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
|
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
Make J. Kelly Nestruck happy ... and go see Ham & Cheese. Now JKN may really like the Canadian-made movie and would like to see it do well. Or perhaps he wants it to do well because, um, he could be an investor. Hey, I'm just saying that he is particularly zealous in his urging of his readers to go see it as he practically begs people to go see Ham & Cheese. And apparently you might only have seven days to do so. And you have to live in TO. The libertarians are at it again Over at The Shotgun, the question was raised: if there is going to be same-sex marriage, why not polygamous marriage? Good question. In unison (almost), the libertarians agree -- what's the difference? Indeed, I agree that there is little difference, but unlike the libertarians, I don't think we should allow them all, but instead not permit any. Perhaps I will expand upon this in the future, but honestly, the gay marriage discussion is beginning to bore me. The UN does it's best imitation of a British police officer The BBC reports that the United Nations has ordered Sudan to halt atrocities or ... it will order to Sudan to halt atrocities again? What an impotent and utterly useless institution. The UN, that is. This sums it up K-Jo in The Corner under the title "So Nice": "... not to have speeches to watch tonight." Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Great news West Wing may be coming to an end according to one of the actors. Well not that soon. Two more years -- a full 8 year term. I thought it was a great show until they brought in some the old ER writing team to replace Aaron Sorkin. It kept the liberalism but lost its great story telling, punchy conversation, brisk pace, etc... Healthcare to die for Doctors and nurses say Canada's healthcare system suffers from literally lethal line-ups. Unfortunately, they seem to think more of the same will cure what ails the system. (Via Nealenews) Is Kerry really the Democrats in a sober state? Sadly, David Brooks, who makes the case that John Kerry provides sanity and responsibility to a party too often lacking either quality, is probably right. As he noted in yesterday's New York Times column: "I also didn't sense that the Democratic Party is just sober enough to realize it needs a designated driver like John Kerry to get it home at night. This is a whacked-out party that has spent the past year throwing back Howard Dean hurricanes, being gripped with Michael Moore fever and indulging in Whoopi-esque animosity binges. And yet there's that moment when you are drinking, before you get really blotto, when you realize that you have just enough sobriety for one last lifesaving act of responsibility. For the Democrats, nominating Kerry is that act - and now he's running a professional, disciplined campaign." In other words, Kerry is the best the Dems got. Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Why won't the media cover this? David Frum writing in the Daily Telegraph highlights a fascinating point about the Democrats, party of the regular guy: "Today's Democratic Party is the party of America's poorest people and of its very richest. (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros and Donald Trump are all for Kerry. So is almost all of Hollywood and most of Wall Street. Kerry will probably win at least eight of the 12 richest zip codes in America. The four per cent of voters who described themselves to pollsters in 2000 as 'upper class' decisively favoured Al Gore over George W Bush.)" The fact is, middle class America is conservative. It is the envious who want to punish success and the wealthy who can afford socialism, that supports the Big Government Liberalism of the Democrats. Liberal open-mindedness World Net Daily reports that Michael Moore-loving singer Linda Ronstadt told the San Diego Union-Tribune: "It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know." Bring on '08 I'm looking forward to four years hence when Hillary is the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. As Jonah Goldberg noted last night: "Where does the notion that Hillary is a great public speaker come from? I mean she's so workmanlike and robotic. She's not bad, but she's just not particularly good. The content is platitudinous, the delivery is monotone." Sunday, July 25, 2004
John "Wild Pitch" Kerry The AP ran this story approximately 7:45 which began "John Kerry made a surprise appearance at the Yankees-Red Sox baseball game Sunday night to throw out the opening pitch to a soldier home from Iraq (news - web sites), making an early arrival in the city where Democratic delegates were gathering to nominate him for president." What is this "made" about; do not journalists know the proper use of past tense; Kerry's surprise appearance, from what I can tell from watching the Boston Red Sox/New York Yankees game occured at about 8pm, 15 minutes after the story was posted. And, for the record, Kerry threw a wild pitch which was not, could not have been, reported. Quote of the day Mark Steyn on former Senator Max Cleland: "speaking in his role as Kerry campaign mascot." Ouch. Doesn't Steyn know Cleland is a war veteran? The predictable awards The World Stupidity Awards were presented at the Just for Laughs comedy festival and were predictably left-wing in their orientation. President George W. Bush won Stupidest Man of the Year Award for the second year in a row and was a repeat winner (with Tony Blair) for Stupidity Award for Reckless Endangerment of the Planet, which was presented by the son of a man who recklessly endangered his country, Justin Trudeau. Bush was also co-winner of two other awards including having the Stupidest Government of the Year and Stupidest Statement of the Year. Why just four awards? Couldn't they think up any more stupid awards to honour the American president with? The awards are run by "the Main Organization Revealing Obvious Numbskulls" and overseen by the Academy for Recognizing Stupidity Everywhere. Get it? MORON and ARSE. You know they think they're the cleverest comedians on the block. But these morons show their politics when they judge Bush's declaration that combat operations were over more stupid than Jessica Simpson who asked, "Why does Chicken By the Sea taste like tuna? Is it chicken or tuna?" MORON will point to Saddam Hussein winning the Lifetime Achievement Award for Stupidity as an example that they are not politically motivated, although other than calling Bush's bluff about attacking Iraq, I'm not sure he is really lifetime stupid. However, another world leader -- although that might be too much the compliment -- that left power last year would certainly qualify. And he lives in the province, so he might have been able to appear in person to receive his award. Fox News won two awards -- The O'Reilly Factor received the Stupidest TV Show and Fox News got the Media Outlet Which Has Made the Greatest Contribution to Furthering Ignorance Worldwide. Apparently, MORON doesn't watch the CBC. Also, Gigli tied with Passion of the Christ as Stupidest Movie. 'Nuff said. What MORON illustrates is that liberals, or at least the comedic-Left, cannot understand how anyone could disagree with them, that dissent from their agenda and ideas is a sign of brainlessness. Saturday, July 24, 2004
