of the policy implications of the Tory proposals and how it would resonate with the voters the party was targeting.

I guess what I'm saying is that Wells is a little too superficial in his analysis. He disguises this shortcoming with some pretty good writing, a rare commodity in Canadian political commentary, but the fact remains that he is rarely insightful. While occasionally he highlights something that should be obvious to all (such as noting during the election that despite Paul Martin's boasts on the environment and criticism of our southern neighbours, the United States has done more to curb greenhouse gas emmissions), his columns are often more entertaining than they are enlightening.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:48 PM

 
Thoughts on baseball

The New York Yankees have lost two in a row against the Toronto Blue Jays and have deserved to do so. In both games multi-million dollar players made stupid mental mistakes -- Alex Rodriguez with a throwing error in each game and tonight A-Rod and Jorge Posada not knowing which of the two would go after a foul ball. Embarrassing ball and I'd rather not see the Bombed Bronxers win when they play like that. That and having the American League's third best hitter (Derek Jeter) bunt in the top of the first inning with Johnny Damon on first; Jeter -- a 300 hitter with moderate power -- should never be allowed to bunt. Don't surrender outs that easily, especially so early in the game. You play for one run, you get one run, which the Yankees did four times last night; unfortunately, the Jays had a four-run inning and a homerun in the 11th.

In both games the starters for the Jays -- Roy Halladay in last night's 5-4 victory and A.J. Burnett in tonight's 7-3 win -- seem to get better as the game goes on. I think Jays manager John Gibbons made a mistake letting Burnett throw 121 pitches; does the team want him to return to the DL again? Will Gibbons do to their acquisition what Rusty Baker did to the Chicago Cubs duo of Kerry Wood and Mark Prior? After all, it is not innings pitched but pitch count that correlates to injuries for hurlers.

There is some criticism of Gibbon's decision to pull Halladay in the eighth with two out last night and bring in closer B.J. Ryan. Ryan allowed Jason Giambi to single and Rodriguez to walk before giving up a bloop single by Posada which scored Giambi. While going to the closer didn't work in this case -- Ryan blew his third save of the season -- teams should be using their best bullpen pitcher, usually the closer, earlier in the game. Closers used to be called firemen (they put out "fires") but few closers inherit runners and do little more than chase saves for the sake of scoring some decent statistics come negotiation time. But teams, especially managers, should worry about winning and using your best pitchers to improve the chances of getting outs when comebacks are likely to happen. Christina Kahrl explains in the New York Sun the erroneous thinking about closers that infect too many baseball minds: "It's become something of a self-defeating proposition that managers reserve their best relievers for the ninth inning instead of using them in the situations earlier in the game, when a lead is at stake. The ability to pitch out of a real jam earlier in the game can make all the difference, but most closers come in to start the ninth and never actually have to pitch with the bases clogged by a previous pitcher's baserunners." Or to prevent opposition teams from tying the game in the 8th or even 7th inning. If the opposing team's heart of the lineup is due up in the 7th or 8th, then use the closer then to shut them down. Gibbons brought in Ryan to retire Giambi, A-Rod and Posada, three of the Yankees' best four hitters. It might not have worked out this time, but it will in most cases.

Lastly, I want to thank The Hack from Hanks and Wonks for a correction he has emailed me. I had previously said that Corey Koskie might be traded to the Minnesota Twins and therefore they wouldn't have any interest in acquiring Shea Hillebrand from the Jays. As the Hack quite correctly noted, the Milwaukee Brewers can't trade Koskie because he is currently injured.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:18 PM

 
I almost forgot why I stopped reading the New York Times

... and then it is brought to my attention that they published a sympathetic story about Donny Johnson, a Pelican Bay State Prison (Crescent City, California) inmate, convicted for murder and serving three life sentences in solitary confinement after slashing a prison guardÂ?s throat, but who nonetheless is an "artist" who uses the colouring off M&Ms for paint and the backs of post cards as canvass to create "small, intense works." (The Times also labels his abstract pieces "powerful"). Last week, 500 people attended an exhibition of his work at a gallery in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and six of the postcard paintings had been sold for $500 each. Adolfo Caballero, an owner of the gallery, said, "He has really created a new kind of technique, because he doesnÂ?t have access to conventional materials." The Times understands why:

"Most prison art, the kind created in crafts classes and sold in gift shops, tends toward kitsch and caricature. But there are no classes or art supplies where Mr. Johnson is held, and his powerful, largely abstract paintings are something different. They reflect the sensory deprivation and diminished depth perception of someone held in a windowless cell for almost two decades."

How come New York Times reporters and editors are never on the receiving end of the (more lethal) work of the likes of Donny Johnson? It might change their perspective about how great thou art. Or perhaps they are so decadent that they would still have sympathy for the assailant. I don't know; but I am reminded by stories like this one why the Times is a disgusting paper that is simply not worth my time.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:14 AM

 
Hillebrand going, going, gone

One of the best hitters the past two seasons for the Toronto Blue Jays has been 3B/1B/DH Shea Hillebrand: 301 BA, 342 OBP, 480 SLG in 2006, 291/343/449 in 2005. Honestly, those are not great numbers (a slightly lower OBP and lower power than you typically want at the corners and DH positions). Now he's gone, under somewhat bizarre and disputed circumstances. Hillebrand has been designated for assignment and the team has 10 days to trade him or he will be dropped from the roster, the Jays on hook for his massive $5.8 million salary and any other team could sign him for the league minimum which will be deducted from what Toronto owes him. The Toronto Sun reports that the Texas Rangers and Minnesota Twins are interested in Hillebrand, but I think there are two other more distinct possibilities. The Boston Red Sox really like Hillebrand and what he brings to the team (bench depth and skills), but sort-of general manager Theo Esptein will have to get over the fact that Hillebrand called him a fag during his last tour of duty in Beantown. That might or might not happen. Still, for all the talk about Boston needing a stud pitcher, having players who performed particular roles and bench strength enables that is what won the BoSox their 2004 World Series. The other possibility is the San Diego Padres. They dropped Vinny Castilla and are now dependent on Mark Bellhorn (202/297/405) and Geoff Blum (257/288/362), both with negative VORPs (value over replacement player), which is less than an ideal situation for a team that leads the National League West by just 1.5 games. Hillebrand (who has a 12.2 VORP) could be cheap and fills their third base needs quite nicely. He is also from southern California and considering he is apparently involved in an adoption right now, might want to play closer to home. I am dubious about the numerous trade rumours surrounding the Rangers because there are just too many for even some of them to be plausible and the Twins are more likely to make a pitch for Milwaukee Brewer (and former Twin) Corey Koskie to fill their 3B needs.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:52 AM

 
Liberal finds Israeli passes 'just war' test

Michael Walzer comes to that conclusion, for now (he leaves the door open so he can slam it in Israel's face later if 'necessary'), in The New Republic. Here's the (tepid) conclusion (and open door): "Until there is an effective Lebanese army and a Palestinian government that believes in co-existence, Israel is entitled to act, within the dialectical limits, on its own behalf."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:38 AM

 
Truth about Lebanon

Honest Reporting debunks the myths regarding the situation in Lebanon. They are good as far as they go, but to dismantle the myth that "Lebanon bears no responsibility for the actions of Hezbollah" read Evelyn Gordon's excellent article in the Jerusalem Post. The indictment against Beruit is pretty comprehensive: the Lebanonese government has kept Hezbollah within cabinet, it did not join other "moderate" Arab countries within the Arab League in condemning Hezbollah, it seems to support Hezbollah's goals, has refused to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which requires Beruit to police southern Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah, it allows weapons to reach Hezbollah including crossing the border from Syria and through the airport, and may have provided (radar) assistance to Hezbollah.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:24 AM

 
Restraint is for wimps who like to lose

The Washington Times editorializes:

"Hezbollah further damages Lebanese interests with its criminal practice of maximizing civilian casualties by storing Katyusha rockets and other weapons in private homes, turning them into legitimate military targets. Hezbollah chooses to fight by hiding behind women and children.

Israel, which is fighting for its survival, must win the war with Hezbollah by destroying the weapons with which Hezbollah targets Israeli women and children. The blood of the Lebanese civilians is on the hands of Sheikh Nasrallah and his backers in Tehran and Damascus.

... To defeat this grim and cynical Hezbollah military/public relations strategy, the public must suppress its natural sympathy for innocent civilian suffering for the higher moral purpose of saving the greatest number of lives, of both Arab and Jew."

