The Shotgun Blog
« February 13, 2005 - February 19, 2005 |Main| February 27, 2005 - March 5, 2005 »
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Blogging For Chickens
As a result of past posts in which I've taken swipes at Canadian political and media types over their ambivilance/ignorance of the blogosphere and internet communication in general, I've been working behind the scenes with a couple of individuals who've expressed an interest in venturing into it themselves.
The learning curve is proving to be steep. For example, when explaining the pros and cons of opening comments, I've found myself explaining what a "troll" is. ("Now that over there, to the left, sir, would be your brake pedal", said the driving instructor). What I wouldn't give for a Usenet Wayback Machine.
I've discovered that explaining the blogosphere to an internet neophyte is rather like teaching a chicken to swim. All the time you're carefully describing paddling technique, the intricacy of the currents, warning about the whirlpools and submerged rocks .... you secretly wonder if you shouldn't just toss the round eyed, blinking thing into the water and offer encouragement from a safe distance.
The same way the rest of us learned.
That said, political types aren't known for their risk taking behavior, so perhaps it's more humane to direct them to this piece by Patrick Ruffini. He provides excellent advice in this post written specifically for politicians;
Blogging by political leaders has the potential to revolutionize campaign communications in this respect: it takes the press out of press releases. Blogs mean that politicians can communicate with constituents directly, without the media filter.Yet powerful institutional obstacles remain, as evidenced by the fact that only 4 Congressional offices have started blogs. If you're a communications director, chief of staff, or even a Member, and you're looking to overcome internal opposition to a blog, consider this post your guide.
Oh. Who's Patrick Ruffini?
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 26, 2005 in Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (78) | TrackBack
We let our friends down
The Halifax Herald editorializes:
"... Americans understandably feel let down. Mr. Martin first backed participation in missile defence. When it proved unpopular with the public and his party, he didn't try to win support for what he supposedly believed in.
At bottom, Washington wanted our moral support. Instead, Mr. Martin caved to anti-American sentiment in his party. The Americans can hardly see this as other than weak and fickle."
During a conversation with my 14-year-old son this week he explained how he saw Paul Martin's BMD snub: Canada and the United States are friends and even if we don't think we (Canada) will ever need missile defense, our friend south of the border desperately wants and needs it. But deep down we know we need it too and furthermore we know that our friends, the Americans, will place us under the protection of missile defense if for no other reason than as a form of self-defense for themselves. Therefore, we are free-loading. But true friends don't free-load. Canada has become like the friend who will never pick up the bill for lunch.
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 26, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Palestinian Anger?
Charles Johnson notices a certain lack of enthusiasm for the Tel Aviv bombing;
Palestinians expressed anger Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes.[...]
In contrast to the dozens of previous suicide bombings, no celebrations were held in the West Bank on Saturday and militant groups didn't hang the customary posters of congratulations at the bomber's home.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 26, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Where's the CBC?, part two
There was a "free Syria" rally on Parliament Hill. Still waiting for the CBC to give these folks a minute of airtime.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Gee, why isn't this on the CBC?
Imagine that -- thousands of Europeans cheering for George W. Bush. I guess there was just too much on the CBC schedule to find time to mention it.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What Terri Schindler-Schiavo can look forward to
With the agonizingly protracted execution of Terri Schindler-Schiavo set to begin on March 18, neurologist Dr. William Burke describes how one starves to death:
"A conscious person would feel it [dehydration] just as you and I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining ... death by dehydration takes 10 to 14 days. It is an extremely agonizing death."
(An important note about the column in the New York Post by Arnold Ahlert from which this is taken: Terri has not been in a comatose state for 15 years. While she has been incapacitated (unable to get out of bed or to take nutrition without the aid of a feeding tube), she has reacted to loved ones around her by following their voices, smiling and moving. It certainly is not helpful for journalists who seem to be on side to get these elementary facts of the case wrong.)
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 26, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Is Harvard University also bigoted against southpaws?
Link: All in the Mind: 26 June? 2004? - Left Brain Right Brain: Fact or Fiction?.
Is Harvard also bigoted against southpaws?
Natasha Mitchell: What did you do to unravel what the right hemisphere does?
Michael O’Boyle: We began working with an actual theory behind all of this. And it’s a bit of a digression to get too far into it but sufficed to say that one of the things that was unusual about these extremely talented math gifted types was that there were far too many males compared to females. Like 6 to 1 at this highest level of mathematical reasoning, more males than females.