Read this and recall Daniel Boorstin's definition of celebrity E Online reports that Paris Hilton's spokesman -- a professional party girl has a spokesman -- said: "Paris is busy working on her album and is starting a movie in August. She's also working on her jewelry line and her book. She is just concentrating on her career right now." Marriage is about not being together for gays The Globe and Mail editorializes: "One of the first lesbian couples to wed last year after the Ontario Court of Appeal declared same-sex marriage legal in that province announced their intention last month to divorce. The couple's case is far from an ideal recruitment poster for marriage, gay or otherwise. After living together for almost 10 years, the women separated five days after their wedding. It is possible they had a good reason for the split. It is also possible they fell into the trap of too many couples who see marriage as a cure-all rather than a significant contract that requires compromise and active support from both spouses. There has even been speculation, which we trust is untrue, that their very marriage was undertaken with a view to a quick separation, to spur the authorities to include gay couples in the Divorce Act. (The filing for divorce came precisely one year after their separation, the minimum period the law requires as evidence of a marital breakdown.)" So the lesbian couple has been separated for a year after being married for five days after living together for a decade. Such as separation in necessary to prove marital breakdown. So why wouldn't the couple, despite the Globe's dismissal, have married "with a view to a quick separation"? It seems fishy. It also proves that (many) homosexuals wanted the right to marry in order to have the right to divorce -- that is, homosexual activists have long admitted that without marriage rights, they would have few "protections" for vulnerable partners when one the relationship ends. In other words, gays want marriage rights for when their relationships don't work. Not exactly a pro-marriage -- traditional or redefined -- view. Rolling Stone interviews Bill Clinton The Rolling Stone interview with Bill Clinton is what you would expect. Here are some low-lights. RS asks the former president what Senator John Edwards brings to the ticket which invites Clinton to contradict himself: "If you assume that we carry every place we won last time, we win. But you can't assume that, because President Bush has been to Pennsylvania twenty-five times or something. And you have to figure Kerry will win New Hampshire. But with the reapportionment, it's not enough. So he has to get one more state. And Edwards gives him a legitimate chance to carry North Carolina." So which is it: the Democrats have enough to win if they replicate 2000 or does reapportionment mean they need to pick up "one more state." And, by the way, New Hampshire alone is not enough. I thought Clinton was supposed to be the smartest president ever. RS notes that there was concern that Edwards would not win re-election in North Carolina and Clinton prattles on about all the places Edwards helps (south Ohio and Nevada!) and thereby shows his true colours: "So I think it's, you know, a good choice on the merits; a good choice on the politics." I didn't know that he knew the difference. On whether Clinton has a hand in the John Kerry campaign: "I spent quite a bit of time with him over the years when I was president. Mostly in the summertime, when I'd go out and spend the day with him on his [family's] island, near Martha's Vineyard." Oh, yes, men of the people. Clinton makes the false distinction between words and actions: "If you think about it, a candidate for president only gets one presidential decision -- your nominee. The rest of your campaign is words -- and where you deploy them, in what states, and how you deploy them. You know, either in the free press or the paid media. But it's words, except for this. This is his decision." This explains a lot about the way Clinton operates. Why a campaign promise need not be kept: they're only words. Why what he says need not be truthful: they're just words. Clinton says that Kerry's energy policy will excite voters, which is an opportunity to rail against President George W. Bush on Kyoto: "This administration has withdrawn from the Kyoto treaty. And I believe it's important that we become a leader again in the environment in the world." Of course, Clinton never pushed the Senate to ratify Kyoto during his years in office. Clinton criticizes Bush for not doing what he himself had not done: "We have held onto the old energy economy, because it was well-organized, well-financed and well-connected politically. And because most people are still in the grip of an idea that is no longer accurate -- which is that in order for a country to get rich, stay rich and grow richer, it has to put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That was true in the industrial era. It is simply not true now. We could actually generate more jobs, more income, higher productivity with greater energy efficiency, in a rather dramatic shift to clean, renewable energy." Or was Clinton president during the industrial era? Read this one way and it is the most enlightening five words of the interview: Rolling Stone: "What are your criticisms of the Kerry campaign?" Clinton: "I think he's doing well." Read: I wish he were losing so Hillary could run in 2008. Clinton then argues the complaint that Kerry is not saying things that get him on TV every day is unjustified: "If John Kerry were saying things that got him on the evening news every night, he'd probably have to say things that would run the risk of his losing the election." In other words, don't be bold, it might cost votes. But then again, why worry about it -- they're only words. This one doesn't even need comment: "... [the Republicans won] the 2002 midterm elections on the Homeland Security bill, which was, I think, the greatest political scam in modern American history. As a politician, I kind of admire it, and I can be mad at our guys for letting him get away with it." Clinton's most unfortunate use of words, on the GOP "getting away" with attacking Democrats over opposition to the Homeland Security bill and painting them as soft on national security: "They thought, 'If people swallowed that, they'd swallow anything'." Clinton is ever the victim: "Democrats like to ridicule him, a lot of them, just like the Republicans like to ridicule me." But while the Democrats ridicule Bush, Republicans criticized Clinton. Interesting admission that NOW, NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign is wrong about the emerging socially "tolerant" majority: "... if the election is about tax cuts, people's distrust of government, gay marriage, abortion and guns, then the Republicans shift the advantage back to them." Rolling Stone demonstrates that indeed they are in the same league as Time and Newsweek: "Do you have much actual contact with your former tormentors on the right?" Tormentors? And what do they mean by "contact." On Fahrenheit 9/11: "As far as I know, there are no factual errors in it, but it may connect the dots a little too close." Clinton has a million ways to describe something that is not the truth -- dots that are too close together. I'll have to use that one. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) Reason 47,221 Kathy Shaidle is Canada's funniest blogger Kathy Shaidle links to a story about "Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, died Monday at his home when a tree supporting a hammock fell and crushed him," under the title, "St Anselm's little known Other Proof of God's Existence." Friday, July 23, 2004
