The Shotgun Blog
« January 14, 2007 - January 20, 2007 |Main| January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007 »
Saturday, January 27, 2007
L'illusion tranquille
L’illusion tranquille involves an ageing society living beyond its means, unable to shake the grip of meddlesome government and powerful trade unions”. This quote is from an article in today’s National Post entitled “Quebec film hits socialiste nerve”.
What I find galling is that with so many things in this country tilted to favour Quebec, equalization, industrial milk quotas (46.5 of the nation’s share), aircraft industry deliberately centered in Quebec since the Mulroney years, federal civil service hiring policies, cheap hydro electricity from Labrador at Newfoundland and Labrador’s expense and I could go on and on, they are still running up yearly deficits and adding to their colossal debt.
As an Albertan I would like to make some points. University tuition is much cheaper in Quebec than it is in Alberta, Alberta has nothing to compare to the daycare program that Quebec operates at a cost of seven dollars per day per child to users, snow clearing is reportedly much quicker in Quebec cities than it is in Alberta cities. These programs are considered too costly in our supposedly rich province. It should be noted that Alberta’s contribution to equalization approximately equals the income to the provincial government from our petroleum resources and also approximates what is handed over to Quebec. Therefore you could argue that Quebec benefits from Alberta’s petroleum resources while Alberta doesn’t. The irony here is that equalization is supposed to level the playing field so that all provinces can dispense the same level of social services if their tax resources are not sufficient to keep up to the wealthier ones. By that argument Quebec should be topping up Alberta’s coffers.
Perhaps there is some hope for reform if Francophone Quebecers themselves are recognizing the problem. There is more in the article that I hope will still be available here.
Posted by Bob Wood on January 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Wal-Mart: Not a Monopoly
Over two years ago, I wrote the two rules of antitrust/competition policy:
- You must compete.
- You must not win.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people mistakenly equate competitive success with monopoly. Rebekah relates yet another example and smacks it hard:
Buddy went off on a Chomsky-ite tangent and said, "To the extent that Wal-Mart is a monopoly it impedes the free market."
... Precisely how is Wal-Mart a monopoly, when, even in my relatively rural district — in flyover country — we have within just a half-mile of the Wal-Mart, a Target, a K-Mart, a Sears, a J.C. Penney, a farm-and-tractor supply chain, a home and garden center, two book stores, a video store, and at least two dozen small family-operated businesses, all marketing similar items to those at the eeeeevil monopoly, and they have all been doing well for at least the decade the Wal-Mart has been there? That's a funny-looking monopoly, in my eyes. Of course, if you are willing to use Chomsky's methods to redefine words to suit your immediate want, then, perhaps he has a point.
... The communities which have suffered are those which have not allowed for lower-priced merchandise for the working classes. If I earn a paycheck every week and have no place convenient at which to buy affordable clothes, shoes, toys for my kids, and so on, I'm going to look for a job closer to an affordable neighborhood.
Yup. These are precisely the people the elitist snobs of Stratford, Ontario, don't want living and shopping in their snotty, snooty town, which is proud (not sad) not to have a Wal-Mart.
Posted by EclectEcon on January 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (51) | TrackBack
Robert Pickton
Posted by Rick Hiebert on January 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Friday, January 26, 2007
Look who's helping Iran become a nuclear power
Why, it's Stalinist North Korea.
As an aside, and far be it from me to differ from EclectEcon, but I would humbly submit that the mullahcracy will probably never believe they "will be annihilated," no matter what they do on nuclear weapons, including use them or fob them off to terrorists. After all, they are allied to Communist China, a regime that to this day considers nuclear war not only a war it can survive, but one it can win. That Beijing would allow its de facto colony to help the mullahs along only further proves the point.
Not that I oppose a tough policy on Iran; for me, it's liberation all the way. I'm just saying we need an equally tough policy on Communist China, too.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 26, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Mitt Romney
Mass. Governor Mitt Romney has done great with regards to Iranian issues. He denied former president Khatami of state police security couple of months ago and, he is currently advocating tougher policies against the Islamic regime of Iran.
"[...] we should continue to tighten the economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe as the sanctions we imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today..."
His entire speech on Iran can be found here
Posted by Winston on January 26, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Drug cases sounds familiar
Long-time followers of the news can be forgiven for thinking there was something familiar in the Vancouver Sun's report today that the business manager of Ironworkers Local 97 in Burnaby, B.C., is facing drug charges after the U.S. Border Patrol "seized cocaine valued at more than $4 million in eastern Washington" last week. (See earlier posting, below, for more info.)
Haven't we heard all this before? Top B.C. labour guy? Blue-collar union? Drug-importation charges? Southeastern B.C.? Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
Back in 1983, the leader of the Trail, B.C., local of the United Steelworkers of America was arrested on charges of conspiracy to import $3 million work of marijuana and $1 million worth of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.
Those charges died in March 1985 because a key Crown witness went missing. That witness, Alan McTeer (a distant relative of Maureen McTeer), resurfaced in 1994 and claimed he had been pressured into falsely implicating the Trail union leader.
