Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Policy reading Two things of note today. Martin Collacott, a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, has found that Canada's response to the threat of terror to be inadequate. The executive summary is here and the 102-page pdf document can be found here. I don't imagine this will go over well: "This paper will recommend that we demand a more explicit commitment to Canada and Canadian values on the part of newcomers. Putting into place the requirements for such a commitment may be complicated by official multiculturalism policy which, according to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, has evolved from its original intention of helping immigrants integrate into Canadian society into a celebration of their countries of origin." True but politically impossible for anyone not at a think tank to say. This also collides with the Conservative desire to win in the cities and 'burbs. Roger Bate, Richard Tren and Jasson Urbach analyze the effects of taxes and tariffs on medicines, vaccines and medical devices. Executive summary here, and the pdf document here. Bate et al say: "While aid has increased in recent years and the price of many drugs has fallen, access to medicines, vaccines and devices has not increased greatly. There are numerous reasons for this, notably the paucity of medical professionals in the poorest countries. The major one discussed in this paper is the barrier imposed by recipient countries themselves." If the developing world wants better healthcare they can help themselves by reducing government interference in the health fields. Monday, February 27, 2006
Political reading Just a few things to bring to your attention. 1. Huckabee is not presidential material: Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog explains why (he's a tax hiker). 2. Cheney might not veep material much longer: Insight on the News suggests that the political fallout of Scooter Libby could lead Vice President Dick Cheney to resign after the midterms. None of the conspiracy mongering in this article about how Cheney shot his hunting buddy so he would have to resign and give Condi Rice (or someone else -- Rudy Guiliani? John McCain?) a running start for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. 3. Martin is not Trudeau: The Hill Times has a fairly uninteresting puff piece on the Liberal Party's renewal efforts and leadership race which begins thusly: "If an election is called before the next Liberal leadership convention, the caucus will advise the party's national executive on who the leader should be and, subject to the executive's ratification, that person will lead the party into the next election, says the Grits' national director. 'It's obviously hypothetical, very hypothetical but caucus would select an interim leader and the national executive would need to ratify that choice,' said Steven MacKinnon in an interview last week with The Hill Times. However, at this point it's also an academic exercise since Paul Martin (LaSalle-Émard, Que.) is the leader of the party and would likely lead it into an election if the Conservative government is defeated early. 'Martin is still there as the leader. Technically he's stepped down and we have [Bill] Graham as an interim, but in real terms, he's still the chief of the party, but what that would do is you look at who the national executive are and the rest of it and we've got Martin back again,' said one Liberal." The person with whom I watched the January 23 election turned to me immediately after Martin resigned and suggested that he might lay low in the aftermath of the election, hope the government falls quickly and ride to the rescue. Unlikely but possible. And done before. Weekend list (belatedly) Nine books on my shelves with a bookmark in it that hasn't moved in at least five years (approximately by how long since I last read from the book, beginning the most recent). 9. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order by Samuel P. Huntington 8. The Anti-Federalists: Selected Writings and Speeches edited by Bruce Frohnen 7. A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe 6. Waiting for the Wave by Tom Flanagan 5. Gore Vidal: A Biography by Fred Kaplan 4. The Englightenment by Norman Hampson 3. The Four Dimensions of Philosophy by Mortimer J. Adler 2. Europe: Grandeur and Decline by A.J.P. Taylor 1. Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 by Paul Kennedy Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Blogging break This being publication week and the need to meet two deadlines next week and to get the first chapter for next book completed before the kid's March break, I'll be taking at least the next week off from blogging with the exception of putting up a weekend list. If any of my freelance stuff gets published, I'll post that, too. See y'all later. Oh, yes. I'll be on TV on Sunday night: Behind the Story on CTS at 7pm. We're talking about The Cartoons, floor crossing, sports betting and other stuff. Senator De Mint promotes health reform South Carolina Senator Jim De Mint (R) explains (read: writes in favour of) health savings accounts in The State: "Money in your HSA works with health insurance, covering co-pays, dental care, eyeglasses and other expenses not covered by traditional insurance. Money left over in your account rolls over year-to-year, saving for the future. If you change jobs or retire, your HSA follows you. At the end of the day, it is your health — and your money." De Mint says that reform means more than just HSAs: "But for HSAs to reach their full potential, we must change the way we are doing business. The federal government must stop forcing physicians and hospitals to use the complex price-fixing schemes it has developed and instead urge providers to simplify and publish prices so patients can 'shop' for the best price. I have also introduced the Health Care Choice Act that would turn the health insurance market, currently regulated by each state, into an interstate commerce market. This would spur competition among insurance providers by creating regional or national markets, allowing families to choose from a wide variety of health plans to fit their specific needs. We are at a crossroads in health care. Either we continue down the path of Washington bureaucrats making health care decisions or we create a bold new paradigm that puts patients and caregivers in charge. This week, I am traveling through the state visiting hospitals, companies, schools and our fine military installations to explain what a new culture of consumer-directed choice can mean for South Carolinians. This uncharted territory can understandably be the cause of some uncertainty. When children first learn to ride a bike, training wheels are an important tool to help overcome fear as they learn to balance. I am convinced that HSAs will be the training wheels that, with practice, will allow America to lead the world in a new era of consumer-directed health care." Of course, Democrats believe that even adults need government's helping hand to steady their bikes. Senator De Mint promotes health reform South Carolina Senator Jim De Mint (R) explains (read: writes in favour of) health savings accounts in The State: "Money in your HSA works with health insurance, covering co-pays, dental care, eyeglasses and other expenses not covered by traditional insurance. Money left over in your account rolls over year-to-year, saving for the future. If you change jobs or retire, your HSA follows you. At the end of the day, it is your health — and your money." De Mint says that reform means more than just HSAs: "But for HSAs to reach their full potential, we must change the way we are doing business. The federal government must stop forcing physicians and hospitals to use the complex price-fixing schemes it has developed and instead urge providers to simplify and publish prices so patients can 'shop' for the best price. I have also introduced the Health Care Choice Act that would turn the health insurance market, currently regulated by each state, into an interstate commerce market. This would spur competition among insurance providers by creating regional or national markets, allowing families to choose from a wide variety of health plans to fit their specific needs. We are at a crossroads in health care. Either we continue down the path of Washington bureaucrats making health care decisions or we create a bold new paradigm that puts patients and caregivers in charge. This week, I am traveling through the state visiting hospitals, companies, schools and our fine military installations to explain what a new culture of consumer-directed choice can mean for South Carolinians. This uncharted territory can understandably be the cause of some uncertainty. When children first learn to ride a bike, training wheels are an important tool to help overcome fear as they learn to balance. I am convinced that HSAs will be the training wheels that, with practice, will allow America to lead the world in a new era of consumer-directed health care." Of course, Democrats believe that even adults need government's helping hand to steady their bikes. Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Quotidian "One man in a thousand, Solomon says, Will stick more close than a brother. And it's worth while seeking him half your days If you find him before the other. Nine nundred and ninety-nine depend On what the world sees in you, But the Thousandth man will stand your friend With the whole round world agin you. 