Being liberal means getting away with the contradictions Kerry should reconsider some of his positions. Now I'm not 100% sure about this but if I remember correctly, Senator John F. Kerry supported the inheritence tax. And even if he didn't, he's still hypocritical. Consider this, from David Frum in the forthcoming National Review: " If elected, John Kerry would be the richest president in American history, richer even than his hero John F. Kennedy. And unlike other rich men to seek the presidency--Ross Perot, Herbert Hoover, and so on--Kerry is the very opposite of a self-made man: He came by his money by marrying a woman who inherited it from her husband who in turn inherited it from his great-grandfather. Yet the Kerry-Edwards campaign is audaciously presenting itself as a crusade against unearned wealth and privilege." Thursday, July 22, 2004
Must ... Go ... To ... Sleep Very tired after a few days of putting together the August issue of The Interim. Before retiring for the evening, though, I'm reading The Meaning of Sports for review a for the Halifax Herald and listening to Bach's Complete Harpsichord Concertos by Trevor Pinnock and The English Concert. I've been looking for this at used music stores for some time and came across it on the weekend and have been listening to all three CDs daily. I must have read too much George F. Will (taking sport so seriously) and William F. Buckley (can't get enough of the harpsichord and Bach) as a young'n. Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Berger is golden for Scrappleface The satirical one is having great fun with Sandy Berger's stolen documents-in-the-pants caper, including with this piece: "Former Clinton national security advisor Samuel R. 'Sandy' Berger today returned the orginal copy of the U.S. Constitution to the National Archives. 'It was an honest mistake,' said Mr. Berger, who until this morning was an advisor to Democrat presidential hopeful John Forbes Kerry. 'I accidentally wrapped the Constitution around my left leg and mistakenly secured it with rubber bands.' A spokesman for the National Archives said he was pleased to have the Constitution back. 'Until Mr. Berger returned it,' said the source, 'our prime suspects were all in the federal judiciary'." Getting Rod the Ram out of The Spectator Over at The New Criterion's blog, James Panero wants The Spectator out of Africa or, more modestly, Rod Liddle the hell out of The Spectator. It seems that the soon-to-be-formerly married essayist and faux celebrity has been carrying on with a receptionist at the British magazine. Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Cabinet stuff You'll find a few comments, mostly links really, on Paul Martin's tilt to the Left, over at The Shotgun. Busy couple of days I will likely not blog at Sobering Thoughts over the next 2-3 days; this is production week at work. I might drop by The Shotgun. Hope you do, too. Monday, July 19, 2004
The limits of Powell Terry Teachout is preparing to review a biography of Anthony Powell, author of Dance to the Music of Time, which, if you care, is the greatest non non-fiction reading of my life. However, as Teachout inadvertently proves by citing some of his favourite quotes from the 12-book series, Powell is not very quotable, the following quote (from Casanova's Chinese Restaurant) notwithstanding: "A certain amount of brick-throwing might even be a good thing. There comes a moment in the career of most artists, if they are any good, when attacks on their work take a form almost more acceptable than praise." Sunday, July 18, 2004
Frequent posting at The Shotgun Over the weekend I had a half-dozen or so posts at The Western Standard's group blog The Shotgun. Make sure to stop by there once in a while. Polyscopique is back Finally after a week-long absence. First post back and the Quebec-based blogger weighs in on CRTC and its attack on free speech by closing a CHOI that I mentioned on Friday. Mallick is still unhinged Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick, the all-wise one, rants (she never merely writes) against President George W. Bush and his "plans" to postpone the US presidential election in case of a terrorist attack. Now this plan can be debated and the New York Times editorializes that such a debate should occur, but within Congress. Such a debate appeared to take place in the Bush administration as his Homeland Security Department asked the Justice Department what should be done in case of terrorist attacks during the election and it appears the administration concluded any postponement was an unwise idea. But Mallick never debates, she can only mock and ridicule. Mallick says that if Bush-Cheney thought they could beat Kerry-Edwards in November, the president would "hardly postpone the election, would he?" There are many answers to this, including the erroneous view that Bush thinks he is going to lose to Kerry and the failure of the liberal mind to understand the seriousness of terrorist threats; Mallick derides the idea of Bush announcing the cancelation of the election simply because the "the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh/the Gerald Ford Presidential Library in, um, Fordville/my house in Crawford, Tex., has been flattened by al-Qaeda." But the most important insight into Mallick's charge is this: liberals think conservatives would do it because given half the chance, they'd do it themselves. If the Democrats were in charge of the White House and there was the threat of terrorist attacks, you know that they (just think Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Hillary Clinton or John Kerry) would muse about delaying the election until people could 1) be safe in exercising their franchise and 2) make a decision free of feat. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) Another difference between Bush and Reagan In this case, however, George W. and Ronny, boths sons of privilege, as noted by Providence Journal columnist Philip Terzian: "People who like to lampoon George W. Bush's comfortable upbringing and late blossoming should be wary of embracing Ron Reagan. Like Bush, Reagan had all the advantages of a privileged adolescence, including a slot in the Yale student body. But there the resemblance ends. Reagan dropped out of Yale to pursue a career as a ballet dancer, the highlight of which was an appearance in his underwear on Saturday Night Live impersonating Tom Cruise." I would suggest that such a show would be an improvement over his intended speech as the Democratic National Convention in Boston the week after next. It's Sunday so Steyn gets the quote of the day Introducing his Chicago Sun-Times column, Mark Steyn notes that the week's news is as he predicted last weekend, with Bush and Blair vindicated about their supposed lies. However, wonders Steyn, why not a word on former media darling Joe Wilson's lies? "But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too." I have more thoughts on the Joe Wilson case at The Shotgun. Who cares about the veep? The Providence Journal's Philip Terzian had a good column early this week that basically says the media cares more about the vice presidential candidate than voters do: "... this remains a race between George Bush and John Kerry. It would be difficult to imagine a prospective Bush voter switching to Kerry out of admiration for Edwards, or a Kerry enthusiast embracing Bush because of Cheney." I think it would be difficult to refute him although I would look forward to hearing from anyone who would change ticket preferences because of the running mate. Saturday, July 17, 2004