The case remains noteworthy because of what that Trail union leader, free of the otherwise career-limiting encumbrance of drug charges, went on to achieve in the world of organized labour. Specifically, he became the relatively moderate (although strongly pro-NDP) president of the B.C. Federation of Labour and now holds the same position at the Canadian Labour Congress.
The man's name is Ken Georgetti.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 25, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
I am not authorized to look at what Stephane Dion's drug dealing friend Perley Edmund Holmes has said about him
A union leader, Perley Edmund Holmes, has been arrested in connection to the trafficking of over $4 million in cocaine. Perley Edmund Holmes came out strongly for Stephane Dion during the Liberal Party leadership campaign. Of course, Stephane Dion can't control what his supporters do. But the Dion people were quick off the mark to expunge the website of Holmes' endorsement. What's wrong with these people? Have they never heard of the Google cache? By doing that, all they've done is pique my interest.
The Globe and Mail has reported that Perley Edmund Holmes is in some serious trouble with regards to drug trafficking:
A trail of footprints in freshly fallen snow led U.S. border police to a major cocaine-smuggling bust in the back roads of Washington State, ending in the arrest of a B.C. union official.
According to an affidavit, 136 pounds of cocaine with a street value of $4.3-million (U.S.) was found in two backpacks on Jan. 18. According to the affidavit, Perley Edmund Holmes, of Bridesville, B.C., faces drug charges.
Interestingly, a fellow by the name of Perley Holmes had a lot to say about Stephane Dion, as this endorsement reads from the Liberal leader's campaign website:
Perley Holmes
"Stéphane Dion's ability to gain the confidence of both previous Prime Ministers despite the serious rift in the party, bespeaks his ability to pull the party together. Ontario has some excellent leadership candidates but we will never run this country without the support of Quebec. Ontario has always been fairly evenly split between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. A strong leader will sway it one way or the other so it is fairly market neutral but the weight of a Francophone Liberal from Quebec would possibly be the demise of the Bloc Quebecois party, 'and good riddance', this certainly would tip the balance in our favour in the next federal election. I also feel Stéphane's commitment to environmental and social causes will pull support from the NDP out West. His combination of strengths have him way ahead of any of his contenders. Therefore, if we are to have a realistic chance of forming the next Government it only makes common sense to support Stéphane Dion."
You have to ask youself whether this is the same Perley Holmes. Well, first, the name is pretty distinctive. But then consider that this endorsement page has disappeared:
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.
Yeah, I bet I'm not authorized. Now it might seem unfair to try to sling some mud on Stephane Dion because someone who endorsed him has got into some serious trouble. It's not like Stephane Dion hired him to work in his office. But this man had over $4 million in cocaine in a knapsack. That's an uncommon amount of money for someone who claims that "it only makes common sense to support Stephane Dion".
You see, the question arises whether Perley Holmes and his associates supported Stephane Dion with donations and loans and other resources that cost money. Drug money? That would be very unfortunate for Stephane Dion. I would bet the leadership candidates who lost to the Dion campaign would like to know if Dion was able to tap into this bottomless source of cash.
On paper, Perley Holmes donated a total of $100 to Stephane Dion. But then we know there are ways to move money around so that it doesn't have to be declared.
At the very least, the fact that Stephane Dion is trying to cover his tracks is, well, unsettling.
Addendum: It should be noted, of course, the Perley Holmes has not been convicted of anything. All the more curious that Stephane Dion and his people were so quick to expunge his name from the website.
[Cross posted from Angry in the Great White North]
Posted by Steve Janke on January 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Iran and the Nuclear Age
Let's face it. Contrary to Winston's hopes(?) or expectations(?), the U.S. isn't going to launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran's acquisition/development of nuclear Weapons. Neither is Israel. And neither are the two, together. Iran is going to have nuclear weapons within the next few years. Even a threatened oil price war from the Saudis will not deter them.
Let's accept that as a given.
What will Iran's leaders do once they have nuclear weapons and missiles with sufficient range to reach Tel-Aviv and Riyadh (besides swagger and threaten)? Here is one piece that raises the spectre of a second holocaust [h/t to Eric]. Whether that actually happens will depend on two things:
1. The attitude of Iran's leaders toward self-destruction. If they really believe that there is a higher purpose for their actions, then they will launch the missiles with nuclear warheads at numerous Israeli (and perhaps other Middle Eastern non-Shiite) targets. So what if they and their people "suffer" massive retaliation? They will have carried out their tasks in pursuit of these higher goals.
2. If their leaders do not have that attitude toward self-destruction/self-sacrifice then it must be made abundantly clear to them that they will be annihilated if they launch such an attack, no matter what they threaten. In this instance, we must remain resolute that no appeasement out of fear is possible.
After discussing this with my friend, Eric, it has become clear to me (for now — I'm always willing to update my priors) that either way, Israel should be working furiously to develop the best possible anti-missile system, and the U.S. should be helping them do so.
Posted by EclectEcon on January 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBack
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
State of the Union
President Bush's State of the Union
"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies – and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must."