'Tis neither promise nor prayer nor show Will settle the finding for 'ee. Nine hundred and ninety-nine of 'em go By your looks, or your acts, or your glory. But if he finds you and you find him. The rest of the world don't matter; For the Thousandth Man will sink or swim With you in any water." -- Rudyard Kipling, "The Thousandth Man" Liberal leadership I was emailing a Liberal MP about another matter last week and asked him who he thought would be the next Liberal leader and who would run. He sent this to me on Monday with the simple subject line, "Odds of winning Liberal leadership": 5:2 Michael Ignatieff 7:2 Belinda Stronch 10:1 Bob Rae 20:1 Ken Dryden 75:1 Scott Brison 100:1 Joe Volpe 100:1 Stephane Dion 150:1 Gerald Kennedy 250:1 Ruby Dhalla 300:1 John Godfrey 500:1 Martin Cauchon 500:1 Sheila Copps 750:1 Carolyn Bennett 1000:1 Dan McTeague 1000:1 Maurizio Bevilacqua 1000:1 David McGuinty 5000:1 Louise Arbour 5000:1 Anita Neville So I forwarded the email to a Liberal strategist friend of mine and he replied that the MP is vastly over-estimating Dryden, Brison, Volpe, Dhalla, Cauchon, Copps, Bennett and Arbour and under-estimating Dion and Rae. I'd like to know what the MP knows because few people put McTeague's name on any list of potential leadership candidates. Ditto for Neville. Are either of them considering a run for the party's leadership? The strategist said that the "feeling" within the party (executive, MPs, their staffs, consultants, etc...) has changed dramatically three times over the past month. The days after the election there was the feeling that only Belinda Stronach could bring the Liberals back to government. Then the feeling was that Ignatieff was the best choice for a long-term rebuilding of the party because he could capture the imagination of the country and would stick around in opposition even if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election. Then in the last few days the feeling is that this is a wide-open race that will feature three or four serious candidates who could win, one or two candidates who will try to catch fire and abort their campaign (maybe Dhalla, Volpe) and one or two candidates that will run to build a profile in the party (maybe Dhalla, Godfrey, Kennedy provincially). Of course, this could all be disinformation. We're friends but he is a Liberal and there is that whole honesty/trust thing Grits have going against them. My best guess? It depends on the final process (has it been decided? -- I haven't been paying attention), but I doubt Rae takes the plunge, that the race is ultimately between Stronach and Ignatieff, and that Brison, Dryden, Volpe and Bevilacqua all run although at least two of the four drop out before the convention/election day. I have no idea what Dion or Dhalla are doing and I wouldn't be surprised if one or both decide to vie for the job nor will I be surprised if one or both sit this one out. If Dhalla runs I think that improves Stronach's chances of becoming the leader because the Bramptom MP has no chance of winning but may bring an ethnic vote that could easily transfer to Belinda in a multi-ballot finish. But if Dion nor Rae run, who is going to take Quebec? Whoever wins that province should win the leadership. Dion might want to run to play king/queen-maker. Me on TV I'll be on The Michael Coren Show on CTS tonight at 6pm talking about Brokeback Mountain and the Oscars. Mitch Raphael, former editor of fab!, and Rick McGinnis and someone from one of the alternative weeklies will also be on the panel. Wouldn't want to politicize the courts now, would we? Some, most notably the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, are concerned that the parliamentarians asking SCOC appointees to answer questions about their judicial philosophy might end up politicizing the judicial-appointments process. But as REAL Women notes in its January/February issue of REALITY, it already is politicized. Consider the people that Paul Martin and Irwin Cotler named to the bench at various levels across Canada: "* Michael Brown, Cotler's executive assistant and policy adviser. * Yves de Montigny, Cotler's chief of staff. * Randall Echlin, legal counsel to the Ontario Liberal party. * Rosalie Abella, named to the Supreme Court of Canada, wife of Cotler's close friend Irving Abella. * Marsha Erb, Alberta Liberal fundraiser and close friend of Alberta Liberal cabinet minister Anne McLellan. * John J. Gill, co-chair of the 2004 Alberta federal Liberal campaign. * Vital Ouellette, unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the 1997 and 2000 provincial elections. * Bryan Mahoney, Liberal candidate twice defeated by Calgary Tory Myron Thompson. * Edmond Blanchard, former Liberal minister of finance in New Brunswick." It is not politicization that liberals, Liberals and Supreme Court justices (or do I repeat myself) are worried about, but the democratization of the appointment process. 'Great War on Cartoons' Chaotic Synaptic Activity on the anti-cartoon violence from "New Mexico to Italy, to Africa, and across the Middle East": "While reading this latest on the news of the riots over some 6 month old cartoons of Mohammed, I think it would be appropriate for the MSM to begin tracking up the "body count" for the Muslims indiscriminate killing of themselves and anyone nearby, as some form of twisted revenge for drawings published in newspapers. Let's refer to it as the 'Great War on Cartoons,' for that is what it is." Levant on the biggest tool in cabinet Ezra Levant has a wonderful post at The Shotgun on Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay after he (MacKay) once again criticized those who republished The Cartoons. MacKay said: "Knowing that there has been loss of life, attacks on embassies, very aggressive actions towards other countries ... it's not as if anyone can say, 'Well, we couldn't gauge the reaction. We didn't know how the Muslim community would respond' ...Respecting people's freedom of expression (is important) -- but the danger here towards loss of life and violence clearly outweighs republication, in my view." Perhaps Mr. MacKay would like to blame women who wear short skirts and are subsequently raped for the crime committed against them. Anyway, Levant asks some serious questions about the dissonance between the Prime Minister and his Foreign Affairs Minister on the issue of freedom expression (read the post) before concluding: "There has been a lot of noise in the conservative base about the appointments to cabinet of David Emerson and Michael Fortier. Yes, those are interesting and important issues. But far more important -- and far more worrying -- is that the key post of Foreign Affairs has been frittered away on a spineless Red Tory, who not only is already contradicting party principles, but is defying his leader's clear statements. Foreign Affairs is where the difference between a liberal, UN-centric, appeasement approach to the world, and a conservative, Anglospheric, freedom approach to the world is the clearest -- moreso than in any other cabinet portfolio, from finance to justice. MacKay has always been a weak spot in the party, from his political dalliance with Belinda Stronach to his chronic media undermining of Harper. That was one thing when it was just party business. But now it's the nation's business, and it's something that should cause Canadians, especially movment conservatives, great concern." Is it too soon for a cabinet shuffle? News about my (first) book I found out today that Indigo and Chapters are now carrying (online, at least) my book Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal. I don't know when they began to offer it or why but it's nice to be finally available in the country's largest chain of booksellers even if I'm not on the shelf and even if the retailer is a gigantic tool for banning The Western Standard's latest issue featuring The Cartoons. Conservative bloggers messed up Small Dead Animals on the news that the Tories will pick their Supreme Court justice from the Liberal's shortlist: "This helps to illustrate why I felt some conservative bloggers (and conservatives in general) badly misfired when reacting to the Emerson/Fortier controversy. Considered criticism would have been one thing - but the level of rhetoric from some quarters on the right was reactionary and politically immature. The comparisons to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court were particularly absurd. As I wrote one commentator privately - set aside the fact that cabinet selections are no where near the level of importance as a Supreme Court installment - Republicans would have had the general good sense not to come unglued in the first week of a hard won mandate. After two years of experience in identifying and countering media-driven controversies, the conservative blogosphere swallowed one hook, line and sinker - and burned up a lot of hard earned political capital in the process. In the meantime, Canadians were occupied with real life, and Harper's approval rating rose. Supreme Court activism is a deeply problematic development in Canada, and not one that is likely to be taken up by the opposition or liberal/left dominated media - after all, the court's habit of rewriting the constitution to serve their pet causes fits their agenda nicely. It is precisely the kind of issue that conservatives should have been saving their fire for. The question is, given the last couple of weeks - if voices on the right did try to apply co-ordinated pressure on Harper to rethink it, who's paying attention now?" Unfreaking believable The Philadelphia Inquirer reports: "On Presidents' Day at the National Constitution Center, Gov. Rendell announced his veto of a bill that would have required all voters to show identification when they go to the polls." (HT: The Corner) What is the harm in having voters prove that they have the right to vote? Governor Ed Rendell said that the bill might be unconstitutional, might disenfranchise those without easy access to identification such as nursing home residents or those without drivers' licenses and slow down the voting process at polling stations. The Republicans countered that showing ID is now a routine part of boarding a plane, writing a cheque or even entering a government building. The real reason Dems don't like voter identification bills is that it makes it harder for the party machine to rig elections with bogus voters. Monday, February 20, 2006
