Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics and religion by Paul Tuns -- in short, everything about the human endeavour from a non-hyphenated conservative perspective.
I am Toronto-based writer and editor, whose articles, columns and reviews have appeared in more than 35 publications. I am editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper, author of Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal and a regular contributor to the book pages of the Halifax Herald.
Archives
|
Friday, September 30, 2005
Bush to name justice next week MSNBC reports that President George W. Bush is likely to name the other Supreme Court justice next week. Here is the usual list of the people Bush is supposedly considering: "Mentioned most frequently in recent days are appeals court judges [Priscilla] Owen, Karen Williams and Alice Batchelder; Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan; White House counsel Harriet Miers; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and PepsiCo lawyer Larry Thompson, who was the government’s highest ranking black law enforcement official when he was deputy attorney general during Bush’s first term. Others mentioned less frequently include appeals court judges J. MFEMFEM Luttig, Edith Jones, Samuel Alito, MFEMFEM McConnell and Consuelo Callahan." That second list has some conservative heavyweights: Luttig and McConnell and, to a lesser degree, Jones. Thursday, September 29, 2005
Speeding down the slippery slope AP reports: "The Dutch government intends to expand its current euthanasia policy, setting guidelines for when doctors may end the lives of terminally ill newborns with the parents' consent. A letter outlining the new directives will be submitted to parliament for discussion by mid-October, but the new policy will not require a vote or change of law, Dutch Health Ministry spokeswoman Annette Dijkstra said on Thursday. ... The change in Dutch policy is especially significant because it will provide the model for how the country treats other cases in which patients are unable to say whether they want to live or die, such as those involving the mentally retarded or elderly people who have become demented." ... because not enough Dutch people are being euthanized. The basis of the new policy is the Groningen Protocol, named after the university hospital in the Netherlands where doctors began (illegally) euthanizing terminally and non-terminally ill newborns and children. To read about the dangers of the Groningen Protocol, check out Wesley Smith's column from NRO earlier this year. Quotidian will return After the weekend. For those who have inquired what has happened to this feature. Best observation on Tom DeLay's woes David Frum: "Tom DeLay is not accused of corruption. He is not accused of taking bribes. He is not accused of personal enrichment. He is not even accused of breaking campaign-finance laws. Instead, if I understand the indictment correctly, he is accused of circumventing the campaign-finance laws, doing something technically legal in order to achieve an end that the state of Texas has sought to ban: routing corporate contributions to candidates for Texas office. So I can understand why DeLay so passionately insists on his innocence. Every taxpayer appreciates the distinction between tax avoidance - using legal means to reduce one's tax liability as far as one can - and tax evasion. DeLay was engaged in what might be called campaign-law avoidance. My guess is that the technical legality of what he did will in the end defeat the indictment - if indeed the case ever goes to trial. But in Washington, innocence only takes you so far. Innocence is a good excuse the first time, and maybe also the second, possibly even the third. But when you get up to the fourth protestation of innocence, well it begins to acquire a bad sound." That smell in Washington right now is the stench of death around Tom DeLay's political career. He is innocent of the charges (I say confidently) but guilty in the eyes of the media and, perhaps, his colleagues. And if not guilty, too tainted. Chief Justice John Roberts The Senate voted78-22 to confirm John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Here's the roll call. Most the surprise votes came from Democrats who voted yes: Patti Murray, Ron Wyden, Carl Levin. Obviously, they are setting themselves up as able-to-compromise Democrats for the next vote so they can savagely attack President George W. Bush's next appointee. About the DC anti-war protest Sorry that this is ... well, five days late. Oxblogs's David Adesnik was going to give Hershey kisses in exchange for answers to a little quiz to ascertain the knowledge level of anti-war demonstators but there has been no follow up to that post. But in this post he examines the arguments that the protestors and counterprotestors employed at the demonstration (and none were that compelling). I especially liked this observation: "Another disturbingly common response by protesters was giving their critics the finger. I even saw one guy marching back in forth with his hands in the air, one with the middle-finger raised, the other with a two-fingered peace sign." Such is the state of the Left's political arguments today. The jailbait caucus As I noted yesterday, Rick Casson's private member's bill raising the age for sexual consent from 14 to 16 was defeated by the Liberals, NDP and BQ, 167-99. By my count, eight (perhaps nine) MPs from those three parties supported the bill, while just one Tory MP (Gary Schellenberger) opposed it. Perhaps the latter could be called the jailbait caucus. Oddly, such pro-family stalwarts as Paul Szabo, Rose-Marie Ur and Paul Zed voted against raising the age of consent. Liberal cronyism The Canadian Press reports on the secret of David Dingwall's success, so to speak: "When David Dingwall resigned Wednesday as president of the Royal Canadian Mint, some Liberals were privately surprised -- not that the diminutive Nova Scotian had been felled by controversy but that he'd managed to survive for so long. Allegations of patronage and pork-barrelling have dogged Dingwall, an unabashed practitioner of small-town politics, since 1980 when he was first elected to represent the impoverished Cape Breton region. Yet the wily political operator always seemed able to dodge the bullet. Although he was one of then prime minister Jean Chretien's fiercest loyalists and strongest leadership organizers, Dingwall even seemed impervious to the purge mentality that set in when Paul Martin took over two years ago. He was the public works minister who hired Chuck Guite, now facing fraud charges, to run the scandal-riddled sponsorship program. Yet Dingwall somehow managed to avoid the fate of other Chretien-era cronies who were summarily dumped from their positions as heads of Crown corporations and federal agencies even though some had more tenuous links to the toxic scandal than Dingwall. How did he do it? 'He's politically smart,' said Sheila Copps, a former cabinet colleague and now a columnist for Sun Media. She said Dingwall has 'a lot of good friends in the system'." And that, my friends, is why Liberals will do anything to get elected: to help their own. Vote for top intellectual Over at Prospect magazine. My choices: Pope Benedict XVI Hernando De Soto James Q. Wilson Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Demes Definitely not on my list: Naomi Klein. What the heck is she doing as one of the 100 nominees? I get why Peter Singer is on the list -- he's repugnant but I understand. But Klein? Winnipeg's priorities The Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted that the city of Winnipeg was considering a two-year $220,000 bailout for the Burton Cummings Theatre; last week, the same city council gave another theatre, the Pantages, $110,000. This largese comes despite a municipal operating deficit of $18 million, total debt of more than $428 million and deferred road repairs because the city just can't afford it. New GG becomes media darling Gerry Nicholls notes the evolving role of the Governor General to mere PR instrument of the government of the day and how after weeks of media skepticism about Jean's credentials and criticism of her past she has suddenly become beloved: "The Governor-General has evolved from being the Queen’s representative in Canada to being a PR device for the federal government. That’s was pretty obvious from yesterday’s swearing in ceremony for Michaelle Jean, which looked for all the world like some sort of combination variety special and reality show. And the beautiful and articulate Jean played her part masterfully – the teary cheeks, the emotional speech, the reaching out to all regions. She sure has the media gushing her praise. (They have conveniently forgotten about the way she once apparently dallied with separatism.) It’s all part of a plan, I think, to sell the federal government as an institution to a generation of Canadians who are growing increasingly cynical about this scandal-ridden institution. The government seems to be saying: 'forget the scandals, look how hip we are!'" Gerry is onto something here. The media was critical of Jean when she was merely the Governor General designate, but now that she's effectively an ambassador for the Liberals, the media now gives her what a former editor of mine indelicately called "the blow job treatment." Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Most MPs support adults having sex with minors CTV reports: "A Conservative MP's attempt to raise the age of consent has failed, with a resounding defeat in the House of Commons. When Conservative MP Rick Casson's bill was put to a vote Wednesday night, 99 parliamentarians voted in favour of increasing the minimum age for sex by two years, to 16. A total of 167 MPs voted against the bill." Challenging Castro No paper has demonstrated its dedication to the cause of liberty as clearly and consistently as has the New York Sun. For proof look no further than today'seditorial: "Congress is scheduled to vote today on whether to get tough with the Cuban tyrant, Fidel Castro. It is now more than two months since Mr. Castro began his latest crackdown on his citizens. The measure the House is scheduled to vote on today, House Resolution 388, is expected to pass, categorically condemning Castro's regime, his imprisonment of his own people for the crime of wanting democracy, and the European Union's coddling of the despot. After the crackdown began July 22, the number of dissidents arrested has reached at least 50, of whom more than a dozen remained in jail at last count. They join 61 of the 75 dissidents who were arrested in a similar wave of repression in 2003. A month ago, one of those arrested in July, Rene Gomez Manzano, started a hunger strike ["Cuba's Ganji," August 22]. Since then, several others have adopted that form of protest, including a journalist, Victor Arroyo, who is now in the third week of his own hunger strike, and an activist, Felix Navarro. Messrs. Arroyo and Navarro were arrested in 2003. In statements to The New York Sun in August, spokeswomen for both the White House and the State Department called for an end to the repression in Cuba. Now the House will issue a call of its own. The proposed resolution notes the plight of the jailed dissidents. It also reminds the world that Castro still jails anyone with the temerity to try to leave the island, that he still offers safe harbor to American lawbreakers, and that his regime is still listed by our state department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The resolution also notes that throughout the latest repression, the European Union has been lifting, not tightening, its sanctions. After the 2003 crackdown, the EU countries had cut off high-level official contact with the regime and had started inviting dissidents to events at their embassies in Havana. The EU lost its nerve earlier this year, lulled by the release of 14 of the detainees arrested in 2003. By July, the French embassy in the enemy capital was inviting Castro's cronies to the very Bastille Day party that sparked the protests that led to the crackdown. A failure of feck is the best hope for despots like Castro, which is why today's vote in the Congress matters." Subscribe to the Sun, here. British Tories Different country, same problem: the belief that conservative parties must swerve left to win votes. David Davis, ostensibly the most conservative of the Tory leadership candidates (or at least the most conservative of the three candidates garnering media attention), says: "I know there will be hard times. But in my view, to shift your position to shore up your core vote is the one way to guarantee that you will lose the next election." Also, according to the same London Times story: "Coral Bookmakers cut Mr [Kenneth] Clarke’s odds to 2-1 and said he was likely to become the favourite today." Meanwhile, much to the chagrin of Kenneth Clarke, Liam Fox will force Europe into the campaign by announcing that he wants the Tories to cut ties with the European People's Party, a pro-European federalist party in the EP. Instead, Fox hopes to "set up a new bloc of centre-Right, pro-market, non-integrationist and Atlanticist parties in the European Parliament. It is expected to receive the backing of other centre-Right parties, particularly among the new EU states." Environmentally friendly funerals I have no comment on this Daily Telegraph report: "A town in Sweden plans to become the first place in the world where corpses will be disposed of by freeze-drying, as an environmentally friendly alternative to cremation or burial. Jonkoping, in southern Sweden, is to turn its crematorium into a so-called promatorium next year. Swedes will then have the chance to bury their dead according to the pioneering method, which involves freezing the body, dipping it in liquid nitrogen and gently vibrating it to shatter it into powder. This is put into a small box made of potato or corn starch and placed in a shallow grave, where it will disintegrate within six to 12 months. People are to be encouraged to plant a tree on the grave. It would feed off the compost formed from the body, to emphasise the organic cycle of life. The national burial law is currently being updated to accommodate a practice that is expected to spread across the country over the next few years." Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Che Chic Jay Nordlinger notices two recent uses of the murderous thug Che Guevara to promote things. The Churches Advertising Network is using Baby Che Jesus to promote Christmas. The advertising campaign is both offensive and tacky. Then there's Che's Revolutionary Lip Balm. In the photo, the lip balm container looks like a used condom. And then there's Club Che in Dallas features "a 'Join The Revolution' international theme" that is "modeled after the late controversial rebel leader Ché Guevara." Goody. There are still communists I always get impatient with those who think that our battle with communism is over or pretend that the evil ideology no longer animates any nation. Jay Nordlinger has two examples of communism alive and kicking in today's world. Nordlinger highlights this report from Human Rights in China: "Human Rights in China (HRIC) has learned that Shanghai authorities have staged a major round-up of long-term petitioners, detaining at least 100 people since September 14. [Petitioners are people who have appealed to the government to address some wrong.] Sources say some of the detainees have been threatened with forcible psychiatric treatment. Sources in China told HRIC that beginning on the afternoon of September 14, local police detained more than 100 petitioners city-wide, with some people rounded up as they were walking in the street, or riding a bus, while others were taken in the middle of the night. Most of the detainees remain in custody, although their families have not been presented with any warrants for their detention. . . . HRIC's sources quote a number of . . . detainees as saying that they witnessed one detainee, Zhang Fenfen, being beaten by a police officer with the badge number 027223 when he refused to be photographed and searched; police reportedly also threatened to send Zhang to a psychiatric facility if he didn't cooperate. Zhang has been sent to a psychiatric hospital on two previous occasions after judicial organs ruled that he had an "obstructionist personality." While under psychiatric treatment on these occasions, Zhang was reportedly subjected to forcible injections and electric shocks." And he also highlights this report from Cuba, the "Communist hell, made all the more sorrowful by the huge and unshakable support the regime receives from Free World elites": "According to the testimony of Lisandra Lafitta, wife of the physician and prisoner of conscience Dr. Luis Milan Fernandez, her husband, a man free of mental ailments, has been arbitrarily confined since February 18, 2005, to a psychiatric ward of the Boniato Prison Hospital in Santiago de Cuba. Dr. Milan, serving a 13-year prison term, is forced to share a cell with patients suffering a variety of mental disorders . . . Dr. Milan is unable to sleep due to the incessant mosquitoes and suffocating heat (40 degrees Celsius in the shade). To escape this situation he sleeps on the floor, under his bed. Following an inspection of the Boniato Prison on June 10, 2005, when trucks arrived and guards with dogs searched every cell, Dr. Milan lost all his maps and the personal letters he had received from different countries. . . . Also, he is prohibited from receiving any medicines or food that his family takes him. Dr. Milan, who is 35 years old, has always been a very healthy man. When he was transferred from the Prison of Canaleta in Ciego de Avila (where he was confined along with 146 common prisoners) to the Combinado del Este Prison in Havana, where he underwent a medical check-up, penal authorities diagnosed the following illnesses: a tumor in the left humerus, loss of hearing, pulmonary emphysema (he does not smoke but was exposed to cigarette smoke in the Prison of Canaleta), hypertension, swollen nasal turbinates, and an enlarged liver. Dr. Milan refuses to undergo the required biopsies and surgical procedures required to treat these ailments since he does not trust the medical personnel in the prison. Dr. Luis Milan Fernandez is a member of the Independent Cuban Medical Association (Colegio Medico Independiente de Cuba). In June 2001 he and his wife, a dentist, signed a document titled 'Manifiesto 2001,' calling for recognition of fundamental freedoms in Cuba. ..." Note the use of psychiatry as a political tool to punish those who do not toe the communist line. Globe and Mail mentions my book You can read about it at The Shotgun. You can order the book from Freedom Press (Canada) Inc. Stones concert As I noted yesterday, I went to the Rolling Stones concert last night at the Rogers Centre. It was my first concert ... well, almost. I went with my parents to see Burton Cummings at the CNE when I was six or seven and we left early but I don't have any recollection of that evening other than we left early, so that concert doesn't count. Last night's concert was great. Here's the good, the bad and the ugly, but we'll save the good for last. The bad: Keith Richards' voice. He can't sing. Well, he can, but it's awful. People who must spend time in purgatory got some credit last night after listening to the two songs he sang. I'm 32-years-old and for the first time yesterday I was exposed to pot smoking. I was a little shocked to note that with just one exception, every pot smoker I saw was easily in his or her 50s. I heard several men in their 40s and 50s express their sexual interest in 17-year-olds. One gentleman -- and here I'm using the term loosely -- said, and this is a direct quote, that "17-year-olds are luscious." Another middle-aged man turned to his friend while some teenage girls walked past them in the hallway before the concert and said: "Those 17-year-olds are hot." Apparently middle aged Stones fans like teenage girls. The ugly: Keith Richards. He looks like death only slightly warmed over. Seeing grown men play the air guitar was only slightly more embarrassing to watch than the same men repeatedly punching the air with their pointer finger extended. Even uglier was seeing these same men embrace each other during the performance of Ruby Tuesday. Keith Richards' and Mick Jagger's shiny outfits. They're adults and its the 2000s. C'mon guys. The good: They did a cover of Ray Charles' (Night Time Is) The Right Time that blew me away. Backup singer Lisa Fisher sang the duet with Mick Jagger and it was incredible. In fact, their approximately six-minute rendition of this tune was worth the considerable price of admission all on its own. The backup singers were amazing; I'd pay to see Lisa Fisher sing if she ever performed solo. After a slow start -- the two opening numbers, Start Me Up and some other completely lame song, were awful -- it picked up considerably with the lesser hit She's So Cold. It's a high energy song that really got the crowd going. Until that moment, the 40,000-strong audience was somewhat subdued. The stage show was great. Lots of lights, pyrotechnics, video and, for three songs, a portion of the stage moved slowly to the middle of the stadium. That really got the audience going. I'm not a big (Can't Get No) Satisfaction fan but they rocked that song last night. Likewise for It's Only Rock and Roll, which was their closer. Mick Jagger. Yes he's ... well, there's no other way to put it ... a bit faggy with his British accent, prissy comments, strange girations and fluttering hand gestures. But he is also 100% energy; he never stopped moving, even when he played the guitar for a great rendition of Dead Flowers. The band rocked for a good two hours. If there was a disappointment for me it was that they didn't perform Gimme Shelter, my favourite Stones song and my five favourite songs of all time. Lisa Fisher could easily have done the background vocals for this tune but for whatever reason, the band continued its habit of not performing it on their tours. However, that's a quibble; they belted out maybe 15 songs over 120 minutes and for all but maybe 20 underwhelming minutes, I had a fantastic time. Monday, September 26, 2005
Done blogging for today I'm off the Rolling Stones concert with my 14-year-old and his friend. This is my first concert. It should be fun. And fodder for blogging tomorrow. British politics The British version of the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin power play continues. Chancellor Gordon Brown has angered his leftist base by vowing to keep Labour "New" with all that means for keeping Really Big Government at bay. Of course, the Left is not happy about this. The Labour Party is getting together in Brighton and the Telegraph is trying to blog the meeting. Thus far it is not all that exciting -- neither the conference nor the blog; nice try on the part of the Telegraph but still too MSMish. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has said that after overestimating economic growth Chancellor Gordon Brown will have to raise taxes 3%. Kenneth Clarke has urged David Cameron to drop out of the Tory leadership race and back either himself or David Davis. Furthermore, Clarke is beginning to brag that he thinks he can win: "I think I'm going to break this run of always being second." Or he's predicting a third place finish. Nordlinger on Iran From Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column: "Someone sent me a story from the BBC, with an amazing headline: 'EU drops hardline stance on Iran.' Ponder that, for just a bit. Had you known that the EU had a hardline stance on Iran?" Lots of other great stuff in Nordlinger's meandering (in a good way) column. And speaking of Iran's nuclear weapons, er, nuclear energy program, read Anne Bayefsky's article at NRO. Sunday, September 25, 2005
