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).

 
I hope that the 27th hour client got a cheaper rate

The headline only applies if the 27 hours are consecutive. Australia's Daily Telegraph reports:

"A PROSTITUTE in Chile has auctioned 27 hours of sex to raise money for the country's largest charity during an annual fund-raising campaign.

Maria Carolina became an overnight celebrity in the conservative Roman Catholic country, making news headlines and appearing on talk shows since she made her unusual donation to the televised charity event, which runs for 27 hours starting on Friday evening.

'I've already auctioned off the 27 hours of love,' Maria Carolina told Reuters on Wednesday, saying she had raised about $4,000.

'One of my clients already paid. It seemed like a good deed to him'."

I'm going to put the question of morality aside and just point out that this is really, really gross. It is even creepier when you see the photo because Miss Carolina looks like she's still a teen.

One of the more durable Hollywood characters is the hooker with a heart of gold, but no one actually believes they exist.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:38 AM

 
Human rights complaint against Steyn

FiveFeetofFury comments on the story and suggests a response: ignore the tribunal's hearing because it is nothing more than an extra-legal enforcer of liberal pieties. Says Kathy Shaidle: "The left can't win in the marketplace of ideas and so it resorts to this sort of sharia-like bullying." This stuff is really serious and social conservatives and a few libertarians have been warning Canadians about the liberty-smashing effect of human rights commissions for a long time, but others have remained silent figuring that as long as they don't come after me, who cares. Martin Niemöller might speak to them.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:21 AM

 
GOP transforming into CDs

Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner:

"Huckabee is at least consistent: he's also a 'disaster' on trade, taxation (historically speaking, at least), nanny state issues and, for that matter, rather basic scientific knowledge. His polling is fascinating. How he does will be another very interesting indicator of how much further the GOP will move in the direction of becoming an Americanized version of Europe's Christian Democrats."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:13 AM

 
Keeping one's head

At TCS Daily, Lee Harris writes about the glimpse of meanness we saw in Rudy Giuliani's exchange with Mitt Romney during this week's debate:

"The bizarre and often irrational appearance of the American electoral system should not deceive us. As I wrote in a piece for TCS nearly four years ago, apropos Howard Dean's infamous scream, Americans have unwittingly designed a system that ruthlessly tests for the slightest character flaws in those who seek to exercise power over us. Sometimes the system can seem heartless, as when it punishes a Presidential candidate like Edmund Muskie for a sudden flurry of tears. Sometimes it will come across as unduly severe, as when it roasted Dean for his raucous outburst—in retrospect was it really all that bad? Yet what both of these candidacy-crushing incidents have in common is the insistence on the part of the American electorate that those who would be our leaders must exercise a much higher degree of self-control than is required of the average Joe. We don't want our President to lose his head while all about are losing theirs, to paraphrase Kipling."

Until now, I never really understood why people thought Giuliani provided leadership during 9/11. I didn't think that going around telling people not to panic rose to the level of leadership, but I forgot the words of Kipling's If (which is strange because it is my (and Ayn Rand's) favourite poem).

And that is precisely why Giuliani's 'meanness' is such a problem; it undermines his greatest strength: keeping his head when others are losing theirs.

Of course, there is another problem with mean, other than the fact that people in general don't like it and won't vote for someone who displays the trait. The popular narrative is that conservatism is cold-hearted, so conservatives must go the extra mile to avoid appearing mean. That's the secret to Ronald Reagan's success, and to a lesser degree, George W. Bush's two election victories.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:11 AM

 
Just 600?

Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, has links to reports on 600 things attributed to global warming. Its a long -- and sometimes contradictory -- list. For example, 'Atlantic less salty' and 'Atlantic more salty' or 'ice sheet growth' and 'ice sheet shrinkage'. My favourite is blaming global warming on a 'rape wave.'

(HT: American Thinker)
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:52 AM

 
Who attacked who and what it means

Jay Cost at RCP:

"As I have said time and again, it is ridiculous to score these debates - to identify who won on debating points, and to infer from that who helped their electoral fortunes. But one thing that we can do is note who attacked whom. The reason this activity can have value is that it can give us a sense of what these candidates perceive their relative positions to be."

There were, according to Cost, 17 attacks, all based on policy and about half of those were on the issue of immigration. No one attacked John McCain or Fred Thompson, although Thompson fired off five attacks: "Romney twice, Rudy twice, and Huckabee once." Both Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee went after Mitt Romney. Romney "Romney acted like more of a challenger ... He made five hits - against Rudy (twice) and Huckabee (thrice)." Huckabee attacked Romney once and then only in response to an attack on him.

Cost finds this to mean:

"(i) Romney seems to perceive Giuliani and Huckabee - but not McCain or Thompson - as threats.
(ii) Giuliani seems to perceive Romney as a threat. He saved his attacks for him.
(iii) Huckabee seems to perceive Romney as a threat - or, maybe better put, as a target. Like Giuliani, he saved his attacks for him.
(iv) Thompson and McCain seem not to threaten the major candidates. Nevertheless, both perceive others as threats."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:39 AM

 
Comments

Send 'em to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:25 PM

 
The November issue of The Interim is up

It can be found here.

The cover story, "Is the FCP still relevant," generated a lot of controversy. I examine the relevancy of the Family Coalition Party and conclude that by focusing on issues other than abortion it becomes irrelevant. The FCP was designed to be a protest party, to highlight the abortion issue and to give disenfranchised pro-life voters an ethical alternative on election day. The FCP needs to become like the Pro-Life and Conservative parties of New York state and run when the Republicans (or in Ontario, the Tories) do not run pro-life candidates. We lost of a lot of FCP supporters over this story.

Oz Clark and I find that the media misrepresent the Stats Can numbers on the composition of Canadian families: while the traditional family is on the decline, it is not in as bad shape as the mainstream media claims it is.

We have a news story and an editorial on the unborn victims of violence (crime). The editorial states: "The Conservative government in Ottawa has nearly impeccable credentials when it comes to its tough-on-crime agenda. From minimum sentences to lessened tolerance for drug pushers to more tools for police, this government appears serious about tackling crime in Canada. That makes it all the more disturbing that in 2006, the Prime Minister’s Office helped scuttle a private member’s bill from Conservative MP Leon Benoit that would have provided legal protection for unborn victims of violence and recourse to justice for their families." If the Harper government is serious about giving the victims of crime a voice within the skewed justice system, one way to do that would be to correct the legal absurdity of not recognizing two victims of a violent crime when the fetus is injured or killed during an assault on or the murder of its pregnant mother.

Pete Vere writes about "kid lit's most dangerous author," Phillip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass. Pete, who is co-author of the forthcoming Pied Piper of Atheism: Philip Pullman and Children's Fantasy (Ignatius Press), has been called a nitwit by Pullman for his opposition to the atheist's books.

Rory Leishman examines the question of what to do with women who have abortions if abortion is recriminalized. There is also a symposium featuring a number of Canadian pro-lifers on this same topic.

Donald DeMarco wonders whether having an open mind is a virtue.

Our lead editorial laments political "campaigns where all the essential issues are inadmissible," the essence of which is a critique of John Tory's (lack of) conservatism.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:20 PM

 
Makes you think

In a post about Ron Paul, Johnathan Pearce at Samizdata says: "I am not convinced the dollar should be tied to gold but it is not nearly as daft, when you think about it, as the idea that the world's largest economy can be run by a Federal Reserve bank by an army of economic gods."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:56 AM

 
The political zoo

Over at The Corner, John Hood works out six political scenarios:

Romney the Hare: "Wins Iowa convincingly ... The size of his victory generates a wave of free media coverage, aided by his subsequent win in the small but well-timed Wyoming caucuses on Jan. 5. Romney then dominates New Hampshire on Jan. 8, generating another media boost. In the next state, Michigan on Jan. 15, Giuliani had enjoyed a narrow lead going into January, but now Romney – with Michigan family ties and lots of momentum – overtakes him to win" which leads to more victories and eventually a two-way race with Rudy Giuliani for Florida. "Romney unifies the anti-Giuliani vote and wins Florida. It’s over."

Giuliani the Tortoise: "Giuliani’s December ad campaign in New Hampshire pushes him into the mid-20s in the state – not enough to win, but enough to shave Romney’s margin and give Giuliani a Bill Clinton-like 'victory' as second-place Comeback Kid." He goes on to win Michigan and Nevada, "is competitive" in South Carolina and "wins comfortably" in Florida, "parts of which are essentially a suburb of Manhattan." He wraps it up on February 5.

Thompson the Possum: "A continued Huckabee surge in Iowa robs Romney of a convincing win, yielding a loss in the expectations game. In New Hampshire, McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani do better than expected, Romney worse. He barely ekes out a victory. In Michigan, Romney sputters and both McCain and Thompson pick up anti-Giuliani votes, yielding a narrow Giuliani win but no clear momentum." Romney's done and conservatives gravitate to Thompson. Wins South Carolina and he is declared the conservative standard-bearer against Giuliani "and moves into Feb. 5 with momentum. It’s not quite over, but the patient sleeper has supplanted the frenetic hare."

