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, July 31, 2005
Weekend List 12 best U.S. think tanks (non-regional) 1. American Enterprise Institute 2. Heritage Foundation 3. Manhattan Institute 4. Cato Institute 5. Competitive Enterprise Institute 6. Hoover Institute 7. Claremont Institute 8. Pacific Research Institute 9. Acton Institute 10. National Center for Public Policy Research 11. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity 12. Hudson Institute Independent gobbles up 7/21 suspect's claims The Independent assumes that Osman Hussain, a suspect in the failed 7/21 terrorist attacks in London, is telling the truth. Shame on them for their gullibility and leading off their story thusly: "A suspected member of the 21 July bomb cell has told investigators he was motivated by the Iraq war, not religion." That is what they would say, wouldn't they? The Independent also reports that Hussain claimed 1) he never had contact with al-Qaeda, 2) that he decided to "send a signal" to Brits after watching video coverage of "women and children" being killed in Iraq, 3) he had no intention of killing Brits in the 7/21 attacks and 4) the 7/7 attacks convinced him that he was right to send a "message" to London about Iraq. It is unclear when The Independent will change its name to The Stooge. Another Bush victory Keeping in mind that we must take a wait-and-see approach to anything the IRA says, assuming that the Irish terrorist organization is serious about turning its back on violence as a means to political ends, the credit must, at least in part, go to President George W. Bush for the seriousness with which he has led the United States and its allies to confront terrorism. That is not quite the point this London Times editorial makes but it does recognize that politically motivated violence -- terrorism -- is untenable in the post-9/11 world: "One reason for the IRA statement is that since the events of September 11 the world has changed profoundly. Terrorism is being seen for what it really is right across the West. The moral and financial support that the IRA drew from credulous Americans has dried up. Its involvement in the biggest bank robbery in Britain proved yet again that it was little more than a criminal organisation. Its responsibility and behaviour in the aftermath of the appalling murder of Robert McCartney revealed its true colours to anyone who still had any doubts. The IRA campaign of violence is another victim of Osama Bin Laden’s global jihad. The atrocities perpetrated by the Islamists, who seem increasingly to resemble the bizarre cults that have emerged in the West in recent decades, put politically motivated terror beyond the pale." Another award for Morgentaler Last month, the University of Western Ontario disgraced itself by bestowing abortionist Henry Morgentaler with an honourary doctorate. This month, the 74th annual Couchiching Conference will give its 2005 Couchiching Award for Public Policy Leadership to Morgentaler in recognition of his advocacy of abortion "rights." CTV reports that "The Couchiching Award is presented to a nationally recognized Canadian who has demonstrated leadership in a public policy field, often in the face of public opposition, and whose initiatives have had a positive impact on Canada or a community within Canada." A press release from the Couchiching Institute on Public Affairs said, "Through the direct and measurable impact that Dr. Morgentaler has had on public policy, he exemplifies the high level of leadership required of award recipients." The two previous award winners are former finance minister Michael Wilson and author Jane Jacobs. Is the Couchiching on Public Affairs serious that of all the Canadians to recognize for leadership, Morgentaler is, effectively, one of the top three that come to mind? What about Fraser Institute founder Michael Walker who has forced Canada to think about taxes, government spending and its healthcare system, former prime minister Brian Mulroney who gave Canada the US-Canada free trade agreement or former Ontario premier Mike Harris who restored some fiscal sanity (reducing taxes, reforming welfare and balancing the budget) to the province. The decision to honour Morgentaler, a man who broke the law and invited the courts to determine abortion policy (admittedly, the Supreme Court of Canada suggested that Parliament re-write the abortion law but politicians dropped the ball on that one), is to reward the circumvention of democracy. 10 worst baseball trades of all-time There is about 30 minutes left until the waiver-free trade deadline for Major League Baseball. No general manager will make a move as bone-headed as any of the 10 listed by Elliott Kalb, author of Who's Better, Who's Best in Baseball?, at Fox Sports. Kalb lists the reasons but here are the 10 worst trades. 1. Cincinatti Reds give up Christy Mathewson for New York Giants' hurler Amos Rusie 2. St. Louis Cardinals get Lou Brock from the Chicago Cubs in exchange for Ernie Broglio and Bobby Shantz 3. Philadelphia A's send Nellie Fox tothe Chicago White Sox for Joe Tipton 4. Atlanta Braves got minor leaguer John Smoltz from the Detroit Tigers for Doyle Alexander 5. New York Mets send young Nolan Ryan out west for Jim Fregosi 6. Arizona Diamondbacks steal Curt Schilling from the Philadelphia Phillies for Omar Daal, Nelson Figueroa, Travis Lee, and Vicente Padilla 7. Boston Red Sox steal Curt Schilling from the Arizona Diamondbacks for Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon, and Jorge de la Rosa 8. New York Giants send tempermental second baseman Rogers Hornsby to the Boston Braves for Shanty Hogan and Jimmy Welsh 9. The Houson Astros send Joe Morgan, Jack Billingham, Cesar Geronimo, Ed Armbrister, and Denis Menke to the Cincinatti Reds for Lee May, Tommy Helms, and Jimmy Stewart 10. The Mets got Steve Henderson, Dan Norman, Pat Zachry, and Doug Flynn from the Cincinatti Reds in return for Mr. Franchise Tom Seaver I think that any of the honourable mentions could be switched with the Smoltz-Alexander deal. Sure the Tigers gave up on a young pitcher too early -- Smotz won 174 games (and counting) and saved 154, but Alexander went 9-0 down the stretch in 1987 and the Tigers made the post-season. Not a great trade but one that served the Tigers' immediate purpose. A picture is no substitute for a policy Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler was the only journalist at the Abu Shouk refugee camp in Darfur during the visits of three US officials (then Secretary of State Colin Powell, current Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick and the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice). Kessler says, "while the senior officials change, there's a certain sameness to the events at this perennial photo-op location -- the same visuals, same points, same war." And, as Kessler notes, "For the people who live here, a photo op just doesn't do much to end the suffering." At this one camp, oen of more than a 100, 80,000 people served as the backdrop for a "campaign-style" photo op. Batman Begins' anti-capitalism undertones Matthew Hisrich of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions in an article at FEE Today says that Batman Begins is anti-capitalist and anti-capitalism in its assumptions about big business and therefore how business is depicted in the film: "Batman Begins manages to undermine both capitalism and freedom by displaying a deep discomfort with those who engage in business, reinforcing stereotypes of nineteenth-century capitalistic production and promoting the concept that the answer to crime and corruption is greater force rather than greater liberty. Director Christopher Nolan and screenwriter David Goyer effectively employ flashback sequences throughout the film to cast Bruce Wayne’s father Thomas as a saint-like figure. While some of this could be dismissed as merely the perspective of a grieving son, clearly they are also used to develop key plot points regarding his father’s character. Specifically, we learn that Thomas Wayne chose to disassociate himself from Wayne Industries—the family business—and instead pursue the more noble profession of medicine. In one scene he grins at his wife and tells young Bruce that he has left the company to 'more interested men.' Viewers later learn that he does have at least one role within the business—spending its money. The butler informs Bruce that Thomas nearly drove Wayne Industries into the ground financing a massive public transportation system that Thomas claims would “bring the city together” during an economic depression. While there is certainly nothing wrong with philanthropy, the implicit message is that such actions are morally and economically superior to running a successful business. Wayne Industries is presumably the largest employer in Gotham, but never once is the firm’s success or failure mentioned as a determinant of economic stability or the foundation of the elder Wayne’s philanthropy. Bankrupting the company by pouring money into a monorail is hardly the best way to benefit those in need of jobs and security. Thomas Wayne is no Andrew Carnegie. In fact, as Ludwig von Mises explains in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, 'Nobody is needy in the market economy because of the fact that some people are rich. The riches of the rich are not the cause of the poverty of anybody. The process that makes some people rich is, on the contrary, the corollary of the process that improves many peoples’ want satisfaction'." Hisrich also looks at the city's enforcement of laws and says that corruption is typically the result of bad laws not a "lack of civic spirit, as personified by commitment to the collective will." Hisrich concludes: "The solutions Batman Begins offers to Gotham’s struggle with economics and ethics are thus 1) redistribution of wealth and 2) a violent 'crackdown' on those engaging in trade deemed unacceptable. Is this a message that should excite those passionate about free markets? A film truly rooted in the market philosophy would instead suggest that what struggling cities need is more capitalism and liberty—not less." Saturday, July 30, 2005