Civilian deaths are unfortunate but are not ones that are caused on purpose, quite unlike the deaths caused by Hezbollah. Our squeamishness about war doesn't allow us to view such things as clearly as they should be; thankfully, the Israelis don't suffer our same suicidal compassion.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:49 AM

 
How to defeat terrorism

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz vows to do what is necessary to defeat Israel's enemies: "If we come to the conclusion that a ground operation is necessary, we will do it ... Terror groups should not get the feeling that we will recoil from any sort of action." Israel is not going to worry about democratizing southern Lebanon, winning hearts and minds, or whatever else might be a distraction from crushing Hezbollah terrorists.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:46 AM

 
A vote for Bolton

Ohio's sometime Republican senator George Voinovich writes in today's Washington Post that once he comes up for renomination, he'll back UN ambassador John Bolton. Voinovich opposed Bolton last summer but has since seen what he likes (and he explains that fully in the column). More importantly, however, this is the wrong time to change UN ambassador:

"Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives."

I think that what Senator Voinovich is saying is that if Bolton is not confirmed as UN ambassador, the terrorists win.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:21 AM

 
Eventually they'll make homosexuality mandatory

From LifeSiteNews.com:

"Glasgow firefighters who refused to participate in a gay pride event may face disciplinary action, the Herald reported today.

Ten men from the Cowcaddens fire station are under investigation after they refused orders to man an information stall during the Pride Scotia parade. The men were told to attend the June 24 event in uniform and hand out leaflets on fire safety.

The Herald reported that some refused on grounds of conscience, while others were 'embarrassed' to attend the event in uniform. Their superior officers reported the men for disobeying orders, said BBC News."

Politicians called for the firemen to be punished. Strathclyde Fire and Rescue is investigating the incident.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:19 AM

 
This is wierd

Old (ran last week in the Daily Telegraph) but worth a read: yak polo. Richard Spencer reports:

"The sport is growing in popularity according to the newly-founded Mongolian Association of Sarlagan [Yak] Polo. Originally designed to entertain tourists like the elephant and camel versions, the sport is booming with four games a week being played this summer."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:05 AM

 
What the Yankees need

Jeff Blair in the Globe and Mail (behind the subscriber wall) yesterday said that Toronto Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi is concerned not about the Boston Red Sox but the New York Yankees and about the Yankees only if they get starting pitching before the trading deadline. I am dubious of this report. Is Ricciardi really that stupid?

Ricciardi says that right now, the teams "are matching up" in regard to the starting rotation, figuring that as long as the Yanks only have Mike Mussina and Randy Johnson, everything is even. But, says Ricciardi, add Roger Clemens or Andy Petite and "that's different." It is, but whether it is better for the Yankees in terms of getting to the post-season, that is, beating the Toronto Blue Jays and Boston Red Sox for the American League East (or the Chicago White Sox or Detroit Tigers for the Wild Card), is another thing. Even the New York press isn't talking about the Yanks acquiring pitching help, anymore.

Ricciardi says that "If the Yankees go out and add another bat, you know, I'm okay with that." Should he be? Baseball Prospectus has found that while there is little correlation between pitching and getting to the post-season or doing well once a team is there, there is a correlation between having three very good starters and a strong closer and playing into October and winning then. Mussina and Johnson are good, but Johnson is inconsistent and gets banged around too much (that's what losing three mph on the fastball will do) and no longer qualifies as a second very good starter. He's good and will win more often than he loses, but Johnson is no longer a reliable pitcher. So adding Clemens or Petite or Barry Zito or whoever, isn't going to do the trick of filling out the threesome. Anyway, the third and fourth spots are ably managed by Chien-Ming Wang and Jaret Wright (a very good pitcher for five innings and then he falls apart). While Roy Halladay is one of the best pitchers in baseball, I'd still take the starting four of the Yanks over the starting four of the Jays whether A.J. Burnett is healthy. The only real concern for the Yankees rotation is the number five spot, a black hole that they haven't been able to fill and now hope Sidney Ponson will. The difference between the scrubs they are currently using in that spot now and an ace pitcher such as Clemens or Petite, over the course of the remaining two months, might be three or four additional wins tops, unless the ace were to get extremely hot or the scrub falls completely apart. Those three or four wins will make the difference between making the playoffs or playing golf in October, but picking up pitchers is still not the best bet for the Bronx Bombers.

Help is on the way or readily available in the organization. Reliever Octavio Dotel pitched a perfect inning of relief in Double A on the weekend and could join the major league club by the end of the month. He should replace headcase Kyle Farnsworth as Mariano Rivera's setup man, which will be a big step up for the team. As for the starting rotation, Ponson is worth a look and he is likely to fail, but he is filling the spot until one of two other options are available: Double A starter and the top prospect in the organization, Philip Hughes, is on fire and is not thought to need much in the way of Triple A ball to be ready for the majors and Carl Pavano is pitching in practise and may only be a month from starting. As I said, these are options and the Yankees have a lot of them and don't have to make a hasty or expensive move, a trade that would cost the team more long-term prospects than they would benefit over the available options within the organization.

As for outfield help, it is almost the same case. The New York Daily News reports that Hideki Matsui might return earlier than expected (sometime in August rather than sometime in September) and Gary Sheffield should rejoin the club next month, too. In the meantime, waiver pickup outfielder Aaron Guiel, is hitting 300 with power since joining the team and Melky Cabrera is offering passable offense and defense as the full-time replacement in RF (278/358/375). If the team can acquire Philadephia Phillies phenom Bobby Abreu (285/439/450) and his $33 million, two-year deal by agreeing to pickup his contract and not giving up their elite prospects, great. But I don't believe that Philly is that desperate to get rid of Abreu, in part because they are in the wild card hunt and in part because other teams can give up real prospects. Yet every report of trade rumours has this one listed. Love to see it (again, with the proviso that Hughes or another top prospect isn't part of the deal) but I doubt it will happen. At least this fills a real need and one that should be addressed if possible at the bargain level.

That's because the Yankees' situation is not dire. They are a half-game behind the division leaders and the Baseball Prospectus playoff odds are better for the Yankees than any other team in the league but the ChiSox. (And their PECOTA-adjusted odds are even better: 70% chance of making the post-season.) The team should make the playoffs with their mix of talent even if they don't make a move: they have a solid top half of the lineup and a slightly favourable schedule. And not making the playoffs for one year in which they have been plagued by injuries and other problems is worth not giving up their few good prospects. But I don't think that this worst case scenario is happen. They should be able to ride out their problems and are better than their division rivals (and better able to address their problems), but if they don't, that's not the worst thing either.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:56 AM

 
It is time for America to get serious about WW IV

The United States should stand firmly beside -- not behind -- Israel. Andrew C. McCarthy says in his NRO column that Israel's war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah is America's war -- its declared war against Islamofascism and the terrorist states that drive it. It is time that America live up to the lofty rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine. America cannot afford to recoil once again from the terrorist thugs who use Lebanaon as a base of operations against the Middle East's only real democracy. It cannot afford to let Iran's proxy war against America's ally go unchallenged. Will G.W. Bush -- thus far the G.W. stands for Gutless Wonder -- follow in the gutless footsteps of Ronald Reagan who allowed a relatively smallish attack on the U.S. marine barracks in Beruit to drive a superpower out of the Middle East and thus embolden the terrorist network -- Iran, Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden -- by signalling that America can easily be defeated? My guess is that Bush will not stand beside Israel, only behind it, offering a rhetorical defense of Israel's right to defend itself. That is not enough. Not nearly enough. What Israel needs now is American firepower to help confront Iran in its proxy war. America has surrendered too much to the the mullahs of Tehran as of late and to do so again in Lebanon will be the latest defeat of the so-called superpower in the Middle East; a defeat much worse than the quagmire in Iraq. And worse, it will be another victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terrorist clients. The stakes are high but Washington seems unaware.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:32 AM

 
Undertanding Pope Benedict's statement on terrorists

Mike Potemra explains it all in The Corner:

"The Italian press is reporting that Pope Benedict XVI has said that believers should—my Italian is not great, but I think this is an O.K. translation — 'pray also for the terrorists, because they do not know that they are doing evil not just to their neighbor, but, first of all, to themselves.' There are two things to say about this. First, there is in this statement none of the left-leaning Europeanist moral equivalence one expects from some of the Vatican agencies (notably the Secretariat of State): The pope refers to terrorists as . . . terrorists. Second, and more important: The Pope is reminding the world, and especially those who are engaged in great crimes against humanity, that no matter what they do they are not outside the province of God’s mercy and the call to repentance. (He knows that, for example, one prominent anti-Christian terrorist and human-rights abuser went on to write the Epistle to the Romans. . . .)"
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:29 AM

 
Papers are getting smaller

New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are shrinking the size of their pages to that of the USA Today. Some may feel that the New York Times cannot become small enough. Others might feel that the move reflects what has happened to the paper of record's stature in recent years.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:07 AM

 
Comments

As always, I appreciate your comments, questions, etc&. Send to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com. Be patient for responses, 'cuz I'm scaling back my relationship with the email and internet aspects of my computer for a bit while I work on my book.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:01 AM

 
Protest corporate corruption by fulfilling male fantasy

The National Post reports that among the protestors at King and Bay streets were two women who kissed for more than 30 minutes. Some were disgusted (by the show of affection, not the corruption) while other men filmed the "protest."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:55 AM

 
Nordlinger at his best

Which is something consider he is always great. But check the latest Impromptus column (yesterday's). Here's two tidbits:

"Ahmadinejad said on Iranian state television, 'The Zionist regime behaves like Hitler.' I’m a little confused. From him that’s supposed to be a criticism or what?"

And this: he reports on seeing this bumper sticker, "After We Bring Democracy to Iraq, Can We Have Some Here?" in Nantucket and adds: "Gee, I don’t know. The owner of this car will just have to ponder that in his prison cell, where he has been sent for brandishing that sticker in a non-democracy."

Also, read his comments and ponder what is meant by the calls for Israel to have a proportionate response.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:50 AM

 
File this under: Most improvements aren't

The Club for Growth has a new website. Its archives are absolutely terrible (difficult to use).
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:49 AM

 
WWIII or WWIV or no WW

John Derbyshire says it is wrong to call the war against Islamofascism a World War ("nonsense on stilts"). (Greg Staples doesn't seem to like the idea, either.) He is willing to concede that the Cold War might rightly be called World War III, but because there are few states (Iran, Pakistan) that the "industrialized world" is facing in its battle against terror-using Islamists, there is no world war today. In a nutshell, here's The Derb's argument:

"... we may lose a skyscraper or a subway train now and then; but those would be events in the life of a nation, not threats to that nation’s existence. There is no threat to our existence that would not mean national suicide for the threatener ... Islamofascism is a nasty thing. It will kill many more of us before we see the back of it. It will bring down some nations, too: Chad, perhaps, possibly even Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. These are not consequential nations, though, neither militarily, nor economically, nor culturally, and they pose no threat to us."

Derbyshire is responding, of course, to both Newt Gingrich's labelling on the weekend of the conflict to World War III and Norman Podhoretz's 2004 Commentary essay calling it World War IV. There is no better counter-argument to The Derb than Podhoretz's own essay, in which he quotes Eliot A. Cohen who described how the present conflict resembles the Cold War (WWIII): "that it is, in fact, global; that it will involve a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots." Podhoretz adds a fourth: "both [wars] were declared through the enunciation of a presidential doctrine." That is, the Truman and Bush doctrines. In brief they are similar in this: the challenge to the West generally and America specifically will not go answered by the United States any longer, no matter where the fight may be. In that, World War IV is more like World War III than the first two wars in which the United States played a relatively minor role until later in the conflict, but the theatre is indeed global and even if many governments and publics are in denial, involves many, many nations.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:38 AM

 
Of trees and rights

Gerry Nicholls takes on Oakville's decision to require a permit (and more) to remove a tree that is on one's own property. Nicholls, vice president of the National Citizen's Coalition, says in his local paper (the Oakville Beaver) that trees are nice but property rights are nicer.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:36 AM

 
Quotidian

"Men go forth to wonder at the heights of mountains, the huge waves of the sea, the broad flow of the rivers, the vast compass of the ocean, the courses of the stars; and they pass by themselves without wondering."
-- St. Augustine, The Confessions
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:06 AM

 
Correction

As a number of you were so kind to point out, it is Lena Horne, not Leena Horne as I had spelled it in a post last night. Apparently, you expect perfect spelling at 2 am. Seriously, though, I am a little embarrassed I made the mistake myself but then remembered I basically cut and paste the information from the iTunes window so I checked the iLibrary and I found that the error emanated from there. Sort of an iMistake. Not all albums misspell her name, but one assorted jazz CD did. So while I should have caught the error, it wasn't really my mistake.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:55 PM

 
Rove is gone by January 2007

Earlier if President George W. Bush's approval ratings dip rather suddenly following news that Karl Rove was a source in the outing of Valerie Plame, according to Robert Novak.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:18 AM

 
Comments

Comments, questions, abuse, etc, can be sent to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:15 AM

 
Recent music

What's been on the iTunes shuffle while I pound away at the keyboard trying to complete a chapter (the shortest one) of the book: Love Me or Leave Me (Leena Horne), Tainted Love (Soft Cell), Tears of a Clown (Smokey Robinson), Piano Concerto No. 18 in B Flat, Allegro vivace (Mozart), Midnight Rambler (Rolling Stones), Ballad of a Teenage Queen (Johnny Cash), Indiana (Louis Armstrong), Dimension (Wolfmother), Bruce's Philospher Song (Monty Python), Across the Universe (The Beatles), I Wish You Want (Yardbirds), Fireworks (Tragically Hip), Gloria Patri, Dixit Dominus in D (Vivaldi), Stardust (Dizzy Gillespie).
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:07 AM

 
Bring back the neocons

This editorial from the July 11 edition of the New York Sun demonstrates (again) why the paper has no peer:

Bring Back the Neocons
New York Sun Editorial
July 11, 2006

So look where President Bush's decision to sideline the neoconservatives has gotten him. Instead of worrying about America, Iran now holds the upper hand, choosing which U.N. officials will inspect it as America begs Tehran to accept an offer of negotiations and "incentives" that include civilian airline parts. North Korea is as belligerent as ever, test-firing medium range missiles. Iraq's capital is a bloodbath of sectarian violence. Israel is under fire from a Hamas state in Gaza. Russia and Communist China are blocking American action at the U.N. Security Council.

The news that the neoconservatives were sidelined has been widely reported. "As ‘Neocons' Leave, Bush Foreign Policy Takes Softer Line," was the front-page headline in the February 6 issue of the Wall Street Journal. Time magazine's cover this week heralds "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy." I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, once chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, is now indicted. Douglas Feith, once defense undersecretary,is now a private citizen, as is Richard Perle,who had been chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Paul Wolfowitz, once deputy secretary of defense, is now at the World Bank.

Well, if this is what four months of a "softer line" has gained us, we say bring back the neoconservatives, particularly because Mr. Bush himself hasn't totally abandoned their — and his — freedom agenda. "It's not only ingrained in my policy, it's ingrained in my soul," Mr. Bush said just last week. It's always possible in foreign policy that the administration is covertly pursuing more aggressive policies than it has publicly disclosed. Let's hope so. For Mr. Bush certainly seems to give wide latitude to his advisers at the State Department, particularly — but by no means exclusively — the undersecretary for political affairs, Nicholas Burns.

While neoconservatives are blamed for troubles in Iraq, Mr. Bush has pretty much ignored their policy advice after the basic decision to liberate the country. The neoconservatives supported Ahmad Chalabi. As the neoconservatives' position weakened, the administration raided Mr. Chalabi's headquarters in Iraq and leaked false accusations that he was a spy for Iran. The administration rejected the neoconservative call for quick recognition of a provisional Iraqi government, opting for the prolonged regency of L. Paul Bremer.

The neoconservatives said success in Iraq depended on pressing on to neighboring Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The administration stopped short, and Mr. Bush strolled through the Texas bluebonnets holding hands with Prince Abdullah of the House of Saud. Neoconservative calls for American support for Iranian democrats were met with a belated administration proposal of a paltry $75 million. When Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, tried to increase that to $100 million, Secretary Rice worked with a Democrat, Senator Biden, to get Mr. Santorum's amendment voted down, while the administration let Europeans dicker with Iran over nuclear weapons.

