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
|
Friday, June 30, 2006
Quotidian All Power, each Tyrant, every Mob Whose head has grown too large, Ends by destroying its own job And works its own discharge; And Man, whose mere necessities Move all things from his path, Trembles meanwhile at their decrees, And deprecates their wrath! -- Rudyard Kipling, "The Benefactors" The fine line between useful idiots and enemies Jay Nordlinger recalls Max Eastman's line -- Eastman was with National Review in the early years after abandoning his youthful flirtations with communism -- about what Nordlinger calls "certain journalists": "No, they’re not on the other side — not card-carrying members. But say they were: How, exactly, would their behavior be different?" The quote is recalled in relation to how certain papers behaved in the past week compromising national security. Whether the New York Times sympathizes with the jihadists or just particularly clueless opponent of President George W. Bush matters not a lot. Andrew Sullivan's tenuous relationship with the truth David Frum got an advance copy of Andrew Sullivan's forthcoming book, The Conservative Soul and points out that he, Sullivan, is quite misleading when he quotes Frum out of context. Frum concludes his remarks thusly: "I hope that's an isolated incident and that the rest of the book rises to a higher level of accuracy of fact and scrupulousness of argument." Everyone should hope so, but does anyone really expect Sullivan to diligent when quoting the 'Christianists' (amongst whom Frum classifies)? World Cup commentary Nobody likes to see a World Cup finals game decided by penalty kicks but the Argentina-Germany game was still an incredible match. Both teams played strong, attacking, exciting soccer for all 120+ minutes. Neither side deserved to lose and the fans got to see a tremendous game. All that said, Argentina's coach Jose Pekerman made a mistake by substituting two offensive-minded players, attacker Herman Crespo and midfielder Juan Riquelme, to "defend the lead." The best defense if a strong offense, especially Argentina's offense. The team missed their offensive punch in extra time and the penalty kicks. Still, what wonderful soccer. Germany won 4-2 on penalty kicks after the two teams scored only once each in two hours of play. If Germany plays the way this did today, they will be very, very difficult to beat. Having tens of thousands of screaming fans doesn't hurt, either. Advice for McCain and Giuliani From the WorldWideStandard blog, Daniel McKivergan gives some unsolicited advice to two potential GOP presidential candidates: run against the New York Times. McKivergan says: "If Rudy Giuliani does run for president, here’s a target he should pound away on -- the media’s role (led by the New York Times) in undermining the War on Terror -- and a line he should repeat over and over again on the stump – America isn't perfect but we do a hell of a lot of good in the world. There’s plenty to work with on both counts. Republicans would be extremely receptive to such a Reaganite message, and given his background he’s (along with Sen. McCain) just the person to deliver it. They hate the arrogance of the media in publishing the details of top-secret programs for our enemies to read, and I bet would look quite favorably on a candidate who passionately took on the anti-Americanism of the Left. So far, no presumptive presidential candidate has fully tapped into this sentiment. Rudy should consider doing so." The UN is nuts, Part 786,532 From the UN News Service: "Any United Nations peacekeeping mission that takes over from the African Union (AU) in Sudan’s war-ravaged Darfur region will need to work in 'partnership' with the country’s people and Government, the head of the recent Security Council mission there said today, while repeating the delegation’s view that such a force was needed to curb the killings in a region that has also seen more than 2 million people displaced." Imagine if the UN was around in the early 1940s and the Security Council authorized a force to protect Jews in Europe. Would it make any sense for the UN to say that it would only protect Jews with the co-operation of the Nazis? Khartoum is complicit in the horrible human rights abuses -- murder, rapes, driving people from their homes, attacking refugee camps -- committed against the people in the Darfur region and yet the UN remains dedicated to the notion that it must "co-operate" with the government. Insane. The return of Superman and the disappearance of America Stephen Taylor on politics in Superman Returns: "However, during the movie, Jimmy Olsen and Daily Planet boss Perry White proclaim that Superman represents 'Truth, Justice' and, and... it's lost. It was a subtle omission but for true fans of Superman we could only infer that the screenwriters were editorializing that Truth and Justice were no longer the American way. In fact, "America" as a concept is so strikingly missing from the film that we see nary a flag nor hear a mention of the country. This stands in stark contrast to the original Superman movies in which our hero straightens out the Stars and Stripes on the moon. In 1938 and in the 1980s, America sought to project its image upon the world. In 2006, American filmmakers can barely mutter the nation's name. For a kid who grew up equating what Superman represented to the idealism of what America represented to the world, it left a pit in my stomach." It is quite possible that Taylor is right but another explanation is that the producers are looking for international audience. Unabashed pro-Americanism wouldn't go over very well ... well, anywhere else in the world. But even if that explanation is true -- and that's a big if -- do the producers/writers/director deserve criticism for catering to anti-Americanism? A business decision is a business decision, but selling out one's country? I don't like it. I guess my "charitable view" of this American slight is not less judgmental. Thursday, June 29, 2006
Quotidian "As many as possible of the working classes should become owners." -- Pope Leo XIII, quoted in G.K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion Buffet criticized Warren Buffet may have given billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation leading to accolades in some circles and criticism from others. William Ahern at the Tax Foundation says that Buffet is hypocritical for trying to avoid the estate tax, which he supports, by giving his fortune to charity. Pro-life groups are criticizing the billionaires (both Buffet and Gates) for their support of anti-life causues, most notably their donations to Planned Parenthood. World Cup predictions Germany edges Argentina 2-1 Italy beats Ukraine 2-0 England beats Portugal 2-0 Brasil beats France 3-1 Interesting On Friday, the PMO announced today, "Prime Minister Stephen Harper, accompanied by Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, will mark the GST reduction, effective July 1st," at a Giant Tiger Store in Ottawa. Scott Reid, an MP and deputy government House Leader, served on the board of Giant Tiger, the company that his father Gordon Reid founded. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, merely that it is interesting. Monday, June 26, 2006
Quotidian "Charlotte and Gertrude acquired considerable facility in addressing her, directly as 'Eugenia'; but in speaking of her to each other they rarely called her anything but 'she'." -- Henry James, The Europeans The Islamic Republic of America Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby: "...most Americans have never thought about what it would mean if the terrorists really did win -- if militant Islamists were to succeed in their quest for political control of the United States. It isn't something that elites in academia, government, or the media generally like to talk about, for fear of being branded racist or 'Islamophobic.' American Islamists themselves are careful not to speak too candidly about their supremacist goals. Life in an Islamist United States would be largely unfree and intolerant, if the experience of countries where radical Muslims have achieved power -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan -- is any guide." Jacoby explores this question in a column-review of Robert Ferrigno's novel, Prayers for the Assassin. Ferrigno says there is no music or cell phone cameras, people loses their jobs for being insufficiently Islamic and Jews and gays take the 21st century equivalent of the underground railroad to Canada. (This, as Mark Steyn pointed out in Maclean's earlier this year, is implausible; would Canada stand up against Islamofascism when America had not?) Women are oppressed and moderate Muslims fear for their lives. It is terrifying and a sober and somber reminder of why we are fighting. Sharia is no way for Americans -- or others -- to live. For more about what an American Islamic Republic would look like, check out the fictional (of course) news from 2036 at Ferrigno's website. Eurabia The Economist has an article that certainly can't be called alarmist on the growing Muslim population in Europe. A couple of questions that need further exploration and not merely in the way that the Economist touches upon them. The magazine suggests that there is something fundamentally different in the Muslim populations of America and Europe (could that have something to do with the American ethos and assimilation or is it simply that American Muslims have been quieter about their hatred of the West? Or could it have anything to do with the ethnicity of the Muslim population, that is, Arab vs. non-Arab Muslims? Or perhaps an Islamic backlash against Europe's secularlism? For the most part, The Economist seems to deny such a thing as Eurabia. It's reluctance to admit the phenomenon is part of the problem of the lack of debate/honesty that the magazine diagnoses. Interesting soccer note Over at the Goal Post, Richard Brown notes: "For what it's worth Chelsea had a total of 17 players in the World Cup, 13 of whom are still there! Essien, Crespo, Ferreira, Carvalho, Terry, Gallas, Makelele, Lampard, Shevchenko, Ballack, Huth, Cole and Bridge. Only Drogba, Cech and Robben are on the way home. By comparison Barcelona had a total of 10 players involved at the beginning of the tournament, Arsenal 14 , Real Madrid and Manchester Utd 9 each." Brown might be wrong. During the European League Championship between Barca and Arsenal, it was noted that all 22 starters were on World Cup rosters; that means that Barcelona should have had 11 players in the World Cup unless one of them was among the injured stars who never made it to the tournament. And how's that for Arsenal; three of their substitutes were on World Cup squads. World Cup commentary Yesterday's "soccer" put a bad taste in the mouths of fans everywhere. England-Ecuador was incredibly dull. Ecuador outplayed England who still won one-nil. But it was an uninspiring and boring affair. The less said about it, the better. The Netherlands-Portugal game was even more shameful despite being a well-played, exciting match. The Dutch outplayed Portugal from the opening to closing whistle, outshooting them 20-10 and possessing the ball 62% of the time. But it was the 18 yellow cards, four red cards, disgusting roughness, near-fights, and the clearing of the benches that marred this game and indeed the whole World Cup. The TSG analysis by Rodrigo Kenton at the official Fifa World Cup/Yahoo site didn't even mention the violence. I don't know how that aspect, considering that it made the whole second half ugly, can be ignored. The Portuguese won because of some good goaltending by Ricardo. While the Dutch outplayed and had more opportunities than the Portuguese, coach Marco Van Basten should be blamed for the loss. Never mind that he didn't bring to the tournament some midfielders that deserved to come (Clarence Seedorf, Edgar Davids), he made unusual and spiteful decision not to play their top goal-scorer, Ruud van Nistelroy. As good as Dirk Kuyt, Arjen Robben and Robin van Persie were, it was odd to not play van Nistelroy, even as a sub, when the team was down by a goal. Other decisions, such as taking off attacking left midfielder Mark van Bommel (yes, I know, he had a yellow card) for defender John Heitinga whilst down by a goal. Van Basten's decisions were bizarre and might have cost the Netherlands the game. That said, while the Dutch side deserved to win, neither team deserves to go on. If it was in Fifa's control to suspend a team in the Round of 8, they should. Give England the bye. Sunday, June 25, 2006
Support Irey Washington County Commissioner Diana L. Irey is the Republican who will face Democratic Congressman John Murtha. American readers can donate to her campaign here. Irey notes that Murtha is out of touch here -- wrong on Congressional pay raises, wrong on spending, wrong on healthcare, and wrong on national defense. John Murtha is wrong for the voters of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District and wrong for America. Is God a Yankee's fan? One the one hand, His rain stops the game between the New York Yankees with the top-half of the first inning incomplete and the Florida Marlins ahead by a run. On the other hand, it is the Marlins and the game likely will not be made up because it is of the interleague variety. And, yes, I know that the Fish are 20-7 since May 22, now standing third in the National League East and three games ahead of the Atlanta Braves. That doesn't mean that they aren't still a team that should be easy to beat more often than not. Bye-bye France I'm not the only one who thinks that France's coach Raymond Domench is going to reinsert Zidane into the lineup for their round of 16 match with Spain and then be dispatched from the tournament quickly. Over at the Goal Post, Aleksandar Hemon says: "My guess is that the French will start against Spain in a formation with Zidane behind Henry, which is to say, the same way as against Switzerland and Korea. Then they will proceed to unravel, because the young, hungry Spanish midfield is going to run them ragged. No surprise there--Spain is going to kill them." So why is the French coach a moron? Because all French coaches are morons. Hemon explains: "Why is it that so many French national team coaches look and behave like bureaucrats? Few of them, if any, come from or go to a major club; they always seem to come from the loyal ranks of the French Football Federation." World Cup commentary Germany outclassed Sweden all the way. Two early goals (by Lukas Podolski at the fourth and twelfth minutes) and a dubious second yellow card to Teddy Lucic that put the Swedes one man down at the 35th minute, but this game far out of reach well before the end of the first half. (Perhaps they wouldn't miss Lucic as he literally watched Podolski and Miroslav Klose run right past him to score the second goal.) Podolski and Klose never relented in attacking the net (26 shots on net, 11 on goal, compared to 5 and 2 respectively for the Swedes). Although Sweden came out strong at the beginning of the second half, their efforts were not rewarded and Germany won easily, 2-0. In the first half-hour, Swedish goaltender Andreas Isaksson made three stops that were truly remarkable; were it not for him, the final score would have been more reflective of Germany's domination this game. That and Henrik Larson launching a ball into outer space with his penalty kick at the 53rd minute. Argentina and Mexico was a tremendous match. Thought to be facing a far superior team -- Argentina is probably one of the three best all-around teams in this World Cup and Mexico being Mexico (seeking not to exit the World Cup in the round of 16 for the fourth straight time) -- Mexico performed much better than their South American opponents. Mexico scores an unlikely but beautiful early goal just six minutes into the game only to lose the lead with an own goal (although it was awarded to Crespo) just four minutes later. Truly heart-breaking for the Mexican side. They played just as well and often better than Argentina through most of this match and rewarded with a tie during regulation time. The game then went to extra time where the Albiceleste took the lead at the 98th minute. Maxi Rodriguez was the recipient of a beautiful two-step pass (from Lionel Messi in the midfield to Juan Sorin who kicked it to Rodriguez's chest where it was directed to the attacker's foot and into the top right-hand corner of the net). Mexico responded in the second half of extra time with a shot by Zinha that just missed the net. It will be hard to top this game for excitement; both wanted to win, both deserved to, neither laid back but Argentina was lucky enough to get the ball into their opponent's net one more time than they had it done to them. That's all that is needed and now Argetina gets the pleasure of facing the tournament's host's, Germany next Friday. Quotidian "John Pickford, BBC World Service, came to interview me about George Orwell. A pleasant young man, but the questions these people put are impossible to answer. One wonders whether the generality of people expected easy answers to the human condition before their minds were rotted by popular journalism, TV, the notion that all life's problems could be answered off the cuff by TV 'personalities,' suchlike, in two or three sentences." -- Anthony Powell, Journals 1982-1986 (entry for October 27, 1983) Saturday, June 24, 2006
But at least everyone felt better about themselves The Sunday Telegraph on Live 8 one year later: "As the Live 8 line-up launched into action on July 2, you could almost hear the Third World sighing in gratitude. Today, nothing looks or sounds quite as comforting. Most of Africa is as poor, backward, corrupt and ineptly governed as before. Disease and poverty still kill 50,000 people a day and accounts of war and famine fill the same token slots in newspapers and television bulletins." But wasn't the debt of a dozen-and-a-half countries cancelled? Haven't many countries increased their foreign aid? Well, yes and yes. And, as the article says (but does not illustrate although it could have), these make things worse, especially in Africa. The article quotes the remark directed toward Bob Geldof last year by Moeletsi Mbeki, the deputy chairman of South Africa's Institute of African Affairs: "You do not understand the core problem. If you want to end poverty in Africa, you must treat the disease, not the symptoms. That disease is the shocking lack of accountability afforded toward the African people by those who rule them. The truth of Western aid is that for every pound, dollar and euro that finds its way to the needy, another is propping up corrupt governments such as Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe." Africa needs a real infrastructure; it needs humanitarian assistance; it needs economic growth and liberalized trade. But most of all, it needs functional governments, ones that are accountable to both their own populations and foreign donors, as well as government that are transparent and stable so that corporations will not fear investing. Aid can, at best, be used as a carrot to achieve these goals, but are never a substitute for them. Tens of thousands of screaming concert goers last July never got that message and while they may feel better about "raising awareness" of the plight of Africa, their gesture succeeded in pressing the G8 into counter-productive policies that only reinforce corruption in Africa. As we approach Live 8's first anniversary, we should not that it is a cause for shame, not celebration. How to fix crime The Sunday Telegraph has a manifesto on how to beat the "menace of crime." It explains what went wrong and how to turn things around. What went wrong, in a sentence, is that the police, the prisons and the judiciary, not to mention the politicians that oversee these things, have become captive to some utterly silly ideas about crime. David Green explains: "Many Labour MPs remain in thrall to utopian theories of human nature and believe that criminals are driven to commit offences by social exclusion. They are not responsible - it's society that should change. But this attitude does not go down too well on council estates, where the majority think that crime is all about knowing right from wrong. Jack Straw, Labour's first home secretary, published a White Paper entitled 'No More Excuses' to ram home the message that Labour had changed. But, as the recent battle over the Education Bill showed, many in the Labour Party never really accepted the new realism of Tony Blair. Despite the "tough" rhetoric, the influences have remained a dislike of prison, a naive view about how hardened offenders can be rehabilitated, and a lack of respect for the mass of people, who stand accused of being unduly fearful of crime." Now fixing it will be a problem because the ideological rot that screwed up the police, prisons and judiciary (not to mention politics) in the first place make them impervious to change (for the better). Nonetheless, here's the five point plan: 1. Increase the number of police and implement the "fixing broken windows" theory of policing. 2. Make prisons fit the needs of society (punishment, protection and rehabilitation*) by i) increasing prison capacity, ii) treat prisoner addictions and iii) provide education to incarcerated prisoners. 3. Curtail parole by implementing truth in sentencing and having prisoners earn up to a maximum of 20% of their sentences to good behavior. 4. Cut off the source of criminalization by addressing the causes of poor socialization among youth. Encourage marriage, invest in programs that support family life, and intervene by taking children away from parents who are a "bad influence." 5. Create a royal commission on crime to recommend changes to the criminal justice system. The Telegraph editorial explains it all a little more. * I re-state my position that it is not the job of punishment to rehabilitate person but rather that when rehabilitation does occur, that it is a welcome side-effect of punishment. I also note what the Telegraph's manifesto admits, namely that social science has not indicated what works when it comes to rehabilitation. Japan joins the 'coalition of the concerned' The Financial Times reports that Japan supports (limited) sanctions on one-third of the axis of evil, Iran. Iran was hoping to isolate the United States and the E3 from the rest of the "international community" and considering that Iran supplies about 10% of Japan's oil, this is a significant step by Tokyo. Friday, June 23, 2006
