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
|
Sunday, October 31, 2004
That nut Cronkite The Shotgun's Kevin Libin weighs in on Walter Cronkite's claim that Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden are in cahoots. Zogby polls David Mader has some thoughts on John Zogby's polls. And remember them when you consider the validity of Zogby's polls. For a great article on Zogby read the Larissa MacFarquhar piece in the New Yorker a couple weeks back. It is worth reading for the tidbits on the polling industry and its history, but what is most interesting is the issues that the American Association for Public Opinion Research has with Zogby's methods. (Actually, the most interesting parts are the polling data that Zogby collected in 2000 and 2004 on who voters would rather elect president of Oz -- the Tin Man or the Scarecrow -- and which 2004 controversial film American women would rather have all their fellow citizens see -- Michael Moore's or Mel Gibson's.) Worth investing the time to read. George F. Will on what this election means Washington Post columnist George F. Will backs President George W. Bush despite the candidate's faults. The column is worth reading, but I bring to your attention these two important paragraphs which describe what, beyond the recognition that the United States is in the middle of World War IV, is at stake: "A defining difference between the candidates and their parties concerns Americans' aptitudes for navigating modern society and for setting social policy through representative institutions. Which brings us to the next president's role in shaping the federal judiciary. Kerry is more than merely comfortable with liberalism's preference for achieving its aims through judicial fiats rather than political persuasion -- by litigation rather than legislation. That preference for change driven by activist judges rather than elected representatives expresses liberalism's condescension about the normal American's capacity for thriving without government tutelage." That is, Americans have a choice between representative democracy and judicial activism. George F. Will on what this election means Washington Post columnist George F. Will backs President George W. Bush despite the candidate's faults. The column is worth reading, but I bring to your attention these two important paragraphs which describe what, beyond the recognition that the United States is in the middle of World War IV, is at stake: "A defining difference between the candidates and their parties concerns Americans' aptitudes for navigating modern society and for setting social policy through representative institutions. Which brings us to the next president's role in shaping the federal judiciary. Kerry is more than merely comfortable with liberalism's preference for achieving its aims through judicial fiats rather than political persuasion -- by litigation rather than legislation. That preference for change driven by activist judges rather than elected representatives expresses liberalism's condescension about the normal American's capacity for thriving without government tutelage." That is, Americans have a choice between representative democracy and judicial activism. Friedman is too cute by half New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman notes that his paper's columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates but he does so anyway, saying that what America needs now is George H.W. Bush (i.e. Bush I). He lists Bush I's accomplishment and attributes and concludes: "[As] we approach this critical election of 2004, my advice, dear readers, is this: Vote for the candidate who embodies the ethos of George H. W. Bush - the old guy. Vote for the man who you think would have the same gut feel for nurturing allies and restoring bipartisanship to foreign policy as him. Vote for the man you think understands the importance of facing up to our fiscal responsibilities for the sake of our children. And vote for the man who has the best instincts for balancing realism and idealism and the man who understands the necessity of using energetic U.S. diplomacy to make Israel more secure - by helping to bring it peace with its Arab neighbors, not just more tours from American Christian fundamentalists. Yes, next Tuesday, vote for the real political heir to George H. W. Bush. I'm sure you know who that is." Well, that would be Senator John Kerry, wouldn't it? Of course, if this is an endorsement, in contravention of the New York Times' own rules, what are the odds that the paper will take some kind of action against Friedman? Or will they claim that the column's conclusion was inconclusive? Steyn on Kerry's tepid endorsements Mark Steyn writes about the half-hearted backing that Senator Jean Kerry is getting, noting in particular Andrew Sullivan's TNR endorsement: "Sullivan's big idea is that the best way to force the Democrats to get serious about the war is to put them in charge of it. That's a helluva leap of faith -- and, in John Kerry's case, it's at odds with a 30-year track record of not being serious on the Cold War, Grenada, Central America, the first Gulf War, etc. As Dr. Laura would advise, you should never marry a man in hopes of reforming him." More predictions Adam Diafallah predicts Tuesday's results thusly: POPULAR VOTE Bush: 51% Kerry: 48% Nader: 1% ELECTORAL COLLEGE Bush: 298 Kerry: 240 I think he's low. My prediction is Bush 52.3%, Kerry 46.2%, Nader .6%, others .9%. Bush wins with more than 300 EV, but I'm not sure of the exact number yet. Will post that tomorrow. Saturday, October 30, 2004
Vote for Don Cherry Cherry is number two at the CBC online poll of the greatest Canadian of all time, just ahead of Terry Fox and Pierre Trudeau and right behind Tommy Douglas. Do you really want a socialist to win this contest? On November 2, vote for more Clarence Thomases Both sides know how important Tuesday's vote is in terms of shaping the judiciary. In the Washington Post today, Cass R. Sunstein and David Schkade say that the top courts, especially the Supreme Court, is tilting too far right. They note: "• On the federal courts of appeals, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointees have been sharply opposed to campaign finance regulation, voting to uphold it just one-fourth of the time. Carter and Clinton appointees, in contrast, have voted in favor of campaign finance regulation at twice that rate. • Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointees have voted in favor of those complaining of disability and sex discrimination less than one-third of the time, while Carter and Clinton appointees have done so about half the time. • Appointees of Carter and Clinton voted to uphold affirmative action programs about three-quarters of the time. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointees have done so only half as often. • Here's the biggest difference of all: Recent Republican appointees have voted for gay rights only 11 percent of the time, Carter and Clinton appointees 70 percent. These are the areas in which Kerry nominees would be likely to differ from Bush appointees. Substantial differences can also be found, and should continue to be expected, in at least four others: environmental protection, abortion, capital punishment and employment discrimination against African Americans. In these areas, the choice of the next president could dramatically affect the content of federal law." (Sunstein and Schkade also point out the obvious: "Several things are clear: Clinton's appointees show more conservative voting patterns than those of Democratic predecessors Carter and Johnson. Reagan's appointees and those of the two Bushes show more conservative patterns than the judges named by GOP predecessors Nixon and Ford. The federal judiciary has been moving steadily to the right." That is because Clinton was more conservative than Carter or Johnson and Reagan and Bush I and II was/are more conservative than Nixon and Ford.) Jane Galt in her thorough analyis of why President George W. Bush deserves re-election says of the courts: "The Supreme Court: Bush. A number of commenters have tried to convince me not to vote for Bush by trying to scare me with dire tales about another Scalia or Thomas appointed to the bench. Folks, this is like trying to scare me with a free Porsche. I'd be in heaven with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench. Why am I supposed to be so scared, again? Oh, right, abortion. News flash: libertarian does not equal pro choice, and pro-choice does not equal pro-Roe. As it happens, I'm pro-choice (reluctantly), but I'm against Roe v. Wade; I think the matter should be decided at the state level, and NARAL can use all the money it raises to lobby to provide bus tickets and nice hotel rooms to women wanting abortions in states where it is illegal." Galt makes a point that few realize: the battle over the courts is really a battle over abortion. For that reason, and others, another Clarence Thomas or another Antonin Scalia would be wonderful. The OBL tape I note only two observations. There is, of course, much more out there but I thought these two particuarly succinct and noteworthy. New York Times columnist David Brooks: "Well, the Osama bin Laden we saw last night was not a problem that needs to be mitigated. He was not the leader of a movement that can be reduced to a nuisance. What we saw last night was revolting. I suspect that more than anything else, he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept. 11." The Belmont Club: "Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer." Any doubt the candidates think this election is about four states? The Corner lists the weekend campaign stops, mostly in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, although there are stops in Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and New Mexico. W. will be at rallies in: Grand Rapids, MI, Ashwaubenon, WI, Minneapolis, MN, and Orlando, FL, on Saturday, and Miami, FL, Tampa, FL, Gainesville, FL, and Cincinnati, OH, on Sunday. Cheney will be in Nazareth, PA, Zanesville, OH, and Davenport, IA. On Sunday he will attend rallies in Toledo, OH, Romulus, MI, and Los Lunas, NM, as well as attending the 72-Hour Kickoff for Webster County GOP Headquarters in Fort Dodge, Iowa. John Kerry on Saturday will be in Appleton, WI, will be joined for a rally in Des Moines by Ashton Kutcher and Jon Bon Jovi, and will attend a rally in Warren, OH. On Sunday he will be at a church in Dayton, OH, a firefighters' chili feed in Manchester, NH, and a rally in Tampa, FL, before taping ESPN's "Sunday Conversation" (W. will be on the show too, separately). On Saturday Edwards will attend rallies in Bangor, ME, and Daytona Beach, FL. On Sunday he will be at a church in Jacksonville, FL, and rallies in Greensburg, PA, and Columbus, OH. Thursday, October 28, 2004