Quotidian "None of that progressive jazz in here." -- Eddie Condon when a waiter dropped a tray of plates and cutlery, quoted by Bill Crow in Jazz Anecdotes: Second Time Around Osama speaks The Guardian reports that a tape of Osama bin Laden (Mr. bin Laden to New York Times' readers) in which the al-Qaeda leader says: "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find bitter the taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived." Two thoughts. 1) Why is the taste of death bitter? I thought martyrdom was all the Islamic rage with the 72 virgins and all that. 2) The West should give him his wish, sooner rather than later, assuming that Mark Steyn is wrong about him already meeting the six dozen chaste ladies. The mullahocracy speaks The Daily Telegraph reports that Iran's religious rulers have given their stamp of approval to Tehran having a nuclear weapons program. Not that it has one, but it would be okay if they did. The paper reports: "Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies. In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons." And in case that you didn't find that frightening enough: "The comments, which are the first public statement by the Yazdi clerical cabal on the nuclear issue, will be seen as an attempt by the country's religious hardliners to begin preparing a theological justification for the ownership - and if necessary the use - of atomic bombs." What the hell? Jack Carter, eldest son of the worst US president, is seeking the Democratic nomination for Senate in Nevada. His position on abortion? Confusing. He told AP: "I'm a personal freedoms person. I don't want the government to come in and tell my child or whoever it is that they can't have an abortion. I'm pro-choice as far as a woman choosing, but I'm against abortion." (HT: LifeSite) It appears that Carter wants to have it both ways -- personally opposed but won't legislate restrictions in a pathetic attempt to fool stupid people that he is on their side. But still, could he advocate butchering children without butchering the language and logic with idiotic statements such as "I'm pro-choice as far as a woman choosing, but I'm against abortion." And I wonder if he is pro-choice for moms who want to send their kids to independent schools? Kofi seeks calm over cartoons UN News Service reports: "Deeply concerned over the continuing violence over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan will go to Qatar this weekend for a meeting on mutual respect between cultures, his spokesman said today. 'He hopes on that occasion to meet a number of leaders from Europe and from the Islamic world, and to discuss with them ways of calming the situation,' the spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said of the meeting of the High-Level Group for the Alliance of Civilizations." Not on the agenda: for Islamofacists to stop blowing up Westerners and 'moderate' Muslims and attacking the embassies of European countries. The spokesman also said the panel will discuss ways of "allowing a constructive dialogue between people of different faiths and traditions based on mutual understanding and respect." Get that: discuss ways of doing dialogue. They'll talk about talking. I doubt, however, if any of that chatting will be about the need for Islamofascists to respect the principles of freedom of the press and free speech. Casting blame before the loss Dana Milbank in the Washington Post on Sunday: "The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that, approaching the midterm elections, Democrats enjoy their biggest advantage over Republicans in 14 years. Issue after issue -- Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Jack Abramoff and now Harry Whittington -- gives the opposition party a potential advantage. And then there's the historical advantage enjoyed by the opposition in the elections midway through an incumbent president's second term. To some, this might be cause for celebration. But not to Democrats. Beaten in the last three election cycles, the party has a serious insecurity complex. Convinced they will face another disappointment in November, Democrats are already busy figuring out who among them should be blamed for the inevitable defeat. Here's a guide for handicapping the Democratic precrimination." Those to blame include both Clintons, Rep. Joseph Lieberman, Rep. Harry Reid, Rep. John Kerry, former veep Al Gore, DNC head Howard Dean, Rep. William Jefferson, Rep. Jack Murtha, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Joseph Biden, and, of course, Karl Rove. Read Milbank's reasons why (except Rove). But it comes down to this (except for Lieberman): there are no serious spokesman -- and no serious ideas -- in the party. Kofi gets a prize from the comrades Kofi Annan gets an enviro-award from his pals -- and underlings. Claudia Rosett in The Weekly Standard: "Earlier this month, Annan accepted from the ruler of Dubai an environmental prize of $500,000--a fat sum that represents the latest in a long series of glaring conflicts of interest. Call this one Cash-for-Kofi. Annan received his award at a glittering February 6 ceremony in Dubai, as outlined in a press release from Annan's office that noted the honor, but neglected to mention the half million bucks that came with it. Surrounded by presidents, businessmen, and nearly 130 environmental ministers, Annan collected this purse as winner of the biennial Zayed International Prize for the Environment, given out by the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. So entwined were Annan's own U.N. colleagues in the process that selected him for this award that it's tempting to relabel the entire affair as one of the U.N.'s biggest back-scratching contests. Chairing the jury panel, which voted unanimously for Annan, was the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, and among the jurors was the U.N. undersecretary-general for Economic and Social Affairs, José Antonio Ocampo. Both men owe their current jobs to Annan. Serving as an "observer" of the jury panel was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.N., Munir Akram, who just finished a term as president of the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council, which works closely with Annan. On the website for the Zayed prize, the public relations contacts include a U.N. staffer, Nick Nuttall, listed complete with his U.N. email account and phone number at the Nairobi headquarters of the U.N. Environment Program." Could not a country giving Annan an award be viewed as a bribe. Will Dubai be cited for ... anything? Or might it receive some return praise. Rosett, ever charitable, plays a game of "let's pretend" -- in this case to explain that in the best possible light there is no conflict of interest: "But let us assume these folks were impartial. It's possible that with the Zayed prize already handed out in earlier years to Jimmy Carter and the BBC, the depleted global pool held no candidate more worthy than Annan." Richard Bright, RIP The actor who played my favourite Godfather character (Al Neri) has passed away. Richard Bright was killed Saturday when he was hit by a bus. Sunday, February 19, 2006
Weekend list Bed-time reading -- 7 books that are currently on my night stand 7. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World's Government in the 21st Century by Michael Mandelbaum 6. The Future of the United Nations: Understanding the Past to Chart a Way Forward by Joshua Muravchik 5. The Summa of the Summa edited and annotated by Peter Kreeft 4. The Governor General and the Prime Ministers: The Making and Unmaking of Governments by Edward McWhinney 3. Jazz Anecdotes: Second Time Around by Bill Crow 2.Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy by Bruce Bartlett 1. Free Markets Under Siege: Cartels, Politcs and Social Welfare by Richard A. Epstein Order this book now For those who have been aware that Rory Leishman has been working on this project for what now seems forever, there is reason to rejoice. You can order his forthcoming book, Against Judicial Activism: The Decline of Freedom And Democracy in Canada, from Amazon. Review of Kremlin Rising My review of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the End of Revolution in today's Halifax Herald. The rise of Vladimir Putin Journalists show how Russian president became an autocratic ruler, but try too hard to demonize him By PAUL TUNS In Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the End of Revolution, former Washington Post Moscow bureau chiefs Peter Baker and Susan Glasser set out to prove that the post-Soviet Union experiment in democracy has been turned up side down by former KGB agent and current Russian president Vladimir Putin. They achieve what they set out to do. In Kremlin rising (Scribner, $37.95), Baker and Glasser provide a sweeping history of Russia since Putin ascended to power in 2000. The compelling narrative is full of first-hand interviews with sources as diverse as parents who lost children in the Beslan terrorist attack of September 2004 to inside-the-Kremlin accounts of political intrigue from top officials. The authors quickly describe Putin’s humble Leningrad beginning, his schooling and his time as a mid-level KGB agent in East Germany, before getting to his first taste of politics as deputy mayor of Leningrad. From there, Putin received several posts in Moscow, including the FSB, the post-KGB secret police. There he attracted the attention of Boris Yeltsin’s top political apparatchiks who fingered Putin to become the next president. He was duly appointed prime minister and coasted to victory in the January 2000 elections after Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned. It is in covering the political intrigue that Baker and Glasser shine. If one can keep the names straight (Nikonov was a political consultant but Nemstov was the leader of the Union of Right Forces), Kremlin Rising describes how an unspectacular former secret police agent who hated politics and campaigning could rise to the presidency of the largest country in the world and win re-election. The carefully crafted ascendency, dubbed Project Putin by Kremlin insiders, was meticulously planned and designed originally to protect Yeltsin and his underlings from prosecution once they left office. But Project Putin became something much more — and more ominous. Kremlin insiders ensured a Putin victory under what they called, without a hint of irony, "managed democracy." Vladimir Putin, despite early promises to enhance Russian democracy and rein in the "oligarchs," would later horde power, replacing elected officials with appointed ones, harassing the independent press and punishing successful entrepreneurs that threatened his power. Most notable among these entrepreneurs was Mikhail Khodorkovsky, CEO of Yukos, Russia’s largest oil company. Khodorkovsky was investigated, charged and eventually found guilty for corporate crimes that were, in essence, typical business practices in Russia that were rarely prosecuted. However, most observers, including the authors, believe he was singled out for persecution because he was involved heavily in politics. Khodorkovsky funded most major parties, openly talked about buying legislators and was extremely critical of Putin’s authoritarian rule. Khodorkovsky erected billboards opposing Putin’s policies and bought the Moscow Times to serve as a liberal voice of opposition. Before Khodorkovsky was even found guilty (in