On the Democratic side there is Obama the Bear Cub and Edwards the Skunk but this is the only pertinent part:

Clinton the Queen Bee: "She wins Iowa. She wins New Hampshire. She wins Michigan. She wins Nevada. She wins South Carolina. She wins . . . (zzzzz)"

In the other scenarios, Hood has Obama winning Iowa narrowly only to go on and lose New Hampshire, Michigan, etc... In the case of John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator narrowly wins Iowa before Clinton sweeps the rest of the states.

It's all cute but it is also insufficient. While Hillary is still a formidable candidate and likely Democratic nominee, talk about her inevitability has subsided with the ascendancy of Barack Obama. While it is nearly impossible to imagine Hillary not getting the nomination and difficult to figure out where Obama might do well, the inevitability of Clinton is now, at least theoretically, in question. The tipping point might be something as simple as Iowa voters disliking the idea of being nothing more than a rubber stamp, putting their formal stamp of approval on the inevitable nomination of HRC, that finally changes the calculus of the campaign.

On the GOP side I think that it is a mistake for Hood to ignore Mike Huckabee. He is rising in Iowa and could do well in the South and emerge as the conservative alternative (at least on the socially conservative side) to Giuliani; in other words, he is more likely to usurp the role that many have anticipated for Thompson. I watched the CNN/YouTube debate last night and everyone had their good moments but Huckabee had many, many more of them. Perhaps it is Huckabee the Cat, a candidate who might get up and dash ahead or he might just continue laying there for a good while until no one cares about him anymore.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:42 AM

 
The CNN/YouTube debate

I thought everyone but one did quite well, some more so than others.

I wish Mike Huckabee didn't have his liberal economic record because he can be smooth, funny, intelligent and disarmingly charming. His answer on whether he believed "every word in The Bible" was excellent. Huckabee had many good answers and probably won over supporters last night. I think his nomination would be disastrous for the GOP if he doesn't U-Turn it on economic issues (although his call to shut down the IRS won loud cheers) because fiscal conservatives are, quite rightly, wary of him.

John McCain looks really old but still has a few good one liners left in him, even if they are becoming repetitive.

Mitt Romney was smooth and gave many very good answers, but perhaps he is too smooth; voters might distrust how polished he appears. He didn't slip up, appears candid, but I don't know if he passes the likability factor.

The Congressmen (Tancredo, Hunter and Paul) each had their moments to shine and shine they did, highlighting issues the other candidates (mostly) want to ignore. I thought Ron Paul handled perfectly the question about whether he shares the views of some of his nuttier fringe supporters: there is a Council for Foreign Relations and a Trilaterial Commission and there is a conspiracy -- of ideas. The only slip up any made was Hunter defending the right of gun ownership as a matter of security against terrorists which was a little silly and his castigation of the person who asked about guns for his handling of his weapon which was quite dumb.

Fred Thompson looked old and Rudy Giuliani acted old. Thompson, as the old Dennis Miller jokes goes, looks like a scrotum. But he delivered a few zingers and that's what he's good at. Funny one liners do not a president make, but it plays well in the media. Giuliani is the only candidate who had a bad night. He often appeared like the Reagan caricatures, hard of hearing and out of touch. He appeared unable to keep up with the rest of the group. He had a few good answers, but some of his answers were not as smooth or reassuring as they could be.

Grades:

Huckabee: A+
Romney: A-
The Congressmen: A-
McCain: B
Thompson: C
Giuliani: D

This is only the second debate that I've watched this year and I did so only because my 17-year-old wanted to watch it. And it was like my trip to Europe nearly 20 years ago: it was nice but I don't need to do it again.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:15 AM

 
Henry Hyde, RIP

I'm very saddened by the news of Rep. Henry Hyde's passing. He was one of the best Congressmen in my lifetime. As NRO put it earlier this month in an editorial when Hyde won the Presidential Medal of Freedom:

"Hyde spent 32 years in the House of Representatives, retiring only last year. He made his mark in many areas — as a tough-minded leader on foreign affairs and chairman of the Committee on International Relations, as the head prosecutor in the Clinton impeachment case, and as one of the GOP’s most persuasive debaters."

He was, said National Review, "a man of good cheer and firm principle, even when they disagreed with him — as liberals did on many issues, and as some conservatives did when Hyde argued against congressional term limits or supported gun control."

He is also, as the editorial pointed out, the author of the most important pro-life piece of legislation in the United States, the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortion. The editorial did not point out that he always kept fresh red roses on his desk as a memorial to the unborn and in solidarity with the pro-life movement.

He died at the age of 83. It was a life that served America well.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:36 AM

 
A joke about trade misses the point

Here is a joke -- or a cutesy musing -- that has been passed along on the internet for years:

John Smith started the day early having set his

Alarm clock

(MADE IN JAPAN) for 6am.

While his coffeepot

(MADE IN CHINA)

Was perking, he shaved with his Electric razor

(MADE IN HONG KONG).

He put on a Dress shirt

(MADE IN SRI LANKA),

Designer jeans

(MADE IN SINGAPORE)

And tennis shoes

(MADE IN KOREA)

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet

(MADE IN INDIA)

He sat down with his Calculator

(MADE IN MEXICO)

To see how much he could spend today.

After setting his Watch

(MADE IN TAIWAN)

To the radio

(MADE IN INDIA)

He got in his car

(MADE IN GERMANY)

Filled it with GAS

(from Saudi Arabia)

And continued his search

For a good paying AMERICAN JOB.

At the end of yet another discouraging

And fruitless day checking his Computer

(Made In Malaysia),

Joe decided to relax for a while.

He put on his sandals

(MADE IN BRAZIL)

Poured himself a glass of wine

(MADE IN FRANCE)

And turned on his TV

(MADE IN INDONESIA),

And then wondered

Why he can't find

A good paying job

In AMERICA ...

And all I can think when I read this is that it is wonderful that Americans are so prosperous that they can import all these products from all over the world.

An antidote to the stupid thinking that leads to snickers when people read the above musing about the supposed irony that there is joblessness due to the fact that Americans (or Canadians) import vast quantities of goods from the rest of the world is Russell Roberts' article "Why We Trade" at ForeignPolicy.com on mercantilism:

"As a thought experiment, take what would seem to be the ideal situation for a mercantilist. Suppose we only export and import nothing. The ultimate trade surplus. So we work and use raw materials and effort and creativity to produce stuff for others without getting anything in return. There’s another name for that. It’s called slavery. How can a country get rich working for others?

Then there’s the mercantilist nightmare: We import from abroad, but foreigners buy nothing from us. What would the world be like if every morning you woke up and found a Japanese car in your driveway, Chinese clothing in your closet, and French wine in your cellar? All at no cost. Does that sound like heaven or hell? The only analogy I can think of is Santa Claus. How can a country get poor from free stuff? Or cheap stuff? How do imports hurt us?

We don’t export to create jobs. We export so we can have money to buy the stuff that’s hard for us to make—or at least hard for us to make as cheaply. We export because that’s the only way to get imports. If people would just give us stuff, then we wouldn’t have to export. But the world doesn’t work that way."

The joke I quote above isn't funny because it doesn't ring true. How can jobless Americans buy so many foreign goods?
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:36 AM

 
The Joint Understanding

"The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respective by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority" have agreed to a 'joint understanding' on the desire for peace -- never mind that the Palestinian terrorists who do not recognize Israel's right to exist haven't signed on:

"We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed. The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007."

Three points.

1) This only matters if Abbas matters. Everyone knows that Abbas is pretty close to irrelevant, therefore the joint understanding is, too.

2) Assuming that Abbas did matter -- that he has the authority to impose the conditions for peace on those who want Israel destroyed -- why does it take until the end of 2008 to come up with a framework to recognize Israel's right to exist and stop the killing of innocent?

3) This statement is telling: "[W]e agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations..." This could be read (correctly, I would say) that previous negotiations were not in good faith. I'd add that if you have to say they are in good faith, there is a lot -- and I mean a lot -- of work to do. Like, really, shouldn't it be assumed that all such negotiations are in good faith. It's like when someone says, "I'm smart, I really am." No they're not.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:30 AM

 
Human rights commission complaint against political leader

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is entertaining a complaint against Ron Gray, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, due to his (and his party's) criticism of the gay agenda. LifeSiteNews.com has the story on how Rob Wells has complained about three communiqués, regular CHP email dispatches that are sent to supporters and put up on the party's website. This story has serious consequences and not just for Gray, the CHP or even the opponents of gay activists. The CHRC should not have the jurisdiction to investigate political parties; with such power they limit what might be debated in the political arena and therefore have a role in setting the political agenda, something human rights tribunals should not have. What is discussable in the political realm is limited by voters. The CHRC would be wise to not overstep their authority and to drop the case. As Ron Gray told me yesterday, if they don't, Canada is well on the road to totalitarianism. I try to eschew such rhetoric but it is hard to consider this development -- a bunch of human rights commissars deciding what political parties can and can't say -- as anything else.