There were far too many left-handers represented in this group. In the general population left-handers constitute about 10%, in the math gifted it turned out there are about 23% to 25% representation.
That, left handedness as a sort of indicator of right hemisphere development, plus the fact that there were too many males as compared to females, suggested to a researcher long ago a neurologist by the name of Norman Geshwin at Harvard, that perhaps testosterone prenatally was exerting some kind of influence on brain development which enhanced the right side of the brain at the expense of the left which of course would mean more representative left handedness than right handedness.
And of course if you think of testosterone dosage, who’s going to get the most testosterone? Well, the males will.
Posted by Norman Spector on February 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Friday, February 25, 2005
Successful Test: BMD "Emergency Deployment"
Paul Martin's timing is impeccable.
PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KAUAI, Hawaii, Feb. 24, 2005 /PRNewswire/ -- The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. Raytheon Company develops the SM-3. Lockheed Martin develops the Aegis BMD Weapon System.The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System.
This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single- pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace.
The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.
via Drudge.
update - One of David Frum's readers responds to Paul Martin's assertion that ""We would expect to be consulted"prior to a BMD deployment.
In other words, Canada wants no part of missile defense right up until the time of incoming. At that point we can count them in."
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 25, 2005 in Military | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Kyoto Storm Warning
Cold is thinning the ozone? Wait wait wait. RECORD cold?
I thought the planet was heating up so fast the ocean's were set to boil?
More "cool" headlines here.
Posted by Justin Bogdanowicz on February 25, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORIES
PM draws fire over missiles
'Whimpering no' further sullies our image
RUNNERS-UP
World Anglican leaders rebuke Canadian church
Health Minister attacks makers of Vioxx
Congés parentaux: un accord imminent
Court backs deportation of Ernst Zundel
HOT TOPICS
MISSILE DEFENCE: ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY
MISSILE DEFENCE: EDITORIAL REACTION
THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Posted by Norman Spector on February 25, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Fraser Institute on budget
Most of the post-budget talk is about the tiny tax cuts, a child care program and investment in the military. But as Jason Clemens, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute, and Niels Veldhuis, its senior research economist, note: "Program spending has increased 50.9 per cent since 1997, well beyond the rate of economic growth, increases in population, or inflation. In addition, Canadians should be particularly concerned with the huge increase in spending undertaken this current fiscal year: $16.7 billion, a 12 percent increase. " There is more to being fiscal responsible than merely balancing the budget. The cost of not cutting spending is serious tax cuts: "The government's proclivity for spending continues unabated at the expense of meaningful tax relief that would address some of Canada's more pressing economic problems, such as stagnating incomes and slower productivity growth."
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Prairie Centre Policy Institute
I was invited today to a luncheon debate hosted by the Prairie Centre Policy Institute (which could probably be described as a Saskatchewan based conservative "think tank"), as a guest of a friend who knows of my interest in politics and reads the blog.
The debate, which was on the role of federalism in the Canadian economy, featured well known Saskatchewan entrepreneur Herb Pinder Jr. and left-leaning U of Sask professor Red Williams. Pinder's premise - that Canada has become a "country of mediocrity", due to our culture of entitlement, high taxation, equalization and politically motivated federal infiltration into provincial responsibilities - recieved no rebuttal at all from Williams, which I thought was odd. Instead, he devoted his portion of the debate to defending government involvement in the economy and weakly excusing the excesses by reminding everyone of just how darned hard a job it is to run everybody's lives.
There were a number of business leaders and provincial MLA's in attendance at the small gathering, including former SaskParty leader Elwin Hermanson, Ken Cheveldayoff, Ben Heppner and June Draud, who was seated beside me at our table. Prior to the serving of lunch, she described her frustration at how difficult it is to get a clear message from the SaskParty out through the media - unless the ideas are picked up by the governing NDP, who then get the press and the credit.
She also shared that small local newspapers have recieved threatening calls and subsequent withdrawel of government advertising for giving "too much space" to SaskParty media releases. My ears perked up. What bloggers couldn't do with a story like that.
In the short time available, I tried to explain to her the concept of the blogosphere and how it has become so powerful a force in the US. She seemed to be interested enough and asked if I had a card. I didn't. (An interesting notion, though - who has business cards for their blog?) Shortly afterwards, the speakers began so there wasn't enough time to go into things in more detail.
