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, February 29, 2008
GFW on WFB George F. Will in the Washington Post said of William F. Buckley: "Bill's distinctive voice permeated, and improved, his era." And this is how: "Before there was National Review, there was Buckley, spoiling for a philosophic fight, to be followed, of course, by a flute of champagne with his adversaries. He was 29 when, in 1955, he launched National Review with the vow that it 'stands athwart history, yelling Stop.' Actually, it helped Bill take history by the lapels, shake it to get its attention and then propel it in a new direction. Bill died Wednesday in his home, in his study, at his desk, diligent at his lifelong task of putting words together well and to good use. Before his intervention -- often laconic in manner, always passionate in purpose -- in the plodding political arguments within the flaccid liberal consensus of the post-World War II intelligentsia, conservatism's face was that of another Yale man, Robert Taft, somewhat dour, often sour, three-piece suits, wire-rim glasses. The word 'fun' did not spring to mind. The fun began when Bill picked up his clipboard, and conservatives' spirits, by bringing his distinctive brio and elan to political skirmishing. When young Goldwater decided to give politics a fling, he wrote to his brother: 'It ain't for life and it might be fun.' He was half right: Politics became his life, and it was fun, all the way. Politics was not Bill's life -- he had many competing and compensating enthusiasms -- but it mattered to him, and he mattered to the course of political events." Politics matters, and because of Buckley politics could be fun for conservatives. Politics is more fun when you are winning, and Buckley, more than anyone other than Ronald Reagan, made conservatism a winnable proposition in America in the second half of the 20th century. There are few people of national consequence and many fewer in the worlds of politics and journalism than those in politics and the media would like to believe. But Buckley was one. And thank God for that. Thursday, February 28, 2008
Latimer A few of you have emailed to note that I haven't posted on the National Parole Board's decision (on appeal) to grant convicted child killer Robert Latimer day parole. Is it a surprise that my reaction is one of both disappointment and anger? I wasn't surprised by the decision, just pissed off. It sends a terrible signal to society that the life of a person with a disability is less valuable than the life of an able-bodied person. That is sick and perverse and dehumanizing. Canada is better than that. What gets me more upset, though, is that Robert Latimer was Tracy's father. A dad is supposed to protect his daughter, not kill her. A dad is supposed to care and love his little girl, not put her in a truck, pipe deadly gasses into the cab, kill her, put her body back in bed and lie to his family later about killing her. For me, more than anything else, this case is about betrayal. I assume that before he killed Tracy, Robert Latimer loved her and played with her, fed her, held her and did all the other things fathers do for their daughters, only more. So I imagine that as Robert Latimer was preparing Tracy for her death, she assumed that he was taking her somewhere and that all would be all right; she was, after all, with her father. But there would be no trip to the doctor's office or school or a relative's house. She would be alone in that cab, suffocating from fumes and noxious gas. How can a father do that to his daughter? We are told by Robert Latimer's defenders that Tracy's disability is supposed to be a mitigating factor in considering his crime. But it seems to me that her disability makes the crime all that more heinous. For her vulnerabilities and dependence, she required more love and care and help and protection; she certainly did not need death and she would never have expected that it would be delivered by her father. Robert Latimer claims that he only wanted to end Tracy's suffering, although when you listen to his words carefully you understand the suffering he wanted to end was his own. I have no doubt that he was under great pressure and that he had difficulty coping with the stress of caring for a disabled child. But he had options. There are community supports (supports that the Latimers apparently withdrew from). For some reason, the media has simply lied about Tracy, leaving the impression that he was a human vegetable and in constant pain. Mark Pickup has noted that the impression is wrong: the pain in intermittent; she went to school (and returned on the same bus as her siblings); there was talk about integrating her into a regular classroom. As Pickup noted: "Despite her cerebral palsy and the various trials she faced, Tracey Latimer was a happy child as the court transcripts clearly show. She loved music, sleigh rides, television, games, parties, the circus, sleepovers and pets." Or as Andrea Mrozek has noted: "They claim suffering, suffering, suffering on Tracy’s part, but always neglect to discuss her and who she was: Her personality, her preferences, her schedule, her day. Tracy Latimer was a sister and a daughter, who had favourite colours and foods, and was a part of a family just the same as me. And I mean that. Tracy Latimer was no less a person than I." It disgusts me that Latimer is getting day parole and will someday likely qualify for early release. It disgusts me that he would ever get out of jail. He not only killed his daughter, he betrayed her. He did the exact opposite of what his parental responsibility required of him. He does not deserve mercy -- unless it is the same mercy he showed Tracy. Robert Latimer deserves time behind bars because he killed a human being. He should offend our moral sense because he killed the one he should have cared for and protected. The secondary concern is the message it sends to the public. The signal that this parole board decision sends is that parents can dispatch their responsibilities to their disabled children by killing them. Today, alongside its story on Latimer's release, the Toronto Star has the story of a St. Catharine's woman charged with killing her disabled daughter, age 17. Dick Sobsey, of the JP Das Developmental Disabilities Centre at the University of Alberta, has found that as many as 40% of child murders may be parents acting 'altruistically'. That number seems high to me, but it would indicate that the killing of children with disabilities -- children like Tracy Latimer -- are not isolated events. Furthermore, Sobsey found that the Latimer case itself has sent a signal to the permissibility of killing a child with disabilities: "Although the Canadian homicide rate in general has declined to its lowest level in 30 years, there has been significant increase in filicides that coincide with the positive publicity for justifying filicides provided by the Latimer trial." I can't find the exact reference, but a few years ago, The Interim reported that between the time of the first Latimer trial in 1994 and the Sobsey study being published in 2002, there were 21 documented cases of so-called altruistic filicides. One is too many and 21 is a terribly disturbing trend. This is sick and sad. Furthermore, it is sick and sad that Robert Latimer is viewed as the victim here, not Tracy; it is sick and sad that he is seen as a folk-hero (as Pickup has lamented). Here's what else Pickup said about yesterday's decision: "In Canada, second degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least ten years. (The jury at his trial recommended he only serve one year.) Happily the sentence was mandatory, but he still gets out three years earlier than minimum requirements. Hey, who’s counting? Actually Canada’s disability community, their advocates and allies were counting. You see, Canadian courts tend to be easy on killers of the disabled. Seven out of ten Canadians support Robert Latimer. Seventy percent of Canadians agree with assisted suicide for the chronically ill and disabled. Canadians citizens with disabilities and incurable illnesses needed re-assurance that we are seen as deserving equal legal protections as able-bodied Canadians. We didn’t get it." Pickup quotes Craig Langston, president of the Cerebral Palsy Association of B.C.: "I think it sends a scary message that parents can decide that taking a life of their child is the right thing to do. The preservation of life should be the first concern." When a father does not get that, society and government should. The Culture of Death's roots go deep when we not only fail to understand that, but actively deny the priority of the preservation of life. As Brigitte Pellerin said yesterday on news of Latimer's release: "That makes me angry. I understand that he’s no danger to society, and that he’s unlikely to re-offend. But that’s not the point, and never was. It is illegal - and wrong - to take the life of disabled people no matter what the reason. It bothers me that we live in a society that fully sanctions it when the disabled person is still in the womb, and tolerates it once the person is out." One of the things that tire me about punditry and politics and blogging is that everything is treated as a cause for outrage and anger. Few issues truly rise to the level of the outrageous, but a father killing his disabled daughter and using her disability as the excuse to get out of jail early qualifies. Blushing Hacks and Wonks headlines a post about some incredible statement by Warren Kinsella: "Coming From A Chretien Liberal, You'd Hope That He Would Have At Least Blushed When He Wrote This." I doubt Kinsella would blush because he lacks the shame necessary for embarrassment. What did Kinsella write? "Here's one of Warren's truisms, then: legitimacy is not found in numbers. Rightness does not equate with popularity." H&W says he should blush because: "[I]f you think back to how Chretien and the Liberals claimed righteousness on the backs of winning elections with 41%, 38.5% and 41%. If I'm remembering correctly - and I believe I am - Kinsella himself was one of the more pompous about how the victories could serve as evidence that they must have been right all the time. Some truism." But in the world of liberals (and Liberals), truth is flexible, in whichever way is to benefit the liberal (Liberal). That is, something is true only as long as it is politically necessary. Stephen Taylor's crystal ball His post-budget political prediction is much deeper than the usual, who wins/who loses or are-we-headed-toward-an-election analysis of the professional pundit class. Taylor says: "Predicting the future - In the absence of Liberal opposition, will segmented conservative