Alas they probably won't so Gray needs help to cover his legal bills. Send cheques to:

Ron Gray legal defense fund
Ron McDonald law office
406 Stafford Dr. South
Lethbridge AB
G1J 2L2

WorldNetDaily and No Apologies also cover this story. Thus far, there hasn't been any MSM coverage.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:14 AM

 
Good question

The Cato Institute's Michael D. Tanner asks: "What if Economic Conservatives Stay Home on Election Day?" The media likes the story-line about socon dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and whether or not they will stay at home in 2008 or perhaps back a third-party candidate. But as Tanner notes, the GOP is a three-legged coalition (foreign policy hawks, social conservatives and small-government types) that has, at least recently, ignored fiscal cons. Tanner says the 2006 Republican loss of Congress was due to fiscal cons (independents, moderate Democrats and limited government conservatives) staying home or voting Democrat, whereas 70% of evangelicals voted Republican, roughly the percentage who supported President George W. Bush in 2004. Considering the current candidates -- "Can anyone think of a single major government program that any of them, with the exception of Rep. Paul, have called for significantly cutting or eliminating?" -- Tanner warns that recent history may be about to repeat itself.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:08 AM

 
GOP celeb donors

If these matter (from Politico):

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani:

Kelsey Grammer
Adam Sandler
Ben Stein

Erstwhile actor Fred Thompson:

Peyton Manning
John Rich (recording artist)
Pat Sajak (wheel spinner)
Gretchen Wilson
Dick Wolf (creator-producer of the Law & Order franchise)

Senator John McCain:

"A few unknown performers."

Rep. Ron Paul:

"A few unknown performers."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:50 AM

 
Show me the numbers!

It's a typical Thomas Sowell column with great sound-bites and personal anecdotes, but I'd like to see some figures on whether the presence of 'too many' students in the university are depressing the value of a university education. Sure, many immature students -- and students of the opposite sex -- are distracting those that are serious about their studies, but beyond anecdotal evidence, what proof is there that this is harmful?

I think that many young people go to university because that is what middle class people do even though college or apprenticeship programs or direct entry into the workforce might be more practical. I also think the idea of polytechnical institutes combining the best aspects of college and university should be revived. But these are only inclinations, inclinations that Sowell seems to share. But I would have liked to see the trained economist employ data beyond his personal experience to buttress his argument.

All that said, here are two great bits, one a sound-bite, another an anecdote.

First, the sound-bite: "Wanting to be in college is not the same as wanting an education."

Next, the anecdote on the problems of large class sizes:

"When I taught an honors class in introductory economics at Cornell — a seminar with 15 students, compared to a couple of hundred students in the regular class — my department chairman urged me to expand the honors class to 30 students, 'so that more students can get the advantage of the small class.'

It never seemed to occur to him that expanding the class would destroy the advantages of the small seminar."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:16 AM

 
Joke making its way 'round the internet

The following question was asked in a recent poll:

"Are there too many immigrants in Canada?"

21% Said: Yes

17% Said: No

62% Said: عهد الأمن العالمي بواشنط
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:32 AM

 
Running out of the internet

I am dubious, but here is something to chew on from PC World:

"Consumer and corporate use of the Internet could overload the current capacity and lead to brown-outs in two years unless backbone providers invest billions of dollars in new infrastructure, according to a study released last week.

A flood of new video and other Web content could overwhelm the Internet by 2010 unless backbone providers invest up to $137 billion in new capacity, more than double what service providers plan to invest, according to thestudy, by Nemertes Research Group, an independent analysis firm. In North America alone, backbone investments of $42 billion to $55 billion will be needed in the next three to five years to keep up with demand, Nemertes said."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:31 AM

 
This is plain dumb

I know that pollsters need to ask questions and newspapers need copy, but this poll is beyond stupid:

"Almost two-thirds of 1,000 Canadians surveyed say they believe Karlheinz Schreiber should be kept in Canada long enough to testify at a public inquiry into his dealings with former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Most of them predict the probe will turn out to be a waste of money.

The survey, conducted by Ipsos-Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National, found that 65 per cent of respondents feel the government should delay the extradition of the German-Canadian businessman so that he can present evidence at an inquiry announced two weeks ago. The businessman, who paid Mulroney $300,000 in cash in 1993 and 1994, could be extradited to Germany to face bribery, fraud and tax charges as early as Saturday unless the federal government intervenes."

There are complex legal issues involved that most respondents are not going to consider so the real question is this: should a public inquiry into Schreiber's $300,000 payment to Brian Mulroney hear from the person who gave the money. Of course a clear majority will say yes. So what is the point of the poll?

Polls that gage the opinion of people about to decide an election make a lot of sense, even if they corrupt politics. Polls on broad themes or specific issues can be used by politicians to decide what policies to pursue, even if the price is politicians who rule by wet-thumbing the wind. But on legal matters, polling doesn't make a lot of sense.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:27 AM

 
2007: Annapolis

Headline from today's dead tree Globe and Mail on the Annapolis summit: "Can one day of talk create years of peace?" You know my answer.

Scanning the full page story I see a sidebar with a history of failure at a glance:

1991: Madrid
1993: Oslo
1998: Wye River
2000: Camp David
2001: Taba (Egypt)
2002: Road Map for Peace
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:29 PM

 
TiVo coming to Canada

Financial Post has the story.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:56 AM

 
The 'marriage' card

Andrew C. McCarthy at The Corner:

"I am a declared Rudy guy who likes Mitt, so I'm not enjoying the cross-fire. But after reading Byron's piece, I gotta say I'm surprised — and offended — that Mitt claims voters are worried about a candidate who has “been married more than once.”

Like Ronald Reagan, I've been married twice. So have a lot of people. It's to his great credit and good fortune that Mitt found the right person at a young age and has obviously enjoyed an enduring, wonderful marriage. But, y'know, Bill Clinton's only been married once, too. Does Mitt really think there is upside in playing this game? I think he's gonna turn off many more people than he'll appeal to. It's not the sort of thing people base their vote on, but I liked him less after reading it than I did before."

Ditto everything from the 'declared Rudy guy who likes Mitt' through to liking him less after the marriage criticism except the part about being married twice.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:41 AM

 
I didn't know this and don't know what to make of it

Former NWA and WCW champion Ric Flair has endorsed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Flair, one of my favourite wrestlers when I used to watch wrestling, portrayed a cheater in the ring and a womanizing and high-living character out of it. Now he's endorsed the man portrayed as the most socially conservative among the top or near-top tier candidates. Flair has always been a Republican but I assumed that he was more of a fiscal conservative, which Huckabee definitely is not. While this does not make me any more likely to support Huckabee, it does force me to rethink my youthful enthusiasm for Flair's wrestling persona.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:18 AM

 
Ridiculous Toronto Sun headline

From the deadtree version, on top of an AP story: "First step toward peace." How many first steps have there been?
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:55 AM

 
A knock against Romney

As Deroy Murdock points out on NRO, Mitt Romney's 'Laxachusetts' record is soft on crime. Murdock, and Rudy Giuliani are both making a lot of a Romney judicial appointment, but one appointment (even if it is this year's Willie Horton), even if made for horrible political reasons, is just one appointment. The stats, however, paint a more complete picture:

"While it’s tricky to compare a four-year governorship with an eight-year mayoralty, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics illuminate Romney’s and Giuliani’s records on law and order. While murders grew 7.5 percent in Massachusetts during Romney’s 2002-2006 gubernatorial term, they plunged 66.7 percent across Giuliani’s two mayoral terms (1993–2001). Burglaries rose 5.8 percent under Romney and slid 68.2 percent under Giuliani. While robberies climbed 12.3 percent on Romney’s watch, Giuliani supervised a 67.2 percent reduction in robberies. As Romney saw a 32.5 percent reversal in motor-vehicle theft, such crimes cratered 73.3 percent under Giuliani. Overall, Romney’s crime index fell 8.2 percent, while Giuliani’s tumbled 56.1 percent."

There were other factors, of course, including Giuliani's determination to bring crime in the Big Apple under control, but the numbers say something. Probably about Giuliani's determination to bring crime under control.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:46 AM

 
The Annapolis farce

The teaser for Andrew C. McCarthy's NRO piece says it all: "I wonder what we’d be saying if president behind this farce were named Clinton." More seriously, McCarthy says:

"Seduced by the fantasy of peace-loving Palestinians, the president and his top diplomats have made creation of a sovereign state for these blood-soaked jihadists the bedrock of our Middle East policy — thus undercutting any credibility the Bush Doctrine may have had. Remarkably, the State Department tells the New York Times that its game-plan for the farce is to commit both Israel and the Palestinians “to carry out long-postponed obligations included in the first stage of the 2003 peace plan known as the road map.” On the Palestinian side, the primary obligation was to end terrorism. That’s precisely the same promise the terror master and Palestinian founder Yasser Arafat gave to President Clinton after the first and before the second Intifada.

The promise is never meant and never kept because it cannot be. At the existential core of Palestinian identity is the belief that Israel — the 'Zionist entity' — is an illegitimate interloper which must be purged from Muslim land. So ingrained is this conceit that, in reality, the Palestinians are not even attending the farce. The terrorist organization they knowingly and willfully elected to represent them, Hamas, is boycotting Annapolis as a waste of time, a diversion from the jihad."

Well said and all true. There is no one who can really, honestly, doubt any of this. They may pretend it isn't true or even that it doesn't matter, but they cannot deny the reality of the situation in the Middle East: one side wants the other destroyed and the side that is fighting for its survival refuses to commit suicide. There is no negotiation possible between these two 'extremes' of destruction and survival. One of those extremes is entirely justified and America (and others) are wrong to even suggest negotiation with any group that doesn't accept Israel's existence. I would not have a problem negotiating with Palestinians who do accept Israel's right to exist, but the problem is that they are not the problem; these Palestinians are not killing Israelis or obstructing a peaceful settlement. These peaceful Palestinians can be held up as models of what Palestinian leadership ought to be, but they don't matter. The killers do and there is no negotiation with them. And because the existential battle is with the terrorists, there is little point in negotiating with others.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:34 AM

 
The former flower child

Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun continues his look at Hillary Clinton's radical past -- which she is trying to forget (or at least wishes others would, including her enemies and erstwhile enemies):

"After Hillary Clinton clerked in the summer of 1971 at an Oakland, Calif., law firm run by attorneys with ties to the Communist Party, she never returned to work there. But she stayed in touch with one of the firm's partners and his wife, and they stayed in touch with her, until they died. The decades-long correspondence illustrates the complicated relationship between Mrs. Clinton and radical activists who were often frustrated by the failure of Mrs. Clinton and her husband to side with them."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:17 AM

 
Largest military build-ups

Foreign Policy online has the list: United States, Red China, Venezuela, South Africa and India. This little fact -- or as CNN calls them, factoid -- is interesting and troubling: "In May 2006, the Bolivian president agreed to construct as many as 24 new military bases in Bolivia with Venezuelan assistance—despite objections from Chile, Paraguay, and Peru." Why does Bolivia need 24 new military bases? And does this not represent a build-up of Bolivia's armed forces, rather than Venezuela's? And if it doesn't, isn't that even a bigger issue?
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:09 PM

 
Plants and animals have died off before due to global warming

This from Scientific American online is about a month old but still worth noting:

"Roughly 251 million years ago, an estimated 70 percent of land plants and animals died, along with 84 percent of ocean organisms—an event known as the end Permian extinction. The cause is unknown but it is known that this period was also an extremely warm one. A new analysis of the temperature and fossil records over the past 520 million years reveals that the end of the Permian is not alone in this association: global warming is consistently associated with planetwide die-offs."

Consistently? So man isn't always to blame. In fact, it can be said to be 'natural.' And considering that global warming scary-pants are often Darwinoids, shouldn't they be unworried about the natural selection of species in regard to climate change: those that die off 'deserve' to die because they can't cope with the change. Those that do survive are, well, the fittest and all is right in the world.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:58 AM

 
Anglos should have a looksy at the ADQ

So says Peter G. White in the Montreal Gazette:

"As one who has closely followed Quebec politics since 1960, I am delighted to have the option of voting for a party that is neither Liberal nor separatist. For most of the last 30 years, Quebec anglophones have generally felt obliged to vote Liberal, as this was the only alternative to the Parti Québécois.

Not surprisingly, this meant that the Quebec Liberal Party tended to take its anglophone support for granted, knowing that they had nowhere else to go. I distinctly remember my shock when Liberal premier Robert Bourassa was unfazed by the resignation of anglophone ministers over his invocation of the notwithstanding clause in 1988, and did nothing to prevent it. Since then anglophone representation in Liberal cabinets, once an iron law of Quebec politics, has been iffy at best.

Anglophones are constantly reminded that Mario Dumont supported the Yes side in the 1995 Quebec referendum. True, he did - at the age of 25. Soon after, he called for a 10-year moratorium on independence referendums, and more recently he has defined his party's constitutional policy as favouring the 'autonomy' of Quebec - meaning Quebec's unfettered right to legislate within its constitutionally assigned areas of exclusive jurisdiction, without federal interference. This is a policy with which many other Canadian premiers would wholeheartedly agree."

So Mario Dumont and his Action démocratique du Québec is "neither strongly federalist nor strongly separatist," but nationalist -- like most Quebecers. And on the size of government, the ADQ is better than its two major rivals, the Parti Quebecois and Liberal Party of Quebec:

"Another permanent issue in Quebec politics is the role of the state in society. On this point, the ADQ is marginally to the right of the other two parties. The PQ is openly statist, and the Liberals are somewhere in the middle. Here again, many Quebec voters agree that taxes are too high, and the government is too big and inefficient. It is not necessary for the ADQ to be very far to the right to be different from the other parties."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:47 AM

 
Cures that don't fix

The Montreal Gazette condemns Quebec Premier Jean Charest 'action plan' to help manufacturers:

"Details were few, and the government did acknowledge that Canadian and international accords limit the bias it can show in favour of local suppliers. But the government buys about $33 billion worth of goods and services per year, and any arbitrary measure that pushes that figure higher will prove to be bad, not good, for the economy of Quebec as a whole.

What a boondoggle! 'Local economic benefits' often melt like May snow when studied carefully. Promises are often untethered to reality, so that 'benefits' end up not in the general economy but in the pockets of fast-talking corporations. This is a recipe for inefficiency and abuse.

Too many aspects of this whole 'action plan' are just political pump-priming. Why doesn't Charest just meet manufacturers and factory workers in hotel rooms and hand them envelopes full of cash for their votes? That would at least reduce the bureaucratic costs of all these new modes of meddling in the economy."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:35 AM

 
Hillary's Summer of love

Josh Gerstein's New York Sun article on "Hillary Clinton's radical summer," clerking for a California law firm that defended, among other clients, Black Panthers including Huey Newton:

"In a life marked largely by political caution, one entry on Senator Clinton's résumé stands out: her clerkship in 1971 at one of America's most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in 1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and labeled as one of America's most 'dangerously subversive' lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the unabashedly left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency. To the former first lady's enemies and political opponents, her summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life."

Notably, this was all known in 1992 and the Republicans didn't use it:

"The new collection of Mitford's letters indicates that Republican political operatives knew about Mrs. Clinton's work at Treuhaft's firm months before the 1992 election, but apparently chose not to raise it despite her prominence in her husband's presidential campaign."

But, worry some of her former flower child colleagues, this youthful '60s idealism might be dead:

"Mr. [Malcolm] Burnstein said he also detected a clear change in Mrs. Clinton's political outlook after she faced real-world campaigning with her husband. 'The Hillary that clerked for us that summer is not the Hillary that ran for the Senate and is not the Hillary that was in the White House for eight years. The politics were noticeably different,' Mr. Burnstein said. 'The Hillary of 1971 was much more idealistic and progressive in the sense we would use the term today than the Hillary we saw after her exposure to politics in Arkansas'."

It is all worth reading. Another Sun story looks at Hillary shacking up with Bill after just a month of dating.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:09 AM

 
Ian Smith remembered

Publius at Gods of the Copybook Headings has a balanced and thus sympathetic view of the late Rhodesian prime minister Ian Smith.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:46 AM

 
The Palestinian-Israel issue

Con Coughlin writes in today's Sunday Telegraph, "the Palestinian and Israeli delegations were not even able to agree a joint declaration that might be used as a framework for the discussions." To repeat: can't even come up with a joint declaration that might be used as a framework for discussions. That tells you a lot. The word futility comes to mind.

Coughlin also says:

"... President George W Bush, who finally seems to have overcome his well-documented aversion to becoming embroiled in an issue that has defied the diplomatic resources of successive American presidents for four decades."

Wouldn't that actually be something worth congratulating Bush for. If presidents over four decades have wasted (for that is what all that time and effort without result has been -- a waste), shouldn't Bush be applauded for not expending time and effort on an issue that seems to have no solution. Instead of saying that Bush didn't care about the issue, perhaps he had the humility to know what can, and can't, be achieved.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:37 AM

 
Booze and politics

The Edmonton Journal reports that Sukhi Randhawa lost the Edmonton-Ellerslie nomination to Naresh Bhardwaj. Randhawa's name might be familiar -- and it it isn't, the Journal reminds you why it should be: "Randhawa was chosen as the Tory candidate for Edmonton-Gold Bar three years ago, but stepped down about two months before the election after volunteers for his campaign were reported to have given cigarettes and booze to people who lived on the street, then bused them to the nomination meeting." Apparently, it is wrong to buy votes to get nominated as a candidate, but not wrong to buy votes to get re-elected once in office (how else to explain most social programs, including universal health care?).

What is interesting is how prevalent alcohol is in politics. People would be amazed to know how much politicians spend on 'hospitality' at conventions and such. (This includes getting elected in good-sized organizations. According to lore, a Knights of Columbus candidate for an Ontario-wide office once lost because he didn't serve booze at his convention hospitality suite. And for most KofC provincial candidates, the largest expense is often alcohol for the state convention.) Anyway, the booze is not reserved for conventions -- or adults. During the 1990 provincial campaign, the Tories got a van full of high school students to campaign in Toronto from a small southwestern town with the promise of beer after the events were done. The students got drunk and suspended (it was a school day), and the NDP won a majority. Take whatever lesson you want, but there seems to be a decidedly mixed record whether alcohol and politics mix.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:14 AM

 
Will latest to write Gersonism out of the conservative movement

The Washington Post's George F. Will tackles colleague Michael Gerson's 'Heroric Conservatism' in today's column:

"His task of vivifying his concept by concrete examples is simplified by the fact that he thinks the Bush administration has been heroically conservative while expanding the welfare state and trying to export democracy...

Gerson, an evangelical Christian, makes 'compassion' the defining attribute of political heroism. But compassion is a personal feeling, not a public agenda. To act compassionately is to act to prevent or ameliorate pain and distress. But if there is, as Gerson suggests, a categorical imperative to do so, two things follow. First, politics is reduced to right-mindedness -- to having good intentions arising from noble sentiments -- and has an attenuated connection with results. Second, limited government must be considered uncompassionate, because the ways to prevent or reduce stress are unlimited.

'We have a responsibility,' President Bush said on Labor Day 2003, 'that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.' That is less a compassionate thought than a flaunting of sentiment to avoid thinking about government's limited capacities and unlimited confidence.

Conservatism is a political philosophy concerned with collective aspirations and actions. But conservatism teaches that benevolent government is not always a benefactor. Conservatism's task is to distinguish between what government can and cannot do, and between what it can do but should not."

Will then tackles 'national greatness conservatism' and Teddy Roosevelt -- other variants and individuals who are not really that conservative.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:03 AM

 
Your how to guide to hosting your own Grey Cup party

1) Invite all your friends who are CFL fans.

2) Watch the New England Patriots destroy the Philadelphia Eagles instead.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:53 AM

 
A thought about Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber

I should note that the real scandal is the limitations we put on money in politics and our hang-ups about buying politicians. I find absolutely nothing wrong with paying a former politician to lobby a government that follows. But Mulroney received money before he left office, you might protest. That is a little more controversial, but I still think people should be allowed to buy politicians -- candidates and office-holders -- as long as it is all in the open. If particular companies or special interest groups have paid millions to a cabinet minister, that can be part of the pool of knowledge that the public takes into account when making up its collective mind about a government, a policy or an individual. If five pharmaceutical companies have paid the health minister a million bucks each, Canadians can make a better judgement about the health minister through the lens of our view about pharmaceutical companies. It is just like campaign financing; the more information the better and some of the best information we could get is to know who specific companies, causes and individuals are supporting.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:47 AM

 
Why you shouldn't marry a business student or an economist

Charlie Cooper, a student at the University of Chicago Business School, writes in the school's newspaper about his marriage this past summer. He describes how he came up with the idea to securitize his wedding, which is a more advanced version of how Italians do weddings.

He explains how he came to his decision:

"While planning the wedding I observed two things:

1) In today's world, even a standard, no frills wedding is very costly. There is the reception site, food and catering charges, band, flowers, the photographer, videographers, dresses, The Dress, groomsmen's gifts, hair- dos, make-up ladies, tuxedos and so on and so on ad nauseum.

2) In addition to paying to get themselves to and from Syracuse, NY and spending the night in a hotel room, guests feel obliged to buy us wedding gifts. Each guest is under the traditional impression that they must buy us Cuisinarts, toasters, china, and new bedding.

I view these two observations as a high cost for both the host of the wedding (Bride, Groom and families), as well as the guests (friends and families). Tremendous cost being incurred by these 2 parties simultaneously…hmmmmm. Like a good GSBer, I just had to ask… "Why have a market in which all parties lose or forfeit some capital? Would it be possible to use one party's costs to offset the other? Was my wedding some bizarre economic transaction in which everyone is a buyer? There could be no market this way." From my point of view, this is what was happening."

So he came up with a way for the guests to pay for the weddding:

"[W]e could add all our liabilities to together, split them up into shares and sell them to the guests. The end result being that all caterers, photographers, servers, florists etc. get paid and all guests feel as though they contributed to the wedding, as though they bought us a gift. The wedding could become self financing. It even would have returns to scale, the more people we invited, the bigger the wedding we could have."

The benefit:

"The guests are buyers and the service providers are sellers. All parties are left having purchased something that they find worth their money...

The guests all get to buy gifts. The service providers all make a living. The bride and groom get married without debt."

An example of how it all works:

"If we tranched it the right way, for her $150 wedding gift Aunt Betty would get a share of our nuptials worth 1/66th of the florist and 3/73rd of the photographer. For $75.00, Cousin Andy, who under traditional wedding market rules would have given to us our gravy boat, now gets to purchase 4% of the band, 2 steak dinners and 1/10th of the shrimp display. The tranching allows everyone to feel as though s/he gave us a gift and the gift givers get the added benefit of enjoying what they purchased. Ordinarily, cousin Andy would not get to eat out of the gravy boat he purchased whereas now, he gets utility from eating and listening to his own gift."

The only problem was the bride. She wasn't buying it. The idea of securitizing their wedding, that is.

(HT: New York Sun's Economics of the Web column)
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:26 AM

 
Stormtrooper dances on street in Tokyo

Here.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:05 AM

 
Readability of various websites

Passport, the blog of Foreign Policy magazine, noted this website that determines the level of education needed to read a blog or other website. The results are interesting:

"What about the readability level of some other popular Web sites out there? New York Times (junior high school), Washington Post (high school), Financial Times (genius), Economist (genius), Arms Control Wonk (college undergrad), Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish (high school), Daniel Drezner's blog (high school), the State Department's Dipnote (high school), and the Huffington Post (junior high school).

And the readability of the home pages of presidential candidates? Here are a few: Hillary Clinton (elementary school), Rudy Giuliani (genius), Barack Obama (genius), Mitt Romney (elementary school), John Edwards (genius! His blog, however, is at junior high-school level), John McCain (junior high school)."

For the record, Sobering Thoughts' reading level is 'high school'.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:18 AM

 
Thanksgiving: Thank God for private property

John Stossel:

"When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort...

What private property does -- as the Pilgrims discovered -- is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there's a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

Secure property rights are the key. When producers know that their future products are safe from confiscation, they will take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

That's the lost lesson of Thanksgiving."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:59 PM

 
I have no comment (II)

Five Feet of Fury notes this from ABC News: ""Lee Harvey Oswald would never have had the chance to kill Kennedy in Dallas, had an assassination plot in Chicago succeeded three weeks earlier..."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:48 PM

 
I have no comment

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution notes that Washington DC assistant police chief Alfred Durham defended the District's 31-year-old handgun ban thusly: "The ban on handguns is a matter of life and death because 80% of the murders in DC are caused by handguns."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:43 PM

 
Environmentalism won't be easy

Michael Maniates, professor of political science and environmental science at Allegheny College, writes in the Washington Post that everyone from Al Gore to American Association for the Advancement of Science to popular environmentalists and environmental websites sell the idea that living green is easy and painless; but that isn't true. Maniates says:

"The hard facts are these: If we sum up the easy, cost-effective, eco-efficiency measures we should all embrace, the best we get is a slowing of the growth of environmental damage. That's hardly enough: Avoiding the worst risks of climate change, for instance, may require reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent in the next 30 years while invoking the moral authority such reductions would confer to persuade China, India and other booming nations to embrace similar restraint. Obsessing over recycling and installing a few special light bulbs won't cut it. We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss."

Considering that the technology isn't there to allow us to reduce our energy use without reducing our economic activities, are you ready to reduce your electricity use by 80%, to drive 80% less? In short, are to willing to significantly reduce your standard of living? If you are like most people, probably not, which is why environmentalists suggest that recycling and changing the kind of light bulbs we use are all that is needed to ensure a sound environmental future.

