The Shotgun Blog
« September 23, 2007 - September 29, 2007 |Main| October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007 »
Saturday, October 06, 2007
The Paula Marshall of the Blogosphere
Well, I certianly hope that - somehow - a way will be found for the show to go on here. From the very first issue (I've still got my copy of the first issue with the Harper-Stronach-Clement cover), the Western Standard provided a voice for those who have otherwise been written out of public debate in this country.
But, in the meantime, I suppose that the show's going to go on here - so now there's this:
Captain Ed reports on a simply bizarre incident that occured in Pennsylvania the other day.
But for nearly three dozen youngsters from the U-Gro child care center, located just off the president's motorcade route on Stony Battery Road, it was all about waving hand-drawn flags, singing songs and holding banners welcoming to Lancaster one of the most powerful men in the world.
"What an opportunity this is for our children," center director Liz Burkhard said while herding children ages 4 to 6 into a compact, orderly row behind the yellow police tape lining Stony Battery at Church Street.
One group of protesters quickly descended on the happy cluster, however, chanting and singing their own songs to drown out the children's voices.
"Stop brainwashing children to support a president who doesn't deserve our support," one man yelled through a bullhorn. Others told the kids to "educate yourselves" and said "your parents are killing you" by supporting Bush and the war.
These "people" are crazy. There's no nicer way of saying it. How utterly deranged and depraved do you have to be to descend upon children whose offense was to greet the President of the United States with hand-made flags and to start SCREAMING AT THEM WITH BULLHORNS? This is so utterly beyond anyone's definition of acceptable political discourse that I'm really just staggered.
I'd also note that he article's headline is, "Bush visit draws vocal mix of supporters, protesters" - can you imagine how the media would have covered the story if it was a group of conservative protestors so foully abusing children who turned out to greet a liberal politician?
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 6, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Write the right thing
(Funny, my first post past the moment of losing my job should be praise for a Liberal, after hammering away at them for so long while employed.) Irwin Cotler hits exactly the right note in the Montreal Gazette with his Note to China: the world is watching.
"Both China and Russia have long buttressed the regime through political and military support; in fact, China is the junta's chief arms supplier. In return, Beijing exploits Myanmar's natural resources. Indeed, both China and Russia have used their seats on the UN Security Council to block any action by that body, while propping up the dictatorship."
See also Oct. 1 Investor's Business Daily: Burma Teaches A Lethal Lesson
Posted by Kevin Steel on October 6, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Friday, October 05, 2007
150 million pages of fighting the good fight
To my deep regret, the Western Standard has decided to stop publishing our print edition.
It's a purely financial decision. Even though our advertising revenues were stronger than ever, with marquee brands like GM, Mazda, BMW and Air Canada filling our pages, and even though we had the most loyal subscribers in the business, with an unheard-of 80% renewal rate, we just weren't close enough to profit.
I offer my thanks to our amazing staff, our loyal investors, and our enthusiastic subscribers, all of whom showed great faith in our project. Our online presence will continue for now in the form of this blog at least; when I spoke recently with our senior columnist, Mark Steyn, about our financial difficulties, he suggested ramping the website up into a Canadian version of Townhall or a conservative version of the Huffington Post. It's an idea worth considering.
We were unable to generate a financial rate of return, but we had an enormous moral rate of return. From our very first edition, back in March of 2004, we had a disproportionately large impact on the national discussion. It's tough to pick favourites out of the 82 editions that we published, but some of the highlights for me were our investigative report into Power Corp. and its political influence; the Libranos edition; and, of course, our publication of the Danish cartoons, and our follow-up issue on the same subject. Even our blog had great moments, including when we leaked the Liberal Red Book in the last election.
The common thread to all of those stories was our editorial independence. No magazine owned by a corporate colossus could do such digging on the Desmarais family without a friendly phone call, CEO to CEO, to call off the story -- as happened to the Montreal Gazette. And no magazine -- or TV station, or newspaper -- felt able to publish the Danish cartoons, either. Whether they were smothered by general corporate caution, or ideological correctness, it fell to a little magazine in Calgary to take the risk. I hope that the fact that we neither suffered physical nor financial harm for doing so serves as encouragement to other media in the future to resist radical Muslim calls for censorship. One of the only stories I wrote for the magazine was our rationale for publishing those cartoons. It can be found here, and the human rights commission's attack against us, and my response, can be seen here.