Posted by Winston on January 24, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
"Harper government celebrates one year anniversary
The title of this post is taken from the CBC "Your View" where they post a description of the event (in this case very fair) then invite comments. I wonder how long it will stay up because the vast majority of the comments do not hew to the standard CBC view that whatever Harper does is bad. Go to http://tinyurl.com/2m9dyy
to read the comments, forty plus at this time, even from Toronto, praising Harper's government.
Posted by Bob Wood on January 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
They only blew up a satellite; we can trust them
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 23, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Harper's Anniversary
My latest at the Monitor, about Stephen Harper's first year.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on January 23, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sounds familiar?
Iranian regime blocks IAEA inspectors and in the mean time hardline revolutionary guards corps is going to conduct some war games.
You know, it sounds a lot like what Saddam was doing in the 1990s. And you certainly remember that his regime was bombed many times for disobeying the UN backed resolutions. Therefore, I'd not be surprised to hear, one day so soon, that Iranian regime is being bombed too. It will be sad but the free world's patience may run out pretty soon.
Posted by Winston on January 22, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Average Work Hours and Equalization Payments
Is this the reason for equalization payments from Alberta and Ontario? Statistics Canada did a study on average work hours for a year in the provinces and regions. Surprise, surprise, the provinces in which people put in longer working hours , make equalization payments to those provinces where people work less. Here is a teaser from the report:
In 2004, workers in Alberta averaged 1,880 hours a year -- the highest in the country -- the equivalent of 36 hours a week for a full-year worker. Their counterparts in the combined region of Manitoba-Saskatchewan were close behind with 1,860, followed by workers in Ontario, with 1,850 hours
In contrast, workers in Quebec averaged the lowest number of work hours -- 1,750 hours
Read the CTV report here: http://tinyurl.com/2eep9g
I guess in a perverse way it makes sense. You need spare time to spend money so it is taken away from those who don't have time to spend it and given to those who do. Perhaps the workers should insist on equalization of work hours across the country. Don't take that suggestion seriously, but maybe those work hour figures should somehow be worked into the equalization formula so those hard working people can keep more of their hard won earnings for themselves.
Posted by Bob Wood on January 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack
More evidence against moral relativism
This post will admittedly appeal more to the Americans who read this blog than the Canadian readership. One of the most hackneyed mantras of the moral relativists in the United States is the reaction of officialdom to Hurricane Katrina. Already, leading Democrats are using post-Katrina New Orleans as an argument against the liberation of Iraq (USA Today).
To all of them, I offer this as an example of how truly evil regimes respond to natural disasters, and ask them to have a little perspective, not that I have much hope of that.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 22, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Tal Bachman appearing in Toronto Tuesday night
. . . with Joel Kroeker at Hugh's Room, 2261 Dundas Street West (416-531-6604) Hat tip: The Toronto Star (no -- really!). $14 in advance by calling Hugh's Room, $16 at the door. Start time 8:30 p.m.
For the car-challenged, Hugh's Room is a 1-minute walk south of the Dundas West subway station, on the Bloor subway line.
Posted by joantintor on January 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
TV censorship in Canada
When I ran for office in 2002, I discovered a niggling little agency called the Television Bureau of Canada, or "Telecaster". Before I aired my campaign's TV ads, I had to courier them to Telecaster for its approval. I can understand the purpose -- TV stations voluntarily outsource their editorial approval for TV ads to one central organization.
My ads were okayed, but what if an ad were vetoed for political reasons?
That's what has happened to our friends at the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association -- the ethanol association that wants to start running ads pressing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to follow through on his campaign promise to increase use of ethanol as fuel in Canada.
It was a statement made publicly by Harper, and the CRFA wants to hold him to it. But Telecaster has banned the ad, saying the CRFA needs to get Harper's personal permission before using a TV clip of him.
You can see the banned ad here.
Whatever you think of Harper or ethanol, banning that ad is absurd. But it's more than absurd -- it's political censorship, and it sets a terrible precedent in terms of chilling public discourse. Since when do political figures have a veto over the media's use of their publicly-made statements on the campaign trail? And since when does Telecaster enforce that veto?
Here is the CRFA's letter to Telecaster. If you think that unelected, unaccountable censors should stop meddling in political ads like this, send a note to Telecaster's Jim Patterson here.
Posted by Ezra Levant on January 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Iranians Love America
Although written by a Liberal scholar from Chicago, the article has lots of great things about Iranian people's love and affection for America:
Iranians don't hate America. On the contrary, many of them envy Americans to an unrealistic degree and think of the US as a paradise, a land where no problems exist.
I personally disagree with some parts of it about the Iranians defending the Islamic regime in case of a foreign attack to liberate Iran, but you can definitely find positive things in the article too. It is a must read for those who want to know more about what is going on in a country where the next conflict may take place in a very near future.
Also an excellent interview with Iranian student leader on how to topple the Mullahs regime
Posted by Winston on January 21, 2007 in International Affairs, Travel | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack