Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Goldberg makes same ssm mistake as George Will In his current syndicated column, Jonah Goldberg writes "You can't favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like. Experimentation means allowing local communities to make mistakes." Very disappointing. Goldberg also says "If Massachusetts really wants something called 'gay marriage,' I may disagree with the decision, but it's their decision." Does Goldberg employ similar disinterestedness on issues such as taxes and affirmative action? I also recall him commenting extensively on the recall election in California despite the fact he lives on the other coast. Graham on Clark's Catholicism The Media Research Centre's Tim Graham on General Wesley Clark, over at The Corner: "I'm a bit befuddled by the Democratic candidates' self-descriptions, especially Wesley Clark, 'a Catholic who frequently attends Presbyterian services.' (At my church, we'd call that kind of Catholic a 'Presbyterian.')" Will Kerry line up for his ration? The Toronto Star's US affairs columnist Tim Harper writes about the "negative" ads in Iowa, focusing mostly on President George W. Bush's "attack ads". To Harper's mind, the ads fired off against one another by the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination focus on policy differences and are not terribly personal. Democrats don't attack, they debate or point out short-comings; any tint of unsavouriness on the part of Democrats can never be admitted by the media. However, the point of this post is not media bias. In Harper's column there is this thought-provoking line: "In recent days, [Senator John] Kerry has been shown leaning into the camera to talk about his prostate cancer as a way of saying he wants every American to have access to the high level of health care he received as a U.S. senator." So, would Senator Kerry (Ultra D, People's Republic of Mass.) use the socialized medical scheme that he and former President Bill Clinton support or would he use the millions at his disposal to admit himself into the best clinic money could buy? Just a question. Toronto, capital of Gaynada The Toronto Star has an article louding proclaiming Toronto as the in gay place in the country that "legalized" same-sex marriage in 2003 (never mind that Parliament has yet to even see legislation on the issue). Typical fare, really: progressive, open-minded, tolerant Canada is compared to the George Bush-led reactionary, intolerant America. And for good measure, the un-bylined article even notes that "liberals" are upset with Bush's anti-abortion policies. When the going gets tough, the tough stay in Baghdad The Sunday Telegraph reports that Spain and Japan will not give in to terrorism by abandoning their missions in Baghdad after their intelligence officers and diplomats were targets of terrorism yesterday. This is in stark contrast to the UN who abandoned their work in the UN when the going got predictably tough. In a related story, the British Tories, through their foreign affairs critic Michael Ancram, said that if the West were to abandon Baghdad and thus the Iraqi people because of a handful of terrorist attacks on Western targets, the terrorists, quite literally, win. "It must not be allowed to succeed in derailing vital work to take forward the reconstruction to Iraq and to hand control of Iraq back to the Iraqis." Protectionism kills A paper released in September by the Centre for the New Europe finds that the European Union's agricultural protectionism has deadly consequences. The gist of the authors' arguments is that the developing world could develop more quickly and feed more of its people if the EU's trade policy would be amended to open their own markets to foreign food producers and eliminate the dumping of their own (highly subsidized) product on third world nations. The authors say that by one count -- a count that by their own admission is not an entirely reasonable or unquestionable number -- 13 people die every second because of EU trade policies. Those who profess to care about the world's poor would do well to vigorously oppose agricultural trade restrictions and agricultural subsidies. More on the Spencer fallout The Larry Spencer comments about wanting to recriminalize homosexuality and his view that there is conspiracy by homosexualists to recruit young boys have led to numerous columns, news reports and "news reports" than any Canadian news story since Paul Martin formally took control of the Liberal Party two weeks ago. But thus far Sun Media's Greg Weston is the only one to comment on how Spencer's comments are a gift to the Liberal Party, a party that specializes in unfair gimmicky attacks (remember Warren Kinsella's Barney the dinosaur and Stockwell Day?). Not that Weston actually called such attacks unfair and gimmicky; he merely warned that Kinsella will strike again. Will good, bad on ssm George F. Will has a column on same-sex marriage in the Washington Post. There are important considerations he raises but generally he comes down on the side of ... well, he doesn't take a side, really. He seems to be saying that we're not sure what the effects of same-sex marriage will have on society so it is unclear whether same-sex marriage should be prohibited. He makes the conservative argument against amending the constitution as an unnecessary violence to that document: "Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise for two reasons. Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law. And it would be especially imprudent to end state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we require evidence of the sort that can be generated by allowing the states to be laboratories of social policy." But marriage is more than social policy and the potential effects to serious to be considered mere fodder for a really big science fair project. And, anyway, Will knows why marriage requires (exclusively) one man and one woman and why altering that it akin to opening Pandora's Box: "The binary idea of marriage -- friends and foes of gay marriage agree it is an institution involving couples -- arose because there are two sexes. But if the meaning of marriage and the right to marital status is sufficiently defined with reference to "autonomy of the self . . . [in] certain intimate conduct," what principled, nonarbitrary ground is there for denying the right of marriage to, say, a threesome whose members insist that it is necessary for their self-fulfillment through intimacy?" Will knows -- or should know -- better. The sanctity of marriage is under assault: divorce, extra-marital affairs, illegitimacy, etc.... But that is hardly reason to add insult to the injury these pathologies have already inflicted upon the foundational but now precarious institution of marriage. Saturday, November 29, 2003
If elected, it would be a case of worst coming to worst Celtic musician Ashley MacIsaac says he's running for federal politics as an Independent in the next election in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The Halifax Herald reports that MacIsaac doesn't think he'll win on his first try but hopes to pick up political experience. But it isn't his lack of political experience but his person history including publicly admitting a urination fetish that prevent him from getting elected. I hope. All roads lead to freedom While not quite but at least those that do will get you there faster. Yesterday marked the eighth anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the bill to end the 55 mph federal speed limit. Some have complained that the increased speed limits have endangered lives. The Cato Institute's Stephen Moore shows otherwise. And not only are higher speed limits safer, they are more effecient: "We also found that there were huge economic savings to motorists and commuters from higher speed limits is between $3 and $6 billion a year. Motorists saved approximately 250 million man hours thanks to higher speed limits." The Citizen on Manley's unwelcome in Martin's cabinet Finance Minister John Manley will not run for re-election and will likely be appointed ambassador to the United States. While the appointment was referred to as a plumb post by one of the Toronto dailies, it is, in fact, a step down from his high perch in Chretien's cabinet. The reason Manley is probably not seeking re-election is to spare himself the embarrassment of not being appointed to a similarly senior post by soon-to-be Prime Minister Paul Martin. The Ottawa Citizen editorializes: "... it's not a good sign when our next prime minister doesn't seem to want to retain a man of Mr. Manley's calibre in his cabinet. There's surely no question about Mr. Manley's abilities. In 1993, when he was handed the Industry portfolio with half the budget of his predecessor, Mr. Manley showed his mettle by shifting the department from being a clearinghouse for public subsidies to shaky enterprises to encouraging Canadian businesses to be more competitive. As Foreign Affairs minister, while other ministers waffled or indulged in blame-America posturing in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Mr. Manley was a voice of realism, reminding Canadians that freedom must be earned every day. Likewise, as chairman of cabinet committees on public security and the co-ordinator of Canada's international response to terrorism, he demonstrated he was no treacly preacher of soft power. As finance minister, Mr. Manley was unfortunate to take the reins as the global economy went into a downturn. Even so, he was a fiscal conservative surrounded by instinctive spendthrifts, working for a prime minister who seemed to want to spend his way to a legacy. Yet as deputy prime minister he kept a calm hand on the transition tiller while Mr. Chretien continued his long farewell." I disagree with the notion that Manley is a fiscal conservative but he is clearly more fiscally responsible than his Liberal colleagues. But he was clearly one of the more capable federal cabinet ministers in recent years. It is petty and political for Martin not to recognize his talents, thus driving him away, for the time being, elected politics. Bush and the common man While former President Bill Clinton often talked about the common man, whom was usually nothing more than a prop for whatever program the