At the wrap-up, Pinder suggested that we take the ideas presented "back to the workplace, talk to your friends"...
Urgh. How.... 1980's.
When, oh when, are Canadian conservative parties going to wake up and realize that one of the most powerful tools for uniting conservative voices and bypassing the mainstream left-leaning press is already here, is proven to be both powerful and successful, is ridiculously inexpensive and right under their noses?
I dug up the address to the PCPI website from the back of a booklet they provided, entitled "Creating Wealth In Saskatchewan", with plans of linking to the info on the Pinder-Williams debate and adding the site to the permanent sidebar.
There was nothing there. The page hasn't been updated since Christmas.
I can't say that I was surprised.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Defenseless
On Monday, new U.S. ambassador Frank McKenna said we were in. Then, Foreign Affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew apparently told the Americans on Tuesday we were out. On Wednesday, the PM said he hadn't even decided yet. Today, the government made an official announcement: Canada is not joining the ballistic missile defense program.
All we can do now is hope the story changes again tomorrow.
Posted by Kevin Libin on February 24, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
February 23, Conservatism RIP
Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck says that yesterday's budget and Stephen Harper's description of it as addressing Conservative priorities is proof that conservatism is dead in Canada. No mainstream Canadian party now stands for lower taxes and less spending. As Brodbeck says, where's the Reform Party and Preston Manning when you need them?
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Where's the budget analysis
Several Shotgunners have analysis at their own sites: Occam's Carbuncle, Political Staples, Canadian Comment, Sobering Thoughts and Jay Currie. Best comment comes from Currie and is less about the budget than Stephen Harper's reaction: "Harper's position lets the Liberals off the hook.Which is dumb."
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Martin's move irritates U.S.
RUNNER-UP
Martin buys some love/PM buys time
HOT TOPICS
BUDGET POLITICS
BUDGET MEASURES/REACTION
PUNDITS/ANALYSTS
EDITORIAL REACTION
MISSILE DEFENCE
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Canada Says It Won't Join Missile Shield With the U.S (NYT)
U.S.-Russia Pact Aimed At Nuclear Terrorism
US Health care Costs could be 19% of economy by 2014
Posted by Norman Spector on February 24, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
What We Have Here
... is a failure to communicate.
Out of curiosity, I ran a Google News search.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,960 for Terri Schiavo right-to-die.Results 1 - 10 of about 357 for Terri Schiavo right-to-life
The latter look to be mostly op-eds, or include references to "right-to-life" groups or lawyers. The hard news stories are nearly uniform in the "right to die".
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 23, 2005 in Media | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Life In The Rall World
As gifted a writer...
"Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make mistakes or flat out lie. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guy."
as he is a cartoonist.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 23, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Adrienne Clarkson Presents .. a dumb idea
The Governor-General should stick to ballet or whatever else is on her elitist mind because having two women's teams compete for the Stanley Cup is perhaps the stupidest idea to come to hockey since Gary Bettman awarded a franchise to Disney. At risk of sounding chauvanistic, I find women's hockey to be incredibly slow-moving and dull, and had there not been a chance of seeing a woman rip off her jersey and skate around in a sports bra, I probably wouldn've have even watched the gold medal final from Salt Lake. Sure, the girls get their emotions up during the Olympics and World Championships but high spirits do not an exciting game make. If Clarkson was any sort of a hockey fan, she's understand this and keep her trap shut.
Even Cassie Campbell, the great woman player, agrees:
"For us, it's about fighting to have our own championship and one that's eventually going to be just as prestigious as the Stanley Cup is now," Campbell said. "Hopefully we have an NHL-type season and we have more teams across the country and across North America, and that's where my connection is.
"It's not really about playing for the Stanley Cup. That already exists. It's about creating one for women's hockey."
There is an idea making the rounds, however, which I do find very interesting. As we all know, the Stanley Cup was originally awarded to the top amateur team in the Dominion. As there are now several trophies awarded to the various amateur levels of play -- the Allan Cup for seniors, the Memorial Cup for major junior -- perhaps a one-time tournament could be held to decided this year's winners. The most likely teams would be the national Junior 'A' champs, the CIS men's champs, and the winners of the Memorial and Allan Cups. Hold the challenge at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto in a round-robin format, with the top two teams competing in a best-of-three final. Man, the TV ratings would be through the roof.