Derb earns yet another ditto The Derb in an unusually brief post on Annie Jacobsen’s article in Women's Wall Street, in The Corner: "My reaction to the whole thing: Why on earth are we letting Syrians into the U.S.A.? Syria is a terrorist-friendly state." The limits of campaign finance reform There's a neat story in the New York Times about the advertising patterns of the two major presidential candidates the gist of which is Bush targets his TV ads to Republican-leaning men who watch crime shows and Kerry to single women who watch daytime talk shows. But there are two extremely interesting paragraphs on the spending amounts of the two candidates in which it is reported that Bush spends twice as much as Kerry on television advertising but that the gap is reversed if you include the television advertising of anti-Bush organizations such as the Media Fund, Moveon.org and the AFL-CIO. Note that the wide gap that the third party spending creates is described by the Times as permitting "Mr. Kerry [to] keep parity with Mr. Bush on the airwaves." The paper also reports that "Mr. Kerry was not allowed by campaign laws to coordinate his advertising plans with the outside groups"; you could be sure that if the situation were reversed that possible links between the formal presidential campaign and like-minded organizations would be, at the very least, mentioned and at some point the subject of a lengthy expose. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) Tom Daschle hypocrisy watch This week Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD) said he opposed an amendment to the US Constitution protecting the traditional definition of marriage saying that Daschle said that in "217 years we have only amended that sacred document 17 times" and that it was important to "insulate" the Constitution from tinkering. Perhaps that's why he has only attached his name to some 20 efforts to amend the "sacred document" including "A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States" -- yes, getting rid of the Electoral College. Interestingly he has also supported supposedly conservative efforts to establish term limits and (repeatedly) a balanced budget amendment. Read more about this at Daschle v. Thune. Valuing values New York Times columnist David Brooks on KerryEdwards and the value of value-sharing: "know that John Kerry shares my values. I know that John Kerry shares your values. I know that John Kerry shares John Edwards's values, who also, by the way, shares my values. I know they both share your accountant's values, your butcher's values, your mechanic's values. If a Martian showed up from outer space, they'd share its values, too. They're just really into value sharing. I know that because they say so. In speech, in rapid responses, in interviews, Kerry and Edwards remind us these days how darn tootin' chock full of values they really are. They've got heartland values, middle-class values and even conservative values, according to themselves. ... Of course, if Kerry really shared our values, he probably wouldn't have to tell us so every minute, and once, just once, he might actually say what the values we share actually are." It is clear that what KerryEdwards value are values. Well, almost as much as they value ambiguity. I think the rule taught in grade-school composition class and college university courses should apply to politicians: show us, don't tell us. Why just MRI clinics? Dalton McGuinty's Ontario will bring seven private MRI clinics back into the public fold. Protecting access to universally bad healthcare and all that. So I'm wondering: why doesn't McGuinty and his federal cousins ever threaten to bring private abortion clinics under state control? Why do Henry Morgentaler and others get to profit from their private facilities but other medical professionals do not? What is so special about the abortionists compared to the diagnostician? I have always found it curious that those that complain the loudest about assaults on the public healthcare system are also the ones that want Morgentaler's private clinics fully funded. The only reason I can come up with for the apparent inconsistency is that they know that abortion is not really healthcare; now they might claim it is more important than mere healthcare, but they understand it is not, or is very seldom, a medically necessary procedure. Friday, July 16, 2004
The thing about loving the Charter is that one never need be consistent Trudeaupia has several posts on current case of the CRTC v. freedom of speech. On Thursday, he introduced the cast thusly: "The Liberals just barely survived an election campaign by engaging in hysterical ranting about the threat the Conservatives would be to our cherished Freedoms. Then they and their political hack friends in the CRTC returned to Ottawa and shut down a radio station. " For details about the CRTC not renewing CHOI's liscence, read the rest of the post here. In Friday's post in the case of Trudeaupia v. CRTC, the former makes a devastating case for limiting the latter: "All that is to say that the CRTC is being overtaken by technology anyway, so we might as well get it out of the content regulation business. Frankly, what business is it of theirs whether I pull Al-Jazeera through my cable on an IP connection or down the same cable as a video service? None whatsoever, of course. Even less should they be attempting to regulate what a satellite broadcasts that isn't hovering over Canada anyway, it's hovering somewhere over the equator. Norman Spector says those of us who think this way should read section 3 of the Broadcasting Act. Okay, done, and I am even more convinced the CRTC should limit itself to the purely technical aspects of regulating spectrum, much the way they regulate cell phones, microwave transmissions and other aspects of the wireless telecom business. As far as I am concerned once a company has laid a cable or procured rights to a channel it should be entirely their business what they choose to broadcast on it. If they think it's a good idea to broadcast Al-Jazeera in morning and Fox in the afternoons it's their channel, their business. Get the CRTC out of it." The War on Terror @ Home -- more effective than is publicized Rod Dreher comments in The Corner: "I'm hearing from a trusted source that the federal air marshals have thwarted quite a few domestic hijacking plots since 9/11, but haven't told the public about them, presumably (this is my interpretation, not my source's) because they don't want to unnerve the public. Frankly, I don't believe the government's story about these guys being Syrian musicians playing in a desert casino. That shouldn't be too hard to check out, though, and I hope I'm proven wrong. This incident reminded me of something that happened near my Louisiana hometown a few weeks after 9/11. A friend of mine who flies in an ultralight aircraft club was at the club's rural 'airport' (that is, a big shed and a field long enough to take off from) one Saturday in October, 2001, when they were approached by a blonde man with a foreign accent. The man drove up and asked if someone would be willing to take him up to photograph petrochemical facilities along the Mississippi. The pilots were startled, because their airstrip is fairly obscure. They played dumb, and told the foreigner to come back on Sunday, when they'd have fuel. When the man left, the pilots notified the FBI. The next day, the foreigner returned, and the FBI took him into custody. A law enforcement official later told my father that the man was an Austrian citizen who had been on a government watch list, and had been deported. The story was never reported. I bet things like that are happening all the