Pray for Victor Arroyo You probably won't recognize Victor Arroyo's name unless you follow such things. He is a Cuban journalist and political prisoner that was hospitalized Thursday, two weeks into his hunger strike. Fellow political prisoner Felix Navarro has joined Arroyo in protesting the treatment of prisoners. Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists has not only expressed its concern over Arroyo's health but reiterated calls for Havana to release 24 journalists currently imprisoned by the regime. Never mind the Liberal scandal, look at Harper's woes ET comments on a post of mine at The Shotgun and makes a great point: the media was all over the Carol-Jamieson-criticizing-Stephen-Harper story after the story broke about the travel expenses of Pierre Pettigrew's chauffeur. Is the media doing a little deflection for the Liberals? Good news from Poland Exit polls show that the Law and Justice party has 28% of the vote and the Civic Platform Party around 25%. The likely coalition partners look like they'll win 303 of 460 seats. Law and Justice leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski is poised to become the prime minister. (This is too bad; Civic Platform leader Jan Rokita has more favourable views of the free market than Kaczynski.) Kaczynski's twin brother, Lech, is the party's candidate for next month's presidential election. More good news: the governing Democratic Left Alliance was soundly rejected, garnering only 11% of the vote. Reuters and AP have the story. Today's vote was the fifth fully free election since Poles overthrew their communist rulers in 1989, yet not once has Poland re-elected a government. Will on Marshall In his Washington Post column, George F. Will laments that with all the attention on the current nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, America missed the opportunity to celebrate the birthday of John Marshall, the country's first chief justice. "Marshall is the most important American never to have been president. Because of his shaping effect on the soft wax of the young republic, his historic importance is greater than that of all but two presidents -- Washington and Lincoln. Without Marshall's landmark opinions defining the national government's powers, the government Washington founded might not have acquired competencies -- and society might not have developed the economic sinews -- sufficient to enable Lincoln to preserve the Union." The rest of the column explains why that is true. The Weekly Standard: deserves a wider audience That's the conclusion of Jonathan Kay after he reviews the The Weekly Standard, A Reader: 1995-2005 in the New York Post. I've been a subscriber to the Weekly Standard since Day One and it is as close to required reading as political commentary can be. You can subscribe to either the dead tree or e-versions here. Men: you are not needed The Sunday Telegraph reports that increasingly women are using IVF treatment to become pregnant because they "do not have the time or inclination for a sex life." In other words, British women are paying up to £2,500 not to have sex. Polish election Great news from Poland where according to the polls the right-of-centre parties will win enough seats in today's parliamentary elections to form a coalition government. Recent polls have both the pro-free market Civic Platform party and the populist centre-right Law and Justice party hovering around 30% support; the governing Democratic Left Alliance has just 4%, about half of the reconstructed communists. Unless there is a massive meltdown, the right should win. While there are some issues that need to be worked out between the two parties -- Law and Justice is not as enthusiastic about economic liberalization or a 15% flat tax as Civic Platform -- it would seem that anything is better than the current crop of socialists who have not done anything to dent the country's unemployment rate which is just under 20%. In other good news from Polish politics, it looks like Civic Platform's Donald Tusk will win the presidential election next month. Steyn on the intellectual poverty of Democrats -- and Republicans Mark Steyn begins his Chicago Sun-Times column thusly: "American politics seems to have dwindled down to a choice between a big government party and a big permanently-out-of-government party. The Senate Democrats had two months to cook up a reason to vote against John Roberts and the best California's Dianne Feinstein could manage come the big day was that she'd wanted to hear him "talking to me as a son, a husband and a father." In that case, get off the judiciary committee and go audition for 'Return To Bridges of Madison County,' or 'What Women Want 2' ('Mel Gibson is nominated to the Supreme Court but, despite being sensitive and a good listener, is accused of being a conservative theocrat')." He then handles the party's willing submission to the George Soros/MoveOn.org/Cindy Sheehan wing of the party with great aplumb. He pokes fun at Sheehan's "Million-Moan March washed up in Washington on Thursday to besiege the White House." Great stuff. But he saves some arrows for the Big Government party, too. About the Republicans Steyn says: "Big-time Republicans tell me Bush's profligacy is doing a great job of neutralizing the Dem advantage in the spending-is-caring stakes. This may have been true initially -- in the same sense as undercover cops neutralize a massive heroin-smuggling operation by infiltrating it. But, if they're still running the heroin operation five years later, it looks less like neutralization and more like a change of management." So what choice do Americans have? Here's Steyn: "Instead of changing the nature of the federal government, the Republican majority in Washington seems to be changing the nature of the Republican Party. The Democrats' approach to government has been Sorosized, the GOP's has been supersized. Some choice." That would be no choice, woudln't it? Surprising fact Estonia has the highest rate of HIV infection outside Africa with (officially) one in 100 carrying the disease. The number may be higher. I found this surprising on two counts. One, that it is an eastern European country that has the highest HIV infection rate outside Africa. I know, I know; Russia has a huge AIDS problem, but it still surprised me that a southeastern Asian or perhaps Caribbean nation didn't have a higher rate. Second, that the highest infection rate outside Africa is so low. Many African nations consider themselves to have the problem under control when they get infection rates under one in 10. Interview with Chavez The Washington Post's Lally Weymouth interviewed Venezuelan dictator Hugh Chavez. It is entirely predictable as he rants against the American "terrorist state." In one part he states that recently, "Reverend Robertson called for my assassination. This is a terrorist attack, according to international law. In Miami, on a daily basis, people on TV shows are calling for my assassination. This is terrorism." Very interesting. Robertson doesn't speak for the state. Neither do the Miami radio stations. Perhaps in Venezuela where freedom of thought and freedom of association are controlled, when preachers or members of the media speak it is the approved state version of things, but in the United States they are merely privately expressed opinions. It is telling that Chavez either doesn't get the distinction or choses to ignore it. But what do you expect from someone who when asked about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro replies: "He is one of my best friends." The rest of the interview also illustrates the fact that Chavez is either delusional or a liar as he discusses American empire and its "plans" to invade Venezuela, the left-wing revolution in Latin America, and his and Fidel's plans to provide surgery for all Latin Americans with eye problems. Rescuing Canada's Right Of course you are all going to be purchasing Rescuing Canada's Right when it comes out in November. Although you are not supposed to judge a book by its cover, Rescuing Canada's Right has a great cover. Here are some of the themes authors Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin promise to address: · Why the Conservative Party and its predecessor parties have such a poor electoral record · Why today’s Conservative Party is not really conservative · Why a new political vision is necessary to inspire Canadians – and what it should be · How the Liberals use public money to entrench an unhealthy reliance on the state – and how the right has failed to challenge it · What Canadian conservatives can learn from the American and British experiences · How to build a Canadian conservative counter-culture in media, academia, and the law · How the right can break though to the young, to immigrants and in Quebec · An action plan to end Canada’s democratic deficit - and level the political playing field I'm really looking forward to reading it. Weekend list The 30 best baseball books 30. The Glory of Their Times: The Story of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It by Lawrence Ritter (1984) 29. What Baseball Means to Me: A Celebration of Our National Pastime edited by Curt Smith (2002) 28. The Diamond Appraised: A World Class Theorist & a Major-League Coach Square Off on Timeless Topics in t he Game of Baseball by Craig Wright and Tom House (1991) 27. The Head Game: Baseball Seen from the Pitcher's Mound by Roger Kahn (2000) 26. Iron Horse: Lou Gehrig in His Time by Ray Robinson 25. A Mathematician at the Ballpark: Odds and Probabilities for Baseball Fans by Ken Ross (2004) 24. Why Time Begins on Opening Day by Thomas Boswell (1984) 23. The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract by Bill James (2003) 22. Top of the Heap: A Yankees Collection edited by Glenn Stout (2003) 21. Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The Unlikely Success Story Of A Game That Became An American Passion by Glen Guzzo (2005) 20. Forging Genius: The Making Of Casey Stengel by Steven Goldman (2005) 19. National Pastime: How Americans Play Baseball and the Rest of the World Plays Soccer by Stefan Szymanski & Andrew Zimbalist (2005) 18. Baseball Dynasties: The Greatest Teams of All Time by Rob Neyer, Eddie Epstein (2000) 17. Beyond the Shadow of the Senators: The Untold Story of the Homestead Grays and the Integration of Baseball by Brad Snyder (2003) 16. The Book on The Book: A Landmark Inquiry into Which Strategies in the Modern Game Actually Work by Bill Felber (2005) 15. 9 Innings: The Anatomy of a Baseball Game by Daniel Okrent (1984) 14. The Old Ball Game: How John McGraw, Christy Mathewson, and the New York Giants Created Modern Baseball by Frank Deford (2005) 13. Confessions of a Baseball Purist: What's Right--and Wrong--with Baseball, as Seen from the Best Seat in the House by Jon Miller (2000) 12. The Heart of the Order by Thomas Boswell (1989) 11. Baseball for Everyone: A Treasury of Baseball Lore and Instruction for Fans and Players by Joe DiMaggio (1942) 10. The National Game: Baseball and American Culture by John P. Rossi (2000) 9. Creating the National Pastime: Baseball Transforms Itself, 1903-1953 by G. Edward White (1996) 8. I Never Had It Made: An Autobiography of Jackie Robinson by Jackie Robinson (1972) 7. How Life Imitates the World Series by Thomas Boswell (1982) 6. A Great and Glorious Game: Baseball Writings of A. Bartlett Giamatti edited by Kenneth S. Robson (1998) 5. Baseball: An Illustrated History by Ken Burns (1994) 4. The Numbers Game: Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics by Alan Schwarz (2004) 3. Bunts: Curt Flood, Camden Yards, Pete Rose and Other Reflections on Baseball by George F. Will (1998) 2. The Dimaggio Albums (Box set) by Joe DiMaggio (1989) 1. Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball by George F. Will (1991) * Also, Total Baseball by John Thorn et al and Baseball Prospectus by the "Baseball Prospectus Team of Experts" are a pair of annual releases that are impossible to rate with books that are not purely about statistics but which should be on the shelf of every baseball fan. African al-Qaeda arrests This may be more politics than actual War on Terror success, but if it's true it's great news: Eight al-Qaeda suspects were arrested in Somaliland -- a country that is not internationally recognized. President Dahir Rayale Kahin said the men were disguised as clerics and intended to strike before September 29 elections in an attempt to disrupt them. Amy Welborn on the Catholic Church's 'gay purge' In the New York Times, of all places! (I know, I'm breaking my own no exclamation marks rule, but Amy Welborn is in the New York Times!). She says it is not a purge as much as applying the Catholic Church's rules on Catholic seminaries: "The same goes for the presence in seminaries of gay subcultures that draw their identity from secular values rather than the Catholic moral vision. Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising. A seminary has a dual responsibility. It owes the future priest preparation for a life of sacrifice, unique witness and engagement with other human beings at moments of joy and pain in a society that has no respect for his vocation. But a seminary also owes us, the people in the pews, psychologically mature priests who aren't engaged in an eternal and ego-driven struggle with their own problems, who are prepared to serve, to teach and preach - with integrity and honesty." Saturday, September 24, 2005
Questioning the protestors Literally question them. David Adesnik at Oxblog was planning on giving a Hershey Kiss to the anti-war demonstrators who would answer his five-question survey. Here are the questions: "1. George Bush's middle initial is W. What does it stand for? 2. Approximately how many American soliders have been killed in Iraq? 3. One of the main organizers of this protest is ANSWER. What do the letters of "ANSWER" stand for? 4. Who is the prime minister of Iraq? 5. Who is the president of Afghanistan?" How many would "peace" demonstrators would get even two of those? I look forward to him publishing the results. Someone else's weekend list Opinion Journal has Tim McCarver's five favourite baseball books: 1. "Ball Four" by Jim Bouton (World, 1970) 2. "The Summer Game" by Roger Angell (University of Nebraska Press, 2004). 3. "The Great American Novel" by Philip Roth (Holt Rinehart Winston, 1973). 4. "The Boys of Summer" by Roger Kahn (Harper & Row, 1972) 5. "October 1964" by David Halberstam (Villard Books, 1994) I might try to put something together along these lines by the end of the weekend. Quotidian "I had the feeling that he wasn't quite pleased with his parents. Either he didn't like them or perhaps they weren't his style." -- Painter Allen Saalburg about S.J. Perelman, quoted in Dorothy Herrmann's S.J. Perelman: A Life Just say no to Amtrak On his blog, Joseph Vranich, one of the creators of Amtrak, says get rid of it. He delivers the same message at TCS: "We could phase Amtrak out of existence while preserving the busiest routes through a competitive bidding system that reduces subsidies as more efficient private companies take over. Already in the United States, companies under contracting arrangements carry 40 million rail commuters annually -- many more than Amtrak carries -- and they do so with a high degree of reliability. The trains in Europe that are run by private companies are the ones gaining the most customers, a result of companies providing higher quality and lower prices to stay ahead of market contenders. Such competition inspires them to be more innovative and imaginative. Amtrak will never turn itself around if it keeps raking in taxpayer's dollars. If Congress won't cut Amtrak and other wasteful programs now, then President Bush must put his thus-far-unused veto pen to use." What Leahy really meant Earlier this week, Senator MFEMFEM Leahy (D, Vt.) supported Judge John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Cour of the United States. David Mader examines Leahy's surprising move and here's the money quote: "Leahy suggests that his decision to support Roberts' confirmation is motivated in large party by his belief that Roberts lacks an 'ideological agenda.' ... What Leahy means is that he doesn't believe that Roberts has an ideological agenda with which Leahy doesn't agree." There is one other aspect of Leahy's endorsement that everyone should remember: the media will remind Americans how non-partisan the Vermont senator was in the Roberts nomination -- a nomination that will likely get Senate approval with or without Leahy's endorsement -- when he viscously attacks President George W. Bush's next judicial nominee. Friday, September 23, 2005
The Mugabe model Over at Samizdata, Johnathan Pearce links to this unsurprising story about how South Africa's Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, for the first time, is forcing a white farmer to sell his land under a socialist redistribution plan to increase black land ownership. The farmer refused to agree to a suitable price so now he will have a price imposed upon him. And this will surely not be the last time it happens. As the BBC reports: "South Africa's government says it wants to hand over about a third of white-owned farm land by 2014." Bush just can't win Stephen Spruiell, NRO's Media Watch blogger, notes that, "After President Bush briefed reporters on his intention to visit the area affected by Hurricane Rita as soon as possible, one reporter yelled, 'Sir, what good can you do going down to the hurricane zone? Might you get in the way'?" If Louisiana's senators win this argument, pork is on its way Porkopolis estimates that the $250 billion request to rebuild Louisiana, never mind Alabama and Mississippi, would cost approximately $80,000-$100,000 per affected person. Thursday, September 22, 2005
IMF has its hand out The International Monetary Fund is working to improve its anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism program, as it should. But this costs money and it urges donor nations to give more. According to the IMF's press release announcing the change to the AML/CFT program, its, "resources are limited and urges the donor community to commit additional resources, given the clear and urgent need to support countries in the implementation of the revised standard." Free Khodorkovsky The Financial Times and MoscowTimes.com report that Mikhail Khodorkovsky has failed in attempt to appeal his conviction of fraud and tax evasion, a result of a politically motivated prosecution. However, his prison sentence has been reduced from nine to eight years. According to the Moscow Times, which was at one time owned by Khodorkovsky (I have no idea if it still is), Yury Shmidt, the former Yukos CEO's lawyer, said he understands that the Prosecutor General's Office was planning to bring more charges against his client. Platon Lebedev, Khodorkovsky's former business partner, also had his sentence reduced from nine to eight years. Japan's reformist government Following his stunning victory earlier this month, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is pressing ahead more aggressively with privitization plans, including the restructuring and abolishing eight state-owned banks. As the Financial Times reports: "The proposed move would provide an important boost for the country's private sector banks, which have been undermined by government-backed financial institutions that have cannibalised their customer base and undercut their prices. Japan's state-owned banks generally raise money by issuing government guaranteed bonds and making long-term, low-interest loans to corporations involved in areas such as urban redevelopment. They have often been used to channel cheap funds to construction companies and other businesses with connections to the government or bureaucracy. Mr Koizumi's proposed reforms are unpopular with some anti-reform bureaucrats." What a great move, both economically and politically. Koizumi could just as easily sat back but he knows that politicians cannot bank "political capital" and that it only increases when it is being seen as being used. Polls show Dems to hold Michigan (X2) The Detroit News reports that both Governor Jennifer Granholm and Senator Debbie Stabenow hold significant leads over their likely GOP opponents. Depending on the poll, Granholm leads Republican Dick DeVos by 15-20 points. DeVos has no competition for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. Stabenow leads either likely opponent by at least 24 points. Interestingly, both candidates, Rev. Keith Butler and Jerry Zandstra, are ministers; Zandstra is also the Program Director for the Acton Institute, a religious, pro-free market think tank. Business takes a pass on embryonic stem cells The Economist has an interesting article on the business of stem cell research, by which they mean embryonic stem cells. It concludes: [Consultant Michael] Steiner reckons that just over $1 billion was spent on stem-cell work last year, a mere 1% of global spending on health-care R&D. More than four-fifths of that investment came from governments. Venture capital, the traditional engine of biotechnology, is remarkably scarce in stem cells. Only $50m was pumped into the field last year, as private investors look for safer bets in more developed products with larger markets, where regulation and patent protection is more clearly defined. It will be some time yet before the reality of stem cells catches up with the rhetoric." When private capital doesn't rush to a "product" such as stem cell therapies, with all its promise of cures for a myriad of diseases and ailments, might that not be a sign that the promises have been over-hyped. Governments are spending money on ESCR but remember that governments have a very poor record of picking economic winners and losers; if subsidizing jobs or agriculture or whatever is a bad idea, then so is subsidizing immoral research with dubious benefits. Proving the critics of UN critics wrong In recent weeks the media has typically covered the United Nations with stories that include lines such as this: "Even critics of the UN can't envision a world without the world body," or "Even critics don't want to see the UN disappear," or "Even critics blah, blah, blah." Well, Lorne Gunter is a critic of the UN: "But while frankly and accurately assessing the U.N.'s shortcomings, Mr. Martin insisted there was no alternative to the world body. Oh, I don't know, no U.N. sounds pretty good to me." Whether its realistic for the UN's political critics to advocate its abolition is quite another issue. But there are those out there who wouldn't mind if Turtle Bay sunk into the Atlantic. Useful, new(ish) blog The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy has a new blog. (HT: Relapsed Catholic). The Canadian Coalition for Democracies needs to do the same type of thing; their message board doesn't quite cut it. Compassionate conservatism and Katrina Marvin Olasky has a list of seven suggestions on how to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and future natural disasters: 1. "Listen to and learn from the real poverty experts, those who have fought their way out of it." 2. "Tweak tax rules to make it financially possible for that black single mom, as well as middle-class individuals, to help evacuees for a year or even more." 3. "Do not discriminate in any way against groups that see the importance of offering spiritual as well as material help." 4. "Provide student evacuees with vouchers so they can attend any schools in their new communities, whether governmental, private or church-based." 5. "Create the 'Gulf Opportunity Zone' (encompassing the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama disaster area) that President Bush has called for, and within it provide tax relief for small businesses as well as other spurs to entrepreneurship. Accompany that with the White House's "Urban Homesteading Act," which would give low-income citizens free building sites on land the federal government currently owns but does not need." 6."Honor compassionate 'first responders' by telling the story of not only what went wrong, but what went right." 7. "Thank God for His mercy." In his column, Olasky expands on each point to explain its importance or provides an example of how it works. Rethinking multiculturalism David Goodhart, a man of the Left, relives the experience of Prospect's examination of race and social cohesion in the pages of The Spectator: "I wrote a 7,000-word essay called ‘Too Diverse?’ for the February 2004 issue of Prospect which tentatively explored the ‘progressive dilemma’ — the potential conflict between social cohesion and the many kinds of diversity, including ethnic diversity, that have flourished in recent decades. The essay was then reprinted in full in the Guardian under the heading ‘Why too much diversity could tear us apart’." He describes the reaction which was basically that he was the new Enoch Powell. He explains the essence of his argument: "My basic argument is that lifestyle diversity and sustained mass immigration bring cultural and economic dynamism, but without a compensating reinforcement of the ‘we’ of common citizenship and values they can also erode feelings of mutual obligation. This in turn may reduce willingness to pay for a generous welfare state — diverse and individualistic America has a thin welfare state, homogeneous Sweden has a fat one." Who could argue against that? That is, what does Goodhart say there that is not true? (I don't agree with the implicit argument that one of the main problems with massive numbers of immigrants is that it endangers support for the welfare state. I think that the lack of any sense of "we" does indeed reduce the public's willingness to pay for the welfare state; I just don't see it that as a problem.) The rest of Goodhart's essay is well worth reading because it is a critical assessment of the Left's beloved fallacies (that the West is responsible for all the developing world's ills, that nationalism is always bad, that human beings are "rational individualists with a propensity to treat all other humans with equal regard") from one of their own. But the larger question about whether a multicultural society can sustain the social cohesion necessary to thrive (or even to merely continue) is impressive not for the answers it may elicit but for even being asked. Who, I wonder, would write a similar essay in Canada, or even the United States, and especially from the Left. In the U.S., Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have both addressed the issue, but to my knowledge no mainstream Canadian conservative has. And I won't hold my breath waiting for a liberal to pose the same question. Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Quotidian "His own enjoyment, or his own ease, was, in every particular, his ruling principle." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility Not going to happen Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Silvan Shalom told the United Nations that his country would like a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. Israel has never had a seat around that powerful table. Despite the AP's arguments about Israel becoming more accepted within the international community after its Gaza pullout, it is inconceivable that the UN will let Israel have a voice on the influential Security Council. Monday, September 19, 2005
Roberts and abortion At NRO, Edward Whelan says that Judge John Roberts, even in gettting the endorsement of pro-Roe Senator Arlen Specter, has laid the groundwork for overturning Roe v. Wade. First, about the law Whelan notes: "Specter's 'super stare decisis' notion implies that there is an especially high wall that would need to be surmounted to overrule Roe. But Roberts reconceived this single high wall as two successive hurdles that would have to be cleared: first, the precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey on whether or not to revisit Roe, and second, the precedent in Roe, as modified by Casey, on what abortion regulations are permissible and on the standard of review to be applied to them. Roberts's phrasing cleverly obscured the point that it is far easier to go over two hurdles in succession than over a wall that is the height of the two hurdles combined. ... The first hurdle — overturning Casey as a precedent for applying principles of stare decisis to Roe — is easily cleared: The principles of stare decisis invoked in Casey were contrived for that case and are in conflict with the Court's other precedents on precedent (such as Lawrence v. Texas, as Scalia's dissent in that case points out). Moreover, what Scalia aptly described in his Casey dissent as the majority's 'Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life-tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding' of a Court that 'speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"' — is profoundly antithetical to the American understanding, and Roberts's stated understanding, of the role of the Court. The second hurdle should likewise prove insubstantial. The 'undue burden' standard that resulted from Casey's modification of Roe is patently subjective and unworkable, as illustrated by the fact that its inventors split on its application to a ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart. Casey itself eroded Roe, and there will be plenty of occasions for further erosion. The political processes are fully capable of determining abortion policy and of identifying and protecting any legitimate reliance interest that anyone might have in Roe. And the grossly distorting effect that Roe continues to have on American politics, and on the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices, provides compelling reason to jettison Roe." The idea that Casey itself eroded Roe is, as far as I know, a novel reading of the decision, but who am I to argue with the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a person who "worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1992 to 1995." The law may be esoteric but the politics isn't and I fully agree with Whelan's argument that some of things Roberts said are ... well ... just things he said. As Whelan notes, Roberts says that Casey is "settled as a precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis" is nothing more than "definitional boilerplate in Roberts's usage." Whelan explains that, "As Roberts employs the terms, anything that qualifies as 'precedent' is 'settled,' and all precedents of the Court are 'entitled to respect'." But respect doesn't mean that the precendent is binding, only a fairly firm guidepost. I should note that I disagree with some pro-lifers on this point about Roberts' words being "definitional boilerplate." They say that Roberts is not telling senator what they want to hear but what he believes. Or, if he is telling them what they want to hear, that he isn't giving himself much wiggle room later. Whelan addresses the legal arguments in his article. But the heart of my rebuttal to pro-life skeptics of Roberts and their belief that he is going to be David Souter II is simply this: Roberts is smarter than David Souter I. Bush II cares more about the abortion issue than Bush I did. I doubt that Bush II would appoint a solidly pro-Roe justice to the court. Quotidian "Gravity is the quality that confers greatness in literature, even on comic literature; gravity has to do with spirituality, with high and undeflected seriousness, with recognition that literature provides the best record of the common humanity of all." -- Joseph Epstein, Plausible Prejudices: Essays on American Writing Sunday, September 18, 2005
Weekend list 19 favourite Rolling Stones songs 19. Mother's Little Helper 18. Paint It Black 17. You Can't Always Get What You Want 16. Let It Bleed 15. Under My Thumb 14. Child of the Moon 13. Jumping Jack Flash 12. Not Fade Away 11. Lady Jane 10. She's A Rainbow 9. Torn and Frayed 8. Street Fighting Man 7. Bitch 6. No Expectations 5. Shattered 4. Can't You Hear Me Knocking 3. Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo (Heartbreaker) 2. Sympathy for the Devil 1. Gimme Shelter Reform wasn't going to happen no matter who won in Germany Writing in the London Times Anatole Kaletsky says that putting Germany's fiscal house in order isn't going to happen regardless of who wins this weekend's election there because of the larger macroeconomic forces at play (structural issues associated with the European Union that are beyond the control of the government of the day) and political limitations (the nature of coalition governments). Quotidian "The Homeric Greeks, the master class, Vico tells us, were cruel, barbarous, mean, oppressive to the weak; but they created the Iliad and the Odyssey, something we cannot do in our more enlightened day. Their great creative masterpieces belong to them, and once the vision of the world changes, the possibility of that type of creation disappears also." -- Isaiah Berlin, The Crooker Timber of Humanity Muslims block terror definition Good column by Joshua Muravchik at the Los Angeles Times explaining why the 56-state Organization of the Islamic Conference, nearly 30% of the UN's membership, has prevented the United Nations from defining terrorism. Muravchik notes that the OIC has prevented the UN from defining terror since 1997: "A proposed U.N. convention against terrorism has been stalled since 1997. The holdup? How to define terrorism. But this is nothing more than a semantic trick. The Islamic states insist that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. Putting a bomb in a market or train or bus is not an act of terrorism, they say, if it is done for a righteous purpose; namely national liberation or resistance to occupation. To say there is a problem of definition is to focus on a word. The real question is whether it is ever legitimate to target women, children and other noncombatants. For the Islamic states, the answer is yes. Not only have they succeeded in blocking anti-terror resolutions, they have secured votes endorsing their approach. In 1970, the General Assembly adopted a resolution 'reaffirm[ing] … the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal.' This has been repeated several times by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. Everyone understands that the last phrase is a euphemism for terrorism." After 9/11 (and Bali and Beslan and ...), there seemed to be renewed interest in defining terror: "Last year, the U.N.'s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed to cut the Gordian knot by having the U.N. embrace this common-sense language: 'Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act'." That seems to make sense, doesn't it? Too much so, apparently, for the OIC which initially signalled its support but eventually did oppose the wording and thus it was "stripped out of the final document." Although terrorism is denounced by the UN, its language leaves Islamists free to support terrorist attacks in, for example, Israel and Iraq against so-called "occupiers". Sadly, the U.S. claimed victory, apparently a bad, incomplete or ambiguous definition of terrorism being better than none. Hugh v. Sid Powerline on the differences between Hugh Hewitt and Sid Blumenthal, just so Andrew Sullivan won't mix them up again. 10. Hugh has not been called before a grand jury. 9. Hugh believes in people; Sid believes in conspiracies. 8. Both have great hair, but Hugh's is gray. 7. Hugh is a gentleman (see his response to Sullivan); Sid's nickname is "Vicious." 6. The president Hugh supports is a gentleman. 5. Hugh advances the policies of President Bush because he agrees with them; Sid advanced the misconduct of President Clinton because he was on the payroll. 4. Sid demonizes those with whom he disagrees; Hugh invites them on his radio show for a discussion. 3. Sid is a name-dropper; Hugh isn't, except for the occasional Catholic Bishop. 2. Hugh didn't compare our liberation of Fallujah to the Nazi's siege of Stalingrad; or America's handling of terrorist detainees to Stalin's gulag. 1. Hugh has a massive nationwide U.S. audience (sort of like Sullivan once did); Sid is read, if at all, in a few precincts of England and Germany. Tories call for tax cuts to help families Alas, it's the British Tory leadership candidates calling for lowering taxes to make life easier for English families, not Canada's pathetic Conservatives who haven't said a peep about taxes since ... I can't remember. Saturday, September 17, 2005
Judged by one's admirers? Alarming News wonders: "Is it just me or does the fact that Ariel Sharon got 'the warmest applause in decades for an Israeli leader addressing the UN General Assembly' worry you?" Quotidian "A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." -- G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man Because it's never too early, and no one is too insignificant to run Arkansas' Republican Governor Mike Huckabee is visiting Iowa so he obviously has presidential ambitions. In fact, unlike many politicans who are coy about their intentions, Huckabee admits that he is considering running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Pop quiz Who said this? "Now I love unions ... Multi-national corporations like DaimlerChrysler Canada pretty much have their way in spite of the Canadian Autoworkers Union that represented me as a worker for six years (and of which I am still a card carrying member). Imagine working without the union. Wages and benefits would roll back substantially hurting the prosperity of families and communities. As well, workers would become expendable without recourse to important grievance mechanisms. It’s tough enough feeling replaceable without easily becoming so." Hints #1 and #2: The person is an MP and blogs. Here's some more. "But Labour Day isn’t just about union jobs. It is also about those who labour without such distinction. Our farmers feed our cities, yet urban unions aren’t doing anything to show solidarity with farmers who are facing yet another year of declining revenues. Because their productivity has been replaced by agribusiness and foreign market, cities haven’t noticed the changes in rural Canada nor the steady disappearance of family farms. If current trends stay constant, it won’t be more than a couple more years before farms collapse in Canada. As fellow labourers, we need to support our farmers. Thank a farmer when you see one. If you’ve never seen a farmer, get in your car and journey outside your city and pick a farm at random. Knock on the door and say, 'thanks!' It will make their day. Then buy local produce. Buy provincial produce. Buy Canadian produce. Demand it on your shelves at grocery stores. The large grocery chains aren’t helping our producers much either. You might pay a buck and a half for a cantaloupe but the local farmer got less than 30 cents for it. And he had to sell because the massive purchase power of grocery chains allow them to name their price. Our farmers’ cost of production isn’t as low as the lowest global price the chains can get to their shelves." That would be Conservative MP and not-conservative blogger Jeff Watson (Essex). Bush re-establishes free trade creds I heard about these comments from President George W. Bush but couldn't find it on the 'net. Found them, eventually, at the indispensible Globalization Institute blog: "Today, I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs and subsidies and other barriers to the free flow of goods and services as other nations do the same." Even if it is a bluff, what an incredible bluff it is. Thursday, September 15, 2005
Willets backs Davis David Willets has decided not to run for the Tory leadership race and has backed David Davis, a major blow to Davis' two main competitors, David Cameron and Ken Clarke, who both desired Willets' support. The London Times reports, "Mr Clarke needed him to underline his claim to attract all wings of the party and Mr Cameron was hoping that the support from a respected heavyweight figure would have given his campaign fresh momentum." Willets explains in a guest column in the Times that Davis has the "right mixture of authority, credibility and personal experience to be an effective leader." More importantly, one presumes, is that Davis can best advance Willets' agenda which the Shadow Industry Secretary explains is thus: "I have been arguing that we can renew our Conservatism by standing for personal freedom in a stronger society. These are not just the usual principles enunciated by politicians, they are above all statements about what it is that enables people to lead fulfilled and satisfied lives. Conservatives have been quite good at the freedom bit — and of course the price we must pay for that freedom is eternal vigilance. That means deep scepticism about the Government’s proposals for ID cards and it means relentlessly pursuing the case for free trade, lower taxes and market reform. We have been better at the politics of I and me than the politics of we and us. But your life only really has meaning as part of a family, a neighbourhood, and indeed a nation. That is why we have to show we don’t only talk about public services but value public service. That is why we must be the party of real social reform with genuine compassion and understanding. It is not good enough just to tell people to pull their socks up. All those voters in the middle of British politics need to see a Conservative Party that doesn’t just talk about tough estates, broken families and abandoned public spaces but really means it and has a policy agenda to match." Quotidian "The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population, or if he is not, how he knows he is not." -- G.K. Chesterton, introduction to A Christmas Carol Here we go again The New York Times expects the worst when it comes to elections in the Middle East, predicting violence in Afghanistan's parliamentary elections this coming Sunday. Voters, the paper predicts again (remember Iraq in January and Afghanistan last October?), must choose between voting and possibly being a target of "insurgent" violence on the one hand or staying home and remaining safe on the other. Of course, earlier elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were disappointingly non-violent for most of the anti-Bush western press. Clinton's real legacy Reuters reports that according to a report released from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, that oral sex is more common than sexual intercourse -- or as one teenage girl I overheard one time call it, "the regular kind." The NCPTP found that 54% of teenage girls (including 72% of 18 and 19-year-old girls) and 55% of teenage boys have engaged in oral sex and that one in four teens who have not had intercourse have had oral sex. Bill Maher once said that in post-Lewinsky America where oral sex is not considered sex, society has effectively turned teenage girls into prostitutes. Nice legacy, Mr. (former) President. Corporations line up behind Clinton Bill Clinton, that is, and his Clinton Global Initiative. WND reports that "750 global glitterati and their aides have converged on the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers – at $15,000 per head – to forge a "new level" of global cooperation." The corporations that sponsored his big gabfest/fundraiser in New York this week include the usual suspects of liberal corporate America: Microsoft, Starbucks, Hewlett Packard, Google, Yahoo, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation and Citigroup. The political bigwigs include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Jacques Chirac, media baron Rupert Murdoch, former vice president Al Gore, Secretary General Kofi Annan and Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice. Clinton hopes to do what the UN does -- talk about the environment, talk about poverty, talk about peace -- but in a way that he gets all the credit. Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Government wasn't there for Katrina victims, but gun shops were The Boston Globe reported that Wal-Mart has stopped selling guns at 40 stores in areas affected by hurricane Katrina: "Smaller stores are eagerly filling the void. Spillway Sportsman, near Baton Rouge, sold 172 guns in one three-day period after the hurricane, when normally it might sell 15. One mother came in to buy her first gun after she and her two children, ages 9 and 12, witnessed a slaying on the streets of New Orleans, said Scott Roe, Spillway's owner. 'Her comment was, "I was a card-carrying, antigun liberal -- not anymore",' Roe said. 'She said, "I'm going back home, and I am not going back unarmed".'" The Globe quotes one Wal-Mart customer who said that no one needs guns at a time like this, saying that police will protect people. But the police can't be everywhere, all the time, can they? (HT: Clayton Kramer) Good news? RedState reports: "Sources tell RedState that there are two names actively in circulation right now for Justice O'Connor's seat. Those names are Judge Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and Larry Thompson, formerly the second in command at the Justice Department. Yes, you heard it here. Edith Jones is in play and it is not just a conservative dream." Jones, unfortunately, is only a conservative dream. I still believe that it is unlikely that President George W. Bush is going to pick someone whose name often crops up when media reports list of potential SCOTUS justices. For the good news of Edith Jones being appointed to the Supreme Court, first it must become surprising news. Quotidian "Every man makes his own summer. The season has no character of its own, unless one is a farmer with a professional concern for the weather." -- Robertson Davies, "Three Worlds, Three Summers -- But Not the Past Summer, The Enthusiasms of Robertson Davies Sympathy for a devil The AP reports on the execution of Frances Newton, 18 years after she shot and killed her husband and her two children. She became the third woman and first black woman executed in Texas since the death penalty was resumed in the Lone Star state in 1982. (Isn't that an amazing fact when you think about it.) The AP reports: "Strapped to the death chamber gurney and with her parents among the people watching, she declined to make a final statement, quietly saying 'no' and shaking her head when the warden asked if she would like to speak. Newton briefly turned her head to look at her family as the drugs began flowing. She appeared to try to mouth something to her relatives, but the drugs took effect. She coughed once and gasped as her eyes closed. She was pronounced dead eight minutes later. One of her sisters stood against a wall at the rear of the death house, her head buried in her arms. Her parents held hands and her mother brushed away a tear before they walked to the back of the chamber to console their other daughter. About three dozen demonstrators chanted outside but the crowd paled in comparison to the hundreds who gathered in 1998 to protest the execution of Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War." So I ask you, who was the victim? The AP gave a sympathetic account of Newton's last minutes, presenting her as a helpless woman and vividly describing the obvious pain of her family. I ask who appears to be the victim because the one thing that makes me squeamish about the death penalty (and why I oppose broadcasting executions) is that the public, even for the moment, may become confused about who the real victim is. The AP story didn't even mention the names of the family members Frances Newton killed in 1987. Her husband was named Adrian, her 21-month-old daugher was named Farrah. Frances took out a $100,000 life insurance policy shortly before killing them, forging her husbands signature. She also killed her seven-year-old son, Alton. Adrian, Alton and Farrah are the victims, they deserve our sympathy; not Frances Newton. Furthermore -- and I hate giving Frances Newton or her defenders more attention than they warrant -- the Free Frances website is disgusting. There is a photo of Frances Newton beside a photo of a black woman hung in the 1880s. There is no comparison between the two. The black woman from the 19th century almost certainly did not face a jury trial and likely did not commit a serious offense. Frances Newton, despite the elaborate theories of her defenders (aka: capital punishment opponents), was found guilty in a court of law of murdering three members of her family. UN reform I haven't had time to follow the World Summit this week in any depth so I haven't had the opportunity to read the agreement on UN reform which the Guardian reports about here. The Guardian says, "The negotiations have been caught in a squeeze between Mr Bolton, and a group of countries that one diplomat referred to as 'the awkward squad,' which includes Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela." It may seem strange but Syria, PA, Sudan, etc..., are concerned that the reforms proposed by Secretary General Kofi Annan go to far -- and that Annan means what the reforms say -- on obligating the UN to intervene during genocide, coming up with a definition on terror, and keeping serial human rights abusers off the human rights commission, as well as keeping strategic competitors off a reformed (read: enlarged) Security Council. John Bolton, the American ambassador to the UN, presumably represents the U.S. position but the media coverage of his first month at his new post implies that he is representing nothing but his own "anti-UN" views. Bolton opposed the original reform document because he didn't think it went far enough and that Annan wasn't serious about what he vowed to do. He also sought to change language that would seem to commit the U.S. to development aid equal to 0.7% of GDP and to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. David Shorr at Democracy Arsenal has an analysis and concludes its a good start. Here's his take: "The world leaders will 'resolve to create a Human Rights Council' Yet all of the features that would distinguish the new body from the existing discredited Human Rights Commission -- election procedures, a peer review mechanism, a year-round schedule -- remain disputed. Proponents of the Council avoided sending the issue to diplomatic purgatory by keeping an 'open-ended working group' from being set up. The proposed new Peacebuilding Commission, whose job will be to coordinate efforts to rebuild conflict-ridden countries and prevent renewed rounds of violence, is subject to a tug of war over how it will relate to the Security Council [and] the Economic and Social Council. It, too, gets a promised future birthing, but with an end-of-2005 deadline. The definition of terrorism that had been in earlier drafts was dropped from the text; a consensus that not even liberation struggles justify terror apparently hasn't been reached. The summit statement calls for the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on terrorism and 'welcomes' UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's holistic anti-terror strategy. The intention of the latter is to give counterterrorism a broader context, to 'internationalize' the issue so that efforts no longer seem so American-driven. There is no section on disarmament and proliferation. There wasn't enough agreement even to salvage. A sad statement on the state of non-proliferation affairs -- but certainly a clear statement. The development section is sprawling and deserves a fuller treatment than I can give it. An African ambassador today, though, told me that the Bush Administration's willingness to accept the 0.7% of GDP target for aid donors (albeit it as a goal for others) was appreciated. The language on the responsibility to protect victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing was one of the few passages that remained relatively intact. The key sentence reads, 'we are prepared to take collective action ... should peaceful means be inadequate.' The section on management asks the Secretary-General to submit a reform proposals in early 2006, based on a review of budgetary and personnel regulations. Provision for outside experts to oversee audits was not included." I have several observations. The mere "resolve" to create a new Human Rights Council is UN-speak for another 10 years of debate; there is no way that the General Assembly is going to approve changes that would prevent most of the member states from sitting on the council in judgment of real human rights abusers. If they do, the definition of human rights abuse will be so meaningless as to make the new HRC useless. A Peacebuilding Commission is simply a bad idea. Realizing that the UN has not entered various conflicts because the there was no peace to keep, the organization is looking to take a more "proactive" approach (my sarcasm, not their language) to creating the conditions for peace. I doubt the organization, once it creates the Peacebuilding Commission will have the political will to intervene when necessary. The negotiations over defining "terrorism" is getting bogged down in a one-person's-terrorist-is-another-person's-freedom-fighter debate. Furthermore, it is typically UN to try to "internationalize" the terrorism issue and therefore attempt to preempt U.S. efforts to defend themselves, the West and freedom in general. No "progress on disarmament" is a good thing. Utopian thinking has no place in serious international diplomacy. International development and commitments to 0.7% of GNP for foreign aid, presumably to be funneled through the UN (Oil-for-Food scandal II in the waiting), will sound good and then be ignored by every government. John Bolton agreed to the language after securing an understanding that it does not apply to the United States. At least the U.S. is honest about it unlike the Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and British Prime Minister Tony Blair types who will get their photographs taken with leaders from the developing world and feel good about making the world a better place and then ignore their commitments. Language committing the international community to the responsibility to protect people from genocide remained intact, but does that language go far enough? It still says, "we are prepared to take collective action ... should peaceful means be inadequate." "Prepared"? That isn't a commitment to act, is it? And "Inadequate"? No doubt that word will be subject to months of debate as future Rwandas and Darfurs take place far from the comfortable meeting rooms of Turtle Bay. No firm commitment to change the way the secretariat works and no provision for independent audits. 'Nuff said. Suzanne Nossel, also at Democracy Arsenal, explains why the reform package did not "achieve its promise": lack of political will, a hobbled Annan, and ineffective US diplomacy. Her comments about the last item are especially worth noting: "I've argued from the outset that the US stood to gain enormously from many of the reforms on the table this year, including strengthened UN commitments on terrorism and WMD, a more legitimate human rights mechanism, a buy-out for the organization's dead wood, and beefed up internal controls. While the Administration's frayed relationships made it harder to push these things through, it could have been done. In the past we've hammered home wildly unpopular reforms at the UN, through a painstaking process I call retail diplomacy. It involves going member-by-member, capital-by-capital and figuring out what other nations want in return for agreeing to what matters most to us. The US has enough clout at the UN to be able to get its way on almost anything, provided we go about it skillfully, advocate forcefully at the right levels well in advance of decision time, and are prepared to make trade-offs. This work cannot be done by mid-level diplomats alone: cabinet secretaries and even the President need to get involved. In this case, while the Administration waxed lofty on reform, they were far too distracted in Iraq to make the kind of push that would have been needed. The U.S. put the nail in the coffin of Security Council reform back in June, but struck no comparably powerful blows in favor of the reforms it should have cared about the most." Why there are so few economists in politics The Angry Economist explains: "I think that if somebody thinks they can decide things for other people, they do not understand economics. If you understand economics, then you are humble and modest. Of course, that would explain why there are so few economists in elected office. You have to have a large amount of confidence that you can help people by forcing them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do." Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Nicholls on the Newman's Mulroney book The NCC's Gerry Nicholls: "I am a little disappointed with Peter Newman’s R-rated Brian Mulroney biography. No where in the book does the ex-Prime Minister attack the National Citizens Coalition. Not once are we referred to as a**holes, or f***kers or as sons of b*****s. It’s not really fair, as the NCC opposed his precious GST and we opposed the Meech Lake Accord. Oh well, maybe he just ran out of colourful English adjectives when he got around to us. Maybe the next Jean Chrétien biography will give us our due." Actually, a** holes, f***ers, and sons of b*****s, describe Chretien, the PMO and many in his cabinet. Yeah, Yanks New York Yankees pummel the Tampa Devil Rays, who have been giving the Bronx Bombers trouble all season (5-11 before tonight), 17-3. Fotunately, the Toronto Blue Jays beat the Boston Red Sox 9-3 but, unfortunately, the Cleveland Indians won their game against the lifeless Oakland A's. All this means that the Yankees are two games behind Boston for the division title (BoSox magic number is now 17) and 1.5 games behind the wild card Indians. Champions League update The 3-1 score does not reflect how close the AC Milan-Fenerbahce match was. The Italian side won because Kaka scored a pair of goals in the final three minutes. Amazing. Dutch squad PSV Eindhoven beat the Germans from FC Schalke 04 1-0. Olympique Lyon stunned the injury-plagued Real Madrid 3-0 in what some soccer observers say is a sneak peek of what is to come from the French squad. Liverpool begins the group play phase of their Champions League defense by beating Real Betis 2-1 with two goals in the first 15 minutes. Chelsea looked like an average team in beating Anderlecht 1-0; the Belgians have lost a Champions League record eight straight matches. Rangers edge FC Port 3-2 in an exciting game. The Norwegian side Rosenborg Trondheim beat Olympiakos 3-1. An early goal from Julio Cruz led Inter Milan to a lucky 1-0 win over the hapless Artmedia Bratislava, one of the two weakest teams in group play. Inter will be without awesome midfielder Juan Sebastian Veron who was red-carded early in the second half. Wednesday's games include struggling Arsenal against first time in the Champions League for the Swiss Cinderellas from Thun, Villarreal vs. Manchester United, and Werder Bremen vs. Barcelona. Quotidian "I know my state, both full of shame and scorn, Conceived in sin, and unto labour born, Standing with fear, and must with full horror fall, And destined unto judgment, after all." -- Ben Jonson, "To Heaven" Choosing judges Over at The Shotgun, Terry O'Neill makes the following observation: "In the U.S., they question a court nominee in public. In Canada, we spare a prospect such an indignity by eliminating him in secret because of something his wife published." Here's what O'Neill is referring to: Brian Mulroney's own words on Anna Porter, who published Clarie Hoy's Friends in High Places, an unflattering portrait of the prime minister: "All that is left of the Hoy thing is that it cost Julian Porter [Ms. Porter's husband] the chief justiceship of Ontario. They came forward with him for chief justice of Ontario, and I killed it right on the spot. I killed that. And then he tried to get back in as one of the Ontario candidates for the Senate, and I killed that too." Conservatives who say 'don't ban sharia law in Ontario' David Mader and Bob Tarantino with common sense, limited government, arguments for permitting sharia law when it is compatible with the law of the land. Islam, Religion of Peace The Curt Jester on the most tiresome post 9/11 cliche: "There has also been much ink spilled since then whether Islam is really a religions of peace. Only truth leads to peace and Hilaire Belloc calls Islam 'The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.' This is not to say that are Moslems are inheritantly terrorists. Just that Christians get into trouble when they don't act like Jesus and Moslems get into trouble when they act more like Mohammed." (HT: Relapsed Catholic) Assorted reading Anders Aslund, director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes (HT: Oxblog) that Vladimir Putin's base of power is rapidly shrinking to "a core of secret policemen from St. Petersburg" as his popularity slips following a Putin-led retreat to authoritarianism. This is contrary to what Peter Baker and Susan Glasser say in their highly critical (of Putin) Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution, the Russian president's grasp on power is fragile. So much for what the American Enterprise Institute's Leon Aron called the "Putin Restoration." Mary Eberstadt writes in the Boston Globe: "We have lived for a long time now in this world where parents and children spend many of their waking hours apart. Thus the particulars driving family-child separation in all its varieties -- daycare, before- and after-school care, dual income parents, single parents, divorce, illegitimacy, smaller family size -- are more than mere sociological facts of life. They are also changes that have left grownups freer and financially better off than before. So it is practically unheard-of now to ask this blunt question: What, if anything, is this kind of chronic separation from family doing to kids?" She then explores the implication for children of this new family dynamic of freer but less present parents. LifeSiteNews reports that New Orleans healthcare professionals euthanized patients. Emergency worker William 'Forest' McQueen said, "Those who had no chance of making it were given a lot of morphine and lain down in a dark place to die." The Daily Mail has more. Eric Peters explains at the American Spectator how it is that America's highways have become safer in the decade since the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit was gotten rid of and in every state raised (except in Hawaii), in some states 70, 75 and 80 mph. About "Racist America" Tim Blair noted that as of late last week Americans have given nearly a half-billion dollars to the relief efforts. The Halifax Herald wonders what kind of reforms can come out of the UN summit of 191 world leaders. Considering the editorial's own description of the problems that plague the organization, I wonder if mere reform will do or whether something more drastic such as locking the doors at Turtle Bay are necessary: "Volcker's report is but the latest evidence of the UN's too-frequent incoherence as a force for progress in the world. With its devastating failures to safeguard human lives during slaughters in places like Bosnia and Rwanda, its absurd bureaucratic placements of such flagrant human rights violators as Libya and Sudan to sit as members of the UN Human Rights Commission, and the inherent contradictions inevitable with membership that includes both liberal democracies and thuggish police states, the international organization does, as Mr. Volcker stated, need to take immediate steps to restore its credibility." Why Abu Ghraib is better than the concentration camp Writing in the London Times about the brutality of the Nazis and Japanese imperialists, the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, and the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, David Aaronovitch warns about false moral equivalence: "When you hear that the US and Iraqi forces have gone in (as this week) into an insurgent town, it inevitably means an aftermath of chalky little corpses with terrible wounds, or a picture of a hand in the rubble. Every week a family car is shot up by mistake by a scared infantryman, and the kids are just as dead as they would have been had they been herded into a barn and burnt to death by the Wehrmacht. Maybe, like lots of people say, there’ s no real difference. You can (and some folks do) apply this retrospectively or worldwide. Aren’t the moral advantages conferred upon us because we didn’t behave with the close brutality of the Nazis or the Japanese cancelled out by the high-flying death dealt out on Dresden or Hiroshima? Aren’t suicide bombers merely an unarmed people’s response to an Israeli firepower that itself kills civilians?" So why is it different? Why are the Nazis and imperialist Japanese the bad guys but the Americans good guys? Aaronovitch puts it best: "The actions of depraved members of a disapproving society — deeply shamed by people such as the Abu Ghraib abusers and their weird sadism — don’t have the same implications as similar actions carried out as a matter of policy by elite members of a depraved society. What had happened at Abu Ghraib in Saddam’s day — real electrodes, not dummy ones — was specifically ordered. The regime existed because of such terrors, not despite them." The bad news about the 'Good News from Iraq' Arthur Chrenkoff is no longer blogging and his 35th and final "Good News from Iraq" can be found here. Links to all 35 of his "Good News from Iraq" and 16 "Good News from Afghanistan" can be found here. One of the best blogs -- best because it was well-researched, well-written, useful, and hopeful -- is now silent. This would be a great niche for someone to fill. If you know someone else who is doing anything like this, send an email to paul_tuns [AT] yahoo.com. Short memories or re-writing history With all the critics of the liberation of Iraq around now, Robert Kagan recalls a time, up to the eve of the beginning of the war in March 2003, when even Democrats called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein: "In his second term Clinton and his top advisers concluded that Hussein's continued rule was dangerous, if not intolerable. Albright called explicitly for his ouster as a precondition for lifting sanctions. And it was in the midst of that big confrontation, in December 1997, that Kristol and I argued what the Clinton administration was already arguing: that containment was no longer an adequate policy for dealing with Saddam Hussein. In January 1998 I joined several others in a letter to the president insisting that "the only acceptable strategy" was one that eliminated 'the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.' That meant 'a willingness to undertake military action' and eventually 'removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.' The signatories included Francis Fukuyama, Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. About a year later, the Senate passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, providing $100 million for the forcible overthrow of Hussein. It passed with 98 votes. On Sept. 20, 2001, I signed a letter to President Bush in which we endorsed then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that Hussein was 'one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth.' We argued that 'any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.' That letter, too, was signed by Fukuyama, Eliot Cohen, Stephen Solarz, Martin Peretz and many others." It's always about the French From David Frum's NRO diary: "One of the very best books I read this summer, The American Enemy : The History of French Anti-Americanism by Philippe Roger, makes the point that the French have never been very interested in the United States. When they talk about America, they are always talking about themselves -- and it is precisely when they are most uneasy about themselves that they are most inclined to lash out at the United States." Me on whether Canada is 'next' on the terrorist hit list This article appears in the September 2005 Business Report magazine: Is Canada Next? Just a matter of where and when By Paul Tuns The July 7 blasts in the London tube and in a double-decker bus on the street above that killed at least 55 and injured more than 700 may have finally awakened Canada to the possibility that it, too, may, be the target of terrorist attacks. Despite the fact that Canada is a haven for terrorists and that there are holes in the nation's security blanket, Canadians have long thought themselves immune from terrorist attacks. Whether it was the realization that Canada is the only nation on Osama bin Laden's November 2002 list of Christian countries that Al Qa'eda operatives and other Islamofascists should target that had not yet been hit, or whether our historic connections to England made the London attacks seem a little closer to home, the Canadian public and government seemed to finally open their eyes to the terrorist danger. That Canada is a target is not news, yet Canadians did not seem to notice that this country had been mentioned on the bin Laden tape until the London bombings. In that tape, the Al Qa'eda leader warned that the United States and her allies Australia, Spain, the United Kingdom and Canada should be targets. The U.S., UK and Spain were hit in high-profile attacks, while Australians have been attacked in Indonesia at a Bali resort popular with Australian tourists in 2002 and at the Australian embassy in Jakarta in 2004. Canada is the only nation on that list that has not been attacked. Ominously, the bin Laden tape was again being circulated on several fundamentalist Mulsim websites in the days after the London attacks. Some pundits and politicians continued to believe that Canada was safe because we did not send troops to Iraq. Howard Moscoe, a Toronto city councillor and chair of the Toronto Transit System, joked that Canada has nothing to worry about because "we have no troops to pull out of Iraq" and "the terrorists would have to find Toronto first." Alastair Gordon, president of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD), said that whether a group of people are attacked by Islamic terrorists has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. He noted that many innocents in countries that have nothing to do with American Middle Eastern policy are the victims of Islamist terror, including hundreds of farmers in Thailand, the murder of 300 schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia, the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir, and countless other attacks around the world. As the "Winds of Change" website has noted, Al Qa'eda has killed at least 4,895 innocent people and injured in addition 12,345 more in 16 countries since 1998. Told of these numbers, Gordon suggests it is folly to imagine Canada can long elude an attack. "Involvement with U.S. foreign policy has no relationship with being attacked by Islamic terrorists." he said. "They hate our way of life." Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chair of the Senate committee on National Security and Defence, wondered whether London caught the attention of Canadians, noting "Canada is the only country on the Al Qa'eda list that hasn't been hit yet." Anne McLellan, the deputy prime minister and minister for public safety, has finally taken notice of the threat of terrorism. She told a security conference in Toronto held the week following the London attacks that Canada was not psychologically prepared for a terrorist attack on our own soil. She said that too many Canadians hold the view that because we were not involved in Iraq, somehow Canada is immune from the threat of terrorism, and urged greater vigilance: "We need to be constantly checking our systems, doing exercises and rehearsing." Gordon said that he does not know "if psychological preparedness matters." He added, "What matters is prevention. Everything else is a red herring." He said Canada urgently needs to take steps to prevent terrorist attacks, and that starts with "observing, arresting and deporting Islamist agitators." He also said if people are unprepared for terrorism, it is because the government has not demonstrated they are serious about capturing, prosecuting and deporting terrorists. The government's own intelligence agency would seem to confirm that analysis. According to a report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), there are 50 terrorist groups in Canada, including Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Force 17 and Egyptian al Jihad. While there are some supporters of the Irish Republican Army, and it is suspected that the headquarters for the Tamil Tigers is in suburban Toronto, most groups on the CSIS list are Islamist groups. CSIS called the presence of such groups "a direct threat to Canada." Such findings are not terribly surprising. In his 2004 book Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism Around the World, National Post terrorism specialist Stewart Bell found that Canada was "an extremely effective base from which to spread terror throughout the world." Terrorists exploit Canada's open immigration rules, lax refugee system, laws that are ineffective at shutting down charities and ethnic associations that serve as fronts for terrorist groups, and political leadership that utterly fails to draw a line in the sand on terror. Bell stressed that while Canada has "relatively competent" police and intelligence agencies, they are not given the right tools to be effective. While the RCMP has done a good job of monitoring terrorist groups, there has not been the political will to put them out of business by deporting or prosecuting terrorists the same point that the CCD's Gordon made. Gordon said the "application of common sense from this government to protect us from terrorism is non-existent." Terrorists know this and make decisions about fundraising, recruiting and activities based on the clear signals from Ottawa that they will not be in any immediate legal jeopardy. What is becoming increasingly clear is that all the elements that make Canada a haven for international terrorists also contributes to the domestic danger. While McLellan highlighted a reactive response to terrorism (checking our systems and rehearsing for emergencies), Bell and Gordon advocate a more proactive response that prevents terrorism by punishing and removing terrorists. But Canada even lags in prevention, as the security shortcomings have been well documented. Both the auditor general and the Senate standing committee on National Security and Defence have both found serious problems with the government's anti-terror plans. In March 2004, in the wake of the Adscam scandal, Auditor General Sheila Fraser released another damning report, this one on Ottawa's inaction on addressing national security concerns. She highlighted the vulnerability of Canada's ports and airports to terrorist attacks, especially with regard to those who work there. She found that 5.5 percent of a sample of airport employees had possible criminal connections, a flag for national security concerns. If extrapolated to the entire airport workforce, there would be 4,500 employees with possible criminal connections the implications being that employees are not being properly screened, and those with criminal connections may also be tied to terrorist groups. Senator Kenny's Security and Defence committee has released several reports over the last three years raising concerns about the country's lack of preparedness for terrorist attacks. In December 2004, Kenny released the 2005 edition of the Canadian Security Guide Book, which highlighted the same concerns Fraser drew attention to: improperly guarded and underguarded borders, and vulnerable ports and airports. In one example, he noted that Canada's ports of entry were jeopardized by the disappearance of 1,127 uniforms or uniform items belonging to Canadian airport screeners over a nine-month period, including 91 security badges. Kenny's committee also alleges that the government is "cutting corners on intelligence." This seems to confirm Fraser's findings that nearly $9 billion in anti-terrorism money is not ending up where it is supposed to go, and that there are intelligence gaps resulting from fiscal mismanagement and oversight confusion. Kenny says the problem is not merely money but training; he said it can take years to properly train intelligence officers, but that there is no commitment to train a sufficient number of analysts. Fraser's report also found other problems with the government's response to 9-11. Fraser said the official watch lists of criminals and terrorists were outdated, and that such information was not being shared among departments so that, for instance, the list of 25,000 lost and stolen passports each year is given to front-line border officers. She concluded, "These matters are serious and need to be addressed." Although McLellan admitted that Ottawa could be doing more, her ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness points to its publication "An Overview of Canada's Counter-Terrorism Arrangements" to highlight what is being done. The overview outlines communications protocols and which minister is responsible for what under different circumstances, but it is all rather mundane, day-to-day issues of what happens within government. None of it makes Canadians safer; it only assigns responsibilities if a terrorist attack were to occur. To the CCD's Gordon, that reinforces the idea that, at best, Ottawa is ready to react to attacks and not prevent them. While he does not consider the Martin Liberals serious about tackling the issue of terrorism because to do so would require a politically incorrect honesty that would alienate their core of Muslim voters, he would suggest that if Ottawa wanted to prevent terrorism it should stamp out its root cause Islamic fundamentalism and the hatred it engenders. He urged Ottawa to apply hate laws to deal with preachers of hate such as Younus Kathrada, who teaches at the Dar al Madinah Islamic Society's information centre in East Vancouver and who preaches that Jews are "monkeys" and "swine," exhorting followers to kill Jews and infidels. Gordon said Canada must also stop repatriating into Canada Al Qa'eda families such as the Khadrs. He said that the immigration system had to be fixed, including imposing higher standards on refugee claims from countries known to incubate terrorism. Dave Harris, former chief of strategic planning for CSIS, agrees. He told a recent disaster-management conference that Canada needs "to get a grip on our disgraceful immigration policies because we don't know what radicals are coming in." Gordon adds another, perhaps unpopular, measure: Canada must recognize "that we are at war" and "invoke a type of war measures act in which we would accept some temporary suspension of civil rights, as opposed to more permanent suspension of civil rights that comes with terrorist bombings, death and the loss of freedom." For Gordon, until such measures are enacted to prevent terrorists from coming into Canada and operating freely here, it is only a matter of time until they successfully kill a massive number of innocents. "When we are scraping up bodies in Toronto, we know today that the killers will be Muslim and that they will be incited to commit these atrocities in mosques or Muslim community centres." Gordon said we have the power to clamp down on such incitement, but it remains clear that McLellan's tough new tone notwithstanding, the political will is still not there. Monday, September 12, 2005