If everyone on the BoSox were like Schilling I might forgive them AFP reports Boston Red Sox ace pitcher Curt Schilling supports President George W. Bush: "Make sure you tell everybody to vote, and vote Bush next week." Schilling will also stump with the president in the only northeastern battleground state, New Hampshire. New look Speccie The Spectator has a new online look and some new features. Also, they now put up everything including Mark Steyn's film reviews and Paul Johnson's and Theodore Dalrymple's columns. One of the new features is a list of the top five viewed articles and not surprisingly Steyn has three of them. This week the magazine endorses President George W. Bush with one cheer. They write, "[We] maintain that Bush made fundamentally the right judgments in going to war, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, and that most of the rest of the world was wrong in opposing those judgments. Kerry, too, agrees that the war in Iraq was right: he voted for it in the Senate. Yet what wisdom regarding it has he to offer that Bush does not?" They conclude: "A vote for Bush on Tuesday will not be a vote for great statesmenship. But it will be a vote against the weak-thinking, anti-globalisation, anti-freedom tendency whose rabid feelings against Bush and conservative thought amount to nothing more than a fog of foul air. That alone is enough to make a Bush victory next week something devoutly to be wished." WS predictions The Weekly Standard regulars made their election predictions. Most think Bush will win, many think the Democrats will be looking for a new Senate leader and then there's this most out-on-a-limb predictions: "Hillary Clinton for VP. Obviously, this is a very dark horse. But here's how it's possible: When the House decides the outcome for president (as it will in the event of an Electoral College tie), the Senate chooses the vice president. But it's not the current Senate that decides, it's the newly elected Senate. I predict that Democrats take control of the Senate, ditch Edwards, and install Hillary, thus giving her a fantastic (if unorthodox) launch pad for her 2008 presidential campaign." Philly Inquirer's great exercise in civic-minded journalism The Philadelphia Inquirer has 21 reasons to vote for John Kerry and 21 rebuttals from conservatives or members/former members of the Bush administration. (Thanks to Michael Taube for sending me the link.) From what I've read, its great and the type of thing more papers should be doing. Grover Norquist responds to the Inquirer's concerns about growing deficits with an argument that Kerry 1) isn't going to get rid of them and 2) is going to tax the middle class: "Opponents of tax cuts have claimed Bush's efforts have increased the deficit. Less than 25 percent of the deficit is the result of the tax cuts. Moreover, these tax cuts were needed to boost economic growth first and foremost. A recent analysis by the American Shareholders Association concluded that the 2003 tax cut resulted in an $80 billion 'loss' to the federal government - yet had expanded economic growth by $300 billion. The result is an additional $2,500 per household. Clearly, this is not a loss to anyone other than John Kerry's liberal interest groups that feed off of American taxpayers." Andrew C. McCarthy responds to an editorial about the the handling of Abu Ghraib: "The shame of Abu Ghraib, ironically, also brought out the best of America. The scandal was unearthed and revealed by the military itself - long before the photographs roused the media from their slumber. Multiple, aggressive investigations were undertaken, including by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba and former defense secretary James Schlesinger's panel, which, though scathing about the perpetrators and their commanders, determined that there had been neither an official U.S. policy of abuse nor 'approved procedures' for inhumane treatment. The administration, moreover, has ensured that the misconduct is being vigorously prosecuted, with 45 personnel thus far referred for courts-martial." Ramesh Ponnuru says that Bush is not a corporate stooge: "So it is not surprising that Bush would tilt toward corporations, and sometimes too much so. But the standard liberal and centrist critique of Bush as a servant of business interests is mostly wrong." Drawing a fine, subtle but accurate point, he concludes: "Other times, Bush's failing hasn't been fealty to corporate interests but rather captivity to a corporate outlook. The CEO class is comfortable with racial-preference programs: Neither the CEOs nor their kids pay the price for them. They don't compete with illegal immigrants, either. They tend to think of immigrants as potential laborers rather than as potential citizens. So does Bush. But when Bush's critics say he's too close to business, somehow I don't think affirmative action and immigration are what they have in mind." David Frum says that Bush is no unilateralist and is reactionary enough to begin his column by introducing some facts: "The 'unilateralist' Bush administration responded to 9/11 by requesting and winning United Nations Resolution 1373, calling on all states to suppress terrorist financing. It requested and got a U.N. resolution before going into Afghanistan, too. It invoked NATO aid as well. The administration sought Security Council approval before Iraq - twice (the first time successfully; the second time, not). For the actual war there, the administration built a coalition that included Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Spain and others: a total of 17 nations, larger than the coalition that fought the Korean War. As soon as Saddam Hussein was deposed, the administration returned to the U.N. and got a resolution approving the occupation. The U.N. was invited into Iraq to oversee reconstruction. It was not the United States that abandoned the U.N.; it was the U.N. that abandoned Iraq, running away after its local headquarters was bombed in August 2003." Michael M. Uhlmann says the election is all about the courts: "If you're happy with judicial control over the cultural life of the nation, and want to see it perpetuated, you will vote for John Kerry. But if you think that the courts have gone too far, and that the resolution of controversial moral and social issues ought to be left to the legislatures, or to the people themselves, the President deserves your vote." Also, Dan Senor on the progress in Iraq, Rod Paige on Bush's education policies and Joseph Laconte on Bush, religion and the public square. Wearing your politics on your lapel Jay Nordlinger dedicates about half of his Impromptus column on stories that people emailed to him after he brought up the issue of campaign buttons. It is really worth reading but here are a few tidbits: "Late in September, I was in a small tourist village in France having dinner. I noticed a man a couple of tables over with a Kerry-Edwards button. First of all, the irony of wearing a Kerry button in France made me smile inside." About a fellow employee one person wrote, "One of them asked me after one of the debates whether I was still going to vote for Bush. After answering her in the affirmative, I asked why she wouldn't vote for Bush also. She answered that she would not vote for Bush 'even if [her] life depended on it.' 'I know,' said I." One person recalled a bumper sticker they saw in St. Paul, Minn: "The bumper sticker read, 'Another Family for Peace.' The arrogance, the vanity, the moral exhibitionism made me want to go home and make a new bumper sticker that read, 'Another Family for War.' At least that might start a few conversations, not end them." Ohio not a swing state But there is still a battle for its 21 ECV. Peter Schramm paints an overly optimistic picture of the presidential race as it is playing out in Ohio although he is correct to note that Ohio really isn't a swing state but rather a heavily Republican state that is, this time around, a battleground state this time. He missed the opportunity to note that through the 20th century, Republican presidential candidates averaged 2% higher in the Buckeye State than they did nationally. Comments Send them to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com. Nothing about the 21st century's Evil Empire -- the Boston Red Sox -- winning, please. Wednesday, October 27, 2004
More from the poser NRO's Battleground blog posts this email reporting from the ground in Michigan: "Remember too that Kerry stated to a Mich. crowd that he 'loved' Buckeye football. Then made some lame fumble and to boos from the crowd said something about 'those big M's'." Words of wisdom from the World Series MVP Boston Red Sox outfielder and just-named WS MVP Manny Ramirez said that he doesn't believe in curses, that "you go out there and make your own destination." What an idiot. I can certainly wait another 86 years before Boston sees another World Series championship. The 'F' in John F. Kerry stands for fake Andrew Stuttaford believes the Democratic presidential candidate is more a poser than a hunter. Stuttaford says he has a "suspicion that Kerry's hunting fables are yet more evidence of a candidate unable both to be himself and to be elected. It's his awareness of this, more than anything else, that explains those infamous flip-flops, and it's that awareness ... that explains this odd, awkward, aloof pretense at being one of the boys." And then, Kerry had a moment in which he confused his life story with that of a movie character. (Didn't Reagan get made fun of for doing the same thing? At least he played the character in a movie.) Stuttaford relates a Kerry quote -- "I once had an incredible encounter with the most enormous buck — I don't know, 16 points or something. It was just huge. And I failed to pull the trigger at the right moment" and says "if that sounds to you just a teeny bit too much like that moment in The Deer Hunter when Michael Vronsky (a decorated hero of the Vietnam war, you know) gets a deer in his sights and decides not to shoot, well, you should be ashamed of yourself." There is yet another problem the fake hunting stories illustrate, namely that Kerry doesn't understand why the Second Amendment is important. It is not about hunting deer or dove or anything else, but the right to defend oneself. Paul Martin's democracy in action CP reports that the Prime Minister says that no sitting Liberal MP will face a challenge for the party nomination. This must be a sign that he expects a quick election -- as in before Fall 2005. Officially the PMO says it is because they are in a minority government situation. The half-full glass Adam Daifallah finds the first piece of good news for the Conservative Party of Canada since .... em ... since ... I don't know, it polled ahead the Liberals mid-way through the federal election campaign: Al Gretzky, Wayne's uncle, is going to run for the party in London West in the next election. The Muslim Leader Drinking Game In the comment section of some post at The Shotgun, Kathy Shaidle lists the rules of the Muslim Leader Drinking Game: When they say: "All Israelis are legitimate targets", take a drink. When they say: "Jews are dogs and pigs", take a drink. When they say: "America asked for it," take a drink. And when they say: "I was misquoted/My remarks were taken out of context/I was just quoting somebody else/The media is using this to smear us"--drink the whole bottle. You'll be soused in no time! Tuesday, October 26, 2004