June, after the book was written), the government seized and dismantled Yukos for alleged fraud and non-payment of taxes (after the Kremlin retroactively applied tax code changes). Under Putin, the Russian government increasingly involved itself in two industries that increased its own power: energy and the media. The media served as the unofficial propaganda arm of the Kremlin both during elections and in various crises. The energy firms provided steady revenue with which to rebuild the military. While Baker and Glasser return to the persecution of Khodorkovsky repeatedly to demonstrate Putin’s heavy-handedness and intolerance of dissent, they also cover a wide range of issues: the decrepit military, Putin’s fanning nationalist flames, the burgeoning AIDS problem, the Kursk submarine disaster, the war in Chechnya, the hostage crisis at the Dubrovka Street theatre, and the terrorist attack at Beslan’s School Number One. The authors begin and end their volume with Beslan, where Chechen terrorists killed more than 300 people, most of them children. But the authors, in their determination to demonize Putin, imply that he was somehow responsible for the carnage. Yes, Russian forces bungled their handling of the hostage crisis. But Putin was not responsible for the deaths of the children, teachers and parents who died in September 2004. However, the authors are right to criticize his power grab after the incident. Putin used Beslan as a convenient excuse to further curtail democracy by giving himself the power to appoint regional governors and further restrict civil liberties. There is no doubt that Putin is an autocrat. But Baker and Glasser seem, at times, too critical of the Russian president. While many corporations have become virtual partners of the Kremlin, the authors do not give more than token acknowledgement that many large companies have cleaned up their act since the gangster capitalism of the 1990s and they do they give Putin credit for restoring economic sanity to a dysfunctional economy. Nor do Baker and Glasser explore the reasons for widespread Russian support for Putin and his autocratic ways other than to chock it up to feelings of nostalgia that many Russians felt under Soviet rule and its "stability." No doubt that is true, but readers might like to know why it is so. Has Putin led his country to such conclusions or does he merely reflect them? Baker and Glasser do not explore this question. Still, they have written an important, lively book that clearly exposes Putin as an autocrat and illustrates how authoritarian Russia has become in the last five years. Friday, February 17, 2006
Diagnosing the problem and treating it are two different things A French politician being clear-sighted? The Financial Times reports that France’s Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said: "Today it is very simple: No civil nuclear programme can explain Iran’s nuclear programme. So it is a clandestine military nuclear programme." Now saying this and doing something about it are two different things and it does not appear that France (or any of the E3) are willing to confront Tehran. Douste-Blazy said, "The international community has sent a very firm message by saying to the Iranians: ‘Come back to reason. Suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment of uranium and the conversion of uranium’." Yes, they have done this many times and Iran has repeatedly ignored them. And for good reason: what is Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency or the UN prepared to do? Diagnosing the problem and treating it are two different things A French politician being clear-sighted? The Financial Times reports that France’s Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said: "Today it is very simple: No civil nuclear programme can explain Iran’s nuclear programme. So it is a clandestine military nuclear programme." Now saying this and doing something about it are two different things and it does not appear that France (or any of the E3) are willing to confront Tehran. Douste-Blazy said, "The international community has sent a very firm message by saying to the Iranians: ‘Come back to reason. Suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment of uranium and the conversion of uranium’." Yes, they have done this many times and Iran has repeatedly ignored them. And for good reason: what is Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency or the UN prepared to do? Dangers inherent in birth control patch The AP reports that women who use the Ortho Evra birth-control patch are at twice the risk of getting blood clots than women on the birth control pill. Of course, there is a small risk of venous thromboembolic events with the use of all hormonal contraceptives. Me on TV I'll be debating NDP MPP Peter Kormos on the issue of organ transplants and presumed consent on CHCH Live today. It airs at 5:30 pm and again at 11:30 pm. Great new blog William Gairdner has a new blog. Here's Gairdner on the modern university: "Now at McGill University explicit sex photos of undergraduates undressing each other 'have sent school officials scrambling to reassure the more overprotective parents and members of the public that such lewdness is not condoned behaviour on campus' (National Post, p.A3, today). Overprotective? How about no protection whatsoever, and no intent to protect? Not condoned? How about exposing the ways in which the modern university has withdrawn completely from any moral oversight of student behaviour? The real wonder is that the news is taking so long to get out. Okay, there are still a lot of very serious students at our universities. And yes, youth is a time for excitement. But the full story of how modern university campuses have in a few decades been transformed into tax-funded, drug and alcohol-infested havens of orgy and bacchanalia for our children has yet to be written." Thursday, February 16, 2006
Quotidian "Out of the air a voice without a face Proved by statistics that some cause was just In tones as dry and level as the place: No one was cheered and nothing was discussed; Column by column in a cloud of dust They marched away enduring a belief Whose logic brought them, somewhere else, to grief." -- W.H. Auden, The Shield of Achilles More floor-crossers Greg Staples links to this column by the Calgary Sun's Paul Jackson guessing that as many as a dozen of the more right-leaning Liberals may cross the floor and join the Conservatives. Staples wonders if this is true, pointing to (without naming) some of the socially conservative Liberals in the GTA. I know that several gave a moment's thought to joining the Conservatives last year but that the socially conservative Liberals didn't think that Stephen Harper was genuinely open to social conservatism (that he wouldn't run an unabashed campaign on reversing SSM, that he would seek to put a lid on his pro-life MPs and candidates, etc...). There has been nothing of which I am aware that would change their mind although a few say they will bolt the Liberal Party if Belinda Stronach is chosen as their next leader. What that means is unclear: leave politics immediately or not run again, sit as an independent, cross the floor? I would think that the number one consideration now is the fallout from the David Emerson floor crossing. It has been a PR nightmare for the Tories; would they want to go through that again? Admittedly, if a sizeable contingent of Grits were to leave the Liberal Party, that would be an embarrassment to the Libs, too. But in the current political climate, I don't see a straight crossing of the floor to the Tories as very likely -- for any number of Liberals. It becomes politically possible to defend switching teams after a new leader is chosen because an MP can always use the excuse that he (or she) disagrees strongly with the direction of the party or lacks faith in the new leader. Children First Eli Schuster has an good artice on the Fraser Institute's Children First program which subsidizes half the cost of a private-school education for the children of low income families: "[T]he folks who usually benefit the most from private schools: families in poor neighbourhoods often lacking a culture of achievement, are the ones least able to afford such a luxury. Well, the good news is that there are financial resources available to low-income families." Interestingly, it is a pro-free market think tank, not the government, that is helping children attain educational success. Also, I saw an ad for the program on the subway today. For information can be found here. What's a choice if you are not informed Evangelical Outpost has some excellent thoughts on the issue of informed consent and post-abortion health risks (under the great title: "Pro-Choice, Anti-Science"). Joe Carter begins thusly: "When most people prepare to undergo elective surgery, they expect to be fully informed of the risks involved in the procedure. But what if a doctor refused to tell you that after you recovered you would be at an elevated risk of developing suicidal behavior, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems? What if you were told that the justification for withholding such information was that you had a 'civil right' to have the surgery and that the evidence concerning risk of mental illness 'didn’t matter'? Most people would be outraged if such information had been withheld from them. Yet there is one medical procedure in which the risks are paternalistically withheld from the patient. That procedure, of course, is abortion." Of course, this is not the only double standard when it comes to abortion (Canadian socialists typically oppose funding private health care but lobby for full state funding of Henry Morgentaler's, and other abortionists', private abortion mills.) Carter then examines some of the data on abortion-related health risks which "found that women who had abortions were significantly more likely to experience mental health problems." The study in question was completed by professor David M. Fergusson, director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study, who declares himself "pro-choice." Still, he doesn't accept that abortion-minded women and healthcare practitioners should accept the claim that abortion is a harmless procedure. (Presumably he means for the mother; it is lethal to the child.) Carter reports the reaction of bioethicist Glenn McGee (editor of the American Journal of Bioethics) who said: "I trust none of this data until it is examined by the Guttmacher Institute." Ah, yes, that unbiased source of reproductive health information. (It's the research arm of Planned Parenthood.) What does the GI say about Fr. Fergusson's study? Carter reports: Nothing. Carter concludes: "Abortion rights advocates claim that they support a woman’s right to make her own choice about whether to have an abortion. If this is true then they should be pressing the issue of informed consent so that women have access to the best medical evidence available. Instead, they go out of the way to ensure that the research on abortion's harmful effects remains hidden in scientific journals." Women deserve better than the conspiracy of silence. 'Annan urges international community to do more for Africa' That was the headline on an article at the UN news service. I couldn't even read much into the story because when I read the phrase "international community" I have the same reaction that Joseph Goebbels did when he heard the word "culture." I think that the phrase "international community" has replaced "social justice" as the most mis-used and my least favourite phrase. Review of Brokeback Mountain My review of the Oscar-nominated film will appear in the March 2006 issue of Catholic Insight: Brokeback Mountain (Dircted by Ang Lee, Focus Feature, 2005, 134 minutes, Rated-R) The critically acclaimed Brokeback Mountain, the 'gay cowboy movie,' is seen to be a gay propaganda film. It is the story of two Wyoming men who get jobs sheep-herding at Brokeback Mountain for the summer. Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) are supposed to stay in separate tents -- one at camp and one tending to the sheep -- but one night after too much drinking, they spend the night together and they have sex. After their summer job ends, they go back to their lives, Ennis to marry Alma with whom he has two children, Jake to the rodeo where he meets his future wife Lureen Newsome. But they still long for one another, and for nearly 20 years they arrange for "fishing trips" at Brokeback, trysts behind the backs of their suspecting wives. Eventually Ennis and Alma divorce, but Ennis and Jake, despite the latter’s repeated requests to do so, never move in together. Although Brokeback is viewed of as a ;gay' propaganda movie, this is the almost the same film I would make about two homosexual men. Both of the main characters had less-than-ideal home lives: Ennis lost both of his parents when he was young and Jake had a dysfunctional relationship with his father. During their thrice-yearly 'fishing' gettaways, Ennis and Jake never fish, they only have sex, but there is no other relationship there. Although they meet thrice yearly for such sexual meetings, Jake, who now lives in Texas, heads to Mexico regularly for sex with 'gay' prostitutes. The most telling signs that there is something morally wrong about homosexual activity comes immediately before and after their first engagement of it. The night they share a tent, the men have a discussion in which Jake asks Ennis whether he is saved. Ennis says he hasn’t yet had the chance to sin. That night they engage in unpleasantly rough, quick and romance-less sex. The next morning Ennis leaves to tend to the flock and for the first time (that you see on film), a sheep was lost to coyotes. What Biblical symbolism: the shepherds lose one of the flock while they were off sinning rather than taking caring of their charge. The force of the movie, like many great 'romances' is that heartache that comes from the two individuals being ultimately unable to forge a permanent relationship. We are meant to understand that the reason for this is that the closet (or the out-of-sight wilderness) was the only safe place in the allegedly heterosexist world of the American west in the 1960s and ’70s. But alternatively, their pathetic lives -- the dysfunctional and ultimately wrecked family relationships, the impossibility of forming a meaningful relationship with each other, and the resulting oneliness -- are not the result of the inability to be honest with themselves and others but the fact that they are living disordered lives. That’s not the message that Ang Lee wants the viewer to leave with; but it is one that is there if you care to look for it, because there is no getting away from the nature of homosexual relationships no matter how sympathetically you dress them up. Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Quotidian "We thought we ranked above the chance of ill. Others might fall, not we, for we were wise-- Merchants in freedom. So, of our free-will We let our servants drug our strength with lies. The pleasure and the poison had its way On us as on the meanest, till we learned That he who lies will steal, who steals will slay. Neither God's judgment nor man's heart was turned. Yet there remains His Mercy--to be sought Through wrath and peril till we cleanse the wrong By that last right which our forefathers claimed When their Law failed them and its stewards were bought. This is our cause. God help us, and make strong Our will to meet Him later, unashamed!" -- Rudyard Kipling, The Covenent Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Tit for tat MosNews.com reports: "Azerbaijan’s weekly Yeni Habar has published cartoons of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary in response to the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in Danish and other European countries’ press. The author of the cartoons quoted by Day.Az web agency said they were a response to the 'insults to the Prophet Mohammed' and reminded of freedom of speech. Azerbaijan’s Press Council chairman, Aflatun Amashev, condemned the cartoons that he said offended Christians. He said they conflicted with the country’s constitution, law on media and journalists’ code. Iranian embassy to Azerbaijan also condemned the cartoons saying an author could have not known of Virgin Mary (Maryam) mentioned in the Quran or had a goal to arouse hatred between Moslems and Christians." Liberals -- and others who are afraid of a Muslim backlash -- have been telling us that defending the publishing of The Cartoons on the grounds of "freedom of expression" or "freedom of speech" is irresponsible. (They cannot counter the more thoughtful editors/publishers such as those at the Western Standard and Weekly Standard who have noted that not publishing impedes a full understanding of the issue.) But I wonder if the "they did it first" argument is any more sophisticated. (Cross-posted at The Shotgun) US will attack Iran: Russian 'expert' MosNews.com reports that Russian political expert Mikhail Delyagin predicts the United States will launch a "pinpoint, surgical" missile attack against Iran this summer, comparing the current situation to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 or the preparation of Coalition forces prior to the liberation of Iraq in 2003: "I think that today’s statements, the propaganda and the actions allow us to say quite clearly that the missile attack on Iran is a question of time." As I have repeatedly said before, I certainly hope so. I question, though, Delyagin's claim that Iran has a limited capacity to strike back. Who knew Fort McMurray had a Muslim community Fort McMurray Today reported yesterday that local Muslims expressed their anger (peacefully, so far) over the publication of The Cartoons. They wrote a letter to the Danish ambassador to Canada asking that his government apologize. Again, many Muslims don't seem to understand that in a country with a free press, the state 1) is not responsible for what is published in an independent (and privately owned) newspaper, 2) cannot punish the cartoonist who drew the offending cartoon or the editor who commissioned them, or 3) should not apologize for something it had nothing to do with. The paper reported that Mohamad Aboushadi, "the vice-president of the Markaz Ul Islam mosque on Main Street" (who knew that Fort McMurray, Ontario, population 56,000, had a mosque?) called the cartoons "insulting" and urged the United Nations to establish a "rule against broadcasting insulting images." I doubt that the UN will heed the advice of a vice president of a mosque from a northern Ontario city but the up-side is that even if it does, the UN would/could never enforce it. 'You Say Qaddafi, I Say Gaddafi' The Globalist lists 87 different ways to spell Muammar Qaddafi (the Libyan dictator's preferred spelling of his name) and notes that it illustrates the "difficulties posed not only for intercultural communication, but also for simply indentifying any Arabic name when spelled out in a different alphabet." Unforunately, there is not article to explain why this is so or what can be done about it, but it reminds me of a joke in which the person is spelling something or other over the telephone and says "Q as in Qaddaffi" and later "K as in Kaddaffi" and later again "G as in Gaddaffi." 10 most dangerous profs From David Horowitz's new book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Human Events Online lists the ten most dangerous professors and why. Here's the list: 10. bell hooks 9. Amiri Baraka (A convert to Islam and former New Jersey poet laueate who has written: "the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence [by a black man] is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped") 8. Tom Hayden 7. Joseph Massad 6. Jose Angel Gutierrez (Founder of La Raza Unida) 5. Armando Navarro 4. Gayle Rubin (Proponent of pedophilia) 3. Angela Davis 2. Bill Ayers 1. Bernardine Dohrn ("Once said of the Manson murders of actress Sharon Tate and others: 'Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!' The stomach was that of pregnant Sharon Tate. Dohrn teaches law at Northwestern University.") There are limits to freedom of expression And that limit is someone's hurt feelings. Not the supposed "blasphemy" Muslims are claiming but "hurt feelings." Because of its inclusion of The Cartoons, Indigo (and thus Chapters and Coles) and McNally Robinson Booksellers will not shelf the current edition of the Western Standard. Booksellers owner Paul McNally said: "We obviously are fervently in favour of freedom of expression but looking at this one, we don't see anything as being expressed except a kind of hurtfulness toward Muslims ... I don't know if there is anything to be learned or communicated by publishing the cartoons ... We feel there is nothing to gain on the side of freedom of expression and much to lose on the side of hurting feelings ... We just thought we would take a pass on this." Of course, the real reason is probably self-preservation but they can't say that, can they? It is so much better to pretend pander to the most exquisitely sensitive group of people in the world than to admit that you are afraid of them. Voltaire probably never said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but it is something that the fair-weather friends of freedom certainly don't believe today. Perhaps the words of another defender of free speech are more apt. In a concurrence written to the 1927 majority decision in the Whitney v. California case, Justice Louis Brandeis said: "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." Happy St. Valentine's Day For Catholics, February 14 ceased being St. Valentine's Day quite a while ago, instead honouring Saints Cyril and Methodius. For the National Organization of Women, it is Contraception Awareness Week. For most people, the day is about romantic love and in that spirit, NRO offers a symposium on the most conservative love story ever told. Edith Wharton's The Age of Innocence and various Tolstoy and Austen novels lead the pack, but Casablanca, John and Abigail Adams and various Biblical couples get a mention, too ("...into the New Testament where we find the beautiful testing of love and commitment in the story of Mary and Joseph"). And over at the Private Sector Development blog, Pablo Halkyard provides some chocolate-themed links. Did you know that, "Of world cocoa production, 70% comes from West Africa, 90% from small farmers." So help the world's poor and purchase that special someone in your life a box of chocolates. Grim anniversary One year ago today, Lebanonese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated, presumably by Syrian operatives. The move backfired as Syria was forced to withdraw (sort of, partially) and a UN investigation put Bashar al-Assad's regime under the microscope. BBC has the story of how Lebanon is marking the anniversary. UN pleads for money for Congo Reuters reports that Jan Egeland, United Nations under secretary general for aid coordination, "said the United Nations had so far struggled to get resources because Congo, a sprawling central African state with a government based in Kinshasa, was seen as hopeless by many potential donors." No, the UN struggles to get resources to deal with hunger and disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo because the UN is never prepared to meet the humanitarian challenges it hopes to ameliorate, because it gets bogged down by bureaucracy, chronic lack of resources and distracted by less pressing efforts such as the second annual UN documentary film festival scheduled for April. A mother's care versus child care Libby Purves writes in the London Times that both government and business needs to become more flexible in their policies when it comes to dealing with parents (companies should forgive women gaps in their resumes whilst they stay at home with junior), recognizing that a child is best staying at home with mom over being sent to institutional care. Purves puts it nicely: "A young baby needs a person not a place, not 'affordable care' but devoted care." Clone away The London Times reports that British women will be able to give away their eggs for the sole purpose of "therapeutic research" (that is research that could possibly be used to treat some ailment, some day down the road). Previously, women had to be already undergoing treatment before their eggs could be removed. The paper reports: "The decision by the Government’s fertility watchdog has stirred fresh ethical controversy about therapeutic cloning, as the new donors run the risk of damaging their health for no direct benefit to themselves." This raises serious questions about the doctors who would remove the eggs for no ostensible health benefit to their patient while potentially harming her. This would seem to be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath -- not that doctors take that oath anymore. Just wondering I'm watching CSI (which I rarely do) and Showcase has an ad for an upcoming series about lesbians, Tipping the Velvet. It's promoted as a "provocative new drama." Never mind that the series is a few years old. Isn't yet another series about lesbians actually not very provocative at all. Monday, February 13, 2006
Quotidian "The ruin of Marx's system by the events of the past half-century has in no way inhibited the production of Marxian theoretical literature in Western societies. Throught the past hundred years, Marxian ideas have served in capitalist societies as weapons in the armoury of cultural criticism, as tools in projects for revisionary history and as postulates for much sociological research." -- John Gray, "Among the Ruins of Marxism," in Communism edited by Ferdinand Mount Brokeback Mountain Elbert Ventura writes in The American Prospect Online: "Try as they might, conservatives just can’t quit Brokeback Mountain. Weeks after its release, Ang Lee’s critically acclaimed hit continues to be the object of fixation among conservative pundits. The grumbling has been relentless. The movie advances Hollywood’s 'radical agenda,' says MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. Syndicated conservative radio host Janet Parshall calls it part of the 'homosexualizing of America.' Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, talking about the film’s critical success, says the rapturous response is 'about mainstreaming certain conduct.' That the right would reflexively reject a film romance involving gay men is no surprise. But what makes the conservative assault on Brokeback Mountain truly pernicious is not the strained squeamishness of insecure anchors. Rather, the campaign against the movie aims to accomplish a larger goal: turning liberal-leaning art into nothing more than propaganda, and enthusiasm for such art into a cause. Dismissing the praise for Brokeback Mountain as a political response from radicals is too easy." Easy and wrong. Brokeback Mountain is an extremely well-done film, worthy of its various awards nominations. I can't help but to think that it is being promoted for its sympathetic portrayal of two lonely, deeply dysfunctional gay men -- director Ang Lee has admitted that confronting traditional, mostly religious attitudes about homosexuality was part of this purpose in making this movie. But there is also a lot in this movie that, even if done unintentionally, is unflattering of gay men. As I write in a review of the film in the March issue of Catholic Insight, this is the movie I'd make about two gay men: the two lead characters have sexual trysts but there is no relationship there; both lacked strong relationships with their fathers; both were dishonest with their spouses and children; both were miserable; the one character not only cheats on his wife with his gay lover but his gay lover with gay Mexican prostitutes. Ang Lee would say this is because they lived at a time (the 1960s and '70s) that was unsafe for gays to live outside the closet, but I'd argue that it is because they lived fundamentally disordered lives. But I wonder if some conservative critics understand that the movie sends mixed messages about the homosexual lifestyle (certainly inadvertently) including the sinfulness of such acts; of course, if these critics don't see the movie, this would be missed. And whatever the message of the movie, it is, as I said above, well executed but for a few hackneyed scenes (such as when Heath Ledger's character literally enters a closet while mourning his late friend). CPAC goers support Allen, McCain The Right Angle, the Human Events blog, reports the results of a straw poll from CPAC: George Allen: 22% John McCain: 20% Rudy Giuliani: 12% Condoleezza Rice: 10% Bill Frist: 6% Tom Tancredo: 5% Mitt Romney: 5% Newt Gingrich: 5% Rick Santorum: 3% George Pataki: 3% Undecided: 4% Last year, Giuliani and Rice were the front-runners. Greg, Gerry talk politics Greg Staples interviews NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls about Stephen Harper's first week in politics (David Emerson, Michael Fortier, senate reform, choice in child care). Speccie goes Cameron Matthew d'Ancona, a whiz kid of sorts (he is 38-years-old, currently the deputy editor of the Sunday Telegraph and a political columnist with the Daily Telegraph, he began his career at the London Times in 1991 and moved up the ladder quickly becoming the the assistant editor there at the age of 26) has been named the new editor of The Spectator. d'Ancona, a socially liberal conservative, said the magazine "will be modern, free-thinking and indispensable." Argh! Why do conservatives insist on being modern? Modern to today's ears mean moderate, which means socially liberal. Beijing propping up Pyongyang According to the Asia Times, trade with China prevented North Korea from experiencing negative growth (my favourite economic term). AT reports: "North Korea-China trade has been rising by an average 30% every year since 2000, boosting the communist state's economic growth by 3.5% every year, according to the Institute for Monetary and Economic Research." Remember this when Beijing is part of the six nation discussions on North Korea's nuclear program and imagine them being an honest broker in those talks. Finding a free market-loving healthcare provider in Alberta Apparently that is harder than one might expect but David MacLean of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation notes that it has finally been done: "Now a private clinic is stepping up to charge user fees. The Alberta College of Physicians says this is a no-no. However, given the Chaoulli decision from the Supreme Court, this will not last a day in the courts. Canadians have a right to buy their own medicine -- especially if the government is deemed unable to provide timely health care. "Timely" is in the eye of the beholder. It's about time somebody in supposedly free-enterprising Alberta stepped up and put it in writing." I am not as optimistic that the Chaoulli decision will lead to future court decisions against the status quo healthcare monopoly but it's a positive step that we are getting closer to such a challenge. New bumper sticker As noted at SDA: "I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy." Disturbing but unsurprising II Ha'aretz reports that Hamas is committed to not changing. Gaza-based senior official Mahmoud al-Zahar said: "Recognizing the state of the Israeli enemy is not on the table. Our program is to liberate Palestine, all of Palestine." Furthermore, al-Zahar warns that the present "calm" is just a matter of preparing for the next round of "resistance." Disturbing but not surprising AP reports: "Venezuela said Monday it would welcome leaders from the Hamas movement 'with pleasure' if they visit the country as part of a South American tour following victory in Palestinian elections." Unusually poor column from Mallaby When Washington Post Sebastian Mallaby writes about international issues, he has the ability to broaden one's perspective by challenging one's assumptions. He is a liberal but not a doctrinaire one. But when he turns his attention to domestic affairs, his inner anti-Bush gets the better of him. Today he writes about the administration's proposal to expand Health Savings Accounts: "Right now, tax rules subsidize company-provided health insurance, but they're less generous toward out-of-pocket medical payments; as a result, company health plans pay most bills and patients have no incentive to shop around for the best bargain. Health savings accounts end this tax bias. Anyone who buys an insurance policy with a deductible of $1,050 or more can open an account and save $5,250 a year toward out-of-pocket health costs, tax-free. This will shift control of medical spending into the hands of consumers, who will discipline overpriced hospitals and clinics. Or so goes the theory. In practice, probably less than half of all health spending outside Medicaid and Medicare would be affected by the new consumer-driven discipline. Many hospital stays cost more than any deductible, so consumers would have no incentive to bargain; emergency-room patients aren't in a fit state to negotiate prices with their doctors. But consider an even more basic question: Is the ostensible reason for health savings accounts the real one?" Mallaby says that HSAs will benefit the wealthy and that the administration is ideologically committed to them despite being a "clunker of a policy" because it is part of the Ownership Society President George W. Bush trumpets (never mind that other much-needed reforms that fit the Ownership Society have since fallen off the agenda). Mallaby is being uncharitable and I will mention only two glowing errors from the two paragraph quoted above. 1) The fact that many hospital stays cost more than the deductible ignores the fact that only a small percentage of people will require a hospital stay each year. My understanding (depending on how the HSA is set up) is that they can accumulate. Furthermore, the savings can be saved. 2) The fact that half of all non-Medicare/Medicaid health spending would be affected by the consumer discipline does not negate the benefits of introducing pricing information and consumer-driven reforms into the system. Reining in the costs in a significant percentage of the health care sector reins in costs period. Why diminish that accomplishment? Unusually wrong WSJ editorial The Wall Street Journal endorses Israeli inclusion in NATO to thwart Iranian nuclear weapons program: "Many Europeans will object that NATO is a geographic defense pact, but it has already expanded its field of operation beyond Europe into Afghanistan. If NATO is going to continue to be relevant, it has to adapt to confront new threats to global stability, and a nuclear Iran certainly qualifies. It's fanciful for Europe to think it could stay aloof from an Iranian strike against Israel or the U.S., since the latter would surely retaliate and wider regional war would ensue. Iran is also developing ballistic missiles that will eventually have the capitals of Europe within range. Even apart from the Iranian threat, a strong case can be made for Israeli membership. Israel is a liberal democracy, which is why nobody seriously worries about Israel's bomb. The Jewish state has also taken unprecedented steps for peace with its Palestinian neighbors over the past decade, relinquishing territory even as it became clear that there was little good faith on the other side. Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal and the subsequent victory of Hamas in Palestinian legislative elections are more than enough reason for the rest of the world to now reciprocate with a gesture of solidarity regarding Israel's defense." I noted the case against the proposal -- a proposal that makes sense except for the fact that it will never happen -- here, last week. Coulter I once reviewed an Ann Coulter book and said that she was a guilty pleasure. She says things that many conservatives think but would (and could) never say. But she may have gone too far when she said at CPAC last week: "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'rag head talks tough, rag head faces consequences.'" Over at The American Spectator Online, David Hogberg says essentially what I said in my review: "What's a conservative to do with Ann Coulter? She is one of the political right's most popular, witty and outrageous pundits. She also has a side that is vile and ugly." But that was pre-CPAC. Now she has become indefensible. Hogberg outlines the problems that arise from Coulter's comments: 1) They are racist. 2) They failed to consider her responsibility to the American Conservative Union which organizes CPAC. 3) They inevitably reflect poorly on the conservative movement. Of course the ACU should have know what they are getting. As the usually obnoxious Robert McClelland correctly says (via Right Girl), "She reminds me of an aging porn star who, as her beauty fades, must resort to increasingly depraved sexual acts in order to turn a buck." But it is now the responsibility of conservatives to distance themselves from such remarks so they do not become synonymous with "the conservative view." Aaron Burr call your office A public relations nightmare for the Bush administration: Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shoots his 78-year-old hunting companion. But on the other hand, he was a lawyer. Friday, February 10, 2006
Free elections in Canada now! Filip Palda writes a great piece in the Fraser Forum on election activity restrictions on third parties (and political parties, too). Palda criticizes politicians setting the rules under which they compete. As Palda asks: what would happen if GM was allowed to set the standards for the cars they make and what competitors are allowed to say about them? Consumers would not tolerate that. Voters shouldn't either. It's time to scrap the elections laws limiting speech, donations and spending. It's time to give citizens a greater voice in elections. I didn't know he was on anyone's list Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour announces will not run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. Mid-terms Over at the Washington Post's The Fix, Chris Cillizza looks at the ten Senate seats most likely to switch from Republican to Democrat or vice versa in the mid-term elections. He thinks that the five states most likely to flip are all currently GOP seats: Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio and Missouri. This is called substituting one's wishes for analysis. I agree that we might as well start referring to Robert Casey Jr. as Senator Casey. Santorum ticked off his base by endorsing several pro-abortion pols in 2004. He deserves to return to the private sector. I'm not so sure about RI where everything thinks that an ideologically driven challenge to RINO Lincoln Chafee will cost the GOP the seat there. I think it is too early to tell and that the primary campaign and outcome will greatly influence the general election. Writing off Conrad Burns in Montana might be premature but we'll have to see what the Jack Abramoff effect will have on 2006. Many pundits are already writing Mike DeWine's political obit; he'll keep his seat (although I like the GOP bodies in the Senate to maintain control of the judiciary committee, it would not be the worst thing to see DeWine defeated). Jim Talent fell behind in a recent poll to a half-decent candidate (state Auditor Claire McCaskill) but he'll win this tight race. Cillizza says this race "is likely to swing depending on the national environment on Election Day." That's why Talent is safe; the Democrats are an utterly unserious party and there will be no anti-GOP/anti-Bush general mood to lift Democrats to victory in close races. I am convinced that although many people give Democrat Rep. Harold Ford only an outside chance of winning Tennessee (where Senator Bill Frist is calling it a day), the state actually provides the Dems the second best chance of a pickup. Ford is a plausibly moderate and completely personable candidate without a primary fight. The Fix is skeptical of his ability to hold on to early polling leads because of memories of Inez Tenenbaum and the belief that "GOP-leaning Southern voters" will vote Republican once the party chooses a nominee. But Ford is not Tenenbaum, Tennesse is not South Carolina and 2006 is not 2004. The Democrats are likely to lose Minnesota were Senator Mark Dayton is retiring. GOP Rep. Mark Kennedy is a great candidate. I give the GOP a less than 50% shot of picking up ultra-liberal Maryland (where Senator Paul Sarbanes). I know there is a Republican governor but Maryland's federal politics are extremely left, where they tend to be more practical on the state level. Ditto for the race in New Jersey. And Washington. The problem with child labour My wife and I hardly ever venture into the furnace room where our second fridge is. The narrow space between storage boxes that must be navigated is better suited for our two sons, so they are responsible for filling and retrieving our milk, juice, fruit and pop that we store there. This morning I had to run down to get something out of the refrigerator and when I opened it, I saw that a partially finished cake from my wife's birthday was sitting on the second shelf. Her birthday is in December. The kids do a good job at the simple physical task of putting things in the fridge and taking them out but only if they are told. It never crossed either of their minds to tell us that a two-month old, half-eaten cake was sitting in plain sight. Thursday, February 09, 2006
Quotidian "I do not so much write a book as sit up with it, as with a dying friend." -- Annie Dillard, The Writing Life Annan speaks forcefully for once UN news service reports that Secretary General Kofi Annan criticized The Cartoons: "Honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today ... It is insensitive, it is offensive, it is provocative, and they should see what has happened around the world." Does anyone remember Annan critizing anti-semitic cartoons published in the Arab/Islamic world? He called upon governments -- and everybody else -- to "take steps to calm the situation." Thanks Kofi. You're relevant. Pray for Guillermo Farinas Hernandez Independent Cuban journalist Guillermo Farinas Hernandez has gone ten days without food or water to protest the restrictions on press freedom placed on journalists and limits on internet access sufferred by all Cubans. He was rushed to hospital after loosing consciousness and was listed in critical condition. Reporters without Borders has the whole story here. MacKay: out of his depth Generally, the analysis on The Carp Blog is pretty lame but I thought that Matthew Carpenter-Arévalo's comments on Peter MacKay as Foreign Affairs Minister were worth repeating: "I'm afraid that with McKay in charge Canada will continue to be a country that talks a lot and accomplishes little on the international scene." Also worth noting is his hatred of Tony Clement: "Finally, someone asked me why I refer to Tony Clement as Fishface, and I think that deserves an explanation. Tony Clement raises my blood pressure every time I see him because of something he said the day he announced his intention to run for the leadership of the new conservative party. He said that, as an immigrant himself, he knew the challenges faced by new Canadians. HIS PARENTS CAME FROM ENGLAND! What, did his parents have difficult finding work because of their superior command of the English language? Was his father consistently mistaken for someone's butler? Does his really have the cajones to say on national TV that as the son of English migrants he has experienced the same challenges as an uneducated Sudanese refugee? Give me a break! The only time I've ever shaken my first harder at the T.V. was when Belinda Stronach said, with a straight face, that she faced challenges as a single mother. What challenge does a millionaire single mother face when you have a football team hired to take care of your children? Choosing whether to send them to school in the Hummer or the Corvette is not a REAL challenge!" But Carpenter-Arevalo has been spending too much time at Oxford if he thinks that Stockwell Day is really going to be the first person to say something stupid to embarrass the Tory government. Where has C-A been these past few years: Day's error-prone days are long behind him and he has performed well in his foreign affairs critic role and should do excellently at Public Safety. Choice = abortion, not, er, choice Save the GOP notes that a sophomore at William and Mary College was assaulted by a "pro-choice" advocate as she was passing out pro-life literature at a Students for Life luminary memorial for the victims of abortion. (HT: AmSpec Blog) Yahoo rats The Daily Telegraph reports that after Yahoo tattled on Li Zhi who posted comments on an online discussion group on such "subversive" topics as local government corruption, the 35-year-old former civil servant was sentenced to eight years in jail. The marriage gap Not that this should be news but family structure and poverty are related. From Kay S. Hymowitz's article, Marriage and Caste, in City Journal: "When Americans began their family revolution four decades ago, they didn't tend to talk very much about its effect on children. That oversight now haunts the country, as it becomes increasingly clear that the Marriage Gap results in a yawning social divide. If you want to discuss why childhood poverty numbers have remained stubbornly high through the years that the nation was aggressively trying to lower them, begin with the Marriage Gap. Thirty-six percent of female-headed families are below the poverty line. Compare that with the 6 percent of married-couple families in poverty--a good portion of whom are recent, low-skilled immigrants, whose poverty, if history is any guide, is temporary. The same goes if you want to analyze the inequality problem--start with the Marriage Gap. Virtually all--92 percent--of children whose families make over $75,000 are living with both parents. On the other end of the income scale, the situation is reversed: only about 20 percent of kids in families earning under $15,000 live with both parents." In other words, for all those liberals obsessing about inequality, the income gap can be fixed by supporting family life. If you don't run The Cartoons, the terrorists have won Andrew Sullivan on the decision of editors -- or at least one editor -- not to run The Cartoons: "'I'm not putting lives in danger. We're not getting things blown up,' - David Unger, owner of New York Press, as reported by Harry Siegel, the editor. I know Harry and trust his word. This is what is occurring. The American media will not publish these images because they are afraid. And so the Islamists have already won one victory. You think they will be content with just one?" John Podhoretz understands such cowardice, he just doesn't want it dressed up as a principled editorial stance when it's all about self-preservation: "I have no problem whatever with a media organization choosing not to publish the cartoons on the grounds that it is acting cautiously to ensure that its staffers don't get their heads bashed in overseas -- or because of fears that Islamic radicals here at home might choose to take a stand by taking a shot at somebody. These people are dangerous and it is meet and proper to exercise caution. A consortium of publishers in the United States joined together to put Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses into paperback in order to protect staffers at Rushdie's publishing house from being added to the murderous fatwa against him -- and only the most self-righteously pious could have objected to that act of caution, given the circumstances. It's the pretense in the cartoon case that I find so repulsive -- the pretense that these organizations have made an editorial judgment in choosing not to publish. That's nonsense on stilts, and what's more, they all know it. They aren't publishing out of a reasonable fear, not out of reasoned reflection. But they just can't resist lying in a way to make themselves feel better about their decision." As Mark Steyn said on the weekend, one day soon we will discover that "there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia." When he's right, he's right Andrew Sullivan: "So we now discover that the hideously offensive and blasphemous cartoons - so blasphemous that CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, won't publish them ... were reprinted last October. In Egypt. On the front frigging page. No one rioted. No editor at Al Fager was threatened. So it's official: the Egyptian state media is less deferential to Islamists than the New York Times. So where were the riots in Cairo? This whole affair is a contrived, manufactured attempt by extremist Muslims to move the goal-posts on Western freedom. They're saying: we determine what you can and cannot print; and there's a difference between what Muslims can print and what infidels can print. And, so far, much of the West has gone along. In this, well-meaning American editors have been played for fools and cowards. Maybe if they'd covered the murders of von Gogh and Fortuyn more aggressively they'd have a better idea of what's going on; and stared down this intimidation. The whole business reminds me of the NYT's coverage of the Nazis in the 1930s. They didn't get the threat then. They don't get it now." Base to Conservatives: remember us Gerry Nicholls warns the Conservative government to not forget the base, i.e. all those conservatives who stuck with the party through the past dozen years. It is sound advice that won't be followed. I've talked with too many Conservative MPs, their staffers and strategists who counter such advice with: "Who else you gonna vote for?" They don't seem to realize that staying home is a perfectly good option. Happy blogday On the Fence turns three today. Congrats. I forgot to mention my own third blogday was last Sunday. Here was my third post, entitled "Adding to the clutter": "The need for yet another political/cultural blog, especially one from the conservative perspective, is certainly far from established. There are many good ones -- Mystique et Politique, Instapundit, National Review Online's The Corner, the Ashbrook Center's No Left Turns and Evetushnet.com -- all come to mind. I have no illusions that Sobering Thoughts will match them in quality. Nonetheless, I not-so-humbly offer my thoughts -- from the short quip to longish essays -- on the issues of the day. On this page's mission statement, I say Sobering Thoughts is a web version of standing athwart history, yelling 'stop.' That, of course, is a blatant rip-off of National Review's first editorial. (The title, by the way, is a blatant rip-off of George F. Will's first collection of columns, The Pursuit of Happiness and Other Sobering Thoughts.) In a less quoted part of that same NR editorial, the new magazine said 'National Review is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commanger are in place.' In the tradition of proudly being out-of-step with the United Nations, New York Times and their ilk, I offer the occasional thought, sometimes sobering, sometimes humourous, on those people and institutions that would have us march happily into Scandanavian-type 'utopias.' Sometimes, all that need be posted is an original quote, with the theory that all the Left needs is a little rope. Several years ago, before blogs were popular, I offered a semi-regular emailed concoction of observations, quips and commentary entitled Notes on the Human Tramedy (a hybrid of comedy and tragedy, which someone kindly pointed out bares a disturbing similarity to trammies, the details of which you should be spared) that was sent to several hundred people on my email list. This is, in some ways, a continuation of that project. The tramedy hybrid was inspired by a quote by Horace Walpole, who said that the world is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think. But human beings feel and think, so the reactions -- oh, what a conservative virtue -- posted will emanate from both the heart and the head. I hope you enjoy." New Neuhaus book Fr. Richard John Neuhaus's new book, Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, And the Splendor of Truth was released last week. |