This would be a once-in-a-lifetime event, talked about for years to come. Just like the Heritage Classic (remember that game played in a football stadium a few year's back? I think it involved Wayne Gretzky playing Jarome Iginla, or something to that effect). If nothing else, this would satisfy Lord Stanley's intent when he first presented the trophy to a young Scotty Bowman all those years ago.
This speaks much of the mindset of the GG. In attempting to do the best for "our game" and involving everyone in the sport, she had to pick the politically correct side of the argument. Had she had the opportunity, I'll bet she would also suggest having the top disabled teams challenge for hockey's ultimate prize, or the top native teams, or the top native women's disabled teams. From Quebec. Anyone except the best team currently in the realm, apparently.
Isn't her term done yet?
crossposted to BumfOnline
Posted by Rob Huck on February 23, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Quebec dodges Health Canada
The Montréal Gazette’s AARON DERFEL reports:
RUNNER-UP
Martin shouldn't have tinkered with equalization, Manley
No whites need apply
Gomery inquiry audit possible
Court parses identity mix-up: Another Charkaoui
HOT TOPICS
MISSILE DEFENCE
THE BUDGET
MARTIN/BUSH IN BRUSSELS
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants Islamist as the Prime Minister
Japan and Korea ‘have no plan’ to sell dollars
Bush and Chirac reopen wounds
Bush Tries To Allay E.U. Worry Over Iran
Bush Says Europe Should Not Lift Its China Arms Embargo
Company’s Work in Iraq Profited Bush’s Uncle
Menace syndicale sur les Jeux olympiques à Paris
Queen 'snubs' Charles wedding
Dramatic fall in number of asylum-seekers since 2002 (UK)
The rush to war (UK AG’s pre-Iraq legal opinion)
Leica au bout du rouleau
Un espoir à Beyrouth (Le Monde editorial)
Boys, Girls Are Faring Equally, Study Finds
Posted by Norman Spector on February 23, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Blogging CPAC
In January, I listed the bloggers who were accredited to cover CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference ). James Joyner has several posts on events as they unfolded, including an incident where Al Franken was "apoplectic" over discovering he was to guest on Michael Medvid's show with Swift Boat leader John O'Neill. Lots of links to video, etc.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Domino Theory
The Domino Theory was what foreign policy analysts called the expansion of the Soviet Empire -- every country that fell to the Communists increased momentum and pressure for more to fall. It was all about bad news.
Today the Domino Theory could describe the seeds of freedom in Arabia. Afghanistan is downright placid; Iraq still buzzes from its election success; Lebanon, one of the most Westernized of Arab lands, has decided to pit "people power" against Syrian tanks.
Here are some pix of anti-Syria protests in Lebanon.
And even Egypt, the largest Arab dictatorship, is showing signs of cracking.
Let freedom ring!
.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Question
Can we raise money to buy stuff for our troops like they do in the US?
Posted by Justin Bogdanowicz on February 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Death Of An Idea?
Anyone who visits here regularly, knows that I love anything that Mark Steyn puts to paper. Sure his material is usually on the depressing side (i.e. you get more disgusted with the world each time you nod your head in agreement) but his ability to insert some humour into a debate is amazing.
Well I suspect that Mark isn't in the jolliest of modes these days. His latest piece isn't the least bit funny:
America and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the noisier Continental mosques.
So what would you do in Bush's shoes? Slap 'em around a bit? What for? Where would it get you? Or would you do exactly what he's doing? Climb into the old soup-and-fish, make small talk with Mme Chirac and raise a glass of champagne to the enduring friendship of our peoples: what else is left? This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".
If anyone else had written that last sentence I wouldn't have dwelled on it so much. Regardless, it kind of struck me... well I just kept repeating it over and over.
The death of 'the West'. What exactly does that mean? The death of us? Or is it simply the death of an idea, easily replaced with another?
Did those present during the fall of the Greek states lament the death of 'the West'? Did the citizens of Rome feel the barbarian invasions meant the death of 'the West'? Did the Spaniards fleeing from the Moors predict the death of 'the West'?
I'm certainly not qualified to answer any of these questions but if I had to hazard a guess I would suspect in all cases that they didn't. History is local. It always has been. The idea of 'the West' is simply too much for people to grasp. Sure you have historians who can string the narrative together but the narrative only fits if history allows it to.
Would we still consider Europe and America as part of the same 'West' if the Nazi's had won World War II? Would we have considered Europe and America part of the same 'West' if Communism had overtaken Europe after World War II? I suspect in both cases that we wouldn't and I suspect that most people reading this would agree with me.
So what does this all mean? Honesty I have no idea. Heck I don't even know where I'm going with this. I could read a thousand books about 'the West' and yet I doubt that even then I would feel like I understood it.
The situation in Europe does depress me because I honestly do feel that we are seeing the end of an era of history. I'm still not ready to proclaim the death of 'the West' like Mark is but I do feel that the world is rapidly changing underneath me.
I guess that the only positive way I can look at all this is to consider that history unwinds in the most unexpected ways. The concept of a 'free man' with rights originated over 2000 years ago in Greece. And today? All over the world we find that the most brutal of dictators must speak the language of freedom and democracy. The idea of a 'free man', isolated to Europe 500 years ago, now infects the entire globe. Could this have all been an accident?
Could an idea that spans 2000 years now be at it's end? Or alternatively... does the idea need Europe?
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Dana on February 22, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORIES
MARTIN TIPTOES/BUSH SPROUTS IN BRUSSELS
BUSH NEVER RULED OUT WEAPONS IN SPACE
RUNNERS-UP
Government has high hopes for massive service overhaul
Martin puts Confederation at risk
PMO sent jet to get ailing MP for crucial vote
Charest stuck in a rut
HOT TOPICS
THE BUDGET
NATIONAL SECURITY
LIBERALS SCRAMBLE
ADRIENNE TALKS HOCKEY
PROVINCIALISTS
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Bush Says Russia Must Make Good on Democracy
Three Little Words Matter to N. Korea
Hunter S. Thompson RIP
EU chief dampens mood of entente with Bush
Tories gain ground on Labour
Mbeki attacks US over Zimbabwe stance
Bush et Chirac: vive le Liban libre
Bush-Chirac: les limites d'une réconciliation
Bush, Chirac sourire de rigueur
Our Mission Remains Vital (Kofi Annan)
Atlanticist small talk is all that's left (Mark Steyn)
Posted by Norman Spector on February 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
That's showbiz
Well, that's one less trailer you'll have to watch before the main attraction.
On Sunday, Famous Players theatres announced that it was pulling controversial pre-movie advertisements urging moviegoers to support same-sex marriage. The ads, by the lobby group EGALE, were paid for by Famous Players Media president Salah Bachir, a flamboyant entrepreneur and philanthropist, with a soft spot for gay charities. (Famous Players Media is the company that sells commercials for the Famous Players movie chain and publishes its in-house magazine.)
The movie chain is insisting that they had to stop airing the ads because they were getting too many abusive e-mails and phone calls. Ok. But then they also said that they were hereby staying out of "issue-driven" advertising, because, they have concluded, people go to movies to get away from politics. From now on, spokeswoman Nuria Bronfman says, advertising shown before screenings "will focus on consumer products and services and stay out of issue-driven advertising altogether." (This, by the way, was after the movie chain told critics of the ads that if they didn't like them, they could buy their own ads to counter them. Whoops. Time's up.)
What Famous Players didn't say is that they were also facing a boycott and all kinds of bad press. And given the news today, that the theatre chain is putting itself on the market, well, it would seem funny if that weren't part of the decision not to renew the ads too.
Make no mistake: the privately-owned movie chain is free to run whatever ads it likes—and face the fallout among consumers. But, wherever you stand on the gay marriage issue, it's obvious that painting gay marriage opponents as intolerant and violent achieves much the same end as the ads in the first place. Headlines like "Threats force chain to pull same-sex ads" defame advocates of traditional marriage and have the effect of making opposition to C-38 seem irrational and visceral, ensuring Canadians feel increasingly uncomfortable about supporting the "no" side. If Famous Players' staffers received genuine threats, well, that's shameful. But clearly there were other factors at work in the calculation to defuse the controversy. Neglecting to mention that is, at best, disingenuous.
Posted by Kevin Libin on February 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Monday, February 21, 2005
Paul Martin, foreign policy dunce
Writing in the Calgary Sun, Ezra Levant concludes his column on Prime Minister Paul Martin's approach to foreign policy thusly:
"Syria, a rogue, terror-sponsoring state, has announced an alliance with Iran, another rogue, terror-sponsoring state building nuclear weapons. Syria killed Hariri. Syria's illegal occupation of Lebanon continue. And Martin think's it's all OK, in the name of 'peace.'