There they go again, Part II Taiwanese lawmakers get into a scrap over the arms budget. Famous for its physical altercations, including ones in which there are projectiles (in the past, shoes and chairs), members of Taiwan's deliberative this time took to throwing food. There they go again AP reports that Islamic rebels in Egypt have kidnapped a Japanese national and are threatening to behead him. Why Colin Powell must go I would suggest that President George W. Bush would do well to rid his cabinet of Colin Powell, especially after his one China comments. From the duh files CTV reports, "Happy marriage eases work stress, study finds." Especially when the lovely wife has dinner ready for you when you arrive home. And I bet that unhappy marriages add to work stress. Monday, October 25, 2004
The 'Greatest Canadian' Burkean Canuck had some thoughts on the silly CBC exercise and demonstrates a greater historical knowledge than all CBC viewers/listeners combined. He dissects the Top 10 including David Suzuki ("This is a man who has cobbled a career out of being highly articulate and telegenic, making little substance sound substantial, and who has never allowed the facts to get in the way of a good argument. Top 100? Not even.") and Lester Pearson ("He should be in the Top 50. But let's face it -- this is the man who is responsible more than anyone else for inflicting possibly the worst prime minister ever on Canada for all but a matter of months from 1968 to 1984"). He then unloads on PET, which is definitely worth reading. WWIII and WWIV In his Impromptus column, Jay Nordlinger writes one of the most horrifying things I have read in a long time, in which he compares World War IV and World War III: "In a discussion last year with Donald Rumsfeld, I asked, "Do you think the people will stick with the War on Terror?" He answered, quick as a flash, "They stuck with the Cold War." True. But my feeling is that we lucked out a little there. We lucked out with the two terms of Reagan (granted, we elected him). And we lucked out with the rise of Gorbachev. Would the Americans really have had the stamina? I would have hated to test it - beyond about 1990." The comparison is, of course, apt. As is a certain conclusion about the present Democratic presidential candidate: Kerry wasn't serious about battling the Evil Empire either. Nordlinger says of Kerry on the today's war: "I know, I know: John Kerry doesn't pledge to quit the War on Terror; he pledges to wage it more intelligently. Tell me another one: I believe this is a general-election pose, not too different from his recent, public hunting. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Michael Moore are not supporting Kerry because they think he'll continue the War on Terror - certainly not because they think he'll do a better job of it. They are supporting him because they think he doesn't mean it. I bet they're right." I wish I could be like Derek Jeter No, not because he is a great ball player but because he told the New York Times (sorry, couldn't find a link) that after being eliminated from the playoffs, he no longer watches baseball: "I just don't really have much interest." I do. And right now it hurts with the vile Boston Red Sox leading the St. Louis Cardinals. History, however, could be on the Cards' side; three of the last four times the Sox have been in the World Series they were up 2-0 and all three times they blew it. Sometimes its not the news but the passing reference that gets me thinking NRO's Battleground blog reports that Rev. John Kerry campaigned from the "pulpit of Mount Hermon African Methodist Episcopal Church." What is a Methodist Episcopal church? Two Iraqs Arthur Chrenkoff continues his wonderful series on the good news in Iraq. These are long weekly posts that lets readers know what they wouldn't otherwise know if they depended only upon CNN and the New York Times (or, in Canada, the CBC and the Globe and Mail). He begins Part 13 of the Good News from Iraq: "There are two Iraqs. The one we more often get to see and read about is a dangerous place, full of exploding cars, kidnapped foreigners and deadly ambushes. The reconstruction is proceeding at a snail's pace, frustration boils over and tensions - political, ethnic, religious - crackle in the air like static electricity before a storm. The other Iraq is a once prosperous and promising country of twenty-four million people, slowly recovering from physical and moral devastation of totalitarian rule. It's a country whose people are slowly beginning to stand on their own feet, grasp the opportunities undreamed of only two years ago, and dream of catching up on three decades of lost time." If you were not aware of Chrenkoff's blog, come back regularly and find out what you are missing; come back to read about the second Iraq. Now, this is going to seem like a contradiction, but the Los Angeles Times has a mini forum with Christopher Hitchens, Michael Rubin, Frederick W. Kagan and Gary Schmitt on what's going right in Iraq. Hitchens is interesting because he notes several successes honest, small-l liberals should appreciate, including the rise of democratic voices in neighbouring countries, having a verifiably disarmed Iraq and improved conditions for the Marsh Arabs. Kagan argues that one of the great successes of Iraq is that it will end the necessity of having a presence in Saudi Arabia. Schmitt says that first and foremost -- I disagree that this is obvious, although it should be -- what has gone right is that Hussein is gone: "Whatever the problems in Iraq, they pale in comparison with the history of Hussein's tyranny." Election round-up The best article about the November 2 U.S. election from the weekend is William Kristol's in the Weekly Standard. Kristol says that September 11 didn't change everything but rather exposed what we failed to see during the illusory peace of the 1990s. November 2 is about whether the United States wants to conduct its affairs with its eyes open or eyes closed. Several endorsements: the Washington Post (Sunday), Columbus Dispatch (Sunday) and Washington Times (last Tuesday). The Times puts forward, among other considerations, the argument that Kristol employs -- that Bush understands the gravity of 9/11 and that wishing the world were not as it is, is not leadership: "President George W. Bush sees the rise of global Islamist terrorism as an evil force and mortal threat, the causes of which must be extirpated, root and branch, in a global struggle. He believes that it is insufficient to merely track down the existing terrorists and contain the rogue states with capacity for weapons of mass destruction that may support them. Rather, he proposes ... to transform — by military means if necessary — the sick societies of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia that have given rise to the appeal of terrorism." Kerry, on the other hand, "while recognizing the malignant nature of the terrorists, sees that threat, or at least the solution to it, as somewhat less thoroughgoing." The WaPo offers a fairly balanced analysis with one notable exception: it takes Kerry at his word. The editorial concludes: "We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them." The biggest risk, of course, is that Kerry does not keep his promises, that his half-hawkish approach to foreign policy -- a hawk encumbered by a French veto -- is a guise to win centrist votes. Lastly, the Dispatch, which has not endorsed a Democrat since World War I, summarized the election thusly: "On domestic issues, voters are confronted with an avowed conservative who spends like a liberal, and a confirmed liberal who promises the fiscal constraint of a conservative." And while the paper opposed going into Iraq in the first place and has been critical of President Bush, it finds that nothing in Kerry's record, history or campaign inspires much confidence. The Nation magazine endorsed Kerry. Surprise, surprise -- they found Bush a threat to democracy although it is forced to admit that "Kerry's election would not necessarily save, and Bush's election would not necessarily destroy, democratic government in the United States." And lastly, while there are a lot of anti-Senator Tom Daschle sites out there, I particularly like Dump Daschle. Sunday, October 24, 2004
Remember Kosovo It's still a mess. The Telegraph editorializes about it: "five years after the Atlantic alliance halted Serbian persecution of the ethnic Albanian majority, political progress towards a final settlement has been paltry. Constitutionally, Kosovo remains in limbo, officially still part of Serbia but in fact a UN protectorate." UN and Western foot-dragging on putting pressure all sides for a settlement must end. And it wasn't even the United Church I am no longer really surprised at the silliness that often takes place inside churches today, at least not since I witnessed a wedding in which the bride and groom promised to love and behold etc, "as long as our love shall last." And what happens when it doesn't? So when I read stories such as this one, I am amused as much as am discouraged by the fact that it happens at all. The AFP reports that Rev. Deric Derbyshire of the St. Peter's Congregational Church near Port Elizabeth, South Africa, "baptised a thoroughbred racehorse called 'Running Reverend' in front of his congregation in a controversial bid to raise church funds." The pastor told AFP, "I did a scripture reading and a prayer and then sprinkled the horse's forehead." I'm tired of Canadians getting tired of talking about their constitution Over at The Shotgun, Kevin Steel says that the impatience that Canadians -- opposition politicians, the pundit class and the public -- with Stephen Harper's suggestion that Belgium (and, by the way, Yugoslavia) could a model for the way Canadians govern themselves demonstrates "our rank civic ignorance and distain for how we are governed." Read why here. Saturday, October 23, 2004
Playing catch up I have been out of action for a few days and haven't done much reading of the international press and blogs. So has much happened? Here are three particularly interesting items I have found while speedily purusing the 25-30 sites I try to read daily. Writing in the WSJ, James Bowman examines Jon Stewart, who has traded his old funny self in for two not terribly funny persona: fully owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party or unrelenting cynic. Bowman captures why Stewart has not been funny in the last six months, although I would guess Bowman thinks it has been much longer: "Lately when things have turned serious for a moment, Mr. Stewart has beaten a hasty retreat, as he did on 'Crossfire.' Comedy without an underlying moral seriousness is a species of nihilism, as fatiguing as the Olympian posturings of the network news." It is hardly a surprise that National Review endorsed President George W. Bush, but I thought there would be more hand-wringing about it. They conclude, however, "For conservatives, however, backing Bush's reelection should be an easy decision." Indeed, it should be. Why? As NR itself succinctly puts it: "We cannot guarantee that in a second term, Bush would nominate judicial conservatives to the Supreme Court, or press for Social Security reform, or fight the war on terrorism with intelligence and firmness of purpose — nor that he would succeed if he did those things. But his willingness to embrace startling changes, to ignore his media critics, and to set conservative priorities argues in favor of optimism. He is certainly more likely to promote these conservative policies than John Kerry would be." And lastly, another great issue of The Spectator. Ian Duncan Smith, the former UK Tory leader, writes an excellent piece on the Mental Capacity Bill. He attacks its provision that permits denying nutrition and hydration and the lie that doing so allows patient to "slip away quietly." (It is actually a horrible, horrible death.) IDS writes that "there is a fatal flaw" at the heart of the Mental Capacity Bill: "The licence to withhold tube-delivered food and water from a patient who would otherwise live. The government protests that this is not euthanasia. I cannot agree. It is a death sentence for the patients in question. Even advocates of euthanasia agree. Dr Helgha Kuhse, the former president of a consortium of right-to-die organisations, wrote: 'If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care — especially the removal of food and fluids — they will see what a painful way this is to die and ... they will accept the lethal injection'." IDS says that the euthanasia debate is clouded by misinformation; it would be much less so if everyone read Smith's Spectator article. Wednesday, October 20, 2004
I'll be back on Friday Extremely busy two days at work. Seventh game in the ALCS tonight. Turning 32 tomorrow. Going to press Friday. See you later this week. Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Radical Anglicans rebuked Anglicanly John Derbyshire on the Windsor Report: "Been reading the Windsor Report, the considered response of the Anglican Communion (whose U.S. member is the Episcopal Church) to the election of openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson to the Diocese of New Hampshire, and to the authorising by a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada of a public Rite of Blessing for same sex unions. It is, for an Anglican document, suprisingly forthright. It scolds the offending parties for supposing they had more latitude in deciding these things than (according to the Report) they actually have. It asks them to apologize, and urges that no further such actions be taken until 'realistic and visionary ways' can 'be agreed to meet the levels of disagreement at present,' and 'to reach consensus on structures for encouraging greater understanding and communion in future.' Translation: No more of this stuff, please, till we've had a few years to chew it over. These scoldings are tucked away in a vast souffle of gassy prose about 'healing' and 'communion,' 'study and reflection,' 'listening and discernment,' etc. etc. etc. Still, as Anglican-speak goes, it's a stern rebuke." If only we could all forget about Bill Clinton The Derb perused the magazine covers and "Noted with interest the cover of The Nation, issue dated 10/25/04": "Cover headline: CAN WE STOP PRESIDENTS FROM LYING? Accompanying full-cover illustration: old photograph of some convicts in old-style striped convict fatigues, chained together. Superimposed as the convicts' heads are Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Richard Nixon. Interesting. But wasn't there a president who actually lied under oath to a court of law, and was impeached for it?" Can an American support the troops and Democrats at the same time The Corner posts this email: "My wife and I have a theory about bumper stickers. The most common sticker (and they are VERY common everywhere you go - we live in NY and have traveled recently in MA, CT, NY, NJ and DE) are the support the troops ribbons. We have never seen any cars with these stickers who also sport Kerry stickers. Occasionally we see Bush stickers along with ribbons. We suspect that the ribbons are a stealth way to support the President and avoid dirty looks/hand gestures/vandalism. Now this may not be 100% but I suspect there is a heavy weighting for Bush." I find it extremely noteworthy that the correspondent has not seen any cars with support the troop ribbons and pro-Kerry stickers. I think that all the talk about supporting the troops but opposing the mission or the president is BS. Buchanan endorses Bush In many ways, this is unbelievable. Considering that Patrick J. Buchanan and his misnamed ragazine The American Conservative [sic] have bashed President George W. Bush for his foreign policy, lack of leadership on moral issues, his deficit spending, support for immigration, and his free trade rhetoric, it is surprising that the one-time Nixon speechwriter endorsed Bush. But Adam Daifallah makes a good observation: "I find it fascinating that someone like him, who has opposed nearly all of Bush's policies, and is a trade protectionist, still cannot muster the will to endorse John Kerry for President. I think this says a lot more about Kerry than Buchanan." What I thought Buchanan would do was either endorse a third-party candidate -- heck, Buchanan was once a third-party candidate -- or refrain from endorsing anyone. (In the same issue of The American Conservative [sic], Kara Hopkins makes the case for staying home.) But ultimately he found Senator John Kerry more of a threat to what he believes than Bush; my guess is that Bush will win many votes from people upset with Bush but just can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry. One last word about TAC. No magazine that has conservative in its title should be edited by a person who makes the case for voting for John Kerry as Scott McConnell does. From the annals of the healthcare utopia that is Canada According to a Fraser Institute study, "The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased slightly this year; rising to 17.9 weeks in 2004 (from 17.7 weeks in 2003)." For you lazy people, the CP story is here. Everyone who says that "ah, that's the Fraser Institute," please consider this number: 815,663. That is the total number of medical procedures for which people were waiting in this year. You don't say Yahoo has an AP story about the Florida Senate race under this unbelievable headline: "Fla. Senate Candidates Have Opposing Views." Monday, October 18, 2004
Taking a break from whoring ... Reuters reports that "A soccer team made up of Guatemalan prostitutes, formed to call attention to their poor working conditions, lost 3-1 to policewomen on Saturday." The professional women were kicked out of "an elite amateur league last month because of allegations that their fans used profanity." Shocking. I see a Canadian foreign aid program in the making. Or, at the very least, sympathetic treatment of gals by the CBC and perhaps a NFB documentary. None dare call it genocide Daimnation notes that the quasi-official death toll for Darfur is now 70,000 with this biting comment "Just ten years after Rwanda. Just ten years," under the headline "It's not Rwanda yet, but give it time." Paul Martin says he wants to do something about the genocide, which under Canada's soft-power foreign policy abilities is the same as doing something. Meanwhile, more people die in Sudan. When will liberals get past a man's skin colour? Roger Clegg has a good column at NRO about felons and voting. I'm agnostic about whether letting ex-cons regain the right to vote is a good idea -- the arguments, in a nutshell are, it is a good idea that felons lose some rights, but on the other hand once a criminal has served his time and paid his debt to society, he should not be punished further by denying him the vote for the rest of his life -- but clearly the debate is one based on principle. In other words, denying felons voting rights is not a conspiracy to deny blacks their voting rights. I think the liberal criticism that there is a racial motivation to denying felons the vote is a symptom of the liberal's inability to see a black person for anything -- a successful foreign policy advisor, a columnist, a felon, etc... -- but a black person. How many liberals remember Ricky Ray Rector? Jay Nordlinger on Jon Stewart, capital punishment and a certain former Democratic presidential candidate: "Speaking of the death penalty: I've never seen Jon Stewart on television, but I see him praised constantly, and I noted something he said, from National Journal: 'Does [President Bush] believe in spanking? He believes in executing the retarded. Of course he believes in spanking.' We did have a president who executed the retarded — when he was governor of Arkansas, running for president. Trying to prove his conservative credentials. The retarded man's name was Ricky Ray Rector. He set aside his dessert from his last meal — a slice of pecan pie — for later. I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart doesn't know this. I'm also pretty sure he doesn't care." Misnamed New York Review of Books John Derbyshire looks at the uniformly left views of the contributors to a panel on the upcoming American election and finds "As a life-long lover of books and writing, though, I do take mild umbrage at a lefty political rag traveling under the title "New York Review of Books" -- a title that suggests something wider than a solid block of rants against the wickedness of the current administration." The Derb offers a sample of that solid block of rants -- Bush is an extremist, we are lucky he didn't get to appoint any Supreme Court justices, he is using terrorism as a ploy to systemically undermine civil rights, blah, blah, blah. The Derb concludes by offering a suggested new name for the mag: "May I suggest that NYRB considers re-titling itself to something more appropriate? How about: 'New York Review of the Opinions of Burned-Out Old Stalinists, Aging Hippies Who Just Can't Get Over Vietnam, Affirmative Action Academic Hires, Alcoholic Novelists Who Haven't Had a Decent Plot Idea Since 1962, and Retired UN Bureacrats'?" Funny, funny, funny Check out this if you haven't seen it: Fellowship 9/11. It's a 14-minute flick in which "Michael Moore" slaps around the elven, dwarf and human elite for invading Mordor for its oil. CBC hypocrisy Adam Daifallah has a great post on the CBC criticizing an American broadcaster for its decision to air an anti-John Kerry documentary in the weeks before the presidential election while on the same day that Canada's national broadcaster is airing the two-hour French-made Bush-bashing doc The World According to Bush. Sunday, October 17, 2004
Tampa Trib non-endorsement no surprise The Associated Press reports that for the first time since 1964, the Tampa Tribune is not endorsing the Republican presidential candidate; indeed, it is not endorsing anyone. The paper has problems with Bush's execution of the war in Iraq, his administration's so called clamp down on dissent, the growth in spending over the past four years and the betrayal of promise of compassionate conservatism. The paper also has problems with Kerry, including his problems telling the truth and his lack of a clear or realistic plan for Iraq. The editorial urges voters to consider their analysis, the actions and promises of the candidates and to make up their own mind. The AP story wants to leave the impression that Bush has alienated his own base with its narrative of the traditionally Republican paper bailing on him. But I've been a close reader of the Tribune for nearly 15 years and over the past 3-5 years, it has become less reliably Republican and much less conservative in its editorials and roster of columnists, to say nothing of its news coverage (it picks up too many AP stories and New York Times reprints). The non-endorsement editorial is not a surprise but an unfortunate but predictable part of the Tribune's evolution to typical city paper. A break from my blogging holiday to accentuate the positive E!Online reports that pay-per-view provider iN DEMAND will not air Michael Moore's "controversial doc" Fahrenheit 9/11 on November 1, one day before the presidential election. Michael Moore may sue iN DEMAND, a Time-Warner company, for breach of contract. Predictably, Moore has a conspiracy theory as to why his movie is not going to be shown: the PPV provider was intimidated by "top Republican people" although he offered no evidence. In other good news, Jeremy Lott writes in the Indianapolis Star that all the anti-Bush books on store shelves, with comparatively few anti-Kerry selections, may not be as damaging to the president as one might expect: "By bringing out so many anti-Bush books, the publishing industry has done three things that its mostly Democratic voters may soon regret. First, it has boosted the president's stature: If this many people are attacking him, some voters are sure to reason, he must at least be effective. Second, by airing so many frequent, sometimes over-the-top criticisms of Bush, publishers help color the opposition as a bunch of obsessives and crazies. Finally, the shortage of anti-Kerry books helps to reinforce the senator's image as the candidate of a certain social class, and a lightweight to boot. The suspicion is that the smart set refrains from criticizing Kerry because they can't stand the thought of a Bush victory, and also because they aren't sure he could take it." Saturday, October 16, 2004
Blogging holiday I'll be out of action for a day or so. I have some "pay the rent" writing to do. Have a good rest of the weekend. World War IV, abortion, deficits, genocide in Sudan ... On a scale from 1-10 with 1 being of absolutely no concern to anyone and 10 being of the utmost metaphysical importance and therefore requiring the urgent attention of the New York Times editorial page, where does having to pay for a cart at an airport fall? Eleanor Randolph writes on the editorial page: "Most officials paid to worry about the nation's airports concentrate on security - a very legitimate priority. Next, they seem to worry about how the passenger actually gets to the nearest airfield." That she has less time for. Randolph says that it is time to free the push-carts for luggage to alleviate the suffering of travellers: "It's time to think about individual baggage carts as a customer necessity, like fresh water and restrooms, the way they do in Europe or China, or even developing countries that have little else to brag about. It's time to free the trolleys. Oh, and buy enough to go around." David Brooks on the real John Kerry Sometimes it takes a fictional account of a presidential debate to get to the core of a presidential candidate. The New York Times' David Brooks does this in his column today with a exaggerated rendering of the third and final exchange, moderated by CBS's Bob Schieffer: "SCHIEFFER And our first question goes to Senator Kerry. Sir, your spending plans will cost over a trillion dollars. Your combined tax plans will cost $500 billion. How are you going to balance the budget? KERRY Bob, I'm glad you asked me that question, but before I dodge it I'd like to thank you for moderating this debate, I'd like to thank Arizona State University for being such wonderful hosts and I'd like to thank Dick Cheney's daughter for being a lesbian - in case anybody didn't know. Bob, as you know, this nation is on the brink of an apocalyptic catastrophe. Civilization as we know it is hanging on by a thread. Our culture has collapsed, our economy is in tatters, the human spirit is extinguished, children never laugh, God is dead, and families like Dick Cheney's are ashamed of their daughters, one of whom is a lesbian. All of this is because of George Bush. Did you know that right here in Arizona the average share of the national debt on a per capita basis is rising faster than the inverse of the median lost wages ratio of the typical swing voter in Ohio, Missouri and Florida combined? Bob, when I'm president, we're going to have a president as gloomy as this country should be. But the difference is that I have a plan to balance the budget. In fact I have seven plans. Seven and a half if you count the one I was working on in the limo, not even counting subclauses. When I'm president, our country is going to marry a really rich country, which will pay for everything. Thank you." The success and meaning of Afghanistan Michael Gonzalez, editorial page editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal, describes the democratic spirit that swept Afghanistan last week: "In many parts of the country, voting required real courage. The Taliban and al Qaeda had threatened to bomb polling places in a last-ditch attempt to exercise control through terror. Some people I talked with before the election had fear on their faces as they discussed the possible return of their former tormentors. Security for the vote was heavy. On Thursday and Friday before the vote Kabul bristled with soldiers, tanks and checkpoints, while helicopters patrolled the skies. But in the end, the legendary defiance of the Afghan won the day. A phrase I heard over and over--as I visited polling booths and asked why they were taking a risk to cast a vote--was, 'We're Afghans!' It was as if it had been rehearsed." It was a wonderful day for Afghanistan and a wonderful day for freedom. As Gonzalez writes: "Since Vietnam, America has been talking about the need to win not just battles, but also hearts and minds. Well, this appears to be happening in Afghanistan. The old Persian-speaking world stretches from here, with the Pashtuns and the Tajiks, westward to the Kurds of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. America has started the process of bringing democracy to this world, and to flinch from this task now would be a betrayal of the courage which the Afghans displayed on their election day." Democrats, Iraq and WMD Here's a list of quotes by Democrats on Saddam Hussein, his WMD program and his threat to Middle East peace and American security. Two examples: "I mean, we have three different countries [the Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea] that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." -- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), during an interview on CNN's "Late Edition", February 24, 2002 And: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Senator Edward Kennedy (D, MA), speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, September 27, 2002 (Hat tip to Let It Bleed) Friday, October 15, 2004
Making dad proud My eldest son turned 14 today. He got most of what he wanted for his birthday including a year's subscription to both the Limbaugh Letter and Rush 24/7. My wife says this is child abuse. The adolescent agitator There have been several good dissections of Che Guevara recently, but Anthony Daniels' piece in The New Criterion seems to me the best. Here's a snippet: "In one sense, and one sense alone, Guevara remains eternally youthful: his ideas are irredeemably adolescent. They have all the puritan priggishness of adolescent fervor. He insisted that something that he called the New Man should be 'constructed,' 'built,' or 'developed.' This New Man was to be utterly unselfish, and work only for the sake of the whole of mankind, and not for himself. Indeed, the construction of the New Man was the fundamental purpose of the revolution. A socialist economy without communist morals does not interest me. We fight poverty but we also fight alienation. One of the fundamental aims of Marxism is to eliminate material interest, the factor of 'individual self-interest' and profit from man’s psychological motivations. Note that what does not interest him should not exist, surely a manifestation if not of material self-interest, at least of egotism on a pretty large scale. Of course, Guevara’s adolescent idea was also Marx’s adolescent idea: 'for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness [i.e., that of the selfless New Man] the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary.' In order that the New Man should emerge, Guevara advocated the most drastic centralization of all power and decision-making, which would make the Soviet Union by comparison look like the epitome of laissez-faire economics. You don’t have to be much of a political theorist to understand what his proposed centralization of everything would entail from the point of view of individual freedom." The occasion for this consideration is, of course, the film the Motorcycle Diaries by director Walter Salles. Daniels concludes his essay: "In presenting Guevara as a romantic figure, generous and compassionate rather than ruthlessly priggish and self-centered, and by suggesting that he has anything to teach us other than negatively, the director is guilty of mendacity of a very high order. The film is an exercise in moral frivolity and exhibitionism, self-congratulation, of course, opportunism. It should sell as well as Guevara T-shirts." A little proportion people Earlier this week, the Telegraph spikes a Mark Steyn column because he had some impolite things to say about Britain's reaction to the death of Kenneth Bigley. It was hard hitting but none of it was untrue -- retreat or capitulation is no way to prevent the murder of future Kenneth Bigleys. Then yesterday, The Spectator ran a similarly impolite but fundamentally true leader on the Dianafication of the terrorist murder of Denneth Bigley, beginning thusly: "The soccer international between England and Wales last Saturday managed to display in an instant two of the most unsavoury aspects of life in modern Britain. A request by the authorities for a minute’s silence in memory of Mr Ken Bigley, the news of whose murder by terrorists in Iraq had broken the previous day, was largely and ostentatiously ignored. Yet the fact that such a tribute was demanded in the first place emphasised the mawkish sentimentality of a society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood." Predictably, there was outrage. And because The Speccie's editor, Boris Johnson, is a Tory MP and that party's arts and culture critic, that outrage has a political bent. The Guardian reports, "Michael Howard was last night under pressure to sack his culture and arts spokesman Boris Johnson after the colourful MP and Spectator editor ran an editorial in his magazine accusing Liverpudlians of wallowing in their 'victim status' and overreacting to the murder of Ken Bigley." While Johnson has yet to be relieved of his critic's duties, Howard called the magazine's leader (editorial for North American readers) as "nonsense from beginning to end." Admittedly, there were some things said about Liverpool that the city's fair citizens would not appreciate -- "an excessive predilection for welfarism" had "created a peculiar, and deeply unattractive psyche among many Liverpudlians. They see themselves whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status; yet at the same time they wallow in it" -- but the outrage of Liverpudlians demonstrates The Spectator's point about their sentimentalism over Mr. Bigley. As the leader concludes: "It is time we recognised that, in such a situation, it is not a breach of natural justice that the Lone Ranger does not come galloping over the horizon; it is exactly how life is. In our maturity as a civilisation, we should accept that we can cut out the cancer of ignorant sentimentality without diminishing, as in this case, our utter disgust at a foul and barbaric act of murder." Thank God for the New York Sun Whenever a friend goes to New York, I always ask them to bring me back a copy of the New York Sun. While I'll always have a soft spot for the Washington Times, the Sun is my favourite American paper, in no small part because of reporting like this scoop by Eli Lake. Lake uncovers a possible link between Jordian King Abdullah (when he was still prince) and Saddam Hussein, with the former providing the latter weapons. Lake reports: "Lawyers for Ahmad Chalabi are prepared to prove in an American court that Jordan's King Abdullah attempted to sell arms to Saddam Hussein in 1992 when he was only a prince and not heir to the throne. A handwritten letter to Saddam from his late son Uday, dated February 9, 1992, lists prices for old Soviet military equipment and says that then-Prince Abdullah recommended Uday contact an intermediary identified as 'Jack al-Khayyat,' who could arrange the sale. The letter says the proposal was made to Iraqi sources in Jordan through Mr. al-Khayyat. Prince Abdullah sought to import the equipment and then sell it to Iraq for cash payments. On offer were T-72 tanks for $50,000 a piece; MIG-29 fighter jets for $1,000,000 a piece; transport planes for between $200,000 and $300,000 apiece as well as troop carriers fitted with 100 mm cannons, and helicopters. Saddam declined the sale, saying that his treasury was depleted, in a three-line note written at the end of the document. ... The case is being brought by Mr. Chalabi in the U.S. district court in the District of Columbia under charges that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has deliberately tried to defame and in some cases physically harm Mr. Chalabi and his family since a Jordanian court seized Petra Bank, which Mr. Chalabi ran, in 1989. Mr. Chalabi has been in a war with the Jordanian royal family since he lost the bank and was sentenced in absentia by a military court to 22 years of hard labor. Mr. Chalabi's legal complaint filed in August says King Abdullah in May of this year delivered personally to President Bush 'a file containing the false accusation that Chalabi had informed the Iranian government that the United States had broken its encryption code and thus could intercept its secret communications.' That charge led the White House to abort a $340,000-a-month program to fund information collection activities from the Iraqi National Congress, the program that likely enabled Mr. Chalabi to get his hands on the 1992 letter." Of this important article, Adam Daifallah poses two rhetorical questions: "It will be fascinating to see whether this story gets any legs" and "Could this be why Abdullah has been complicit in the smear campaign against Ahmad Chalabi?" Sobering Thoughts' answers: no and yes. Thursday, October 14, 2004
More proof that Michael Moore is a big, fat, stupid white man The Associated Press reports that Michael Moore told students from California State University, San Marcos, that he would endow a $5,000 per year scholarship for a student who "stands up the most to the administration of Cal State San Marcos." University officials recently cancelled one of Moore's $30,000 speeches on campus. I thought Kerry was a master debater I have heard all too often that John Kerry was part the debate team at Yale and that he would destroy President George W. Bush with his incredible powers of logic. Didn't happen. In fact, the logic part of Kerry's repertoire never showed up for the game. One example. On the issue of the lapsing of the assault weapon ban, Kerry retold the story of going hunting with an Iowa law enforcement official who pointed to a house and said that during a drug bust there, they found an AK-47. Never mind that the AK-47 remains banned in America, isn't there a more important point even if it wasn't? If the criminals whom the police busted on drug possession also had in their possession such a gun during the assault weapon ban, didn't that ban prove quite useless in this case? And aren't criminals unconcerned about the legality of trafficking or use of illegal drugs probably also unconcerned about the legality of owning such high-powered weapons? And please don't tell me that the guns would be more readily available; without knowing the details of the case Kerry cited, 1) many drugs come outside of the country and 2)last I checked, the AK-47 is not made in the United States. UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru has what he thinks is the correct status of the AK-47 ban. But the substance of my point remains the same. New York Post endorses Chuck Schumer This is very disappointing. In the final analysis, this New York Post endorsement editorial says it comes down to one issue: "But the fact remains that on the overriding issue of the day — the threat of global Islamist terrorism — Chuck Schumer gets it. And he gets it in a way that few in his party — Sen. Joe Lieberman perhaps being the honorable exception — do." Schumer is right on terror and he is one of the few in his party to be on the right side of the issue. But Schumer has zealously pursued his role as Democratic attack dog on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, in often unfair ways. This disqualifies him from consideration. The Post found Schumer's opponents too dismal to endorse (which they probably are) and it appears the paper settled too easily for less. The Post should have abstained from a senatorial endorsement this time around. The Debate, Part III Hugh Hewitt and nearly everyone at The Corner says President George W. Bush won it. (The exception is Rick Brookhiser, who called it a draw.) I watched the debate between innings and I've part of the re-broadcast of the debate, and I'd have to give Kerry the edge: he made substantive points most of the time, remained on-message, and was convincing. But I don't think he was any of these things enough to have the debate matter. And neither candidate had the kind of magnetism to score that knock-out punch the media talks about endlessly. All that said, Kerry may have lost votes on his handling of the abortion issue, especially in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania with their large Catholic populations. Kerry said religion is part of who he is and that it affects everything he does, including in public life, but that while abortion is wrong, that view is an article of faith and he can't impose his faith on others. Never mind that Muslims and Christians make up 90% of America and for the most part both faiths consider abortion wrong. But then Kerry made two mistakes that I think most people will recognize. First, initially he said that as an article of faith he thought abortion was wrong but later he said he believed in choice. Which is it? I hope he is called on this flip-flop made while answering a single question. Second, Kerry said that religion affects everything he does, and therefore he wants to help the poor, ensure quality health care to everyone, etc... But if he is not allowed to impose upon America his view that abortion is wrong, why is it permissible to impose upon America the idea that helping the poor is right? It is a contradiction that Americans can probably understand and it cannot help Kerry's credibility problem. Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Surplus is just another name for the result of over-taxation Canada has a $9.1 billion budget surplus. There certainly was a debate among the Liberal caucus members about "how to spend it." What option do you think the caucus would have picked: 1) Use it all for debt reduction, cutting off a small but significant slice of the $500 billion debt. (Plus: It's good for Canada -- about $500 million a year less in interest payments in the future. Negative: Doesn't buy votes.) 2) Provide a rebate to taxpayers. (Plus: Grateful voters could receive checks just before next federal election. Negative: 1) Who cares because it is easily outweighed by the plus or 2) Tax rebates would indicate to taxpayers that it is their money.) 3) Cut taxes. (Plus: Good for the economy, good for taxpayers. Negative: Liberal spending machine will need that money in the future and it would incidate to taxpayers that the money their earn is really still their money.) 4) Increase spending. (Plus: Almost as good as a rebate to buy voters. Negative: Going to do it anyway.) 5) Some combination of reducing debt, increasing spending. (Plus: Seems to appeal to fiscal hawks and welfare statists. Negative: Once the goodies are divided, neither is significant enough to be noticed.) 6) Some combination of reducing debt, increasing spending, cutting taxes/providing rebate. (Plus: Best of all possible worlds. Negative: Best of all possible worlds is an inefficient way to buy votes.) Finance Minister Ralph Goodale apparently used all of it on debt reduction. I'm a bit surprised but I wonder how many Liberal MPs were happy with that decision. Who's your daddy, Pedro? Yankees beat BoSox 3-1. Great to be two games up, and against the Red Sox aces, too. I've put this book on my birthday list Ezra Levant has a new book -- The War on Fun. Sounds great. I suggest that you also purchase it, right after you buy Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal. Ezra wrote the introduction to my book; here's a bit of it: "Tuns' documentary, the first of note since Chretien's retirement, will be an important starting point for any other history on the era. Drawing together the dozens of little embrarassments, excesses and fiascos into a theme, that the Chretien years were years of slow degeneration, like a bone gradually deprived of calcium." City council is the greatest threat to freedom I think that city hall is more dangerous to average citizen than other levels of government, or perhaps as a Torontonian I see more socialist silliness than the average municipal resident in Canada. In recent weeks, Toronto city council has passed bylaws or talked about the need for bylaws that restrict the ability of property owners to cut a tree on their lawn, of cab-drivers to own affordable cars and of everyone to contribute to the political process by limiting corporate and union donations to candidates for city council. And whatever the ostensible reason -- safety, prettifying the city, making politics transparent -- it always comes down to city coucnil's leftist ideology. In his latest Canada Free Press column, Arthur Weinreb looks at the ideological underpinnings of council's passing a new car only rule for city cab drivers. Some unsolicited advice for Bush tonight Again, I won't be watching the debate tonight because the baseball playoffs are on and the United States is so rude as to distract people from this more important enterprise, therefore forcing many of us to choose one or another as the primary object of our attention. I've made my choice. And anyway, Bush-Kerry could not be as good as either Robert Moran or P.J. O'Rourke, both of whom offered some advice. Over at NRO, Moran suggests Bush help Kerry understand that he is a liberal, borrowing from the comic stylings of Jeff Foxworthy: "Senator Kerry seems to have some trouble figuring out if he's a liberal or not. I'd like to help him out. * Senator Kerry, if you voted for the largest tax increase in American history, you could be a liberal. * If you support more than two trillion dollars of additional federal spending, you could be a liberal. * If you consistently opposed the death penalty, even for terrorists who kill Americans overseas, you could be a liberal. * If you support race-based quotas in hiring, you could be a liberal. * If you support partial-birth abortion as a choice, but are against Americans choosing to have private Social Security accounts, against parents choosing the best schools for their kids, and against Americans freely choosing weapons to defend themselves, you could be a liberal. * If your biggest supporters are the Hollywood elite, Michael Moore, and Barbra Streisand, you could be a liberal. ... * If you vote the same way as Ted Kennedy more than 90 percent of the time, you could be a liberal. * If you have the most liberal voting record of any senator last year, you could be a liberal. * If you have a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton, you could be a liberal. ... * If you are all of these things, Senator Kerry, you are a liberal." Over at the Daily Standard, P.J. O'Rourke offers some one-liners for the president: "My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver ..." "Senator Kerry, what do you mean my administration 'lost; 1.6 million jobs? Did Dick Cheney accidentally leave 1.6 million jobs in the Senate men's room or something? Did you find them? Have you got 1.6 million jobs that you're hiding, Senator Kerry? And if you're elected, are you going to give them back?" "Speaking of jobs, Senator, how come every illegal immigrant who wades the Rio is able to find one in about 10 minutes? Meanwhile, your Democratic core constituency has been unemployed for years. Are your supporters lazy, Senator Kerry? Or are they stupid? Back when Clinton was president, did your supporters think they got their jobs at Burger King because Bill was sleeping with the cow?" "You say health care costs are soaring? Well, I'm not the one with a personal injury lawyer on my ticket. I loved the billboards that John Edwards used to have all over North Carolina: 'Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE GOT HURT AT WORK AND NOT EVEN KNOWN IT' and 'FEELIN' POORLY? LEMME SUE YER DOCTOR!'" "Yeah, we're running a deficit. Like Democrats never did that. But at least we're borrowing the money when interest rates are low. It's the same as refinancing your home loan. Not that you'd know, Senator Kerry, since your rich wife paid off your mortgage." "You say that we won the war, but we're losing the peace because Iraq is so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq?" Well, that was six of the first seven; it would be better if you read the other ten at the Daily Standard. This may explain the lack of coverage of the Afghanistan election The Afghanistan vote this past weekend was a success. Perfect, no, but still a success. Forty-one percent of registered voters were women and officials say that many women voted even in areas under heavy Taliban influence. There was little violence and there was no hint of voters staying at home because of Taliban and terrorist threats to blow up polling stations. So newspapers buried the story because the first election in that country ever was deemed not very newsworthy. Or perhaps it was and the media did not want to be labeled too pro-Bush. Earlier this week, USA Today reported that investors are eschewing Sinclair Broadcasting after it announced that it would run Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, an anti-Kerry documentary because as one investor (who owns 4% of the shares) put it "I don't want my media companies that cover the news to be making news." And the FCC, USA Today reported, also took notice: "Michael Copps, a Federal Communications Commission member who some believe could become chairman if Kerry wins, said it's 'an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology'." According to a talk radio host this afternoon (sorry but I didn't catch the name) a Kerry spokesman said on Fox News yesterday that Sinclair Broadcasting should be careful just in case John Kerry becomes president. (Isn't that a threat? Where are the media voices crying about the effect on freedom of the press and freedom of speech by such an obvious attempt silence the broadcaster?) Which all brings me back to Afghanistan and the non-coverage of its vote: if the media accepts the argument that successfully bringing Afghanistan into the 21st century is a victory for Bush (never mind the people of that long-suffering country), then perhaps they are concerned about being identified as too pro-Bush and not sufficiently objective. Perhaps this one time, the media cared about appearing non-partisan. After all, the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, et al, are very concerned about being balanced, unlike that evil Sinclair Broadcasting. Tuesday, October 12, 2004
More from the good-news-if-it's-true file Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi told businessmen meeting in Tripoli that his country will spend less on the military, disengage from the Middle East political game and focus on development. Very important analysis Instapundit posts part of a Strategic Forecasting analysis of the US presidential candidates that says fundamentally it does not matter who wins, both Bush and Kerry are committed to the War on Terror. I'm not so sure about that. But this part of their analysis is absolutely correct: "Since al Qaeda initiated the war, it is critically important to understand that it has completely failed to achieve its strategic goals. From a purely political standpoint, the war has thus far been a disaster for al Qaeda. At the same time, assuming that al Qaeda has not lost the ability to carry out operations, the United States has not yet secured the homeland from follow-on attack." Correction I'm getting ahead of myself -- the presidential debate is tomorrow not this evening. But there is still a Yankee game on, so I'm still going to miss the presidential debate. Guy tries to save marriage, ends up getting charged A 27-year-old Oklahoma man wanted to save his wife in a fake home invasion in an effort to rekindle her love for him and save his marriage. Reuters describes how the scheme played out: "According to police, Spencer, a high school teacher, paid two students $100 each to break into his house and try to make off with a stereo. The masked students tied his wife with duct tape and her husband was in the house just in time to foil the supposed crime, police said. Police said Spencer attacked the two in a choreographed fight, even hitting one with a board that he had cut to break in half. The plan was going well until his wife freed herself and called police, something Spencer did not anticipate, police said. Police rushed to the scene and eventually tracked down the fake burglars." Fraser Institute types I've been told before that I'm one of the "Fraser Institute types" by which my critic meant I was a right-wing extremist. Over at The Shotgun, Kevin Steel has a better summary of the fellows at the Fraser Institute and why they make such good sources: "As a reporter for what others call "right-of-centre" publications, I of course have quoted Fraser Fellows constantly over the years; some would say--including a few of my editors--I've over-quoted them. 'Can't you get someone other than the Fraser Institute to comment?" would be the exasperated 12th-hour plea from Mr. Editor, who no doubt was looking at four other stories by four other writers with Fraser Institute guys spouting off in the text. "Can we at least try not to look like a flippin' reprint of the Fraser Forum?' But, for those of you who haven't done the reporter thing, here's the deal. These Fraser guys always return media calls, and fast. And when they return calls, they are usually well-prepared and ready to comment or debate any point within their area of expertise. If you screwed up and got the wrong guy on the phone, they'd get you the right guy (or gal; I used to love interviewing brainiac Laura Jones, environmental something-something). And if they weren't ready, they got ready lickity-split. At the end of the interview, they invariably offered you more information if you wanted it or they might even give you a few phone numbers of additional experts you might consider calling. All in all, a frazzled reporter's dream. ...Without a doubt there would be this convoluted comment from some academic prefaced with a caveat like "He-he [condescending laugh] weeeelll, it's not as simple as that..."--Oh yeah? I've only got a 700-word space, so if it ain't simple now it's gonna be when I'm done.--Or you had the option of substituting this pretty much on-point, concise free-market stuff from this Fraser guy. So... rrrriiiipppp! Out with Professor "15-Shades-of-Grey" and damn the torpedoes with the Fraser Institute. If your editor flipped out, you offer him the choice of fitting in the tortuous four-paragraph quote from Dr. Windbag by emailing it, like, right now. Most of the time, the Fraser guy stayed in the story." Actually, I've done the reporter thing, sometimes still do, and I fully agree with Kevin Steel's assessment of the professional, smart and media-savvy folks at the Fraser Institute. They speak in tidy little soundbites, they are willing to explain an issue to the extent that the reporter (er, I mean audience) needs and are very quick to return calls or direct you to people who can answer your queries. Several years ago, I read a story that reported that the Fraser Institute had been quoted more often than the next two Canadian think tanks combined; I would guess that the ease with which they deal with reporters is one reason. Another, of course, would be that they produce more pertinent research than anyone else. But that's another story. Have you ordered your copy of Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal? Want a reason to purchase it today? Consider Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter's back cover blurb: "In a refreshingly candid book, full of worthwhile historical and contemporary insights into Canadian politics, Paul Tuns has laid bare the sad, empty, arrogant, corrupt legacy of the Chretien years---the broken promises, the greed and the power for power's sake. It's hard to come away from feeling good about Canada's recent past, but it is possible to come away hopeful of a better, Liberal-free tomorrow." Order your copy here. Who's going to win tonight's all-important contest I will once again miss the presidential debate and once again it is because of the more pressing concern: baseball. The New York Yankees are not the bookies' favourites in their battle with the Boston Red Sox even though the Yankees had the second best record in baseball, have home field advantage and the BoSox were a wild card team. The Sox field a team that is simply awesome and will be difficult to beat; in the past two season, these two teams have met 45 times and the Red Sox have a slight advantage winning 23 to the Yankees's 22. With the Red Sox sense of an imminent World Series appearance, their mammoth lineup and the best one-two punch in the American league, combined with this being the most heated rivalry in the game, this seven game series is going to be one for the baseball ages. Bush-Kerry just doesn't compare. Blogging will be light on non-existent over the next two days as evenings will be spent watching the game and then reading the news/blog coverage of the debate. Chirac in China John J. Miller on the French president's trip to Beijing: "Chirac was in China to help that country launch its 'Year of France' celebration. This is apparently not to be confused with the 'Year of the Rat' or the 'Year of the Weasel'." Expect more HMCS Chicoutimis in the future So says Ted Byfield: "I believe that if we keep the same gang in office at Ottawa we are going to read one day of a terrible disaster befalling some unit in our armed forces." Read why Byfield's Calgary Sun column from the weekend. Another typically Canadian tale Remember the old childhood saying "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"? Now names get you a huge human rights tribunal settlement. CBC reports: "A gay man who was called a 'fifi' by a used car salesman has been awarded $1,000 by Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal." Judge Michele Pauze in her decision said that names are as dangerous as sticks and stones: "Calling someone a 'fifi' constitutes a scornful way of referring to homosexuals. The use of this term wounds and adds to the disgrace and lack of respect of human dignity a person [can suffer], homosexuals in particular." (Italics added) Monday, October 11, 2004
A better response than Mencken's When H.L. Mencken got mail from readers who disagreed with him, he responded with a one-sentence letter: "You might be right." Jonah Goldberg's response to this abusive email is wonderful: "[name withheld] - This is the biggest load of horse s**t I've read in a long time. Where you're not disingenuous, you're insulting, where you're not insulting you're ignorant. If you have an example or two of my backtracking I'd love to see it, unless you're talking out your a**. Indeed, you say I 'consistently sprout' calvinistic and darwinian theories (for the record plants 'sprout' pundits 'spout') and in the same breath you say I'm inconsistent. Which is it? Oh, and shame on you in the starkest terms for thinking that to be a good Jew you need to hold liberal political views. This sort of determinism and stereotyping has never been good for the Jews. Seriously [Name withheld], you do a great service to the Jews here by demonstrating that we aren't all articulate and intelligent. Thanks a bunch. Shalom, Jonah" Now that Howard has won, the Australian election didn't mean anything Instapundit has some thoughts on the lack of media attention given to John Howard's re-election in Australia: "AFTER WHAT THE AGE CALLS JOHN HOWARD'S "THUMPING VICTORY" in an Australian election that was run in no small part as a referendum on the war, it's interesting to see how little play it's getting in U.S. media. If Howard had lost, however, I suspect it would be getting a lot of attention, and advanced as evidence that the war was going badly, Bush can't keep allies, etc., etc." Australian journalist/blogger Tim Blair made roughly the same observation: "... the New York Times, having earlier decided that War Plays a Role in Elections in Australia, now believes that Iraq remained in the background during the campaign." Another Kerry flip-flop Actually, flip-flop is too flip a description of Senator John Kerry's repeated misrepresentations of his own positions. During the debate on Friday, Kerry said he opposed parental notification because it was wrong to have girls who were raped by their fathers to report their abortions to their rapists. Ramesh Ponnuru noted on The Corner: "Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee points out that Kerry has voted no on parental-notification bills that included exceptions and safeguards to prevent such a scenario from occurring." Kerry is not a flip-flopper; he's a liar. |