Never-ending nannying SkyNews reports that the British Advertising Standards Authority want advertising for alcohol to use less good looking men: "Drinks companies have been ordered to use uglier men in their advertising campaigns. The Advertising Standards Authority believes "balding" and "paunchy" men would be less likely to encourage women to drink to achieve social success. The new advertising code stresses that links must not be made between alcohol and seduction." And indeed the ASA is already enforcing its advertising code, criticizing Lambrini, a producer of sparkling drinks, for a print ad that showed three women "hooking" a good-looking young man. SkyNews reports the ad is a "parody of a fairground game." The ASA told Lambrini, "We would advise that the man in the picture should be unattractive - ie overweight, middle-aged, balding etc," so that there is no link between drinking and seduction implied in the ad. How is Lambrini taking this? Quite sensibly, actually. Lambrini questioned the ASA's authority to determine who is attractive and who is not. Lambrini owner John Halewood said: "It makes some very understandable rulings to encourage sensible drinking but we're not sure they're qualified to decide for the nation who's sexy and who's not. Sexual attraction is happily one of the few things in life that can't be governed." For now. (HT: Andrew Stuttaford in The Corner) Quotidian "The phrase 'the people' is sheer nonsense. It is not a political term. It is a phrase of natural history. A people is not a species; a civilized community is a nation." -- Benjamin Disraeli, Letters of Runnymede Profiling and the War on Terror Charles Krauthammer has a solution to the disinclination to the use of profiling in the screening of train and bus passengers: reverse profiling. Eliminate those obviously not a threat. Krauthammer says in yesterday's Washington Post of the current non-profiling policy: "The only good thing to be said for this ridiculous policy is that it testifies to the tolerance and goodwill of Americans, so intent on assuaging the feelings of minority fellow citizens that they are willing to undergo useless indignities and tolerate massive public waste." Krauthammer continues: "Assuaging feelings is a good thing, but hunting for terrorists this way is simply nuts. The fact is that jihadist terrorism has been carried out from Bali to Casablanca to Madrid to London to New York to Washington by young Muslim men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin. This is not a stereotype. It is a simple statistical fact. Yes, you have your shoe-bomber, a mixed-race Muslim convert, who would not fit the profile. But the overwhelming odds are that the guy bent on blowing up your train traces his origins to the Islamic belt stretching from Mauritania to Indonesia. Yet we recoil from concentrating bag checks on men who might fit this description. Well, if that is impossible for us to do, then let's work backward. Eliminate classes of people who are obviously not suspects. We could start with a little age pruning -- no one under, say, 13, and no one over, say, 60. Then we could exempt whole ethnic populations, a list that could immediately start with Hispanics, Scandinavians and East Asians. Then we could have a huge saving, a 50 percent elimination of waste, by giving a pass to women, except perhaps the most fidgety, sweaty, suspicious-looking, overcoat-wearing, knapsack-bearing young woman, to be identified by the presiding officer. You object that with these shortcuts, we might not catch everybody. True. But how many do we catch now with the billions spent patting down grandmothers from Poughkeepsie?" Sounds reasonable which is the reason why it won't be implemented. The current thinking among our leaders and politicians is that it is better to assuage feelings of resentment (the would-be profiled Muslims) and guilt (everyone else) than to combat the threat of terrorism. Barefoot capitalism Over at the Globalization Institute blog Anthony Batty gives a mini review of The Miracle of Barefoot Capitalism: For Millions of the World's Ambitious Poor One Small Loan Opens the Door to New Lives by Jim Klobuchar and Susan Cornell Wilkes, a book that highlights the success stories of those who have benefited from microcredit. Batty notes the authors' "focus is primarily on the stories of the individuals that make microcredit work, from the woman selling meat and cheese, to the Lawyer who after a near death experience sets up a chain of pharmacies, taking in the administrators who devote their lives to improving the lot of others." Batty and the authors recognize that microcredit is not a cure-all but it is a significant step forward for millions of impoverished Africans, Asias and South Americans. Friday, July 29, 2005
Quotidian "The idle aristocracy, abdicating its natural political role, made the process of government seem artificial, the fortuitous product of competition and struggle." -- Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Reappraisals Celebrity causes "Jane Galt" found celebrities practicing their politics that doesn't make her blood boil: coming out against farm subsidies. The reason has nothing to do with libertarian theory but rather the negative impact such subsidies in industrial countries have on the developing world. While many conservatives hate celebrities butting their noses into the political sphere I have never had a problem with it. What I detest is giving their views any credence simply because they are celebrities. We should judge their involvement in politics on the force of their arguments. By that count, at least Minnie Driver's views should be taken seriously. She said: "People think more aid will help, but it won't. Trade is the surest way of decreasing the savage amount of poverty in our world. These countries have got to be able to trade fairly." Great point and well articulated. Driver, Antonio Banderas, Bono and others are part of an advertising campaign to be launched this fall by Oxfam America. Great. Now, let's knock the celeb down a notch. The New York Times reports: "Ms. Driver, whose ad features cotton, said she was inspired to participate in the Oxfam campaign after traveling with the group to Cambodia and Thailand last year. She toured clothing factories where women, some in obvious poor health, worked in substandard conditions for menial wages. Cambodia and Thailand are not cotton-producing nations, but Ms. Driver said she chose that agricultural product because she needed to remain relatively clean after her photograph, since she was in the middle of a press tour for a London play." So Driver will help out the cause as long as she can remain "relatively clean" doing so. I wonder if the others were similarly vain. Happy birthday, Alexis Over at the Adam Smith Institute blog, Dr. Eamonn Butler reminds everyone that today marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Alexis de Tocqueville. US political news Senator John McCain inches to officially launching his bid for the Republican presidential nomination for 2008. The Washington Post reports: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has quietly reactivated his political action committee. The potential 2008 presidential candidate filed papers July 15 re-creating his Straight Talk America PAC, a move that looks very much like a prelude to another run for the White House." We'll see if the media can launch a favoured son to the GOP nomination. The same WaPo story reports that Senator Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania is capitulating a bit on his clear answer not to run for president in 2008 and the West Virginia Republicans are smoking something because they may be gunning for Senator Robert Byrd's seat. Run Dick, run WorldNetDaily reports that veteran journalist Helen Thomas told The Hill that if Vice President Dick Cheney runs for president, she'll kill herself. If ever Cheney needed incentive, at the very least, to announce he's going to run ... Mark the calendar The Liberals did the right thing -- they said no to Carolyn Parrish's return to their caucus. At least according to Paul Martin Marc Roy. Wait until another close vote. Get the feeling, though, that Parrish didn't want back. She must have known that opening her mouth about Afghanistan would be ammunition for those who believe a Parrish-free Liberal Party is a better Liberal Party. Bye, bye Frist The New York Times reports that, "In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure." It's also a move that should sink Frist's GOP presidential hopes. The party is not going to coalesce around a candidate who's on the wrong side of the ESCR issue unless he has something extraordinary to offer. Frist has ... em ... I'm not sure. I can't think of another thing Frist has done recently other than his capitulation to the Democrats over the nuclear option on judges. That isn't going to win him GOP friends either. Steyn on the British terrorists In this week's Spectator column, Mark Steyn notes that Yassin Hassan Omar, a Somali asylum-seeker sought in connection with the July 21 terrorist attempts in London, had his rent subsidized by the British government and comments: "There’s a pleasant thought the next time you’re on a bus when some Islamakazi self-detonates: it’s on your tax bill; P-A-Y-E — pay as you explode." The disappearing Bridget Fonda According to imdb.com, actress Bridget Fonda hasn't made a movie since 2001 (not including some 2002 television appearances). I was also surprised to find that she's 41 years old. These may be related; she can no longer get away with playing pretty young things. Conspiracy theory The recent news about shootings in Toronto, they're all lies to sell newspapers. So says Conservative MP Monte Solberg. How, he wonders, can there be gun violence in Canada with our gun registry and all? The stories are obviously a ploy to increase paper sales. GCH, luv ya 2 but ... Gods of the Copybook Headings have placed Sobering Thoughts on their top 12 list of daily must-read blogs. The feeling is mutual. That said I must take issue with his labelling me a religious conservative. As I note on the left-hand side of this blog, I'm an unhyphenated conservative. Sure, my Catholicism is decisive in determining my political views and, sure, during my day job as editor of The Interim I read, write and think about moral issues -- abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc... -- but here I'm as likely to blog about World War IV, the Empire of Liberty, British and U.S. politics, media bias and free trade as I am about moral issues; actually, I probably blog about international issues and foreign politics more than anything else. Yes, I hold religious views. Yes, I am a devout Catholic (or at least I hope I am). Yes, I consider abortion and other moral issues the most important facing our country. But I don't consider myself a social conservative. Just conservative will do fine, thanks. It's too bad that if one holds strong views on moral issues one is pigeon-holed as a religious or social conservative. I resent that when I attend political functions or parties with mostly political types I'm always asked about "socially conservative view of ..." whatever political development is the news of the day. I'd be just as happy to discuss taxation, health policy, the latest international news or the war on terror as I am to talk about abortion. In fact, I'd prefer it. Furthermore, in much of the work I do I try to bring so-cons and fiscal conservatives together. As a matter of strategy I think it smarter to focus on our common interests and goals, and that means ignoring the adjectives before the noun. Thursday, July 28, 2005