While we are apologizing Gerry Nicholls, vice president of the National Citizens Coalition, points to the folly of apologizing for things that 1) you are not responsible for and 2) no matter how repugnant now was perfectly normal at the time the policy was in effect. Nicholls says: "Now I don’t think Prime Minister Harper had anything to do with that head tax, so I am not sure why he feels the need to apologize. But as along as he is in an apologizing mood, maybe he should also express regret over other government misdeeds." And what might they be? "The whole Trudeau era of the 1970’s. Any CBC Show that starred Ralph Benmergui The Participaction Program The National Energy Program Joe Clark Health Care Waiting Lists Almost every Supreme Court of Canada decision The Gun Registry The Wheat Board monopoly Election gag laws The Depression Anything supported by the Canada Arts Council Changing the name of the July 1st holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day The Durham Report The GST" That's quite a list. As Nicholls suggests, perhaps Harper should appoint a cabinet minister in charge of apologies. Harper's accomplishments Burkean Canuck lists five "notable accomplishments" all of which have less to do with policy than form. I want to highlight three of them: 1. "Prime Minister Harper has done and is doing what he promised to do. He set priorities, and he is concentrating on these as priorities for the Government of Canada." 2. "Prime Minister Harper has set a change in the tone and style of government." 3. "Prime Minister Harper has dignified the House of Commons by restoring it to its proper place as the country's premier platform for announcements of national importance. As I wrote, here: The Prime Minister has insisted on making major announcements of national and international import in the House of Commons, and -- in case you didn't happen to notice -- insisted on an embargo of any reporting on the Auditor General's report till its tabling in the House of Commons. When the Prime Minister's predecessors would make major announcements, they were quite likely to schedule time in the National Press Theatre so the other party leaders would not have opportunity to respond to what the Standing Orders term 'a ministerial statement' as they are entitled in the Commons. By so doing, the Prime Minister is restoring to the House of Commons and Parliament its proper role and dignity as the nation's premier 'talking chamber.' That's what Parliament -- < By keeping his promises and by taking the modest approach to governance in style and in substance, Prime Minister Harper is restoring to Canadians a sense that their national government is an institution they can trust and be proud of." Harper might change Canada more by the way he does things than the actual policies he implements. He has restored dignity and honesty and decency to politics. And while there have been problems -- this week alone he apologized for the head tax and claimed that Canada is a safer place because of our polyethnic society -- he is definitely on the right path. World Cup predictions Round of 16 Germany beats Sweden 2-0 Argentina beats Mexico 3-0 England beats Ecuador 2-1 Netherlands beats Portugal on penalty kicks* Italy beats Australia 2-1 Switzerland beats Ukraine 1-0 Brasil beats Ghana 3-0 France beats Spain 3-2 * 1-1 after regulation and extra time World Cup comment I only watched two of the games today (I'll watch the other two later) and one was great and the other was not so much so. The Ukraine-Tunisia game was often painfully dull to watch. Tunisia had flashes of brilliance and they were fatally hurt when Zied Jaziri, by far their best player, was red carded near the end of the first half. Despite being a man down, Tunisia outplayed Ukraine and they had more quality scoring opportunities; until the very end there were moments where it looked like they were going to score, but it was not to be. There is a good argument the penalty kick awarded to and scored by Andriy Shevchenko should never have been given. Add that to the fact that Ukraine's game was sloppy with no sense of urgency and you come to the conclusion that not only were they lucky to win the match but were undeserving of the victory they got. But they did and they will move onto the round of 16. The French-Togo game was incredible. The Togo side has flashes of offense that never quite came to quality goal scoring opportunities but they forced the French defense to be on their toes. And they were. But it wasn't defense but an offense that never quit that won France this game. From the opening whistle, the French side was relentless in their drive to the opponent's net. They often had three, sometimes four players in goal scoring position when the ball was near (or nearing) the net. I don't understand why David Trezeguet, the incredible striker for Juventas in Series A, hasn't been a starter but Zidane's second yellow card in match two forced coach Raymond Domench to juggle his lineup. As I predicted it would this morning, the changes led to a team that had more scoring chances. Indeed, France made 17 shots, nine of them on goal. They were offside five times (a sign of a strong attack) and nine corner kicks. The great thing about this match -- aside from finally seeing Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira playing to their potential -- was the unrelenting attack. I haven't seen another team, even Argentina's six-nil slaughter of Serbia-Montenegro, all tournament. I am utterly surprised Trezeguet did not score and Togo goalie Kossi Agassa made at least three stellar saves to keep the score much closer than France's efforts deserved. French fans should hope that the moronic Domench maintains this lineup for the next round; not having Zidane slow the game down and take up time with the ball, and having five attacking players (Henry, Trezeguet, Vieira, Claude Makelele and Sylvain Witford) press the opponents was incredibly exciting to watch, not to mention successful for France. If France wants to go further in 2008 it is best that they forget one player's 1998 heroics. Why France will win Much soccer punditry today (and throughout this week) makes a lot of France's surprising loss to Senegal in 2002 to predict a repeat in 2006, with many saying that Togo will beat or tie the French side. Balderdash. What leaps in logic this sort of sports commentary employs -- that what happened four years ago is determinative of today's match, that Togo is not Senegal, that Senegal beat France in an opening match they took too lightly compared to Togo facing a French team that must win its third game. Yes, France has played disappointing (for French fans) soccer thus far, but they have two things going for them in today's game: it will have defender Mikael Silvestre and is forced to bench attacking midfielder Zinedine Zidane. Silvestre is a solid presence in the French zone and he will buttress what have been a generally good -- or at least good enough -- defense. More importantly, Zidane is not playing after getting yellow cards in both of his first matches. With memories of him leading the French to the World Cup in Paris in 1998, many hoped Zidane would repeat the feat on European soil following France's terrible showing in World Cup 2002. But Zidane turns 34 tomorrow and has been a hindrance to the team's offense, which has scored only one goal so far this tournament. Zidane is slow, has been out-smarted on the field, has registered just three shots (none on goal) and is still given great deference by his team-mates. Not having him on the pitch will allow the team to break out more, resulting in more and better scoring opportunities. They should beat Togo and probably by a decent enough margin to slip through to the round of 16. World Cup predictions Ukraine over Tunisia 3-1 Spain beats Saudi Arabia 3-0 Switzerland tied South Korea 1-1 France beats Togo 2-0 Thursday, June 22, 2006
World Cup commentary Saw the Ghana-US and Italy-Czech Republic game simultaneously on separate screens and it was difficult to decide which one to follow more closely. The Ghana-US game was good -- both long-shots to advance but with the right combination of outcomes, either time could sneak into the round of 16; on the other hand, the Italian squad was the most talented one of the four and therefore had the greatest potential to excite. The US-Ghana game disappointed slightly because the American side didn't bring what they brought to their fixture against Italy on the weekend, namely what the New York Sun's Paul Gardner calls desperation and survival soccer -- or Ramboism for short. That said, the Americans played possibly their best game and certainly their best game offensively with three shots on goal, triple the total from their first two games (and even the single shot on goal against Italy was a statistical gimme 'cuz it hit the crossbar). The Americans also held a slight lead in possession (52%-48%) but the Ghanans were clearly the superior squad, had more and better chances to score and took advantage of a penalty shot to win the game. The African side is to be congratulated for being the only team from that continent to advance. In their game against the Italians, the Czechs statistically matched the Azzurri: 52% possession for the Italians, 48% for the Czechs; 18 tackles for the Czechs compared to 17 for their opponents; a slight edge in shots on goal (8 compared to 6), slightly bested in total shots (11 compared to 14). But just watching the game it did not appear that way as the Italians outclassed their opponents for nearly every minute of the game. The best chances went to the Italians and Marco Materazzi's header goal off a corner kick was one of the best of the tournament; he combined amazing height and stunning heading accuracy for a delightful result. The Italians demonstrated that they have the best defense, even without the injured Alessandro Nesta who left the game early. That may allow them to go far. The Czechs should be congratulated for doing something that few teams have done this World Cup: follow up their shots by rushing the net in hope of knocking in the rebound. It didn't work, but the work ethic is to be applauded. Although Japan played the best game they could and even got out to an early lead, they never appeared poised to win. Brasil dominated this game (60% possession, 14 shots on goal compared to three). The key to Brasil's offense was not starting Adriano with Ronaldo -- two too similar players who run up the middle to receive all the outside passes, they haven't played well together and coach Carlos Alberto Parreira finally separated them, starting Robinho in place of Adriano. Ronaldo rewarded the coach's decision with a pair of goals. The team looked more disciplined in all areas of the field and, just as importantly, did so for all 90 minutes. Japan never had a chance, while Brasil (I team I thoroughly loathe) demonstrated why soccer is called the beautiful game. Both Australia and Croatia could advance, but with Croatia needing the win and Australia moving on with a mere tie, the stakes along brought potential for a thrilling fixture. The game was marred by a total of eight yellow cards and three red ones, but otherwise it was a pretty good game. The teams are