interests in the party and in the movement start leveraging for their own agenda? With slim majorities we see maverick government MPs potentially holding the balance of power subject to their agendas (PM Chretien government with MP Paul Martin). With large majorities we can see whole factions form and break off (as with Reform and the Bloc from the Mulroney government). Harper has the power of majority with the psychology of a minority; the PM can govern on the agenda he chooses because the the prize of a majority is still in sight and this will generally keep maverick MPs and the movement tightly following Harper's lead so that their agendas can be realized in the future." This strikes me as correct, but only because the analysis of 'maverick' MPs is wrong. They figure that Stephen Harper and the PMO will tack right once the Conservative Party obtains a majority. I doubt that. The reality (and problem) of politics is that there is always a next election. Once the Conservatives win a majority, they will have one eye on governing and one eye on the next election. That means more incrementalism. Perhaps the pace will pick up, but I would guess only slightly. Conservatives -- big C Cons -- might be happy when they look into the future, but small-c conservatives should be skeptical and I'm not just talking about social conservatives. Not only do I doubt that the Conservatives would act to regulate abortion, I doubt they will do much to arrest government spending or cut taxes or expand liberty. But the belief that the government will do more to privatize health care, loosen gun restrictions, limit abortion, or reduce/flatten taxes, no doubt keeps numerous MPs 'in line.' More on WFB From the Washington Post editorial: "His defining characteristic was that he was a man of good cheer who rarely got nasty in print or in person and who cultivated friends across the political spectrum, listened to them, and delighted in engaging one and all in civilized discourse, of which he was something of a master -- one who will be missed." R. Emmett Tyrrell writes in the New York Sun: "William F. Buckley, Jr. who died yesterday, appropriately enough in his study, was one of the most stupendous educated Americans of the twentieth century. He was among the founders of the American conservative movement that crept out of the New Deal years advocating market economics, traditional social values, and aggressive resistance to communism. Such ideas were viewed disdainfully by the reigning orthodoxy, liberalism, but by the 1980s Buckley's positions had pretty much defeated liberalism wherever democratic elections could be held. Without him this change would have been either impossible or much delayed." But, adds Tyrrell, there is also the forgotten, or ignored, side of WFB: "Not often recalled is how Bill's life changed over his half century on the national scene. At first he was an energetic herald of the new conservatism, a rigorist for the conservative position. After the excitement of his mayoral race, however, he became much more political. By 1968 he had trimmed back his conservative orthodoxy and actively counseled the Nixon campaign. He encouraged other conservatives to join the Nixon administration. He held minor posts in the administration. Through all the ideological backsliding of the Nixon years, Bill stood by the president. In fact, he became more of a fixture in the Nixon administration than he would become in the administration of his close personal friend, Ronald Reagan. The explanation is Watergate. Bill stuck by Nixon until the autumn of 1973. The experience left him permanently disappointed in Nixon and stunned by the brutality of politics." The New York Times appreciation by Robert B. Semple Jr.: "His views — an amalgam of Friedrich Hayek’s free-market economics, Russell Kirk’s cultural conservatism and Whittaker Chambers’s anti-Communism — were hardly original. What was pioneering was his insistence on giving conservatism as he saw it a voice and a forum. That was National Review, the magazine that Mr. Buckley founded in 1955. There he fanned a very small flame that, over time, gave the country the Young Americans for Freedom, who gave it Barry Goldwater, who in turn laid the groundwork for Ronald Reagan." Considering all of this, the stats that George H. Nash lists are merely numbers that fail to capture WFB, explaining more how he did it (help popularize conservatism) than what he did: "Consider the statistics. During his nearly 60 years in the public eye, William F. Buckley Jr. published 55 books (both fiction and nonfiction); dozens of book reviews; at least 56 introductions, prefaces, and forewords to other peoples’ books; more than 225 obituary essays; more than 800 editorials, articles, and remarks in National Review; several hundred articles in periodicals other than National Review; and approximately 5,600 newspaper columns. He gave hundreds of lectures around the world, hosted 1,429 separate Firing Line shows, and may well have composed more letters than any American who has ever lived." Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Some sound Buckley advice on foreign policy (i.e. Iraq) From a 1983 William F. Buckley interview with Reason magazine: "I was very much animated by John Quincy Adams’s statement that the American people are friends of liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own. Now, how do you express your friendship for liberty in the modern world? I think you express your friendship for liberty by denominating antiliberty as such. And how that ought to be done, in my opinion, is platonically." Fine words about a fine man Myron Magnet on William F. Buckley: "When I heard of his death this morning, a phrase of Edmund Burke’s popped unbidden into my mind: “the unbought grace of life.” Many will write, in due course, about Bill’s towering importance in our nation’s political and intellectual life. But beyond that, his whole being provided an answer to that ultimate question, How then should we live? From first hearing him speak at my high school when he was a young man, through watching him in sparkling, imperious, and rather intimidating action as his guest on Firing Line, I saw his character become ever more clearly the unmistakable, irreplaceable Buckley: witty, cultivated, playful, urbane, gracious, brave, zestful, life-affirming, tireless, and gallant—the incarnation of grace. He taught many not only how to think but also how to be." One of the things that Buckley had that too few conservatives have today is the a sense of humour that is not malicious and an ability to befriend those of another political persuasion; his friendship with J.K. Galbraith is legendary. I've said that Wm. Buckley is not just an important conservative but a special human being, the former possible only because of the latter. A world without WFB William F. Buckley has passed away at the age 82. Everything that I could say will sound trite, so I'll leave it to George F. Will who more than once has said: "Before there was Ronald Reagan there was Barry Goldwater, before there was Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was William F. Buckley." It would be hard to imagine the conservative movement in America today without Buckley. In recent years, his influence has been indirect, but from the magazine he founded to the books and columns he wrote, from the speeches he gave to small university crowds to the counsel he gave Republican candidates, he has been a conservative giant. Many Canadian conservatives who talk about the need for a conservative infrastructure in this country pine for a Canuck version of National Review. Some people lament the lack of resources or audience, but they miss the point. It is not a shortage of conservative philanthropy or conservative readers, although that might be true, but a shortage of William F. Buckleys that prevents a Canadian Review or some such. It should also be noted that Buckley did what he could at a unique historical moment. In the 1950s, conservatism was pretty close to brain dead and politically impotent, but a remnant was ready to stand guard -- stand athwart! -- for conservative principles to revitalize them, make them (obviously) relevant and intellectually vigorous and politically practical. It balanced the desire for ideological purity with political realities. And to a great extent that was William Buckley, a unique and irreplacable figure. UPDATE: The Daily Telegraph obit. Now if only clothes would pick themselves up from the floor and find the drawer on their own The website of the M.I.T. Technology Review reports on the possibility of self-cleaning clothes: "Researchers at Monash University, in Victoria, Australia, have found a way to coat fibers with titanium dioxide nanocrystals, which break down food and dirt in sunlight. The researchers, led by organic chemist and nanomaterials researcher Walid Daoud, have made natural fibers such as wool, silk, and hemp that will automatically remove food, grime, and even red-wine stains when exposed to sunlight." I will try (and fail) to refrain from making a sexist remark like, 'Soon women will be entirely unnecessary.' Outrage is the default position Headline from yesterday's New York Sun: "South Africa Allows Killing Of Elephants; Activists Outraged." Aren't activists always outraged. Dusty Baker, Cincinatti's village idiot The new manager for the Cincinatti Reds, Dusty Baker, repeats his oft-stated comment on on-base percentage: "The name of the game is scoring runs. Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you're clogging up the bases." The most important thing in baseball is not giving up outs. Getting on base means not giving up an out. So, in other words, Dusty Baker doesn't value the most important thing in a game. Furthermore, Baker, who has never really valued young players, appears unlikely to use Jay Bruce at CF. Bruce is considered by many, the best hitter in the minor leagues and is ranked as the top prospect in the game by Baseball America. Instead, Baker looks as if he'll go with Norris Hopper, who has hit four homeruns combined in ten seasons in the minors and majors. Hopper doesn't hit for power or "clog up the bases." The poverty of Cuba Michael Stastny describes the poverty of Cuba, which he has recently visited. He says, "I must say that the misery and decay I encountered in Havana (Habana Vieja) exceeded my expectations by a wide margin." He explains in both words and pictures, noting that the Cuba for tourists is not the Cuba that its people must endure. That's why Canadian and Spanish visitors return from Varadero with tans and tales about how wonderful Cuba is: it is for them. Megan McArdle explains some of the reasons why (per a comment made on Tyler Cowen's blog) despite being wealthier than Cuba, northern Mexico appears poorer: "1) Sample error: they visited the nicest parts of Cuba, and the nastiest part of northern Mexico... 