Again, Maniates:

"Surely we must do the easy things: They slow the damage and themselves become enabling symbols of empathy for future generations. But we cannot permit our leaders to sell us short. To stop at "easy" is to say that the best we can do is accept an uninspired politics of guilt around a parade of uncoordinated individual action. What of the power and exhilaration that comes from working with others toward bold possibilities for the future? What of present sacrifice for future gain?

The time for easy is over. We're grown-ups who understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices. We're ready for frank talk about how we best confront -- in ways rewarding, confusing, creative and hard -- the planetary emergency before us."

I don't buy the line of environmentalists: 1) that climate change is man-made, 2) that climate change is by definition an unmitigated bad thing, 3) that even if it were man-made and problematic, that the cost to address climate change is necessarily worth paying. What I admire about Maniates is that he is one of the few environmentalists who admit that the cost of addressing climate change in a way that will make a difference will not be insignificant.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:09 PM

 
Why the Mulroney-Schreiber stuff doesn't stick to the Harper government

From Greg Staples:

"Here's the deal (as I see it), Canadians already punished Mulroney and his brand of Progressive Conservatives by reducing them to two seats in 1993 and ultimately setting up the conditions were the party was disolved. Mulroney is not well regarded in the hearts and minds of Canadians and this scandal can't make Canadians like him less than they already do. And key to all of this that during Mulroney's time in government Stephen Harper was a key member of the Reform Party - a movement derived from anti-Mulroneyism. But go ahead Liberals, kick the disgraced leader of a defunct party, a man who will always be down, all while the Conservatives kick your current leader while he is down."

Everyone knows that Stephen Harper, despite his new-found respect for Brian Mulroney (and his ilk), was a vocal critic of the Mulroney government when it was in power, and he belonged to The Reform Party that grew, in part, in opposition to the PCs' corruption. This speaks to something that most Canadians understand, yet few pundits admit: the Conservative Party of 2007 is really the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance, not the Progressive Conservative Party. As such, you can't pin the Mulroney Tory corruption on Harper and the current Conservatives.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:31 PM

 
The biggest issue in education today

The New York Times headline: "Colleges Shaken by Soaring Cost of Birth Control."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:12 PM

 
Funniest thing I've seen in a long time

This.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:45 PM

 
On Mailer

A little late, but then again, good writing is always timely. David Gelertner looks at the literary output of Norman Mailer:

"For Norman Mailer, writing came easily, but not good writing--and that fact underlies his literary career. He had no facility, and like Cézanne, achieved greatness by a ferocious effort that made every sentence electric. Of course, for Mailer to write something great (or even good) was like bench-pressing 300 pounds: He was rarely up to it, or rarely bothered ... He was a victim of his own premature fame and his lust for celebrity. It's an old story: He blew his horn so loudly and often that when he finally produced novels worth celebrating, the party was over and everyone had gone home...

It's true, of course, that Mailer had the disconcerting habit of regularly issuing awful books; his career was as poorly edited as his novels. His Picasso biography (1995) was bad enough, but his retelling of the Gospel story (1997) was so inept it is painful even to think about. As a prominent American he did little for America; as a prominent Jew he did little for the Jews. But at his best he was as funny as Philip Roth, as lyrically evocative as John Updike, as thoughtful and profoundly observant as Saul Bellow -- and at his very best was better than any of them."
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:53 PM

 
Does this improve or hurt Kucinich's chances?

Examiner.com reports:

"[Larry] Flynt was one of the co-hosts of a fundraiser for liberal candidate Dennis Kucinich at the headquarters of his company, Hustler-LFP, in Los Angeles.

Flynt, an Ohio native like Kucinich, told the adult-industry Web site Xbiz.com, 'I support Dennis Kucinich because not only have I been a friend of his for 40 years, but I believe he offers an essential, viable and exciting option to the candidates that are more popular at the moment'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:49 PM

 
The future can't be childless

Vincent Ciaccio, spokesperson and director of strategic planning for No Kidding!, writes in the Los Angeles Times:

"First off, No Kidding! as an organization continues to prosper. We currently have 50 chapters in five countries (including a recently added chapter in China), and last month we held our sixth annual No Kidding! convention in Las Vegas. We continue to be contacted by childfree individuals from around the world, and we have no doubt that more chapters will be formed as time goes on.

That said, No Kidding! is no longer the only game in town for childfree people. The Internet has made it much easier to find like-minded people of any persuasion compared to 1984, the year No Kidding! was founded. For example, to be affiliated with No Kidding!, chapters must be open to both men and women; I am aware of at least one social club which is just for childfree women. The Internet has also facilitated virtual meetings of childfree people. More than a few childfree message boards and groups have formed and thrived over the past few years. To say the childfree are demoralized would be far from the truth."

And the movement is going to become more politically active and self-conciously child-free:

"The time may come when childfree PACs form, but it hasn't happened yet...

[I]n the past year alone, we have been represented in discussions about voluntary sterilization, the environment, the cost of having kids (and whether or not it's 'worth it'), and the relative importance of children to marriage. Companies are beginning to target the childfree as a consumer segment, and employers are responding to our needs with the implementation of cafeteria-style benefits plans. On the whole, I feel things are actually moving quite swiftly. As more people realize that parenthood is optional rather than being mandatory, I predict our visibility in society will rise even further.

Taking these facts into consideration, what are the implications for our social and political culture? On the debates regarding the environment, child tax credits, public-school funding? Honestly, I can't say."

This might be fine for individuals (although I think women are wired for motherhood, the attempt to change the societal construct notwithstanding), but obviously a bad idea for a society that wants to sustain itself.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:59 PM

 
Somalia is the new Darfur

The New York Times reports that Somalia is becoming a worse humanitarian disaster than Darfur. I guess that means that it can look forward to caring words from the UN backed up by more words, but little action.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:55 PM

 
National League MVP award

Today, the last major baseball award will be handed out, the National League MVP, and it will be one of the more interesting because it is fairly wide-open with no clear winner, but several deserving players and a few voters will consider worthy of the honour.

Matt Holliday helped lead the Colorado Rockies to the post-season with his 340/405/607 line and 36 homers, 137 ribbies and 120 runs. He is atrocious in the field -- Manny Ramirez bad. He was a great player and it is unimaginable that the Rox would have made the playoffs without him. By both measures -- performance and value to a successful team -- Holliday would be a fine pick. However, his 75.0 VORP was good for only fourth in the NL, and by some distance.

The NL VORP leader, by some margin, was Florida Marlins SS Hanley Ramirez, with a 89.5. His 332/386/562 line, with 29 HRs, 81 RBIs and 51 SB, is extremely impressive for a middle infielder, even if his defense at a vital defensive position is awful. (He'll be moved to another position in a year or so.) His low RBI and HR totals, his lousy glove, and the fact the Marlins finished with the second worst record in the NL (71-91) mean he is unlikely to win the award; that, and the fact that a decent case could be made that 3B Miguel Cabrera was the better Marlin (320/401/565, 34 HRs, 119 RBIs, 71.4 VORP). I don't think that a player can be the league's MVP if he is not clearly the best player on the team or his team finishes near the bottom of the heap.

The most interesting question is how to rate the three great players on the NL East winning Philadelphia Phillies: SS Jimmy Rollins, 2B Chase Utley and 1B Ryan Howard. The fact that the Phillies have three infield superstars hurts their chances of winning. Utley put up terrific numbers for a 2B: 332/410/566, 22 homers, 103 ribbies, with good defense. His 68.8 VORP was good enough for 8th in the NL among position players. Right behind him was Gold Glove-winning SS Jimmy Rollins (66.1 VORP on 296/344/531, 30 HRs, 94 RBIs, 139 runs, and 41 SBs in 47 attempts). That's a phenomenal season regardless of position, but something truly special from a shortstop. 1B Ryan Howard is not great with the glove but he has a frightening bat: 268/392/584, 47 HRs, 136 RBIs, 53.6 VORP (11th among position players in the NL). That is a great assemblance of talent and the Phillies also had Gold Glove-winning CF Aaron Rowland (309/374/515, with 27 HRs) and LF Pat Burrell (256/400/502, 30 HRs, 97 RBIs). Some MVP voters will look at the talent on this team and find it difficult to put one of them at the top of the ballot, but Rollins and Utley deserve to be there.

Altanta Braves 3B Chipper Jones quietly put together a great season: 337/425/604, 29 HRs, 102 RBIs, 108 runs, 42 2Bs, passable defense and a 76.0 VORP (fourth in the NL, third among position players). His 1.029 OPS was first in the NL. The knock against Jones is his team's 84-78 finish, but without Jones the Braves would not have remained competitive so deep into the season. Few players could be considered more valuable to his team than Jones to the Braves.