president was pushing at the time, President George W. Bush actually knows and likes the common man. Steven Hayward makes the point with a nice anecdote at No Left Turns: "I was having dinner at Morton’s on Connecticut Avenue in Washington in early October, 2001--less than a month after 9/11--when Bush showed up with a small entourage to have his first dinner out since 9/11. (I took it as a good sign that he came to Morton’s, where one is assured of a large cut of red meat.) The entire restaurant immediately rose to its feet and applauded, of course, and Bush waved in every direction. But instead of working the tables to shake hands with the self-appointed VIPs who habituate Morton’s, Bush went to . . . the kitchen, where he shook hands and greeted the wait staff and cooks at length. The man has a genuine common touch." Wisdom from Dr. Sowell Thomas Sowell has another of his Random Thoughts columns. Some nuggets: "A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half." "Do people who react negatively to the word 'profits' have any speck of evidence or any hint of logic to support their reaction? Or are they prepared to admit that they have been conditioned to react to sounds, much like Pavlov's dog?" "Giving leaders enough power to create 'social justice' is giving them enough power to destroy all justice, all freedom, and all human dignity." "Most people who read 'The Communist Manifesto' probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers." Similar offspring of inherited wealth have repeatedly provided the leadership of radical movements, with similar pretenses of speaking for 'the people'." "You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing." "One of the reasons psychology is so popular on the left may be that it enables them to do an end run around facts and logic, and attribute other people's disagreements with them to unworthy motives or irrational drives." "Whenever people talk glibly of a need to achieve educational 'excellence,' I think of what an improvement it would be if our public schools could just achieve mediocrity." You might be an Islamic moderate if ... In a Jerusalem Post column earlier this week, Daniel Pipes proposes some useful questions to help determine if self-proclaimed moderate Muslims are truly moderate: * Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida? * Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West? * Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way? * Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice? * Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings? * Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias? * Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?" Pipes says these questions must be asked publicly. This seems to be a move away from Pipes' recent move toward no longer distinguishing radical Islamofacism from moderate and mainstream Islam. Or perhaps he knows that few Muslims will answer these questions satisfactorily if they are answered honestly. More Larry Spencer fallout The Globe and Mail reports that Progressive Conservative MP John Herron (Fundy-Royal)says that he will not join the new Conservative Party of Canada if the PCs and Canadian Alliance approve a merger plan in early December. Herron said "The only type of party that can contend is a party that is centrist, moderate and progressive." The problem is, we have one of those and it is in government. What Herron wants is a slightly different version of the governing Liberals when what Canada needs is a radically different vision of where this country should be headed. Potential future target of regime change disapproves of US policy in Iraq The Associated Press reports that Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari has criticized the US presence in Iraq and praised the terrorists attacking American targets in Iraq as resistance fighters. Yes, Syria is run by Ba'athists and is the pre-eminent sponsor and enabler of terrorism in the world today. But then wouldn't you go out of your way to not antagonize America when it is sitting by your door-step? Friday, November 28, 2003
Some praise for Bush New York Post columnist Deborah Orin on President George W. Bush's visit to Baghdad: "There was no better way for President Bush to show a commander in chief's support for his troops than to put himself at risk and fly to Iraq, knowing full well that he's the No. 1 target for Saddam Hussein's thugs. Bush's top-secret morale mission was also a boost for the Iraqi Governing Council - in Baghdad the president met with four council members as well as Baghdad's mayor and City Council - and a firm message that America will stay the course." Great news for British conservatives A YouGov poll published in Friday's Daily Telegraph shows that the Michael Howard's Tories have a slight lead over Tony Blair's Labour Party. The Tories lead Labour 38%-36% with the Liberal Democrats garnering a mere 19%. The poll also found that 59% of respondents disapprove of the Blair government's overall record and 65% believe it is not trustworthy. These are all good numbers (if you're a Tory or simply an opponent of Blairite government) and may be a sign of trouble for Blair who is now disliked by not just the far left of his own party and most Tories, but the general public. Andrew Gimson, writing in today's Telegraph, says the reason that the public now supports the Tories is new leader Michael Howard, the anti-Blair: "We admire him [Howard], or may come to admire him, because he is tough and intelligent and may, unlike Mr Blair, have the detachment needed to judge which matters need his personal attention and which can be left to colleagues. His reputation for nastiness is one of the most valuable things about him. It means that when, as he did this week, he attacks the Government's monstrous plan to take away the children of asylum seekers, he cannot be accused of weakness. He has the strength to say the decent and civilised thing. We look to him for plain speaking, not for feelgood blather." The British public now can see through Blair's charm and realize their isn't much else. Howard's rather dull leadership forces the public to see his competence and consider his ideas. And as they do, they take Howard -- and the Conservatives -- seriously. Going after Bush The media will feign hating Bush's trip to Baghdad but really they love it because it gives yet another chance to attack him. Dana Millbank, a reporter who does a pretty good imitation of a columnist in the Washington Post, says that "While the troops cheered the moment, it is too soon to know whether the image of Bush in his Army jacket yesterday will become a symbol of strong leadership or a symbol of unwarranted bravado." Most of the rest of the column predicts that it will be an "unwarranted bravado" verdict. Some children are more equal than others As the National Post reported yesterday, Israel withdrew its resolution condemning the killing of innocent Israeli children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just weeks after the United Nations passed a resolution condemning the killing of Palestinian children. The "automatic majority" (read: anti-Israeli majority) consisting of mostly Arab and African countries, altered the wording of the resolution to remove any reference to Israeli children and Israel thus withdrew its resolution. Dan Gillerman, Israeli ambassador to the UN, said "Today we lifted the veil and exposed the true face of the UN General Assembly." He said that the resolution, the first Israel has introduced in the General Assembly since 1976, was a test to see if the UN would give the same value to the life of an Israeli child as it did a Palestinian child. The Post reports that "As he withdrew the proposal, Mr. Gillerman said the UN 'had failed'." The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee has a column that examines the context of this recent outrage to illustrate that one should not be surprised at the opposition to Israel's resolution. After all, there has been persistent persecution of Israel at the UN since 1967. Gee says: "All of this has consequences. As a result of its consistent prejudice against Israel, the United Nations has played no substantial role in the effort to make peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Any time anyone suggests a UN intervention in the dispute, Israel quite understandably protests. How could it possibly trust the UN to supervise an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, for example?" The UN has made itself irrelevant to the Middle East peace process by clearly taking sides in the conflict. Furthermore, most of Israel's neighbours have demonstrated that they are not bargaining in good faith when they have consistently used the UN to badger Israel over every single little thing and utterly failed to even condemn the murder of Israeli children. This week's tragicomedy at the UN has shown not just the insanity of the international agency but the futility of proceeding with any sort of peace process at this time. Who in their right mind makes peace with countries that won't even condemn the killing of children? Cosh on head-in-the-sand politicians Colby Cosh has a column in the National Post that he indicates in his blog he not happy about, concerning the Larry Spencer controversy. The point of his column is that older people (grandpas, in his phraseology) have views that perhaps we should understand comes with their age. It is condescending and, frankly, a lame attempt to be funny. However, in his blog today, Cosh makes a serious point about the feigned upset of Tory leader Peter MacKay: "Peter Mackay inadvertently confirmed yesterday how insane our approach to these little dustups is: 'I'm shocked, frankly, that a person would have those thoughts, let alone express them in such a fashion,' he said. Q: is Peter Mackay a retard? He's shocked that anyone could contemplate proscribing homosexuality by law, despite having been born in a country where it was illegal. He's shocked that an old man confused by the rapid acceptance of gay sex would be attracted to nutty explanations for it, or that anyone would believe homosexuality is inculcated by nurture rather than nature, which was a near-universal belief until about last week. Sorry, I call bullshit. This is not a case of being 'shocked': this