The myth of moderate Islam The Spectator has a courageous article about the bellicose nature of Islam. Here are two key paragraphs: "It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission). So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult." This leads author Patrick Sookhdeo to ask a very impolitic question: "Could it be that the young men who committed suicide were neither on the fringes of Muslim society in Britain, nor following an eccentric and extremist interpretation of their faith, but rather that they came from the very core of the Muslim community and were motivated by a mainstream interpretation of Islam?" He answers yes and calls for an Islamic reformation: "[Muslims] must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ‘exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam ..." Sookhdeo also suggests Muslims follow the post-9/11 proposals of the Free Muslims Coalition (based in the United States: 1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances. 2. Separation of religion and state. 3. Democracy as the best form of government. 4. Secularism in all forms of political activity. 5. Equality for women. 6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone. Sookhdeo says it will be a "long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order," and he has other proposals, too, beginning with an unambiguous criticism of terror and allegiance to the Crown rather than their overseas brethren. And the West can help them by abandoning the woeful policy of multiculturalism that allows extremism to flourish in the shadows of a parallel Islamic culture. The Gipper's last victory CAFTA passed by two votes in the House yesterday. Investor's Business Daily editorialized: "To be sure, not everyone loved CAFTA. Former Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega is one who desperately wanted CAFTA to fail. He's still around, plotting and conniving his return to power without an election, counting on economic ruin as his lever for seizing power. He got support this time from his old ally Fidel Castro, another anti-CAFTA force, and new pals like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Luckily, the fierce will of Central America's democratically elected presidents prevailed. Those nations will, we hope, become free-market bulwarks against the spread of Castro- and Chavez-style tyranny. Free people do not give up freedom easily. With CAFTA's passage, America's old hemispheric enemies have lost big to Ronald Reagan. Again. To his great credit, President Bush pushed it. But CAFTA really is another victory for the Gipper." What a great day for freedom and free markets. Quotidian "Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." -- G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World The Rwandan genocide I am reading Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak, a report compiled by journalist Jean Hatzfeld. It is horrifying and harrowing. In one part describing the killing of acquaintances, "Fulgence," one of the tens of thousands of Hutu genocidal murderers said that if he didn't kill a Tutsi, the person behind him would. Another, "Adalbert," said, "It was possible not to kill a neighbour or someone who appealed for pity, gratitude or recognition, but it was not possible to save the person." Another, "Pio," says that sometimes he would see someone in the crowd that about to get hacked to death that he knew and a "pang pinched my heart" so he "left him to a nearby colleague" to murder. But, Pio said, he had to turn aside "quietly, I could not reveal my good heart." As I said, horrifying and harrowing. And horrible. Pataki's future John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post about Governor George Pataki's political future. He rightly says that the soon-to-be former guv has no chance of a successful run for the GOP presidential nomination: "He is a pro-choice, pro-gun control liberal Republican by any reckoning, a Northeastern governor who has presided over a massive increase in the state's budget and made common cause with public-sector unions." And unlike former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Podhoretz says, he doesn't have something "extraordinary to offer to overcome such liabilities." Giuliani reduced crime, went after the mob and was heroic during the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. That doesn't mean that Pataki doesn't have a political future. Podhoretz says that if Senator Hillary Clinton decides it would be better for her to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination unencumbered by the limitations of being a senator and doesn't run for re-election next year, Pataki might eye that race. I think Podhoretz has a point but I wonder why, other than maintaining a winning record (thrice elected governor of New York) going into the GOP primaries in 2008 why Pataki wouldn't challenge for the Senate seat even if Hillary ran. In fact, if he kept it close, he could win points by 1) demonstrating that he can keep it close in a race against Hillary and 2) that he took one for the Republican team in trying to unseat her. I think that Hillary has more to lose from losing her re-election bid than Pataki does in losing a challenge to her. I also would guess that if Hillary is seriously challenged that we would be more likely to see her ugly, vindictive and shrill side, the frightening side to the former First Lady that she has so effectively hidden for the last six or seven years. As awful as Pataki is, he would be better than Hillary. And he just might derail her presidential ambitions. Canadian healthcare stuff First, the Fraser Institute released its How Good is Canadian Health Care: 2005 Report today. I'll post more about this tonight or tomorrow; it's 66 pages and I'm only half-way through. I think that it provides some direction for the Conservatives on healthcare policy but more about that later. Earlier this week I noted the absurdity of appointing Dr. Brian Postl as the new waiting lists czar, whose job it is apparently to better manage the waiting times patients endure. A friend emailed an interesting question regarding ... how to put this? ... Postl's qualifications: "Given that he's been a health care administrator for more than a decade managing waiting lists, has he reduced a single waiting list?" I doubt it but if you can prove my suspicions incorrect, please email proof to paul_tuns [AT] yahoo.com Missing the point Laurence Vance notes at the Ludwig von Mises Institute blog that during a recent lecture Walter Block cracked a joke about Canada's military, "something to the effect that Canada has three rowboats for a navy and a police car for an army." That's funny. But Vance is plainly obtuse considering the "profound" insight that joke provided. Vance says: "I think it is interesting that Canada is not threatened by "rogue states" and that Canadians are not hated the world over. Could it be because they don't send troops all over the world like the United States?" Yes, it must be that. That's why Canada is so completely ignored. Never mind that in Osama bin Laden's list of five crusader nations that his fellow Islamists should target includes Canada, among the United States, United Kingdom, Spain and Australia. As I write for the next Business Report, it's not that Canada is not a target for terrorism; it is that it hasn't been attacked yet. Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Quotidian "Journalists need experts as badly as experts need journalists. Every day there are newspaper pages and television newscasts to be filled, and an expert who can deliver a jarring piece of wisdom is always welcome. Working together, journalists and experts are the architects of much conventional wisdom." -- Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything Wedding Crashers I saw the movie Wedding Crashers this evening and I have to admit that it was better than I thought it would be. That's not entirely fair; not only was it better than I expected, it was a delightfully fun and funny movie for the first hour before it fell into a plot development that drained the film of its energy. It is a ribald comedy and there is offensive material including swearing and nudity, so if this sort of thing ain't your bag, I'd avoid the movie. Vince Vaughn was great and I would have to agree with John Podhoretz's claim in his Weekly Standard review that as a comedy team, Vaughn and Owen Wilson were great together. Rachel McAdams is charming and instantly fall-in-lovable and Christopher Walken is ... well, he's Christopher Walken, so you can't go wrong. Unfortunately, Jane Seymour is beginning to show her age and they play her a sex-starved, drunk politicians wife. It was a little bit creepy. Overall, though, I have to agree with Podhoretz's assessment of the movie: it's a "sensational dirty joke of a movie" and the "sort of picture that might get people excited about going to the theatre again." In short, it's the kind of movie that you don't feel ripped off paying ten bucks to see which is more than I can say about most of the few films I see anymore at the theatre. A fundamental truth most people don't understand Tim Worstall makes a point in a post at the Globalization Institute -- "there are problems but we can solve them, the first step being to prioritize and decide which we want to solve first" -- that I think few people understand. For more than a year, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin described everything as a priority that his government would address. But many Canadians, and I presume citizens elsewhere, do not understand that not every problem has a solution and that even if they did that they can all be solved right now. Thomas Sowell has repeatedly made the point that politicians do not understand what every economist does: that life is full of trade-offs. Solve problems, yes, but work to solve them by focusing on the most important. This means that government should eschew the headline-grabbing announcements about "new" spending and "new" programs that barely make a dent in a problem but that do win the plaudits of media and public alike. Dr. Madsen Pirie notes at the Adam Smith Institute blog the style of the Blair government (and, to be fair, most governments): "This is a government which likes the headlines, and the praise which promised action brings. It is less keen on the hard work required to implement real change and improvement." That is a style