3) Deep poverty is much more picturesque than moderate poverty. Poor countries have their old colonial buildings still standing, because no one had the money (or the reason) to tear them down and put up something bigger. The countryside is dotted with adorable houses made out of natural materials and natives wearing colorful traditional garb. Animals graze in verdant fields, besides teams of sowers and reapers. Middle income countries are smoggy, and almost everything looks like a cheaper, shabbier version of what you get in the US. Scenic landscapes are despoiled by cinderblock buildings with hideous tin roofs, or trailers; cities are choked with boxy modern buildings that look something like our housing projects. The genteel decay that looks gothic and intriguing on an old Victorian mansion just looks seedy when it's eating away at badly poured concrete. Affluent Americans underestimate the utility value of things like having personal space, or an automobile. 4) Cuba was relatively wealthy in 1959; it therefore has more of the markers, like old majestic buildings, that we associate with wealth." Reason #1 appears the most likely. There are no official limits where visitors to Mexico can go. Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The 2008 budget analysis, how it affects families edition The press release from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada gives a partial thumb up to the Conservative budget which builds on past family friendly budgets: The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada supports tax changes that would allow parents more control over their finances, and ultimately, more money in their pocketbook. "Today's budget takes baby steps in that direction," said Dave Quist, executive director. He notes the past benefits of the child tax credit, spousal tax credit and support for families with disabled dependents will continue and low income families will benefit from a tax reduction as high as 30 per cent. Tax Free Savings Accounts for family members will provide an incentive to save more. This is important, because, Quist notes, finances are the number one challenge in family life today. Increases in student grants and improvements to RESPs will help address the need for future trades people and professionals. "While these are positive steps forward, the IMFC reiterates the need for broad based income tax relief for families, which could be achieved through family income splitting," said Quist. "Today's budget is family neutral; stabilization of those industries that have seen downturns will benefit families indirectly, however, leaving more money in the pockets of families will enable them to make decisions that are in their best interests." The Tax-Free Savings Account is a baby-step to help people save money which is important for Canadian families; earlier this month the Vanier Institute of the Family in their report, "The Current State of Canadian Family Finances - 2007 Report," noted that household income is not keeping up with the growth of per-capita debt. I'm not sure how much the TFSA -- which will save individuals who invest the taxes on the first $5,000 worth of investments (not returns, dividents, profits, etc..., but $5,000 investment), but it's a start. There are also changes to education savings accounts which will be moderately helpful for families. But such tinkering seems more motivated by vote-chasing than good public policy, regardless of its public policy benefits. David Quist is right: broad-based tax relief, including income-splitting, will go much further in helping families than the baby steps the Tories have taken with this year's budget. But I wouldn't limit the tax relief to families. Broad-based tax cuts benefit all Canadians, including families and future families. Single and newly married couples will be able to save, which will make having a family affordable. Tax cuts are good social policy because it helps 20-something and 30-something singles see a future in which they can afford kids. Many do not now hold that view; Ottawa could go a long way to changing that by significantly cutting taxes across the board. Broad-based, across-the-board tax cuts will be good politics as almost everyone will be thankful for a tax cut. But more importantly it is good policy and an investment in the future of the country: it's good for individual taxpayers, it's good for families and it's good for Canada. It's time for the federal government to be bold and do the right thing: cut federal income taxes. The 'moderate' budget The Liberals are criticizing the Conservative government's 2008/2009 budget as 'moderate'. I think that the Tories should keep the footage of Stephane Dion, Ralph Goodale, et al labelling the budget as moderate and modest, and run the video during the next election. Nothing better to fend of fear-ads about the extremism of the party than running the actual words of top Liberals whining about the Conservative's moderation. The RBC analysis finds "a credible plan that is fiscally responsible, broadly based in its likely appeal and modestly stimulative." In other words, good economics and good politics. (Or safe economics, safe politics.) The Canadian Taxpayers Federation finds four main take-away points: 1) The tax-free savings account is a pro-growth plan. The CTF said: "The Conservative government will allow Canadians to invest after-tax dollars and any investment gains from interest, dividends and capital gains will not be subject to tax. Moreover, savings will not trigger clawbacks on government entitlement programs that are income-tested, such as pension allowances and child tax benefits. Starting in 2009, Canadians will be permitted to contribute up to $5,000 a year to this new savings vehicle." CTV explains the details here. 2) The Conservatives are not controlling spending: "The budget proposes that program spending will increase to $208.1-billion in the next fiscal year, which is a modest 3.4 per cent rise." CTF national director John Williamson says, "Under Mr. Flaherty, the size of the federal government has grown by an astounding 14.8 per cent. How is this fiscally conservative or even 'responsible'." 3) Slower debt repayment, from $10.2 billion last year to $2.3 billon this upcoming year. 4) A new Crown corporation will manage Employment Insurance, ending the practice of the federal government raiding the EI surplus for their general accounts. Ernst and Young's analysis puts this year's budget in the context of the other Conservative budgets and finds that it continues to make it easier for businesses to grow and succeed and individuals to save and invest. Conservatives will have some cause to complain -- I'll have a more substantive critique myself later -- but this is a decent enough budget that keeps this Parliament alive and reinforces the ideas that the Conservative Party can be trusted with power. The folly of gestational limits and the lie of medically necessary Andrea Mrozek at ProWomanProLife.org: "David Cameron, Conservative opposition leader in the UK will support a lower limit on abortion. That limit currently stands at 24 weeks. Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, won’t, 'on the basis of medical advice.' Though it’s admirable that Cameron will support a lower limit, this is the kind of debate I’d rather not have. Abortion is not typically at any number of weeks about women’s health, but rather about our cultural mentality. If it were truly about women’s health, we’d encourage a woman’s ability to support what her body does naturally. 24 weeks, 20 weeks, 14 weeks, eight weeks, four weeks or two… always a person, and largely a choice made for distinctly non-medical reasons." Mrozek's link is to study by the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) that discovered the reasons women have for having an abortion: Inadequate Finances: 21% Not ready for responsibility: 21% Woman’s life would be changed too much: 16% Problems with relationship; unmarried: 12% Too young; not mature enough: 11% Children are grown; woman has all she wants: 8% Fetus has possible health problem: 3% Woman has health problem: 3% Pregnancy caused by rape, incest: 1% Other: 4% Average number of reasons given: 3.7 At most, counting the health issues a child might have that a parent would have to deal with*, just 6% of abortions are for health reasons -- that is less than the 8% of women who have an abortion because they have enough kids already. Here's The Interim's 2002 coverage of the 'medically necessary' abortion debate when Marilyn Wilson, then the executive director of the now defunct Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, admitted to a parliamentary committee that most abortions were for committed for 'socio-economic reasons'. Pro-lifers took note of the statement -- official testimony! -- which led abortion advocate Joyce Arthur to respond, "Regardless of reason, all abortions must be considered medically necessary and be fully funded under the Canada Health Act." Read that again: regardless of the reason, even if the reason is not medical, abortion must be considered medically necessary. Why? Because Joyce Arthur and her pro-abortion accomplices say so? * Another name for abortions performed on children with health issues is eugenic abortions. See The Interim's November 2002 editorial 'Abortion is not a cure' on why it is wrong to kill unborn babies diagnosed with birth defects or genetic anomalies. People want to be bossy A news brief in the Montreal Gazette reports on an RBC survey that found "Given a choice, 34 per cent of Canadians would rather be government bureaucrats than any other profession." A little more than 1 in 4 would rather be a rock star. Some will say this tells you a lot about Canadians -- that they aspire to mediocrity, a safe but cozy job. But I'd say that it says a lot about people. As Ann Coulter has said, people are naturally fascist and want to tell others how to live their lives. That is what bureaucrats do. Monday, February 25, 2008
3.5 hours of indecision If 66.9% is enough of an endorsement to stick around, shouldn't John Tory have known that right away? Has any party been led by a lame duck going into an election? For 45 months? Watch the replays -- over and over again Dwight Howard's Superman dunk. It gets more amazing with every replay because you realize he didn't dunk the ball, as much as threw it down into the net from five feet out -- and above. Watch his top 10 career dunks, particularly the best five. Incredible, gravity-defying dunks. Fr Jim Whalen, RIP Fr. Jim Whelan, national director of Priests for Life Canada, passed away late last night. Please pray for the repose of his eternal soul. Sunday, February 24, 2008
Six predictions for the upcoming baseball season 6. John Gibbons does not last the year in Toronto as his young pitchers do not perform up to (unrealistic) expectations. Combine that with injuries and the Blue Jays struggle to remain a 500 club and ahead of the Tampa Bay Rays. 5. The American League wild card will come out of the AL East. The Philadelpha Phillies or Arizona Diamondbacks will battle for the NL wild card. 4. Barry Bonds 'retires' after no team signs him in Spring training. He could come out of retirement if the Seattle Mariners or Texas Rangers are close to the Los Angeles Angels, or the Chicago White Sox or Cleveland Indians are right behind the Detroit Tigers, and they feel they need a power boost. All these teams could use a LF/DH. 3. The Colorado Rockies do not parlay their unbelievable finish and post-season run into a great 2008, battling the San Diego Padres for third place in the National League West, well behind the LA Dodgers and Arizona Diamondbacks and out of the playoff picture. 2. By the July 31 trading deadline, the Minnesota Twins will send closer Joe Nathan to the Chicago Cubs, Philadelphia Phillies, Milwuakee Brewers or Detroit Tigers. The Phillies will only be in the mix if they have not already acquired Chicago White Sox 3B Joe Crede. 1. The Baltimore Orioles will finish with the worst record in the Majors. The New York Mets finish with the best record in baseball. Obama is an economics retard Greg Mankiw notes the sloppiest sentence in Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope and explains why: "'Over the past decade, we've seen...hefty corporate profits, but a shrinking share of those profits going to workers.' I am pretty sure that the share of profits going to workers has been stable--at zero. Profits are what owners get to keep after workers have been paid." Blogging the Oscars Libertas is live blogging it. Best line: "Welcome To The 80th Annual Academy Awards or as the Indians call it: Interpretive Dances With Narcissists." Second best line: "I hear they’re letting the Gitmo prisoners watch the Oscars. I’m thinking right about now they’re pleading to be waterboarded." 9:58 UPDATE: New best line: "Think any of these lefties carpooled in a Prius tonight?" The Democratic primaries in a paragraph Mark Steyn: "And, worst of all for Bill and Hill, the Dems found a new star — their first in 16 years. Look at it from Hillary’s point of view: She’d expected to run against the likes of Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd — the usual mediocrities and misfits. Then Barack Obama came along, and did what the Clintons did in 1992 — saw his opportunity and seized it. All of a sudden, she’s the Bill Richardson — worthy but dull, earthbound, and joyless, lead weights round her ankles." Prayer request This morning Fr. Jim Whelan, head of Priests for Life Canada, collapsed while he was saying Mass. He is currently in grave condition at the St. Catharines General Hospital. Please keep him in your prayers. Saturday, February 23, 2008
Just (but not really) enough John Tory garnered 66.9% of the vote in a leadership review at the Ontario Progressive Conservative confab in London. And by getting what Joe Clark got in 1983, John Tory decides he is no Joe Clark and announces he will stick around to ineffectively lead the PCs in opposition for another four years. Adam Daifallah's reaction is perfect: "Tory has announced he is staying. Unbelievable. With one third of the assembled delegates voting against him, after he had the whole weight of the party apparatus working for him, after he controlled the process, after questionable tactics from his side during the delegate selection process, he's staying on with 66.9%? With no obvious successor waiting in the wings, with no other leadership aspirant organizing against him (as was the case in 1983 with Clark, who got the same amount), with dozens of Conservatives who would otherwise have opposed him not bothering with the whole thing because they are busy in Ottawa, he got 66.9% and plans to stay? This just nuts." Before the vote, Tory, pleading to keep his job, said that a leadership debate would be an unnecessary distraction from the job of preparing for 2011. The thinking of the Ontario PCs seems to be that four more years of uninspired, vapid, liberalish leadership is what the party needs to prepare to meet Dalton McGuinty's Liberals in 2011. Probably not, but its their party and they can muck it up if they want to. I find myself agreeing with Stephen Taylor on what the party needs: "It would be divisive for John Tory to accept a technical victory on these numbers and he should resign as the leader of the party. In my opinion the party needs a bold vision and platform to offer Ontario in a future election. Dalton McGuinty's government has not been plagued by scandal to the extent that it has registered on the minds of the passive political observer. Therefore, running as a "nice guy" with no groundwork established on policy prior to an election will result in the same. If John Tory can learn this lesson from the last election and learns that his party yearns for change, he will have the opportunity to prove it; Tory can run for leader. But to succeed, he must show that he will offer a bold vision. Others too will be able to offer their views on the course that should be taken by the PC Party. The party will be able to spend some true time in the wilderness and if Tory and a new field of competitors face a true trial by fire, the victor can forge new and competitive policy in order to offer Ontario a viable Progressive Conservative government." I'm not saying -- and probably neither is Taylor -- that Tory or some other leadership contender would have to run as a Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher; he, or she, would not even have to be Mike Harris. But it would be nice if the PCs were led to someone who could muster a real critique of McGuinty's governance and sustain an argument about the coming manufacturing crisis in the province or some other important issue rather than merely complaining that a John Tory government would do the same things only more competently. The voters don't seem to be buying that, although those of the PC variety apparently have. PEN on board with excising section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act PEN stands up for freedom of speech/expression/the press in Canada, although I must say it took them long enough. That said, their statement is well worth reading. Because sometimes it is too embarrassing to deal with problems From the Freakonomics blog: "Q: The 'cheating teacher' analysis in Freakonomics was an elegant piece of work. Has it been used outside the original sample space, and applied to the nationwide testing effort? A: A non-academic friend and I once had the idea of taking my cheating detection tools and turning them into a business to help school districts across the country. It turns out, however, that school districts don’t really want to catch cheaters. Cheating detection makes the districts’ test scores go down, and leads to problems with teachers’ unions. As such, no one wanted to buy our services. It made me realize how lucky I was that Arne Duncan was the head of the Chicago Public Schools. His view, when I first showed him the work, was that cheating was hurting the students, and all he cared about was helping the children in his care. Even if individual school districts don’t want to catch cheaters, you would think that the state and federal governments would have strong incentives to do so. If I had more time and energy, that is where I would have tried to spread the message." Steven D. Levitt and Brian D. Jacob say their data suggests (pdf) that there are teachers who manipulate standardized tests by filling in answers for poor students and practice other forms of 'cheating' to bump state or local test scores. Levitt has written about this apathy on their blog before (October 2007), when he noted that school districts have little incentive to self-police. The natural answer to that, economists would note, is to change the incentives. Probably the best incentive is to impose the cost of embarrasment by publicizing the fact that school districts refuse to catch teachers who cheat. 21st century global warming kinda pales in comparison Astronomers in England and Mexico have found that the "Earth is doomed to fry and then be gobbled up by the dying Sun." The world will be consumed by the Sun's gaseous heat in 7.6 billion years when the Sun dies. But catastrophic global warming will begin (naturally) a billion years before that when the slowly expanding Sun causes our oceans to evaporate, filling, "filling the atmosphere with water vapour (a potent greenhouse gas) and triggering runaway global warming." Friday, February 22, 2008
Interim turns 25 The Interim newspaper is celebrating its 25th anniversary this March. The Catholic Register had an article in last week's edition about our efforts to grow the paper. The key point is that we are trying to improve both our web presence and our dead tree version. Puke The introduction on Joel Stein's Los Angeles Times column: "It will be tough getting used to life without Hillary Clinton, a candidate so perfect that few could identify with her." In other words, she was too good for America. Anyway, Stein performs a Lewinsky-like act on the former First Lady: "I'm going to miss watching Hillary doing everything right, willing herself into perfection. She never slipped and said something dumb during the campaign. She had the perfect, pre-debated healthcare plan. The woman even managed to get better looking as she aged." I think Warren Kinsella is admitting to be a prick He posts a letter, "without comment" from someone who claims to be a law student (you can never trust email or Kinsella): "Mr. Kinsella, please do not use my name or identifying information. I am a second year law student and have an interest in speech issues and defamation law particularly. I have been following your on-going battles with various conservatives about free speech and hate laws. While I tend to be a libertarian (something I do not tell many of my clasmates!), I admire your conviction in taking these people on, while I do not always agree with you. When I saw the National Post's apology and retraction to Richard Warman (congratulations to the lawyer who obtained it, BTW, it is one of the more comprehensive ones I have ever seen), and the amount of prominence you have given to it on your blog, a thought occurred to me. It