Neoconservatives want to liberate North Korea by opening the door to refugees seeking to escape its oppression, the same way that the breach in the Berlin Wall took down the Soviet empire. Mr. Bush did sign into the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004 and did meet on April 28, 2006, with North Korean refugees. But the Bush administration, in a variation on President Clinton's approach, has been devoting energy to negotiating with Pyongyang in six-party talks that the neoconservatives think are a waste of time.

The Bush administration invested a lot of hope and political capital in Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazen. Neoconservatives warned that he was a longtime Arafat aide and urged America to back non-Arafat Palestinian Arab leaders like Issam Abu Issa and Omar Karsou. Abbas's administration turned out to be so corrupt and ineffectual that the Palestinian Arabs voted in the Hamas terrorist organization, which proceeded to let Gaza be used as a launchpad for attacks on Israel.

The United Nations has become an important playing field for the administration's efforts on Iranian nuclear weapons, North Korean missiles, and even Iraq. Neoconservatives had warned that Turtle Bay is tainted by the inclusion of non-free, non-democratic states, and urged the administration to work instead through a community of free states. Despite the efforts of America's ambassador at the United Nations, John Bolton, our adversaries and U.N. bureaucrats and the Bush administration's domestic political enemies manage to stall our diplomatic progress there.

So it looks like it's no coincidence that this rough patch comes as the neocons, whose influence was overstated to start with, has been sidelined. America's troubles overseas aren't the fault of any American faction. They are the fault of our enemies. But time makes it ever more clear that the right strategies going forward are those offered by the neoconservative camp. Mr. Bush has time to turn things around, and, if he truly has the freedom agenda ingrained on his soul, he'll know where to turn to rectify the errors of the "softer line," while Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani will be working the problem for 2008.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:29 AM

 
Quotidian

"To do injustice is more disgraceful than to suffer it."
-- Plato, Gorgias
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:08 PM

 
You can't tamper with someone else's intellecutal property ...
even if they do swear in it

LifeSiteNews.com reports: "A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the editing of Hollywood films by third-parties desiring to make them more family friendly infringes upon copyright laws." LSN is upset with the decision and defends the actions of one such third-party, CleanFlicks:

"One of the companies affected by the decision is CleanFlicks. The family-values conscious company edits major Hollywood films for offensive content, and then sells the edited version along with an accompanying copy of the original, untouched film. The original is purchased by Cleanflicks, ensuring that the film studio receives proper remuneration for each edited film CleanFlicks sells."

LSN quotes Michael Medved, the movie critic with trad values street cred: "Hollywood may claim that the underlying issue is one of artistic integrity, or the inviolable nature of the filmmaker's vision, but how then can you explain the existence of the carefully altered airline versions -- not to mention occasional edits for broadcast on network TV?" To which the relapsed one, Kathy Shaidle, correctly answers:

"The difference is that those cuts are made by the studio, presumably with the filmmaker's knowledge. In other words, the cuts are made by the owners of the film, if not by the film's creator himself. A movie is not CleanFlick's to cut; it is not their property. Just because movies seem ubiquitous doesn't make them "public property."

Shaidle then proposes a thought experiment:

"[W]hat if there was a company called Dirty Flicks that took movies like Because of Winn Dixie or whatever it was called, and added gratuitous nudity and swearing to make them more appealing to non-Christians?

Then how would you feel?

Oh, but that's different."

Now, as a parent of children ages 16 months to almost 16 years, there are plenty of movies that I would like to show one or more of my children but for the nudity or swearing. In some cases in the Tuns household, the kids watch the movie and part of it is fast-forwarded or muted or the child must leave the room or turn away from the TV. Both of my sons began their James Bond movie watching by turning away during inappropriate scenes (Bond kissing girl, Bond bedding girl, Bond slapping girl). But the point is that the editing is done by me, the parent. We are a relatively strict family when it comes to the entertainment our children consume. My eldest son wasn't allowed to watch The Simpsons until he was 10 or 11 -- old enough to understand irony; my second son, 9, still hasn't seen the show. The nine-year-old was only recently allowed to watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy because we thought the violence was too graphic. But again, it was our decision and once or twice we had him leave the room for particularly intense scenes. Again, the responsibility falls on us as parents to monitor the movies and television shows our children watch.

Outfits like CleanFlicks presents a number of problems, the first being legal. We (concerned and cautious parents) have no right to altered videos. One value we in the Tuns household hope to instill in our children is respect for the private property rights of others. Showing altered videos that another company profits from, violates the property rights of the studios and creators. But another problem with CleanFlicks is that it lets the parents off too easily. I fear that many parents will assume that a movie is "safe" simply because the naked breasts and f-words have been edited out, without much concern about the content of the film. It allows the parents to duck their responsibilities.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:42 PM

 
Who do you trust with the cash?

George Koch at Dr. J. and Mr. K., thinks that the average citizen can do more with $400 than the government can with $1.4 billion. He stated in his July 10 post:

"At today’s caucus meeting, the provincial Progressive Conservatives will, among other things, vote on whether to send every Albertan another cheque representing the province’s extraordinary resource revenues. I blogged on this immediately below.

The thing that struck me above all was this statement by former cabinet heavyweight Lyle Oberg: 'Realistically, what did that $400 [per person] do for the betterment of Alberta society? Whereas $1.4 billion could have improved it quite significantly.'

Was there ever a more succinct encapsulation of the colossal arrogance of bureaucrats and politicians? Here’s how Oberg the Wise might have 'bettered' society:

* Another huge round of salary increases to stave off the latest shake-down by public sector unions (who will continue to hate the government no matter what it does);

* More billions disappearing into the insatiable maw of the unreformed health care system;

* Cash hurled at school boards whose trustees refuse even to consider attempting to save money by, say, contracting out maintenance to private companies;

* Yet another round of pay increases for MLAs or senior bureaucrats;

* Attempting to pave every road in Alberta at once, thereby driving the price of asphalt and construction rental equipment through the roof and idling overpaid crews for weeks on end (as I personally observed happening last year); or

* You think of an example from the vast available buffet of government buffoonery.

Here’s how ordinary Albertans spent their $400, and how they might spend another possible $700:

* Money into the kids’ education fund;

* New clothes, books or other goods for the kids;

* Contributions to the family’s RRSP;

* Repairs to the family minivan;

* Donations to charity;

* A long weekend in the mountains with one’s spouse;

* Purchase of an energy-efficient washing machine or fridge; or

* OK, fine, cases of beer, T-bones and videos of limited philosophical merit.

As you can tell, I tend to think the worst of government and the best of ordinary Albertans."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:38 PM

 
I don't mean to make light of this...

Today there was seven explosions in the Bombay commuter system, killing at least 100 people. Today's date: 7/11. Today, the convenience store 7/11 celebrates its 79th birthday.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:36 PM

 
Black and white: the white surrender

Dennis Prager writes about the harm that liberals do American blacks but I wanted to draw attention to this extremely telling anecdote:

"I was recently shown a videotape of people reacting to radio talk shows. Organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing radio talk shows, the members of the listening panel were carefully chosen to represent all major listening groups within American society.

But I quickly noticed something odd -- I saw no blacks among the selected listeners. I asked why. And the response was stunning.

Blacks had always been included, I was told, but no more. Not because the firm was not interested in black listeners -- on the contrary, blacks are an important part of the radio audience. They were not invited to give their opinion about various radio shows because in its previous experience, the company had discovered that almost no whites would publicly differ with the opinions of the blacks on the panel. Therefore, once a black listener spoke, whites stopped saying what they really thought, if what they thought differed from what a black had said."

It is sad, really, that so many whites condescend to blacks this way.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:32 PM

 
Flat tax lives

This is a little bit of old news, but good news so I want to pass it on. After initial concerns that the new government of leftist Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was going to get rid of the country's flat tax, as per his campaign promise, the Washington Post reports that just installed Finance Minister Jan Pociatek has said there are no plans to radically alter Slovakia's tax system.

(HT: The Market Center Blog)
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:23 PM

 
World Cup commentary

A number of observations and comments.

1) The final two games were very good but not quite great games. In both cases, the better team -- in both the game and the tournament -- won. France, however, proved that they belonged in the final, playing some brilliant soccer. Both les bleus and the Azzurri are tremendous teams with outstanding contributions from every position and every player.

2) Unfortunately the final game has been overshadowed by Zidane's headbut. It is no great shame that he ended his international career thusly, after all he committed an incredibly stupid and violent act on the field. Nothing Materazzi could have said to him could mitigate the offensiveness of the headbut. What is a great shame is that the topic of conversation the day after the final World Cup game of 2006 is the headbut.