Quote of the day From Mark Steyn's Daily Telegraph column: "These days, the Republicans are the party of small government and the party of big government, and the party of all points in between." Quotidian "To be logical men should not be selfish; and, in point of fact, they are not so selfish as they are thought. The willful prosecution of one's desires is a different thing from selfishness." -- Charles Sanders Peirce, The Red and the Black Holding Free Dominion to account Free Dominion Watch is doing to Free Dominion what Bill Buckley did to the John Birch Society. What if 191 world leaders got together and nothing happened? It would be a typical, over-hyped United Nations special summit. The London Times begins its editorial on this week's great big, exciting get-together at Turtle Bay: "United Nations special summits succeed in attracting to New York the great majority of heads of state; and this week’s 60th birthday jamboree will be no exception. They seldom succeed in much else, and it is not hard to see why. Invariably, these brief encounters are heavily oversold beforehand as historic opportunities to 'transform' the UN, rejuvenate its multiple missions and burnish its ageing institutional machinery. Yet special summits are rituals that give the leaders of 191 states a five-minute turn at the podium for speeches about their undying faith in the UN, to which no one listens. They then adopt a declaration that their negotiators have just spent months stripping of whatever radicalism or even coherence it once possessed. Within weeks, such commitments as survive will have been forgotten by most of the august participants." Nicely put. And as Henry Kissinger says, it also has the advantage of being true. The Times editorial says that genuine reform of the United Nations is unlikely and spells out why. It concludes with the suggestion that the organization commit itself to democracy and freedom: "Individual freedom must be the cornerstone of policy. The UN stands for such basic rights as freedom of speech, equality under the law and the right of people to hold their governments to account, or it stands for nothing. These values underpin peace and security, and they recognise the secur-ity of the individuals who comprise the community of nations." That's a fine idea but one that would never pass this wretched hive of scum and villiany. The post-Katrina Bush Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mark Steyn says: "I'll leave it to future generations of historians to settle the precise moment at which Hurricane Katrina finally completed its transformation into a Kansas-type twister, and swept up the massed ranks of the world's press to deposit them on the wilder shores of the Land of Oz. But for a couple of weeks now they've been there frolicking and gambolling as happy Media Munchkins, singing and dancing 'Ding Dong, The Bush Is Dead'." Of course, the Bush is dead story line is wishful thinking. Again, Steyn: "Meanwhile, back in the real world, the storm is exhausted, meteorologically and politically. Power has been restored to the whole of Mississippi (much quicker than in Euro-style big-government Quebec during the 1998 ice storm, incidentally), the Big Easy is being pumped free of water far ahead of anybody's expectations, and, as the New York Times put it: 'Death Toll In New Orleans May Be Lower Than First Feared'. No truth in the rumour that early editions read 'Than First Hoped'." Early media estimates of the casualties was 10,000 dead but so far the official count is 400 and papers, including the Times, say it is likely to be much less than 10,000. But just as the media was hoping for setbacks in Iraq and dutifully report every terrorist attack there as an indictment of the Bush administration, the same media report on the plight of hurricane Katrina's victims for no other reason than to smear the president as uncaring and callous. 10,000 dead!, great, Bush really slipped in his duty as president, but 400 dead, even 1,000 dead, just another day on the gulf coast. The reports of President George W. Bush's death are greatly exaggerated. Paul Martin might get his Liberal Party membership rescinded if he keeps this up Terry O'Neill notes at The Shotgun: "Just noticed on the PM's web site that, in his official statement marking the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S., Paul Martin referred not once, but twice to prayer -- and in the same paragraph too. Of course, he didn't say to whom we might be praying. That, if seems, would be expecting too much from a modern Liberal." That said, numerous times in the past few years, after bombings and hurricanes, for example, both agnostics and atheists urge others to pray. The not-so-incredible, shrinking Guardian The Guardian down-sized to the so-called Berliner format today. Over at the Adam Smith Institute blog, Andrew Lomas says of the change: "In shock news that has set the media world ablaze with apathy, the Guardian has announced that it believes in a smaller state. Freedom lovers will be sad to hear that this news only refers to the smaller size of the print newspaper that has been adopted for the first time today. The move follows intense competition and a drop in circulation after similar switches to smaller print editions by the Times and the Independent. Sources inside the paper tell us that competition is now an even dirtier word inside Guardian HQ. However, readers of the Guardian need not be unduly worried: the new size of the paper is midway between that of a broadsheet and a tabloid, which should hopefully allow them to retain the same feeling of moral superiority that reading a larger paper gives them. Sources inside the paper refer to the new size as a "third way" in the printing industry, calling it the Berliner, after the German newspaper of the same name and size. Ein Berliner is a jelly donut, so this could be a reference to the typical Guardian content. Speculation is now rife whether this new belief in a smaller state will lead to a change in the editorial line of the newspaper in areas such as crime (currently more carrot, less stick), education (also more carrot, less stick) and health (currently more carrot, less sticky toffee pudding). The City is braced for any further downsizing: it is thought that the first reforms may involve breaking up and selling off the liberal indignation and bleeding hearts which fill their Comment section. This, the paper hopes, should stave off an investigation into a perceived monopoly over the conscience of the Labour party." On the up-side, the relaunch of the paper resulted in Doonesbury being dropped. Washington makes the big leagues Now that the Washignton Nationals are playing baseball in the capital, Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell notes that Washington has joined the likes of Boston, New York and Chicago with sports all through the year and relates some fairly impressive numbers: "On Saturday in RFK, I watched the Nats, still on the fringes of postseason contention, draw 44,083 fans to play the Atlanta Braves. The crowd, which reached the top row in center field, was only slightly smaller than the Opening Day sellout. On the way to RFK, I encountered traffic caused by the crowd of 50,637 headed to the Maryland-Clemson game at Byrd Stadium. Then, leaving the Nats game, I had to avoid the 35,670 headed to the Navy-Stanford game in Annapolis in the evening. Yesterday, I skipped the Nats and Braves, who drew 112,212 fans for three games, to watch the Redskins win their season opener 9-7 at FedEx against Chicago before a crowd of 90,138. That's right, more than 200,000 fans to see the Redskins and Nats on the same weekend." Interesting discipline survey SurveyUSA asked people in all 50 states whether it is permissible to spank a child, for a teacher to spank a child, and to wash out a child's mouth out with soap. Two interesting findings. 1) More people, in all states, think that spanking a child than do those who think that washing a child's mouth out with soap. 2) The 22 states that most support spanking are all Red States and the nine states that least support it are all Blue States -- although even in those states, a majority support spanking. Suck it up princess Peter C. Newman is a jerk for releasing the excerpts of taped conversations between himself and Brian Mulroney, but the former prime minister shouldn't feel betrayed. Yes, as Canadian Press reported, the two were friends and a Mulroney spokesman said the two, Newman and Mulroney, signed a deal in 1983 for the former to have unlimited access to the latter in order to produce a post-prime ministerial biography that never panned out. But Newman is a journalist and, as his memoirs last year demonstrated, completely classless, so Mulroney should not be surprised that their supposedly private conversations public as a book (The Secret Mulroney Tapes) released this week. Unfortunate but predictable. Perhaps journalists and politicians can't, and shouldn't, be friends. Sunday, September 11, 2005
Weekend list 13 best Bond girls 13. Lana Wood (Plenty O'Toole), Diamonds Are Forever 12. Karin Dor (Helga Brandt), You Only Live Twice 11. Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder), Dr. No 10. Shirley Eaton (Jill Masterson), Goldfinger 9. Famke Janssen (Xenia Onatopp), Goldeneye 8. Lois Chiles (Dr. Holly Goodhead), Moonraker 7. Barbara Bach (Anya Amasova), The Spy Who Loved Me 6. Honor Blackman (Pussy Galore), Goldfinger 5. Daniela Bianchi (Tatiana Romanova), From Russia With Love 4. Maud Adams (Andrea Anders), The Man with the Golden Gun 3. Luciana Paluzzi (Fiona Volpe), Thunderball 2. Diana Rigg (Teresa Di Vicenzo), On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1. Jill St. John (Tiffany Case), Diamonds are Forever Kofi Annan in his own words The Independent reports that Kofi Annan remains adamant that the oil-for-food scandal will not budge him from the Secretary General's position. There are two key quotes from the Secretary General. The first: "Whereas in the past we were much more focused on political issues, I have tried to stress good governance, human rights and the dignity of the individual. You cannot have development without security, and you cannot have security without development and you will enjoy neither if you do not respect human rights." Two things. 1) Apparently it was not enough that the UN was incompetent to deal with just political issues (by which I think Annan means international conflicts), so it branched out to other areas where it could not possibly live up to expectations. 2) The notion that he stressed good governance is laughable. The second quote: "So I would hope that when it's time for me to move on, one would say that the peoples of the world are now much more engaged in UN activities. After all, the ideals that we exist to protect and defend belong to the people, it's in their interest that we do this. And finally, I would want it said that maybe the UN is working a little better now than it did when I took over." Wow. If the UN is working better now than it did when Annan took over, how bad was it? Quotidian "Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future." -- President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 Democrats play politics with Katrina In the wake of the disaster on the American Gulf coast, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, urged supporters to sign a petition calling for the firing of FEMA director Michael Brown on the same webpage that solicited donations. Fox News has the story. Rebuilding Sadr City The Los Angeles Times reports (via the Boston Globe) on the rebirth of Sadr City, Iraq: "Sadr City has become one of the rare success stories of the US reconstruction effort, local residents, Iraqi, and US officials said. Although vast swaths remain blighted, the neighborhood of 2 million mostly impoverished Shi'ites is one of the calmest in Baghdad. One US soldier has been killed and one car bomb detonated in the last year, the military said. The improvements are the result of an intense effort after the August 2004 street battles with fighters loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Within a month, US officials decided to make Sadr City a showcase for rebuilding and increased spending to $805 million in a neighborhood neglected under Saddam Hussein. Having covered the US reconstruction effort in Iraq for the past 22 months, this reporter decided to take a measure of progress by going back to the same people interviewed in August 2004, in addition to talking with US and Iraqi officials involved in the program. Their stories provide insight into why the rebuilding of Sadr City is an impressive, if imperfect, accomplishment in Iraq, where many projects remain incomplete and US promises unfulfilled." Times reporter T. Christian Miller shares the stories which paint a mixed picture but a picture that is fuller than the conventional MSM coverage of the liberation, and rebuilding, of Iraq: "Residents and workers praised a new health clinic being built at another site. But then they pointed in anger at a huge puddle of sickly green sewage blocking the entrance. Gayton promised to prod the Iraqis to make repairs. 'We are suffering,' one worker, Jabbar Abed Khalef, told Gayton: 'Our children are sick. The road is blocked. It's a disaster.' But a moment later, Khalef was praising the United States for working more quickly than the Iraqi government." Waking up from the 9/11 dream Both the New York Times and Washington Post editorialize that the post 9/11 world is a thing of the past in the post-Katrina world, or at least post-Katrina America, in which Americans witnessed new limits to tragedy (in the words of the Times) and the federal government was exposed as entirely unready to respond to large scale disaster (as the Post argues). Both may be true but the papers' editorialists miss the point because the two issues are not comparable: there is a huge difference between responding to natural disasters, which is mostly a matter of reacting to the crisis, and confronting an evil ideology, Islamofascism, that uses terrorist violence for political ends. Sack Kofi: Telegraph This week, world leaders will meet at the United Nations to discuss reforming the international organization, but as the Sunday Telegraph editorializes: "The first of those reforms is to get rid of Kofi Annan, the UN's General Secretary. However genial he may be personally, he has proved himself incapable of ensuring that the UN runs in a minimally efficient and uncorrupt fashion." The paper explains: "If Kofi Annan worked for a national government, or a private company, there is no doubt that the charges so carefully documented in Paul Volker's report into the oil-for-food scandal would have forced him to resign. Mr Annan, however, expects to be able to serve out his third five-year term, which ends next year. The UN, as one ambassador commented, is different. It is precisely because of that difference - the difference between good and bad governance - that the UN is in such trouble. Its institutional inability to hold anyone to account for their failings guarantees that those failings infect the UN at every level. As a result, the UN is comprehensively incapable of doing anything effectively. Keeping Kofi Annan will send a very simple signal to every one of its bureaucrats: your job is safe, no matter how serious your incompetence." Until Kofi Annan is gone -- and that won't happen until his term is up next year -- the UN will not have the moral authority to address any issue. For an organization that has, among the other issues it has deigned to address, urged multinational corporations to pursue "better business practices" (Kofi Annan's Global Compact project), it has utterly failed to clean up its own house and it must do so before it can criticize the failings of others. No question about it, Annan has to go. New blog Never Forget, a group blog dedicated to proud history of Canada's armed forces. (HT: GCH, a contributor, BTW) Six most beautiful words in the English language This on the editorial (web) page of the New York Times today: "Frank Rich is not writing today." Race and America Cornell West begins a militantly anti-American guest column in The Observer thusly: "It takes something as big as Hurricane Katrina and the misery we saw among the poor black people of New Orleans to get America to focus on race and poverty. It happens about once every 30 or 40 years." John McWhorter begins a guest column in the London Times: "As it quickly became clear that there was a certain demographic skew among the people stranded in New Orleans, journalists began intoning that Hurricane Katrina had stripped bare the continuing racial inequity in America. The extent to which this was hidden is unclear, actually. An awareness that a tragic disproportion of black Americans are poor has been a hallmark of civic awareness among educated Americans for 40 years now. The problem is less a lack of awareness than a lack of understanding." McWhorter goes onto to explain that civic awareness devoid of any understanding of the realities of black life on the part of white liberals has been part of the problem: "In fact, white America does remain morally culpable — but because white leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence, encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better, but because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the fragile but lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained since the end of slavery." So it's not racism but liberalism that is now preventing blacks from rising from the underclass. McWhorter examines how 1960s liberalism combined black resentment and white guilt to relayed a disastrous message to blacks, signalling that to them that not working was a civil right as welfare roles more than doubled. White politicians got elected by providing easy money black women who had children but no husband, a government program with the result of destroying the black family. McWhorter explains the welfare trap and intergenerational transmission of poverty: "... generations of poor blacks had grown up in neighbourhoods where there was no requirement that fathers support their children. Few grew up watching their primary parent work for a living. Most people paid nominal subsidies as rent and were thus less inclined to treat their living spaces well. The multigenerational welfare family with grandmothers in their forties became typical: young women had babies in their teens because there was no reason not to with welfare waiting to pick up the tab. ... The poor black America that welfare expansion created in 1966 is still with us." As McWhorter notes: "What Katrina stripped bare, then, was not white supremacy, but that culture matters — even if what created the culture was misguided white benevolence." Or as McWhorter says, even more poignantly, "But what we should all remember from Katrina is a tragic close-up of a group of people staggering after, first, a hideous natural disaster but, ultimately, an equally hideous sociological disaster of 40 years ago." Fortunately, McWhorter argues, the welfare reform of 1996 is beginning to bear fruit. Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than merely tinkering with welfare rules to fix a culture where being impolite is, far from being frowned upon, excused due to centuries of racism. The limits of a good plan David Brooks has a great column in the New York Times on the emergency plans drawn up by the city of New Orleans. As Brooks noted, "Katrina was the most anticipated natural disaster in American history, and still government managed to fail at every level." And it failed despite having plans, lots of plans. As Brooks noted: "The plan lays out a course of action so that all personnel will know exactly what to do in case of a hurricane. The Office of Emergency Preparedness will coordinate with the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness in conjunction with the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan by taking full advantage of the courses offered by the Louisiana Emergency Preparedness Association and other agencies 'as well as conferences, seminars and workshops that may from time to time be available, most notably state hurricane conferences and workshops and the National Hurricane Conference'." And it goes on. And on. And on. But then, more a moment, it describes plans that involve actual people living in New Orleans rather than bureaucrats. As Brooks relates: "The New Orleans emergency preparedness plan offers a precise communications strategy, so all city residents will know exactly where to go in times of crisis. It recommends that two traffic control officers be placed at each key intersection. It recommends busing the thousands of residents unable to evacuate themselves to staging areas prestocked with food." This sounds exactly like what New Orleans needed and for which President George W. Bush was to blame. Too bad Bush isn't a bureaucracy because then perhaps someone who sits at a cozy desk at Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness might have contacted him. Maybe. But all joking aside, something went wrong. Brooks says: "In short, the plan was so beautiful, it's too bad reality destroyed it. The plan's authors were not stupid or venal. They are doubtless good public servants who worked in agencies set up to prepare for this storm. And yet their elaborate plan crumbled under the weight of the actual disaster." So what is the lesson? Brooks knows: "... we really need government in times like this, but government is extremely limited in what it can effectively do." And yet liberals say the answer to avoiding catastrophe in future natural disasters is more government programs, more plans written by bureaucrats. But as Brooks says: "liberals who think this disaster is going to set off a progressive revival need to explain how a comprehensive governmental failure is going to restore America's faith in big government." Great question and one for which liberals have no answer -- they're too busy blaming not government but the man at the head of the federal government to see the larger issues, the failures of the elaborate plans that were devised and the limits of the state in preparing for disasters and providing aid when they finally arrive. Calgary Grit's prime ministerial idol Third round match-ups: Mackenzie King v. Wilfrid Laurier and Pierre Trudeau v. John A. MacDonald. You can vote daily until Tuesday. MacDonald was leading by 10 votes (out of more than 500 cast) when I last checked. Six things Eve Tushnet knows but can't prove 1. Almost all women are beautiful. Almost all men are average. The rest of the list is here. Gonzales for the top court? The Washington Post has an article on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' GOP supporters defending the possible Supreme Court nominee as sufficiently conservative. Not all conservatives are convinced, however. The reaction of William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard: "You finally get a Republican president, a real Republican majority in the Senate and then you don't move the court to the right? It would be totally demoralizing to the president's supporters." The paper says that Kristol characterized appointing Gonzales to the Supreme Court as W's equivalent of his father's broken his "no new taxes" promise. Thursday, September 08, 2005
Quotidian Compassion is the base currency of second-rate minds, a substitute for thought. -- Auberon Waugh, Consider the Lilies I wish I had written this Gerard Baker writes in the London Times about how former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the big political winner in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. In an otherwise unremarkable column there is this gem: "Many are counting on Hillary Clinton to unlock the door to all those potential Democratic voters. I wouldn’t bank on it. It is not that Mrs Clinton hasn’t done a terrific job in repositioning herself to be more acceptable to the voters of Missouri and Ohio. It is that she is still, despite having tried really hard, unappealing as a person. A recent poll asked Americans whom they would like to take with them on a cross-country drive — Mr Bush fared well, even Ted Kennedy was popular (on the assumption, one imagines, that he would not be driving). The thought of being lectured and patronised by Mrs Clinton in such confines would send most Americans to Chappaquiddick." Opponent of China's one child policy on hunger strike The Guardian reports that Chen Guangcheng, a 34-year-old blind Chinese activist, is on a hunger strike after being arrested for her attempt to launch a class action suit against the government over its policies of forced sterilisations and abortions. As the paper reports, the detention came at the same time that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was describing the "unstoppable momentum" towards greater political freedom in Red China. NYT on Volker report The New York Times has a lackluster editorial that merely restates the facts of the oil-for-food scam before noting this: "The Volcker report dispels lingering allegations by U.N. critics that Mr. Annan himself may have been corrupt. It absolves him of influencing the award of a contract to a company that employed his son, and found insufficient evidence to conclude that he had even known about the contract. The secretary general's failures were not ethical lapses, but they were significant. Neither Mr. Annan nor his top aides exercised meaningful oversight, for example, over the oil-for-food program. Nor did they formally report what they knew about kickbacks to the Security Council. They made only minimal efforts to discuss sanctions violations with Iraqi officials. Though these failures have been seen through the prism of a single program, it seems likely that they are endemic at the United Nations, where cronyism often trumps professionalism and the political goals of member states often undermine international efforts." The Times says that Paul Volker's report contains nothing that would indicate UN Secretary General Kofi Annan should resign. But it is difficult to imagine meaningful reform, which is the Times' solution to preventing similar scandals in the future, with Kofi Annan at the helm. And since when has the Times been forgiving of CEOs or Republican politicians who have failed to exercise meaningful oversight? Tories to explore feasibility of flat taxes Unfortunately, for us Canadians, it's the British Tories. The Guardian has the story. Volker report on the oil-for-food scam The Daily Telegraph reports that he will not resign in light of the Independent Inquiry Committee's finding that his leadership was inept. But that was to be expected considering that Volker also blamed the member states and the Security Council; as Claudia Rosett wrote for NRO before the report was officially release, when everyone is to blame, no one is to blame. The London Times editorializes about the report and concludes that Kofi Annan, although "not a venal or corrupt man," utterly failed in his responsibilities to ensure the programs he oversaw (and, we must remember, advocated) and thus he should heed Volker's "trenchant and personal" criticism and "draw the honourable and only possible conclusion." Unfortunately, as the Telegraph reported, he has already ruled that out. The blame game An excellent observation from Max Boot's Los Angeles Times column: "Two thousand years ago — even 200 years ago — a Katrina-scale calamity would have been blamed on the gods. In many parts of the world that is still the impulse; witness the stoicism with which Bangladesh faces the regular loss of tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of its citizens from natural disasters. But, for better or worse, such resignation before the fury of nature is not the modern Western way. In our view, nature must be tamed, and therefore all disasters are unnatural. We blame anything that goes wrong not on the gods in the sky but on the gods in Washington — as if a hurricane could be caused by an excess of hot air emanating from our capital." The instant blame game that politicians and pundits began even before there was a clear idea of the death toll is a hazard of their respective professions that view politics in general and Washington in particular of not only the most important factor in the lives of people but, in many cases, the only factor. UN tells UK & US to raise taxes on the rich The Guardian reports that the United Nations, in its Human Development Report, singles out the United Kingdom and United States for their growing inequality gap which is, they argue, making child poverty worse. The UN is married to the idea, as is much of the Left, that inequality is not only unjust it is bad economics. But inequality is not in itself a bad thing. The UN, to the extent that it has any business whatsoever examining the domestic situation in any country, should only concern itself with abject poverty instead of pushing socialist schemes that punish the rich but do little to help the poor. Nicholls' advice to Tories National Citizens Coalition vice president Gerry Nicholls has said this before but it needs to be repeated until the Tories get it so he took his message to CFRB, Toronto's biggest talk-radio station: "The question they wanted to discuss was how can the Tories turn things around in the polls? My answer was what I have been saying for months and months: they need to do a better job of defining themselves. They need to provide a real small 'c' conservative alternative to the Liberals. They need to mobilize their base. Until they do that, as long as they continue to offer a 'Liberal-Lite' agenda they simply won’t succeed. Some Tory sympathizers have taken me to task for this, but the truth is the truth." In other words, the Conservative party needs to be conservative and the Official Leader of the Opposition needs to oppose. Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Quotidian "A man is free when and to the extent that he is his own judge of his obligations, when none but himself compels him to fulfil them. A man is free when he acts sponte sua, spontaneously, as the executor of a judgment passed in foro interno, in the forum of his own conscience." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel, Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good New blog Human Events has a blog modeled very much on The Corner: The Right Noise. No comments, discussion among bloggers who know one another. Looks very good. Compulsory voting Gods of the Copybook Headings on compulsory voting (scroll down): "Compulsory voting would be one more step in the mandatory legitimization of Leviathan. Jay Jardine, everyone's favourite angry libertarian, doesn't vote. He refuses to take the effort to walk down to the polling booth every few years not because he is indifferent but because he objects to the whole process. An old history teacher of mine used to decline his ballot, a rather tricky procedure in many polling stations he told me, as a way of protesting the choices presented. We have a right as free men and women not participate in government. Our reasons maybe noble or not. We have rights, whether we use them wisely or not." A couple of points. 1. I have tried to decline my ballot three times and twice the election officials did not know how to do it; the third time, the elections officer didn't even have a clue what I meant. On only one of the three occasions, and then only after much complaining on my part and searching on the official's part, was I able to formally decline my ballot. On the other two occasions I considered myself effectively disenfranchised because the state did not permit me to vote my conscience. (Merely spoiling your ballot is not the same thing, although I have done that, too.) Note that Jean-Pierre Kingsley, chief democracy nazi at Elections Canada, wants compulsory voting and to take away the right to decline the ballot. 2. There are very good reasons for not voting, the most important being when no party or candidate adequately represents your views. Why should a genuine communist have to settle for a mere socialist candidate or pro-life voter endorse a candidate who does not share her views? Other reasons could include one's own skepticism of democracy, not wanting to be complicit in legitimizing the government, or holding the view that it doesn't matter who wins or loses. (On this latter point: it is about more than merely viewing all parties or leaders as the same; it could express confidence that everything will be relatively okay no matter who wins. Think about the times and places that have produced high turnout elections and you don't see healthy nations.) 3. We have the freedom to take part in the election process but if there is compulsory voting we would be forced to take part in the election process. Where's the justice in that? Voting is no longer a right if you have to do it. 4. This summer I met a high school graduate who did not know that stories that begin on the first page of a newspaper are usually continued on the inside of the paper. I don't want her voting. A decade ago in university an acquaintance of mine who majored in political science had no idea what libertarianism was and didn't know that there was a Libertarian Party in Canada. I don't want him voting. In 2004, 4,951,107 Canadians voted for the Liberals. I don't want them voting. 5. The polity gains nothing in having people who would normally be disinclined to vote from exercising their franchise. The lazy, stupid and uninterested are not people we should encourage showing up at the polling station. Government can't so churches do WorldNetDaily reports on the impressive relief efforts of evangelical churches and Christian leaders. Joe Carter on conservative hypocrisy & the principle of subsidiarity Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost implies (HT: Burkean Canuck) that conservatives bear some blame for the woeful handling of the disaster in New Orleans: "The colossal failures in leadership in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have proven once again that, as historian Richard Weaver argued, 'ideas have consequences.' In the aftermath of a natural disaster, abstract theories of public policy and governance are tested in the laboratory of reality. Bad ideas, naturally, can have catastrophic consequences. But as we are seeing, even good ideas, when poorly implemented, can be calamitous." The idea in question is subsidiarity, defined by David A. Bosnich: "This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom." Everyone saw that the local authorities reacted incompetently. That doesn't mean that the principle of subsidiarity is wrong but, according to Carter, that conservatives have not lived it, so to speak: "Principles such as subsidiarity, federalism, and limited government are often considered cornerstones of conservative political thought. But when it comes to their actual implementation they are merely given lip-service. While aspiring young politicos sing the praises of states-rights, they prefer to do so on Capital Hill or in D.C. think tanks rather than in the choirs of their state legislatures or local governments. The very idea that our most competent conservative statesmen should be working in their actual states rather than in Washington is considered ludicrous. After all, everyone knows that state and local governments are reserved for the also-rans and has-beens rather than for the able and ambitious. Any job in FEMA, for instance, is considered superior to working in the New Orleans’s Office of Emergency Preparedness. But mayor’s offices, city councils, and state legislatures all join the 'little platoons' that serve as our first line of defense when natural or man-made disasters strike. So why then are we not working to put our best and brightest into these offices? Why do push them to take jobs as Senatorial aides rather than as state senators? Why do we lead them to roles as assistants to assistant directors in the Department of Education rather than as leaders on county school boards? Why do we put our rhetoric behind the local and yet but our faith in the federal? If we expect to be taken seriously, conservatives must start supporting the principles we claim we believe. One way that we could begin is by 'subsidizing' subsidiarity, by using our resources to promote our intellectual and political leaders at the state and local levels of governance." It should be noted that the Republicans had an excellent conservative candidate for governor in 2003, Bobby Jindal, who lost. He's now Rep. Bobby Jindal, and it's better to have Jindal in Washington that not have him in public life at all. But I accept Carter's overall point that conservatives have tended to cede local politics for the glamour of higher (federal level) office. That is more true in Canada than the United States -- recall the reformist Republican governors of the early 1990s (Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson, Michigan's John Engler) and mayors of the mid-1990s (New York's Rudy Giuliani); in Canada there has been only competent reform-minded conservative, former Ontario premier Mike Harris, and even then the positive changes slowed down after about 15 months in office. Back south of the border, in recent years, conservative, reform-minded Republicans have, with few exceptions, eschewed local and state-level politics, and when they do politics at that level and succeed they are soon touted for higher office (Governors Jeb Bush and Bill Owen). There are two problems with this. The first is quite accurately diagnosed by Carter -- liberal policies win the day at the local and state/provincial levels and incompetents run the cities and states/provinces. The second problem is that local and state level politics are the farm systems for the federal parties. In Canada especially, conservatives have not encouraged their own to seek seats on the school board, municipal council or provincial legislature, and thus are not developing candidates for higher office that will have the name recognition and political experience to succeed in a federal campaign -- great local candidates can overcome the disadvantages of uninspiring federal campaigns and weak national leaders. The Left, on the other hand, having politicized everything, works to get their people elected at all levels of government and thus have candidates with whom voters already have a connection prior to a federal election call. A successful businessman or executive or lawyer may have contributed to society as much as any school board trustee or city councilor -- and probably more -- but voters don't see it that way. Conservatives need to pay attention to local and state/provincial level politics: it matters for many reasons. Prediction K-Lo predicts: "Michael Brown resigns Friday morning (just in time to save himself from the round of Sunday shows). He'll say it's because he has become a distraction and doesn't want to take away from the wonderful work people at FEMA are doing." Sounds plausible. Odd soccer report Fifaworldcup.com reports on the Group 1 qualifying battle in Europe between the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, where, "the status quo was maintained at the top of the standings as the Netherlands and the Czech Republic somewhat predictably picked up victories. The Dutch had Phillip Cocu sent off after 38 minutes of their match against a tenacious Andorra side, but they made light of their numerical disadvantage to secure a 4-0 success. Ruud van Nistelrooy scored twice after Rafael van der Vaart and Cocu had already struck prior to the latter's dismissal." How tenacious was Andorra when they lost 4-0 despite the fact that they were up a man for more than 5/9ths of the match? It takes two to divide The Washington Post reports: "When terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans came together in grief and resolve, rallying behind President Bush in an extraordinary show of national unity. But when Hurricane Katrina hit last week, the opposite occurred, with Americans dividing along sharply partisan lines in their judgment of the president's and the federal government's response. The starkly different verdicts on Bush's stewardship of the two biggest crises of his presidency underscore the deepening polarization of the electorate that has occurred on his watch. This gaping divide has left the president with no reservoir of good will among his political opponents at a critical moment of national need and has touched off a fresh debate about whether he could have done anything to prevent it." The line, "the deepening polarization of the electorate that has occurred on his watch," implies that the divide is President George W. Bush's fault. But the record indicates otherwise. On education, homeland security, the liberation of Iraq, and elsewhere, the president has reached out to Democrats only to find that they did not reciprocate with an out-reached hand of their own. Indeed, as Alexander Moens of Simon Fraser University noted in a lecture at the Fraser Institute last December, U.S. spending is out of control because although the president won't compromise on his public policy goals, he does compromise with Democrats on the way to achieve the goals, which often results in Democrats defending massive spending schemes. For example, Bush fought for but couldn't get spending limits in his education bill but did get mandatory testing to ensure that spending went to schools that worked; he couldn't get spending restrictions because Ted Kennedy, the top Democrat on the Education, Labour and whatever else committee, nixed the idea. That's compromise (and it doesn't typically work!). For a myriad of reasons mostly having to do with Democrats thinking they really won the 2000 presidential election and only lost in 2004 because Bush had the advantages of incumbency and being a war president, the Left hates Bush and won't work with him. So while Bush gets the blame for politically dividing the country, we would do well to remember that most of the blame for the division goes to Democrats -- as evidenced by the Democrats' politically opportunistic attacks on the administration over its handling of hurricane Katrina. Bush shoulders blame to the degree that he won't engage the Left's arguments and fight for his policies, thus ensuring he will not persuade Americans that his program deserves support. Death for incestuous pedophiles? Jonah Goldberg has said several times that he supports capital punishment for horrific cases of sexual assault on children. From an emotional point of view pedophiles certainly seem to deserve such a punishment. But for me, capital punishment must be reserved for the worst crimes and the fact is that sexually assaulting a child is not the equivalent of murder; the "stealing innocence" argument or similar argument that the person will be completely different after being sexually abused is not the same as not being here anymore. Still, the case of a 74-year-old Ottawa man has been charged with raping and/or sexually abusing his seven daughters puts my belief in the strict limiting of capital punishment to murder to a serious test. The Ottawa Citizen reports: "The man, a father of seven girls and three sons, is accused of repeatedly raping five of his daughters, getting two of them pregnant, trying to rape a sixth, repeatedly raping his young sister-in-law, and fondling a seventh daughter. The father, who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of his alleged victims, is accused of committing sex crimes on the girls from the 1950s through to the 1980s. He faces 41 counts relating to rape, incest, forced fellatio, choking during forced sex, fondling, and gross indecency." The man, who canont be identified, admitted to raping one daughter when she was 11, resulting in her becoming pregnant. This man deserves the most serious punishment -- short of executing him. His daughters'lives have likely been miserable, perhaps they are still dealing with the trauma but the fact is that they are still alive. My purely emotional response is to say that the father deserves death but his brand of wickedness is certainly less, although perhaps only slightly, than killing another person in cold blood and therefore his punishment should be less. Punishment that is not proportionate is unjust and capital punishment for non-murderers would be an injustice. That said, eternal punishment is quite another thing and it is in circumstances such as this that, as a friend of mine says, you pray there is a hell. Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Quotidian "Reading [C. Wright] Mills and his disciples on America, I simply could not recognize the country I lived in. At their worst, they sounded like people writing about a place they themselves had never actually seen or at least hardly knew. And no wonder, since their starting point was not the evidence of their eyes and ears but the abstractions of an ideological system to which they were committed and which allowed them to see only those 'realities' that served its own moral and political purposes." -- Norman Podhoretz, Breaking Ranks: A Political Memoir Declining support for Turkish entry into EU The Financial Times reports: "Among citizens of nine EU countries surveyed in May and June, overall support for Turkish membership was 22 per cent, down from 35 per cent in a broader poll taken earlier in the year. The poll found 29 per cent opposed Turkey's membership, and 42 per cent were undecided." The feeling, though, is mutual. Support within Turkey for joining the EU has dropped 10 points from 73% earlier this year to 63% in the latest poll. Ken Clarke next Tory leader The London Times reports that local party chairmen and grassroots party members are backing Ken Clarke as party leader by large margins over presumed front-runner David Davis. Furthermore, a Populus poll indicates that the Tories would decrease the Labour margin to just 2% (39%-37%) if they were led by Clarke. Cleaning house CTV reports: "Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper's office has fired at least five staff members. The terminations come on the first day of a meeting of the party's national caucus in Halifax. The first number given to CTV and The Canadian Press was at least 15 people let go." CTV irresponsibly does not indicate who they were or even what capacity they might have served in. If the story is true look for at least one of three story lines to appear in the media over the next few days: 1) Conservatives are divided over the firings, aligning along the old Progressive Conservative and Reform/Canadian Alliance divisions. 2) The Conservative Party is in disarray and can't get its act together. 3) The Leader of the Opposition is riding roughshod over his office and we're seeing the true, angry/dictatorial Stephen Harper. Chavez's latest outrage The assault on free enterprise continues in Venezuela as Hugo Chavez and his ideologically commitment to "21st century socialism" will require all banks to have two state representatives on their board of directors, a move that followed a push by the state to ensure workers have 20% representation on all company boards. The problem, as the BBC reported, is that, "Analysts say that the government's chosen bank appointees would be there to ensure loans and other money flows are more determined by left-leaning political considerations rather than pure financial gain factors." (HT: David Frum) Iran 5 years from nuclear capability The Financial Times reports that the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies has determined that Iran "could develop enough weapons-grade uranium to develop a nuclear weapon within five years" although it is more likely to take ten years to have a fully operational nuclear weapon. Is this suppose to make us feel better? Does this mean the West has time to fiddle while Tehran's scientists develop weapons that could destroy us or, more likely, our allies? The five-year window will be treated by politicians and pundits as a ticket to take our time in dealing with this terror-supporting rogue state but in reality it means we might be lucky enough to do something about it if the political will is there. I don't think it is as evidenced by the fact that the E3 and IAEA will certainly read this report and all of a sudden preventing Tehran from getting nuclear weapons will not be considered urgent. Of course, five years is a best guess, an estimate that may be wrong. Can we afford to take that chance? Should the West wait until Iran has weapons to act? Where I will be the next two days Wednesday: Fraser Institute event on private education and the poor. Thursday: Fraser Institute event on economic freedom. The angry left K-Lo in The Corner about conservative disappointment that Justice Antonin Scalia was not named the chief justice: "Upset? No way. If John Roberts is the legal stud we hope he is, how sweet "The Roberts Court" could be. And therein lies the reason the Left is so mad about the chief decision. Well, besides the fact that increasingly seems the permanent condition of the Left." In defense of market pricing At NRO the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor counters the argument that what America needs now to combat rising gas prices is price controls. Standard arguments that are worth passing on to your acquaintances that think government should be regulating gas prices, but the (near) conclusion he makes is priceless: "Be that as it may, 'profiteering' strikes most of us as unsavory. But it depends on the context. After all, were we serious about criminalizing price gouging, we would throw every member of the National Association of Realtors behind bars. Although the markup on housing is far more dramatic than the markup on gasoline, we don’t seem to mind. Why? Because most of us getting gouged on Sunday afternoon at the open houses hope one day to do likewise. Apparently, Americans approve of gouging as long as they’re the ones doing the deed." 'If it saves one life ...' Over at Samizdata, Natalie Solent points the hypocrisy of those on the left that defend gun control on the solid foundation of "if it saves one life..." but mock Homeland Security suggestions to keep emergency kits around home: "Their scorn is based on the premise that having a supply of bottled water will avail you nothing in a nuclear explosion or catastrophic flood. All it will do, they say, is give you a false sense of security. That is quite true near Ground Zero, but the bottled water could easily make the difference between life and death for some people at the edge of the catastrophe." Solent says that the reason for their scorn is that pamphlets are not huge, expensive government programs, which betrays the left's true intentions: controlling not saving lives. Awesome picture Free Market Fairy Tales has an awesome photo under the caption: "When you are in deep trouble, say nothing, and try to look inconspicuous..." Silly non-controversy The Associated Press reports that several newspapers including the Boston Globe, Miami Herald and Washington Post have displaced the word "refugee" to describe Americans who have left New Orleans (and elsewhere) after losing their homes and other material possessions because apparently the term implies that such people are not American. President George W. Bush said, "The people we're talking about are not refugees ... They are Americans and they need the help and love and compassion of our fellow citizens." But don't refugees (in the sense that we normally think about them) deserve help and love and compasssion? Dictionary.com gives several definitions and most say that refugees are fleeing opppression or persecution of some kind (political, religious) although one definition notes that a refugeeis an "exiles who flees for safety" which describes the people leaving New Orleans. President Bush spoke unthinkingly but Rev. Jesse Jackson was plain silly: "It is racist to call American citizens refugees." Never mind that not all refugees are black. By racist most liberals mean simply "not nice" or "someone who disagrees with me." The AP story notes that "the terms 'evacuees' or even 'displaced' are too clinical and not sufficiently dramatic to convey the dire situation that confronts many of Katrina's survivors." But it's not the media's job to create drama, but rather to report the facts and to that end both displaced and evacuee do the job more than sufficiently (and accurately). That said, a politically correct concern about the use of refugee for fear that it is racist or implies non-citizenship is ridiculous. Monday, September 05, 2005
Pettigrew in Paris The Ottawa Citizen has a longish story on Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and his fondness for Paris where he maintains an apartment and spends a lot of time. The gist of the article is that Pettigrew may be ignoring his ministerial responsibilities or is otherwise distracted to give them his full attention. Consequently: "Environment Minister Stephane Dion is favoured to take over the Foreign Affairs portfolio, keeping a Quebec francophone in the senior post, while Mr. Pettigrew is considered to be in line for a diplomatic posting, perhaps one not too far from the streets of Montmartre and his home away from home on Rue Bruant." Perhaps. But why does Pettigrew spend so much time in Paris? Perhaps he is attending to his foreign affairs, although there is no mention of the Marais district: "Mr. Pettigrew's apartment is four floors up on Rue Aristide Bruant, the street named for the singer and comic who, with his large-brimmed black hat and red scarf, appears in many of the posters painted by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The building dates back to 1869. Mr. Pettigrew's unit, one of about a dozen in the building, looks out onto a courtyard at the back of the building. Montmartre, in the 18th arrondissement, remains a popular address for Paris's arts community and a favoured destination for tourists who come to see Sacre Coeur and the Moulin Rouge. Mr. Pettigrew's apartment is also a short walk from Pigalle, the red-light district with its peep shows and sex shops." (Cross-posted at The Shotgun) Quotidian "Known offenders were sooner or later subjected to the formal procedures of the judicial system, but there was apparently little danger of conviction and punishment. Juries of country gentry would not convict their own kind. Instead of keeping order and protecting the weak, the law was more commonly misapplied to the advantage of of those able to control it." -- R.L. Story, The End of the House of Lancaster Weekend list 25 favourite rock/pop albums 25. Flowers (Rolling Stones) 24. Born in the USA (Bruce Springsteen) 23. Automatic for the People (REM) 22. All That You Can't Leave Behind (U2) 21. If I Should Fall from Grace with God (The Pogues) 20. Day for Night (Tragically Hip) 19. Who's Next (The Who) 18. Led Zeppelin II (Led Zeppelin) 17. Songs from the Big Chair (Tears for Fear) 16. Rattle and Hum (U2) 15. Beggars Banquet (Rolling Stones) 14. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band (Beatles) 13. So (Peter Gabriel) 12. White Album (Beatles) 11. Let It Bleed (Rolling Stones) 10. Help (Beatles) 9. Graceland (Paul Simon) 8. Joshua Tree (U2) 7. Bridge Over Troubled Water (Simon & Garfunkel) 6. Fully Completely (Tragically Hip) 5. Who Made Who (AC/DC) 4. Zeppelin IV (Led Zeppelin) 3. Made in the Shade (Rolling Stones) 2. Rubber Soul (Beatles) 1. Revolver (Beatles) Russian obstructionism Russia has rejected American and EU efforts to call Iran before the Security Council to account for their nuclear weapons's program, saying that the International Atomic Energy Agency should continue dealing with the Islamic Republic. The only problem is that the IAEA is powerless to deal with Iran, or at least hasn't shown any inclination to hold Tehran to account. As the Financial Times reports: "The IAEA has been investigating Iran’s nuclear programme for the past two years without reaching a conclusion on Tehran’s intentions." Why is that? For crying out loud, France and Germany seem concerned about Tehran's nuclear intentions and capabilities, so what is the obstacle at the IAEA? All this complaining aside, not that heading to the Security Council might not matter much; the E3 have indicated that they are not seeking the imposition of sanctions on Iran but rather measures to "encourage" Tehran to suspend activities at its Isfahan nuclear facility. Getting the news out The New York Times has a pretty good article on the challenges faced and decisions made by the editors of the The Times-Picayune: "The paper, which normally has a circulation of 270,000, had to report the biggest story in its history with no electricity, no phone access and no place to work. With its readers scattered across the South, the paper turned its affiliated Web site, www .nola .com, into a release valve for the accumulating tales of misery from the city, providing news, crucial information and a missing persons forum that now contains more than 17,000 posts." The story is full of neat anecdotes that are worth reading. Political considerations could lead to much improved court I don't like the idea of nominating a black, a woman or a southerner to balance the court or to atone for the perceived slowness of the administration's response but as Robert Alt notes in Bench Memos, such considerations could land a great black woman from the South on the Supreme Court of the United States. Alt says: "While I despise all this talk of weather-based identity politics, there is one 'hurricane-state native' whose name has not been mentioned: Janice Rogers Brown. She hails from Greenville, Alabama, which is in the southern part of the state (i.e., hurricane country). And, as long as we are talking about identity politics, as an African-American woman, she shares a common racial bond with those who were hit hardest in the New Orleans metropolitan area. Why do I bring up Justice Brown in this context if I think that identity politics are not valid bases for making a nomination? Because Janice Rogers Brown would make a phenomenal Supreme Court Justice on the merits, and if the president considers her because she is from Alabama, so be it." That said, President George W. Bush has demonstrated he definitely does not abide such political considerations and often purposively (it is supposed) makes choices that run against the political expectations grain. Predictable Senator Hillary Clinton has called for a Katrina Commission to examine the government's response to the disaster. Here's my report: it didn't do so well. Do better next time. Roberts as chief justice President George W. Bush has named Judge John Roberts, who has not yet been approved as associate justice, Chief Justice William Rehnquist's replacement. The Washington Post, New York Times and Associated Press have stories on this news. I noted yesterday: "If either Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas are nominated for the Chief Justice position, that'll be three instead of a minimum two Senate hearings. That makes it slightly more likely that Roberts or whoever else President George W. Bush nominates to the top court could be nominated to fill the chief justice's position, too." Slightly more likely became reality within hours. I also think the announcement, while saving the Senate judicial committee an extra hearing will make the Roberts' hearings more difficult, perhaps with even tougher questioning coming from several Republicans. Conservatives who were willing to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt will want to be more scrutinous considering the chief justice's responsibilites. Regardless, the move is a benefit (assuming Roberts is approved before the October 3 beginning of the SCOTUS session) because in the absence of a chief justice, the associate justice with the longest tenure, liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, would decide to whom to assign cases and "making other decisions that could influence court deliberations." Also, as AP reported today: "The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed." The full complement of justices ensures that not only will the top court make rulings (which is does when it is sitting with less than all nine justices), but that the decisions of the Supreme Court are precedent-setting (they are not considered to be when the court is not sitting at full strength). Sunday, September 04, 2005
Overblown stem cell promises Pro-lifers are right to point out that adult or somatic stem cell research is further along in terms of clinical trials, have been used to successfully treat dozens of diseases and disabilities and come without the ethical problems that are inherent in destroying embryonic human beings to harvest their stem cells. But aside from the ethical arguments (I would also argue that the use of somatic stem cells is not without ethical or moral implications because it is might lead to commodifying material (stem cells) from human beings although I've yet to give this serious analysis), the scientific arguments are quite compelling: embryonic stem cell research is a promise maybe, but somatic stem cell research is well on its way to curing people now (indeed, bone marrow transplants, a treatment that has been used since the 1970s is a form of adult stem cell therapy). Now some scientists are admitting that the promise of stem cell research may have been over-sold. The Guardian reports that now a leading ESCR advocate has warned that the promise of stem cell research has been over-hyped: "A leading scientist who pushed for the controversial research into embryo stem cells will warn today that the challenges are so huge that any cures for disease lie a long way in the future. Lord Winston, who pioneered fertility research in the UK, is to tell the British Association for the Advancement of Science, meeting in Dublin, that during the political campaign to push through legislation in 2001, some parliamentarians were led to believe that clinical treatments were "just around the corner". Some of the lobbying came from patients' groups, but it was stimulated by scientific observations. 'When disappointment sets in, as may be possible, we can expect a massive backlash by the "right to life" groups, who are always ready to pounce when they perceive a chink in our arguments,' he will say. He singles out embryo stem cells as a case study in scientific arrogance and the dangers of 'spinning' a good story." We've been reporting about this in The Interim since I became its editor in 2001 and we mocked the political equivalent of over-hyping the science when Senator John Kerry virtually vowed that the Christopher Reeves of the world would walk again if the Democrats won last November. It is time the media noticed their complicity in promoting a scientifically inferior path of research and, of course, for scientists to stop ESCR -- or at least stop begging the state to fund it. How does Chief Justice Michael McConnell sound? A blogger can dream, can't he? And considering this practical matter, it makes sense: "If a sitting justice is elevated, the Senate Judiciary Committee would have to hold a separate chief justice hearing, as well as two more hearings: one to replace the person newly elevated to chief justice and another one on Roberts." If either Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas are nominated for the Chief Justice position, that'll be three instead of a minimum two Senate hearings. That makes it slightly more likely that Roberts or whoever else President George W. Bush nominates to the top court could be nominated to fill the chief justice's position, too. Also, the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist has led to the predictable Democratic silliness (as reported by AP): "Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said President Bush should ask O'Connor to rescind her retirement and perhaps become chief justice." I'm not sure how that would work or if the president would (or would have to) respect such a request. George F. Will says all serious political discussion should be about the probable not just possible; the Democrats have proven themselves, again, incapable of serious political discourse. Clarke's anti-war credentials Writing in the London Times, Norman Lamont, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under John Major, says that Ken Clarke would make the best Tory leader because he has always opposed the liberation of Iraq, unlike Lamont who did not oppose the war until after the release of the Hutton Report. At one point Lord Lamont says: "Mr Clarke was right to call the war 'a disastrous decision'. It is remarkable that this needs to be said at all. Iraq has been this country’s biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez, has made Britain and the world a more dangerous place, and yet has hardly been criticised at all by the Conservative Party. There has been a detached indifference to the massive loss of life: 2,000 Americans, probably ten times that number of Iraqis killed, and perhaps 100,000 injured or maimed for life — for what purpose?" To gain a foothold for democracy and moderation in the Middle East, that's for what purpose. Lord Lamont has demonstrated that he is obviously obtuse enough to be a supporter of Ken Clarke. New Orleans still living in a pre-9/11 world Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column, as always, is must reading. Here's the money 'graph: "Those levees broke; they failed. And you think about Chicago and San Francisco and Boston and you wonder what's waiting to fail there. The assumption was that after 9/11, big towns and small took stock and identified their weak points. That's what they told us they were doing, and that's what they were getting big bucks to do. But in New Orleans no one had a plan that addressed levee failure, and no one had a plan for the large percentage of vehicleless citizens who'd be unable to evacuate, and no one had a plan to deal with widespread looting. Given that all these local factors are widely known -- New Orleans is a below-sea-level city with high crime and a low rate of automobile ownership -- it makes you wonder how the city would cope with something truly surprising -- like, say, a biological attack." To be fair, it isn't just -- or really -- New Orleans that seems unable to grasp the homeland security issues of the post-9/11 world but everyone, most notably the federal government. Report to clear Kofi The Observer reports that the UN's investigation of the oil-for-food scam will not find the Secretary General Kofi Annan guilty of any wrong-doing but will criticize him for management failures. It will also criticize his son, Kojo, for using his family name to get special favours, and several other UN officials. The Observer reports: "Instead, top UN officials are braced for a 'detailed and comprehensive' indictment of the entire programme. 'I'm sure there are going to be some nasty stories of venal, stupid behaviour - maybe not of corruption in the billions, but a lot of bad stuff,' one said." "Bad stuff" must be UNese for ... what? "Slightly regrettable"? "Could have done better"? "Crap, we got caught"? But in the final analysis it is improbable that anything will change or that Kofi Annan will find himself leaving Turtle Bay early. The report, which is longer than 1,000 pages, will be officially released on Wednesday, at which time the UN will return to business as usual. I didn't know this Charles Lane's obit in the Washington Post is full of interesting tidbits such as the fact that William Rehnquist bashed the Warren Court in 1957 and blasted justices Earl Warren and Hugo Black as "left-wing philosophers in speech and later supported Barry Goldwater in 1964. Also, here's how the Supreme Court works if Rehnquist's replacement isn't confirmed before the next session begins in early October: "President Bush must now name a replacement for Rehnquist, and the process of selecting and confirming a new justice will probably last past the first day of the court's new term, Oct. 3. That means that even if Roberts is swiftly confirmed, the court will be operating with only eight members for an indefinite period. Tie votes on the court result in the automatic affirmance of the lower court's ruling in the court, but do not establish a legal precedent." Just awesome Look at the articles & contributors and subscribe to The American Interest, the journal began by some of the scholars who left the over-Nixon Center-influenced National Interest. Yes, a lot of it is online but these journals need our support. And don't forget to check out AI cont'd, the journal's blog. The UnPC Kathy Shaidle When she's good, she is very, very good, but when she is bad she is better. Relapsed Catholic Kathy Shaidle with the year's best post: "Now a mum of a Downs child writes in, scolding me for saying, "retards". When did it all begin, this notion that your very individual sorrow is reason alone for everyone else to hold their tongues or change their vocabularies, fund your favourite cause...? Is Phil Donohue to blame? Your hurtful word is my harmless playground insult. Why is your individual interpretation sovereign but not mine? "Mind melds" are science fiction, and thank God for it. Does anyone else sometimes feel like they're living in the movie Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, in which Steve Martin is set off in a murderous rage each time someone innocently employs the phrase "cleaning lady"? When I got lupus and could barely walk or even turn a door knob, it never once crossed my mind that the entire world should renovate its buildings just for me. And I certainly don't think booze ads (or alcohol itself) should be banned, or that drinking shouldn't be portrayed in movies. People who make "prozac" jokes in my presence (no one makes "paxil" jokes, do they?) do not get an earful, even though the jokes sometimes sting badly. For so long now, we've need INsensitivity Training. How to get across that I can't feel your pain, and that if I said I did, I'd be lying to myself and to you? I used the word "Dachau" in my very first poem, in which a young person compares something to "a concentration camp", the way a young punkish person might in the 1980s, quite flippant, ironic. Years later, the Jewish poet who'd accepted it for publication in a little magazine confessed that while the word hadn't bothered her at the time, now (ten years later) it made her flinch. I replied that a) she'd missed the point, b) I couldn't choose my every word wondering whether or not they'd hurt somebody's feelings that day, let alone a decade later, and neither should she. And c) as a Christian born in 1964, the Holocaust didn't, couldn't, mean exactly what it meant to her. Were I to pretend it did -- well, see above. It was an unspeakable horror, but it is also the theme of so many movies and books and at that point, comic books, another historical reference point. I could have just as easily written "Andersonville" but that wouldn't have conveyed the exact meaning I was looking for and no one would have "gotten" it anyway." There's more. Scroll down to September 2. USA in World Cup 2006 USA beats Mexico 2-0 and clinches fifth straight World Cup appearance. Before beating Mexico, USA was ranked sixth in the world, one spot behind ... Mexico. Before this weekend's qualifying games, this was FIFA's ranking of international men's teams: 1 Brazil 2 Argentina 3 Netherlands 4 Czech Republic 5 Mexico 6 USA 7 England 8 Spain 9 France 9 Portugal Germany is ranked #11 and Italy #13. I still can't get over the fact that USA is sixth and possibly on the way up. By the way, Canada is ranked 84 behind such soccer powerhouses as Bahrain, Oman, Bosnia and Togo. Saturday, September 03, 2005
Tories consider rule changes The Independent reports that enough British Tories will block rule changes that could help Ken Clarke become the next party leader soley because the rules changes could help Ken Clarke become the next party leader. I guess you have to do what you have to do. But the second part of the article indicates perhaps such drastic measures are unnecessary because Clarke may not have significant support: "Out of 68 MPs who have declared themselves so far, 29 back Mr Davis, 12 are for David Cameron, 10 for Mr Clarke, eight for Liam Fox, five for Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and four for David Willetts." Roberts' numbers The Washington Post says that it is almost a certainty that Judge John Roberts will be approved by the Senate with a number of Red State Democratic senators backing President George W. Bush's appointment: "Some Democratic strategists predict Roberts could get as many as 80 votes, including a majority of Senate Democrats, aides say. The only Republican senators considered potential no votes are the handful of moderates who represent states in the Northeast, including Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island. Based on preliminary estimates provided by both sides, roughly 45 senators are considered certain to back Roberts, 15 are considered highly likely to vote for him and 20 or so are considered potential supporters." As for those Roberts-supporting Dems, the Post only mentions senator Kent Conrad (ND) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) by name alhtough it reports that Senator Bill Nelson (Fla.) has said he will keep an open mind. One reason such Democrats might vote for Roberts is indicated by something an un-named Republican strategist points out: "Democrats will run into what Tom Daschle ran into in South Dakota: You will not be able to toe the liberal line in Washington and communicate about values with constituents back home." I'm not sure that Roberts can get 80 votes -- a couple GOP senators will vote against him, another couple will stay home and I doubt that more than a dozen Dems will end up opposing the extremist special interest groups that the party is now beholden to. 60 maybe, but 80 seems impossible. That's a bit better New York Times has an AP story up on Rehnquist's passing. Drudge linked to an AP story filed at 11:11 pm. National Review's The Corner is still silent and the Washington Post has nothing up yet. Funny how the MSM says that one reason the traditional media is superior to the blogosphere is that they have editors. Where was the editor on this, at the AP and reprinted in the Times: "Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat on Jan. 7, 1982. He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986." An 11-year confirmation process? Then how did he sit on the bench for 33 years as both AP stories noted? Internet way behind Ten minutes after CNN reported Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away the Washington Post has nothing up on the story and the New York Times has only a one sentence, top-of-the-page headline with no article. My Yahoo page has nothing and neither AP nor Reuters has anything on the websites I regularly check. What's the non-rush? Quotidian "The protection of the free exercise of religion expresses a political philosophy: Government should behave with humility and restraint because its proper reach is limited by superior values." -- George F. Will, The Leveling Wind: Politics, The Culture & Other News, 1990-1994 There Martin goes again The Halifax Herald editorial on Prime Minister Paul Martin's latest round of senate appointments (Frances Fox and Yoine Goldstein) echoes the National Post's editorial from Thursday that is behind the subscriber wall so here's what the Herald has to say: "A former Trudeau cabinet minister and lately a confidant of Prime Minister Paul Martin, Mr. Fox was named to the upper chamber this week by Mr. Martin. The Montreal lawyer has one blotch on his CV: He was dumped from cabinet in 1978 after it was revealed he'd signed another man's name to allow a married woman to have an abortion. But he soon returned to cabinet, got back in the good graces of the Liberal party and is now in receipt of the ultimate patronage perk, a Senate seat. So what? you may rightly ask. The Senate has been a resting place for political hacks since Confederation; though, in fairness, it has also been graced by credible, hard-working appointees. Mr. Fox's appointment, along with that of fellow Montreal lawyer Yoine Goldstein, amounts to business as usual. Trouble is, Mr. Martin said he'd change all that by ending cronyism as the basis for making government appointments. In a speech in Quebec City in 2004, Mr. Martin promised to improve Ottawa's appointment process. 'No longer will the key to Ottawa be who you know. We are going to condemn to history the practice and the policy of cronyism,' he promised. So much for reformer Paul's good intentions and sacred pledge to curb patronage pork barrelling." Again, it's not that Martin is continuing to appoint men and women to the Senate but that he vowed not to appoint Liberal Party flacks and Fox is nothing but a flack (and an ethically challenged one at that). As the Herald concludes: "Until there's genuine Senate reform that can only come by changing the Constitution, Paul Martin has every right to appoint senators. We only wish he'd do it the way he said he would, instead of keeping cronyism all too alive and well." Thought from Cook at The Monarchist "The Arab League has a flag - why not the Anglosphere?" He is soliciting suggestions for one. The need for a conservative infrastructure I think the argument can be taken too far but the need for conservative publications in Canada is certainly part of the puzzle on how we win conservative hearts and minds and eventually a meaningful electoral victory (I don't think a majority Conservative government would right the country's wrongs but that's another post another time). Anyway, everything that Gideon Straus says about periodicals and newspapers and neocalvinism is also true of conservatism in Canada. Chrenkoff's collection of stupid quotes Rappers, "community leaders," radio hosts and politicians have all said incredibly dumb things in the aftermath of the hurricane Katrina. Arthur Chrenkoff has a number of them. In some cases, Chrenkoff rightly points out, it is little more than exploitation, an impolite word for politics. Consider this one Chrenkoff notes from Russell Shaw's blame the Republican meme at the Huffington Post: "Would New Orleans and the nearby Gulf Coast be suffering so terribly today if President Carter beat back Reagan in 1980?... I am wondering if those voters in Louisiana and Mississippi who helped polluter-allied Reagan win in 1980 would have found themselves fated differently under a second Carter term. If Carter came in, we could have had an alternative fuels program and tighter auto emission standards in effect by now." Canada to the rescue? Why, yes! Damian Brooks on the news that Canada is sending four ships and three Sea King helicoptes to New Orleans: "In a place where dry land is at a premium, it's good to bring your own floating base. In a place where violent anarchy reigns, it's good to bring folks who know how to protect themselves and others. In a place where airborne rescues are ongoing because roads remain submerged, where pallets of relief supplies need to be put down very precisely on the scraps of land available, it's good to bring helos (yes, even Sea Slugs - I've been hoisted out of the Atlantic by one, and they'll get the job done). In a place where expertise is badly needed, it's good to bring engineers, medics, and divers. In a place where the essentials of life are in short supply, it's good to bring water, food, blankets, and shelter. In a place where hard work is required, it's damned good to bring 1,000 of the most dedicated individuals you'll ever meet. In short, it's good to bring the Canadian Armed Forces. Credit where it's due: to General Hillier and his staff for putting this together on the fly, and to his boss Bill Graham and the Liberal government for approving it." Surprise: government is not much help Ianism reflects on the reaction to the cries that the city, state and federal governments have not done enough: "I note that most of the newspaper reports I’ve read about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina discuss the 'poor response' of the Government to those especially in New Orleans. And I’m left to wonder, 'What do you really expect?' Since when has any Government responded to these sorts of crisis in any way that is 'acceptable' or in any sense of 'meeting expectations?' Contrary to most people’s beliefs, goverments are the most unorganized bunch to respond to this sort of thing. What Government does best is collect taxes, spend, and pass laws that infringe on rights. As we also remember the anniversary of the tragedy in another part of the world – Beslan, Russia, let us not forget the words today of a mother, Fatima Vaniyeva. 'Our government was unable to protect our children,' as reported by The Toronto Star. No Fatima, Governments cannot protect our children. They cannot rescue us in times of trouble in any form that is 'acceptable' or with the 'expectations' the leaders and beuracrats want us to trust and believe in. It is folly to even think such a thing." Why water is more dangerous than fire New York Times columnist John Tierney asks, "Why is New Orleans in so much worse shape today than New York City was after the attacks on Sept. 11?" He then answers his own question: "The short answer is that New York was attacked by fire, not water. But then why are urbanites so much better prepared to cope with fire than with flooding? Mostly because they learned to fight fire without any help from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Emergency Management Agency." Fire poses less of a danger today than flooding because fire protection involves a greater degree of private initiative and began as such due to the innovative thinking of Benjamin Franklin: "[U]rbanites learned to protect themselves through two innovations Benjamin Franklin introduced to America. He started a fire department in Philadelphia, as well as its first fire insurance company. Other cities followed, often with the firefighters organized by insurance companies with a vested interest in encouraging public safety." Today there is no innovation because citizens have ceded to the state the responsibility of taking care of everyone. Bureaucrats simply will never look at problems and find solutions in the way entrepreneurs do. Unfortunately, too many people, including Americans, have determined it is the job of government to take care of them and ensure their safety that the entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to long-term investments in safety is dead, or at least comatose. It is a long summer without the New Criterion For those of you who don't subscribe to this excellent cultural journal, GCH has links to and excerpts from some of the great articles in the September issue. For a taste, here'e David Pryce-Jones on the welfare state: "Surveying his handiwork as architect of the welfare state, that quintessential bureaucrat, William Beveridge, once wrote a poignant letter to the prime minister who was also its prime mover, in which he wondered whether he might not have destroyed irretrievably the British character. To such as them, there seemed no alternative; the social democracies had to establish that they were superior to Communism in the care that they could provide for their citizens. Opposing Communism, they complemented it. None of the European social democracies today can afford the immense and complex structures of benefit and subsidy they have set in place. Communism is no longer a threat, but they find themselves unable either to dismantle the social protection erected against it, or to pay the bills. All are locked into the consequences." At the end of that essay on England, Pryce-Jones notes: "Islamism is hardly the threat to the country that Hitler was in 1940. Since then, however, time and circumstances have so eroded the moral values necessary to survival and independence that the outcome of another Battle of Britain is an open question." Go see March of the Penguins By all accounts this documentary about the breeding behaviour emperor penguins (discussed and nicely summarized in George F. Will's WaPo column last week), is an excellent film. Secondly, as John J. Miller points out in The Corner, it is the second highest grossing documentary, over-taking Bowling for Columbine and behind Fahrenheit 911: "Wouldn't it be nice to see a bunch of penguins dislodge it from the top spot?" Indeed. Friday, September 02, 2005
It's about time New Orleans right now is the equivalent of a failed state. The big story out of that city now is about crime -- looting, murder and rape. One Congressman predicts that as many as 100 people from his congressional district have been killed in the post-hurricane crime wave. So this news, from Reuters, is good news: "Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco warned rioters and looters in New Orleans on Thursday that National Guard troops are under her orders to 'shoot and kill' to end the rampant violence in the city in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Announcing the arrival of 300 Arkansas National Guard troops in New Orleans fresh from service in Iraq, Blanco said, 'these troops are battle-tested. They have M-16s and are locked and loaded.' 'These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will,' she said." It's market pricing not price gouging The Arizona Republic has an excellent editorial explaining why the sudden increase in gas prices is a result of rational economic behaviour, not price gouging: "Most of the gasoline in underground tanks at the corner gas station was there well before Katrina shut down a single Gulf Coast refinery. Thus, the shocking price spikes that began greeting us on Wednesday and Thursday are de facto evidence of gouging. Are they not? Well, no. They aren't. At least they aren't evidence of gouging on the part of station operators, who know full well that their next tab for a tanker full of regular is going to shock them out of their socks. That is, assuming the almost certain depletion of gasoline supplies nationally doesn't leave them off the delivery list. Infuriating as it may be, the rapidly rising cost of gasoline may be explainable as 'gouging' - that is, reckless demonstrations of appalling greed - in only a very few circumstances." More specifically, here's the reason why gas prices increase: "As Jerry Taylor of the CATO Institute points out, there are two ways to ration an increasingly scarce commodity like automotive fuel: • You can regulate price artificially, thus assuring its scarcity. • You can allow the price to find its balance between supply and demand, thus helping assure a relatively uninterrupted supply. At $3-plus per gallon, that is an infuriating choice to have to make. But it beats the unanticipated consequences of regulation. 'There's no mystery about what happens when you regulate scarce commodities,' Taylor says. 'The commodity disappears'." By regulation Taylor means state interference. But there is a natural regulation -- market regulation -- which is nothing more than the matching of supply and demand through the price mechanism. The commodity (gas) would disappear, too, if market regulation was not in effect and gas suppliers (distributors, gas stations) kept the price low -- almost certainly there would be immediate higher demand because of fears that gas prices would drastically increase later or that there would not be enough gas at some point in the near future. As the Arizona Republic says, this may be all very frustrating but it is hardly a conspiracy to gouge consumers. Quotidian "The quality of mercy is not stain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest, It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes, 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest, it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown." -- Portia to Shylock in William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice Hurricane Katrina: 'America had it coming' The Daily Telegraph editorializes: "The sight of a superpower humbled is in itself humbling. In Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama over the past four days, the United States has been struggling to provide the basic necessities of life - food, water and medicine - to the victims of hurricane Katrina. Take New Orleans alone. The breached levees remain unrepaired. About 20,000 refugees have been living in appalling squalor in the Superdome sports stadium. Young men have not only been looting with impunity but firing on National Guardsmen. And the authorities still have no idea how many people may have died. The forces of nature have smashed the fabric of society beyond recognition." There is nothing wrong with what the Telegraph said, and indeed it is completely accurate. But it may explain why I overheard on the streets of Toronto on Thursday two thirty-something men talking about the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and Paul Martin's delayed reaction to the plight of our U.S. neighbours when one of the two said, "America had it coming." Ah, yes, that great Canadian trait, schadenfreude. God save Brussels? The London Times reports: "Immigrants to Britain will have to swear an oath of allegiance to EU laws and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, rather than the Queen, under a proposal announced by Brussels." Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner for justice and security, proposed an "oath of faithfulness" because "All those who enter Europe must respect European laws ... We can insist on respecting the basic values of Europe, and we can demand full respect for existing laws." Indeed, according to the paper, "The rise of Islamic terrorism, and the growth of alienated ethnic communities, has persuaded many governments that more efforts must be made to promote integration of immigrants, including loyalty oaths." Yes, 7/7 happened because Islamists didn't pledge their allegiance to bureaucrats in Brussels. Why didn't the bright lights at the EU think of this sooner? I'll give the last word to Mike Nattrass, deputy leader of the UK Independence Party: "An allegiance to something with no single culture, no agreed history, no common language and packed with fraud and corruption? The EU must be joking." Real Madrid continues to improve Real Madrid is acting like Spain's Chelsea, purchasing 19-year-old Sergio Ramos minutes before Wednesday's transfer deadline for $33 million, bringing the team's total summer transfer price tage to nearly $100 million. Real Madrid has also purchased four amazing South Americans this off-season: Robinho and Julio Baptista (of Brazil) and Pablo Garcia and Carlos Diogo (of Uruguay). Blue Jays about to lose record? At the end of this story about the Seattle Mariners beating the New York Yankess, AP reports: "The Yankees have sold more than 4 million tickets for the 2005 regular season, setting a franchise record and approaching Toronto's AL record of 4,057,947 tickets sold in 1993. They have sold approximately 4,038,000 tickets, an increase of more than 236,000 at this point in 2004." It is amazing that with all the great teams the Yankees have had in recent years, this is the season they could break the American League attendance record. Novak remembers Jude Wanniski Robert Novaks writes about the economist who "was easy to love and hard to get along with." Elegy for New Orleans S. Frederick Starr writes in the New York Times: "... The culture of New Orleans has long since factored disasters and general uncertainty into its economic and philosophical outlook. An early-19th-century cholera epidemic killed one out of five New Orleanians, the equivalent of 100,000 today. Even the gravediggers died, forcing people to pile bodies at the cemetery gates. The first owner of the Lombard Plantation was among those who succumbed. But his wife and family stayed on, and some of their descendants, both white and black, are still in New Orleans today, perhaps perched on their rooftop awaiting rescue or huddling gratefully with friends out in Lafayette or Breaux Bridge. I expect they, too, will return, and that life in New Orleans will go on, with all its precariousness and sense of fragility and, yes, with all its relish for the moment. That relish, by the way, which arose from the constant awareness of precisely such disasters as we are experiencing today, accounts for much of what gives the people of that city their reckless abandon, their devil-may-care attitude, and their zest for life. Rebuilding after Katrina will be just the next in a long series of events in which that spirit has been manifested..." (HT: Terry Teachout) Trent Lott loses home to hurricane Okay, one of his two Mississippi homes. Roger Ailes says: "Someone less tactful than me might suggest that Lott's house would have survived had he built it out of the same material as his toupee. But I wish the Senator well." Thursday, September 01, 2005
Listening to Paul Rusesabagina Shawn Macomber writes at NRO about Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero who inspired the film Hotel Rwanda, spoke in Bedford, New Hampshire. First a funny story and then the substance. Here's the funny (or 'Republicans can be idiots, too"): "Finally, Congressman Jeb Bradley (R., N.H.) made a few brief remarks, reminding Rusesabagina that he was in the 'Live Free or Die' state before excusing himself. 'I regret that I will not be able to stay to hear your fine speech,' Bradley explained, 'but mother is calling me home for dinner with the rest of the family and every once in awhile I have to do what my mother asks me to do.' Perhaps Bradley has not seen Hotel Rwanda, but his choice of words shared an unfortunate resemblance to a bit of dialogue from the film, when Rusesabagina asks a video journalist what he thinks will happen when footage of the genocide reaches the West. 'I think if people see this footage they’ll say, "Oh my god, that’s horrible" and go back to enjoying their dinners'." Here's the serious: "Rusesabagina nonetheless saved much of his harshest criticism for a certain New York-based international body. 'We had placed our hope in the United Nations,' Rusesabagina said. 'We had placed our hope in the international community. But we were left completely on our own. I saw with my own eyes those who also had confidence in the United Nations, gathered in schools; gathered in churches. I saw them begging U.N. soldiers as they were leaving, "Please, take us with you. Because if you don’t, we are going to be murdered".' But the call was unheeded and the savage butchery continued, day and night while Rusesabagina struggled to understand the point of the United Nations’ doing nothing, save observing wholesale slaughter for potential action at a later date. 'What we need is not neutral observers,' he told the Bedford crowd. 'Civilians can be neutral observers. What we need are peacemakers. We need soldiers who can come in and defend civilians.' And while Rusesabagina, a refugee himself who lives in Belgium, applauded the efforts of the New Hampshire African Community Center in helping resettle refugees, he hastened to add something not heard very often in such circles: It is better to never be a refugee at all." ASI joke of the day From the Adam Smith Institute yesterday: "Did you ever notice that when you put the two words 'THE' and 'IRS' together, it spells 'THEIRS'?" W. & Abe From Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column: "One of the things I noticed while in Europe this summer was that all the cartoonists drew President Bush as an ape — some kind of primate. Of course, stateside cartoonists do it too. I am looking now at a cartoon on the first page of the 'Talk of the Town' in The New Yorker: Sure enough, GWB is drawn as an ape. A knuckle-dragging one, to boot. Then again — as we've noted in this column before — it happened to Lincoln all the time, too. 'The Illinois Ape,' they called him. The cartoons we see reproduced in the Lincoln books are nauseating. May future generations find cartoons against George W. Bush equally nauseating." Quotidian "Democracy in its human sense is not arbitrament by the majority; it is not even arbitrament by everybody. It can be more nearly defined as arbitrament by anybody." -- G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World Steyn remains optimistic Another great Speccie column by Mark Steyn about Iraq. Here's a snippet: "If M. Giscard and his fantasist technocrats ever decide to have a second bite at the Euro-cherry, they might want to call in the drafters of the new Iraqi constitution as the rewrite guys. The Iraq version begins: 'We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilisation and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic...' Lovely stuff. The more I read the Iraqi document, the more it seems a marvel of sophistication and, indeed, cunning. Even with the inspirational uplift, it’s a shorter and sharper read than the now-deceased European constitution, and, unlike M. Giscard, the Baghdad boys understand that a constitution is about the division and limitation of powers. It’s true that an awful lot of states with fine-sounding constitutions don’t have constitutional government (China, for example) but, if that were the fate in store for Iraq, the proposed document would be full of a lot of meaningless boilerplate. Instead, in almost every clause you can feel the tightly argued bargains being struck." Help Katrina victims and get a Steyn book The entire purchase price of Mark Steyn's books, if bought by midnight Thursday, will go to hurricane Katrina's victims. (HT: Gods of the Copybook Headings) Great game I was at the game tonight as the Baltimore Orioles beat the Toronto Blue Jays 7-0. The O's Bruce Chen pitched eight innings of 2-hit, shutout ball. Great performance. And quick, too; the game lasted only two hours and nine minutes despite a slow first two innings. |