evenly matched although Croatia's defense is less than it could be with the European side surrendering nine corner kicks, a sign of weakness in their own zone. This was all the more puzzling because after going ahead 1-0 in the second minute by virtue of a goal off Darijo Srna's free kick, Croatia might have been expected to focus more on defending. They didn't. Instead, they continued to move forward on Australia, putting the Socceroos under a lot of pressure. The team from Down Under got back into the game at the 38th minute with a penalty kick goal. From that point, the Australians went into defensive mode, needing only the tie to move to the round of 16. But Croatia did not let up, even as their opponents began to control the tempo of the game. About two-thirds through the match, Croatia went ahead again. Australia responded by picking up their offensive game a notch and the tournament's most under-rated striker, Harry Kewell, got an equalizer at the 79th minute. What made this game so exciting was that both teams were hungry and both did what they had to in order to achieve their goals, making the second half an absolutely stellar 50 minutes of soccer; the Australians executed better and were rewarded with the point and advancement. Quotidian "Do all the good you can, In all the ways you can, In all the places you can, At all the times you can, To all the people you can, As long as you can." -- John Wesley, Rules of Conduct The case for incrementalism This article will appear in the July issue of The Interim. It makes the case for an incremental approach to limiting abortion in Canada. Chipping away at abortion Paul Tuns Editor George Weigel, the noted papal biographer, senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Centre and board member of Americans United for Life, addressed the Campaign Life Coalition clergy luncheon in May in Toronto and offered some sage advice: incremental victories are indeed pro-life victories and their importance should not be discounted. He offered this truism: “Some progress is better than no progress.” The progress he had in mind encompassed various initiatives, mostly undertaken at the state level (but at the federal level, too) including informed consent and parental notification laws, stricter regulation of abortion facilities and statutes that protect unborn victims of violence and infants who are born alive. Over the past 15 years in the United States, the number of abortions has sharply decreased (by about 17 per cent). During that time, most states have placed various restrictions and regulations on abortion without actually prohibiting it. Many legislators still have the goal of eventually re criminalizing abortion, but along the way, there are numerous laws and regulations that will chip away at the abortion regime. Americans United for Life has published Defending Life 2006: Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America, a compendium of statutes and case law from all 50 states and the federal system that protect women and unborn babies. The introduction of the volume states “the landmark case” that ostensibly changes the law suddenly, such as Roe v. Wade or, in Canada, R. v. Morgentaler, “often represents not a sudden break with the past, but the culmination of decades of persistent legal work to build precedent through small incremental victories.” The assumption among many U.S. pro-lifers is that change (in a favourable direction) will continue through these incremental steps - changing the hearts and minds of Americans by demonstrating that the abortion licence is not unlimited. After all, it is quite a jump for voters and politicians to move from the status quo that has abortion legal at any time during pregnancy (and sometimes after birth), for any reason and often at taxpayer expense to the concept that abortion should always be outlawed. AUL unapologetically defends its pro-incremental position, stating that initiatives such as partial-birth abortion bans and born-alive infant protection laws, requiring informed consent, are life-affirming. Mailee R. Smith, litigation counsel for Americans United for Life, says that incrementalism is necessary to “dampen the blow of abortion on demand” until full legal protection is accorded to the unborn. Such laws protect both women and children. The challenge in Canada The fact that a private member’s bill to provide some semblance of justice for unborn victims of criminal violence was recently deemed non-votable in Parliament points to a difficult battle ahead for pro-lifers here. Some may ask that when a common-sense, but not strictly pro-life, piece of legislation such as an unborn victims of violence bill can’t get any traction in Parliament, what hope is there for actual restrictions on abortion? Nobody ever said it would be easy, but from a strictly logical point of view, it will certainly be easier to convince legislators and the public that some abortions are wrong, or that some regulations are necessary, before they will be convinced that all abortions are wrong and therefore, the procedure should be re-criminalized. And support for incrementalism does not preclude an outright ban; rather, it opens pro-life groups to strategies that will reduce abortion. Putting aside the question of immediate political feasibility and whether the courts would let stand restrictions and regulations on abortion, what incremental steps make sense and which do not? Aidan Reid, director of the public affairs office of Campaign Life Coalition in Ottawa, told The Interim that it is important “bad things are not enshrined in law.” He provided the example of a gestational approach to limiting abortion as an example of an illicit limit on abortion - a law that states that abortion is permissible up to 20 weeks is not supportable, because it codifies the evil of abortion. It also has the practical problem, as was witnessed in the United Kingdom over the past few decades, that the upper limits become unenforceable as exceptions are made, doctors fudge the estimated age of the fetus and authorities turn a blind eye to abortions committed after the proscribed gestational age of 24 weeks. CLC has applauded Liberal MP Paul Steckle for introducing a private member’s bill, C-338, “An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks gestation),” on June 21, there are some concerns about the wisdom of advocating such limits on abortion. CLC said in a press release that it encourages MPs “to consider Mr. Steckle’s example by proposing legislation” that would actually restrict abortion. Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of Campaign Life Coalition, told The Interim it is significant that of the hundreds examples of incremental pro-life measures noted in Defending Life 2006, “not one is gestational.” That is because of negative experience in other countries of such an approach and the proven track record of other measures. So what is permissible? What are effective restrictions on abortion that affirm the value of life, teach the public that abortion is not an inconsequential procedure and limit the evil of abortion by reducing the number of them committed? Reid said CLC supports incremental legislation that “does not compromise the dignity of the child based on age.” He said it makes no difference whether the child is in his embryonic stages or late in the third trimester, “the law should not discriminate based on age.” He said that permissible restrictions include outlawing certain procedures, protecting survivors of abortion and laws that require abortion-seeking women to notify family members or become informed about the decision they are making. Reid points to the American example of banning partial-birth abortion as both smart policy and smart politics. He said it criminalizes a particularly abhorrent abortion procedure (which is more infanticide than abortion) and the ban has widespread support. Pro-life groups have been able to reach out to citizens who would never consider themselves pro-life to oppose PBA and indeed, a number of typically pro-abortion politicians have voted to ban this particular procedure. Reid said you build on the qualms people have about killing an almost fully born child and teach them that all abortion is barbaric. Because the law is a teacher, both the statutes on the books and debates about abortion affect voters. When an issue is before the House of Commons being discussed by politicians – and inevitably the press and the public – Canadians are forced to think about it. A debate on the floor of the House about abortion would disturb the famous “social peace” described by Jean Chretien, by which he meant that in polite society, such topics are not broached. Many pro-lifers believe that when people are forced to think about the issue in any depth, they are more pro-life. Any restriction on abortion that becomes a political issue would be the wedge for widespread discussion about abortion. And it doesn’t even need to be (originally) successful; American pro-life groups will privately admit that president Bill Clinton’s two vetoes of partial-birth abortion created an atmosphere in which abortion was necessarily and widely discussed. The medical establishment in Canada is less than forthcoming about whether partial-birth abortions are committed in this country. But there are other procedures that should be proscribed. Douglas, said that Ottawa should prohibit dilation and extraction (D&E) abortions. She said the late-term procedure is particularly gruesome: the abortionist dilates the uterus and proceeds to tear the baby apart before pulling the body parts out. Regulating procedures and other restrictions might have to be implemented provincially, because abortion as a medical procedure falls under their jurisdictions. (Only as a Criminal Code matter should it be dealt with at the federal level.) One such measure is the requirement that a decision to have an abortion be accompanied by detailed information - the so-called informed consent or women’s right-to-know laws. In the U.S., there are many such state-level requirements that force an abortion provider to give information on fetal development and fetal pain, the health risks associated with abortion, the availability of ultrasound and abortion alternatives. According to Defending Life 2006, 29 states have some form of informed consent laws in effect. Many states (22) also require waiting periods of 24 hours for women to consider this information carefully and reflect on their decision. Related to the reflection period regulations, some states mandate that minors seeking abortions notify their parents or receive their consent. In all, 35 states have parental involvement laws (all have some form of judicial bypass procedure, as required by the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court Casey decision). A few states have placed strict limits on free-standing abortion facilities, often resulting in many closing down. As Mailee R. Smith, litigation counsel for AUL notes, in the 1960s and 70s, it was popular for pro-abortionists to call for legal abortion precisely so it could be regulated and women have access to “safe and legal abortions.” But the reality, as Smith notes, is that “substandard conditions (are) found in abortion clinics.” Health department officials in Missouri and Arizona have found violations of health protocols in abortuaries that would result in other health facilities being closed. Pro-life legislators have worked with consumer protection groups to ensure that proper hygiene and other safety measures are applied to abortion facilities. Any attempt to regulate abortion facilities or the patient-doctor interaction would probably have to be done at the provincial level in Canada. There are also limits placed on abortion funding in the U.S. The Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1972, prevents federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother. Also, 32 states have similar restrictions on abortion funding. Denise Burke, vice president of AUL, calls funding limitations on abortion - whether it be insurance limitations, restricting funding to use to certain facilities or recipients, limiting funding to specific circumstances - a “proven weapon to reduce abortions.” Research by Michael New of the Harvard-MIT Data Centre has found that incremental laws, especially when coupled with limits on abortion funding, are largely responsible for the decrease in the number of abortions in the U.S. in the 1990s. Reid says that abortion funding could be tackled at both the provincial and federal levels. While funding of medical procedures under the Canada Health Act leaves which procedures are covered up to the provinces, Ottawa, under the Chretien and Martin regimes blackmailed the provinces by, cutting back transfer payments to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, because neither province fully funded abortions in both public and private facilities. Reid said the Harper government should stop the “harassment” of the provinces and end pressure to fund abortions. He added that abortion should be defunded, because there is no evidence it is ever medically necessary, abortion is not medicine and the procedure is not mentioned in the Canada Health Act. He said, “Abortion advocates call it a choice, so therefore, it is not a medical necessity, but a lifestyle decision.” Another federal initiative that would be beneficial is a Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would make it a crime to kill a baby after it is born, including those infants who survive an abortion. In 1999, Alberta Report magazine discovered that Calgary’s Foothills hospital had left 40 late-term babies to die in 1998 after they were born alive, perhaps because of a skittishness over impinging on abortion “rights.” But Reid says such a law is necessary “as a house-cleaning measure to respect the current law.” The law states that once an unborn baby passes through the birth canal and the umbilical cord is cut, it is a human being as defined by Canadian law; it should, therefore, be accorded legal protection. Reid described those who would oppose a born-alive infant protection law as supporters of infanticide and he thinks most Canadians would come to the same conclusion. Incrementalism vs. compromise The vast majority of Canadians oppose the abortion status quo, but that group is split between pro-lifers and those who want to keep abortion legal, yet would like to see it curbed. Many such “soft pro-choice” supporters would be horrified to see pro-abortion leaders defending clearly barbaric practices such as leaving born infants to die in hospitals. Public opposition to the killing of already-born babies, or the brutal methods used in some abortions such as D&E, could bring great pressure upon our elected officials to change the law, if the party leaders would allow a truly free debate and vote. Where there are no restrictions on abortion, it should be obvious that some restrictions on abortion would be better than none. That is, something of a good thing is better than nothing. The question is how to do that. Clarke D. Forsythe is the director of the AUL Project in Law and Bioethics. In Defending Life 2006, he writes about the objections typically raised to incrementalism. He makes several important points. First, reducing the evil is necessary when eliminating the evil is not possible. (Neoconservative commentator Irving Kristol often says that the perfect can be the enemy of the good and one could reasonably question the morality of forsaking reducing abortions in favour of holding out for an outright prohibition.) Forsythe says “prudential” politics requires taking “account of limitations in a world of constraints and strives to achieve the greatest measure of justice possible under the possible circumstances.” In other words, incrementalism is realistic, abiding the human limits that we encounter. It is not an admission of defeat, but the necessary first steps. Etymologically speaking, incrementalism derives from the Latin “to increase.” Incremental limits on abortion – legitimate ones, at least – increase the restrictions on abortions and therefore, the ease with which women can procure them. There is two important litmus tests on incrementalism. The pro-life measure being proposed should not have the effect of severely hindering future politicians from acting to further restrict abortion or ultimately achieving the more perfect goal of prohibiting abortion if political conditions change. And secondly, it should not compromise core principles, i.e. the recognition that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception. Ronald Reagan used to say that he would compromise on tactics but never on principles. Incrementalism abides this wisdom. Mary Ellen Douglas defines incrementalism as moving towards a larger goal without admitting that abortion is ever morally permissible, whereas compromise essentially accepts the legitimacy of some abortions and thus sacrifices some unborn babies. While it appears to be a semantic game, it is quite practical. Douglas says that the law must foreseeably restrict abortions, that is, it cannot be so loophole-ridden as to be ineffective. Reid says CLC will never compromise on its core beliefs and that it will “fight for life, tooth and nail, for every person.” But, he said, “if we can pass laws that stop some women from getting abortions, that is progress.” However, incrementalism, if pursued as a strategy (that is, as a means) and not an end in itself, is necessary. Every measure that reduces abortion that does not compromise the dignity of a human being is a step forward; it is an increase in the protection accorded to unborn babies. And that, in the absence of complete protection, is a worthy goal. World Cup predictions Czech Republic and Italy tie 1-1 Ghana edges United States 2-1 Brasil beats Japan 2-0 (3-nil if they don't start Ronaldo) Australia beats Croatia 2-1 Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Quotidian "I almost wish. No I don't though. I was going to say I wished we'd never come. But I don't, I don't. Even if we are killed. I'd rather be killed fighting for Narnia than grow old and stupid at home and perhaps go about in a bath-chair and then die in the end just the same." -- Jill in C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle Neat distinction Anderson Cooper was just being interviewed by Jon Stewart and Cooper said it was his job as a journalist to ask questions and get answers, not just responses. I like the distinction and it is one reason why I long ago stopped watching TV news and TV talk shows. There is a script with talking points and every GOP guest and every Democratic guest on the weekend/evening shows sound the same. When was the last time you saw a question answered instead of the party line being spouted. Quickie analysis for World Cup I will watch the two other games later but a quick comment about Netherlands-Argentina and Portugal and Mexico. Portugal looks a lot better than I anticipated -- and they weren't even playing most of their "stars." They are technically gifted, well-coached and have a great blend of veterans and younger talent. They may go further than I -- and many others -- expected. The game against Mexico (chronic underachievers) was a great one. The Netherlands and Argentina game was exciting for its midfield play. The two teams are the best passing teams in the World Cup finals. But the great battle for the midfield did not materialized into many scoring opportunities and the game did not live up to its billing as a classic (to the degree that group fixtures can be classics). Still, it is a marvel to behold the talent on the field. Liberal leadership debate Greg Staples has a fairly thorough run-down on the Liberal leadership debate in Kitchener. I might quibble with some judgments but I'm not in the mood to quibble. Just one comment/explanation for this observation by Greg: "Ken Dryden: Clearly won the night. I am not sure if the room was stacked with previous supporters or if he won them over but he the only candidate who would get consistent spontaneous applause during his answers. He seems to have grown as a public speaker and is less boring than he used to be." I've heard the all the Liberal riding executives in the Kitchener area are solidly behind Dryden. It seems odd that he has near unanimous support in an area that is not geographically "his" for any natural reason, but it appears to have helped. Nothing like getting talked up at the local meetings by those that are important within the riding association. And that seems to have obviously happened. Dryden was, in effect, playing in front of a hometown crowd. Those who cry chicken and run away, live to cry chicken about something else Yeah, not very poetic but a decent enough description of environmentalist whackos. Here's Jay Nordlinger from his Impromptus column: "What happened to acid rain? I mean, it was on the cover of Time magazine about 100 times. It was the concern of the century, the environmental crime of the century. Schoolteachers everywhere told their kiddies that Ronald Reagan and the Republicans were climbing into the sky to create that rotten rain. At a minimum, they were indifferent to it. And then . . . silence. No Time magazine cover. No Democratic talking point. The enviro crowd just moved on to something else (chiefly global warming, a successor to the coming ice age). To repeat: What happened to acid rain? Or rather — to ask this differently — what does the Left say happened to acid rain? Did their crusade take care of the problem — or did they simply get bored, searching out different alarmist pastures?" No one cares that taxpayer money is wasted on phony art I don't typically read the Toronto Sun's Mike Strobel but today's column was brought to my attention by a co-worker. I should have known that with the headline, "Fun with bodily fluids," I was, more likely than not, going to be displeased reading it. Strobel is happy that "there has been so little outcry about the Lactation Station Breast Milk Bar," because it is a sign that "our society is mature enough to see art for what it is." I doubt he is being serious but you never know. The "art" certainly is not. Jess Dobkin, a single lesbian mom, got $9,000 in government grants for an exhibit at the Ontario College of Art and Design to run on July 13 during which she will serve pasteurized breast milk. Strobel notes, "Six flavours. Six donor moms, screened for HIV and such." I am not really surprised by this charlatanism, except that it took so long to