Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Bismarck was right

John McCain may have had his worst month of the 2008 campaign since he faded into near-oblivion last spring.  The Democratic race finally appeared to settle; the ten-year McCain courtship of the media ended with the old maverick being dumped for the Audacity of Hype; McCain infuriates his own base with his cap-and-trade plan on "greenhouse gases;" his party loses two special elections in previously stone-cold, lead-pipe lock Republican seats; and throughout the GOP, the mood went from apprehensive to morose.

Yet with all that, according to Rasmussen, John McCain is once again ahead of Barack Obama.

That Providence is still protecting us.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 17, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


Mark Steyn, and a demand for "accurate news and information"

Since Mark Steyn has been brought before the B.C. and Canadian human rights tribunals, I have read the demands of those who wanted the government to punish Mr. Steyn for his opinions expressed in Maclean's magazine. The complainants continue to demand that Maclean's not  only guarantee their right of reply, but that the B.C. or Canadian Human Rights officials also give them editorial control over that section of the magazine that will  publish their response.

Maclean's has declined to give in on the matter. The complainants' wish to dictate what Maclean's will publish remains key to their demands, as in a "compromise" a few weeks ago, they offered to drop their human rights complaints if only Maclean's would print what they wanted. Maclean's, evidently fearing setting a precedent that a compulsory "right of reply" would be seen as a "reasonable" settlement or punishment in future cases such as this, continues to stand its ground. So, a provincial and federal government body may soon dictate what will be published in a magazine.

All along, I have been thinking that I have seen a similar demand for "accurate news and information" by government order. Something similar being the infamous Alberta "Accurate News and Information Act", the "Press Gag Bill" passed by the Aberhart Socreds in 1937 to stop press criticism of the government.

If I read the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to set aside the legislation correctly, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal--which starts its hearings on Mr. Steyn's writings on June 2--is wasting its time, as questions relating to provincial government regulation of press content have been ruled "ultra vires"--beyond the power of a provincial government (let alone an informal provincial body, such as a human rights council) to rule on.

If nothing else, I hope that what happened then may provide Mr. Steyn and his friends with a useful moral precedent, as we look at some of the details of what happened then and how I think they may relate to what is happening now....

Continue reading "Mark Steyn, and a demand for "accurate news and information""

Posted by Rick Hiebert on May 17, 2008 at 05:52 PM
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)


Friday, May 16, 2008

See no evil

It's been a full week now since Maclean's published its shocking story about abortionist Henry Morgentaler's 1973 letter to then-PM Pierre Trudeau. An equal amount of time has passed since Lifesite.ca published my essay on the subject. I also blogged about the letter on this site last week.

And since then? Silence. No follow-ups in the news pages of the daily press. No editorials. No columns. No TV. No radio talk shows. Nothing. And, of course, no one has contacted me about my role in affair. (As reported in Maclean's, I provided the letter to the magazine.)

But any way you look at it, this letter was and is newsworthy, and as the great columnist Trevor Lautens opines in his North Shore News column today, it should have been front-page news across the country.

To recap: Morgentaler all but breaks patient-doctor confidentiality in his letter, delivers a between-the-lines threat of blackmail, and at the very least shows a complete lack of judgement and discretion. Read my essay, Lautens' column, or the Maclean's story for more of the details and then judge for yourself.

And also judge the mainstream media: Was it a deeply entrenched bias that prevented them from covering this story?

Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 16, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)


AP interviews Taiwan's President-elect

One very interesting quote here:

"It is very difficult for us to see any unification talks even in our lifetimes," Mr. Ma said. "Taiwanese people would like to have economic interactions with the mainland, but obviously, they don't believe their political system is suitable for Taiwan."

Ma hails from the Kuomintang Party, which used to be the Communist Party's biggest rival, but is rapidly becoming its best friend on the island.  If Ma keeps this up (and he just might), he could find himself on the outs with his own party (which, IMHO, would hardly be a bad thing).

Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 16, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)


Free Temeka Rachelle Lewis

Temeka Rachelle Lewis is the first real victim in the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. Temeka Lewis plead guilty today to charges of money laundering and promoting prostitution for her role in booking clients like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer with high-priced call girls like Ashley Alexandra Dupre.

Why is Lewis a victim? Because prostitution, however offensive to some, is a consensual act and, therefore, not a real crime. Spitzer was willing to pay for sex; Dupre was willing to be paid for sex; and Lewis was willing to be paid to take care of the sordid details. No harm done. So why should Lewis spend as long as 16 months, after her plea bargain, in prison?

If Lewis is a victim of unjust laws, what about Spitzer? I don't think so. Spitzer was a dangerous crusader who built a career as a prosecutor-turned-governor on ruthless, public campaigns against prostitution rings and so-called white-collar financial crimes. In the end, he was hoisted by his own petard -- and that seems like justice to me.

Now I just need to make a “Free Temeka Rachelle Lewis” t-shirt to add to my collection of political prisoner t-shirts. (My “Free Michael Vick” t-shirt never goes over well.)

Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)


Thursday, May 15, 2008

Al & Mike Show Episode 24 - Abandoning The Base

Gerry Nicholls (www.gerrynicholls.com) joins us again to talk about the importance of the conservative-liberatarian movement, and the increasing disregard the Conservative Party of Canada is showing for the movement. We also talk a little bit about the debate between Mark Steyn and the three Osgoode law students who helped author human rights complaints against Macleans Magazine.

Listen Now

Subscribe to RSS: Click here for podcast RSS feed.

Subscribe in iTunes for your iPod: Click here (Must have iTunes installed)

Posted by Mike Brock on May 15, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)


Best piece on Communist China in a long time

Admittedly, the piece is written from the perspective of the United States, but I still consider Mark Helprin's Wall Street Journal column must reading for any 21st century democracy (get the link here).

Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 15, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)


Bill O'Reilly flips out

While the Bill O'Reilly flipping out video got a boost by being posted on the reason.tv blog, it has since been taken down because of a copyright claim by CBS Broadcasting. I did some digging around, and managed to find another version (why CBS even bothers is beyond me. Once these videos go viral, there's no stopping the video from being up somewhere).

Bill O'Reilly takes exception to what's written on the tele-prompter and goes berserk. That's not an exaggeration, by the way, he really does go berserk.

Watch at your own risk (there's all sorts of foul language in this, so be forewarned):


Something you may not have seen is this musical version of O'Reilly's hissy fit (even more foul language):

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on May 15, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)


Grant Brown: The Curious Case of Country C

Grantbrownsmall Do we have a real-world case of a country with discrimination against one group and in favour of another in an industrialized, highly-ranked by the UN, country? Sure we do.

In his latest column for the Western Standard, Grant Brown takes a look at the curious case of a country he's dubbed "country C." Just so you can get past all of your pre-conceived biases and judgments, Grant has called one group "X" and the other group "Y." He then rolls out the facts and the statistics on infant mortality rates, official preferential treatment, officially sanctioned discrimination, and so on.

The numbers will surprise you. As will the identity of the Xs and the Ys.

Is injustice and discrimination worth fighting against? Sure. But what happens when the facts and figures demonstrate that the victims are a group you are probably not likely to sympathize with?

An excerpt:

"The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.

"In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.
"

Read More...

Posted by Western Standard on May 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)