time." Now it's a difficult question: to release the information and let America know that the domestic law enforcement aspect of the War on Terror is working and risk worrying Americans or to let the work be carried out in relative obscurity. The former would provide two benefits: let Americans know that the government is on top of such things while reinforcing the need for measured alertness. The latter has the benefit of not unnecessarily frightening Americans and not frightening terrorists away so that they can be caught. Don't believe the hype The Associated Press reports in a stupid story entitled "McCain Praises Cheney As Rumors Swirl," that "the Bush-Cheney campaign has taken seriously the stories speculating about whether Bush would drop Cheney." I have some trouble understanding how a campaign is taking seriously ridiculous rumours about their own campaign, rumours that they know would not be true. I think instead of being "taken seriously" they might be enjoyed with amusement. Stephen Hayward is amused. In No Left Turns, he reminds readers that earlier this year he predicted such rumours would swirl: "The media will float rumors about Dick Cheney’s health, mostly to cause trouble in the GOP." Thursday, July 15, 2004
Bush's prospects They're pretty good and mostly because Bush has the benefit of running against Senator John Kerry. Mark Steyn writes in The Spectator that many non-Republicans (i.e. Democrats who hate Bush anyway) want anyone but Bush but that they don't warm to Senator Blah from Boston: "So the question is whether the base’s strong anti-Bush motivation can survive its non-existent pro-Kerry motivation. " Steyn guesses it can't; I agree. Why? Because the Democrats can't attract new voters, especially white males outside New York City, Boston, SF and LA and, as Steyn notes, "That’s why Al Gore isn’t President. He lost hitherto Dem states like West Virginia, Bill Clinton’s Arkansas and his own Tennessee. Do you reckon a Botoxicated Brahmin from Massachusetts with some pretty-boy ambulance-chaser is going to reverse Gore’s fortunes?" Combine that with the less than enthusiastic response from blacks and Hispanics for Kerry, and the Democrats will be losing states to Bush. Remember, Kerry is tied with Bush when the country hears only bad news about Bush, the president isn't making a case for his foreign policy (read: Iraq policy) and the country isn't seeing Kerry on TV. Wait 'til they do see Kerry on TV. Then they'll learn to hate him or at least understand that they don't really want this guy on their TV screen for four years. My cabinet thoughts Over at The Shotgun, I speculate on what Paul Martin might do in terms of a cabinet shuffle. Support pirates and don't help Michael Moore Robert Alt in No Left Turns: "I have mentioned before the thriving trade in bootleg DVDs on the streets. Well, it was only a matter of time before Fahrenheit 9/11 made its way to Baghdad. I saw it on the street the other day and was almost tempted to buy it—for this would give me the opportunity to see the film while at the same time assuring that Mr. Moore did not receive a penny. Surely Mr. Moore couldn’t object. After all, given his worldview, how can intellectual property laws be anything more than an expression of corporate greed intended to keep the little guy down?" Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Townshend sets the record straight on Moore Michael Moore disses Pete Townshend because The Who guitarist won't let him use "Won't Be Fooled Again" in Fraudelent 9/11. Townshend is a supporter of the War for Iraq (although he is beginning to have doubts) but doesn't like the charlaton director slagging him, misrepresenting how it came to be that Moore didn't use "Won't Be Fooled Again." Townshend writes: "When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no. Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song. At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them." Now go buy a Who album. (Via The Corner) Frank Klees gives reasons to vote for Frank Klees And not just reasons to vote for him because he's the lesser of a bunch of evils. His 10 reasons to support Frank Klees for leader of the Ontario Tories is pretty upbeat. Except for part of reason number nine ("In Frank’s eyes, the Magna budget was exactly the sort of mistake the Party makes when it sidelines the opinions of Cabinet and Caucus in favor of taking advice from unelected advisors who are disconnected from the Party’s values and principles..." before getting back to his pro-Klees message), it's all positive. Let's hope he follows up his open-mindedness about single-tier state-run healthcare with other bold, principled stands. But so far, one has like what one sees from this campaign. Monday, July 12, 2004
Compassion for sharks I read this article about saving sharks after one (or more) of them killed a 29-year-old Australian. I can't help but notice that the arguments for not hunting down and killing the shark are much the same as those used against capital punishment. "I don't believe that the shark should be killed just for the sake of what's happened in this situation," Stephen Smith, Bradley Adrian Smith's brother, said. "I don't believe that Brad can be revenged by killing a shark." (Killing the shark is not about revenge; it's about protecting society from the shark that has proven it would kill human beings.) "If you hunt him, so what? A day later another one cannot come and kill someone else?" said Orin Lifshitz, head curator at the Aquarium of Western Australia in Perth. (It's not about deterence, except to the extent that taking a shark out of commission that has proven it will kill humans will deter that particular shark from killing again.) Kate Davey, national coordinator of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said swimmers and surfers should be educated better about the threats posed by sharks. Davey opposes the erection of nets to separate sharks and swimmers: "Instead of pretending that this issue doesn't exist, and saying put up nets and then we can protect everybody from sharks, what we actually need is a public education campaign to teach people how to live with sharks." (Don't do anything to protect people; it's just the way it is. Society is to blame.) Of course, the comparisons are not perfect; people must be held responsible in a way that animals cannot. But notice the similarities between some of the arguments to protect the shark -- that it deserves compassion, that capturing and killing it won't protect society, that we are all responsible -- and the arguments against capital punishment (if not punishment in general) in human society. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) Kathy versus the Potheads Over at The Shotgun, a post about Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's comments on anti-Americanism turned into a discussion of the merits of decriminalizing marijuana. Kathy Shaidle is winning the argument for two reasons: she's right and she's funnier. Two great quotes, the first about the limits of libertarianism: "Some of us just like a little civilization to go along with our freedom." More specifically on the issue of drugs: "...working for the Marijuana Party for purely philosophical reasons sorta like reading Playboy purely for the articles." Lots and lots of posts on this subject and libertarian-minded (at least when it comes to drugs) Michael Cust argues that those who disagree with his open-mindedness on drugs should be silenced. Sunday, July 11, 2004
I get a C+ on the Teachout cultural concurrence index I took the Teachout Cultural Concurrence Index. Answering 70 of the questions, I scored 68.57%; in many of the 30 remaining I hated the choices almost equally. Having to chose between Jackson Pollock or Willem de Kooning is like having to choose between two different types of cancer or Howard Dean and John Kerry. On other selections, I couldn't really care (Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin?) or had no idea what Terry Teachout was talking about (Mark Morris or Twyla Tharp?). Notably on four of the five questions on which I cared most about, I disagreed with Teachout: Sopranos or Simpsons, Lincoln or Churchill, Bach on piano or harpsichord, and Joseph Conrad or Henry James. In each case Teachout picked the former, I the latter. The only one of the five most important questions in which we agreed is Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy (the former of course). Yet, on the next 10 most important questions, we agreed. Austen and Woolf? No comparison. Cather or Dreiser? C'mon. Flannery O'’Connor or John Updike. A good 20th century author is hard to find. Larkin is infinitely better than Plath, Grace Kelly beats Marilyn Monroe any day of the week, Noël Coward bests Oscar Wilde, with Johnson there would be no Boswell, the 50s over the 20s any time, Huck Finn is more re-readable than Moby Dick, Italian once a week but French just once a month and I'd read a Dickinson poem before one of Whitman's any time. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) Best question from a journalist Ever. Ever, ever, ever. Deborah Solomon of the New York Times interviews William Buckley who confuses her by using big words and, more importantly, common sense. Simmons follows up: "What are you talking about?" Friday, July 09, 2004
Another reason John-John will lose to Bush-Cheny in November Voters are going to get sick of Senator John Edwards-Kerry very quickly. As Daniel Henninger notes in the Wall Street Journal today: "Another thing that is unfair to say but hard not to notice: This may be the most narcissistic ticket in 55 U.S. presidential elections. These two guys really radiate self-awareness." People pick up on these things. "The oft-seen footage of the two emerging from a car after the VP announcement looked like a ZZ Top video for 'Sharp Dressed Man.' John Kerry slides a hand down his already smooth tie and deftly buttons his suit jacket. John Edwards checks the flaps on his coat pockets. 'Silk suit, black tie.' Both of their heads are rotating like satellite dishes scanning for signals. Light is ricocheting off porcelain in every direction. Come November, these two Power Rangers may have just worn out the electorate." Henninger notes that 2000 was a photo-finish because the Democratic base -- blacks and unionized workers -- came out in droves. It is unlikely that Kerry-Edwards' preening will deliver the factory worker debate in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Yet another reason why Kerry was more wrong to not to pick Rep. Dick Gephardt than the New York Post was for reporting the Missouri Congressman was picked for the veep slot; it seems that the Post gave Kerry more credit for smarts than he deserved. Blogging on blogs and old, grey media From Samizdata: "Blogs cannot change the way newspapers are written, but they can change the way people read them." Thursday, July 08, 2004
Conservative Party needs to be ... well ... conservative Over at The Shotgun, ESR's Steven Martinovich says he is a little worried about the news today that Stephen Harper wants to put the Progressive Conservative back into the Conservative Party as he, Martinovich, hopes the party will find some of the true big tent conservatism of the Reform Party: "The party was a blend of populist conservatism, social conservatism and a dash of libertarianism. It didn't appeal to everyone, but it worked well enough for most Canadian conservatives." Finally Yankees win and win convincingly. Previous to tonight's game against the surprising Tampa Bay Devil Rays, the Bronx Bombers gave up 49 runs in six games. Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Moral equivalence watch Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Takiff,author of Brave Men, Gentle Heroes: American Fathers and Sons in World War II and Vietnam, criticizes Americans for their moral smugness for condemning the beheading murders of foreigners in the Middle East right after the United States bombed Iraq. Takiff considers only the actions and not the rationales for the taking of innocent lives, ignoring that the United States did what it could not to kill innocents while Arab and Islamic extremists target the innocent. Takiff's awful column ends thusly: "We who have sent them [the troops] there [to Iraq], however, should feel not satisfaction but shame. We dare not brandish the evil of those who killed Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-il as cover against our own guilt. Rather, we should beg forgiveness from our troops, the citizens of Iraq and decent people everywhere. The pious among us, beginning with our born-again president, should also repent before God." The editors at the LA Times might want to repent for publishing such drivel. Denial, they say, isn't just a river in Egypt He's usually an ass but he's also sometimes right -- Warren Kinsella on Martin's Liberals: "July 7, 2004 - Folks keep writing, or calling, to (a) ask me whether there will be changes in the ruling classes in Ottawa, or (b) to express astonishment that said changes haven't happened already. I, in turn, am astonished by their astonishment. There will be no changes of any significance whatsoever, I say. Why? Because they think they actually won the election. Because they think everything is just fine. That's why." So I'm taking bets on the first Liberal spending scandal and Dan McTeague doesn't count. A model for President Bush and other conservative leaders It would be nice if President George W. Bush cut spending, vetoed Congress' decisions once in a while and instead of backing RINOs, threatened to challenge them occasionally. Conservative Battleline -- the ACU's online magazine -- rates South Carolina's Mark Sanford America's most conservative governor, an excellent model for executive level leadership: "Gov. Sanford faced a $155 million deficit from his predecessor the day he entered office, together with threats from credit rating agencies to lower the state's borrowing status. To close this gaping hole, he engineered passage of a 'Fiscal Discipline Act' through a hostile legislature. He negotiated $139 million in repayment and issued 106 vetoes to cut spending to close the remainder of the gap. While the legislature overrode all but one veto, the governor did not stop there. He walked into the statehouse rotunda with a live pig under each arm to ask why the legislators could not cut unnecessary pork spending. While the spenders were squealing, the people loved it and granted the governor a 70 percent approval rating. Showing his true nettle, Sanford invested his popularity in his budget cuts and a half dozen Republicans who had defied him on spending, including the House majority leader, lost primaries in the following election." Not only is principled and bold conservatism the right thing to do, it can be good politics if done smartly. Heck, Sanford is a model not only for the GOP, but Conservatives in Canada and the UK. And for those conservative leaders outside the US, Sanford is useful reminder that one need not pander to budget cutters, the religious right, populists, etc..., if one is a budget cutter, a social conservative and in tune with the people. During his time in Congress, Sanford got high marks from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Christian Coalition, National Right to Life Committee, and the American Conservative Union. Tuesday, July 06, 2004
A little John on John action Fox News has a great collection of quotes by Senator John Edwards on Senator John Kerry and Senator John Kerry on Senator John Edwards when, of course, they were opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination. Edwards said Kerry had been inconsistent in his position on the War for Iraq ("he's said some different things at different points in time"), that Edwards, not Kerry represented change ("If we want real change in Washington, we need someone who hasn’t been there for 15-20 years") and that Kerry's policies were fiscally irresponsible ("[they would drive the US] deeper and deeper into deficit ... This is the same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades"). Kerry criticized Edwards for flip-flopping on trade ("he is quoted as saying to The New York Times that he thought NAFTA was important for our prosperity. Now he's claiming that he was against it and these other agreements") and being inexperienced (two quotes: "When I came home from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then yet or not, I'm totally not sure. I don't know" and "I have 35 years of experience in international security, foreign policy and military affairs, and I think that makes an enormous difference here. I think that the world is looking for leadership that is tested and sure. And I think that George Bush has proven that this is not a time for inexperience in the White House"). Fortunately, in politics, there are take backs. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) Edwards is no Dan Quayle Jonah Goldberg in The Corner today: "One need not go trolling through Nexis for quotes from prominent Democrats (and pundits) insisting that Dan Quayle lacked the qualifications to be vice president. He was elected to two terms in the House and two terms in the Senate (the youngest man ever elected to the Senate from Indiana). Quayle's foreign policy credentials simply blow away Edwards' by comparison. Whether foreign policy experience was more important in the declining days of the Cold War were more or less important than in the early days of the war on terror is an interesting debate. Neverthless, I think one quote is worth dredging up. In 1988 John Kerry got into a lot of trouble -- and eventually apologized -- for telling the following joke when asked about Quayle's qualifications: 'The Secret Service is under orders that if Bush is shot, to shoot Quayle'." The truth about Michael Moore Adam Daifallah says something that few have said about Michael Moore and his propaganda film Fahrenheit 911: "He is a unethical polemicist and a socialist propagandist. It would be impossible to deconstruct every lie, every exaggeration, every quote taken wildly out of context, every factual error (Moore at one point actually states that 'Iraq has never murdered a single American') or every grossly dishonest assertion." Very nice. We must remind people that the fundamentally dishonest portrayal of President George W. Bush and the War for Iraq is unethical. Certainly more unethical than Bush's (mistaken) use of faulty intelligence as an impetus to prosecute a just war. Monday, July 05, 2004
Quote of the day "Journalistic observers can teach us many things, but not necessarily what they offer to teach, or what we expect to learn." -- Richard Brookhiser reviewing Hendrik Hertzberg's Politics: Observations & Arguments in the New York Times Book Review Crime and non-punishment Let It Bleed is rightfully disgusted with the nine-month sentence for an Ontario couple whose parenting left a lot to be desired; they kept their children locked in cage that was turned into a jail cell. The children "were kept in diapers because they couldn’t get to the washroom, subjected to rectal examinations and often beaten with a variety of household implements. ... They lived in such fear, court heard, they ate their own feces to hide evidence of accidents and, deprived even of water, felt compelled to drink their own urine." These parents got nine months. Nine months! The parents and the judge who inadequately punished them should be treated exactly as were the children these adults were supposed to protect. Thoughts on Kerry's veep selection Lots of speculation that Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) could name a running mate today or tomorrow. I'd guess not, but I also don't presume to understand the way Kerry thinks. Regardless of the timing, the speculation is down to Senator John Edwards, who might help in North Carolina, Rep. Dick Gephardt who will help in Missouri and several other swing states and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack who won't help anywhere. The smart move would be Gephardt; he's unexciting but will help in Big Labour states such as Michigan and Ohio and possibly in states where the economy is an issue such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. But he wouldn't add much gravitas or anything in the way of expertise on national security/foreign policy issues. I still think that after Gephardt the smart choices would be people who could deliver states -- Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (both Republican states) -- or someone who adds gravitas and foreign policy expertise (former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn) or someone who could generate real excitement (Hispanic New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, female California Senator Diane Feinstein or even Howard Dean (seriously)). But I doubt that Kerry would take that kind of risk or chose someone who brings more substance to the ticket than he does himself. For that reason, I think he goes with Gephardt or Vilsack. The betting has it that it is Edwards. I think that Kerry is too petty to let his primary opponent, a man who fought him 'til the end, on the ticket. But there is another reason: Edwards is the Democratic equivalent of Dick Cheney and there really in no comparison. As Peter Schramm says at the Ashbrook Centre's blog No Left Turns: "John Edwards debating Dick Cheney on foreign policy will be like a high school student debating Aristotle." At The Corner, Rich Lowry has a post from a GOP strategist on why Edwards would make a good veep candidate; he has another post on why it is in Kerry's interest to have people (trial lawyers who donate to Democratic war chests) believe Edwards is on the veep shortlist. Sunday, July 04, 2004
MoveOn's friends This Los Angeles Times story has a pretty good list of celebrities whose movies, TV shows and music we should avoid. Ok, actually its a story about celebrities that are being recruited in MoveOn.org's efforts to defeat President George W. Bush, but I find it handy to know which stars I should be giving extra dimes to. Who's opinion matters Moore? The friend of 9/11 victims or the mayor of Paris? Michael Niewodowski, a chef at the Windows on the World restaurant at the World Trade Center until Sept. 11, 2001, examines Michael Moore's grotesque movie and wonders: "So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations? I wonder. More than that, I wonder how I would explain this film to Nancy D., Jerome N. or Heather H. I am sure you don't know their names, but their faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain to them that a film was made accusing the president and vilifying the soldiers, the same president and soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders and protect other citizens. Moore has not only insulted the nation, he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks." Well, an Iowa-based Findley theatre chain said it won't show Fahrenheit 9/11. If you live in the US Midwest, Findley should become your cinema of choice. The chain's owner, R.L. Fridley, said he doesn't show "political propaganda films from either the right or the left," but added: "Our country is in a war against an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our culture and kill our people ... These barbarians have shown through (the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and the recent beheadings that they will stop at nothing. I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more." Niewodowski no doubt would like other theatres, if not actual theatre-goers to practice the same standard. He concluded his guest column in the Southwestern Florida Herald Tribune, "Shame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film. Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film. You have weakened the nation." And surprise of surprises, French political and cultural elite love Michael Moore's new offering. Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe said "It's very important, and it's pleasing to see," while comedian Guy Bedos said "This kind of film saves the honour of America." In France, it's hard to tell who is the mayor and who is the comedian. I have more on Moore at The Shotgun. (Hat tip to Kate at The Shotgun on Niewodowski's column) Saturday, July 03, 2004
Martin will go before Harper Martin gets short leash on second try but political enemies are on his heels (the Toronto Star insists on calling members of the other parties, Martin's enemies, but as the old story about either Churchill or Dief goes, the other parties are opponents, the enemies are much closer). Canadian Press reports that Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette says "Martin 'has from now until December' to demonstrate that he's serious about healing the rifts within the party." (Martin loyalist and defeated Qebec Liberal Nick Discepola says it isn't Martin but his advisors that must go. Nice try.) So assume Martin doesn't heel the rifts -- what happens next. Possible contenders for the Liberal crown include former cabinet ministers John Manley, Brian Tobin, Sheila Copps and Martin Cauchon. Martin Cauchon? As a Conservative, he'd be my pick. Another person seriously considering it, although the story (most stories on this topic) doesn't mention him: Alan Rock. Two names being mentioned in Liberal circles are Stéphane Dion and Albina Guarnieri. I think both are mentioned for quite political reasons in order to get them to consider jumping from the Martin ship. Tobin has probably already maneuvered Frank McKenna out of contention, but Rock might not want to leave his cushy UN assignment for a difficult and contentious leadership race. Copps is damaged goods and Cauchon is a lightweight. But the one to watch once Martin has said he will step down is Alberta's own Ann McLellan. She fits the criteria many Liberals would want from a leadership candidate: a woman, from the West, from the Left but sounds sane (read: in the mushy middle), would generate a lot of excitement (read: media adulation). Just to note: each of the three previous Liberal PMs before Martin spent time in the Justice portfolio. (To anticipate the comments, I know that Rock and Cauchon were also, once, justice ministers, but neither strike me as leadership material.) To wit, there a number of Liberal leadership candidates but only three with any real chance of winning: Tobin, Manley and McLellan. The others have good resumes and would make the race seem like it attracted numerous quality candidates. Moreover, many could enter the leadership race because, like Martin before them, they bided their time waiting for Jean Chretien to leave. On the other hand, there are only three names that could possibly generate any excitement on the Conservative side and if one jumped in, the two wouldn't: Belinda, Mike Harris and Bernard Lord. Lord has scorned them twice, Belinda is underwhelming and that leaves Harris who has shown no interest in the leadership of the Conservative Party. But all this assumes Harper leaves, an assumption that underestimates how much Harper thinks he can build on the gains on June 28 (and yes, they were gains). The Liberals can force Martin out, mostly through the threat of defeating a government bill, but Harper can't be pushed; he must leave on his own. Furthermore, the Conservatives will want to avoid more infighting, to portray an image of government-in-waiting. For these reasons, there will be a Liberal leadership race before there is a Conservative one. Thursday, July 01, 2004
Blogging explained By Rick McGinnis, who maintains a diary, a media blog and a movie blog, in his bio: "Because I can write an awful lot more than I can sell." CSL ship had 83 kilos of cocaine on it CTV reports that a Canadian Steam Lines ship -- a company owned by Paul Martin until he transferred it to his sons last year -- was found with enough cocaine to get Canadians to re-elect a Liberal government. The discovery was made in Sydney, Nova Scotia aboard the Sheila Anne, a ship named after Martin's wife. According to CTV, "The Sheila Anne had sailed to Sydney from Venezuela. At the time of the search, the ship was carrying a cargo of coal bound for Florida." I could be wrong about my geography but why would a ship bound for Florida from Venezuela stop on route in Canada? Perhaps the Martin family geography is as good as its history. And ethics. (Crossposted at The Shotgun) An amazing symbol of government's incompetence The Ottawa Citizen reports that the 3% increase for welfare recipients that was scheduled to go into effect July 1, cannot be processed because the Ontario government's computers cannot ... well, compute. I thought by "computer" the story meant it was the software and not the hardware that can't figure out the 3% increase -- did these computers go to a Canadian public school? -- but Ontario Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello blames the previous Conservative government for buying $500-million computers: "We have a computer that just can't do it." Some are skeptical. Former Tory Community and Social Services Minister John Baird, and other observers of how the Liberals do (or don't do) things, think Ms. Pupatello is making an excuse. I for one, however, think it is entirely plausible that the government could find half-billion dollar computers that don't add percentages. After all, why should the people who make up the government be the only innumerates at Queen's Park? The Liberal government said instead of the immediate increases, welfare and disability recipients will get two lump-sum cheques. The Citizen reports "A family on welfare will get $130 in October and again in December while a family living on disability payments will get an additional $200 in September and again in November." Let's hope that the computers have working calendars. Light blogging ahead I am almost done being all po'ed with my fellow Ontarians (take out Ontario and the Conservatives hold a decent plurality of seats), so it is now safe for me to come back blogging without sounding like I have tourettes. Still, family obligations, bbqs and final corrections to my forthcoming book Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal, will mean very light blogging over the next few days. Happy Dominion Day. |