actually execute. I hope that the public is not as gullible as the bureaucrats who okayed the grants in finding that this is "art." Cities suck In theory I support the idea of giving municipalities the power to tax because I think governments should have the resources to do what they need to do. Also, as much government as possible should be at the local level (as opposed to provincial or federal level) based on the sound principle of subsidiarity. That's the theory. In practice, after many years of watching city politics, I have come to other conclusions. Here's why, as noted by Adam Taylor at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation blog: "A report by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) states that other levels of government are to blame for all municipal problems and that they need more money to deliver services. What a crock. Municipal governments are the worst offenders of abusing tax dollars in the country. Look at the City of Richmond, BC, London, ON and the elephant of fiscal incompetence - the City of Toronto. Junkets all over the world. Out-of-whack pay increases. Totally beholden to special interests. Municipal governments are the least accountable to taxpayers in the country. Property taxes soar that force seniors out of their homes and local governments don't bat an eye. Giving municipal governemnts more taxation powers or more money is like giving a pyromaniac a jerry can and a pack of matches. If municipalities need more money to pave roads and fix bridges they should focus on core priorities, un-chain themselves from the selfish demands of unions and quit demanding/relying on handouts from other levels of government." And I thought municipal governments were most responsive because they are the "closest to the people." Tuesday, June 20, 2006
A theory of winning Mexico is one of the worst teams in World Cup history. They have qualified for the finals (the World Cup tournament) 13 times but have never made it past the third round. Leon Krauze posits a theory at the Goal Post that makes some sense: "Despite Mexico's long soccer history, the number of players who have tried to succeed outside the country is minimal (and by minimal I mean less than fifty). That may be good for the players' pockets, but it spells disaster when it comes to facing top competition. In this World Cup, the Mexican starting line-up included only two players now living in Europe: the awkward Jared Borgetti and the stellar Rafael Marquez. Everyone else plays for teams like Chivas or Atlas. Now let's talk about Argentina. Argentina, on the contrary, has developed into a full blown football-exporting nation. Without having the solace of a prosperous domestic league, Argentine players need to look beyond the country's borders in order to secure their own future. The result is a nomadic lifestyle that breeds not only great fortunes but great talents. Once again, look at the albiceleste's starting line-up: every single one==with the exception of goalkeeper Abondanzieri--plays for the likes of Inter, Manchester United or Chelsea (Abondanzieri, by the way, will probably join his teammates soon enough: he's about to sign a contract with La Coruna). Lionel Messi, after all, has lived a third of his entire life abroad. I don't think it's a coincidence that other exporting nations are playing better and better football. That is the case of the Czech Republic, Portugal, the Netherlands and the Ivory Coast or Ghana. Even some Spanish players now show the scars and skills brought by international competition (does anyone think Fabregas could be what he is today without having gone to England?). I have not mentioned Brazil, the exporting nation par excellence, because the Selecao speaks for itself." British tax burden At the Center for Policy Studies, Charlie Elphicke (pdf) illustrates how British taxes cost more than you think. The tax burden for both individuals and the general economy is getting worse. And it is hindering economic growth, perhaps to the tune of 0.3%-0.5% each year. And still David Cameron appears reticent about across-the-board tax cuts, favouring instead targeted (and gimmicky) tax relief a la Stephen Harper. It might be good politics but it isn't good policy. Justifying IVF on a financial basis is 'dangerous ground' Earlier I noted that a British study says that paying for IVF treatment would reap a significant return on investment for British taxpayers. Tim Worstall says that this is dangerous ground: "Why dangerous ground? Well, because the same figures and calculations can be used to prove that other things would be even more cost effective at boosting the population, if that is indeed what is desired. I’d take issue with the "quickly recovered by taxes from the boosted population" part, as in the very nature of these things it takes 20 odd years before someone is actually a net contributor to the Exchequer. Well, 20 odd years from birth, that is. However, using the very same numbers, if we were to allow immigration (holding all of the other numbers constant) then an immigrant starts paying taxes as soon as they start work. Thus there is not that 20 year wait. It’s also true that an immigrant arrives already educated and is thus an import of human capital (and saves tremendously on the costs of education, a, say, 75,000 pound saving.) So, if we are going to assume that we need more people of working age to save the economy, immigration looks like a much cheaper option. There are those, of course, who would not like this outcome, for whatever reason. So perhaps there are other methods of raising the number of children born to current natives of the country that would cost less than IVF? Well, currently it costs the NHS some 250 quid or so to abort a healthy foetus. As the cost of IVF is 12,931 per conceived live birth it would seem that restricting or eliminating abortion would be a saving of 13,181 per live birth. Here again there may be those who dislike or disagree with that idea for other reasons but that’s the problem, the dangerous ground, for those who use economic arguments in this manner. IVF can obviously be justified on the basis that those who are childless and would like not to be can be helped by our current level of medical skill and knowledge (please note, can be justified, not is justified) and that perhaps this is a way in which we are happy to see some of the wealth of the nation spent. But as soon as the value to the taxpayer is brought into it, we open up that can of worms which is all of the other methods of boosting the population which might have better value for said taxpayer." Yankees beat Phillies It has been a bad week for the New York Yankees, losing four games in a row at one stretch. Thankfully, they are facing the scrub-level pitching of the Philadelphia Phillies and after losing last night, they fought back this evening and won 9-7. Bernie Williams went five for five, raising his batting average 17 points to 294. He still has a horrible on-base percentage for an everyday designated hitter/outfielder, but when a player has a perfect night, he has won the right to be criticism free for a few days. Even if he still doesn't belong in a major league uniform. UN is useless, Part 746,289 The Associated Press reports: "Sudan's president vowed Tuesday to never allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur and said he would lead the 'resistance' against any foreign force, his strongest rejection yet of the United Nations plan for halting violence in the war-torn region." And the UN's reaction? Well, nothing so far but probably it will do what it always does: issue a carefully worded statement that Secretary General Kofi Annan is "concerned" about the "situation" in "Sudan" but with no specific criticism of anyone or any government or suggestions to deal with the problem. Last month the UN gave Khartoum a one-week deadline to accept peacekeepers as part of peace agreement but when the deadline was obviously going to be missed, the UN extended the deadline(indefinitely). Interestingly, today is the UN's World Refugee Day. As part of his broadcast of "Hope" message, Annan said: "Let this Day serve as a reminder of our responsibility to help keep hope alive among those who need it most – the millions of refugees and displaced who are still far from home." Unless you are Sudanese and driven from your homes in Darfur. Then you are screwed. World Cup prediction Angola ties Iran 1-1 Portugal beats Mexico 2-1 Argentina ties the Netherlands 2-2 Ivory Coast edges Serbia-Montenegro 2-1 Does Toronto really want another round of Miller Time Miller Watch says that Jane Pitfield and her pitiful team need "to get into gear." The problem is that even people sympathetic to the right-leaning city councilor find her a lightweight. I hear that most of the anti-Miller coalition of moderate and business Liberals, law-and-order types and whatever passes as conservative at the city level, are desperately hoping that former Liberal MP Dennis Mills is fibbing when he says he is not going to run for mayor. Mills, a long-time advocate of the flat tax at the federal level, has a penchant for cameras and new ideas but that is probably what is needed for a candidate to capture the imagination of voters if one hopes to defeat the incumbent, David Miller. That and a get-tough-on-crime/rediscovering personal responsibility platform to win over voters in North York and Etobicoke. Pitfield is only going through the motions but running for mayor requires more than throwing the odd good idea out there; it takes a competent team, a carefully articulated and consistent message and the right mix of ideas to address that city's problems. So far we haven't seen any of that from the mayoral candidate. Protecting incumbents The Canadian Press reports that the Conservative Party has yet to decide whether sitting MPs should be protected from challenges to their nominations. Both sides within the Tories are duly quoted (perhaps with the intent of painting a party that is not united), with some saying that "democracy" requires incumbents fight for their nominations and others saying that having to worry about riding politics distracts MPs from doing their job representing their constituents. While I don't fetishize democracy and I do see the valid arguments of those who favour protecting incumbents, I don't like incumbent protection. I dislike even more when people make a political issue out of it. The Liberals will protect incumbents for the next election for the second election in a row. The NDP and Bloc policy is to always allow nomination battles. The Tories, like the Liberals, make up their mind depending on circumstances; they protected incumbents before the last election but strongly signalled that they would not do so again. How to fix this? A Conservative strategist once explained to me the ideal way to force incumbents to face nomination fights and protect parties from political criticism for it was to redraw the electoral map every election. That way it would ensure that a riding has no (exact) incumbent and in some cases incumbents would have to face one another for the party's nomination. It would be a bit cumbersome but it ensures that all parties would require nominations for candidates for every election. Kemp on soccer Former quarterback and GOP vice presidentail candidate Jack Kemp wrote a column apologizing for two decades of criticizing soccer as socialist. Fine, apology accepted. (To head off more emails that I am a fan of a liberal or socialist sport, I offer only this defense: nothing as beautiful as soccer could be socialist.) Anyway, Kemp says that soccer is inferior to American football because it lacks a QB. And if it is inferior, it must therefore be socialist, I guess is Kemp's argument. Anyway, here's Kemp: "... the trouble with soccer is that it doesn’t have a quarterback (ha!). I’ve always likened football to entrepreneurial capitalism, because the quarterback is the risk taker who organizes the factors of production, (the offense) in such a way as to score touchdowns, (profits) and thus win games, (increase profits) and hopefully make windfall profits, (with a championship)." Perhaps one way to look at the QB is as an entrepreneur. Another is as central planner, directing the rest of the team. An American friend said to me in 1996 something along these lines: "I can't vote for Bob Dole and Jack Kemp because Kemp's success in his first career was based on his ability to direct others to do what he wanted." Whereas the ingenuity and skills of individual players in soccer will determine a team's success, the football team requires wise decisions by one person, one central planner. The QB fails and the whole team tanks (kind of like the economy when a central banker is inept or the government interferes too much). But a great soccer team, like a great nation, can overcome the shortcomings of its failed leader because the role of one individual over the entire enterprise is limited. That's smart, not socialist. Wisdom of the crowds and all that, not being left to the whims of one power. Perhaps the former Buffalo Bills QB took one too many tackles to the head to realize this. A whole new meaning to lay back and think of England Lay back on the doctor's table, that is. The Guardian reports: "Making fertility treatment freely available to all would boost Britain's population and help stave off the looming pensions crisis, scientists said yesterday." That is the finding following a cost-benefit analysis: "They found that if the government invested in IVF and offered three cycles of fertility treatment on the NHS, the country would increase its population by 10,000 within two to three years. Currently only a quarter of IVF treatment is conducted by the NHS. Their calculations showed that once the extra cost is taken into account, every person born through IVF would on average contribute £147,138 to the economy, compared with £160,069 generated over the lifetime of a person conceived naturally. 'If a government invests in IVF treatment, essentially by paying for that treatment, and a baby results, the government starts earning money back two years later than if the baby was conceived naturally,' said Professor Bill Ledger, head of reproductive medicine at Sheffield University. The calculations are the first attempt to assess the value of children born through IVF to the British economy. The researchers worked on the basis of the child living to the average male age of 78, and the cost of IVF being £12,931 per conceived live birth." Such computations are so much more exciting than a bottle of wine, romantic music and dimmed lights or a blanket in front of the fire place. Then again, they are Brits. Republicans responsible for hurricanes Writing in the Los Angeles Times, screenwriter Mike Campbell tackles with great aplumb the notion that the Republican adminisration is responsible for the hurricanes expected this season. Sample: "There must be something in the Constitution preventing either political party from causing hurricanes. Let me check. I'll be right back…. No, nothing in the Constitution, which is surprising because treason and impeachment and all sorts of other awful things are covered. Everything except hurricanes. Wait just a minute! What am I thinking? They didn't have hurricanes back then! How could they? There weren't any power plants or gas guzzlers. How embarrassing for me." Saving Darfur Despite what seems like progress in the past month, the Los Angeles Times notices that the proclamations that the international community is ready to do something and that Congress has funded a thus far non-operational peacekeeping mission amount to nothing more than the "latest in a series of empty gestures." It is too bad that empty gestures don't save lives because if they did, the genocide would have ended long ago; instead, it continues unabated. The paper quite rightly calls upon President George W. Bush to personally take up the issue with Russia and Red China to end the diplomatic impasse that is preventing real actions from taking place. The U.S., the paper notes, has taken a greater interest in Darfur than the rest of the "international community" but so far that hasn't meant a whole lot. Sarkozy notices problem but offers 'solution' that might be worse LifeSiteNews.com refers to this story about Nicolas Sarkozy's warning that the French Republic needs a little religion. In a recent book (The Republic, the Religions, and Hope), Sarkozy, a candidate for French president next year, says that the state's Christophobia and ardent secularism serves neither society nor government well. He says that for too long the state has been "indifferent" to religion and in typical European fashion he calls for a corrective of state assistance for and closer co-operation with the churches. But Sarkozy is wrong in that the state is not "indifferent" to religion but outright hostile to it. Government is a jealous creature that cannot brook competing authorities. What France and other liberal democracies need is not formal cooperation between state and church (some might call it collusion) but an end to the former's harassment of the latter. Allow churches to work with the poor, educate students and speak out on moral issues without interference. That would guarantee its independence, a necessary commodity for churches that would threatened if they were to become partners with government. Monday, June 19, 2006
Terrorism stories from around the world Three from the Daily Telegraph: One: "Britain's borders are too poorly policed to act as a serious deterrent to terrorists, an independent watchdog reported yesterday." Two: After a weekend of violence that claimed 51 lives, "The government of Sri Lanka appealed to Tamil Tiger rebels yesterday to pull back from the brink of war and re-engage in serious peace negotiations." Three: Madrid capitulates as, "Spain's socialist prime minister will announce proposals for talks with the Basque separatist group Eta within days, reports said yesterday." Quotidian "David was one of those shy and sensitive people who shrink from argument." -- Honore de Balzac, Lost Illusions Liberals and race Peter Schramm at No Left Turns: "This column by Clarence Page, attempting to talk about the GOP and race, shows how mired in a confused past liberals are on this issue. The political world has gone way beyond this sophomoric level of discussion; Joe Fabrici down the street knows more about how to think about race and politics than this self-proclaimed liberal deep thinker: the issue has nothing to do with whether the government is the enemy or not." Which led me to wonder: when was the last time a liberal had anything worthwhile to say about race? Offside on ref bashing Now that I've read a fair bit of commentary on the Italian-American game in which the referee brandished three red cards, as well as having re-watched the game for a third time, I rescind my criticism of referee Jorge Larrionda. He did as well as anyone could: both teams had a lot to prove, the Americans were over-compensating in their physical play following criticism that they were wimps against the Czech Republic and the ref always has a difficult job. (I stand by my criticism of the officials in general that there are too few calls for high elbows and shirt-tugging and too many calls for delay of game, talking to the officials and whatever else players are being carded for other than their physical play.) Still, many others have been critical of Larrionda, charging him with too many calls that directly affected the game (negatively). But he was, in fact, quite lenient, erring on the side of letting the players play. According to Paul Gardner of the New York Sun: "In the first half the Americans committed 18 fouls to the Italians' seven. Now, 18 is a very large number for one team in only 45 minutes. Oguchi Onyewu had five of those fouls, including four crude physical tackles on the giant Italian forward Luca Toni. That total ought to have been enough to earn him a yellow card for persistent fouling, but Larrionda was lenient here." But that did not stop the shameful display of sore-losership by the Americans. They put more energy in whining after the game than they did in scoring during the game. They did not admit any error in their physical play, sulked about the officiating and are placing blame elsewhere when, as Gardner notes, their game has serious shortcomings. Gardner points out that in their first two games, the Americans have exactly one shot on goal (as distinct from shots). If the United States side does not fix their offensive game, they will have no one to blame but themselves for their lousy World Cup. (And they will maintain theis dismal record of having never won a World Cup game in Europe.) Anyone interested in the issue of officiating should read Gabriele Marcotti's blog entry at SI.com. A taste of Marcotti: "Brandishing the Laws of the Game and screaming bloody murder, as a portion of the U.S. press has done, lies somewhere between the futile and the idiotic. The World Cup isn't run based on the Laws of the Game, it's run based on FIFA's interpretation of the Laws of the Game, which is an entirely different matter altogether." As Alex Massie says at the Goal Post: "... under the terms of that interpretation, the referee was quite right to dismiss Mastroeni and Pope. He would, as FIFA sees it, have been neglecting his duties had he not sent the Americans off." Larrionda made mistakes as all referees have, but the red cards were not among them. World Cup prediction Germany beats Ecuador 3-1 Costa Rica ties Poland 1-1 Paraguay edges Trinidad and Tobago 2-1 England ties Sweden 1-1 Sunday, June 18, 2006
Quotidian "Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts." -- Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams World Cup predictions Switzerland beats Togo 2-0 Ukraine beats Saudi Arabia 1-0 Spain slaughters Tunisia 4-0 The days in soccer Yesterday: some pretty exciting soccer. Today: ditto. A quick comment about a few of the games. The game between Italy and the U.S. was marred by the officiating. As Eric Wynalda said on the ABC broadcast post-game show, "Players win games, coaches lose them, referees ruin them." Ideally, the referee should not be noticed and certainly should not be decisive. Of course, with three red cards, two being quite dubious (anti-American conspiracy?), the referee's presence was felt. That said, the two teams played technically excellent soccer save for Cristian ZaccardoÂ?s fluke own goal. The Americans played lively soccer for all 90 minutes even though they were two men down for most of the second half. If the American played like this last week, they would never have lost three-nil to the Czech Republic. The game ended up being the second most exciting game this World Cup finals thus far (following Friday's Ivory Coast-Netherlands match), but that doesn't not excuse the lousy officiating. Ghana beats the Czech Republic 2-0. With their win -- the first by an African side this World Cup -- Ghana remains in a four-team race for a Round of 16 berth. The U.S. are highly improbable to move on -- they must beat Ghana and Italy must beat the Czech Republic -- but still, every team remains hopeful for their matches on Thursday. Ghana could have easily scored another couple of goals but they repeatedly got caught by the Czech Republic's offside trap. That they repeatedly did so is a sign of some sort of problem -- coaching, unawareness on the field, lack of discipline, excitement, cluelessness about the rules, who knows? -- that often seem to plague teams from soccer's developing world. Nevertheless, the anticipation of another goal, led to an incredible amount of excitement. One of Czech's problems was that first game hero, Tomas Rosicky (2 goals against the US) looked quite mediocre. On the plus side, superb goaltending by Petr Cech, probably the best goaltender in the world, kept the game close. He made a few outstanding saves. After the Ivory Coast-Netherlands and Italy-US matchups, this was probably the most exciting match of the World Cup finals. Brasil beat Australia 2-0 but the score does not reflect the game that Australia played. While Brasil is obviously a much more talented team, the Australians were able to control the tempo of the game for small periods of time, played a tough defense that did not allow the South American side many great chances in the first 60 minutes and penetrated Brasil's third of the pitch to create a few scary moments for Brazilian goaltender Dida, who looked less than pleased with his defense on several occasions. Australia's Dutch coach Guus Hiddink put on an additional striker early in the second half after going down 1-0 demonstrating a determination to draw or possibly win the game, not just lose by a close score. It all made for a wonderful match but it exposed two problems that Brasil needs to recognize. First, as good as Ronaldo and Adriano are individually, they do not work well together. It would be better to bring Ronaldo on as a late replacement and let Robinho play the first 60 minutes. This might allow Brasil to rack up a few goals earlier in the game. Second, Brasil's defense is not nearly as good as 1) as its offense or 2) as a squad as its individual members would indicate. After all, Cafu (AC Milan), Roberto Carlos (Read Madrid) and Lucio (Bayern Munich) are all great defenders and Juan (Bayer Leverkusen) is a pretty good one. France and South Korea was fairly sloppy and uneventful. Portugal and Iran was nothing to get excited about. Thefall-backk style of defence (no opposition in the midfield, stop the attack in their own zone) of Croatia prevented Japan's more dynamic scoring side from putting the ball in the net but it also prevented much entertainment. Still, overall, this weekend saw some really great soccer. British Labour party suffers from Liberal Party of Canada Syndrome Privately I have had a number of Liberal MPs tell me that they believe their party is a decade away from winning another election. If nothing changes -- and that seldom happens -- that might be true (see earlier post on Tom Brokaw and the UFO theory of politics). But the point remains that the Liberals feel they have lost the trust of Canadian voters and thus winning the next election seem highly unlikely. The Guardian reports that on the other side of the pond, Michael Wills, a close confidante of Gordon Brown, is warning the chancellor that without radical change, the Labour Party will lose the next election (and the next one and the next after that). Mills says, "The trouble with the current approach is that we will go out of power and we will go out of power for 15 years." Of course, Mills has an agenda. His warning was declared at the left-wing Compass group and he is disillusioned with Blairite Third Way nostrums. He may be guilty of confusing his disillusionment with that of the voters. All politics is extremely local David Cameron's green plans are in trouble. The Sunday Telegraph reports that the British Conservative leader's neighbours are unhappy with his plan to put a wind turnbine on his property. The paper reports: "In an application in Mrs Cameron's name, the family has asked permission from Kensington and Chelsea council to install the turbine and three solar panels on the roof. But from the beginning the plan has been dogged by criticism, with some accusing Mr Cameron of blighting the area with 'architectural acne'." But part of the criticism is silly. One neighbour whined: "These turbines cost £2,000. It's irritating that it costs so much to show your green credentials. I've young twins and a husband with cancer. Do you think I've got time to be green?" Oh, just wait; no doubt that "the new brand of caring Conservatism" Cameron hopes to be elected on will provide a government payout to those who want to show their green credentials. Mr. Cameron can't wait, though, because he believes he must demonstrate those credentials now. A cry of free Iran from an unlikely source The Daily Telegraph reports: "The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, the inspiration of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, has broken a three-year silence to back the United States military to overthrow the country's clerical regime. Hossein Khomeini's call is all the more startling as he made it from Qom, the spiritual home of Iran's Shia strand of Islam, during an interview to mark the 17th anniversary of the ayatollah's death." Better yet, the exact words of Hossein Khomeini: "My grandfather's revolution has devoured its children and has strayed from its course ... I lived through the revolution and it called for freedom and democracy - but it has persecuted its leaders." And: "Iran will gain real power if freedom and democracy develop there ... Strength will not be obtained through weapons and the bomb." Star of David hangs over Ghana victory After the second goal in yesterday's 2-1 victory over the Czech Republic at the hands (or feet) of Ghana, an African player pulled an Israeli flag from his sock. The Goal Post's Franklin Foer quotes Ha'aretz to explain: "Ghanaian soccer player John Pentsil celebrated the goals scored by his teammates against the Czech Republic at the World Cup on Saturday by waving the Israeli flag at the stadium in Cologne... Pentsil, who plays for Hapoel Tel Aviv, is one of three Ghana international squad members who play for Israeli soccer teams. He apparently kept the flag tucked away into his sock during the match. In the past, Pentsil has displayed both the Ghanaian and Israeli flags during soccer matches, most recently after Hapoel TA won the Israeli Cup." Odd but appreciated punditry Writing about the 2008 presidential election in the Washington Post, Tom Brokaw admits that he knows nothing: "... if we're to believe Dick Cheney and Al Gore about their intentions, 2008 will be the first presidential election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or a sitting or recently retired vice president is not a candidate -- which opens the field even more. Next, voters in poll after poll are expressing real concern on a wide range of big issues -- terrorism, the war in Iraq, gas prices, the environment, health care and the economy. That level of anxiety and uncertainty becomes a kind of collective cry for help that transcends party, economic and geographical lines. I've heard it in small gatherings and large, in red states and blue, from old-line Republicans to populist Democrats, from Main Street merchants to fishing guides, from academicians to ranchers. 'Who's gonna be our next president?' My answer is always the same. 'I don't know -- it's too early too tell'." Of course, he's right. But how often do newspapers give space to journalists, even former evening news anchors, to tell the world that "don't know." But Brokaw admits this to put forth the sensible but all-too-often forgotten UFO theory of politics: "UFO -- the unforeseen will occur." Brokaw outlines a half dozen things that might happen from oil shock to the bursting of the housing bubble, from Iran getting nukes to Pakistan falling to Islamic fundamentalists from the war in Iraq getting much worse to the war getting much better. Or nothing happens, which, too, will affect the election. There is a lot of interest in the 2008 presidential election already and it is early but none of the pundits' crystal balls can foresee not merely the candidates but the issues that will change -- and the changing issues will change the candidates themselves -- over the next two years. Brokaw's admitted ignorance is most welcome. Democrats: more anti-American (power) than anti-Bush Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times: "It's often said that in our bitter fractious partisan politics much of the Democratic base's anger boils down to sheer loathing of Bush. If he were gone, if it were a Clinton or Gore waging war in Iraq, the Dems would be cool with it. I think not. Their fury with Lieberman suggests a corrosion that goes far deeper than mere Bush Derangement Syndrome. The Democrats may be prepared to go along with some Clintonian pseudo-warmongering -- the desultory lobbing of a few cruise missiles at Slobodan or that Sudanese aspirin factory -- but, when it comes to the projection of hard power in the national interest, the left cannot get past Vietnam. Indeed, the reaction to Peter Beinart's ringing call for a reassertion of 'liberal internationalism' -- ringing in the sense that nobody's picking up -- suggests that even his quaintly dated Eurocentric Sept. 10 ineffectually respectable multilateralism has few takers among today's left." Steyn is onto something here. For many, calling the Democrats anti-Bush was a convenient but imprecise shorthand. Sure, they are anti-Bush and are so for many reasons. But more importantly, the Democrats (or as Steyn calls them, Defeaticrats) are, at best, hesitant about projecting American power abroad, but, are probably, more accurately hostile to exercising American power abroad. This has important political repercussions. The average American voter cares little about whether Bush lied his way into Iraq or what international law may say about the conflict and even less about what the UN's role is; what is important to the average American is whether the United States is winning or not. If Republicans can make the case that the effect a Democratic foreign policy is surrender or if a Democratic Congress will deny President Bush the tools to properly prosecute the war, I think that their (the Dems) chances of winning in November are very low. This, ultimately, is why I have stated the GOP has a 50% chance of maintaining the House of Representatives in the midterm elections and a 50% chance of maintaining the Senate -- the Democrats do not have a serious alternative to the (admittedly miserable and failing) plan of the administration. |