that panders to the public's perception that all problems are solvable now. UN's Zimbabwe report misses mark Claudia Rosett has the story at Opinion Journal. She notes: "With a delicacy over-zealously inappropriate in itself to dealings with the tyrant whose regime has been responsible for wreck of Zimbabwe, the report starts by thanking Mr. Mugabe for his 'warm welcome' to the U.N. delegation, which visited the country from June 26 to July 8. The report, issued by the secretary-general's special envoy Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka, then proceeds to the usual U.N. prescription that what Zimbabwe needs is more aid, and a framework--here comes the UN lingo--"to ensure the sustainability of humanitarian response." While the report also calls for the 'culprits' to be called to justice under Zimbabwe laws, Mugabe himself is somehow excused from direct responsibility." Zimbabwe may need aid but not before regime change. Canada's healthcare's absurdity Dr. Brian Postl, a Manitoba physician and CEO of the Winnipeg Health Region, is Prime Minister Paul Martin's new waiting list czar or something like that. He says that queues are part of every healthcare system and that "Sometimes waiting is not necessarily a bad thing." Unless, of course, you're a patient. Okay, Canada's queue czar says that some waiting isn't a bad thing so we know what to expect from him: nothing. Well, not nothing; we're going to get better management of waiting times. The Canadian Press reported that Health Canada determined in 1998 that waiting lists "are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly monitored, and (according to most informed observers) in grave need of retooling." So Dr. Postl's task, presumably, will be to make waiting times standardized, more organized and better monitored. That'll make a lot of gravely ill people feel better, I'm sure. Open race for Empire State GOP in 2006 The New York Times reports that sources close to New York Governor George Pataki say he will not seek a fourth term as governor. The paper speculates that the decision leaves the door open to a 2008 presidential run although that seems unlikely; he is too liberal to win the nomination and he would compete with another former centrist New York politician, Rudy Giuliani for the votes of independents and so-called Republican moderates. The immediate effect is to clear the way for Democratic Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to win the governorship in 2006 and have Hillary Clinton coast to re-election the same year. Unless Pataki or Giuliani get into the ring with Clinton, the GOP has no credible candidate to field for either major state-wide race in 2006. Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Riding Shotgun I've posted about Zimbabwe cozying up to Red China and Russia's only growth industry (bribes) at The Shotgun. Quotidian "When the sanctions of law, religion and morals broke down through persistent misapplication to matters of conduct quite outside their purview, the sanctions of taste and manners had become too frail and anaemic to be of any practical good. For obvious reasons, the resulting state of our society seems beyond hope of improvement. Attempts to galvanize the sanctions of law, religion and morals for further misapplication are ineffectual; and ineffectual also must be the attempt to root the saving criteria of taste and manners in an ethical soil laid waste by the Benthamite doctrine of expediency." -- Albert Jay Nock, The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man The truth about those 'moderate Muslims' It appears that there are fewer "moderate Muslims" than was first estimated. We are always told that only 1% of Muslims are Islamists who might be prone to committing terrorist attacks. I've long that number to have been made up out of thin air. I've also long argued that the support that these extremists have within the larger Muslim population is greater than anybody wants to admit. Now there is some polling data to back up these thoughts. Here's a report from the Daily Telegraph (HT: Burkean Canuck) on a study the attitudes of British Muslims toward the 7/7 terrorist attacks. Specifically, 6% of British Muslims say it was justified, 24% say they sympathize with the terrorists' "feelings" and "motives", and 56% say they understand why some of their brethren would carry out such attacks. The Telegraph notes of even that 6%: "Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do." And that is only those who will admit their true, extremist views. French soccer Here's a two-part look (part one and part two) at the upcoming French soccer season from Reuters. They sensibly predict that Olympique Lyon will likely win their fifth straight French title and that AC Monaco is the only team that could even challenge them. I'm predicting Lyon, Monaco and Olympique Marseille for the top three spots with the much-improved (and was it merely active) Marseille having as good a chance as Lyon to win it all. Lyon has at least one big change from last year and maybe two; they've replaced their phenomenally successful manager Paul Le Guen with former Liverpool manager Gerard Houllier and could still lose Ghanan midfielder Michael Essien to Chelsea. The moral destruction of Canada: a survey This article, an overview of the moral crisis that Canada finds itself in now, appears in the August issue of The Interim. The Destruction of Canada: A Survey By Paul Tuns The Interm "Once human life is devalued at its core, a chain of devaluation begins that travels outward from the source and cheapens all life. This chain is not visible in any single person's decision. From legalized abortion to child abuse and infanticide, to convenience killing of the disabled, to passive euthanasia, to active euthanasia, to state funding and promotion of all of these - there is no moral stopping point." - William Gairdner, The War Against the Family For about 40 years, Canada has been the laboratory for an awful social experiment. Beginning with contraception (1967) and divorce (1968), Canadian society has become a culture, coarsened by narcisicm and nihilism; these, in turn, have led us to abortion (1969) and euthanasia (2005?). Canada has become a culture, corrputed by death. But in order to reverse these deleterious social trends, one must first understand them. Contraception separated pleasure from procreation, and it was not long until the ideal of self-sacrifice was replaced by the desire for self-fulfillment at any cost. If children could be delayed (or avoided) because they were deemed to be unwanted, surely spouses could be left for the same reason. Marriage was no longer a sacred covenant, which lasted until death, but a convenient coupling that could be dissolved if it was no longer satisfying for either spouse. Divorce separated spouses which had refused to grow together into a family - all promises became conditional. When personal fulfillment replaces sacred commitment, the result is limitless indifference: broken marriages create broken families, and broken families can produce only broken children. The desire to contracept eventually becomes the "right to choose." Now, two generations of Canadians have suffered from "choice." The silent holocaust, the killing of more than 2.5 million unborn children since 1969, represented a turning away from our cultural patrimony. Canada abandoned its Christian heritage, doctors no longer swore the Hippocratic Oath, men abdicated their responsibilities and women divorced themselves from their own femininity and the noble role of motherhood. Every year, more than 100,000 abortions are committed in Canada in the name of "choice," that is, conveniece. A woman can have an abortion at any time, for any reason and (almost always) at government expense. The state and media have done their best to silence pro-lifers so that abortion-minded women do not know the truth about the grim procedure they are considering. There is unlimited abortion on demand in Canada, despite the fact that only a quarter of Canadians believe in an unrestricted "right to abortion." While even pro-abortionists claim to want abortion safe, legal and rare, the fact is the killing of the unborn is ubiquitous. The changes in the 1960s - changes to sexual mores and relationships, the easy destruction of human life, the undermining of the sanctity of marriage - set the ball rolling for ever more changes that are slowly destroying the soul of this country. The destruction of marriage Also, from about this time, there was a growing legal and then societal tolerance of homosexuality. Acts of sodomy were no longer prosecuted and eventually, homosexual couples won legal rights, beginning with legitimate civil rights (such as freedom from discrimination in housing). But then, there were moves to redefine justice in order to grant special rights to homosexuals, including the "right" to marriage and the subjection of religious belief to the "right" of active homosexuals to work in church environments (the Vriend decision). In the mid-1990s, the idea of same-sex "marriage" was still outside the mainstream. Same-sex "marriage" wasn't even debated outside of the limited scope of the gay press. But, in the late 1990s, several homosexual couples began constitutional challenges to the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. In 1999, as these cases began to wind their way through several levels of court, Parliament considered a Reform party motion to reaffirm the definition of marriage. Then-justice minister Ann McLellan scoffed at the motion, saying it was unnecessary. No one, she claimed, had any interest in redefining marriage to include homosexual couples. But within four years, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the traditional definition of marriage as discriminatory and, two years later, it is now the law of the land. The lesson here is that what is inconceivable now may be the newly ordained rights of tomorrow. That's why it is difficult to take the promises of current Justice Minister Irwin Cotler seriously. He vows that the rights of religious officials will be protected and dismisses the notion that same-sex "marriage" will lead to polygamy. But, if recent history is any indication, we'll be fighting those battles by 2010. The next battles In 2003, Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which allowed embryonic stem cell research and opened the door to human cloning for research purposes (although the government claims it banned that). The first embryonic stem cell lines have been already created at the University of Toronto, despite the fact the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency for Canada - the agency responsible for overseeing such research created by the Act - is not yet in operation. Canadian officials have expressed the hope that this country will be on the "cutting edge" of bio-research. By this, they mean they hope to destroy human beings for experimental purposes, even though there are ample avenues of exploration that don't require the destruction of human life at the embryonic stage. Such experimentation does not help doctors heal patients and is only pursued to satisfy the morbid curiosity of research teams, eager for prestige. The moral standards of these projects aim low: they consist of nothing more than the bare minimum of scientific protocols, such as ensuring egg and sperm donor parents consent to having their biological material used for experimental purposes. As Canada pumps more and more money into these depraved projects, there will be calls for liberalizing the already-loose restrictions on such research, all in the name of progress. The march of "progress" in the field of science is matched by a parallel social revolution which would tinker with the building blocks of the family. In the name of progress the assault on family life and our children will intensify. After the Supreme Court of the United States rendered the Lawrence decision in June 2003, which disallowed states to proscribe sodomy, Mormons in Utah launched a challenge to a state law that prohibited polygamy. There is talk among Mormons in western Canada, and among some Canadian Muslims, that since same-sex "marriage" has been declared law, the climate is ripe to push for multiple "marriage." All the arguments for same-sex "marriage" are applicable to so-called multiple "marriage" - the people love one another and the state should not proscribe such relationships; the makeup of families changes; the majority has no right to impose its morality on the minority. Indeed, once the definition of marriage has been radically altered, further tinkering becomes easier. Once society says the gender of participants is irrelevant, it becomes easier to say that the number of participants is irrelevant, too. Same-sex "marriage" is an assault on the rights of children because it denies them both a mother and father; polygamy confuses children by giving them a father and several mothers. But even this may be only the beginning. In recent years, the prohibition against child pornography has been relaxed and eroded in favour of some rather minor restrictions and one can see a time, not far into the future, when even those will be dropped. Children are no longer precious gifts, but commodities who are increasingly sexualized in the eyes of society. Can pedophilia be far behind? There are already websites calling for "tolerance" for those who are "attracted to children." History has shown that at first, those who seek change call for understanding and tolerance, but later pursue acceptance and license. Attitudes are changing and before long, so too will the law. With abortion and same-sex "marriage," society has collectively abandoned its children. It will now take a reawakening to protect our most vulnerable and dependent citizens from being victimized by pornography. The other threat to children is the separation of them from their parents. There are two immediate battles on this front: daycare and education. Canada already has institutional daycare, but only about one of every seven families with preschool children uses it. The most common child care arrangement is still a parent staying at home full- or part-time, followed by care by a relative or neighbourhood parent. But, if you were to listen to Social Development Minister Ken Dryden, who describes daycare as a fact of life in Canada, you would think that formal institutional care is the norm. This government has earmarked at least $5 billion over the next five years for some sort of national daycare scheme, the details of which still must be worked out. It probably will end up being a subsidy to the provinces so that they can expand existing daycare programs. Even studies by the left-leaning Vanier Institute for the Family have found that most families would like one parent to stay home with the children. This includes those families in which both the mother and the father work. If Ottawa was attuned to the desires and needs of families, it would develop programs to make it easier for a mother or father to stay home and raise children and to stop punishing (through the tax system) parents who make the sacrifice to do just that. Instead, for ideological reasons - a mindless egalitarianism that seeks to turn women into wombless clones of men - Ottawa is committed to expanding daycare. To do that, to encourage women to abandon their families by entering the workforce, a national, tax-funded daycare scheme is necessary. If women want to work and find a trustworthy source of care for their children, so be it. But for the state to encourage it is altogether another matter. A cynic might even see a reason for the state's interest in breaking the ties of children and parents. If the trend to redefining morality is to continue, then why not begin indoctrination at the earliest possible stage? Why wait until a child is six, nine or 15, when you can begin when he or she is two or three years old? Can the task of imparting "Canadian values" be left to parents alone? Many families already know too well the dangers that public education have meant for children. From incompetent teaching to sex-ed that is divorced from virtue, families and concerned citizens have fought the educational system for at least 20 years. This stuggle will only continue as the system gets worse. Liberal MP Alan Tonks, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Janet Epp Buckingham and others have warned that same-sex "marriage" will lead to the teaching of homosexuality as normative in our public schools. Indeed, there is already a case before the human rights tribunal in B.C., in which a homosexual couple is attempting to force schools to include more material in their curriculums about homosexuality and to deny parents the right to keep their children from such lessons. In other words, the rights of parents to raise their children with the values they see fit will be circumscribed by the necessity to accommodate the view that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice as valid as heterosexuality. Two other developments are also not that far down the road: euthanasia and legal prostitution. Bill C-407, a private member's bill that would allow euthanasia, is currently before the House of Commons. It passed first reading in June and debate on it will resume when Parliament sits again in the fall. Euthanasia is the logical next step in a society that already permits the killing of the inconvenient and unwanted at the beginning of life. Meanwhile, a parliamentary committee is examining the implications of legalizing prostitution. This is another assault on the family, because it turns sex into a consumer commodity and further separates it from procreation. Having succumbed to a free-love mentality - sex free of both responsibility and consequence - can it be far off into the future when bestiality becomes a political issue? Far-fetched? Three years ago, Tony Blair's Labour government reduced the punishment for bestiality. At about the same time, a New England man sought legal recognition of his dog as his wife. It seems absurd, but there are people and organizations clamouring for protection for all kinds of perversities. The question is not simply sexual promiscuity or homosexuality, or the possibility of polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or even bestiality. It is, rather, a radical agenda best summarized as pansexuality - the demolishing of any sexual morality whatsoever. Banishing Christianity In recent years, religion, which had always played a central role in Canadian society, has been dispatched to the periphery. Prayer has been banned from public schools. Municipalities and legislatures have stopped displaying Christmas decorations, and private companies prohibit employees from wishing customers a "Merry Christmas." Any overt expression of Christianity has been banned from the public square. According to the Canadian census and recent polls, at least four in five Canadians say they believe in God. According to the most recent Ipsos-Reid polling, the exact number is 84 per cent; 77 per cent of Canadians are Christian. As Darrell Bricker and John Wright note in their recent book What Canadians Think (About Almost Everything), "That may surprise some people, given that our society is constantly depicted as being extremely secular." It is probably more accurate to say we are a nation of believers ruled by a secular elite. But the ideals of the elite are influencing the attitudes of the people. According to Bricker and Wright, 59 per cent of Canadians oppose churches giving direction to politicians on moral issues. That indicates the majority of Canadians buy into the mentality described by David Frum, who said that many liberals have no problem with religion, as long it is confined to a purely personal sphere that has no influence on how a person or others behave. This means, of course, that religion would have no meaning, not only for society, but for the believer himself. It is a view that neuters religion completely. And this is precisely the view that society has embraced. Religion has been banished from the public square. First, politicians bought into the idea that there was a separation of church and state, so total that the church has no right to speak at all; before long, the public thought this way too. But once religion was separated from politics, so, too, was morality - at least morality as most Canadians knew it. This country fell for the lie that you can't legislate morality, as if law expresses something other than the ideas about right and wrong. Pierre Trudeau famously said the state should stay out of the nation's bedrooms, but his policies have resulted in putting it everywhere else in society. The state permitted easy divorce and placed itself and its courts in an ever greater number of family disputes. The state approved and then funded abortions, thus involving itself in the doctor-patient relationship and, more ominously, the womb. The state okayed ghoulish scientific processes and funded cloning and embryonic stem cell research, thus bursting through the doors of the medical laboratories. The state attacked religion, thus entering into the churches to tell them what they could and could not do. One of the central arguments for abortion - that women should be absolutely free to do with their bodies what they want - is not extended to any other sphere. The state regulates every other aspect of life, proscribing limits to liberty. Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary theoretically has freedom of religion to carry out his duties as an ecclesiastical leader, but is being harassed by a provincial human rights commission for speaking out against same-sex "marriage." He was also visited by Revenue Canada just prior to the last election and warned against raising moral issues from the pulpit (with the implicit threat that his church's charitable tax status would be revoked if he did). Canadians theoretically have freedom of speech, but are severely constrained against voicing their opinions during an election campaign due to this country's newly-minted "gag laws." Yes, they can talk to a candidate and cast their votes, but are limited in their ability to organize themselves to address issues of a national scope by draconian limits on how much they spend and how they address issues. Women are free to procure abortions, but medical professionals do not have the right to refuse to commit them. Canadian couples are free to contracept, but pharmacists do not have the right to refuse to dispense them on conscience grounds. Homosexual couples are free to marry, but marriage commissioners do not have the right to refuse to partake in ceremonies they consider wrong. Influential minority groups are free to advocate radical changes in society, but once they succeed, Canadians who hold traditional views of morality do not have the right to revisit the issue. Rights in Canada are a one-way street that only points further and further left. The road ahead Obviously, the issue of legislating morality is not a question of whether it should be done or not. The issue is whose morality is legislated. For 40 years, the debate has been settled almost every time in favour of those who want to remake society, destroy time-hounored institutions, create new "rights" and upset the moral order. This trend will not soon change. But, there is no reason to despair. Despair is a sin. It is the belief that 308 members of Parliament and nine Supreme Court justices are more powerful than One God. From a political perspective, it is an excuse to do nothing, to accept the status quo. This leads to the temptation to remove oneself from society, to cease striving for a better world. This, of course, is wrong. Those of faith must remain faithful. Those involved in politics must remain active. Those seeking to protect themselves and their families must remain committed to their children, their spouses, and their ideals. While there is little cause for optimism, there is much cause for hope. Belief in Scripture leads to the knowledge that God will not abandon his people nor challenge them with anything greater than they can handle (with Him). Despite the claim that issues are settled - that "social peace" can censor debate - these issues can and must be re-examined. It may take a lot of hard work, co-ordination, new strategies and reinvigorated efforts, but it can be done. Democracy has been curtailed, but not destroyed, and the will of a majority of Canadians (or even a sizeable minority) cannot be ignored forever. While the inclination to protect oneself and one's family from the encroachments of government and popular culture is understandable, we are called to fight, not run. And, while you might want to ignore the state, the state will not ignore you. So, if hard work is needed to reverse the course, it is hard work that we are called to do. Commit yourself entirely to the cause of life and liberty, of faith and family. Do not vote for a political candidate who does not represent your moral views. Support those who do. Donate to, and volunteer with, pro life, pro-family and religious organizations. Become informed about the issues. Share that information with others. Don't be afraid to be different. Go against the grain. Victory might not be tomorrow, but there will be victory. Sadly, not all of us will live to see the return of moral sanity, but that is no reason to avoid hard work now. Perhaps what we are doing is "laying the tracks" - that is, creating the conditions necessary for our children and grandchildren to turn society around. If that is what we are doing, we must keep our faith, safeguard our hope, and jealously defend the truth, so that our children inherit a legacy of virtue. This is no small thing, but it is a thing worth doing. It is what we must do. We must dare to hope Tyranny's enablers In his Calgary Sun column yesterday, Ezra Levant takes several high-tech companies for their complicity in strangling freedom in Red China: "Recently, several class action suits have been filed against IBM for their role in the Holocaust. Like IBM in the Nazi era, Microsoft, Nortel, Cisco say they're just doing business -- they're not the ones arresting Chinese dissidents and sending them to prison. But they are the ones setting the high-tech traps and strangling democratic voices." Specifically their technology and programs identify computer users that use the words liberty, freedom and democracy or censure such ideas. These companies may not, as Microsoft rightly notes, actually commit any brutality but, as Ezra rightly notes, they "supply the technology that makes it worse." Freedom in North Korea A group of religious and rights organizations and leaders have called upon the administration and Congress to do more about the human rights abuses perpetrated by North Korea. (Their document can be read here.) For example, it calls upon President George W. Bush to appoint a human rights envoy to North Korea as directed by the North Korean Human Rights Act passed by Congress last year. It also requested the administration tie any aid to North Korea (a request made by Pyongyang in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons program) to progress on human rights and calls for increased American pressure on China to stop sending back North Korean asylum seekers. It also suggests expanded broadcasts of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia into North Korea but stops short of calling for military action: "We strongly believe military action is neither called for nor needed in order to improve the conditions of the North Korean people." The document is a worthy endeavour; I hope the administration pays attention. What Cubans need is a holiday from Castro Today is a national holiday in Cuba commemorating the beginning of hostilities between Fidel Castro and the Batista dictatorship in 1953. Thankfully, the Castro dictatorship looks a little more precarious than usual -- there are an increasing number of anti-Castro protests resulting in a clamp down by the state. Also, Hurricane Dennis which hit earlier this month has caused a shortage in food and increase in the spread of disease and the Castro government is being blamed for its handling of the humanitarian crisis. Pray that this government falls sooner rather than later. Update: The first half of this AP story on the revolutionary holiday indicates that the protests are solely about Cubans being upset about the electricity shortages and hot temperatures. Last year the energy minister was sacked and the government promised $500 million in infrastructure upgrades. It has also erected billboards that say: "We are doing well." Once you've read well into the story you realize that Castro is once again jailing "dissidents" which in turn lead to more protests. Monday, July 25, 2005
3 million former Chinese communists? The Washington Times reports on the phenomenon of 20,000 Chinese registering their resignations from the Chinese communist party at the website of The Epoch Times, although some are questioning the validity of the claim by the Falun Gong-connected paper. John Tkacik, senior fellow in China studies at the Heritage Foundation, told the Times that, "If it is true and they could publicize this in China in a credible way, it would be very important." But the Times reports that leaving the party is not easy: "To officially resign from the party, one has to report to a plenary session of the party branch to which one belongs." Still, something but be going on. As the paper reports: "In 2004, 2.4 million Chinese joined the party and an additional 17.4 million applied for membership, Xinhua reported. More than 69 million Chinese are party members. The party has initiated a nationwide re-education campaign titled 'Maintain the Advancement of the Communist Party,' in which members are required to take loyalty oaths." Would Beijing be inaugurating such a campaign if everything was just fine? Red China enabling continuing crisis in Zimbabwe Roger Bates writes in the Weekly Standard that the West needs to do more for the people of Zimbabwe in light of the humanitarian crisis taking place there: "The Zimbabwean opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, has asked for a transitional government made up of his MDC with Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party, and backed by Western aid and investment. Sources in South Africa say that President Mbeki is now backing this plan, and has persuaded Mugabe to come to the table, but Mbeki cannot be trusted to maintain his support, and Mugabe could easily renege on any deal. Even during initial negotiations, the South African Broadcasting Corporation announced that Mugabe was stepping up his attacks against the richer parts of the country where the opposition is dominant. Negotiators tell me they suspect Mugabe is only buying time, waiting to be given enough food to stop rural revolt, enabling him to walk away from the table and into the arms of the Chinese. In theory, the U.N. Security Council could act to end the violence, but with a Chinese veto threatened, that is unlikely. It falls then to the United States and the United Kingdom to push military intervention, for the sake of the people of this formerly successful African state." Sometimes I say 'things that are just plain incomprehensible' That was Gods of the Copybook Headings's assessment (scroll down) of my list of my favourite TV shows. Specifically GCH says: "Explain to me, if anyone can, how on earth Family Guy outranks The Simpsons? I'm a big fan of Family Guy. The epic battles between Peter and the Giant Yellow Chicken, revived in the new season, are mini-comic masterpieces. Anything with Stewie is brilliant. The scene where he sings Elton John's 'It's Goin' Be A Long, Long Time' is one of those transcendent moments in recent television. Still, not better than The Simpsons in its prime. Better than the first few seasons yes, though perhaps not as 'deep.' Certainly better than anything in the last few Simpsons' seasons. But at the shows' peak it passed itself into another level, the level of Monty Python, which is bizarrely at 11. Eleven, Paul? Eleven! And what's with Dallas and Dynasty at one and two? The Colbys was a spin-off and shouldn't have a separate ranking. You're double counting. Night Court is an intriguing choice. Definitely one of my all time favourites. Making it in the top fifteen is a bit tight though. The Big Valley is a good choice. I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck, which I guess in part explains The Colbys. That and Joan Collins' occasional appearances. You could cut glass not only on that woman's cheeks but on her tongue as well." In my defense, I said favourite, not best TV shows of all time, in which case The Colbys would get tossed out of the top 15 very quickly (that show and Night Court are sentimental favourites). For the record, I think that Monty Python and Simpsons at their best are unparalleled but I judge my favourite shows on how much I enjoy watching them and neither are always at the top of their game. I make no apologies for putting Dallas and Dynasty at one and two. And for the record, Joan Collins explains my father's interest in Dynasty/The Colbys, not mine. The Left cares more about politics than people That's why they rail against globalization all the time. Paul Staines at the Globalization Institute's blog: "It should, two centuries after Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, be axiomatic that to alleviate poverty, developing economies need to grow faster, and the poor need to benefit from this growth. Trade can play the key role in reducing poverty, because it boosts economic growth and the poor tend to benefit from that faster growth. Yet this is sometimes disputed by anti-capitalism / anti-globalization fanatics who put their ideological values before the needs of the developing world, caring more about opposing capitalist corporate symbols then raising living standards." GYC on the Tories Grumpy Young Crank has some thoughts on the Conservative Party repeating the mistakes of centre-right parties past after -- get this -- cleaning up his "apartment this weekend and [coming] across a couple of old direct mail flyers sent to me by the Reform Party of Canada, and the (then) new Canadian Alliance." How messy was GYC's room? Worse off than the mess at Conservative Party HQ apparently. Quotidian "Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is wretched, for it lacks passion." -- Soren Kierkegaard, A Kierkegaard Anthology Yanks looking to trade The $200 million payroll is not enough so the New York Yankees, who for the first time in nine years are going into the final week of July not in the top three the league, are looking to trade. They don't have much but have some big holes to fill: centrefield, a starter or two who is not injured and a reliable reliever to set up Mariano Riveria. The New York Times has the speculation. 2008 straw poll Patrick Ruffini's straw poll of the 2008 GOP presidential candidates: George Allen, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. I voted for Virginia Senator George Allen which is where I'd park my vote until Jeb Bush is pushed into the race. For the record, when I cast my vote, Allen was leading Giuliani 37.2 to 34.6. Latest on Roberts Bench Memos has news and discussion on Judge John Roberts including the Democratic attacks on his religion (practicing Catholic) and affiliations (he went to Federalist Society events). Big surprise The UN World Food Programme finally gets some relief to some of the 800,000 starving children in Niger but, as The Guardian reports, it might be too late. Hitchens on Watergate Christopher Hitchens offers this delicious bite in his New York Times review of Bob Woodward's The Secret Man: "Some of the speculations were obviously risible prima facie: did anyone really imagine Henry Kissinger or Alexander Haig taking a risk in order to uphold even the narrowest conception of ethics in government?" Add Fund's name to list supporting SCOTUS term limits John Fund addresses the issue in OpinionJournal.com, here. Lots of interesting figures ("From 1789 to 1970, justices left the Supreme Court at an average age of 68 years after only 15 years of service. Since 1970, they have stayed until they were an average of 78 years old and had served a quarter century," and "In 1970, justices issued about 150 full opinions a year, with the help of just two law clerks each. Now each justice has four law clerks and the court issues only about 80 opinions a year, relying on the clerks to screen out 99% of all the petitions for a hearing that are summarily rejected"), but I'm not entirely convinced even though I see some benefits from and the wisdom of doing so. Sunday, July 24, 2005
Weekend list Top 15 favourite TV shows of all-time* 1. Dallas 2. Dynasty 3. Family Guy 4. Oz 5. All in the Family 6. The Simpsons 7. Homocide: Life on the Street 8. Seinfeld 9. Law and Order 10. Bonanza 11. Monty Python's Flying Circus 12. Anamaniacs 13. The Big Valley 14. The Colbys 15. Night Court * not including sports or current affairs programs Steyn on WaPo columnist Richard Cohen unabletomoveon.org. That's funny. The rest of Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column is about a party (the Democrats) who, like Cohen, are obssessed with hanging chads and find too much politics in the court but who have no one to blame but themselves. Very unPC of Reese-Mogg to say In a column in the London Times in which he otherwise (somewhat) agrees with her that that the leadership of the party cannot be left solely in the hands of Tory MPs, William Reese-Mogg says of Theresa May, "She has been a Shadow minister, as well as chairman of the party. Because she was a woman, she was probably over-promoted in terms of experience early in her career." Writing the Iraq constitution Interesting article in The Guardian on the ethnic politics of writing the new constitution including possible name changes for the country (the Kurds want it renamed the Federal Republic of Iraq while the Sunnis want it called the Arab Republic of Iraq). Very promising line from Iraqi president Jalal Talabani who told paper: "Human rights and individual liberties, including religious freedom, will be at the heart of the new Iraq." While there is no direct quote about this, The Guardian reported that Talabani vowed that Iraq would never become an Islamic republic. Exhibit A in why we won't miss Justice O'Connor This is from a report in the Washington Post last week. Retiring Supreme Court of the United States justice Sandra Day O'Connor on her replacement, Judge John Roberts: "He's good in every way, except he's not a woman." Kristof on North Korea New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on what North Korea is good at: totalitarianism. Kristof explains: "Perhaps no country in human history has ever been as successful at totalitarianism as North Korea. Koreans sent back from China have been herded like beasts, with wires forced through their palms or under their collarbones. People who steal food have been burned at the stake, with their relatives recruited to light the match. Then there was the woman who was a true believer and suggested that the Dear Leader should stop womanizing: after she was ordered executed, her own husband volunteered to pull the trigger." To his credit, Kristof recognizes that "liberals should be embarrassed that it's the Christian Right that is taking the lead in spotlighting repression in North Korea." Indeed. I'm not sure whether Kristof's approach will work ("dragging North Korea into the family of nations" through direct talks, encouraging North Korea's economic integration including membership in the Asian Development Bank and continuing to feed starving North Koreans through the UN World Food Program), but that's because I'm not sure what to do about North Korea period. Still, it's nice to see a liberal is highlighting the plight of North Koreans. Quotidian "Humility, humility, humility, humility." -- St. Bernard of Clairvaux, when asked what the four cardinal virtues are, as quoted in Gillian R. Evans' Bernard of Clairvaux Cass Sunstein is (perhaps) right At first I read University of Chicago law professor Cass R. Sunstein's column in the Los Angeles Times and nodded approvingly. The gist of his argument is this: Despite the politicking before the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court that focused on naming a woman or Hispanic, "all this focus on demographics misses the most important point. What the court most needs is intellectual diversity. It should have people with a range of perspectives, different kinds of knowledge and different points of view." Sunstein has a point but one that is better applied to society than the courts. In life the only diversity that really matters is diversity of opinion -- the one diversity liberals anywhere (the media, the universities, think tanks, lobby groups, etc...) cannot tolerate. But Sunstein is wrong about the courts. There we want strict literalists. Yes, a diversity in expertises -- corporate law, division of powers, etc... -- might have benefits, but ultimately we should not want several justices who understand the intent of the framers of the Constitution and several who make it up, who see the document as a living tree. As seductive as Sunstein's column is, I don't know if he had this sort of diversity in mind. If he did, he's dead wrong (as usual). Want a better answer, ask a better question Burkean Canuck examines the issue Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson visited two weeks ago: "Why do Catholics vote Liberal?" BC suggests rephrasing the question: "Why do Canadians vote Liberal?" And his answer? Because, "Liberals are better at the politics." He also offers a few suggestions on how to turn that sad fact around; in two words: voter education. Three cheers for Guergis The CBC reports that Conservative MP Helena Guergis (Simcoe Grey) has called upon the government to stop giving aid to Red China citing its terrible human rights abuses, the fact that is has the largest army in the world, its the second largest economy, and that it has both a space and nuclear weapons program. Guergis said, "Every dollar that Canada gives to China, no matter how well intended, is a dollar that the Chinese government can spend on its military, space program and propping up other corrupt and abusive regimes like North Korea or Zimbabwe." Earlier this year, when called upon to end aid to Beijing, Minister of International Cooperation Aileen Carroll said, "We are helping China grow and influence it in the right way." Considering that we've given $1 billion to the country over the past decade, I can see its worked wonders. Perhaps former prime minister Jean Chretien was right when he said in February 2001 that Canada is too small to influence China. If a soccer game is cancelled, do the terrorists win? Inter Milan cancelled a four game friendly tour of England, they said, out of respect for the victims of terrorism. It's more likely they are scared. Terrorists 1, soccer players 0. As London mayor Ken Livingstone said, "I think that this is a very silly thing to do because it is playing the terrorists' game. They want to change the way we live." Saturday, July 23, 2005
Quotidian "I sometimes think of what future historians will say of us. A single sentence will suffice for modern man: he fornicated and read the papers." -- Albert Camus, The Fall Terror in Beruit Hours after US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice visits a tourist section of Beruit, a bomb goes off, wounding 12. Lebanonese Tourism Minister Joseph Sarkis said the attack "is a message against the government, against national reconciliation and national unity." Michel Pharaon, state minister for parliament affairs, said "The Lebanese people will continue the march of national peace, freedom and democracy." Nicholls on Rae National Citizens Coalition vice president Gerry Nicholls has a few words to say about the speculation that former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae could someday lead the Liberal Party. Nicholls says: "According to news reports, some federal Liberals are pushing the idea that the former NDP Premier of Ontario should succeed Prime Minister Paul Martin. Actually, the idea does make some sense. After all, the NDP is virtually running the Liberal government right now, so why not make it official and get a real NDPer as leader." That's funny. It would also set up a fantastic dynamic of NDP leader Jack Layton attacking Rae for ... what? Having an identical agenda to the Tories? Nicholls then notes the favour Bob Rae did for Ontario: "Rae had one great achievement as premier: through his ineptness he conclusively proved that socialism didn't work, thus paving the way for the Common Sense Revolution. Imagine if he did that at the federal level!" Rae could lead a Liberal-NDP government, wreck the country, prove socialism doesn't work and then we can elect a Conservative government. There is actually merit to the argument and something I have thought about in the past. Perhaps the best chance the Conservatives will have to win a federal election is for the Liberals to cause a whole lot of misery first. I only hope we have someone like more Mike Harris leading the Tories when that happens and someone like either of his PC leadership predecessors. A most politically incorrect question Perry de Havilland at Samizdata: "Does a voice for 'moderate' Islam in Britain actually exist?" Arab world waking up to dangers of terrorism Never mind the killing of innocents, its the tourists that are staying away because of such killing that might turn Arabs against terrorism. John J. Miller posted on The Corner earlier today: "The terrorist attack in Egypt is obviously horrible -- current toll: at least 65 dead, more than 200 wounded -- and it's starting to look worse than the massacre at Luxor eight years ago. But violence such as this, as bad as it is, may have the good effect of causing the Arab world to become more serious about terrorism. As with Luxor, many of these latest casualties are tourists--and tourists are an enormous boon to the Egyptian economy. How many will want to travel there now? Speaking for myself, Egypt is very high on the list of places I would like to visit in my life. But if you gave me a free airline ticket and a wad of Egyptian pounds this morning, I probably wouldn't go." Bob Rae as Liberal leader Many conservative bloggers tend to think that if the Liberals were to be led by Bob Rae, Ontario would become a much more attractive place for the Conservative Party. Political Staples is but one example: "According to the Ottawa Citizen, former Ontario NDP Premier is being floated as the next leader of the Federal Liberals (hat-tip NealeNews). One can only hope. He was such a terrible Premier that this decision would do wonders for putting Ontario back in play." I think that the effect would be neutral. Some Ontarians will not be pleased with the former NDP premier leading the Liberals but at the same time he has the following going for him: 1) Canadians, er, Ontarians seem to have short political memories. 2) While he will drive some Liberals to the Conservatives (or more likely, to stay home), he will bring some NDP voters to the Liberals. Net result: a wash. 3) Having abandoned socialism for a centre-left Third Way politics he will appear more moderate than he really is; his image as an unscary moderate will be buttressed by some genuinely sane views on national security and foreign policy issues. 4) Having abandoned socialism he is, once again, a media darling. 5) He is not Stephen Harper or whoever will lead the Tories. 6) Did I mention that Ontarians have short political memories. We will fight them on the airwaves ... Financial Times reported Thursday: "On Wednesday the US House of Representatives passed an amendment that allows the US to broadcast television and radio programmes into Venezuela. The amendment, introduced by Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, is aimed at offsetting the perceived 'anti-American' influence of Telesur, a nascent satellite television channel majority funded by the Chávez government and set for a full on-air launch in September." For the record, Chavez criticized the Congressional move as yet another "imperialist" threat from the United States. Media puffs Rae Adam Daifallah examines media coverage of former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae which is mentioning him as a possible successor to Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin and, at the same time, noting his involvement in the development of the new Iraqi constitution. NDP party of youth? Not only is the NDP the party of old (discredited) socialist ideas, its MPs are no spring chickens either, a point point Stephen Taylor nicely illustrates. NDP caucus has one MP under 40 (Brian Masse and he's 37); Conservative caucus has 20 MPs that are under 40 years of age. Friday, July 22, 2005
Another link in the chain At the Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn note: "Many have argued, incorrectly, that the current Iraq-centric terrorist network suddenly appeared only after the U.S.-led invasion. That is, they argue that the jihadists established their complex system of safehouses, weapons caches, funding, training, and transportation only after the fall of Saddam." Hayes has made a career of illustrating the connections -- not definitive proof but neither easily dismissed -- between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Today he and Joscelyn report on how Ansar al Islam got money and support from Saddam Hussein's regime prior to 9/11 and was based in a Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. Ansar al Islam has connections with Al Qaeda including contact in 2000 between an Ansar al Islam agent, Abu Wael, and Al Qaeda offering the latter safe haven in their camps in Iraq. A degree or two of separation is significant when dealing with the loose connection of Islamofascist terrorist networks and should certainly not be ignored or dismissed by anti-war liberals and paleoconservatives. Reforming the British Tories Former Tory chairman Theresa May argues in The Spectator that the membership of the party should decide the next leader, not the MPs. I offer this without any comment or judgement as to whether it it wiser to let the membership or MPs chose the leader: "There are those who say that only MPs know the leadership candidates well enough to make a proper judgment. That might be true if it weren’t for the fact that general elections are decided by people who, on the whole, don’t know the leadership candidates at all. In fact, if my colleagues really want to limit the right to elect the next leader to a handful of well-informed political representatives who understand the scale of the problem we face, then they should give the job to the 400-odd Conservative candidates who lost on 5 May, and not to the 200-odd who won!" Quotidian "To us a human is primarily food; our aim is the absorption of its will into our, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome replicas of Himself -- creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over." -- Screwtape explains to Wormwood the difference between God and the Devil in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters: Letters from a Senior to a Junior Devil Thursday, July 21, 2005
Quotidian "Criminals might be victims of circumstances in the sense that few of them ever had a fair chance; but it is a mistake to forget that the only 'fair chance' they ever wanted was a chance for easy money." -- James Gould Cozzens, The Just and the Unjust Churches' tax exempt status Here are two things to think about when considering the tax exempt status of churches. From Gods of the Copybook Headings: "The simple reason churches should be tax exempt is that they are not profit seeking entities." Simple, but true. So simple, in fact, most people miss the truth of that statement. GCH also notes: "Legally, I believe, tax exempt status for religious institutions is established by different standards than other non-profits. That doesn't mean the same rules can't apply to both and remove any implication that religious organizations have some type of special protection under the law because they are of a religious nature." Good idea. For too many critics of religion, the religion thing gets in the way of understanding that churches are not profit seeking entities that, in fact, do a lot of good. And from Burkean Canuck: "Increasingly, this question is raised or, like it, 'Why should churches get all those tax breaks?' The short answer is, increasingly they don't. In most jurisdictions, churches pay property taxes for that portion of physical facilities they own that are used for such things as a church-administered day care, even in the case of a not-for-profit day care that just breaks even or takes a loss. And they pay GST on the purchase of property considered by the Canada Revenue Agency as not for specifically church purposes. Further, even where a church uses its facilities for things not presently considered taxable, it pays fees for service based on road or street footage, sewers, garbage and snow removal, and fees for all the inspections that any business would pay. All of this is paid for with after-tax, charitable donations. And then there are those who wonder why donations to charities -- including churches -- can get a charitable donation tax credit." BC then notes that the tax credit for donating to a church (or other charity) is a lot lower than the credit for donating to a political party, before turning his attention to the many good things churches do in society. |