The Shotgun
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Banned in Caledonia
One Canada? Dief, Canada hath need of thee.
When a non-aboriginal marcher attempted to defy officers and stride ahead anyway, he was arrested. The non-native marchers said they merely wanted to wave the Canadian flag along main street. After three years of a land-claims siege on the town outskirts, they were tired of seeing only the flags of the Six Nations Mohawk reserve or the grandiosely self-styled “Warrior” Society. They merely wanted to be fly the Maple Leaf, and thereby disabuse locals of the (not unnatural) conclusion that their area had been turned over de jure to the local native thugs. No matter: The OPP refused to let their demonstration proceed.
Yet, six weeks later, a dozen or so Warriors marched through town, along the very same street, followed by their supporters driving pickups, all waving only Mohawk flags. There at the head of the procession was the an OPP cruiser, lights flashing, clearing the way for the aboriginal protesters.
On another occasion, the Mohawks were even seen waving Canadian flags with the Maple Leafs cut out the centre. These flags were then tossed in mud without consequence.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 28, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Friday, November 27, 2009
Maestro
Stephen Harper united the Right, out witted the seemingly inevitable Paul Martin and has governed the longest lived minority government in Canadian history, bar that of Lester Pearson. As someone who remembers the wilderness years of the 1990s, this should all be a dream come true. How often did I, and like minded associates, bemoan that the Canadian Right had the ideas but not the political skills to implement them? What we needed was someone with hard nosed practicality, matched with some good values about curbing government. Perhaps the really radical stuff would have to wait, like a more market based approach to health care, but the long gun registry, the CWB and slew of make work projects for left wing activists, surely all that could be smashed quickly and decisively.
The odd stumble aside, Stephen Harper has demonstrated himself as the most skilled politician of the age. Dull and uninspiring, beneath the bad hair cut, however, the enormous brain has plotted and intrigued in his seven years as leader of first the Canadian Alliance, and then the reunited Conservative Party of Canada. He has seen off two Liberal leaders, and has every chance of sending Michael Ignatieff back to academia come the next election. Confronted by an intellectually incoherent Liberal Party, reeling from scandal and hobbled by a steady bleeding of its electoral base, Harper has presented himself as a sensible, boring centrist. A safe pair of hands in troubled times.
In the context of other leading economic powers, Harper practically shines as an exemplar of common sense. Barack Obama is steadily, and quite openly, leading the United States toward socialism. Gordon Brown combines the unlikely traits of spendthrift and bore. Nicolas Sarkozy spends much of his time, in the old Gaullic tradition, haranguing anglo-saxon anything. Angela Merkel is another Harperesque safe pair of hands, despite an early reputation of being a radical reformer. Canada has weathered the economic storm, so far, very well indeed. Even from a libertarian / classical liberal perspective, government growth has been slow to moderate here, when compared to other G20 countries. In this light, the leadership of Stephen Harper has been a strong, albeit relative, success. The slow grumblings among the Conservative base, however, suggest anything but satisfaction. Hasn't the boy brought us the goods?
Fear of a resurgent Liberal Party, as well as the ghost of the Grand Coalition, from almost exactly a year ago, keeps Tories loyal and relatively contented. Better the Harper we know, than the Iggy we don't. The few vocal critics on the Canadian Right are mostly libertarians and classical liberals. They were not amused, when earlier this year, Harper blamed the economic crisis on "greed" and admonished libertarians for being naive and foolish.
This was covered here. Throwing this group under the political bus did not provoke the crisis of confidence in Harper's leadership, it merely confirmed a long running suspicion. The politically reasonable had accepted the Harper call for incrementalism. Canada is a centre-left country, gotta move slowly in the Right direction, and all that. After about three years, and a blockbuster deficit budget delivered at the beginning of 2009, many came to the conclusion that for incrementalism to work you kinda gotta be moving in the general direction of freer markets.
The you-are-a-bunch-of-Free-Market-Nutbars speech back in March, also revealed Harper's tenuous grasp of market economics. Surely a chap with an MA in Economics, with a market minded bent, would have noted the pernicious influence of the Federal Reserve, the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie and all the other Disney like family of statist agencies, that distraught and distort the economic engine of the world. Nope. The Prime Minister of Canada gave an economic analysis that might have barely passed muster at your local Tim's.
Greed? Back in the old days there was no greed in Canada. No greed on Wall Street. No greed anywhere. Then it just kind of appeared out of nowhere, like an economic disease, sometime in the middle part of the current decade. Even as populist yarns goes, this one strains credulity. Stephen Harper channelling Brian Mulroney, or Mackenzie King, isn't really the galling bit. It's the pretence. The Stephen Harper who headed the National Citizens Coalition, is not the Stephen Harper who now governs Canada. Incrementalism doesn't just fail when you stop moving in the Right direction. It fails when people lose faith in the incrementalists.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 27, 2009 at 06:59 AM
Permalink
| Comments (18)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Saskatchewan recognizes International Holodomor Remembrance Week
This week, Saskatchewan residents are being asked to reflect upon the millions of Ukrainians who died as a result of the Holodomor, a man-made famine that took place in 1932-1933 under the communist regime of Joseph Stalin.
Despite successful harvests during that period, millions of Ukrainians starved to death as a result of the Soviet government confiscating crops and preventing the victims from receiving assistance from outside sources. The Holodomor was deliberately planned and executed by the Soviet regime under Stalin to systematically destroy the Ukrainian people's aspirations for a free and independent Ukraine.
In 2008, the Government of Ukraine, the United States Senate, the Senate of Canada, UNESCO and the United Nations joined more than 40 other jurisdictions around the world to officially condemn the Holodomor or recognize it as genocide.
"Historians estimate that possibly at least 7 million people died during this period - there is no debate that the Holodomor was one of history's worst atrocities," Deputy Premier Ken Krawetz said. "As one of the thousands of Saskatchewan residents of Ukrainian descent, I believe it is vitally important that we continue to remember this horrific genocide and honour the memory of its victims."
Last year, the Government of Saskatchewan unanimously passed legislation to designate the fourth Saturday in November each year as Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day. November 21-28 is International Holodomor Remembrance Week.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Permalink
| Comments (12)
More on Climategate: Minnesotans for Global Warming release video
I posted about "Climategate" earlier here (where you can get more on this evolving and interesting story). Hugh followed up with a post of his own here. Now, the tongue-in-cheek titled "Minnesotans 4 Global Warming" have released a pretty funny YouTube video entitled "Hide the Decline." Take a look and listen:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Permalink
| Comments (8)
Hello Mullah, Hello Faddah
Birth control in Afghanistan:
The message was simple. Babies are good, but not too many; wait two years before having another to give your wife’s body a chance to recover. Nothing in Islam expressly forbids birth control. But it does emphasize procreation, and mullahs, like leaders of other faiths, consider children to be blessings from God, and are usually the most determined opponents of having fewer of them.
It is an attitude that Afghanistan can no longer afford, in the view of the employees of the nonprofit group that runs the seminars, Marie Stopes International. The high birthrate places a heavy weight on a society where average per capita earnings are about $700 a year. It is also a risk to mothers. Afghanistan is second only to Sierra Leone in maternal mortality rates, which run as high as 8 percent in some areas.
This, however, is the money quote:
In Mazar-i-Sharif, it is one mullah at a time.
Mr. Massoom, the mullah trainer, put it most directly. “This is an Islamic country,” he said. “If the clerics support this, no one will oppose it.”
There, in a nutshell, have you the problem with the Islamic world. To some this would be proof enough to leave Afghanistan to its fate. When you've left the Middle Ages, give us a call. That would be the wrong approach. As we've seen within the last decade, letting the primitive fanaticism fester is no longer an option. Back in the days of the British Empire, we could let a small expeditionary force keep the medievalists at bay. A whiff of grapeshot and the civilized world could be left in peace.
The Mad Mullah who terrorized Somalia a century ago, had a limited remit. He was a nuisance to the British, Italian and Ethiopian governments, but it was unlikely he or his followers could show up in London within a few hours, causing havoc. A globalized world means globalized pathologies. The simple thing would be to shut the door. Muslim fanaticism a problem? Just keep out the Muslim. Leaving aside that this would entail trapping civilized and decent people in the living nightmare of theocracy - whichever version - it would also fail.
Short of closing down the modern world's economy, there is no keeping out the determined and the ingenious. It also fails in the light of simple military strategy. You can win a defensive war only against a larger power, one that becomes exhausted in hurling resources at a seemingly immovable target. A small and nimble enemy wins by keeping up the fight against a larger opponent. To win, the Islamists simply have to keep fighting. For the West to win, it needs to destroys its enemies. While Iran is of far greater immediate danger, the battle for Afghanistan is Exhibit A in the longer term battle against Islamic fanaticism. It needs to become a place where if clerics support something, people will feel comfortable in opposing it. Until that happens, Afghanistan will remain the graveyard of empires, and a destabilizing force in Central Asia, and by extension the world.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 26, 2009 at 06:43 AM
Permalink
| Comments (8)
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Saskatchewan bans hand-held cell phone use while driving; are car radios next?
According to Wikipedia:
In 1930, the Galvin Corporation introduced one of the first commercial car radios, the Motorola model 5T71, which sold for between $110 and $130 (2009: $1,700) and could be installed in most popular automobiles.
Thanks to the bold vision of Paul Galvin and his brother Joseph Galvin, drivers were spared the monotony of the road, and having to talk to their spouses.
But I can’t help wonder how the development of the car radio would be met by today’s nanny statists. Tuning a radio takes your eyes of the road; your favourite song might have you thinking of margaritas and sunsets instead of the four-way stop ahead; and, the wail of emergency vehicles is often scarcely heard over the din of rock ‘n roll ballads.
Car radios, in short, are distracting, and distractions kill, at least that’s what June Draude is telling us.
Legislation banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving passed through third and final reading of the Saskatchewan legislature today and will become law Jan. 1, 2010. "Distracted driving is a serious road safety issue," insists Draude, the minister responsible for Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). "With the passing of this law we are fulfilling our commitment to make provincial roadways safer."
The new law prohibits all drivers from using hand-held cell phones to talk, text, email or surf the Internet while driving.
Experienced drivers will be allowed to use hands-free devices while driving. New drivers, meaning drivers in Saskatchewan's Graduated Driver's Licensing program, will not be able to use cell phones of any type while operating a motor vehicle.
The penalty for an offence associated with this law will be $280, which includes a victims' surcharge of $60, and four demerit points under the Safe Driver Recognition and Driver Improvement programs.
Since there are already penalties for careless and reckless driving in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, drivers who have not mastered the art of driving and talking (or driving and listening to music) can be fined under existing laws, provided there is actually evidence of careless or reckless driving.
This legislation falls on the heals of another needless and intrusive legislative initiative in Saskatchewan – an anti-scalping law – and makes me wonder if hope for a limited government agenda under Premier Brad Wall was misplaced.
As for the new law, on New Year’s day, when the legislation takes effect, make a call from your hand-held cell phone, from the comfort of your car, to (306) 787-9433, and tell Premier Brad Wall that adults can be trusted with cell phones. It won’t do much good, but at least you will have started the New Year defying increasingly intrusive government.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 25, 2009 at 04:46 PM
Permalink
| Comments (16)
Seeds of Liberty: The Marc Emery Story (Peter Jaworski)
Regular readers of this blog will know that the Western Standard is publishing Seeds of Liberty: The Marc Emery Story. In my last update, I announced that the co-author of the book is Dr. Michael Wagner, a Christian conservative who wrote the definitive history of the Canadian social conservative movement.
Today, I am happy to announce that the other author of this book is our very own Peter Jaworski, editor of the Western Standard. Below is Jaworski's impressive bio for those of you who don't already know his accomplishments:
Peter Jaworski is a PhD student in Philosophy at Bowling Green State University. He holds an MSc from the London School of Economics, an MA from the University of Waterloo, and a BA(H) from Queen's University. He was a visiting instructor at the College of Wooster, an instructor in Canadian Studies at Bowling Green State University, and teaches philosophy, also at Bowling Green State University.
Jaworski won the Felix Morley Journalism competition in 2003. He has been published in the Reader's Digest, the National Post, the Western Standard, the Fraser Forum, and was a columnist at the Orono Weekly Times for three years. He was co-anchor of Political Animals, a weekly political talk show on 88.9 WBGU-FM for three years. He is the current editor of the Western Standard online.
He was a 2002 Charles G. Koch Fellow placed as a health care research intern at the Cato Institute. He interned twice with the Fraser Institute, for the Canadian Statistical Assessment Service, as well as Children First: School Choice Trust. In 2003, Jaworski was a policy analyst with the International Policy Network in London, England. He was a 2007 research assistant at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. In 2009, Jaworski worked as a research assistant for Scott Reid, Member of Parliament for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
As I wrote here, "[Dr.] Wagner has done an excellent job documenting the complete Marc Emery story, but the libertarian tone and sympathetic treatment of Emery in the book is largely the responsibility of his co-author." That's Jaworski, of course.
Now who should write the foreword for this book? Thoughts?
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 25, 2009 at 01:49 PM
Permalink
| Comments (31)
Tommy Chong in Calgary
Western Standard editor Peter Jaworski noted here that Tommy Chong, the leading man of the stoner comedy genre, is publicly supporting Canadian libertarian activist and publisher Marc Emery from South of the border.
Emery is currently on bail in Canada awaiting extradition to the U.S. on charges related to selling marijuana seeds and for supporting “marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada,” according to a DEA press release on the day on his arrest.
Chong is showing his support for Emery in the U.S. by wearing a “Free Marc Emery” t-shirt on the Bill O’Reilly and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon shows.
I’m hoping to see Chong in this t-shirt again when he is in Calgary on December 6, 2009 for a charitable fundraiser in support of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, the Diabetes Association (Foothills) and the Project Warmth Society of Alberta.
Tommy Chong will be reuniting with his old band “The Calgary Shades” at The Ranchman's Cookhouse & Dancehall. You can learn more about the event here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 25, 2009 at 01:20 PM
Permalink
| Comments (4)
Karen Selick says "censorship is not the answer"
Karen Selick, popular libertarian writer, pundit, and lawyer, appeared before the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) yesterday on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, where she works as t Litigation Director, to tell the parliamentarians that "censorship is not the answer."
Selick's message was simple, and powerful. She made three main points, namely, 1. "hate speech laws backfire," 2. "Subsidize anything and more will be produced -- including hurt feelings," and 3. "The state is the biggest danger to life, liberty and security of the person."
Here's an excerpt from the remarks:
...when the state itself becomes the arbiter of what people can say and what they can’t say, the potential for harm against its citizens is virtually unlimited. The state is the repository of the legal use of power. The state holds the legal power of coercion, of confiscation—literally, the power of life and death—and there is no other countervailing force strong enough to combat it.
So the last thing we want to do is to strengthen the state—to give it the legal power to dictate who can speak and who cannot speak, and what they can say. Because if the state ever falls into the wrong hands—which can happen in an election, as it did when Hitler was elected, when Robert Mugabe was elected in Zimbabwe—we don’t want it to have all the machinery already in place for outlawing speech.
We don’t want the citizens to accept that it’s a legitimate role of the government to put people in jail or fine them and confiscate their property for expressing political opinions. Because that’s when all hell breaks loose, and nobody any longer has the means to oppose it.
You can read the rest of Selick's presentation before the committee on the CCF website here.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Permalink
| Comments (8)
Chavez seizes farmland, but good things on the horizon
Nothing says “commie” quite like a land seizure.
In 1959, Che Guevara said that the main priority of the new Cuban government was "the social justice that land redistribution brings about." With the help of 100,000 soldiers, El Che introduced the Agrarian Reform Law which allowed land owned by foreigners to be seized and all private holdings above 1000 acres to be redistributed or nationalized.
This week, 50 years after Che, the Venezuelan government has taken control of 31 farms totalling more than 48,000 acres, accusing owners of not holding proper titles or not putting the land to adequate use.
Agriculture Minister Elias Jaua was responsible for overseeing the expropriations, which included a ranch belonging to exiled presidential candidate Manuel Rosales, according to a report from The Morning Star entitled “Chavez frees farmland from privateers.”
Representing the so-called privateers, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce opposes this move to liberate farmland from its rightful owners.
Tragically, as Chavez tightens his grip on agriculture, we can expect food in that country to become increasing scarce and expensive.
But hope does spring eternal. January First Real Estate specializes in Latin America and writes that “Venezuela is fast becoming one of the best options for international investment, both for internal and global situations.”
I think I’ll stay invested in Saskatchewan, where scalpers are dangerous subversives but land owners are safe, at least for the time being.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 25, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Permalink
| Comments (4)
Kelo and After
Well, well. The corporate welfare junkie moved on.
Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.
The announcement stirred up resentment and bitterness among some local residents. They see Pfizer as a corporate carpetbagger that took public money, in the form of big tax breaks, and now wants to run.
“I’m not surprised that they’re gone,” said Susette Kelo, who moved to Groton from New London after the city took her home near Pfizer’s property. “They didn’t get what they wanted: their development, their big plan.”
The Kelo Decision, one of the most infamous in recent US Supreme Court history, affirmed the power of local governments to use eminent domain to seize private property for reasons of economic development. Historically, eminent domain was a power exercised in the construction of infrastructure. It was, however, an intellectual short step from arguing that roads and sewers were in the public interest, to arguing that urban renewal was in the public interest. Another very slippery slope. The up shot of Kelo was that it spurred a property rights movement across the United States, forcing through laws restricting the power of eminent domain in 43 states. Though not Connecticut. Susette Kelo is still angry. I don't blame her one bit.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 25, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Permalink
| Comments (1)
Fraser Institute's Ross McKitrick on Climategate
Stephen Taylor, founder of Blogging Tories, e-mailed Dr. McKitrick regarding the growing Climategate controversary posted yesterday by Peter Jaworski. Dr McKitrick is a respected long time critic of the theories around climate change and a Fellow at the Fraser Institute. This is part of what he said:
The overriding issue right now is that we have more than sufficient
evidence to establish that the reports produced by this group of
people: Jones, Mann, Overpeck, Schneider, Solomon etc.; are tainted.
They did not follow the assessment and review procedures they claimed
to be following, they doctored graphs, deleted or hid contrary
evidence, and worked to a set of foregone conclusions even though in
private they admitted far more serious uncertainties and discrepancies
than were communicated in the final IPCC reports.
(Read More)
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 25, 2009 at 05:39 AM
Permalink
| Comments (6)
I want to be a Member of Parliament
Usually I would sputter in outrage at the government using tax dollars for the purpose of boozing up MPs. But with billions of dollars being thrown into the waste basket every year, I just can't work up the same energy for $2 000. (Though I am surprised that the Speaker of the House has an entertaining budget of $170 000. What affairs of state would really require a Speaker to entertain?)
So instead I'm going to be very jealous. I am a man who loves his scotch (in my more honest moments I will admit that is part of the reason I came to Edinburgh for grad school). The idea that I could go to a free scotch tasting, if only I convince about 30 000 of my neighbours to send me as their voice in the Parliament of the People, is surprisinglyenticing.
I may run next time around.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 25, 2009 at 02:59 AM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
America's only hope: Octavia
U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 24, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Saskatchewan’s anti-scalping legislation an attack on free markets
In Defending the Undefendable, libertarian author Dr. Walter Block includes a chapter in his book dedicated to defending ticket scalpers. You can listen to a reading of this chapter below the fold.
A defence of ticket scalpers is needed now in Saskatchewan, as Justice Minister and Attorney General Don Morgan has introduced needless and intrusive legislation today to shut down the secondary market in event tickets, a practice known as scalping. The Ticket Sales Act will:
...prohibit the primary seller from having links on their website to reseller websites, prohibit secondary ticket sellers from selling tickets to an event that are primarily being sold by a company legally associated with them and prohibit advertising the sale of tickets by a reseller until 48 hours after the tickets go on sale to the public. The Act also makes it illegal to use computer software to automatically buy tickets. The accompanying regulations will contain reporting requirements to allow the Minister of Justice to get information from venues about the numbers of tickets that were available for public sale.
Calls to expand the power and scope of government, and to limit commercial freedom, should always be treated with scepticism, but this legislation is particularly offensive given the important role ticket resellers play in the market.
In an article published in The Freeman, William Peterson provides a defence of ticket reselling using the case of the Broadway hit The Producers. (Scalping is illegal in New York.) Peterson answers the question “What’s wrong with scalping?” below:
Nothing really. It’s simply an aspect of our market, or voluntary-exchange system. A hit’s a hit, and The Producers is a super hit. Supply and demand are at work, with here a daily fixed supply of tickets at set prices. It’s that fixed supply and those set prices that change things. Prices ration goods and services, as almost everybody knows. When demand is off, producers can cut prices, as attested by that same-day discount ticket pavilion in the middle of Times Square. But when demand is red-hot, as with The Producers, in come, at least until recently, the scalpers to collect what the market -- that is, the buyers -- will bear. They perform a service by saving time for those anxious to see the show without standing in long lines to do so. For isn’t the scalper but a middleman performing a valued service, despite his putdown name and often illegal but not necessarily evil status? Scalpers convert time cost into money cost for those who buy tickets from them. Outlawing scalping favors those with time to spare over those with money to spare. Why should the government take sides?
Once this legislation passes, scalpers who continue to bravely serve those consumers with “money to spare” could face fines as high as $500,000 and up to a year in jail.
Learn more about scalping and Dr. Walter Block by purchasing one of his books below.
Continue reading "Saskatchewan’s anti-scalping legislation an attack on free markets"
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 24, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Permalink
| Comments (25)
Minister: Let the WIND blow.
Tony Clement is being encouraged by the incumbent wireless industry players, and even one future entrant, to forgo overturning the CRTC ruling on Globalive, who was to launch their national wireless service under the WIND Mobile brand this month.
Telus, Bell, and Rogers have all made the same argument in varying degrees; seeing the inevitable long-term trend towards further liberalization of regulation in Canadian telecommunications, they have opted for the obstruct and delay tactics.
Essentially, these companies are arguing that since it's currently illegal for them to seek foreign financing, it is unfair to allow Globalive to enter the market as a company which is principally financed by foreign dollars--in this case, Egyptian-based Orascom Telcom Holdings, which helped front the CA$430 million which Toronto-based Globalive in turn, used to purchase wireless spectrum licenses last year.
Given the finite amount of radio frequencies available, national governments usually regulate their use, granting exclusive rights to certain radio frequencies for commercial and non-commercial purposes. For instance, there are licenses which are issued for the exclusive use of emergency services as well, so as to prevent a free-for-all on radio frequencies. It is illegal to transmit on these frequencies without a license.
In what is a strange state of affairs in our regulatory system, there are two licenses from two completely different government agencies that a wireless phone carrier must obtain in order to operate.
Ultimately, Industry Canada has the authority to issue wireless licenses, and the Canadian Radio and Telecommunication Commission has the authority to license their use.
Effectively, you can own a license for a set of radio frequencies, barring anyone else from their use, but not have a license to use it yourself. Makes a lot of sense, I know. But such is life in the world of big government.
This is effectively the limbo where Globalive finds itself. It possesses a national spectrum license, but it's not legally authorized to employ it's use by offering cellular phone service to prospective customers.
The reason for this, is that the CRTC found, quite legitimately mind you, that Globalive is de facto: a foreign-owned and controlled company. Even though the management structure is such that it's Canadian directors hold sway over the day to day operations: in the event of any financial trouble, it's creditors--who are almost entirely foreign--would by any stretch of the imagination have ultimate control over the company. Given this, the CRTC decided that it violated the legal requirement: that any company providing telecommunication services to consumers must be eighty-percent owned by Canadians.
Such is the case that Telus, Rogers and Bell are almost exclusively Canadian-owned. Bell, in particular, having failed to find a buyer for the company last year after the takeover deal by the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan fell through, is probably the first company which would want to cry foul. They were, of course, barred from seeking international financing or sale to an international company in order to best serve their shareholders.
While these arguments against allowing Globalive to compete would appear to speak to an issue of fairness, I think the truth of the matter goes beyond their oversimplified definition of fairness.
One issue of fairness which is not communicated by "Robelus"--a pejorative word comprising the names Rogers, Bell and Telus often used by consumer advocates to refer to their collective monopoly--or oligopoly--is the fact that they have been able to collectively enjoy windfall profits at prices which are, to say the least, high by international standards.
In terms of the state of competition in Canada's wireless market, Canada is the only OECD country which has seen a drop in wireless penetration in the past five years.
Despite Canada's economic boom through the first part of this past decade, less Canadians--as a proportion of the population--owned cellphones in 2007 than did in 2002. In the same period, profit margins for Telus and Rogers, in particular, skyrocketed. High prices and the three-year commitments that most cellular phone plans push (most plans in Europe and Asia bolster an 18-month commitment) resulted in a smaller base of cellphone users paying higher rates--which as it turns out, more than made up for the lost customers who could not afford or were not willing to pay those rates.
It's hard to blame Robelus (sorry, I just think the word is funny) for trying to maximize their profits. But it's equally hard to feel sorry for them having to face down potential foreign-competition.
They've had their shot at being the robber barons, protected from competition by archaic and illiberal ownership rules, and now is as good a time as any to bring and end to this unjustifiable status quo.
While, on the face of it, it may not be "fair", if only in an isolated sense, that Globalive was able to use foreign financing, it is less "fair" that consumers are restricted from having more market choices, and as it turns out, I do believe that Robelus should be able to access foreign investment in the same way that Globalive has; we should waste no time in drafting the appropriate legislation. But as far as the status quo goes, now is as good a time as any for a change. As such, Minister Clement should overturn the CRTC ruling, granting Globalive the ability to operate, and simultaneously announce his intention to repeal the foreign-ownership laws.
Robelus is neither deserving or entitled to "fairness" in the way they are asking for it, given the market advantage they have as incumbent players, large customer bases, and years of charging customers prices which would not be justifiable in an open market. It's time that the consumers saw some "fairness".
Minister Clement: tear down this [wireless] wall.
Posted by Mike Brock on November 24, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
Tommy Chong sports Free Marc Emery t-shirt everywhere
Canadian Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong fame, has started to don a Free Marc Emery t-shirt (which you can purchase here) for his television appearances.
Marc Emery, dubbed the "Prince of Pot" by the Seattle Times and popularized by CNN, is out on bail, awaiting his penultimate extradition to the United States to face a five-year prison term for selling marijuana seeds over the internet.
Many Canadians and Americans are outraged by the efforts of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to extradite Emery. Similarly, many are surprised and dismayed at the failure of the Canadian political establishment to speak out in defense of a fellow Canadian.
Here's Chong on Bill O'Reilly:
And here he is on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Permalink
| Comments (19)
Climategate: The emails that are shaking the world of climate science
UPDATE: You can now have a read through all of the emails, and other information, hacked from the University of East Anglia.
I haven't had a chance to read through the emails that hackers have managed to get and post on the internet from the University of East Anglia, but the few snippets that I've read appear to be damning.
The Washington Times explains:
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
The few excerpts that I've read have come mainly from James Delingpole at the Telegraph. Here are some of those excerpts (Delingpole provides the headings):
Continue reading "Climategate: The emails that are shaking the world of climate science"
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Permalink
| Comments (49)
North of the Border: Mexican Food At Its Worst
While Calgary isn't well-known for its variety and caliber of Mexican restaurants, it used to have a stable of decent Mexican or Tex-Mex joints to hit when you had that craving for a margarita and a burrito or a plate of sizzling fajitas. However, it seems that the Mexican restaurants that were in that category have lost their thunder and those that have sprung up are nothing to write home about.
In terms of the former, take the Santa Fe Grill on MacLeod Trail. This longtime Tex-Mex stalwart was always in my Top Ten List and seemed to be a no-brainer for a lazy weekend lunch laden with ice-cold Pacifico beer, a screeching hot plate of fresh fajitas preceded by fresh chips and salsa or one of the dips or accompaniments (read chili con carne) that were offered with them. I returned recently however to learn that this place has experienced a rather shocking fall from grace, which screamed out a change in ownership, whether or not that is, in fact, the case. The service was marginal, the decor was run-down and the food was cold and seemed, to my palate anyway, to be far from fresh. Pre-cooked and re-heated food seemed to be what was before me, whereas before freshness abounded. While I have not returned for a second look and perhaps should, the Santa Fe Grill is not a destination for Knox any longer.
In terms of the latter, you have Julio's Barrio. While not exactly "new", I have never set foot in the place, largely due to its awkward location at the corner of 10th Street SW and Memorial Drive and its related awkward parking situation, so it is "new" to me. Well, it was the parking situation coupled with the fact that despite screams of adoration from Edmontonians, I never enjoyed the fare served at Julio's Whyte Avenue location in Edmonton. Anyway, I decided to give it a whirl last weekend with several of my dining cronies, as we felt like a Mexican feed. Wow. The only word that comes to mind is -- "grim". While the server was great and brought forward a basket of chips and salsa in a most-timely fashion, the chips were not house-made and seemed to be right out of a bag that had been opened several days earlier. The salsa was "ok". Not a good start. Then we tried the Ranchero Dip, which was promised to be a layered dip comprised of refried beans, sour cream, guacamole, salsa and a variety of cheeses. It too was "ok", but really after a half-inch of all of the other ingredients, was just a giant bowl of refried beans. A more boring offering defies the imagination. For my main course, I had, you guessed it--fajitas. They were ice-cold, with plenty of raw (given the temperature of the skillet) vegetables piled on top. Despite the server's admirable efforts, the tortillas were also significantly delayed by some kind of kitchen confusion made obvious by the scrambling and discussion among the kitchen staff. My guests had a variety of burritos and traditional Mexican fare that was also cold and bland. A disappointment to be sure.
There are some brighter spots in Calgary however --the Boca Loca market serves good, authentic Mexican food, albeit in a less than charming surroundings, Salt + Pepper can be decent on occasion and Avocado Fresh Mexican Grill shows promise although it has the feel of an American Tex-Mex chain (despite the fact that its only other location appears to be in Saskatoon) like Chili's or Chevy's (if you ever find yourself in Arizona). El Sombrero on the "Red Mile" portion of 17th Avenue has also always been squarely average, although in fairness I have only ever ordered their food via delivery, which might be an unfair measuring stick.
While hardly surprising I suspect, if it is great Mexican food you seek, head South of the border--and I don't mean Taco Bell.
Posted by Knox Harrington on November 24, 2009 at 08:30 AM
Permalink
| Comments (1)
Revolt of the Ontarians
In boring and sensible Ontario, the masses are getting angry:
Premier Dalton McGuinty has certainly come up with a novel way of selling his 13% Harmonized Sales Tax to Ontarians, coming everywhere July 1.
His messaging appears to be: "You're too stupid to know this tax is good for you, so I'm going to impose it on you for your own good."
It's an arrogance typical of second-term majority governments, similar to the mistakes McGuinty's predecessors, former Conservative premier Mike Harris, followed by Ernie Eves, made during their second terms in power before they were defeated by McGuinty.
While the Conservatives came into office in 1995 claiming to be common sense revolutionaries who would "fix" the problems created by the previous NDP government, by 2003 they were the problem -- adrift in scandals and political patronage and disconnected from the public they claimed to represent.
I'm not sure it's arrogance exactly. There is a kind of resignation in the whole HST business. The Dalt seems to have reached the conclusion that he is not going to win the next election, so might as well go out with a bang. His victory in 2007 had very little to do with his own virtues. By all rights John Tory should have utterly thumped the Liberal leader. As with Dion and Harper, one looked like a leader, and the other clearly was not.
There was not much policy difference between Dion and Harper, or Tory and McGuinty, except on that one issue that sealed the election: religious schools. Images of public funds going to Mississauga Madrasahs, and Christian Academies for evangelical rednecks, were enough to destroy the idea in the public's imagination. Catholic Schools were introduced in Ontario over bitter opposition a century and a half ago. They are tolerated today as a historic exception, allowed on political grounds, and on the condition that the Catholicism taught stays within the confines of PC fluffiness.
It's unlikely that Tim Hudak will display the remarkable tin ear of his predecessor. The game plan is simple. Being as righteous as possible on the HST, but also as vague as possible. There is nothing Hudak, or anyone outside of cabinet, can do about the HST. It's coming and when it's here it's gonna stay. Too complicated and expensive to replace, a Hudak government will offer some cosmetic mitigation, declare mission accomplished and move on. He can't do anything else. But he can make political hay on this disguised tax grab. Hudak needs to show himself as the clean, sensible and reasonable alternative to the Dalt. If he can successfully signal competence to the middle class 905 voter, the Dalt is toast. It's two years before the next provincial election, which gives the premier about six to nine months to decide whether he will run again. A decision to spend more time with his family will not augur well for the Grits.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 24, 2009 at 07:17 AM
Permalink
| Comments (7)
Monday, November 23, 2009
The line between what we want and what is
I've come to realize something about human nature which seems to be an almost immutable trait; we tend to believe that everything will work out in the end, and only when we're faced with disaster, will we wake up to reality.
We believe absurd things in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
We accept the claims of the peddlers of "alternative medicine", despite the lack of scientific evidence for their efficacy, and tend to believe that the evidence exists, suppressed only by rich interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
We buy into the absurd claim that evolution is only a "theory"--misrepresenting what a theory in science actually means--in favour of a fairy tale involving a big bearded man in the sky that spoke some magic words and made the universe magically appear.
However, it is not these examples of anti-intellectualism that I wish to explore here. It is the anti-intellectualism that runs rampant around economics.
Continue reading "The line between what we want and what is"
Posted by Mike Brock on November 23, 2009 at 07:11 PM
Permalink
| Comments (3)
"Judge tosses stunt-driving charge as unconstitutional"
Interesting. Very interesting.
Justice Peter West, a provincial court judge in Newmarket, found that a potential penalty of up to six months in jail violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not permit an accused any defence.
[…]
An absolute liability offence means someone may not argue they took precautions and did not realize how fast they were driving. More than 20 years ago the Supreme Court of Canada stated that potential jail terms for offences that do not permit a defence breaches the Charter.
In other words, the law comes perilously close to making police officers judge, jury and executioner. Note the corruption of the language. The law was marketed as going after street racers, but it's real intention is targeting high end speeders. An interesting figures is that 10,000 drivers have been charged with "stunt driving." If driving 50 km/h over the limit is so dangerous, why do so many do it? If 10,000 have been caught, how many do so on a regular basis undetected? Where, then, is the mass carnage? How many people actually die, or are injured, each year because of those driving at such speeds?
Saying one is too many is an evasive answer. Road fatalities could be virtually eliminated tomorrow if cars were banned from going faster than 40 km/h. Speed limits are not about some platonic conception of safety, but cost vs. benefits. It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of European countries have highway speed limits in the 120 km/h to 130 km/h range. A friend of mine visited China this summer. Aside from designated areas - where photo radar stations are clearly visible - the police pay little attention to speeding, the average cruising speed being about 130 km/h. Ontario's 400 series highways were designed nearly half a century ago for speeds of about 130 km/h. That was in an age without anti-lock brakes, air bags, seat belts and modern tire technology.
In other words, how much is this law, and speeding laws in general, based on genuine public policy concerns? How much is this law based on making the McGuinty government look tough on something - a hard thing for the Dalt to do - and lining the pockets of municipal governments? The point isn't that reckless speeding isn't dangerous, and that there should no be laws against it - the roads being publicly owned, there is little alternative - but that the laws are drafted with things other than public safety in mind.
While the Ontario government hunts down speeders, owners of pit bulls and other such threats to the general peace, Caledonia remains occupied. Far easier to target ordinary Ontarians going about their way, rather than those who might fight back. Governments, like water, follow the path of least resistance.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 23, 2009 at 03:41 PM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
None So Blind
From the NYT:
Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings.
But the federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages from the psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, did not suggest any threat of violence and concluding that no further action was warranted, government officials said Monday.
Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.
To those who doubt the power of ideas, here is a classic example of how belief over powers evidence. The most obvious reason given for the authorities evasion of Hasan's beliefs is reverse racism. Army brass were too afraid of being called bigots if they transferred or discharged Hasan. If you were Hasan's CO, would you risk the media circus that would been provoked by following the correct and obvious course of action? Driving a man, a highly trained doctor no less, from the service because he expressed some controversial beliefs? Beliefs that can be heard from the mouths of countless university professors in modern America?
The left-leaning lynch mob would have followed the officers responsible to the end of their days. The international media would make hay for years to come, hailing Hasan as a martyr for his beliefs. A comfortable living on the lecture circuit for Hasan would have been a strong possibility. Doing the right thing, perhaps a year back, would not in all likelihood have saved those who died at Fort Hood. A few brave officers trying to force an obvious traitor out of their ranks, and in an extremely sensitive position no less, would probably have failed to do so. The most likely result would have been their own disgrace and embarrassment, while making Hasan even more invulnerable to discharge or even criticism. Islam is the new third rail of American politics. Touch it, and you die. Not a literal death, but a political one. Above the rank of Brigadier, an officer becomes a part-time politician. No politician is going to take a chance of being accused of racism, however frivolously the charge, however grave the circumstances that compelled the necessary action.
The false choice that underpins the actions of the anti-racism inquisitors, ranging from the Canadian Human Rights Commissioners to the Diversity Co-ordinators that infect North American campuses, is that either you hunt down every slightly disagreeable thought on race, ethnic or religious, or the Klan will emerged from darkened embers of the past. To borrow a phrase from the previous American President, either you are with us, or you are with the racists.
Between the sunshine and the darkness, there is no middle ground. It has been one of my running observations, over the last few years, that when Christianity was marginalized as an intellectual force in the twentieth century, many of its less pleasant tendencies resurfaced in secular garb. Only a tiny minority of North American Christians would countenance a return to enforcing blasphemy laws, yet in effect the secularized establishment thinks nothing of establishing anti-racism commissions - whatever their official labels - to root out people who fail obeisance to the modern gods. Their success is so profound and widespread, that an obvious traitor to his country, and to the free world at large, was allowed not simply free rein at one of America's great military bases, but honour. The great honour of being an officer of the Army of United States of America. An armed force that has liberated millions from exactly the sort of tyranny that Major Hasan would have wanted to flourish.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 23, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Permalink
| Comments (11)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Not For Sale
The Island for the Islanders.
An American who broke P.E.I.'s non-resident land ownership rules has been fined close to $29,000, with a further fine expected.
This is only the second time the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission — which administers a number of laws for the province, including the Lands Protection Act — has held hearings on an individual's property ownership.
The case dates back to 2003, when Melvin Griffin of Florida was visiting the Island and a 76-hectare piece of land in Pleasant Grove, north of Charlottetown, caught his eye. It had almost two kilometres of shore frontage along the Winter River.
P.E.I. has strict laws regarding non-resident land ownership under the Lands Protection Act. Anything more than two hectares needs to be approved by cabinet, and in this case cabinet said no.
A wee eccentric, as property laws go, isn't it? There is a historical angle to all this:
But when she arrived on the Island in 1867 to inspect her estate (Lots 9, 16, 22 and 61) the P.E.I. legislature was making moves to end absentee landlordism for good.
In order to protect her interests, she started working with the Prince Edward Island Association, a London-based lobby group that promoted landed interests.
But after P.E.I. became a Canadian province in 1873, the government enacted a Land Purchase Act in 1875 that forced landlords to sell their estates to the provincial commissioner of public lands.
In her quest to hold onto the land that her father had given her, Sulivan took her case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That's the history. Naturally it has pleasant side effects for the locals. By limiting the pool of potential purchasers, it keeps housing affordable for the locals. It also holds back the province's economic development. Less capital flowing into the island. That may not make much economic sense, but perhaps they're not interested in making money. Maybe they like PEI the way they remember it growing up. Few strangers from "away." Not much traffic. Picturesque cottages and only modest resort developments. PEI today looks more like Anne of Green Gables than a modern tourist destination. Using government to preserve the past.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 20, 2009 at 07:14 AM
Permalink
| Comments (10)
Shut up Lisa MacLeod (VI): Six things you should know about Lisa MacLeod shutting up
It was demanded upon me to make this next installment of my popular series: Shut up Lisa MacLeod.
Today's episode involves an opinion piece that she co-wrote for the National Post, regarding the HST. In it she isn't as mind numbingly foolish as she has been previously, so maybe she should get someone to co-write everything she says. But luckily for my readers there is still plenty of silliness to mock.
She makes six points in opposition to the Harmonized Sales Tax:
1. Ontario is surrendering its constitutional taxation powers.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that allows regional governments unlimited taxation powers. Believe me, many in the Scottish Government looks towards Canada with envy. So this indeed is an important power to protect. Luckily it isn't actually in danger. The Parliament of Ontario is still free to levy all the taxes that they want thank you very much.
I admit that most of the knots and bolts issues regarding the sales tax will be handled by the Federal government. MacLeod claims that this means taxation without representation. As if Ontario wasn't represented in the Federal Parliament. Wait...what province is the Finance Minister from again...I forget...
2. There will be a hidden tax
The GST is currently at 5% and the PST is currently at 8%. What exactly is being hidden here? Is it that she's afraid Ontarians can't do basic math?
3. There is no evidence that harmonized taxes work in other federal jurisdictions
Her argument here is basically that just because it has been done in other countries doesn't mean that it will work well here. This is not an entirely unfounded complaint. One of the things I'm learning about in Grad school is pitfalls of cross country policy analyses. It is not so simple to say that something was done there so we can do the exact same thing here. The institutions and organizations are different in every country.
That being said it is possible to learn from the mistakes and successes of other country's policy. We can take those lessons, adjust them to particularly Canadian needs, and apply them. How do I know that this can be done? Well because it is done all the time. You wouldin fact be hard pressed to find policy proposals in Canada that wasn't in some way partially based on policies in an other jurisdiction. So why won't HST work in Canada again?
4. It will cost businesses money and resources to learn the new system
This is true. It is also true of any policy change made ever. There is always a capital investment made into learning how a law, policy, or institution works. That is part of the reason why it is so hard to change things, people don't want to give up that investment. This is basically an argument against the government doing anything...hang on...hmmm...
But anyway I doubt the cost will be as much as say MPPs moving to half day or MPPs recieving free childcare.
5. Companies that are exempt won't be exempt anymore
Well good. It is bizarre to me that the government picks and chooses who pays more taxes and who pays less. The government shouldn't be giving unnatural advantages to companies or industries. If her argument here is that taxingbusinesses ultimately hurts consumers, then yes I agree. So we should get rid of all corporate taxes right?
6. It would be hard or impossible to undue the HST
This is a good thing if you think the HST is a good thing. It isn't really an argument for not doing it. I guess if you were unsure about the HST you would rather that it be easily reversed once it has been tested. But still, this isn't anactual argument against the HST.
Nice try though...
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 20, 2009 at 05:17 AM
Permalink
| Comments (10)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Profiteers
At Manchester Avenue and Figueroa Street, accidents more than tripled from five before the cameras were installed to 16 afterwards. Westwood Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard tripled from three to nine. At Rodeo Road and La Brea Avenue, collisions nearly tripled from seven in the six months before the cameras were installed to 20 in the same period afterwards.
The reason?
"People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes," Ellison said. "That's just human nature. As a result, more accidents, more rear end accidents."
That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead had a camera.
"Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no inclination to stop," Stephens said.
"They" are the two cars that hit him from behind.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 19, 2009 at 06:46 AM
Permalink
| Comments (6)
I Think We've Seen This One Before
Like a bad penny, this guy:
The current PQ leader, Pauline Marois, was asked the other day if she's worried about what Parizeau will have to say in his book, La souveraineté du Québec: Hier, aujourd'hui et demain, which hits stores a week before a PQ national council meeting in Montreal to be attended by péquistes from across Quebec.
"I do not fear Mr. Parizeau's book," Marois told reporters. "It's about sovereignty. We need people to continue to reflect and feed us ideas on sovereignty. I work closely with Mr. Parizeau. We speak regularly and I have a very positive relationship with one of the particularly great leaders of our political party."
Traitors betraying each other. Bleak comfort, yet comfort.
Posted by PUBLIUS on November 19, 2009 at 06:44 AM
Permalink
| Comments (23)
Natives and Property Rights
It has long been a problem of the Native nations that their members could not own land on the reserves. All land was communally owned thus no individual could leverage their home for a loan. This prevented Natives from being able to start businesses or otherwise invest in their community.
Now in BC, at least one tribe is trying something different. The Treaty nation of Nisga'a has decided to allow its members to sell and mortgage their homes.
Hats off to the Nisga'a. It would be interesting to see how much this will improve their community.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 19, 2009 at 02:54 AM
Permalink
| Comments (9)