3) Zidane did not deserve the Golden Ball as the tourney's MVP. I think you would be hard-pressed to call him France's MVP. Thierry Henry (three goals, always keeping opposing teams defense honest) and Patrick Vieira (2nd in the World Cup in tackles) had better overall tournaments and Claude Mekelele and Frank Ribery were also consistently better than their more famous fellow midfielder. Zidane had no presence in the first two dull France ties and was literally not present in the third game (having received two yellow cards). Both of his goals were on penalty kicks. He is, no doubt, still very good, he set up some tremendous plays, had the most beautiful almost-goal (which was parried away by Buffon in the final minutes of Zidane's game Sunday) and no doubt rallied the team as captain once it made the final 16. But I think the MVP should 1) have a consistently good tournament and 2) play at a far superior level than others. Fabio Cannavaro, the stellar Italian defender, deserves the Golden Ball much more than any other player. I have watched soccer closely for 20 years now and I've never seen a defender play as well as he has over the course of seven games.

4) Okay, the penalty shoot-out is not the ideal way to decide the World Cup but it is probably better than any alternative. Many, including the National Post's editorial board on Monday, argue for a sudden death over-time after the initial 30 minutes of additional extra time, with a player from each team leaving the field every ten minutes and suspension of the off-side rule. I think this would be worse: it drastically alters the game (in more subtle but no less distinctive ways than the penalty shoot-out) and could lead to both teams playing defensive, conservative soccer. The players, tired as they are after 120 minutes, would be unable to play thrilling soccer in the additional over-time. There are three alternatives that might suffice, but none of them are great. I) As the old North American Soccer League did, let the "shooting" player dribble the ball up from the centre line -- a true, one-on-one contest between player and goaltender; as is, the goalie only saves the ball if he is lucky enough to guess which way the opponent is shooting. II) Replay the game, which TV scheduling would probably not permit. III) Award the World Cup to the team with the greatest goal differential, which would have the added bonus of encouraging scoring early on; the down-side is that the winner of the World Cup should have to win the final game of the tournament. As I said, the penatly shoot-out is less than ideal but probably better than any alternative.

5) The second sport at every World Cup is referee bashing. There were mistakes but to err is human. The problems that officials get blamed for are really FIFA's problems: non-calls on shirt-tugging and diving can be remedied by giving more power to the linesman and fourth official or by having the governing body not merely fine but yellow card players after the game. But FIFA won't do that because most of the divers are the big name strikers and soccer doesn't want them out for too many games. What soccer -- not just the World Cup but the sport -- needs is for the rules to be applied. The referees should do that but if they don't/can't, FIFA and each national soccer body should.

6) The ugly Portugal-Netherlands game brought shame to the World Cup long before Zidane headbutted his opponent in the final. The referee was blamed for "losing control" of the game and issuing 16 yellow cards and four reds. But how else could he have tried to control two teams that were intent on playing thuggish soccer for 90 minutes. FIFA should suspend both teams for four years; that is, the next cycle of the World Cup (and I say this as a fan of the Dutch team).

7) Overall entertainment value of the tourney: A-. It was a lot of fun to watch, a few upsets, and even when goals weren't scored, the teams played mostly exciting soccer.

8) Just noting: Italy had only 11 yellow cards in 7 games; 11 other teams had more yellow cards. That's great disciplined soccer.

9) Just noting II: Ten different players scored for Italy, netting a total of 12 goals.

10) Almost in soccer withdrawal already. Fortunately, qualifying for the 2008 European Cup in Austria and Switzerland, begins on August 16. Interestingly, France and Italy (and Ukraine) are in the same qualifying group. The European Cup finals begin June 7, 2008. Three days later, the Premier League begins play. European Championship League play begins today and UEFA Cup play begins on Thursday.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:31 AM

 
Quotidian

An old man, going a lone highway,
Came, at the evening, cold and gray,
To a chasm, vast, and deep, and wide,
Through which was flowing a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim;
The sullen stream had no fears for him;
But he turned, when safe on the other side,
And built a bridge to span the tide.

"Old man," said a fellow pilgrim, near,
"You are wasting strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day;
You never again must pass this way;
You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide-
Why build you a bridge at the eventide?"

The builder lifted his old gray head:
"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said,
"There followeth after me today,
A youth, whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm, that has been naught to me,
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building the bridge for him."
-- (Miss) Will Allen Dromgoole, "The Bridge Builder"
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:12 PM

 
Harper on World Cup

The Prime Minister commented on the World Cup victory by Italy/sucked up to Italian voters yesterday:

"Statement by the Prime Minister on the World Cup

July 9, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement on Italy's World Cup final victory.

'Canadians gathered today in our cities, towns and public squares to watch the World Cup soccer final in a vivid example of our country's passion for athletics and competition. I was pleased to watch the game with my son, Ben, and friends in Calgary.

'On behalf of Canada’s New Government, I would like to congratulate Italy on its World Cup victory, and wish Italian-Canadians the most joyous of celebrations.

'I would also like to congratulate France and its supporters on a hard-fought tournament, and take this opportunity to express my deep desire to see Canada join the world's best in South Africa in 2010'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:58 AM

 
Progressing toward a cliff

The Sunday Telegraph reports that the Church of England has accepted, at least in theory, that women can be bishops. And why not? If they can be priestesses, why not bishopettes? A feminist within the CofE sayeth the vote by the General Synod finding no theological reason to prevent priestesses from becoming bishops is "a sign that the Church has finally accepted that both women and men are able to exercise leadership." But women are called to ministry and leadership but a different kind of ministry and leadership than men. When will feminists end their fight to be penisless men? And when will the CofE understand that they are modernizing themselves into oblivion?
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:59 PM

 
Blair failed to protect Brits; Cameron to follow

The Sunday Telegraph reports:

"Cases of murder and manslaughter have risen by almost a quarter since Labour came to power, Home Office figures have revealed.

Since 1997, the number of homicide victims, including solved and unsolved cases, has averaged 737 per year. In the period from 1990 to 1996, the average was 601."

And what will the Conservative [sic] response be? The Telegraph reports that David Cameron, "will use a speech to the Centre for Social Justice to reposition his party's stance on law and order, with a demand that more is done to understand the emotional causes of anti-social behaviour." People -- that is, voters -- don't want to understand the causes of crime; they want to capture and punish those who commit crimes. That is government's job (a bare minimum, really); leave "understanding" to social scientists, priests and social workers.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:52 PM

 
Quotidian

"There is only one really startling thing to be done with the ideal, and that is to do it."
-- G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:46 PM

 
Light blogging

Today I was busy moving my books downstairs, which gave me an opportunity to count them. A decent estimate is 3,500. The job only took a few hours but re-sorting them (read: admiring portions of the collection) sucked up most of the day's time. Fortunately, Mrs. Tuns has allowed the magazines and journals to remain where they are (for now).

But it was not all work, no play. There was a break for the Portugal-Germany game. Only comment: the better team (of the day and of the tourney) won. For once, Portugal played (somewhat) cleanly but Christian Ronaldo demonstrated once again why he deserves the Oscar for best (and most) dives. Classy move to let Oliver Kahn play one last international.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:40 PM

 
Quotidian

"In fact, if one were to collect cliches, like stamps or jokes, one would find a rich field of exploration in obituaries, in letters of condolence, and in funeral orations. It seems as if variations are deemed uncouth, or almost magically harmful or hazardous. Indeed, by leaving the set of cliches in such precarious situations one may easily hurt feelings inadvertently."
-- Anton C. Zijderveld, On Cliches
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:52 PM

 
World Cup prediction

World Cup
Italy over France 2-1

Consolation
Germany beats Portugal 2-0
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:48 PM

 
Book ideas from von Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute has a list of book ideas (or article ideas or suggestions for a doctoral thesis) from the eminent Austrian economist, as noted by Bettina-Bien Greaves. In 1951, Greaves noted, "Book or article suggestion: Disappearance of medium size business is not a tendency of an unhampered economy. Good subject for book or article." (Not clear whether the quote is from von Mises himself or Greaves.) Another idea: "There is no book that answers the question, 'What ideas were responsible for the fact that the 19th century liberals did not apply the liberal principles to banking'?" Or: "What unions believe about how wages are determined. Unions don't have any economic theory." Many, many more. As Marginal Revolution notes, most of these books have yet to be written.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:15 AM

 
Manitoba politics

Sorry if that headline almost bored you to death, but The Hack at Hacks and Wonks has a longish but worthwhile post on the political scene in Canada's dull province. He makes three points: the polling that shows the NDPers and Tories close is to the opposition's advantage, that Premier Gary Doer hasn't done much (see more in a second), and that because he will likely lose the next election, the risk-adverse Doer is likely to retire than face defeat. About the Doer record:

"No, Gary Doer was handed the use of the largest majority in forty years, coupled with almsot 25% more in government revenues and what a lot of folks - not me, but a lot of folks - think is one of the weakest oppositions in that time as well, and what exactly did he do with it?

He tinkered. He played things incredibly safe. Why do something drastic, when minor fixes suffice?"

Grab a coffee and read the rest of the post.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:02 AM

 
Sleep is for losers

Yeah, check out the times of the last two posts. Furthermore, one of my young daughters will ensure that I'm up by 6:30 and about an hour later I'll be on my way to work.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:18 AM

 
Getting ahead by failure

The Halifax Herald editorializes regarding Pyongyang's testing of seven missiles:

"Its barrage of seven projectiles, most of them old Scuds, was quite evidently timed to coincide with American Independence Day celebrations, like some sort of negative ad. But according to U.S. sources, the latest missile in the North Korean stable, the Taepodong-2, which has an estimated range of 5,000 to 6,000 kilometres, failed 40 seconds after launch. What was supposed to project military prowess instead telegraphed certain shortcomings."

Just because the test lasted 40 seconds doesn't mean that we should be complacent or that the test was meaningless. As the AEI's Michael Rubin noted at NRO today, "That the Taepogdong-2 apparently failed after 40 seconds is irrelevant; engineers test missiles to identify and rectify problems, and so each test brings them closer to their goal." (Rubin's article says that Kim Jong-Il was brazen enough to test missiles because of the American capitulation to North Korea twice previously and the West's refusal to get serious with Iran.)

The Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring has a four-item list that should comprise the American (military) response, or what Spring calls the necessary four "capabilities" that the U.S. needs to develop:

1) A conventional defense of South Korea;
2) A global, layered missile defense system;
3) A new (post-Cold War) nuclear deterrent;
4) Preemption.

We cannot afford to sit back because 1) the "failure" of the test launch leads us to believe that North Korea is not a threat or 2) a mistaken belief that diplomacy will solve this problem (if by solution one means make North Korea less of a threat). North Korea tested the missiles for a reason and learned something (or some things) from that test which may lead them to develop better missiles in the future. Pretending that they will never use them is suicidal.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:06 AM

 
The city council in my hometown is made of up idiots

In that, the city council of Woodstock, Ont., is no different that the city council of pretty well much any other city in the country. But specifically, as the London Free Press reports:

"Woodstock is challenging the rest of the province to quit pigging out on electricity. 'Ontario, and Canada in general, is an energy hog and we have to unlearn some very bad behaviour,' said Mayor Michael Harding.

The city has sent a letter to municipalities across the province, challenging them to join Woodstock’s 'voluntary blackout day' and cut their electricity consumption by more than four per cent on Sunday, Aug. 13.

[…] Woodstock held its own volunteer blackout day last year on the anniversary of the Aug. 14, 2003 massive power-system failure that left large portions of the northeastern United States and Canada in the dark.

The idea was to raise awareness in the community of the importance of electricity, how fragile the supply can be, and create a culture of conservation, said Jay Heaman of Woodstock Hydro Services."

As The London Fog notes, this is really a celebration of the failure of central planning.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:54 AM

 
Quotidian

"A sense of humour leads you to take pleasure in the discrepancies of human nature."
-- Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:59 PM

 
Just a reminder you heard it here first

I have long predicted that the Democrats will pick up the Senate seat of retiring Bill Frist (R, Tenn). The Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr., is conservative enough -- and seemingly genuinely so -- to win the state. If he does, he will become the first black senator from "the south." This is a good AP story on his politicking -- both tactics and policies -- which is worth reading. Forget the poseur Barrack Obama (D, Ill), this is the future of the Democratic party, if it has one.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:39 PM

 
CMA Journal lies about abortion

LifeSiteNews.com reports that the Canadian Medical Association Journal misleads doctors about abortion in a guest editorial penned by Sandra Rodgers, a pro-abortion law professor at the University of Ottawa. There are two claims that are incorrect. The first: "Access to reproductive health care is essential to women's health and for some women, abortion is a key component of that care." Except that when the federal government and ten provinces were asked by Gary Breitkreuz for evidence of the medical necessity of abortion, none were able to provide it.

The second assertion is that, "In 1988, in Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that a woman's right to continue or to terminate a pregnancy is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and struck down the law." But that is not true, as the Campaign Life Coalition National News pointed out in the July issue (scroll down to "Pro-abortion lies"). In short, the Charter doesn't mention anything about abortion and Morgentaler decision found that (in the words of the CLC Ntl News) "the abortion laws of that time (which required permission from rubber-stamping therapeutic committees, which were not available in free-standing abortuaries) were deemed unconstitutional on purely procedural grounds by four of the five justices that voted to overturn the abortion law. This is a far cry from declaring a 'right to abortion,' a fact noted by another judge, Bertha Wilson. She was the only justice to declare that there was an abortion right." And even she conceded that a gestational approach, that is, some sort of restrictions might be permissible based on the age of the unborn child (usually based on trimester). So, in fact, no judge found a right to abortion on demand for any reason at any time -- Canada's status quo which the editorial defends. So what did the SCOC do in Morgentaler? Again CLC: "It ruled that the therapeutic committees were unconstitutional and it left it up to Parliament to decide to draft new abortion legislation. It did so because, in the words of one of the judges, 'the court cannot presume to resolve all of the competing claims advanced in vigorous healthy, public debate.' That is, Parliament, which ostensibly reflects the will of the people, should act on the issue." Other than a failed attempt to bring in a (flawed) abortion bill in 1991, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell's C-43, Parliament has never addressed the issue, resulting in a legal void with no restrictions. But neither is there a "right to abortion."

Perhaps doctors don't know better but those who teach the law should.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:20 PM

 
So far the threat of more talks has not deterred North Korea

The New York Times reports:

"North Korea declared today that it will continue to test-fire missiles, and vowed to resist with force if other nations tried to stop it, even as it acknowledged for the first time that it had launched seven missiles the day before."

And the U.S. administration reaction? More "diplomacy" which is Bush administration-speak for appeasement. Bush said in a press conference today:

"You know, diplomacy takes a while, particularly when you're dealing with a variety of partners, and so we're spending time diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified ... Let's send a common message: You won't be rewarded for ignoring the rest of the world."

I don't have a lot of faith that this "common message" is the bombing back to the stone age that North Korea is, save for its possible nukes, almost at anyway.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:10 PM

 
Korean crisis

Reuters reported today, "North Korea's missile test launches further isolated Pyongyang, President Bush said on Wednesday, adding that despite the failure of the long-range missile, he still wanted to resolve the problem." Another Reuters story reported: "Stalled six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program are the way to resolve the standoff with Pyongyang over its test-firing of missiles, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday." They are probably both right, but it does seem odd that an "isolated" North Korea is in talks with the U.S. -- and Japan, South Korea, Russia and Red China.

And in case you were wondering where the UN was on this, the Security Council today expressed its "deep concern" regarding North Korea launching missiles. To make matters worse, France holds the chair of the SC this month. The UN may escalate their response to "deeply concerned with a cherry on top" but probably not much more is expected from Turtle Bay.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:15 PM

 
Publishing classified information

David Adesnik at OxBlog has some commentary on the decision of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times to aid the enemy, criticizing the paper's respective editors for invoking the freedom of press when they should have argued what compelling reason there was to print classified information ("Keller and Baquet invoke the freedom of the press, but never present even the semblance of an argument as to why the First Amendment entails a license to publish classified information"). After all, as such papers noted after the violence that followed the publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in ways that were offensive to Muslims, the freedom of the press does not obligate the press to show pictures (or run stories) merely because they have the right to. The editors of the two Times papers invoke freedom of the press without acknowledging that publishing classified information might not be a protected right. If they are telling the truth, they are intellectually lazy, but my guess is that they hoped to play "gotcha" with the administration and thus are lying bastards.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:34 PM

 
North Korean missiles

A correspondent of mine has suggested that the Americans show North Korea what a real missile launch looks like.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:30 PM

 
Blogging problems

I had a couple of posts last night -- World Cup commentary, the quotidian, urinating on the war memorial, the current issue of the New Yorker -- but for whatever reason, they are not there now. I have no intention of re-posting so here in a nutshell is what I said: Italy-Germany was a great game; something about socialists and conservatives from Alan Bennett; we pee on the sacrifice of fallen soldiers all the time when we abrogate liberty through smoking bans and limits on political donations; the New Yorker is written by a bunch of wankers.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:25 PM

 
Wall to wall ugly

The Boss -- George Steinbrenner -- turned 76 today. And his New York Yankees lost to the Cleveland Indians, a team expected to do well this year but which has struggled. The Indians put 19 runs on the board, compared to just one by the Yankees. Might it have been the fact that they rested Bernie Williams. Said Joe Torre: "Bernie looked like he was dragging a bit (Monday), so we'll give him a break." Williams, who sports an anemic 275 BA/313 OBP/406 SLG (terrible for a corner outfielder/DH), may be reverting to what his capabilities now are, and the rest of the season will prove why depending on a rapidly declining has-been to provide output at spots in the lineup that require high on-base and slugging percentages is pure folly. But the Yankees, instead of understanding this, might read tonight's result as a vindication of their reliance on Williams.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:58 PM

 
Quotidian

"It is thus, if there is any rule, that we ought to die -- neither as victim nor as fanatic, but as the seafarer who can greet with an equal eye the deep that he is entering, and the shore that he must leave."
-- E.M. Forster, Howard's End
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:38 PM

 
World Cup predictions

Germany beats Italy 2-0*
Portugal edges France 2-1

* That is my head speaking. My heart says Italy 2-1 in added extra time.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:36 PM

 
Just pointing out

Terry Teachout noted on Friday:

"Five things you won't read about here

• Star Jones Reynolds

• The sixtieth anniversary of the bikini

• Superman’s politics

• Superman’s sexuality

• Rob Schneider’s fainting spell

Aren’t you relieved?"

But isn't the fact of noting that you are not writing about a particular topic or topics a form of commenting upon said topics?
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:34 PM

 
Lieberman may lose the battle but win the war

The New York Times reports:

"Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said on Monday that he would run as an independent Democratic candidate if he loses the state Democratic primary next month. The announcement by Mr. Lieberman, a political moderate and longtime party leader seeking his fourth term, underscores the increasing vulnerability he feels over his support for the Iraq war."

While Lieberman, an intellectually serious Democrat (you can't say that often) and a realist on foreign policy and national security, might win as an independent, it would leave the Democrats with few real hawks, and certainly none as high profile as he (unless you believe Senator Hillary Clinton). On the plus side, if he loses the primary but runs as an independent and wins, it makes it all that more difficult for the Dems to gain control of the Senate. Thus, Lieberman might have made a brilliant political calculation (and threat) that might help him maintain the party's nomination.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:29 PM

 
Most constitutional amendments burn me up

A few years ago a St. Michael's Choir School jumped off the Bloor Street viadcut in Toronto. The student gave a reason, as if reason were needed, for Jack Layton to pontificate, this time about how society was to blame and how the city might be able to prevent further student suicides. A friend of mine from outside the city emailed me to ask "why the f--- is this even an issue?" Since then, we've classified a good number of issues about which politicians seem to think it necessary to address as "WTF Issues." Usually WTF Issues are pet projects of the various lefty politicians, but the biggest such issue is the (mostly) Republican attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Incredibly, they've been trying to vandalize the constitution for 17 years, thankfully thus far unsuccessfully.

George F. Will dedicated his July 2, 1989 column (reprinted in Suddenly: The American Idea Abroad and At Home, 1986-1990) to critiquing the Bush I push to amend the constitution to prohibit flag burning. Will said then there, "is a serious (although unconvincing) argument for Bush's idea, but Bush shows no sign of knowing it. Its crux is that we must draw some lines asserting the general claims of the community against the doctrine of extreme individualism." A serious but unconvincing argument it is, too. The problem is that most Republican politicians use the amendment as a gesture to signal their patriotism rather than as an expression of an essential conservative notion (the proper balance between community and individuals). But as Will noted, the "problem" of flag burning was not (and is not, still) sufficient to amend the constitution.

Mona Charen, in her NRO blog, says that flag burning would seem to be political speech and thus deserves protection. If it were political speech, it probably does deserve to protected, even if burning the nation's flag is a repugnant act. (Charen also makes a valid point when she wonders if the liberal Democratic minority in the Senate who voted against the flag burning amendment deserve "credit for First Amendment integrity when all of them supported the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform?") But back to the point of whether burning the flag is speech. I don't think it is; it might be expression, but not speech. And as Will noted 17 years ago, the courts erred in deciding that "any behavior expressing an attitude that can be given political coloration is protected 'expression'." Will suggested that public fornication might be given the constitutional stamp of approval if its purpose was was to "shock the bourgeoisie into a higher conciousness." But just because the courts erred -- many conservatives say that their amendment is merely a correction to a number of silly judicial decisions -- does not mean Mr. Madison's document needs tinkering. Will says that "a piddling-fiddling amendment" is an insufficient corrective to the courts and what is truly needed is "serious thought" about why the word "speech" was used by the Amendment's framers instead of the word "expression." Will says "speech" was used because "speech, meaning the use of words, is the sine qua non of reasoning and persuasion, and hence of democratic government." The right to free speech is not the right to rant or complain or to let steam off one's chest. It is about the (serious) exchange of ideas.

It might be fun to wonder what the Amdendment's writers would think of the exercise of the U.S. Senate to amend the document to which their admendment were appended and whether their discussions were serious enough to qualify as free speech. The courts have led us down a dangerous road with a bastardized notion of individualism that is radical, that views all limits, including those on "expression" as inherently bad. Gestures will not suffice to fix the legal and philosophical mess that the courts have gotten American (and Canadian) society into.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:52 PM

 
You know things are bad when even Liberals are calling for change at the UN

CTV reports (HT: Adam Daifallah) that out-going Canadian ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock, has expressed some disappointment with the international organization while at the same time trumpeting several of its (cosmetic) reforms. Turtle Bay certainly has problems when former Liberal cabinet ministers are complaining about the place.

But Rock exposes the limitation of institutional reform to address the UN's shortcomings when he admits what the real problem is: "The UN is not something apart from the member states. It is the member states. If the UN can't or won't act, it's because the member states haven't got the political will. We have to keep trying, we have to overcome that, and Darfur is a good example." No amount of institutional reform will fix the UN if countries are not willing to act. Right now, there are 100+ dictators or elected human rights abusers or countries seeking/using weapons they ought not have, who do not want to set a precedent that one day could be turned around and used on them. And most the West, the U.S. included, do not want to spend their troops and treasure bringing those who commit heinous atrocities (such as genocide) to justice. To the extent that UN actions are determined by the Chinese or French veto, or the threat of such a veto, yes, institutional reform might address some of the UN's inability or unwillingness to act. But it is also much more than that. Too often, the unwillingness to act, aside from the lack of leadership from the secretariat at Turtle Bay, comes not from UN headquarters but France, Beijing, Tripoli, Damascus, Lima, New Delhi, Mexico City, Ottawa and a hundred of capitals. And, yes, Washington.

If any country, or at least sizable country or group of countries, wanted to put an end to the genocide in Sudan, it could have long ago by-passed the United Nations. It would be the right and just thing to do, but the sclerosis of the UN is sometimes a convenient excuse for other countries' paralysis.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:02 AM

 
Government insanity: programs that pay people who do not qualify for programs

The Washington Post reports:

"Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post."

The article begins with an anecdote about Donald R. Matthews, a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who built his house on a property formerly used to grow rice. His 18-acre suburban lot qualifies for $1300 in annual "direct payments" because the property was once used for agricultural purposes. Matthews has offered to return the cheques but was told that the money would be reapportioned to other landowners. Of course, he could always just not cash them.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:50 PM

 
Let's talk about immigration

Robert Rowthorn writes a myth-busting column on immigration in the Sunday Telegraph and condemns the Tony Blair/Labourite record on the issue. He says: "while Britain has always had immigration, the recent influx is totally without precedent in modern times. Relative to population, the scale of immigration is now much greater than during any period since the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions over a thousand years ago." Rowthorn ignores the cultural impact of this change, probably because discussions of such lead to unwarranted charges of racism. Rowthorn concludes it is time for an honest debate on the issue, but sidesteps these, arguably more important, cultural questions: can immigrants, especially Muslims be integrated into British society, or better yet assimiliated? What is mass immigration effects on national unity and civic pride of long-time citizens? Do massive numbers of non-English speaking, non-white, non-Christian immigrants fundamentally change British culture (and for the better or worse) and threaten its institutions? Does it affect crime? Does it increase the country's vulnerability to terrorism? Is education compromised by large numbers of immigrant children, or the children of immigrants whose first language is not English, whom the schools must teach down to? There are dozens more questions, and they could be asked of any western nation that has large-scale immigration (Canada, United States, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, etc).

Rowthorn does, however, raise valid points about the economics of mass immigration, the data about which is not as clear-cut as immigration proponents suggest:

"There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions.

The injection of large numbers of unskilled workers into the economy does not benefit the bulk of the population to any great extent. It benefits the nanny-and housecleaner-using classes; it benefits employers who want to pay low wages; but it does not benefit indigenous, unskilled Britons, who have to compete with immigrants willing to work hard for very low wages in unpleasant working conditions.

For low-skilled Britons, the result is that there are only two options: very low pay or unemployment. The economy becomes dependent on a constant influx of immigrants who are willing to accept low pay and poor working conditions. That is what Labour ministers mean when they insist that "public services would collapse without immigrants."

My fear is that honest discussion about immigration, including merely noting that having hundreds of thousands of newcomers can depress wages for low income workers or lead them to the unemployment line, is dismissed as fear-mongering (at best) and racist (at worst). But honestly appraising the effects of immigration is better understood as an act of patriotism, not a sign of bigotry.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:36 AM

 
World Cup commentary

In both matches today, Portugal-England and Brasil-France, the first 45 minutes was uninspiring, sometimes difficult to watch soccer, followed by an exciting second half, and in the case of Portugal-England, extra time and penalty kicks.

Portugal and England started slowly with neither team coming out to attack and few real opportunities to score. It was dreadful. I do not know whether that was part of a deliberate strategy to sit back and pounce on the mistakes made by their opponents or what, but something changed after half-time. Both teams played with a sense of urgency, England for the first time all tournament, Portugal rising to the level that this talented team has repeatedly shown on the pitch. England seemed to play better without David Beckham, who sustained an injury about seven minutes after the half time; Aaron Lennon pushed forward as well, if not better, than Beckham had, feeding the ball to Wayne Rooney and Joe Cole numerous times. Some found England's game to be "heroic" but for some reason their opinion is still thought to be worth something. Their final hour and fifteen minutes in Germany were the best England played this World Cup finals but it wasn't good enough and did not clearly outclass Portugal, who had possession for 57% of the game, outshot the English 20 to 9 (and 9 to 4 on shots on goal) and played the generally more attacking game. (Admittedly, England was down a man for the last 50 minutes of the game.) What was heroic was Owen Hargreaves, born in Calgary but playing for the English, and his entire World Cup play; he has been stellar defensively in all five games and it is easy to imagine them being bounced out much earlier were it not for him. Rooney had a dubious red card, given only after Portuguese protests (he deserved the red, but the referee should have made the call quicker and on his own). With only Peter Crouch on offense, England was able to create some scoring opportunities but not to capitalize on them. What was clear is that England has no game other than to get the ball to Rooney, a talented but unproven international player. Rooney is a hot-head, prone to stupid plays and unnecessary cards. Without him, the team is lost. This is mostly due to the terrible coaching of Sven Goran Eriksson, the highest paid coach in the world and the worst coach that any likely contender in WC 2006 had the misfortune of having. Alesksandar Hemon at Goal Post says it is "hard to imagine a more impressive series of bad decisions than Eriksson's." He has no idea who his best ten players are or in what formation to use them; he seemed to experiment with lineups in every game and was utterly unable to inspire a thoroughly talented squad to do no more than muddle through to the Round of 8. They didn't deserve as much but even a moronic coach such as Eriksson would be hard pressed to hold back the likes of Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, the Coles Ashley and Joe, Sol Campbell (mostly unused despite probably being one of the best ten defenders in the world), Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand, and John Terry.

A couple of other quick observations about the game. 1) England goaltender Paul Robinson made a few incredible finger-tip saves that prevented Portugal from winning before the penalty kicks. 2) Not one English player appeared confident taking his penalty kick, which is why they failed to convert three of the four PKs they took and Portugal won 3-1 in the penalty shootout. 3) Portugal, despite a very good second half and added extra time noticably missed Deco in the midfield.

Brasil and France also started slowly but picked up in the second half. TSG analyst Kalusha Bwalya thought that Brasil played a great 10 minutes of soccer at the beginning of the second half but otherwise it was all France. What game was he watching? The first half was an uninspiring back and forth, as were the first and last ten minutes of the second half. Brasil's relentless penetration of the defensive third of France's side was non-stop in the final minutes of the game and one would not have been surprised if they had tied it up. What won it for France was the middle 25 minutes of the second half. The French midfield played extremely well all game (Florent Malouda, Frank Ribery, Claude Makelele, Patrick Vieira and Zinedine Zidane); indeed, Zidane played a great game for the second straight match, although he didn't deserve the Budweiser Man of the Match; that honour belongs to "Terrific" Thierry Henry, who looked like he had a goal in him all game and scored a beautiful one in the 57th minute; just three minutes earlier, Henry had a goal recalled after the linesman determined he was off-side. The offensive pressure by France (nine shots, five on goal, compared to five and one respectively for Brasil) was great, and Brasilian goaltender Dida was as good as any goalie could have been. He made several lunging saves and played aggresively; with a lesser goalie in net, it could have easily been three goals for France, instead of just one. But Brasil, whose "quartet" scoring machine up front produced only one shot on goal, was weak everywhere else; what happened? Well, they played Ronaldinho as a striker alongside Ronaldo, who wasn't really a factor. With Ronaldinho up front, the midfield was lacking a setup man. The South Americans played their sloppiest soccer yet, with passes and crosses just out of reach of team-mates and opportunities lost. I have been critical of Zidane and coach Raymond Domenech's reliance on him but as one of the announcers said today, he may be a rallying point for the team. He also raised his level of play to anything as good as he produced in World Cup 1998 when France won. Today, however, the whole French side played very good soccer and if they continue to play like this, have as good a chance as anyone to raise the Fifa World Cup trophy on July 9.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:06 AM

 
Harper, Canada Day and Canadian values

The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, issued the following statement today to mark Canada Day:

"Across the country, Canadians are joining together to commemorate our nation’s birthday for the 139th time.

Our country, our way of life, did not happen by accident. We are the product of our values, a country that cherishes freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Ours is a society characterized by hard work, generosity, and strong communities.

As Canadians we have a lot of which to be proud. And our future is a bright one - as we strive to build a country that is even better, and even more prosperous. A country that will serve as an example to people everywhere who hope for a better life and a better world.

With this in mind, I wish all Canadians an excellent Canada Day spent with families and friends."

I can't imagine Prime Minister Paul Martin or Prime Minister Jean Chretien issuing this statement, but that is because Harper 1) has a different view of Canada and 2) is using very specific sentiments to telegraph to his supporters the values that many Canadians hold dear; at least the values that Canadians who vote Conservative, or are likely to, hold dear. Chretien or Martin would have gone on about our diversity and tolerance and perhaps mention Canada as a peacekeeper; Harper talks about freedom, democracy and the rule of law; Chretien and Martin would have talked about compassion and probably would have brought up a UN study, whereas Harper mentions hard work, generosity and community. This is what is politely called in the Canadian press the urban-rural divide, but which are better, more accurately and less Canadianly described as the country's conservative-liberal divide.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:26 PM

 
Quotidian

"He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth."
-- Pslam 72:8
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:12 AM

 
Happy Dominion Day

Or Canada Day. Or Confederation Day (as Gerry Nicholls suggests). Just enjoy the day and the long weekend. Blogging will be sporadic, probably about nothing more than the soccer and ball games and anything odd I find on the internet if indeed I find myself on the computer over the next few days. I hope I won't but if I am, I am. If you are into more intellectual heavy lifting than I am today, check out the Canadian History Trivia that Publius put up last year.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:06 AM