is a case of a country, and a political class, having arrived at a certain moral position and trying to secure it by pretending that things were always this way. It's a Year Zero mentality that ought to embarrass anyone going by the Conservative label." Torrance on the art of gift-giving Brainwash arts and culture editor Kelly Torrance writes about what are proper considerations when purchasing gifts for loved ones at this time of year. It is worth reading but two considerations for those who are too busy to read the whole column, perhaps because they're waiting in lines purchasing gifts or hopelessly roaming malls in search of the perfect gift. First, a truism: "It can be hard to buy for people when you don’t have access to their bookshelf or CD collection." And secondly, some advice: "Then there is the urge to buy culturally uplifting gifts. I find this impulse comes most often when shopping for children. Your nephew may want the latest and greatest Buzz Lightyear toy. But wouldn’t it be better to buy him a classic book? ... I don’t buy my cousins books merely because I think reading is good for them. There must be an expectation that the gift will bring delight. I think everyone should be listening to classical music, but I’m not going to buy my teenaged cousin Bartok’s String Quartets. You don’t buy people gifts you think they should have. That’s self-centered and not what Christmas is about." Selective intolerance As far as I know, there are no calls for Liberal MP David Kilgour to be removed his party's caucus or from Jean Chretien's sub-cabinet, despite a CanWest report (via the Calgary Herald) that he did not show up for a vote against same-sex marriage earlier this fall because he thinks legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to increased suicides among homosexuals and the legalization of polygamy and incest. (Actually, he didn't show up for the vote because he believed these things but didn't want to be dumped from the cabinet because he supported an opposition motion. Obviously he is not a candidate for a Canadian version of profiles in courage.) The news of Kilgour's views became public the day after Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer resigned as his party's family issues critic and then from the caucus after linking homosexuality and pedophilia, and saying there was a conspiracy among homosexualists to "seduce and recruit" young boys. CA leader Stephen Harper condemned the comments and accepted Spencer's resignation, Tory leader Peter MacKay, former Tory leader Joe Clark and potential Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidate Scott Brison all condemned Spencer, and NDP MP and homosexual activist Svend Robinson said Spencer should not be welcomed back into either the CA caucus or the House of Commons. Selective tolerance Clayton Cramer blogs about tolerance as practiced in today's universities: "...this idea that all belief systems are equally valid only applies to ideas such as 'homosexuality is just like being heterosexual,' 'children have a right to have sex with adults,' 'meat is murder,' but not to ideas such as 'abortion is murder,' 'homosexuality is wrong,' and 'George Bush is trying to do something good in Iraq.' These are ideas so outside the pale that they cannot be tolerated, much less seriously examined or considered." I'm not going all George F. Will on you Thomas Boswell, the Christy Matthewson of sports writing, has a great column in the Washington Post on the late Warren Spahn. Boswell says "The man who may have crafted the greatest pitching career in baseball's modern era is gone." The secret to Spahn's success, in Spahn's words, is this: "Hitting is timing. Pitching is destroying timing." Boswell says that the reason we -- society in general and baseball fans in particular -- are not taking note of Spahn's passing is that he played most of his career in Milwaukee (for the Braves, not the Brewers, silly) and not New York. Correct the error ard read Boswell's column. Man is not responsible for every extinction Sorry to all the animal rights types but nature is very brutish and animals are often very nasty to one another. Yes, some animals will go extinct even without man's interference because animals sometimes kill other animals. The Los Angeles Times reports on a study that suggests man shoot to kill protected Golden Eagles to protect a rare sub-species of fox on Santa Cruz island. Good news for Canadian conservatives William Gairdner's essays are now online. While I'm not really for finding the next conservative leader from outside the realm of federal politics, here's a thought: lets start a draft William Gairdner campaign to lead the new Conservative Party. I'll post more extensively on this (his new website) later but his essays are worth reading. Update on General Clark's reaction to the Bush Baghdad visit The AFP characterized retired General Wesley Clark's reaction to President George W. Bush's cloak and dagger (and inspirational) visit to Iraq thusly: "Some critics, including the presidential campaign of retired general Wesley Clark, said the brevity and cloak-and-dagger nature of the visit -- which the White House sold as a morale-booster -- actually showed how little Washington has accomplished in Iraq since taking control in April." The story also rebuts the criticism of those who say there has been no liberal criticism of Bush's visit because it features Condi Rice's "defence" of the president. It was just a matter of time for the complaining to start Criticism of President George W. Bush spending time with the troops in Baghdad, that is. A biggie from The Independent, which, in a news story, slams the visit as a campaign turkey. (The headline: "The turkey has landed.") The trip to the Iraqi capital, the paper reported, "was clearly calculated to burnish Mr. Bush's image as he prepares for a re-election campaign that will be overshadowed by violence in Iraq and the rising toll of American casualties." Clearly to who? There was no source saying, "Hey, this is meant to burnish the president's image before the 2004 presidential campaign." The complaint that the visit was political -- a gimmick to get people to forget his carrier landing last spring and the violence that has plagued the mission since -- wouldn't be viewed as political if Bush's opponents didn't make it so. Second, the paper condemned Bush for misleading his wife, his secret service detail, his parents and the American people by telling reporters that he would be in Crawford for Thanksgiving. But do people really expect him to tell the media of his plans to go to Baghdad but trust them to keep it a secret? Obviously, going to Iraq required discretion. And what did Iraqis think? The Independent found one and called him "some Iraqis," reporting "Some Iraqis were unimpressed. 'To hell with Bush,' said Mohammed al-Jubouri. 'He is another Mongol in a line of invaders who have destroyed Iraq'." Obviously this man has no sense of history. Does he know what the Mongols did in Baghdad in the 1300 and 1500s? Not that you had to go to England's trendy lefty paper to find people complain about Bush's visit. Opinion Journal's James Taranto has a nice list at his Best of the Web feature. Included is a media line and the reaction of Democrats. The Assoicated Press (via the Salt Lake Tribune) reported: "In a ruse staged in the name of security, White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan put out word Wednesday -- unknowingly, she said later -- that Bush would be spending Thanksgiving in Texas with his wife, Laura, his parents and other family members. She even announced the dinner menu." This goes in the Bush lied category of criticism of the presidential visit. There was some of this on talk radio today. The New York Times reported the reactions of the Demcratic presidential candidates, none of which was very supportive (perhaps, save for Senator Joseph Lieberman and retired General Wesley Clark). Most of them took the opportunity to say something ambiguous about the gesture but go on to attack Bush's Iraq policy (including some of those that voted for the 2002 Senate resolution authorizing force be used). But isn't using the visit as an opportunity to attack the president's Iraq policy as political as going to Baghdad in the first place? If not more so? Changing TV viewing habits David P. Janes blogs at Ranting and Roaring about how first run TV viewing may be less important than the subsequent DVD sales. This is probably true and it is nice to watch Family Guy or Buffy or whatever at your convenience, but it reduces yet even more that which falls under the category of things Americans, Canadians or whoever do together -- as much as having 40 million people watch ER at one time counts as community. Matthew Parris gets it all wrong about the 'debate' Writing in The Spectatorabout the possibility of working for porn peddler Richard Desmond, Matthew Parris talks about his disagreements with Conrad Black: "Well, maybe. I could argue that support for the policies of the state of Israel, urged by the present proprietor of the Telegraph (and of this magazine), is doing more real harm in the world than anything attempted by Mr Desmond. Lord Black of Crossharbour could argue that it is my own beliefs on the Middle East which are pernicious. He might also (if reports we hear of his personal opinions are to be believed) privately think me a man of dubious moral judgment because I am openly homosexual and encourage others to be open too. And I might consider such opinions crazy. And where would it end? In lively, even angry, debate, one would hope — and no more." Now, this brings me to something that has long bothered me: the idea that talking about issues suffices. If a debate is to ensue, is the purpose of the debate to merely let off steam or even just to exchange ideas -- "and no more"? Or is the idea of the debate to change minds, to persuade others? Currently in Canada the debate over the united right has focussed on a central theme, what role for social conservatives? Most (but not all) conservatives agree that so-cons should be allowed a place at the table. Thanks, but that's hardly enough. So-cons want more than a chance to air grievances. Sit around the table, yes, have a lively discussion but social conservatives must have the opportunity to persuade others that their favoured policies deserve a chance to be put in front of the voters. Freedom of speech isn't protecting and cherished because it provides a chance to vent; it is important because any democratic government that matters is a deliberative democracy where ideas are honestly exchanged and the most persuasive side wins. Matthew Parris gets it all wrong about the 'debate' Writing in The Spectatorabout the possibility of working for porn peddler Richard Desmond, Matthew Parris talks about his disagreements with Conrad Black: "Well, maybe. I could argue that support for the policies of the state of Israel, urged by the present proprietor of the Telegraph (and of this magazine), is doing more real harm in the world than anything attempted by Mr Desmond. Lord Black of Crossharbour could argue that it is my own beliefs on the Middle East which are pernicious. He might also (if reports we hear of his personal opinions are to be believed) privately think me a man of dubious moral judgment because I am openly homosexual and encourage others to be open too. And I might consider such opinions crazy. And where would it end? In lively, even angry, debate, one would hope — and no more." Now, this brings me to something that has long bothered me: the idea that talking about issues suffices. If a debate is to ensue, is the purpose of the debate to merely let off steam or even just to exchange ideas -- "and no more"? Or is the idea of the debate to change minds, to persuade others? Currently in Canada the debate over the united right has focussed on a central theme, what role for social conservatives? Most (but not all) conservatives agree that so-cons should be allowed a place at the table. Thanks, but that's hardly enough. So-cons want more than a chance to air grievances. Sit around the table, yes, have a lively discussion but social conservatives must have the opportunity to persuade others that their favoured policies deserve a chance to be put in front of the voters. Freedom of speech isn't protecting and cherished because it provides a chance to vent; it is important because any democratic government that matters is a deliberative democracy where ideas are honestly exchanged and the most persuasive side wins. A regime change global tour In The Spectator, Mark Steyn lists five countries that should be introduced to new governments courtesy of Uncle Sam ASAP: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and North Korea. Where's France? Anyway, as Steyn says: "Profound changes in the above countries would not necessarily mean the end of the war on terror, but it would be pretty close. It would remove terrorism’s most brazen patron (Syria), its ideological inspiration (the prototype Islamic Republic of Iran), its principal paymaster (Saudi Arabia), a critical source of manpower (Sudan) and its most potentially dangerous weapons supplier (North Korea)." And France, the terror-defending obstructionist at the UN. But what about when they take their sexy shoes off? As a caller who phoned into the John Moore show (CFRB in Toronto) said yesterday, "women want to add breast, remove toes and be taken seriously for their minds." The impetus for the comment and proof that the last item (being take seriously for their minds) is highly suspect, is found in the National Post which reported yesterday on "fashion oriented" professional women who have surgery on their feet to fit into stylish high heel shoes. For some, surgery includes toe shortening. So while some may wonder whether the foot will be as sexy once the shoes are slipped off perhaps a better question for the fashion fadists is this: what will they do when the fashion changes and, say, sandals or open-toed shoes are back in? Idiot Hall of Fame It's been a while since I have had the pleasure to induct someone into the Idiot Hall of Fame but this morning, the latest honouree jumped off the front page of the Globe and Mail. Shawna Richer reports that Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 51 in Moncton is defending George Pavlovsky. I can't improve upon Richer's narrative, so here it is: "The City of Moncton thinks that showing up drunk at work toting a loaded, sawed-off shotgun in search of the boss is a firing offence. The city's union disagrees. Seven days after George Pavlovsky was fired from his job as a senior tree cutter with the City of Moncton, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 51 filed a grievance to his employer challenging the dismissal. That would be normal procedure by a union in most cases, but Mr. Pavlovksy's was far different from most cases. The details were recounted during his trial this month. The 44-year-old arrived at the Moncton Public Works Operation Centre on April 10 extremely intoxicated and carrying a sawed-off shotgun and a handgun. He was looking for two senior managers. The two were not in their offices, but in meetings at the time. As he stormed through the sprawling operations centre, his two dozen co-workers ran for cover or fled the building. Mr. Pavlovksy was acquitted of attempted murder charges related to the incident and is now serving a two-year sentence in Dorchester Penitentiary for the lesser weapons-related offence of carrying a loaded gun for the purpose of committing a crime. He is hoping to get his job back when he is released. 'Certainly it is shocking,' said Susan Barton, a spokeswoman for Local 51, of Mr. Pavlovsky's actions. 'But Mr. Pavlovsky is a CUPE member and has a right to representation. We have a duty to represent him. There are mitigating factors and extenuating circumstances and we'll have to look at the facts of the case'." The Globe story continues. But by now one clearly understands that CUPE Local 51 is collectively a bona fide Idiot Hall of Famer. It is also crystal clear why Canadians hate unions. More to give thanks for Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe: give thanks to capitalism: "But it probably won't occur to too many of us to give thanks for the fact that the local supermarket had plenty of turkey for sale this week. Even the devout aren't likely to thank God for airline schedules that made it possible for some of those loved ones to fly home for Thanksgiving. Or for the arrival of 'Master and Commander' at the local movie theater in time for the holiday weekend. Or for that great cranberry-apple pie recipe in the food section of the newspaper. Those things we take more or less for granted. It hardly takes a miracle to explain why grocery stores stock up on turkey before Thanksgiving, or why Hollywood releases big movies in time for big holidays. That's what they do. Where is God in that? And yet, isn't there something wondrous -- something almost inexplicable -- in the way your Thanksgiving weekend is made possible by the skill and labor of vast numbers of total strangers?" Remember Adam Smith, who said it wasn't due to the goodwill of the butcher and baker that we eat, but their self-interest. A belated happy Thanksgiving. And happy Capitalism. Guns don't kill people so gun control doesn't save them Fraser Institute study on gun control (The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales) shows what honest people already know: gun control doesn't work. For those who don't want to read the whole study, there is the press release. Gary Mauser, professor of business at Simon Fraser University and the study's author, says "The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect on total criminal violence." Proof that the US is winning in Iraq Michael Graham on President George W. Bush's visit to Baghdad: "What can President Bush do in Baghdad that Saddam Hussein can't? Appear in public. If that doesn't send a message to the Ba'athists and their would-be allies, I don't know what does." (Via The Corner) Manley to quit politics The Globe and Mail reports that Finance Minister John Manley is going to quit politics rather than see himself demoted within the future Paul Martin cabinet. The Globe reports that Manley's quick rise within the Chretien cabinet was due to his "being quietly competent." It was so quiet that one hardly even detects any competency. Thursday, November 27, 2003
NDP can still be called NDP but I have other names for them The NDP rump sitting as the third place party in the Ontario legislature have won the right to be recognized by their party name rather than as independents. They are stuck, however, with their same old polices. Bush in Baghdad What a great surprise that President George W. Bush dropped in to see the troops in Iraq today. Here is his speech to the troops. Consider, however, this line: "Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country." He, and they, take that oath seriously. Which is why he, and they, are in Iraq. President Bush on Thanksgiving From President George W. Bush's Thanksgiving Proclamation: "America is a land of abundance, prosperity, and hope. We must never take for granted the things that make our country great: a firm foundation of freedom, justice, and equality; a belief in democracy and the rule of law; and our fundamental rights to gather, speak, and worship freely. These liberties do not come without cost. Throughout history, many have sacrificed to preserve our freedoms and to defend peace around the world. Today, the brave men and women of our military continue this noble tradition. These heroes and their loved ones have the gratitude of our Nation. On this day, we also remember those less fortunate among us. They are our neighbors and our fellow citizens, and we are committed to reaching out to them and to all of those in need in our communities. This Thanksgiving, we again give thanks for all of our blessings and for the freedoms we enjoy every day. Our Founders thanked the Almighty and humbly sought His wisdom and blessing. May we always live by that same trust, and may God continue to watch over and bless the United States of America." To Whom we give thanks Lest we forget, Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation of 1863 reminds us that we give thanks to God for our many blessings: "No human counsel hath devised not hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People." Interesting quote "Speaking just for myself, I don't like marriage. I prefer the old-fashioned ideal of monogamous free love, not that it worked out particularly well in my case." -- Katha Pollitt writing about opposition to same-sex marriage in the current The Nation. On critics At About Last Night, Terry Teachout blogs about reading a critic's appraisal of a play (or whatever) before seeing it for oneself. There are some good comments, but his are the comments of a critic. ("Above all, try to trust yourself, to feel what you feel, not what you think you ought to feel.") An email from a reader says: "I don't agree completely with your point about reading a critic only after the performance. If you've followed a critic for any substantial length of time, you know with some precision where your tastes and his intersect and where they diverge. You know his enthusiasms, his antipathies, his idiosyncrasies. In short, you can often tell from what he thinks of a work whether or not you're going to like it. In this way, he can be quite useful to you as a consumer guide. And reliable guidance about what is worth seeing or reading is essential, for how is the ordinary guy (who doesn't have the time or resources to make many mistakes) to know which new novelist to pick up or which new cabaret performer to seek out without the help of his favorite critics?" So it comes down to this: if you read criticism to better understand a play, book, movie, art exhibit, opera, etc..., read the criticism afterwards. If you read a (trusted) critic to help determine what to see, read, etc..., obviously you would read such criticism beforehand. The Left wants to re-fight past elections but it won't do its fact-checking first To illustrate how loony the Left is, we're talking about the British Left (The Independent) and the 2000 US presidential election. In a story about Rep. Katherine Harris (R, FL) potentially running for the GOP Senate nomination next year, The Independent introduces Harris thusly: "once called the 'power bitch' for her pivotal role as Florida's secretary of state in handing the state, and therefore the Presidency itself, to George Bush in the 2000 balloting debacle." Bush was elected and it was Harris's job as secretary of state to ensure that the ballots were counted properly (i.e. according to the law dictates not how the Gore campaign or CNN wanted them counted). The Independent is expected to be wrong on such interpretation of the news when they get such elementary facts such as Harris's current job wrong; the paper reports that her position of secretary of state is term-limited next year so she will likely run for the Senate, seemingly unaware of the fact that Harris was elected to Congress last year. Quote of the day "The sounds of an uninhibited society are a lot like whining." -- David Gelernter in today's Opinion Journal in column on Dr. Raymond Damadian campaigning to have himself included in the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his role in developing the MRI. Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Don't homosexuals already have a parade of their own? Openly homosexual and cross-dressing Harvey Fierstein will be playing Mrs. Claus in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York and I typically wouldn't care too much but for the big deal that Mr. Fierstein makes about it. Writing in the New York Times, he says, "tomorrow, to the delight of millions of little children (not to mention the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), the Santa in New York's great parade will be half of a same-sex couple." Fierstein is, presumably, the other half. To hijack both the Thanksgiving parade and Santa's wife for the homosexual cause is just plain insane. Fierstein's column in the Times says, in a nutshell, that Santa would approve of same-sex marriage because Santa brings joy and happiness to people. Earth to Harvey: Santa isn't real. But then again, same-sex marriage isn't really marriage. The UN says to Iran, 'Stop or I'll say stop again!' The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution "censuring" Iran for carrying on its clandestine nuclear weapons program for 18 years. Way to go International Atomic Energy Agency for being on top of things. The Associated Press story reports, "Adopted by consensus, the resolution warns against 'further serious Iranian failures,' saying that could lead the board to consider actions allowed by its statute — shorthand for UN Security Council action." So apparently, all Iran has to fear is a strenuous debate in the Security Council before France offers its protection through its all powerful veto. Rules are meant to be broken The Independent reports that France and Germany will not suffer any fines for breaking European Union euro rules about persistent budget deficits. The rules imposing fines (of 0.5% of GDP) for running deficits in consecutive years was suspended for promises of fiscal responsibility by the two habitual fiscally irresponsibe countries. Star on need for crime inquiry The headline and subhead in today's Toronto Star news article on crime in Toronto: "Guns rule streets? Stats beg to differ: Long-term trend casts doubt on police claims but incomplete data make inquiry worth considering." The headline on the Star's editorial: "With crime down, inquiry not needed." Paulitics update Lots of stuff from Kentucky (Congress), California (Senate), Vermont (Governor), Iowa (primaries) and more. Get the US out of the UN The Freedom Alliance reports that the United Nations General Assembly votes against the United States most of the time. Some staggering figures: * 114 members of the Non-aligned Movement voted against U.S. supported positions 78 percent of the time. This group includes all the world’s dictatorships and terrorist states. It considers Cuba’s Castro, Libya’s Gadhafi and Syria’s Assad heroes. * The 22 members of the League of Arab States voted against U.S. supported positions 83 percent of the time. * The 56 members of the Islamic Conference voted against U.S. supported positions 79 percent of the time. * The 53 members of the African Union voted against U.S. supported positions 80 percent of the time. When Europeans and North American liberals talk about multilateralism, they know it is a method by which they can prevent America from pursuing its national interest. These figures proves as much. Scrappleface on 8.2% quarterly economic growth Satirical blog Scrappleface on the Democrats worst nightmare -- a booming economy. So they send out the spin machine, led by Democrat National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe: "'The economy is swelling like a tsunami out at sea,' said Mr. McAuliffe, 'and unless we increase tax rates fast, it will flood the stock market with buy orders, and a shockwave of consumer confidence will ripple across this great land. We must take action now to stop this or millions of Americans will be doomed to another four years of George Bush's failed economic policies'." Lesser moments in gotcha journalism The media is now fishing far and wide for angles to attack Conrad Black. On the weekend, the Globe and Mail took another couple shots at the newspaper baron. One article criticizes Hollinger's purchase of $8 million (American!) worth of "cherished documents relating to Franklin Delano Roosevelt" which the reporters (it took three of them) implied were Black's private luxury by immediately linking the aforementioned purchase to the fact that FDR is "the subject of a recently published biography written by none other than Lord Black" -- the fantastic Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom. But the papers are historical documents and an investment and adorn corporate headquarters, not Black's private residence, as a piece of art would. Not guilty on charge number one. Another angle the media has taken over the past week is that Black is wrong to be promoting his book while the controversy of under-documented expenses (as one friend put it) rages. The fact is, it is admirable that Black continued with his book tour in Toronto and New York despite the controversy. Why stop living his life, including getting the word out on a project that took four years to complete? Charge number two, thrown out for its irrelevance. But this leads us to another complaint: why work on the book for four years during which what are thought to be dubious business practices are closely examined? To which there is no better reply than, "why not?" The Globe continues with, "but why?" The Globe reports that "Lord Black spent four years writing the book, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, with the help of three Hollinger staffers. He received an advance of nearly $75,000, according to his publisher, New York-based Public Affairs Books, which has printed 60,000 copies for sale. A journalist who also did research for the book, Adam Daifallah, who is on the editorial board of the National Post, said on his website that the book is destined to be a hit because "these elephantine tomes on dead white men seem to sell like hotcakes." This has absolutely nothing to do with the current corporate controversy, but reporters are now groping for an angle in which to assail Black. The reporters find this incriminating evidence on Adam Daifallah's website which proves ... what exactly? Nothing but that Daifallah did some research for the FDR biography and says so on his blog. They imply but do not offer evidence that Daifallah worked for Hollinger (as opposed to Black). And Daifallah thinks that the FDR book will be a success. Somehow the reporters consider this relevant, but it is hardly damning evidence of whatever transgression they want to convict Black. Charge number three: not guilty due to lack of evidence of wrong-doing and lack of evidence that the wrong-doing was wrong. Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Government mostly responsible for sky-high cost of living in New York Regulation, not the cost of land, is the primary reason housing is so expensive in Manhattan according to three scholars who have studied the housing market there ( Edward L. Glaeser (Harvard), Joseph Gyourko (U of Penn), and Raven Saks (Harvard)). If you have time for the 52-page study and are interested in the horrendous costs of regulation in general, this is required reading. (Via Econlog.) Regulation doesn't account for all the exorbitant costs, of course. Many more millionaires competing for luxury property (than elsewhere) has a trickle down effect that raises the cost of property throughout the city. But the authors have a point, even if it is over-stated. Quote of the day "The older I get, the more distance I try to put between myself and anyone who lacks a sense of humor." -- Terry Teachout, about Joni Mitchell, on his blog About Last Night. BTW, Chronicles is almost as bad as TAC Srdja Trifkovic, in his Chronicles online column on Richard Perle says that Perle is a Clintonista. This is almost as bad as The American Conservative [sic] (December 1, not yet online) making the case that President George W. Bush is not a conservative. (Medicare bill notwithstanding.) International law is an ass Chronicles gets the vapours when Richard Perle says international law got in the war of prosecuting the war on terror. To Chronicles types (namely, Srdja Trifkovic), this is evidence that the US liberation of Iraq was illegal. To others, such as Richard Perle, the administration and those who cherish western civilization, its proof that international law gets in the way of prosecuting the war on terror. Where's Paul Martin? On the blogosphere. No entries since October 19. It will be an exciting progression in the world o' blogging when an actual leader instead of someone merely vying for votes blogs seriously. Not necessarily a good thing, just an exciting thing. For now, Paul Martin is busy evading difficult policy questions. Thanksgiving for freedom The Adam Smith Institute's Dr. Madsen Pirie blogs thankfully despite the fact he is not an American: "The Adam Smith Institute celebrates Thanksgiving, although we are not a US outfit. We do it traditionally. The directors, who are no longer young, cook a meal for the staff, who still are. New England clam chowder is followed, as expected, by turkey with cranberry sauce and sweet potatoes, and then by pumpkin pie. After this for some strange reason we all watch 'Mickey's Christmas Carol' and then the most junior gets to decorate the Christmas tree, while others hurl abuse at the incompetent mess they are making of it. Decanters of Port and Madeira are passed round. A small bust of Thomas Jefferson decorates the table, and we toast Adam Smith's 'Peace and low taxes,' as always. We also give thanks, as the Pilgrim Fathers did, for our safe delivery from tyranny and persecution. In particular we thank Ronald Reagan, who helped lift the threat of totalitarian socialism from the world, along with the risk of imminent nuclear annihilation. And we remember Lady Thatcher, who did so much to free Britain from state planning and the power of the labour unions. This is how we do it. It would be entirely appropriate, though, if people from the newly-freed countries of Eastern and Central Europe spared a moment to remember, and to thank, the two leaders to whom they owe so much." "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain." Boston Braves pitching great Warren Spahn, the winningest left-hander in baseball history is dead at the age of 82. Washington Post has a good obit. Numbers don't say it all but they say a lot: 362-245 record, 3.09 ERA, 14 National League All-Star appearances, four World Series, two no-hitters. Cell phone etiquette John Stone writes in TechCentralStation on "beyond cell phone etiquette" with 10 simple rules for using the cursed contraption. #7: "Avoid at all costs speaking on intimate or hygiene-related topics (even in a whisper)." And, relatedly, #9: "Consider the holding of private conservations in public as a fluke of technology and as a morally suspect privilege. In other words, never feel entitled to speak about anything in a stranger's presence; your words are so much noise pollution to be controlled, regulated and hushed." The case for the war in Iraq in pictures Remember 'Not in my name' protestors? Well, we did not liberate Iraq in their name. A website with dozens of photos of the mass graves and the family members of Saddam's victims. (Via Tim Blair) Of all the promises to keep Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has broken (altered?) nearly every promise he made during the election campaign. That's generally a good thing because 1) he promised policies that would be harmful to Ontario and 2) his string of broken promises are unlikely to endear him to the electorate. That said, what promise has McGuinty kept? The one about raising taxes. The Fraser Institute's director of Ontario Policy Studies, Mark Mullins has some thoughts about that: "Their first move — Bill 1! — is to increase the cost of doing business with a tax increase. Yes, this was a campaign promise, but we already know how many of those have been broken over the past six weeks of this government's short but exciting life." His Globe and Mail column goes on to say that raising taxes is not a noble goal for government but increasing jobs and generally improving the economy is. True enough (although barely enough). Raising taxes will work against this goal. The first rule of government should be the first rule of medicine: do no harm. The Penn is not mightier than the pen Editor and Publisher reports that it is possible but a long-shot that actor and Leftie activist Sean Penn could be "writing news dispatches from Iraq for the San Francisco Chronicle." The former Mr. Sharon Stone, Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein told E&P that reports in the current Entertainment Weekly saying that the actor might do some writing for the paper are not far-fetched and that indeed the two have talked. However, both are non-committal as Penn is now promoting a pair of movies. Recalling Penn's infantile screed against the war earlier this year (in the form of an ad in the New York Times), Sobering Thoughts suggests that instead of a pen and pad of paper, the former Mr. Madonna be equipped with crayons. Everything you wanted to know about Howard Dean Howard Dean: A Citizen's Guide to the Man Who Would Be President, edited by Dirk Van Susteren, is described by amazon.com as "filled with fresh information and keen new insights." But here's all we need to know about the former Vermont governor: he's too liberal for America and he's not up to the job. Abortion and Harry Potter Catholic Insight has a fascinating article by two doctors -- Marie Peeters-Ney and Philip G. Ney -- on how J.K. Rowling created a character (Harry Potter) to whom abortion surviviors can relate. (Abortion survivors are children within families where the mother has also had an abortion.) The authors go through the psychology of such children and the events in Harry's life and find that Rowlings "describes with great accuracy the world of the abortion survivors." Potter, they say "is the 'boy that lived,' although physically marked by the sign of death and wanted dead by a satanic figure." The article goes into a fair amount of detail but is, unfortunately, not available online. If you are interested in purchasing a copy of the December issue ($2 plus shipping and handling) or a getting a subcription ($32 per year), call CI at 416.204.9601 or catholic@catholicinsight.com. When Homer met Peter Hitchens Tony Blair may want to abolish Britain in place of Cool Britainia but the The Simpsons would have none of that. The Guardian has got Tony Blair's voice cameo on the Fox hit series covered and illustrates the point: "Ah, beefeaters. Aeons ago Mr Blair's pointy-heads declared that Britain needed a makeover to replace beefeaters and castles with hi-tech, Damien Hirst and Stella McCartney. That is more or less what he tells the Simpsons when they they arrive at Heathrow. ...'Why are you greeting low lifes like us?' asks Bart. 'Because I want to encourage Americans to come and see 21st century Britain,' replies George Bush's mate [Blair]. 'I can't believe we've just met Mr Bean,' says Homer as the PM jetpacks off to greet a Dutch couple at Gate 23. And that's it. A cameo role in which the former student actor and rock singer sounds as if he read his lines while doing something else. Homer, Marge and the kids go on to embrace a British world full of the very quaint and uncool images No 10 is so keen to shed. Castles, aristocratic gays, the Judi Dench fish and chip shop, Mary Poppins, and a brush with the Queen after Homer shunts her golden coach in his rented Mini Cooper." The good news is better than was thought For those on the Left who were hoping that the economy remained sluggish, last month's economic numbers were most unwelcome news: quarterly growth of 7.2%. But Bloomberg reports that the economy is growing faster than that and that the revised numbers include 8.2% growth for the last quarter ending in September. So the Left will now secretly wish for catastrophe in Iraq so that the Democrats have something to run on. Washington Times on sex-selection technologies The Washington Times has a thought-provoking editorial that puts a number of accepted truths (about new reproductive technologies) on their heads but which ultimately doesn't take a side. Instead, the paper urges a public debate on the issue. How one allegedly Islamaphobic cartoon gets more play than Muslim violence Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph on Johnny Hart's supposedly anti-Islamic cartoon: "Although I agreed of course that Islamophobic cartooning was the most pressing issue of the week, in my usual shallow way I'd become distracted by some of the day's more trivial stories - the 11 Hindus burnt alive by a Muslim gang in Bangladesh, the 13 Christian churches torched by Muslim rioters in the Nigerian town of Kazaure, and the 27 Turks and Britons murdered by Muslim terrorists in Istanbul. No dead Jews in that particular day's headlines, but otherwise a good haul of Hindus, Christians and, of course, Muslims. Every society has its ugly side: in America, the problem is stone-age cartoons; in Nigeria, it's stone-age - or stoning age - reality. But one can't help noticing that polysemic cartooning seems a notably ineffective way of stirring up anti-Muslim feeling, at least when one looks at preliminary statistics for Muslims murdered in America this Ramadan, compared with Muslims murdered in, say, Saudi Arabia and Turkey." If men can't talk about abortion because they're men... The Weekly Standard's Noemie Emery has a good column on how pro-abortion feminists ignore the reality of pro-life women (namely, that such a species exists). But in passing she raises a good question: if President George W. Bush can't discuss abortion because he's a man, why is Ted Kennedy allowed to do so? Emery asks, "Does Ted have a womb we don't know of?" The feminists' combination of excluding or dismissing women's voices when they are pro-life and giving credence to the views of those men whose opinions line up with the abortion orthodoxy, perfectly illustrates the close-mindedness of abortion advocates. And such close-mindedness is surely a sign that they are unable to defend their position; if they are confident that they are correct, why be afraid of opposing viewpoints? Its not either or Charley Reese, ertswhile columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, says is a rather silly syndicated column about same-sex marriage, that he doesn't see it as an all-that-important issue: "This is another of those inconsequential red-herring issues designed to distract you while the politicians steal the country right out from under you. You had better worry about why one euro costs $1.19 rather than whether two homosexuals can get a piece of paper at the county courthouse." But can't one be concerned about the dollar and gays getting married? Is our concern or our attention span that limited? Monday, November 24, 2003
Going after bin Laden half-heartedly Jonah Goldberg in The Corner on the offensiveness of General Wesley Clark's comments on the administration's seriousness about prosecuting the war on terror: "I caught a snippet of a Wesley Clark speech on C-Span last night. He was droning on about how we could find Osama Bin Laden 'if we really wanted to.' Imagine if you were a member of the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan and heard that Clark said that? He offered no proof, no evidence, nothing by way as support for his contention that the US is deliberately pulling it's punches in the effort. As usual, he just said it because he thought it sounded good." But it more than sounded good. No doubt that Clark's views, as offensive as they are, are not unique. Many of President George W. Bush's political opponents really think the War on Terror is secondary to the expansion of America's empire. Thus, many on the Left do think that the search for bin Laden is less vigorous than Bush would have us believe. No Whyte on Black A note on the opinion page of the Toronto Star says that the Ken Whyte column on Conrad Black is "not available." No word if it will ever by available. But the trip is cheap and the drinks are plenty It is disappointing to read in this morning's Toronto Star that long-time Ontario Tory MPP Bob Runciman recently vacationed in Cuba. Runciman, the gossipy Queen's Park Notebook feature reports, returned from Varadero where he reportedly enjoyed the "a taste of local rum" and "some well-rolled cigars." Sunday, November 23, 2003
Trading places With two former Canadian Football League commissioners (Larry Smith and John Tory) seriously considering running for the leadership of the new Conservative Party of Canada (assuming it goes ahead), it is only fair that Canadian Alliance MP Deborah Grey, who is retiring from politics after this term, has said she is interested in becoming the CFL's first woman commish. (Story was in the dead tree version of the Globe and Mail but I couldn't see it online.) When will the Left condemn terrorism against the West? Just a thought as I read this paragraph from Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column comparing President George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy and the concept of sons of bitches and our sons of bitches: "It would be nice to think the so-called 'progressives' of the left might find this a worthy project. Instead, in London, they waved their silly placards showing Bush and Blair drenched in blood, even as the real blood of the British consul-general and others had been spilled in Turkey that day." The key to survival For France's Jews is to hide this Jewishness. That's the advice from France's top rabbi. Ha'aretz reports: "The Chief Rabbi of France, Rabbi Joseph Sitruk, called on that country's Jewish community to wear baseball caps instead of skullcaps while not in their homes, in order 'to prevent being attacked in the street'." Oh, yes, civilized, decent Old Europe, home of the englightenment. A reason to read the Star Former National Post editor-in-chief Ken Whyte will appear in Monday's op-ed section of the Toronto Star, writing about his former boss, Conrad Black. Standing athwart the Brave New World yelling Stop! A good essay by Erwin W. Lutzer from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, warning about man's proclivity to play God. Lutzer frames the issue thusly: "We stand today at a crossroads where quite literally the future of the human race is at stake. I do not mean the survival of the human race, but something more sinister: the altering of the very concept of what it means to be human. The issue is not whether future generations shall live; the issue is what future people—if we call them such—shall be like." Modern man has an irrational faith in science and Lutzer warns that we must "refuse to accept the premise that whatever human beings can do scientifically should be done, especially if the identity of the human species is at stake." There is no discussion of ought if it has already been determined that we can. But there is a residue of Christian morality and the human conscience or sometimes just what Leon Kass calls the "yuck factor" rears its ugly, obsructionist head to raise concerns. That's why those who favour "progress," defined as going ahead with whatever science allows, must use evasive language. Lutzer notes that in doing so, "Morality will collapse into biology and ethics will be spoken of in purely clinical terms." Peter Kreeft says that if Christians want to win the culture wars they must just speak the truth. The same is true for those who are concerned about technologies that will fundamentally change who we are. The truth will not only set us free, it will keep us fully human. What if JFK was not assassinated Rush Limbaugh has said playing "what if" is for children. Well, there's an infantile column in The Independent by Robert Cornwell wondering what would have happened if JFK was not assassinated. He assumes that a Democrat would have won 1968 and thus there would be no Watergate and no Carter in '76. But he thinks Reagan would still be possible but there would have been no Nixonian "southern strategy" and thus no major realignment in American politics. This is silly. Cornwell's singular noteworthy observation is that the Bushes have replaced the Kennedys as the "most successful political dynasty" in America. But that probably wouldn't have happened either were it not for JFK's assassination. What ifs may be fun to read but they are utterly useless and teach us little if anything about history other than it would probably have been different. But it would have been different in ways that simply cannot be predicted. Torygraph will stay Tory The Observer reports the good news that Conrad Black has indicated it is highly unlikely he will sell the Daily Telegraph to pornography peddler and Express Newspapers owner Richard Desmond. Desmond's papers back Labour and the Telegraph has historically been a Tory paper. The Observer says Desmond talked to new Conservative leader Michael Howard and vowed to maintain the paper's pro-Tory editorial bent. Still, it is better not to risk it. The story also lists a number of other interested parties which seems to include almost anyone who already owns a paper in the United Kingdom who is not named Rupert Murdoch. The absurdity of public funding of campaigns George F. Will in today's Washington Post: "And because Dean can afford to spend more money, especially against Gephardt in Iowa, than is permitted by the absurd state-by-state spending limits that come with public funding. Yes, the government, that wizard of foreknowledge, knows exactly how much should be spent on political speech in each year in each state." Saturday, November 22, 2003
Lest we forget Chuck Colson reminds us that two others died on November 22, 1963: Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis. On the JFK assassination and conspiracy theories The Washington Post has an excellent column by Max Holland, a contributing editor to The Nation, on the persistence of conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy 40 years after his murder. The murder of Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald at the hands of Jack Ruby prevented Oswald from getting his day in court. This would have answered questions and allowed the country to "eventually come to terms" with the assassination. Holland correctly notes that "the right to due process is so cherished by Americans that when this ritual is denied, ineradicable doubt flourishes no matter how damning the state's case." Holland says that the "most widely accepted theory is that elements of the U.S. government, most conspicuously the CIA, were complicit in gunning down the 35th president in broad daylight." He says that the theory "reads like a script written by the KGB, the CIA's mortal Cold War adversary?" Why would that be so? Because it is true. Documents from the Soviet archives indicate that the KGB played a role in propagating such conspiratorial notions. These archives "prove that the KGB played a central, pernicious role in fomenting the belief that the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination." To see the evidence, check out Holland's column. The disinformation and deception campaign of the KGB through communist controlled newspaper in Britain and Italy and the use of dupes in the United States, leads Holland to this conclusion, which is axiomatic among intelligence officers: "We are never truly deceived by others; we only deceive ourselves." Too many Americans are willing to be deceived because of their faith in America's institutions has eroded. And one reason for that -- and here the circle's end meets its beginning -- is that due process, which would have given closure to a nation's grieving, was denied. What will not change This post should not be construed as an endorsement of the idea that all politicians are the same, because they're not. But David Frum warns the Left in today's Daily Telegraph that if President George W. Bush is defeated in 2004, American foreign policy will not be radically different: "Think again. Bush may fail. But if he fails, it is unlikely that America today will then conclude: 'How terrible that the people of the Middle East gravitate towards violence and authoritarianism. It must be our fault. Quick - let's give them a Palestinian state so they will stop blowing up our office towers'." It is doubtful that any of the nine midgets pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination would have conducted American foreign policy as Bush has; but it is equally doubtful that any of the candidates who have a chance of winning (including Howard Dean) would radically alter the policies now in place. All that said, what would matter is America's reaction to future terrorist attacks; Democrats would likely be more restrained, meaning more accommodating to terrorists and their sponsors. But Frum's point -- that the US will not suddenly reverse directions -- still stands. Larry Smith fumbles the leadership ball The Toronto Star reports today that Larry Smith, the former commissioner of the Canadian Football League and the current publisher of the Montreal Gazette, is interested in running for the leadership of the new Conservative Party of Canada. I recently had the opportunity to meet Smith. As a potential leader he is focused not so much on policy or principles as much as process; he is, in short, a typical management guy. In fact, his greatest weakness is that he speaks in nothing but management-speak. At least that was what I thought was Smith's greatest weakness for the first 45 minutes of the meeting (with several dozen conservative activists, fundraisers, etc...), before someone asked him what his priorities would be if elected prime minister. He couldn't really answer that question. This is a cousin of the Kennedy question: why are you running? If you don't have some priority issues you have no right seeking the leadership of any party. Mr. Smith should not go to Ottawa. Shea on Hollywood's Seuss Mark Shea joins the chorus of critics against what Hollywood has done to Cat in the Hat: "The same cretins who decided to destroy The Grinch(TM) Who Stole Christmas have gotten their stupid filthy mitts on the Cat in the Hat(TM) and turned it into a bloody bloated montrosity pointlessly sprinkled with adolescent sex jokes. I hated the Grinch with all the passion my soul could muster. An outrageous defacement of childhood goofiness by soulless Hollywood suits. Now they've compounded the crime. The Seuss Estate should figure out a way to get out of their contract with these grubby little slimes who care nothing for childish whimsy and who only know how to laugh at their own coarse high schools sophomore gags." Friday, November 21, 2003
Judge 'em by how they colour their language, not the colour of their skin John Derbyshire unloads on readers who think that his mocking of Al Sharpton's speech mannerisms is racist: "I have had a trickle of e-mails attempting to chastise me for 'making fun of the way black people speak' by having the Rev. Al Sharpton say 'I's' for 'I'm.' Same thing last week, when I had him saying 'ax' for 'ask.' To all these humorless nitwits I say: 'Nuts!' What do you mean, 'the way black people speak'? Bill Cosby doesn't speak like that. Jesse Jackson doesn't speak like that. Condoleeza Rice doesn't speak like that. I'll bet Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois didn't speak like that. Among other black people who did not / do not speak like that: The Rev. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Colin Powell, Harry Belafonte, Arthur Ashe, Lena Horne, Clarence Thomas, Paul Robeson,... I know you cretins can't read too fast, so I'll type this out real slow. Ready? Here goes: I WASN'T MAKING FUN OF THE WAY BLACK PEOPLE SPEAK, I WAS MAKING FUN OF THE WAY AL SHARPTON SPEAKS. It is, of course, difficult, if not impossible, for patronizing liberal nail-biters of your stripe to conceive that black people differ from each other in any way at all, and to be filled with baffled outrage when they do. None the less, I can inform you with certainty that black people have lots of different ways of speaking. Al Sharpton chooses to speak like Stepin Fetchit's dumber brother. That's his right. My right is to poke fun at him for it." Scrappleface meets Jacko The Michael Jackson circus will be a gold mine for Scrappleface. Today, in one of its longer satires (some five paragraphs), Scrappleface says the Democrats would like Michael Jackson to run for the Democratic presidential nomination because he has name recognition: "'Based on the media coverage, we have determined that Mr. Jackson is the major public figure of our time,' said an unnamed DNC official. 'While George Bush was making a landmark foreign policy speech in London and al Qaeda was bombing Istanbul, the headlines were all about Michael'." Teachout endorses Tuns view of Clinton's book list From Terry Teachout's About Last Night blog on Bill Clinton's 21 favourite books: "Once you’ve looked at the whole list, which is quite spectacularly impressive, tell me this: whatever your political beliefs or your personal opinion of Bill Clinton, do you really, truly believe these are his 21 favorite books? I’m not saying they aren’t. But having spent a good number of years writing editorials about politics for a New York newspaper—and thus having spent quite a bit of time talking to politicians of all kinds—I’m also not disposed to take such a list at face value, even when it comes from a man who’s known to be unusually smart. Politicians, after all, rarely make any public statements not precisely calculated to enhance their popularity in as many quarters as possible." This buggers credibility Jermaine Jackson, during a CNN interview about his brother, Michael: "My brother is not eccentric." Anderson on capital punishment, Bush, civilization, etc... Bruce Anderson has a good column in The Spectator saying essentially that capital punishment may be just be that no matter, it is not coming back to England. Probably true. But read Anderson's conclusion on the different worldviews (moral principles, same thing) of President George W. Bush and englightened Europe: "George Bush may have faults, but they do not include complacency. His morality is a hard-edged affair. He believes in confronting evil. He sees nothing wrong with executing murderers. He does not believe that all the moral code of the Old Testament is necessarily obsolete. He thinks that on occasions it may be necessary to destroy the bad in order to safeguard the good. His definition of goodness includes foetuses. Most of those who objected to David Davis’s suggestion that some of the worst murderers should be put to death also believe in abortion on demand. Mr Bush would find their moral principles utterly incomprehensible. No death penalty for murderers, yet the slaughter of the unborn in industrial quantities; to President Bush, that makes no sense. He does not believe a civilised society should put King Herod in charge of the unborn. That brings us to the basic difference between the President and his moralising critics in old Europe. He is serious about moral questions; they are not. He believes that a moral code derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition remains applicable. They believe that all the moral questions which have vexed philosophers and theologians down the ages have now been turned into lifestyle choices. David Davis seemed to be making an out-of-date lifestyle choice, and may have suffered political damage. Most of President Bush’s fellow Americans do not believe that his choices are out of date. That is not an argument for the superiority of European values." Foolish Ontario Liberals The Liberal government of Ontario is going to raise the minimum wage in the province over four years, from $6.85 an hour to $8 an hour. The government cannot raise welfare benefits because of the budget deficit they inherited from the Tory government. Put aside for now why a government cannot substitute raising the minimum wage for increasing welfare payments as a means of fighting poverty (short answer: two completely different groups of people living in poverty). The real issue is that minimum wage increases kill jobs. So, to borrow from Thomas Sowell: Why is it better to be unemployed at $8 an hour than employed at $6.85? National Right to Life Committee's big government, big mistake Ramesh Ponnuru is right to criticize the NRLC for including a medicare bill in its scoring on the pro-life card. Very foolish. Good men and women who are staunch opponents of abortion and even euthanasia (which is the concern with the bill) will get a lower rating for a vote that should not be considered a pro-life issue. From The Corner: "The National Right to Life Committee has endorsed the big Medicare bill, and announced that it will score the vote. A congressman who used to get 100 percent ratings from NRLC but votes against the bill, in other words, will get something like 95 percent instead. Pro-life Democrats and conservative Republicans are incensed by the decision, and 32 House members have signed Rep. Jim Ryun’s letter complaining about it. NRLC is supporting the bill because it includes some provisions that, in its judgment, will reduce pressures toward rationing and euthanasia. By that argument, there are a lot of other bills the NRLC should have scored over the years. But in any case, there’s so much else in the bill that it’s really unfair to use it as a test of pro-lifers’ convictions. The NRLC should back down." For NRCL's reasons for supporting the bill, see here. The assault on freedom The Liberal government in Ontario has ditched the Education Tuition Tax Credit. No surprise there, but it is still disappointing. I will never understand why the Left is opposed to choice in education, why the Left wants children to remain condemned to bad schools. Premier Dalton McGuinty says he opposes giving money to private schools, but he knows damn well that the money goes to the parents, not the schools. And most families who send their children to independent schools are not the super-rich whose progeny go to Upper Canada College. Welcome to 1990 in Ontario: class warfare all over again. |