is only a theory, and I know I can never prove it. However it seems to me that your "side," if I can call it that, has waited until the latest possible date to serve the various defendants. In the meantime, you (not Mr. Warman)have used your site to stir these people up, in the expectation that would repeat the libel and therefore add to the amount of damages your side would receive. Which all of them did, over and over, therefore making the libel even worse. This has greatly added to the size of Mr. Warman's claim against them. Of course, I cannot prove this theory. But if it is true, congratulations on the strategy. If this case plays out like I think it will, Mr. Warman will owe you thousands!" McCain and the lobbyist As many of us have predicted, now that the media's favourite Republican, John McCain, virtually has the GOP presidential nomination wrapped up, the media has taken greater notice of the fact that he is a Republican and the reports have turned negative. In a long story "about the candidate," the New York Times reports about McCain's ethical lapses and hypocrisy including his role in the Keating 5, but the bombshell is that the married McCain had a sexual relationship with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist, and that he was involved in issues affecting Iseman's clients. Some Republicans want to make this about media bias and that is fair. The more important issue, though, is that it pierces the veneer of McCain's narrative as a maverick above the usual slimy business of Washington. If true -- even if the relationship was not sexual or romantic, but personal -- it exposes him as a hypocrite. For years, the self-righteous John McCain has lectured the American political class about the corrupting influence of money. But there is a lot of things that can corrupt. I look forward to a McCain-Feingold bill on Relationship Reform. Or one might believe McCain's staffers who say no favours were traded. That would expose the simple-minded but untrue idea that where there is some relationship (romantic, personal, financial donor) there is undue influence. This is what I believe, but I don't expect the senator who re-launched his career as a self-aggrandizing moralizer on the corrupting effects of money on politics (or, more properly, politicians) is going to make that case. One would hope that his finger wagging at the political class will stop, because whether or not these allegations are true, they expose McCain to charges of hypocrisy. If the Arizona senator stops his moralizing on campaign finance reform, the New York Times will have done the United States a great service. But I don't expect McCain to change. He will attempt to demagogue his way to the White House. Comedians and abortion Doug Stanhope's comedic take on abortion is offensive, but he gets to some truths about the issue, including the humanity of the child in the womb. (Warning: strong language and other material not appropriate for at work or for the easily offended.) Chris Rock is less offensive but also touches upon some truths that the pro-abortion side normally wouldn't admit. I found his line that in America abortion "is choice between a woman and her girlfriends" in which they have "a little abortion tribunal and they vote on the baby like its Survivor" to be hilarious. Thursday, February 21, 2008
Election talk The most recent Strategic Counsel poll shows the Tories in majority territory, at 39%. We can expect even more talk about an election triggered sooner rather than later. That talk is silly; if the Tories are in majority territory, the Liberals and/or other minority parties are doing worst and less likely to cooperate in any Conservative plan to bring the government down. The Conservatives cannot vote against their own legislation, so they need two of the opposition parties to vote against the budget (or whatever). Or, if Stephen Harper is feeling really ambitious, he can go to the Governor General, resign and ask her to call an election -- which she does not have to, nor should, abide; she can ask one of the other parties to try their hand at governing if Stephen Harper does not feel he is up to the challenge. The other way to look at this poll is to remember it is a Strategic Counsel survey which means that the Tories are no way near 40%. I have expressed my skepticism before, but I'll repeat it again: no election in the first half of 2008. VDH on HRC Hillary Rodham Clinton can still win. It won't be easy but there is a road to victory. Victor Davis Hanson explains: "We forget that even today, Sen. Clinton leads in both Ohio and Texas. If she were to win both, and carry that momentum to Pennsylvania, again she will have won the key states in play in the November election — California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. It would be no small thing to end the primary season with the biggest states and the most recent victories. And if that were so (much of course would depend on the margin of victory), there is no reason to think that free-floating delegates could not be persuaded or coerced to her candidacy." Wednesday, February 20, 2008
A charter that protects the right of Arab governments to censor free speech Randa Al Zoghbi at the CIPE (Center for International Private Enterprise) blog notes: "Arab countries have always failed to agree on any cooperation policies, any reform agendas, any economic integration policies, and any international agenda. It is just surprising how they managed, with no extensive meetings or discussions, on pressing the already limited freedoms. Not to mention the freedom of speech and expression, the Arab ministers of communication, agreed to issue a charter for satellite TV in a major setback, to also restrict freedom of “listening”. Arab Ministers met in Cairo on February 12, 2008 at the request of Egypt, and with the strong support of Saudi Arabia. The final document adopted by ALL member states of the Arab League (with the exception of Qatar and Lebanon) requires Satellite TV broadcasting in the region to: * Refrain to offend the leaders or national and religious symbols in the Arab world; * Abstain from damaging social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values (I guess it means here the relation between the citizens and government which is interpreted wrongly in Islam as (Al Raee wa Al Raeya; * Conform with the religious and ethical values of Arab society and take account of its family structure (assuming that everybody believes in one religion); * Refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities, and; * Protect Arab identity from the harmful effects of globalization (Doesn’t this contradict with the economic reform agendas most countries pretend to adopt?) The provisions, if implemented, will inevitably mute and hinder the only avenue for free expression in the region: satellite TV. They stand in direct contradiction with Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights which guarantees the right to information and freedom of expression and which was adopted by the Council of Ministers of the League of Arab States in 2004. The provisions also violate article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by many governments in the region." The post is under the wonderful title: "Arab countries…Do they ever agree on anything other than more repression?!" That's one key point. The other is that charters are only as good as the governments willing to respect the rights outlined in them. Unlikely combos Hayseed Dixie. I've been a fan of their catchy hillbilly-meets-AC/DC for a few years. Check out their You Shock Me All Night Long and Highway to Hell on YouTube. More on Cuba Tyler Cowen notes that "Many people embarrass themselves over Fidel Castro": "A simple checklist would start with the question of whether an apologist has visited both the Dominican Republic and Cuba. And a non-communist Cuba could have done much better than the DR. It is a fascinating place for visitors, but right now the quality of life in Cuba isn't close to that of the DR or for that matter Honduras, the second-biggest Latino mess in the hemisphere. While we're at it, let's not forget northern Mexico or even central Mexico. It's time to stop apologizing for communist dictatorships; are you really so taken with the idea of confiscating property as to overlook decades of tyranny, impoverishment, and human misery? Yes I am familiar with the UN social indicators; I say you need to visit each of these countries, preferably speaking Spanish, and then report back to me." So? CTV headline: "Parties engage in war of words ahead of budget." In other words, political parties disagree. No news here, move on. Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Poverty and freedom is a small price to pay for universal health care... And other things Uncle Fidel taught me. Andrea Mrozek observes: "Unbelievable, the way people discuss Cuba. This morning the CBC asked their 'woman on the ground' (she was in Mexico, but I digress) what his legacy was, and she responded with talk of free public health care. They then pondered poverty in Cuba–whether it had been caused by Fidel or whether the American boycott was to blame. I’m going to conclude now with a short lesson, Communism 101, if you will. And I’ll Keep It Simple, so the CBC can understand: Communism=poverty." Dion's hidden agenda Gerry Nicholls Report column this month is on the scary, hidden agenda of enviro-zealot and Liberal leader Stephane Dion: "Well here are some planet-saving policies the Liberals might impose should they form the next government: • A special carbon tax on babies. Yes it turns out babies, those cuddly little bundles of joy, are in the eyes of environmentalists nothing but carbon- gas- emitting ecological disasters. As one Australian health care expert put it, “Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society”. So beware, Dion might be planning to impose a baby tax. • New divorce rules According to a “scientific study” divorce pollutes the environment because it splits households in two, doubling the demand for electricity and even water. So if the Liberals win power it seems likely those couples who wish to divorce will be forced to file an environmental impact study. • Banning beer fridges A University of Alberta study says beer fridges contribute significantly to global warming. “People need to understand the impact of their lifestyles,” says British environmental consultant Joanna Yarrow. “Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home.” So no doubt to meet this threat, a Dion government would enact a strict “beer fridge registry”, which would be enforced by an elite police squad specially trained to root out illegal cooling devices as well as other “frivolous” luxuries. • Mandatory toilet training American singer Sheryl Crow once suggested a good way to combat global warming was to use only one square of toilet paper in the bathroom. A group called the Worldwatch Institute backed her up with a recent study showing toilet paper consumption was much higher in countries like Canada than it is in India. This startling study brings two questions to my mind: Who dreams up these studies? And is Dion planning to introduce toilet paper rationing to Canada? The mind shudders at the thought." If there is a carbon tax on kids, Dion would be as much as a threat to reproductive freedom as the Tories. If Dion is going to recycle Sheryl Crow's disgusting form of environmental zealotry, Stephen Harper has a ready-made slogan: the state has no business in the bathrooms of the nation. Incremental steps in the right direction Fidel Castro steps down as president of Cuba. Not if only the island could get rid of the Communist Party. Otto Reich is skeptical: "Fidel has not run the country since July of 2006 but as long as he is alive no Cuban will dare challenge his power. The average Cuban, as well as the leaders, are far too afraid of physical retaliation from Castro. And with good reason. In fact, I suspect many Cubans will see this resignation as a trick by the Castro brothers to see who attempts to fill Castro's shoes." Priced to sell The Washington Post (via the New York Sun) reports that "Got a house to sell but worry about standing out from the competition? Consider this: A research team at Cornell University has found that people will pay more for a house if its listing price does not end in a bunch of zeros. In other words, the researchers say, you might make more money if you price your house at $325,425 rather than $326,000... The study concluded that because people are used to precise numbers for items that don't cost much and to round numbers for large amounts, consumers generally and home buyers specifically tend to perceive that a price is smaller if there are digits at the end instead of zeros." At least according to research in South Florida and Long Island, where there are an unusually large number of houses for sale with three zeroes on the end. John Tory must go Adam Daifallah expresses my sentiments exactly: "I'm aware of the argument that leaders deserve two tries. But consider: 1) He led the party to a worse finish than the 2003 Ernie Eves disaster. 2) He had three years to prepare for the election. 3) The McGuinty government had an abysmal record and was ripe for defeat. 4) He didn't even win his own seat. Not exactly confidence-inspiring." I would add one point: the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party should be conservative. Daifallah also suggests certain benchmarks for going/staying: "The question is whether he reaches the magic 75% number. The anti-Tory camp is claiming he needs 80% to stay on. My view is: >65% = resign immediately and quit politics. 65%-75% = resign as leader, but run for the job again in the ensuing race. <75% = clear mandate to stay as leader. I think this is fair, and I imagine Tory is realistically thinking about the same." The anti-Tory camp is being unrealistic. And it is sad that Joe Clark's one legacy in Canadian politics is setting the leadership bar at 67%, but that is probably what the stay-or-go bar is now. Daifallah makes an interesting suggestion when he says with two-thirds to three-fourths support John Tory should resign but run again for the leadership. It sounds good, but I'm not sure it will work. I'm thinking Stockwell Day who re-ran for the leadership and got trounced, losing to Stephen Harper by nearly 20 points. Once you put your leadership on the line, you are branded a loser because you've lost control of the party. Then again, with no obvious successor, or even leadership candidates at this time, Tory might believe he has what it takes to win re-election as PC leader. The problem is, Tory doesn't seem to like campaigning. It is unclear whether he would want to go through such a process to keep a job that many in his party clearly don't want him to have. Personally, I think it is time for the rural yahoo. As Randy Hillier notes, there is an impressive record of rural premiers in Ontario. Monday, February 18, 2008
Because nothing says credibility like listening to Jean Chretien CTV.ca reports: "Former prime minister Jean Chretien has advised Liberal Leader Stephane Dion to trigger an election now, says a former senior Liberal. 'We hear now that ... Chretien and Jean Pelletier, his former chief of staff, are telling him it's a matter of credibility, that he can't support the government any more and that the timing would be right,' Jean Lapierre told CTV's Question Period on Sunday." CTV's Robert Fife cited two signs of Dion's readiness the fact the Liberals have now booked a campaign airplane and that the Liberal leader "took his staff out for beers on Friday night to get them 'revved up'." Because nothing says election like flying and drinking. And then, of course, there is the pandering. What is a contributor? Warren Kinsella is complaining about something or another and mentions "National Post contributor Kathy Shaidle ... and fellow Post contributor 'Kate Hate' MacMillan." This reminds me of a story William Bennett used to tell of introducing himself as a contributor to Commentary after he once had a column appear in the magazine. Norman Podhoretz, Commentary's editor, corrected him. He had written in Commentary, Podhoretz noted, he was not a contributor, which designated something much more than a once-off. A contributor to a publication implies a more regular relationship. Kinsella is trying to tar the National Post with what he views as the off-limit views of Shaidle and MacMillan because they have each appeared in the paper once. Perhaps, despite writing regular columns as a contributor to the National Post and, before that, the Ottawa Citizen, Kinsella doesn't know much about the journalism biz. Then again, he is a lawyer who apparently was unaware that once a lawyer is recognized to practice in one province, the lawywer can practice across the country. Kinsella is contributing to Canada a lowness and stupidity that only a Liberal lawyer could. Thanks for the dumbing down of the Canadian blogosphere, Warren. I should have known better than to go to a link suggested by Warren Kinsella Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald says of Mark Steyn "and friends": "They are society's freedom fighters, the Progeny of Churchill, Patton and Napoleon, bravely and tenaciously manning the barricades of Civilization itself." Who puts Napoleon in the same category with Churchill and Patton as defenders of Western Civilization? By the way, Kinsella calls the piece, "The Definitive Mark Steyn Clubbing!" If that is the best the Left can do ... The good news is that politics doesn't matter very much Writing in the New York Times, Tyler Cowen explains why voter turnout is low and why who wins is not a very big deal (except in foreign policy): "The reality is that democracy is a very blunt instrument, and in today’s environment we are choosing between ways of muddling through. We may hear that the election is about different visions for America’s future, but the pitches may be more akin to selling different brands of soap. Rather than being cynics, we should be realists. Democracy is reasonably good at some things: pushing scoundrels out of office, checking their worst excesses by requiring openness, and simply giving large numbers of people the feeling of having a voice. Democracy is not nearly as good at others: holding politicians accountable for their economic promises or translating the preferences of intellectuals into public policy. THAT might sound pessimistic, but it’s not. Many Americans will be living longer, finding new sources of learning and recreation, creating more rewarding jobs, striking up new loves and friendships, and, yes, earning more money. Just don’t expect most of these gains to come out of the voting booth or, for that matter, Washington." In other words, rational people would rather work a few extra hours, watch baseball, go skating, read a trashy novel, surf the web, play scrabble with the wife (or cheat on her), take the kids to their soccer game or ballet, or do a thousand other things, than read up on the candidates, follow the campaign and vote on election day. And thank God they have other, more important things to do. It is unhealthy and dangerous to expect too much from the government and going on living our lives as if Washington, Ottawa or city hall doesn't matter, is a pretty good tonic against the conceit that government matters all that much. McCain goes courting the conservatives Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain didn't vote for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and refused to sign Grover Norquist's no new tax pledge, but this weekend vows on This Week on ABC that he will not raise taxes. Does that include any new environmental taxes (carbon tax)? Or does he mean that any tax increases -- green taxes, for example -- will be off-set by other tax cuts. He often discusses the need for lowering corporate taxes, so perhaps McCain will cut corporate taxes but increase them elsewhere. The exchange between McCain and George Stephenopoulos isn't very clear as to the Arizona senator's intentions: "STEPHANOPOULOS: So on taxes, are you a “read my lips” candidate, no new taxes, no matter what? MCCAIN: No new taxes I do not — in fact, I could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT. There’s a lot of things that I would think we should to relieve that burden, including, obviously, as we all know, simplification of the tax code. STEPHANOPOULOS: But under no circumstances would you increase taxes? MCCAIN: No." Are you any clearer about what a President McCain would do with a Democratic tax increase presented to him in the White House? Moving Montana north of the 49th parallel Aubrey Harris, an anti-capital punishment crusader with Amnesty International writes in the Ottawa Citizen: "For well over four decades, Canada has recognized that the death penalty is incompatible with human rights and fundamental justice. For many years, Canada has also routinely and successfully sought the commutation of death sentences imposed on our citizens abroad. This humanitarian policy is the standard practice among nations that have abolished the death penalty, such as the United Kingdom and Mexico. It should come as a shock, therefore, that three months ago, the Canadian government tacitly sent a Canadian citizen to the death chamber in Montana by declaring in the House of Commons that it would no longer be seeking clemency on his behalf. Until that time, the government had been actively pursuing commutation for Ron Smith, while assuring his legal team of its continued support. ... The Canadian constitution guarantees the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The government has ignored Ron Smith's constitutional rights in order to make a political statement -- and did it in a way that pulled the rug out from under a defence strategy that was years in the making." Question: does the Canadian constitution apply abroad? I will, as I have done before, reverse the question: do other countries' laws apply in Canada? If a citizen of Turkey steals in Toronto, are we to cut off his hands? If an American were to kill a Canadian in Alberta, would we execute him? After all, those are the laws in their land. Death penalty opponents certainly have arguments they can make against capital punishment in general or this or that particular case specifically, but attempting to apply one country's laws to another is the wrong way about it. After all, if it works in one direction, it can work in another. Lasorda back in Dodger blue MLB.com reports that Tommy Lasorda, the long-time manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers who retired in 1996, will manage the a split squad of the Dodgers during Spring training when manager Joe Torre takes the other half of the team to Red China for an exhibition series against the San Diego Padres. Because the polity is well served when political ideas are reduced to three words This YouTube video shows celebrities joining in the Barack Obama chant of "Yes we can." From 'hope' to 'yes we can' -- there is hope yet that Obama will put together a substantive thought yet. Sunday, February 17, 2008
Plays oboe, plays football This is a great Super Bowl ad featuring Chester Pitts. And that stuff about not playing football in high school (it didn't have a team so he threw shot put instead), being told to try out for the university team by Ephraim Salaam after a chance encounter and bagging groceries for minimum wage is all true. Also, it is Pitts who is playing the Allegro assai from Brandenberg Concerto No. 2. Baseball payrolls ESPN.com reports that the New York Yankees finished last year with the biggest payroll in baseball, the 9th straight year, at $218.3 million followed by the Boston Red Sox ($155.4 million), Los Angeles Dodgers ($125.6 million), New York Mets ($120.9 million), Chicago Cubs ($115.9 million), Seattle Mariners ($114.4 million), Los Angeles Angels ($111 million), Philadelphia Phillies ($101.8 million), San Francisco Giants ($101.5 million) and the Chicago White Sox ($100.2 million). At the bottom end were the Tampa Bay Rays ($31.8 million), Florida Marlins ($33.1 million), Washington Nationals ($43.3 million) and Pittsburgh Pirates ($51.4 million). That is quite the gap. Yankees: 94-98 (American League wild card) Red Sox: 96-66 (1st overall in baseball, World Series winner) Dodgers: 82-80 (fourth in division) Mets: 88-74 (2nd in National League East, lost playoff spot on final weekend) Cubs: 85-77 (Won National League Central division) Mariners: 88-74 (2nd in American League West) Angels: 94-68 (Won American League West division) Phillies: 89-73 (Won National League East division) Rays: 66-96 (worst record in the majors) Marlins: 71-91 (tied 2nd worst record in National League) Nationals: 73-89 (fourth in division) Pirates: 68-94 (worst record in National League) In other words, you often get what you pay for. That said, teams like the Cleveland Indians, Colorado Rockies, San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondacks made it into the post-season last year -- and the Rockies all the way to the World Series -- despite having the lowest payrolls after the Rays, Marlins, Nationals and Pirates. But this much can be safely said: the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs and Phillies will all contend for playoff spots whereas few of the low payroll teams, except the Indians, Diamondbacks, and maybe the Padres, should expect to play meaningful baseball deep into September. Saturday, February 16, 2008
This applies to both Canada and the United States Bradley Smith and Steve Simpson write in the Washington Post: "Most Americans probably assume that they can gather with friends and neighbors to say whatever they want about politics to whoever is willing to listen. They presume that the First Amendment protects their right to get together and buy yard signs, publish newsletters or pay for radio or television ads urging people to vote for or against a candidate -- and to do so free of government interference. Unfortunately, most Americans would be wrong. Today, when Americans band together and spend even small amounts of money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, they must submit to government regulation and limits on the funds they can raise. Because of these campaign finance laws, the presumption in favor of free speech rooted in the First Amendment has largely given way to a presumption of regulation." Now some people -- John McCain and Stephen Harper included -- think that regulation of political speech is a good thing. But they would; they are incumbents and limiting political participation is almost always good for incumbents, which is one reason why it is undemocratic. Smith and Simpson talk specifically about SpeechNow.org which helps citizens organize to bring free speech issues into the political debate; if it works, the same principles could be used to support or oppose candidates and issues. Needless to say, the Federal Election Commission doesn't like that, but FreeSpeech.org will defend themselves in the courts arguing for the right to free expression and association. Everyone who values liberty wishes them luck. Against graphic photos Andrea Mrozek makes an excellent point about the use of graphic photos to illustrate animal cruelty in comparison to the use of graphic photos -- and even non-graphic photos -- in relation to the abortion issues. She says: "When the complaints roll in over anti-abortion campaigns it’s not because they are graphic. It’s because of the topic. We don’t like to see pictures of something so violent and yet so commonplace, happening not to puppies but to people." That is mostly true, but it doesn't explain why some pro-lifers object, too, to the use of graphic photos of aborted babies. In an additional comment to Mrozek's post, Véronique Bergeron de Grandpré explores a little more in depth the use of such photos: "Okay, I will come clear: I have never seen pictures of aborted fetuses. Never. I don’t go to pro-life rallies because I hear that they are plastered everywhere, which could as well be a pro-abortion tactic to keep queasy people like me from pro-life rallies, who knows? I have a vivid imagination and I can hardly stomach medical - written - descriptions of abortion procedures. But that’s because I care about these tiny little human beings. Which may explain why I don’t understand why we need to use graphic images. Are we stupid or what? If I write that when dogs fight they rip each others’ eyes out, why do people need to see what a ripped out eye looks like? Eye. Out of socket. Blood. Ouch. Isn’t it obvious? Same thing with abortion. If I write that the baby, looking discernibly human, must be dismembered before being extracted in pieces through a woman’s vagina, what else needs to be shown? I don’t understand why people who don’t object to the words “dilation and extraction” and the medical reality they relate would object to an image of fetal parts being extracted through the said dilated cervix. People don’t care. That’s the tragedy. But I’m not sure that shocking them senseless is the way to their hearts." Last year, I was one of three people to write a letter to the editor of Catholic Insight magazine raising specific questions about Show the Truth, a pro-life ministry that utilizes photos of aborted babies. We asked -- wondered, really -- 1)what effect this had on women suffering from post-abortion syndrome, 2) whether this violated the rights of parents to broach this topic with children on their own terms as opposed to being forced to answer questions about the aborted baby photos, and 3) whether pro-life Catholics might be able to disagree about the wisdom of this strategy. (I have other issues related to its effect on the public and the creation of a pro-abortion counter-crowd.) For merely asking questions (as opposed to offering criticisms), I had my pro-lifeness questioned. I predicted in 2001 that the issue of the use of graphic photos of aborted babies would split the pro-life movement and indeed it might happen. But I offer this caution: in the 1980s, when public opinion swung in favour of abortion rights, the issues being debated was not abortion but the tactics of abortion opponents ('rescues' at clinics and other pro-life demonstrations). The pro-life side was oblivious to the idea of public relations, assured that being 'right' was enough. It isn't. In the 1990s and later, public opinion swung to the pro-life side when the debate focused on issues like partial-birth abortion and unborn victims of violence that force the public to consider the humanity of the child in the womb without turning them off with photos. As Véronique Bergeron de Grandpré says, the public can grasp the truth when told about it and doesn't need it to be depicted. I am convinced that the pro-life side is winning converts. It would be a shame if pro-life tactics, rather than issue of abortion, were to once again become the center of debate. When it does, it doesn't work out so well for those who want to change hearts and minds to the pro-life side, but rather builds resistance to being persuaded by pro-life arguments. Friday, February 15, 2008
This won't help McCain with conservatives WorldNetDaily reports that 1) John McCain's advertising guru is sympathetic to Barack Obama and won't participate in any campaign that attacks the junior senator from Illinois and 2) McCain's Reform Institute has received funding from George Soros. Ortega endorses Obama From the AP: "President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a 'revolutionary' phenomenon in the United States. 'It's not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S. ... but yes, they are laying the foundations for a revolutionary change'." Is communist revolution what America is 'hoping' for? Recylcing From Stuff White People Like (HT: Five Feet of Fury): "If you are in a situation where a white person produces an empty bottle, watch their actions. They will first say 'where’s the recycling?' If you say 'we don’t recycle,' prepare for some awkwardness. They will make a move to throw the bottle away, they will hesitate, and then ultimately throw the bottle away. But after they return look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals. It will eat at them for days, at this point you should say 'I’m just kidding, the recycling is under the sink. Can you fish out that bottle?' And they will do it 100% of the time! The best advice is that if you plan to deal with white people on regular basis either start recycling or purchase a large blue bin so that they can believe they are recycling." Last year I was in Maine and I offered to throw something in the recycling bin if only the hotel reception could point me to it. The receptionist said that they didn't recycle. I responded: "This is liberal, green, enviromental-wacko Maine, what do you mean you don't recycle?" The receptionist said the hotel stopped recycling when they found out that most commercial 'recycling' ended up in the dump because "no one knows how to recycle properly. Everybody just throws everything in recycling." So they stopped the charade of letting people believe they recycle. Jane's potty mouth Newsbusters points to the Today Show not censoring -- host Meredith Vieira not even appearing shooked -- when Jane Fonda used the c-word to describe a part of the female anatomy. Cue Brent Bozell's column on the low standards of the networks. Then again, should we be surprised by Jane Fonda being foul-mouthed. But I thought Vieira might have flinched at the word. Thursday, February 14, 2008
No to vice president Jindal Over at American Thinker, Elizabeth Weber Levy says that the national ticket should not include Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal because the state desperately needs him to tackle their problems, at least for a full term. I would add that if Jindal is the vice presidential nominee, the media narrative will be that the Republicans are pandering to minorities. That is nonsense (mostly), but it will be a perception that they will face. America needs less Hope (Arkansas) Constant reminders why America doesn't want Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House. George F. Will on the two-for-one candidacy of the Clintons: "Last week, in his 10-thumbed attempt to prevent his wife's Louisiana loss, Bill Clinton said that Obama has made 'an explicit argument that the '90s weren't much better than this decade.' The phrase 'explicit argument' was an exquisitely Clintonian touch, signaling to seasoned decoders of Clintonisms that, no matter how diligent the search, no such thought could be found, even implicitly, in anything Obama has ever said. In his preternatural neediness, Clinton, an overflowing caldron of narcissism and solipsism, is still smarting from Obama's banal observation, four weeks ago, that Ronald Reagan was a more transformative president than Clinton. Then in Virginia on Sunday, his wife, true to the family tradition of 'two for the price of one,' contributed her own howler to the growing archive of Clintoniana. She said she is constantly being urged to unleash her inner Pericles: 'People say to me all the time, "You're so specific. . . . Why don't you just come and, you know, really just give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and then, you know, get everybody all whooped up"?' It must be wearisome. But surely people are "all the time" pestering her about being so substantive. It is a stronger word; she should tweak her fable in future tellings." The Clintons: he's a pervert, they are both liars, and she sounds like, you know, a high school student. The Democratic primary voters appear to be smarter than for which I gave them credit. On the other side of the political equation, America and Republicans should be wary of Mike Huckabee, whose campaign manager, Will says, must be God. Will reminds readers that Gerard Manley Hopkins -- what kind of columnist quotes Hopkins? -- said "The world is charged with the grandeur of God." Will says, "The world, perhaps, but the Republican delegate scramble?" Huckabee studied miracles, not math, he tells us. I am sure God will, mercifully, not bless America with the preacher from Hope presidency. One president from Arkansas was enough, thank you. If not, we may wonder, as Hopkins did: "Mary, mother of us, where is your relief?" Barack Obama's liberal message George Neumayr writes in The American Spectator Online: "Obama's speeches are like cotton candy, sweet but substanceless and dangerous to one's health if turned into a steady diet. Is he saying nothing? Unfortunately not. Glimpsed through the haze of his sophistical rhetoric is something, and it is tiresomely false, namely, the dogmatic assertion that "hope" and liberalism are synonymous." He then explains: "Obama talks about moving beyond the 'false promises' of the past, then delivers a handful of new ones, none of which appear any more promising than the claims of the Great Society. He talks about serving 'one nation,' then proposes programs that exclusively benefit the special interests of the left. The government programs he conflates with 'hope' would help (if they truly helped anyone at all; always an open question with federal initiatives) a fraction of the population at the expense of the whole. Someone has to pay for Obama's hope. Who will it be? Basically it will be the Americans who don't vote for him. The classic 'politics of the past' -- tax your opponents, rig up new programs for your constituents -- is as much on display in Obama's presentations as anyone else's." There is, of course, an opportunity for Hillary Clinton here and that is to expose Obama's lofty but fluffy rhetoric as completely false, but she won't because she shares his substantive liberalism. If Clinton won't call on Obama to be specific, John McCain will and the junior senator from Illinois will face real scrutiny in the general election. America might believe in hope but is not ready to embrace the Democratic Party's brand of tried-and-failed liberalism. Once they figure it out -- once they are led to that conclusion by one of Obama's opponents -- voters will reject the false hope of the left. Citizens can't buy politicians but pols can buy voters The Washington Post reported that last year there were 12,881 earmarks worth $18.3 billion. Hillary Clinton has secured $340 million in earmarks; the Post says, "Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects." But why? To curry favour, of course. It seems that it is perfectly fine for a politicians to buy voters -- with 'investments', jobs and enhanced local services -- with other people's money, but an individual is not allowed to give his or her own money to a politician of his or her own choosing? Where is the justice in that? Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Conservatives against freedom A couple days ago, Stephen Taylor noted a Liberal fundraising scheme he says might break Canada's political donation laws. A number of supposedly special items -- golf with Bob Rae, lunch with Michael Ignatieff, hockey with Ken Dryden -- are being auctioned and the Liberal advertisement encourages bids higher than the limit for political donations (the ridiculously low $1,100) and suggests that businesses and associations bid (the law doesn't allow corporations, associations and unions to donate to political parties or candidates). Taylor then complains that the "Liberals think that circumventing the law is different from breaking it." Well, circumventing is different than breaking the law because it might be a legal way around the rules. To me, this doesn't look like circumventing the rules, it looks like breaking them. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton) has piled on, writing to Elections Canada: "If you allow the Liberal Party to use these methods, you will have unilaterally repealed all of the campaign finance legislation passed over the last five years, and you will be reintroducing big money and corporate cash into our political process." Taylor and Poilievre are both making the perfectly valid point that the Liberals are breaking or trying to break the law. What is galling is that both seem to think it is wrong for corporations to give money to have a voice in the political process and, more problematically, that giving an individual giving a lot of his or her own money to candidates is a bad thing. Shame on them both. The Liberals are probably breaking the law; if they are not, they are trying to get around it. Good for them. Unjust laws are meant to be broken. See Rosa Parks. See Mukhtar Mai. See Martin Luther King: "[O]ne has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws". See Augustine: "[A]n unjust law is no law at all". Laws that restrict a citizen's freedom to donate money to political parties and thus limit their participation in the political process, are unjust because it severely limits free speech rights. Warren Burger, in his dissent in Buckley v. Valeo, said a little undue access is the cost of maintaining a free political process. Restricting political donations abridges what should be a civil right: participating in the political process by giving money to candidates. And as John Samples noted in his book The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform, these limits are also anti-democratic because they make it harder to run for office, thus protecting incumbents. The Liberal Party should expose the inherent unfairness of political donation limits and their threat to freedom. The Liberals won't do this because they are cowards. Being cowardly is only slightly better than being wicked or foolish in propagating and/or defending such unjust laws. Personally, I'd consider supporting the Liberals if they would flaunt the law and defend doing so. Unfortunately, I won't have to seriously reconsider my distaste for the Liberal Party. That's a shame. Our country could have more liberty if the Liberals had more guts. Or the Conservatives more principle. Kudos for a liberal (II) California Rep. Henry Waxman, a left-wing Democrat, has said he will not seek earmarks for the 2009 fiscal year: "I think our best approach would be to suspend all earmarks for the 2009 appropriations cycle while we consider the right reforms for the earmark process. As a result, I will not submit any requests to the Appropriations Committee for this fiscal year." He is the first Democratic politician in Washington to make this promise; one can only hope that his colleagues follow his lead. Waxman is not any old Democratic legislator; he is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. While many more Republicans have sworn off earmarks, this could be a significant blow -- another significant blow -- to the notion that Republicans are party of fiscal responsibility. |