Remember, this is the same PM who, while in China, claimed he sat next to 'opposition politicians' at a state dinner. He actually thought the hand-picked stooges the Communist Party introduced him to were real dissidents, allowed to sit in that country's legislature."
Natan Sharansky says in his book The Case for Democracy that he and his fellow Soviet dissidents never thought that the world was divided between communists and capitalists but rather between those who were willing to confront evil and those who weren't. Paul Martin plants himself firmly in the latter category.
(Cross-posted at Sobering Thoughts)
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
...And the hunter home from the hill
A weblog called "The Shotgun" cannot fail to take somber note of the suicide of Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist universally admired for his astonishing palette and stylistic bravery by brethren of all political species. I have some further thoughts, as do eminences of the weblog world ranging from Tim Blair to James Lileks to Ken Layne to Steve Sailer.
Posted by Colby Cosh on February 21, 2005 in Books | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Out Elitist Infrastructure Needs Upgrades
I was watching a commercial for a local television station (sorry I can't remember which one) and they were talking about plans to upgrade the Ottawa International Airport. You wouldn't be amiss to wonder why a newly built airport would require upgrades.
So what is the problem with the new airport? Well it seems that our ruling elite are sick of standing next to the great unwashed masses.
Plans are to build a new terminal to service government officials coming and going in those swanky new Challenger jets the government so badly needed. The terminal would include a first class lounge and all the amenities our elite require when they travel.
Has our government become so detached from the people it governs that it doesn't want to wait for a flight with them? And lets be serious, waiting in the first class lounge isn't exactly 'mixing it up with the people'. I've flown out of the Ottawa airport plenty of times and every time a government minister was on the plane they were always flying first class. And to be even more to the point, I'm sure the money for the first class ticket upgrade didn't come out of the ministers chequing account either.
But I guess every country needs it's elite. How else would things get done without them? All of us people flying ecomony class couldn't possibly understand the pressures our elite suffer from and the long working hours they put into their jobs.
Of course we couldn't. We are the great unwashed after all.
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Dana on February 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Bush not on PM's list
RUNNER-UP
Budget finger-pointing begins
Thomson Awaits response on $1.5B bid for Bell Globemedia
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Strong Europe essential for world peace, declares Bush
Talking with the Enemy
Cabinet in Israel Ratifies Pullout From Gaza Strip
Bush passe l'Atlantique à des fins pacifiques
Critics pour water on fiery US foreign policy
Three reasons why the US and Europe won't make up
Les Américains maintiennent la France sous surveillance
EU plan clears Spanish hurdle
Who Needs the N.H.L. When the Moose Is on the Loose? (NYT)
Adams and McGuinness named as IRA leaders
UN chief quits over sex abuse allegations
Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Author Hunter S. Thompson Kills Himself
Posted by Norman Spector on February 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Bettman must go
The last minute involvement of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux highlighted a glaring problem the NHL has had since Gary Bettman became its commissioner in 1993. Bettman is an administrator and not a very effective one. What the commissioner should be, though, is an ambassador for the game, which Bettman is not. Gretzky and Lemieux are. Unfortunately for hockey fans, of which I long ago ceased considering myself, their efforts came too late. There is much blame to go around: the owners desire a salary cap because they lack the discipline to stop spending their own money; the NHL Players Association thinks that they should c0-control the sport; Bettman and NHLPA head honcho Bob Goodenow dislike each other so much it is unlikely that they can negotiate in good faith with one another. But the NHL's problem is that its commissioner doesn't think about what fans want -- whether it is a lockout or the quality of play on the ice. Any deal that does not include Bettman's removal will not solve the sport's long-term problems and to that end there is this website: removebettman.com.
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 20, 2005 in Sports | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Overtime talks fail: No 2004-05 NHL season
MOST UNDER-REPORTED STORY
Paul Martin leaves Ottawa this morning for Belgium
(In fact, though he and George Bush are attending the same NATO meeting on Tuesday, I can't find a single report of the PM's trip in today's Canadian newspapers.)
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Bush Seeks to Begin a Thaw in a Europe Still Cool to Him
L'Union européenne cherche à s'imposer face à George Bush
What's US policy on Europe? No giggling (Mark Steyn)
Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense
Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers
Deep Roots Hold Syrian Influence in Lebanon
'Cynical' UK media may lose Olympics for London
Flirting with Armageddon: welcome to a new arms race
Churchgoers ordered to pray for Camilla
Posted by Norman Spector on February 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack