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
|
Monday, February 28, 2011
Must-read on Canada's budget problems Read Stephen Gordon's -- aka Worthwhile Canadian Initiative -- long post "How the federal government went from persistent surpluses to persistent deficits," to understand how Ottawa got into the current fiscal mess. And here's the Fraser Institute on how 1995 (read: Chretien-Martin) provides the model for a balanced budget. The fellows from Fraser say what Gordon hints at: deep spending cuts are necessary and that waiting for economic growth to balance federal budgets is a recipe for disaster. The best way to balance Ottawa's budget is to radically reduce transfer payments. That isn't going to happen because the Harper government has bought peace with the provinces and doesn't have to open up the transfer agreements until late 2012 (or later). If the Tories get a majority, I expect that they will tackle this issue if they are at all serious about 1) federal finances and 2) incentivizing smaller-government reforms at lower levels of government. Those are big ifs, and certainly not ones that will be on display before a federal election or without the comfort of a majority government. Sunday, February 27, 2011
Tweet of the day` Bryan Caplan: "The poor rarely understand the causes of poverty; if they did, they wouldn't stay poor for long." Runner-up Rob Neyer: "A one-minute commercial spot for Modern Family has more laughs than the entire Academy Awards. Why is that?" MADD hypocrisy The Gainesville Sun reports: A former president of the defunct local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was arrested recently by the Gainesville Police Department on a DUI charge.(HT: The Agitator) Welfare fraud is so predictable The Daily Telegraph reports: Pregnant women on benefits have used NHS fruit and vegetable vouchers to obtain cigarettes and alcohol, a Government report has found.Tim Worstall responds: Well of course this will happen. Near cash alternatives will be used in much the same way as cash. Oscars I don't mean to take a snotty who cares attitude about the Oscars like they are beneath me. It is just that I don't see many movies at the theatre and I've seen just one of the ten movies nominated for best movie (Toy Story 3). That said, I do find the whole exercise in self-congratulations that is the rewards show and pre- and post-celebrity "news" coverage to be too much too stomach. And all that said, Twitter was made to cover pseudo events like the Oscars. This is interesting, via Kevin O'Leary: "the guy that starred in the Facebook movie does not have a Facebook account!?" Getting tough on crime when crime is going down Tony Keller has a good article in the Globe and Mail this weekend that does not take a stand on the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda but that does a decent job of challenging two of the main political arguments against the Conservative approach. Opponents say that more and harsher punishment is unnecessary because 1) there is less crime and 2) the model is based on what is done south of the border and the United States has more crime. Keller rebuts both these arguments. Keller concedes that crime has declined over the past two decades, but notes it is still much higher than it was in the 1960s. I would explicitly state what Keller implies: crime is still too high. We can get into a discussion about tolerable levels of crime (above zero but well below where it is now) or even if incarceration works (it probably has little deterrent effect, but it does stop criminals from re-offending). Regardless, the fact that there is less crime compared to recent peaks is mostly irrelevant. The second main point Harper critics make is that America is a bad model because they take a tough-on-crime approach and their violent crime rates are much higher than ours. Keller says that while all that is true, it is beside the point because American crime rates have been declining (faster than Canada's) while incarcerating a growing number of offenders. Keller says at the very least having the bad guys behind bars rather than on the street is one reason crime rates are declining. Conservative politicians and their media allies are willing to drum up support by feeding societal fears about crime and suggest that to tackle crime, more serious punishment is necessary. The pundits and politicians on the Left say society is getting safer and therefore more stringent punishments are unnecessary. I say they are both being disingenuous. This is an argument about punishment, not crime; it's about how to treat criminals, not how to protect society. And that's all fine and good -- it's a discussion worth having. But pointing to crime stats is mostly irrelevant. The proper punishment of criminals is not a scientific argument to be proved with stats but a philosophical and moral argument about how to punish or treat criminals. In very general terms, conservatives believe that criminals should get their just desserts, while liberals believe that criminals should be rehabilitated. NYT Mag on Chris Christie Matt Bai is a pretty fair political writer and his long feature on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in this weekend's New York Times Magazine is no exception. Grab a coffee and enjoy. Saturday, February 26, 2011
Weekend stuff 1. In "Babies in Frontier States Have More Unusual Names," Live Science reports on an interesting study with a predictable finding. 2. Tyler Cowen explains why so many millionaires live in New Jersey. Short answer: "It's really, really nice." 3. The Wall Street Journal on "How High Can the Art Market Go?" which is mostly about the good year that Christie's has had. 4. Emily Lambert at Forbes.com hints that she'll write about the cost of an Oscar (officially $1) but her post is really about what goes into making the award. 5. From Wired's Danger Room blog: "Darpa’s Cheetah-Bot Designed to Chase Human Prey" It's a new robotic "quadruped that moves faster than any human and is agile enough to 'chase and evade'." 6. The Source on "Hip Hop Republicans." I'm dubious. 7. From the Daily Telegraph: "Urine 'aftershave' and ten of the strangest fragrances." One is "Flame" a body spray launched by Burger King that advertises, a "scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat." The ladies will no doubt find it irresistible. 8. Onion TV on Mexting which perfectly captures how media finds new and alarming trends among teens: Sentences to ponder Tyler Cowen has a long post with his impressions of David Cameron's Big Society and I agree with most of what he says. I don't think most people understand the truth of this line: It is difficult to drag a health care system out of its established pathologies.The only way in which he might not be correct in this statement is in underselling the level of difficulty. Near-impossible is more like it. Friday, February 25, 2011
Tweet of the day Nathan Wurtzel: "Of middling interest to DC press: 2.8% GDP growth, new home sales dropping. Of *huge* interest to DC press: some nutjob at GA townhall." Quote of the year so far, by far Russell Roberts on "buy local": We have tried buy local before. It is called the Middle Ages. What Liberals stand for Apparently the answer is meaningless cliches. Here's a line from the latest fundraising email signed by Michael Ignatieff himself: So next time you’re asked what Liberals stand for, look them in the eye, and tell them straight up: We stand for families and Canada’s future.Because everyone else stands against families and the future. NCC on the PR stimulus blitz Peter Coleman, president and CEO of the National Citizens Coalition, criticizes the Conservatives (for once) for wasting taxpayers' money on partisan public relations announcements congratulating themselves for spending taxpayers money on unnecessary stimulus spending. He also implies the stimulus -- or, at least, further stimulus spending -- is wasteful. Coleman then says: What we are calling for in next month’s budget is an end to this kind of spending, and to see spending restraint return to Ottawa. The immediate danger of the recession is over - effective policy is the only way to spur job creation now. It is high time to embrace this type of economic sense, because it has sure been lacking for a few years. This would actually be worth a PR blitz, in my opinion.There are so many problems with this paragraph. Coleman says "effective policy is the only way to spur job creation" but he does not define what effective policy would look like, other than not stimulus spending. I have no idea what "this" is referring to in the next sentence: "It is high time to embrace this type of economic sense...," because, again, he doesn't state what effective policy is. And what does Coleman mean when he says there is a need for a PR blitz to promote "this" "effective policy"? By whom? Would the NCC have no problem with the government spending money in a partisan way to promote tax reduction and spending cuts? If there is to be a PR blitz about the need for these things, activist groups like the NCC should be doing them, and not just on their blog. The many Gaddafis Years ago I heard a comedian tell a funny joke about Moammar El-Gadhafi noting the many spellings of his name. He said you can confuse telephone operators when clarifying the spelling of words by noting B as in bat, C as in Cat, G as in Gaddafi, K as in Kadhafi, Q as in Qadafi. Here's Time on why there are so many spellings of the Libyan leader's name (blame the variety of Libyan dialects). A few years ago ABC listed 112 ways to spell Mu'ammar Qadhdhafi. Wednesday, February 23, 2011
DNA -- the central problem with politics today Megan McArdle: I think we need to add a new political category to NIMBYs and BANANAs: DNAs, for "Do Nothing to Anyone". That group comprises, to a first approximation, the entire American electorate. Which explains a lot about our fiscal policy. Canada's abusive HRCs Overlawyered notices Canada's human rights commission industry and isn't impressed. Liberals' misguided faith in government Russell Roberts: [T]here is no doubt that [Paul] Krugman and [Bob] Herbert are half right -– the rich get more say than the little guy. The financial sector and other sectors do play a large role in making sure legislation serves them. That is why I want less powerful government. I don’t know what Krugman and Herbert want. Better government, I guess. Regulation that serves the little guy even though the politicians have little incentive to serve the little guy. Not from graph jam, but perhaps the best graph ever Bryan Caplan says that his thesis on selfish reasons to have more kids is naturally libertarian and his post on the topic includes this graph that shows it is logical for parents to have more children once they realize that each new child does not imply new large-scale costs:  Tuesday, February 22, 2011
What vouchers meant to one Washington DC family Testimonial in WaPo by Vivian Butler, one beneficiary of the voucher program Congress scrapped in 2008 (the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program), the bottom line is: "Little did I know how much more than $7,500 I would be gaining." Moving story with a happy ending. Stop the presses! Tories are fundraising Today's political tea leaf is a Conservative Party fundraising letter. IPolitics.ca reports (via the Ottawa Citizen): In a fundraising letter stamped “URGENT,” the Harper Conservatives are appealing for money to help finance an election they say is imminent.I had the same reaction as Gerry Nicholls: "Not sure why the Tory fundraising letter is news. Tories send out an 'election is imminent letter' every two weeks." NYT: 'Bloomberg Criticizes Proposed Cut to Planned Parenthood' Of course he did. The Times reports: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg joined other elected officials, as well as the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, on a conference call Tuesday to condemn provisions pending in Congress that would cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of Planned Parenthood’s budget, calling them detrimental to poor women and politically motivated.Did Michael Bloomberg really say cutting PP funding is detrimental to the politically motivated? Sentence of the day Kathy Shaidle in a long but highly readable post on Ed Anger has a great and wise line: The thing about being 45 and not 25 is that (ideally) you don’t take other people’s big plans for you too seriously. Monday, February 21, 2011
Happy President's Day My favourite president is, of course, Calvin Coolidge, but George Washington and Abraham Lincoln must top any list of best presidents; it hard to imagine the United States being what it is today -- or just being -- were someone else holding the office at the time. After Coolidge, my next favourite president is probably Paul Giamatti, who, like James Madison, was a better political theorist than president. Harper Conservatives nearly at 40% According to Nanos the Tories are at 39.7% in the polls with the Liberals far behind with 26.6%. That might or might not be true, but a relatively minor Conservative scandal has dominated the political news for the past week and the Nanos poll was completed Feb. 14. Next round of polling will be interesting. I would not bet against the controversy of Oda miscommunicating about the insertion of one little word into a funding recommendation affecting the Tories popular support, but I wouldn't bet for it either. Sunday, February 20, 2011
The fully Tommy Brian Lilley has an excellent article on the RCMP's file on Tommy Douglas, an early supporter of eugenics. Of course, the context is important: everyone on the Left in the first half of the 20th century was a eugenicist. Tweet of the day John Podhoretz: "Perhaps it's time to remind people that Louis Farrakhan received tens of millions from Qaddafi in the form of "purchases" of NOI wares." Philosophical purity Over at the Mises Economics blog, Per Bylund notes that the fight between anarchists and minarchists has heated up once again. Minarchists like Ludwig von Mises are apparently boot-licking statists compared to the philosophical pure Murry Rothbard. I'm not making that up. Bylund writes: "Anarchists, I argue, have a true passion for justice, whereas minarchists are stuck treading water in statist territory."Anyone who can state that von Mises is "treading water in statist territory" with a straight face is not someone I'd want to play poker with. Except, of course, Bylund is apparently crazy enough to believe it. For more evidence read his post, "Why minarchists are the enemy," and make sure you read the bio at the bottom -- it is worth the effort of clicking the link. If you are interested in this kind of debate, contiue with John deLaubenfels' response (as well as Bylund's response, "Rejoinder on Evil Minarchism.") And now you understand why libertarians -- who in Bylund's views must be indistinguishable from Stalinists -- are nowhere near getting in power or influencing the culture. Saturday, February 19, 2011
The religious right is fascist says NYT The New York Times discovers a website that has been around for three years, Secular Right, which is a blog for non-religious conservatives. Of course, the Times being the Times, Mark Oppenheimer cannot just report what the likes of John Derbyshire, Heather Mac Donald and Walter Olson are up to, he must take a shot at religious conservatives for being right-wing extremists: After the French Revolution, opposition to clergy became identified with revolutionaries and, as in communist countries, the political left. Veneration of clergy, as by the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, was a marker of the right.You get what Oppenheimer did there? He insinuated that pro-life evangelicals are just like fascist dictators. And while some of the folks at SR might make a distinction between social conservatives and religious conservatives, I doubt that Oppenheimer or most Times readers will. Friday, February 18, 2011
Not a joke Justin Beiber gets MVP honours in a celebrity basketball game over Scottie Pippen. Pippen had 17 points compared to Beiber's eight, and Pippen's team won. Tweet of the day Felix Salmon: "Considering cork, and Christiano Ronaldo. Have decided I hate Portugese exports." Great sentences Russell Roberts starts with a great Edmund Burke quote -- "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little" -- but says something even better himself: Continuing to spend 25% of GDP through the federal government is not good for children or other living things.I wish I wrote that. Lifting the veil on C-623 National Post columnist Chris Selley asks what, exactly, is the point of Steven Blaney's private member's bill, C-623, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting with an uncovered face): What MPs are trying to do, or so they say, is require voters to show both photo ID and their faces, so a poll worker can compare the former to the latter. (It's true that it's illogical to worry about Muslim women hypothetically voting while veiled even as 250,000 people vote by mail, but that discrepancy already exists: We demand identification of people who vote in person, but not of those who vote by mail.) Move over BRICs, here comes the TIMBIs Jack Goldstone of the Mercatus Center: For the next two or three decades, the major shifts in the world’s economic rankings are liable to come from sustained growth in the democratic and entrepreneurial economies of Turkey, India, Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia.You should read Goldstone's working paper, Out with the BRICs, Time for the TIMBIs. Free trade with Europe is dead Paul Wells writes in Maclean's that it is highly unlikely Canada will sign a free trade agreement with the European Union later this year. A few brief thoughts. 1) It is sad news up to a point, but only to the extent that it signals Canada is not interested in free trade. 2) Free trade agreements are not really about the free trade of goods between partners, but a highly regulated set of lowered restrictions between partners. Free trade agreements that are thousands of pages long are oxymorons. 3) There is a good chance this report has very little resemblance to what is actually happening because, after all, the author of the piece is Paul Wells, who as I have noted many times before, places a premium on cuteness over accuracy. Thursday, February 17, 2011
Tweet of the day Gerry Nicholls: "Clearly govt is running out of things to do @Policymonitor CRTC seeks comments on loudness of TV ads." Enough with Black History month John McWhorter says it is time to retire Black History month: It can be strangely hard to admit that a battle has been won. But especially considering that the typical white person is not exactly a walking encyclopedia of "white" history, it's time to admit that America knows its black history as well as anyone has reason to wish it to. The value of a human life Tyler Cowen notes that the Environmental Protection Agency has valued a human life at $9.1 million, up from $6.8 million used during the Bush administration, and what the policy and economic growth implications are of over-valuing a life. It sounds crass, but when calculating the costs and benefits of a program, over-estimating the value of a life can make certain policies look better than they really are. Cowen says over-valuing and under-valuing a life "can lead to absurdities" and most people will find the very notion of appearing to put a "price tag" on a life to be offensive, which is why we are lucky to have heartless economists to carry out this important policy task. My own view is that human life, at least in the abstract, is both priceless and relatively cheap. George Will on Mitch Daniels Can the Indiana governor save America from the Red (ink) Menace? It seems George Will hopes Mitch Daniels can catch GOP primary fire. Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tweet of the day Andrew Lawton: "Biggest upset at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show: Nancy Pelosi didn't win anything." Midweek stuff 1. The Wall Street Journal reports on sidewalk rage or "Pedestrian Aggressiveness Syndrome." 2. Inc. has a fun feature, "Hollywood Innovations Made Real." Learn about the researchers who are trying to turn sci-fi ideas from movies into reality, including "Communicate Via Brainwaves," "Underwater Car," and "Scale Tall Buildings." 3. Computers through the decades. 4. The Globe and Mail's Hot Button blog examines the question: "What has more bacteria: food court trays or gas station toilets?" 5. Wired's Brian Switek has the long but interesting, "Demythologizing Arctotherium, the Biggest Bear Ever." 6. Forbes has an interactive map: "Where Americans are moving." 7. Onion TV: First openly drunk senator elected. Nation Elects First Openly Drunk Senator Great source of reliable energy A 25-km stretch of New Brunswick windmills has been shut down because they don't work in the "damp cold" (read: ice). No problem because, you know, nobody needs a energy when it is cold enough to freeze. Protectionism does not make sense When you really get down to it, protectionism is idiotic and indefensible but for the fuzzy thinking that the presence of a border causes. Baltimore Libertarian illustrates: Donald Trump was interviewed on CNN today regarding CPAC and his potential presidential bid. Here's a great reason to hope he doesn't get the Republican bid: he wants to save the American economy by making everything more expensive. In true protectionist fashion:If Trump were to win the election in 2012, he said his first action would be imposing a 25 percent tax on Chinese products to make sure the Chinese government is "treating us fairly."Good point, Trump. In turn, I suggest that you impose a 25% tax on all products that you import into your own company. By imposing a 25% tax on the concrete that you must purchase to build one of your hotels, you can encourage yourself to produce your own concrete, thus creating the much needed concrete-making jobs that Trump Industries lacks. Fire Bev Oda Brian Lilley says that International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda did the right thing in defunding Kairos but she should be fired because of her incompetence explaining the decision. He is right and in a perfect world that would happen, but this is the political world. She shouldn't take the hit for merely carrying out orders from the Prime Minister and his staff and she shouldn't be canned for her failure to communicate why the decision was made because the Conservative government generally does a terrible job explaining its decisions. 'Not the best prime minister, but still a fine Conservative' Here's my column on Arthur Meighen in the National Post. I'll have more about Meighen over the next few days. I have no idea who the best prime minister in Canadian history is -- I could make a case for five or six of them, none of which would convince myself -- but Meighen is my favourite person who was prime minister but mostly for his performance as Conservative Party activist, MP, cabinet minister, leader of the opposition, and senator. Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tweet of the day Stephen Hayes: "Do we really have to endure months of stories about Donald Trump's every thoughtlet on every issue/non-issue?" Why do so many George Mason U econ professors blog? One of them, Bryan Caplan, answers the question here. Most GMU economics professors are libertarian and thus like to buck convention so instead of a life of teaching and academic journal writing, they are attracted to the less regulated life of blogging. Also, as libertarians, they are seriously interested in engaging others, unlike most liberals and conservatives who are content to talk amongst themselves. But this, the concluding sentence in Caplan's post, sums it up not just GMU econ blogging, but serious blogging, quite nicely: "for professors who've always wanted to live the life of the mind, blogging is a dream come true." Sounds horrendous Checking out the table of contents for Feminism for Real: Deconstructing the academic industrial complex of feminism does not inspire thoughts of national bestseller. If Quebec City wants an arena, they should build one Just not at federal taxpayer expense. One could make a case that the municipal government should build a taxpayer-funded hockey arena to serve as a magnet for a NHL team, but still oppose federal funding of that same project. William Watson writes about the politics of Ottawa giving Quebec City a hand and how this is a case of politicians wanting their roads and arenas. Watson comments on Michael Ignatieff's response to Mayor Regis Labeaume's request for money from the rest of the country: Ignatieff does keep saying the strangest things.Watson continues: Human nature and Canadian federalism being what they are, what Mayor Labeaume's constituents really want is "all of the above," with somebody else picking up most of the tab.Of course, that is true for politicians and voters who want things but not to pay for them, which is why the United States, for example, has a federal debt equal to the size of its economy. Monday, February 14, 2011
Composting: costly and not very environmentally friendly Charlotte Allen writes in the Los Angeles Times about the Congressional cafeteria's composting program: It turns out that the composting program not only cost the House an estimated $475,000 a year (according to the House inspector general) but actually increased energy consumption in the form of "additional energy for the pulping process and the increased hauling distance to the composting facility," according to a news release from [Rep. Dan] Lungren. Thank God for government-run health care The Daily Telegraph reports: The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s.The Left usually complains that private health care fails to respect the dignity of individuals, but often it is state-run programs that treat people like crap. Midweek stuff 1. The Wall Street Journal reports on sidewalk rage or "Pedestrian Aggressiveness Syndrome" as it is pretentiously being called. 2. Inc. has a fun feature, "Hollywood Innovations Made Real." Learn about the researchers who are trying to turn sci-fi ideas from movies into reality, including "Communicate Via Brainwaves," "Underwater Car," and "Scale Tall Buildings." 3. Computers through the decades. 4. The Globe and Mail's Hot Button blog examines the question: "What has more bacteria: food court trays or gas station toilets?" 5. Wired's Brian Switek has the long but interesting, "Demythologizing Arctotherium, the Biggest Bear Ever." 6. Forbes has an interactive map: "Where Americans are moving." 7. Ophidicism. 8. Me in the NP I have a column in the National Post on Wednesday on the legacy of Arthur Meighen. Tasha Kheiriddin explains how it fits with a theme in the paper's pages this week. Later this week, I'll post a few other Meighen-related thoughts that didn't make the column. Sunday, February 13, 2011
WTF -- Winning the future Greg Mankiw on Barack Obama's erroneous idea that America must "win the future": More troublesome to me as an economist, though, is that calling on Americans to “win the future” misleads us about the nature of the policy choices ahead. Achieving economic prosperity is not like winning a game, and guiding an economy is not like managing a sports team.It treats life like a zero-sum game of winners and losers, but in fact that is not the way life works. And, by the way, the economy is life, the sum of all our decisions. If China or India or Europe is prosperous in the future, it is not at the expense of America. We can all be prosperous. Or likewise we can all stagnate and live in misery. Mankiw warns Obama (and the public) to not think in terms of winning the future because it could lead to bad policies. Prepare for the future, he says, by preparing for success. Success is not synonymous with winning. The Huffington Post and the economics of blogging Nate Silver has a very good piece on The Huffington Post, its traffic, and how much of it sees the HuffPo's unpaid bloggers. He concludes by offering some sound advice to bloggers hoping to make a reputation and some money. Well worth reading, if for no other reason to better understanding the size and scope of the HuffPo journalistic empire, which is indeed very, very impressive. Midweek stuff 1. Game Life's Jason Schreier rebuts the claim by a 'media psychiatrist' that video games have led to an increase in rape. 2. Alex Bellos has an interesting history about leap years and how to fix them. I didn't know a 29th day in the second month every four years was a problem that needed fixing. 3. Harvard Business Review blog has the worst job interview question and how to answer it. 4. Slate reports on the world's most dangerous commute, which is in Colombia. Check out the slide show; I like photo number five. 5. How the other half live. Incredible photo essay on a drug-addicted woman dying with AIDS and her story of woe including losing custody of five children and losing her father days after re-uniting with him. Scroll right to view the pictures and read the story. 6. Tyler Cowen on the differences between Maryland and Virginia. 7. Slate examines whether coke and pepsi protect protestors from the pain of tear gas? 8. ScienceDaily says that Los Angeles is long overdue for an earthquake. 9. New Scientist reports that conservations at the Galapagos islands are using steriled giant tortoises as lawnmowers. 10. If you haven't seen this yet, it is worth watching all five minutes of U Conn QB Johnny McEntee's nifty tricks. This is a brilliant promo YouTube video that should catch the attention of some NFL scouts. Saturday, February 12, 2011
Paul shrugs Here is the trailer for movie "based" on the novel Atlas Shrugged and I want to see it less than I did 24 hours ago. Yeah, there's a character named John Galt and he likes money, but I'm afraid it is going to be too 2011. Tyler Cowen has concerns, too. Commercially I see a flop. I don't think this movie with all its characters in slick suits, some of whom are celebrating "greed", is going to fly with the movie-going public today. I say there is only a 50% chance Atlas Shrugged: Part II makes it to movie theatres. Here's the official website. Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tweet of the day Jennifer Ditchburn: "Did you ever think you'd hear the name Koo Stark ever again? http://bit.ly/hPMCtr." Can't wait for this book Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Children: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun than You Think. Here's the website. Here's an excerpt: There are many selfish reasons to have more kids, but there are four big reasons to put on the table right away: Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Tweet of the day Jeff Jacoby: "If, as Deval Patrick says, 'nothing is as humbling or insidious as political life,' why is there no shortage of politicians pursuing it?" Tony Clement to potash TMX-LSE merger? Industry Minister Tony Clement said that the merger of the TMX and LSE (the Toronto and London stock exchanges) would be subject to review. The Globe and Mail reports: The government expects to review any deal that materializes. “TMX Group has announced it is in advanced discussions regarding a possible merger with London Stock Exchange Group,” Industry Minister Tony Clement said in a statement.Because, you know, corporations can deal with flux and the government has no compunction about interfering in the economy to cause some uncertainty. There is no doubt right now a focus group is being planned by the PMO so that the Conservative government can determine which principles to uphold. Stephen Gordon has a question for those who say the Toronto Stock Exchange is a strategic asset that shouldn't be (partially) foreign-owned and foreign-controlled: "What is the bad thing that will happen if the deal isn't blocked?" There is, of course, more than politics to this. The Financial Times (via the Globe and Mail) explains the business case for the merger: the new entity would unite the 10th and 11th largest exchanges in the world with the goal of creating a "mining listings giant." It would also list more companies that any other stock exchange in the world. Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Tweet of the day Funny or Die: "College students would be more serious about citing sources if professors called it retweeting." Tony Clement has a Hillary moment Tony Clement says businesses have to deal with uncertainty and therefore government changing the rules businesses must play by are A-OK with him. Business shouldn't have to deal with arbitrary policy changes; just imagine the outrage from Clement and the likes of the Blogging Tories if the Liberals were altering regulations and how we'd hear that it is unfair to private enterprise to deal with it all because they need a certain stability in which to operate. (Isn't that the government's argument for maintaining the corporate tax cuts in the face of opposition criticism?) Markets require nimbleness and flexibility, but responding to the capriciousness of the government of the day, especially one that occasionally gives lip service to free markets and private enterprise, shouldn't be among the uncertainty businesses must deal with. What gets me, though, is the callousness of his comments -- "business people are used to uncertainty. They have to plan for uncertainty, that is part of their business planning" -- which are a lot like Hillary Clinton's remark in the 1990s that she wasn't responsible for every under-capitalized small business that couldn't afford the Clinton White House health care plan. 'Imported from Detroit' Don Boudreaux wonders why it is a virtue for people in New Orleans to purchase a car made in Detroit if there is something wrong with an American buying a Korean or German automobile. I can only come up with one answer: borders make us bigots who favour out fellow countrymen over other people. This preference is irrational and morally questionable. There is no difference in saying that "I won't buy a Japanese-made car" than there is in saying "I won't buy a car from a black." Protectionism -- whether government policy or personal preference -- is racist. Just wondering How does one misspeak about where one receives their degree? Former Democratic Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, who is now running for mayor of Chicago, claimed she received an advanced degree from Harvard, even though she didn't. Her excuse, that she misspoke, is worse than weak and pathetic. (HT: Newmark's Door) Blogging Tory co-founder idiocy Ferrethouse at Canadian Conservatives is Craig Smith, a co-founder of the blogging Tories, and he slams Gerry Nicholls for adding nothing to the conservative cause. We can debate that -- and I would defend Nicholls -- but I won't debate Ferrethouse because he's an idiot. Last year he proposed a boycott of Wind Mobile because it is an Egyptian company and there widespread persecution of Christians in Egypt. That is a debatable strategy -- punishing companies or their owners for the actions of the government from where they came is questionable to say the least -- but I find it dubious on other grounds: Wind Mobile's largest shareholder, Naguib Sawiris, who founded and runs a telecommunications company, is a Coptic Christian and deeply involved in Christian philanthropic causes. Boycotting a Christian-owned company to fight the oppression of Christians is a bizarre strategy. 'How do you solve a problem like Maxime?' That's the title on John Ivison's column in the National Post today. My answer: don't define him as a problem, which is sort of Ivison's comment. Ivison says Maxime Bernier, the resident libertarian in the Conservative caucus, is a tolerable problem because Bernier's such "an empty suit" he's no threat to the Prime Minister and his political ambitions. I would say he shouldn't be defined as a problem because his political views should not be treated as extreme but rather within the range of respectable opinion. John Paul Getty III, RIP John Paul Getty III, grandson of the late billionaire John Paul Getty who was kidnapped and had his ear cut off when the Gettys wouldn't pay the ransom, has passed away at the age of 54. New York Times obit here. John Podhoretz suggests that the grandfather is not resting in peace. Monday, February 07, 2011
Super Bowl wrap-up It was a good game, better than most, but I'm not sure if it was a great game. I am disappointed that the Pittsburgh Steelers lost to the Green Bay Packers 31-25 and the fact that the Packers are my second favourite team doesn't mitigate the pain of watching the Steelers lose. And I would say that the Steelers lost the Super Bowl more than the Packers won it. That's not pettiness, but a fact. Pittsburgh had three turnovers and Green Bay didn't have any. Worse yet, the Packers scored a pick-six and also scored a touchdown on both drives immediately upon winning the ball on the turnover. That's 21 points surrendered on two picks and a fumble. Pittsburgh gave up those easy points to Green Bay and that's why in a game decided by six points, I say the Steelers lost the Super Bowl. Aaron Rodgers was solid (24/39 for 304 yards, three TDs, no picks, 112 passer rating, four different receivers with catch-plays of 21 yards or more), but his key contribution was playing intelligent football -- passing quickly or getting rid of the ball quickly when under pressure. Statistics don't show these things but it was Rodgers' heady play that kept Pittsburgh's pass rush from changing the face of the game in the Steelers favour; Rodgers was sacked just three times. Greg Jennings made a few big, timely players that scored or continued drives. Jordy Nelson had 140 yards, a TD and two dropped passes. If it weren't for six dropped passes -- six! -- Rodgers would have had 400 yards and the Packers almost certainly would have won by double digits and not sweated the final few minutes. Green Bay scored 14 points in a 24-second span in the first quarter and had a 21-3 lead in the second frame and for most teams that lead would have signalled the end. Instead, Ben Roethlisberger led the Steelers on a seven-play, 77-yard scoring drive to close the half. At 21-10, the Steelers sniffed hope. The offense and defense were both clicking in the third quarter. Green Bay didn't convert a third down in the quarter and punted four times as they were kept off the scoreboard in the frame. It didn't help that Green Bay suffered three game-ending injuries before the half, including to CB Charles Woodson and WR Donald Driver, and the Pack clearly missed them. The Steelers were down by a mere four points with 15 minutes to go and they had all the momentum. But Rashard Mendenhall dropped the ball on a run and the Packers scored on the following drive. Pittsburgh was down by double digits again, a difficult obstacle to overcome against the second-ranked scoring defense and an opposing quarterback with the all-time leading passer rating in both the regular season and playoffs. With seven-and-a-half minutes remaining, Big Ben dropped a bomb into the hands of Mike Wallace and a gadget play on the two-point conversion made it a three-point game. Pittsburgh once again could smell victory. Green Bay followed with a time-killing five-and-half-minute drive (in which the Pittsburgh D disappeared) that ended in a field goal, to put the Packers up six points; Pittsburgh needed a touchdown to win, and the Pack were kicking with 2:06 seconds remaining. Other than Peyton Manning, there is no quarterback you'd want more than Roethlisberger in the two-minute drill with the game on the line. He did it in Super Bowl XLIII and has done it so often in the regular season. It just felt like another storybook ending was being written. But in the second set of downs, the Green Bay defense stopped the Steelers and took the ball back on downs with just over 40 seconds remaining. Green Bay won their fourth Super Bowl and earned the right to bring the Lombardi Trophy home to Titletown. Rodgers had the better game of the two QBs. Troy Polamalu wasn't a factor, often just a step or two away from the potential play, leaving fans wondering if his Achilles injury hampered his play. The Packers O-line kept the Steelers pass rush away from Rodgers -- and to be fair, the Steelers O-line did the same for Roethlisberger (sacked just once in the game, immediately after the broadcasters noted he hadn't been sacked all night). The game was not particularly hard-hitting -- and that advantaged Green Bay; the Steelers couldn't shake Rodgers or control the tempo of the game. Clay Matthews was mostly ineffective against the run (although he did force the Mendenhall fumble) and only provided minimum pressure on Big Ben. Both teams had costly penalties, but the Steelers had two impressive Antonio Brown returns negated by penalties. Shaun Suisham's missed 52-yard field goal in the third quarter might have hurt Pittsburgh's momentum and I question Mike Tomlin's call considering that Suisham is three for nine from beyond 50 in his career. The Packers had a solid game plan, stuck to it and didn't make mistakes. In a word, Green Bay executed. They didn't make mistakes. They looked a little hungrier. Yet the Steelers never game up and almost erased an 18-point deficit; no team has come back from an 11-point deficit to win the Super Bowl and Pittsburgh was within reach of making history. But it wasn't to be. As I have already noted, a good game but not a great game. Neither team was committed to the run, although Green Bay wasn't going to rush against the top-ranked run defense and Pittsburgh fell too far behind two quickly to not pass. Not a lot of hard-hitting defensive plays. No signature play, no highlight reel catch to remember Super Bowl XLV. Almost an impropable comeback, but it wasn't to be. Disappointing for this Steelers fan, but Green Bay deserved their victory and the Steelers didn't deserve to win this one. There is always next year. Maybe. Sunday, February 06, 2011
Super Bowl prediction Time did not permit me to jot down my comments about the Conference Championship games, both of which were amazing. Both showed the teams at their best and exposed their weaknesses. I've watched at least ten Pittsburgh Steelers games this year and they've yet to play a great game from start to finish. In their first playoff game against the Baltimore Ravens, they made numerous mistakes and fell behind by three possessions in the first half only to roar back by dominating the second half. Two weeks ago against the New York Jets, the Steelers played terrific football on both offense and defense until half-time and then almost blew their lead in the second half. Yet, when it needed to, the Steelers D stopped the Jets on a critical third and goal and fourth and goal. The Green Bay Packers came out in the freezing cold of Chicago and had a perfect series down the field in which the clock didn't stop on a seven play, 84-yard drive that took four minutes and ten seconds. Aaron Rodgers threw three passes of 20 yards or more -- in sub-zero temperatures. Then Da Bears held the high-flying Packers to just one more offensive score in the final 55 minutes. If Green Bay was facing any quarterback other than Jay Cutler, the Pack would probably not have punched their ticket to North Texas; Chicago converted just one third down all day and they never got any offense going until they brought in clipboard carrier Caleb Hanie into the game. So the Super Bowl features two of the three most storied franchises in the NFL -- playing in the home stadium of the other most storied team. (The Steelers are my favourite football team and the Packers are my second favourite team, although it isn't close who I'm cheering for and my relationship with Green Bay could be altered if they beat my Steelers.) It features the top two scoring defenses of 2010 and two quarterbacks who are great out of the pocket. The Pack have the deeper receiving squad while the Steelers has the better running game. The Packers have the best cornerback tandem in the NFL; the Steelers have the best linebacker corps. The teams rank 1-2 in Cold Hard Football Facts bendability index (yards per point); the Steelers are the best AFC team in CHFF quality stats while the Packers were the tops in the NFC. The game is thought to be close by most experts: Vegas favours Green Bay by just 2.5 points, Football Outsiders says the odds of Pittsburgh winning is 50.6% compared to 49.4% for Green Bay (although their analysis predicts the Packers by as much as a score) while Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats says that the game is closer than that: 50.0007% for the Steelers, 49.9993% for the Packers. The game is close and it should be good. When these two sides played during the regular season in 2009, the Steelers won by a single point on the last play of the game. Many football pundits are predicting a repeat in reverse with Green Bay on top; many others think that Aaron Rodgers will air it out indoors at Cowboys Stadium like he did against the Atlanta Hawks in the division finals in the Georgia Dome when the Packers scored 48 points against the number one seed and Green Bay will win the Super Bowl by a decent margin. Pittsburgh certainly has its issues. The Steelers O-line has several problems: rookie center Maurkice Pouncey is out and will be replaced by second-year player Doug Legursky will start his first game at the position; tackle Jonathan Scott and guard Chris Kemoeatu get more than their fair share of holding penalties. Troy Polamalu might not be 100%, nursing an Achilles injury. CB Ike Taylor is fine, but Bryant MacFadden can be exploited by Green Bay's deep threats (probably Donald Driver but also Jordy Nelson). But I'm going with my heart and taking the Steelers. The teams are 1-2 in passer rating differential and defensive passer rating -- two stats that correlate to winning games and winning Super Bowls. But I like the ability of the secondardy and linebackers to make game changing defensive plays -- Ryan Clark and Polamalu can pick, just like Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams on Green Bay, but the Steelers also have the linebackers that can get to the quarterback or force fumbles on running and receiving players. If Clay Matthews III gets to Ben Roethlisberger, he might disrupt him, but will he bring Big Ben down? I think this game comes down to big defensive plays, a handful of big passes by the quarterback, and winning the turnover battle. The Steelers should have the slight advantage on all these, and their experience helps. I like the Green Bay staff and think their defensive co-ordinator Dom Capers is brilliant, but Pittsburgh is better coached overall and Mike Tomlin and Dick Lebeau will make the most of their two weeks prep time. Green Bay hasn't scored much against a top-notch Chicago Bears defense this year and the Steelers D is better than Da Bears. I see Pittsburgh making some timely stops that holds Green Bay to scoring field goals rather than touchdowns and Roethlisberger leading a late drive to win the game. Pittsburgh edges Green Bay to win their seventh Super Bowl by a score of 27-23. Saturday, February 05, 2011
NFL Hall of Fame vote It took more than seven hours today for Hall of Fame voters to discuss, debate and vote on the candidate for enshrinement at Canton. No one deserves it more than Ed Sabol of NFL Films. His outfit changed the way we thought about pro football and helped market the NFL. Read Andy Barall's Fifth Down piece on Saboll's significance. We think differently about and know more about football because of Ed Sabol. He deserves a plaque at Canton. If I had a vote I would give it to Sabol, Shannon Sharpe, Cris Carter, Marshall Faulk, and probably Deion Sanders and maybe Andre Reed. That's a full ballot so Jerome Bettis wouldn't get my vote this year. Tim Brown simply doesn't warrant consideration. TSN has capsules for all the 2011 candidates. Mike Tomlin The coolest guy in football is Pittsburgh Steeler coach Mike Tomlin. Here's a good New York Times article about the "confident and unapologetic" 37-year-old who could become the first head coach to win two Super Bowl rings before turning 40.  Me on TV I'm on Behind the Story tonight (at 6 pm) talking with former Stephen Harper speechwriter Michael Taube and National Post columnist Kevin Libin about Egypt, the CRTC and Carleton banning its pro-life club (again). My mini-rant at the end of the show is about the Super Bowl myth that spousal abuse sky-rockets after the big game. You you watch it online later this week. A healthy lifestyle will make you healthier According to some studies reported on by Reuters, eating healthier foods, avoiding alcohol and exercising will improve your health, specifically by reducing the risk of cancer. As Kathy Shaidle often notes, thank God for studies. Friday, February 04, 2011
Good G&M editorial vs. Yann Martel The Globe and Mail comments on novelist Yann Martel's "gift" (read: publicity stunt) of 100 books for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which came with letters explaining their significance. The G&M editorialized: There was something snarky and unkind, perhaps even verging on rudeness, in Mr. Martel’s gift of 100 books, and in the accompanying letters, well-written and insightful but too often containing a chest-poke of condescension, or irony.They advise Martel to read a book of manners because they way he carried out his little anti-Harper project was rude. I also think it would be a good idea to send him Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and several Thomas Sowell books including the Vision of the Anointed and A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles to help him grasp the real world a little better. Thursday, February 03, 2011
Cowen on his new book Nick Shulz interviews Tyler Cowen on his new ebook, The Great Stagnation. Well worth the 32 minutes -- you can listen to it in the background while you are on the computer. Also read Michael Mandel (who loves the book) and Brink Lindsey (and again) and Russ Roberts (who have concerns). Cowen answers some of his critics here (and in the video). And here's an interview with the NYT Economix blog. Here is Bret Swanson's mostly positive Forbes review of The Great Stagnation. Forbes on Thiel Forbes has a long profile of Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and funder of Facebook and LinkedIn. He is now investing in some of the loonier libertarian ideas such as colonization of space and seas, AI, life extension. Interesting throughout. Cutting tax preferences Donald B. Marron of the Urban-Brooking Tax Policy Center testified before the Senate Committee on the Budget on Wednesday about the need to cut tax preferences (credits, rebates, deductions, deferrals, exemptions, preferential rates). He says that they "narrow the tax base, reduce revenues, distort economic activity, complicate the tax system, force tax rates higher than they would be otherwise, and are often unfair," none of which is good economics nor good for the country's bottom line. Marron states: "The individual and corporate income taxes together contain almost 200 tax preferences—credits, deductions, deferrals, exclusions, exemptions, and preferential rates. These preferences total more than $1 trillion annually, almost as much as we collect from individual and corporate income taxes combined."Get rid of the inefficient tax preferences and you could cut tax rates and reduce the cost of compliance (for both tax payers and tax collectors). Today, the C.D. Howe Institute released its "Shadow Budget" ("A Faster Track to Fiscal Balance") and it, too, suggests re-examining tax preferences for the same reasons. William Robson and Alexandre Laurin say many of the social and economics goals promoted by these preferential tax treatments would be undertaken regardless (three primary examples include home ownership, using public transit, and taking part in various fitness programs) and are thus unnecessary. Robson and Laurin suggest a review by a panel of experts to scrutinize tax preferences and see if they pass a cost-benefit analysis. They state: "[T]he complete elimination of tax preferences mentioned above would have yielded more than $3 billion of additional tax revenue in 2010. The overall target for this exercise is $2 billion by 2014/15."Their suggestions ignore political calculations as most preferences are obvious attempts to curry favour with voters. The economic arguments are overwhelmingly against tax preferences, but the political pressures to use them are great. It has long been clear that tax preferences are a way for politicians to not just buy votes but to use tax policy to achieve certain policy ends or signal concern for particular issues as an alternative, complement, or supplement to laws and regulations. This attitude needs to change; unfortunately, it is a message likely to fall of deaf ears. Convention host cities Andrew Steele gets all analytical about Tampa and Charlotte hosting the Republican and Democrat national conventions in 2012, giving various political reasons for each party's decision. I'm sure that the parties are thinking along the same lines but I question whether convention cities move a large number of voters toward the party. For the most part, the convention's main influence on potential voters is to inconvenience most of them with traffic snarls and security arrangements. Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Against snow days Ian Ayres at Freakonomics suggests that discretionary snow days by schools leads to increased incidences of traffic injuries and child abuse or neglect. He suggests the Dunkin’ Donuts or McDonalds standard for snow days: if these fast food restaurants are open, schools can remain open (it is probably easier for working class parents anyway). Ayres also asks if city buses can operate on snowy streets why not school buses. Of course there are several answers including one that Ayres acknowledges (liability issues) but there is another valid one: while snow-covered streets might be safe for a low volume of traffic it might not be for high volume traffic. Liberal luminaries Eric Grenier ratchets up the rhetoric: Nineteen of the 77 seats currently occupied by the Liberals, all east of Manitoba, can be considered to be Grit “fortresses.” These are held by such party luminaries as Bob Rae, John McCallum, Carolyn Bennett, Denis Coderre, and Marc Garneau.I might be willing to grant that Rae is a luminary, although not within the party, but otherwise it seems a stretch to refer to these people in such terms. And if ones takes a relative view of these things and these are the luminaries within the Liberal Party, it says more about the state of the Grits in 2011 than it does any of the individuals Grenier named. As for the analysis, I will simply say this: some of those close seats Iggy`s Liberals have a chance to win will not be that close and although Grenier does not list the seats he thinks secure and fortresses for the Liberals, I bet that at least one of those goes down to the Tories if the election is held before this Summer. Black history month has only 28 days blah blah blah This sort of complaint, especially from Donna Brazile, gets stale quick. Quote of the day "Yesterday's polite euphemism is tomorrow's prissy evasion." -- Ralph Keyes in Euphemania: Our Love Affair with Euphemisms (Via Marginal Revolution which has more on the book.) Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Corporate tax cuts -- the evidence-based case for them Those on the Left like to say that their policies are evidence-based. Well, Stephen Gordon provides links to numerous studies that show decreasing corporate taxes is good policy: it is the most efficacious tax policy to encourage economic growth, it is the tax that least distorts economic activity in unproductive ways, and that workers bear the brunt of high taxes on corporations. More links are available here. Is that enough evidence for Michael Ignatieff and his caucus, as well as the NDP and their union allies? Maclean's on Harper Paul Wells and John Geddes have a long piece ("What you don't know about Stephen Harper") in the current Maclean's about Stephen Harper, the near coalition coup and how that has affected him as leader. To save you from reading a dozen pages or so, here's the gist: Harper is obsessed with preventing the Liberals, NDP and Bloc from displacing the Tories from power. I can't get into specifics but from what I know (or think I know, based on my conversations with informed and knowledgeable sources) about the Prime Minister and his inner circle, but here's my general impression of the Wells/Geddes article: there is a lot that is correct and a lot that is simply wrong, so the stuff that I don't know about I am skeptical to believe even though it might be true. For readers who don't know people in government, the plausibility of the story will mean it will be believed and become part of the media narrative about the Harper government. There are worse things than journalists getting their story wrong, but first draft of history and all that means that there will be a lot of misinformation about the Conservative years in power probably for as long as people write about it. The main problem I have with Wells as a political writer is his incessant need to be cute -- the desire to be little different than the rest of the media herd even at the cost of getting the story correct. For instance, after the 2006 election, he made Patrick Muttart the architect of the Conservative victory. Muttart was important to the campaign conducted by the Tories so to some degree Wells is right, but in his telling the Conservatives wouldn't be in power were it not for Patrick Muttart. I would say Harper would not have become prime minister were it not for Muttart and thousands of nameless campaign workers and volunteers. The fact is that many close ridings are won on the margins by local GOTV efforts, the quality of the candidate, and pre-writ preparations, all of which pays off with a strong national campaign. All that and numerous Liberal missteps and the murder of Jane Creba. So while a particularly brilliant campaign strategist is important, no campaign is a single person and no campaign operates in a political vaccuum. But Wells was the first journalist to write about Muttart, so in many ways that particular strategist became that particular reporter's object of journalistic infatuation. Thus the Wells narrative has placed Muttart on a pedestal and now five years later, he reports that more than anyone who has left the PMO or government, Stephen Harper misses Patrick Muttart, his deputy chief of staff, who departed for Chicago in 2009. Without commenting on the validity of the observation, Wells has to make that observation; he is married to the Muttart as Stephen Harper's Karl Rove narrative. Whether it is true or not is unimportant. Wells and Maclean's created that story-line and now they are stuck with it. Another observation about the article: it relies on sources that are problematic in three ways: 1) Named but dated: The transition was a half decade ago so those who knew what was going on then but don't know. According to this article, the defining moment of Harper's tenure was the attempted coalition coup so those who were on the ins in 2006 but not in 2008 seem odd sources.I don't mean to sound full of myself, but my sources are ten times better than those identified by Wells and Geddes. To mark five years of the Conservatives in power, Maclean's has published a long article about the Stephen Harper we don't know. The problem is we don't know if that is the real Stephen Harper. To some degree, but more so than usual, the Stephen Harper in this article seems the creation of the reporters than the real Stephen Harper. British taxes could head to 1970s levels The Guardian reports that higher taxes and scrapped tax credits could increase the highest effective tax rate to 83% for some high income earners. When do mass demonstrations work? Good post by Megan McArdle on whether riots achieve their goals or not -- and by riots, she is obviously talking about large-scale protests that can get out of hand. This seems the most important determinant: The moment of truth is almost always what the military does ... If the military is willing to fire on protesters, the protesters will lose. If they aren't, then eventually, the head of the government is going to be told to find himself a plane and get out of the country.Sadly, brutality works for most regimes and the fact that the Egyptian army has been restrained in their reaction seems to bode ill for Hosni Mubarak. It is worth having an election about Because no political party will want to touch the implications of the Muslim population tripling by 2030, it might as well be about taxes. |