Milwaukee Brewers sophomore Prince Fielder had a great year, I'm just not sure it was an MVP season. Good overall numbers: 288/395/618, 119 RBIs, and a league-leading 50 HRs. His 69.1 VORP was seventh in the league. It's an impressive year, but considering that the Brewers finished two games behind the Central Division leading Chicago Cubs and his significantly lower VORP, the case for Fielder is not as strong as his 50 HRs might suggest.

If the New York Mets had maintained their early September lead, David Wright would probably win the MVP easily. He played great defense at 3B and was a great hitter: 325/416/546, 30 HRs, 117 RBIs, 30 SBs, 81.1 VORP. He is as complete a player as there is -- average, power, patience, speed and defense -- and he should win some significant hardware in the future, but he will be penalized this year because his team faded down the stretch (although he did not, finishing the season with a 17-game hitting streak, raising his batting average eight points and his OPS 23 points). The Mets also have two other great players (CF Carlos Beltran and SS Jose Reyes) that might syphon votes from their team-mate. If the Mets made the post-season, all three could have finished in the top ten.

St. Louis Cardinals 1B Albert Pujols had another great year although he slipped a notch compared to 2006 and 2005: 327/429/568, 32 HRs, 103 RBIs, 99 runs and 99 walks and just 58 Ks. His 72.1 VORP was good for fifth in the NL among position players and he plays good defense for a player of his size. But his team's sub-500 showing and his (relatively) low number of HRs will cost him votes. Interestingly, if Pujols doesn't place better than fifth, it will be the first time in his career (fourth, second, second, fourth, first and second). I just can't see him cracking the top four.

The Cubs have three guys who will get down-ballot votes -- 1B Derrek Lee, 3B Aramis Ramirez and LF Alfonso Soriano -- but none deserve to get 1st through 5th place votes. The San Diego Padres might be represented by pitching triple crown and Cy Young winner Jake Peavy in the MVP sweepstakes (77 VORP), but he won't be on the top-half of many (any?) ballots; he would if the Padres didn't implode down the stretch. The Arizona Diamondbacks won the NL West but their best player is Cy Young runner-up Brandon Webb (66.1 VORP); my guess is that good but hardly great (let alone MVP) outfielder Eric Brynes will garner more votes, but he doesn't deserve them (286/353/460, 21 HRs, 83 RBIs, 35.2 VORP).

My prediction: Rollins and Holliday battle it out for first, with Prince Fielder and Chipper Jones edging out Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, and David Wright in a tight race for third and fourth; Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera round out the top ten unless Peavy can break through.

My votes would go to (in order) Utley, Wright, Holliday, Jones, Rollins, and Hanley Ramirez. If San Diego made the playoffs, Peavy would get a top three vote from me. Preference should be given to vastly superior performances on teams that made the post-season. But Wright is such a fantastic all-around player and Jones is so much better than anyone else on his team by an order of magnitude that they deserve top-ballot consideration.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:15 AM

 
A-Rod near unanimous choice for AL MVP

Alex Rodriguez got 26 of 28 first-place votes for American League MVP. ESPN.com reports that "The only two first-place votes that didn’t go to Rodriguez were from Tom Gage of The Detroit News and Jim Hawkins of The Oakland Press in Pontiac, Mich."

I said yesterday that A-Rod deserved to be the unanimous winner but that either Detroit Tigers outfielder Magglio Ordonez or Los Angeles Angels outfielder Vladimir Guerrero would get at least one first-place vote. That two Detroit-area writers would vote for the local star, Ordonez, is predictable but that doesn't make those votes any more offensive and lamentable.

I also don't understand how one voter left David Ortiz off the ballot completely, or how three baseball writers could not scribble down Jorge Posada's name.

UPDATE: Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus explains exactly how valuable Alex Rodriguez is.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:48 PM

 
The behemoth that is Goldman Sachs

The New York Times has a great article on Goldman Sachs that is worth reading if you are at all into business, economics or politics. The number of political appointments that have been executives at the reknowned investment bank:

"Robert E. Rubin, a former Goldman head, is the new chairman of Citigroup. In Washington, another former chief, Henry M. Paulson Jr., is the Treasury secretary, having been recruited by Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff and yet another former Goldman executive.

The heads of the Canadian and Italian central banks are Goldman alumni. The World Bank president, Robert B. Zoellick, is another. Jon S. Corzine, once a co-chairman, is the governor of New Jersey. And in academia, Robert S. Kaplan, a former vice chairman, has just been picked as the interim head of Harvard University’s $35 billion endowment."

Some other interesting facts.

How big is Goldman Sachs? This big:

"Money soothes a lot of concerns, of course, and Goldman has had plenty to spread around. Through the third quarter, Goldman’s $16.9 billion compensation pool — the money it sets aside to pay its employees — was significantly bigger than the entire $11.4 billion market capitalization of Bear Stearns."

And the key to their success:

"Goldman executives and analysts assign much of their success to smart people and a relatively flat hierarchy that encourages executives to challenge one another. As a result, good ideas can get to the top.

But the differentiator that has become clearest recently is the firm’s ability to manage its risks, a tricky task for any bank. Checks and balances must be in place to turn off a business spigot even as it is still making a lot of money for a lot of people. In a world where power gravitates to the rainmakers, that means only management can empower the party crashers.

At Goldman, the controller’s office — the group responsible for valuing the firm’s huge positions — has 1,100 people, including 20 Ph.D.’s. If there is a dispute, the controller is always deemed right unless the trading desk can make a convincing case for an alternate valuation. The bank says risk managers swap jobs with traders and bankers over a career and can be paid the same multimillion-dollar salaries as investment bankers."

And for sports fans:

"[T]wo Goldman managing directors helped bring Alex Rodriguez back to the Yankees, a deal that could enhance the value of Goldman’s 40 percent stake in the YES cable network — which it is trying to sell — while also pleasing Yankee fans. The symmetry was perfect: like the Yankees, Goldman, more than any other bank on Wall Street, is both hated and revered."
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:24 PM

 
Just a thought

Last night I was channel flipping and accidentally saw thirty seconds of the Democratic debate. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was talking about Israel, the Palestinians and the issue of Israel's borders. And then I had a thought: what the hell is this? Imagine the outrage among Americans if candidates for a major party in another country decided to outline their views on America's borders. Would the public in any country stand for this? The arrogance -- not just of Richardson, but most Western politicians and pundits -- in even having a view of Israel's borders is astounding.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:43 PM

 
The Clinton narrative changes

A month ago the predominant story, from the Globe and Mail to The Economist to most American newspapers, was the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's Democratic nomination. Now the predominant story is that the Democratic race is tightening. The herd of independent minds that covers politics gallop along.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:36 PM

 
The local food racket

From Tim Harford in Forbes:

"[I]s there a compelling reason to eat local food?

Local is the new organic. If you believe the hype, every environmentally minded, socially conscientious shopper should be buying food from local farms. We are meant to fret about the vast distances traveled in airplanes by Kenyan beans or Chilean grapes. The movement uses the censorious label 'food miles,' designed to echo “air miles.”

But the hard facts point in a different direction: We do not actually eat much frequent-flyer food, and when we do it causes less damage than the local food movement suggests. In fact, buying local food is simply a lifestyle choice--not the difference between environmental salvation or damnation."

Harford creates a wonderful term for environmentalists who insist on locally grown food: locavores. What he doesn't create is the data that shows that British grocery buyers, who probably are not very different from North American shoppers, do not eat a lot of food flown-in from exotic locales. Here are some specifics:

"According to local food campaigners, flying a bunch of grapes from Chile to Vermont, or a pack of green beans from Kenya to London, emits four to six times the food’s weight in carbon dioxide, a gas that is a major contributor to climate change.

That sounds bad. Is it? Economists have tried hard to work out how much these carbon dioxide emissions are likely to cost us in terms of severe weather, rising sea levels, a climate that disrupts agriculture, and so on. It is necessarily an uncertain task. But the most reasonable judgment is that flying fresh food around the planet carries an environmental cost of no more than a few cents per meal. That sounds astonishing, but perhaps it shouldn’t be. Those Chilean grapes aren’t flying first class: They’re packed tight to save money, which incidentally saves on pollution. The most wasteful part of the journey is when you and I hop in our cars and drive to the shops and back with a bag of potato chips in the trunk of the car."

Harford should have noted that the least environmentally friendly part of your groceries -- your drive to the store -- depends not a lick from where the groceries originate. That means unless the locally bought foods are grown in the backyard, the trip to get them causes as much global warming as Kenyan coffee or Chilean grapes. So enjoy whatever you eat, from wherever it comes, guilt-free. At least when it comes to the environment.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:22 PM

 
Can the Sister Souljah talk

In Slate, David Greenberg says that Senator Barack Obama might be too charming, intelligent and principled for politics. Fine. I don't find his disingenuity charming, I don't confuse his vacuousness for intellectual loftiness, or see his pandering to various constituencies by saying to various special interests to their faces what he says all the time anyway as highly principled. Obama is not suited for politics, but not because he's above it.

Anyway, the article begins by listing various political positions (merit pay for teachers, more fuel efficient cars) that Obama states in front of unlikely audiences (teachers unions and automakers) and wondering why he high-mindedness doesn't score points:

"Never mind that none of these positions is terribly controversial, even among liberal Democrats. In touting these acts of supposed rebellion, Obama isn't really seeking to stake out dangerous ground; he's trying to score points for appearing to brave powerful constituencies on behalf of a larger common good. Telling Detroit to go green may (or may not) bruise him in the Michigan primary, but overall it will help him much more by buffing his aura as a truth-teller and healer.

Pundits call these gestures "Sister Souljah" moments, in honor of Bill Clinton's 1992 speech before the Rainbow Coalition blasting the rapper for seeming to advocate black-on-white violence."

Okay, okay, wait a minute. Pundits like to talk about Sister Souljah moments, but 1) the first one was only a big deal because a friendly media played into Bill Clinton's hands and 2) the original Sister Souljah moment worked because it wasn't expected. It can't be duplicated and trying to make it happen, as candidates and the media that covers them both desire, isn't going to work.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:05 PM

 
Take that bitch

Norman Podhoretz responds to Andrew Sullivan:

"I do not usually bother responding to Sullivan’s frequent attacks on me, which are fueled by the same shrill hysteria that, as has often been pointed out, deforms most of what he 'dishes' out on a daily basis. But in this case I have decided to respond because, by linking to a sober source like the Economist, he may for a change seem credible."

One wishes that Podhoretz's career as a literary critic took off.

And as an extra bonus, a commenter takes on The Economist:

"Just because The Economist is dry and boring doesn’t mean that it is sober. While it does a good job of covering world politics, its commentary and analysis are trite, pedestrian and do not deviate from conventional (i.e. repeated) wisdom. There is very little original thought in the analysis pieces. But in reading the ponderous prose, you might overlook that fact as your eyes glaze over."

The Economist has interesting articles on science, business and economics, but its analysis is ... well, trite, pedestrian and reliably CW. And knowing how just off they are on Canadian, American and British politics, I'm ready to use the newspaper -- as it refers to itself -- as an introduction to news from around the world, but never an authority. One thing I hope I never do is refer to The Economist as 'sober' or worse, 'venerable.' I say all this as a subscriber to the dead tree edition. Great morning subway reading.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:58 PM

 
American League MVP

Prediction: New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez wins the American League MVP but does not do so unanimously. My guess is that either Detroit Tigers outfielder Magglio Ordonez (363/434/595, 28 HRs, 139 RBIs, 54 2Bs, 87.8 VORP) or LA Angels outfielder Vladimir Guerrero (324/403/547, 27 HRs, 125 RBIs, 62.6 VORP) will get a first place vote. In any other year, Ordonez could be the unanimous winner. But A-Rod has had one one of the best years of the past half-century and he deserves a run-away win. He led all of MLB in homers, ribbies, slugging percentage and on-base plus slugging percentage (OPS). His VORP is worth almost a full win more than anyone else in the AL and by either definition of an MVP -- the best player according to performance or the player who did the most to get his team into the playoffs -- A-Rod deserves the award.

Ordonez deserves second, but Guerrero, who will probably finish third and will get consideration for numerous first- or second-place votes is not as deserving as Boston Red Sox DH David Ortiz (332/445/621, 35 HRs, 117 RBIs, 86.2 VORP) and New York Yankees catcher Jorge Posada (338/426/543, 20 HRs, 90 RBIs, 73.4 VORP) for a high finish. According to VORP, Guerrero is worth two less wins than Ortiz and one less win than Posada. In a just world, Ortiz and Posada would battle for third and fourth, but they might finish out of the top five with voters enamoured by Boston Red Sox 3B Mike Lowell (324/378/501, 21 HR, 120 RBI, 46.5 VORP, Gold Glove defense) and Cleveland Indians catcher Victor Martinez (301/374/505, 25 HRs, 114 RBI, 55 VORP) who will probably finish fourth and fifth. As good as Lowell was, when you take into consideration Josh Beckett, Jon Papelbon and David Ortiz, not only was he not among the best players in the American League, he wouldn't be one of the top three players on his team.

No pitcher should finish in the top seven or eight because the dominant pitchers were on teams that have (perceived) better and more important position players, although Guerrero's VORP is similar to Angel's southpaw John Lackey (60.7) and Indians starters C.C. Sabathia and Fausto Carmona had, VORP-wise season, much better seasons (65.2 and 64 respectively). But voters probably won't see it that way.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:41 PM

 
And Pauline Kael didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon

Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe discusses the possibility of Justin Trudeau becoming the next Liberal leader and notes that Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner with the Strategic Counsel,said, "There's absolutely no question about it, his name is like gold." To some people no doubt.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:29 PM

 
Just nuts

Constance Droganes, entertainment writer at CTV.ca, has a list of 10 movies that should be remade. It is awful. How does one improve The Shining? More gore? With Chritian Bale? Please. None of the movies need re-making (Ben-Hur? The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? Some Like It Hot? The Lost Weekend with Lindsay Lohan?) Why aren't cruddy movies remade?
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:12 PM

 
Most common surnames

Interesting numbers from the New York Times about the frequency of surnames. The top 10 most common: Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller, Davis, Garcia, Rodriguez and Wilson. In 1990, Garcia was the 18th most common last name, now its 8th. In 1990, Rodriguez was 22nd, now its 9th. Martinez was 19th in 1990, now its 11th. Other Hispanic names are also climbing fast (Sanchez from 52nd to 33rd, Ramirez from 70th to 42nd). Luis Padilla, a 48-year-old Miami banker, "greeted the ascendance of Hispanic surnames enthusiastically" saying: "It shows we’re getting stronger. If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing." Still, as the Times notes: "1 in every 25 Americans is named Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller or Davis." Now imagine a Smith or Davis saying "If there's that many of us to outnumber the Hispanic names, it's a great thing."

Also interesting is that Smith is predominantly a white surname (just one in five Smiths are black), while 90% of Washingtons are black.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:13 AM

 
Non-deserving MVPs

Joe Posnanski on the worst MVP picks of the past 50 years. I agree with him that closers should never be MVPs. Their small inning totals just don't measure up to anything all that valuable. That, and the fact that the difference between the best and average closer just isn't that great. Most will save 85% of the games and yet Mariano Rivera is considered great with his 88% save percentage, never mind that the save statistic is virtually meaningless and has led to less than optimal, even counter-productive, relief pitcher usage patterns. Anyway, the post is about the MVP thefts looking not just where a better player was overlooked but where the winner didn't really have an MVP-type season. Some beneficiaries of baseball writers' stupid voting: Dennis Ekersley, Justin Morneau, Juan Gonzalez (twice), George Bell, and Willie Hernandez. The robbed: Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Belle (twice), Ozzie Smith, Cal Ripken Jr., and Alan Trammell. And as Posnanski notes, if Trammell got that MVP, he might have gotten the Hall of Fame plaque he deserves. Notice also that a number of shortstops (A-Rod, Smith, Ripken and Trammell) got shafted which points to another flaw of baseball writers: their inability to take the a player's performance relative to his position into account. A great hitting shortstop is worth more than a great hitting first baseman or corner outfielder because most teams can get a fair bit of power (and thus the HRs and RBIs award voters are looking for) from the corners, whereas there are only a handful of middle infielders that contribute significantly to a team's offense.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:10 AM

 
About Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Christopher Caldwell in the Financial Times notes:

"Andrea Bilbow, founder of the British ADHD charity Addiss, takes the first view. 'The minute you raise awareness,” she said earlier this year, “you’re going to see an increase in diagnosis and treatment.' Indeed, the US follows this pattern; richer areas, with more knowledge about medical developments, are often more heavily medicated. But Australia – a country where ADHD medicines have been both widely prescribed and strongly resisted – belies it. In Sydney last year, The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that children in rich neighbourhoods were given medication at one 12th the rate of children from poor ones. One in 300 children gets ADHD drugs in the wealthy north versus 1 in 25 in poorer areas."

Without denying that ADHD exists and is a problem for some children, it is very interesting that poor children are diagnosed with it at much higher rates. It is possible that kids from wealthier families get ADHD at lower rates, but perhaps the teachers and parents of poor children are just less patient or otherwise not as good as teachers or parents.

And then there is another factor: today's women teachers. Many female teachers don't get young boys (who are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD) and would like them to sit quietly like little girls. Because there are so many single-child families, many young female teachers don't have experience with brothers and therefore do not understand the natural rambunctiousness of boys.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:00 AM

 
Everything you wanted to know about who pays U.S. taxes

Read Stephen Moore's article in The American on 12 important points about U.S. taxes. Especially notable is this fact: "The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax ... Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes." Honestly, to me this seems really unfair.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:58 AM