Speaking of that human rights attack, the official "investigation" is scheduled to commence against us next month. I spoke with our lawyers today, and there ought to be no reason why we still cannot fight the complaint against us -- and the commission's grotesque assertion that they even have jurisdiction over a magazine. I only regret that we will not be able to cover every proceeding of that kangaroo court in our print magazine.
I am proud of the team we assembled, ranging from seasoned pro's like Ted Byfield to the next generation of voices like Colby Cosh. Alumni of our magazine, including our former interns, are working at some of the most influential media in the country. What was so touching to me was that even our staff who worked in the non-editorial departments of our magazine looked at us as a mission, and loved our project as much more than just a job. I don't propose to name everyone, but I would like to single out Lyle Dunkley, our chairman, chief investor and greatest booster; Joe Nadler, a passionate and dear supporter; and Matthew Johnston, my co-pilot throughout the whole adventure.
Over the course of those 82 issues we printed 150 million pages of great conservative news and views, plus 40 million page views on our website, plus hundreds of hours on our various radio shows. We were also truly national -- with 20% of our readers in Ontario, and 19% in B.C. Those are impressive numbers, but it was the independent, tell-it-like-it-is quality that I'll remember.
Thank you to our entire extended family -- staff, subscribers and investors -- for an amazing project, the effects of which will continue to echo for years to come.
Posted by Ezra Levant on October 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (254) | TrackBack
Real Heroes
While Chrisopher Hitchens has an amazing story of a US soldier and his family, I'd like to think that Canada has its own heroes like Cpl. Nathan Hornburg who died a few days ago fighting the Taliban terrorists:
"I'm protecting our country, I'm protecting the citizens of Afghanistan, to make it a safe place for people there, so girls can go to school"
Posted by Winston on October 5, 2007 in Military | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
What Ron Paul is (and what he isn't)
I think Yoshi is overreacting to the Ron Paul boomlet.
I can understand why: Paul is the lone antiwar Republican in the race, and thus it's assumed he's pulling all of his support from antiwar lefties looking to mess up the GOP. That just isn't so.
Ron Paul has a reputation of being the most virulent anti-government politician in recent memory. He's known as "Dr. No," for his supposed insistence on voting against any government action (including innocuous, non-binding resolutions) that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. As such, a large chunk of his support comes not from mischievous Democrats, but from genuine Republicans angry about President Bush's overspending (it's made Paul Martin look like Preston Manning) and, yes, the war in Iraq.
So Paul's Republicanism is genuine, if a little odd. That does not mean, however, that Paul will have staying power, delegates at the Republican convention, or the ability to do damage to the GOP nominee in 2008 for several reasons:
Delegate selection rules: In most states, Republican primaries and caucuses (and not, this is only for Republicans) is "winner-take-all" (what we call first-past-the-post). From second place on down, the candidates get zero delegates. Furthermore (and I'll admit I'm guessing on this), the states that aren't winner-take-all statewide are still winner-take-all at the Congressional district level. Thus, Paul would actually have to win a Congressional district in a primary to get any delegates. He may carry his own district (stress may) but that's about it. Personally, I project Paul's delegate count to be zero.
His record: Ron Paul may not quite be the libertarian everyone down here thinks he is. I already caught him deviating from his constitutionalism just this year. Those who support Paul for his limited government stance may want to take another look at him.
Any lefty-blog attempt to prop him up will be too transparent to have an effect: The left tried something similar in Connecticut, when Joe Lieberman had to run as an independent because the Democrats wouldn't nominate him. All of a sudden, the lefties were singing the praises of the Republican candidate, who proceeded to go down in the polls as a result of his new friends.
His antiwar voters would never support the Republican nominee anyway: As for the anti-war folks propping Paul up, these are not folks upon whom we can count for support in 2008. In fact, Paul is actually to the left of the likely Democrats nominate (Hillary Clinton) on Iraq. If Paul were to run on a third-party ticket (and one would be available), he could end up taking away more Democrats frustrated over the war than Republicans.
This could especially be true if the GOP nominates Rudy Giuliani, whose social liberalism would make a Clinton victory far less necessary to antiwar lefties on the dmoestic front. Granted, Paul may also pick up pro-life voters from the right upset over Rudy's nomination, but that would simply give those voters a place to go (rather than stay home), and in such a dynamic, Paul to wreak havoc on Democratic plans in the northeast and the Midwest (the Dems' base areas).
Now, we're still over a year away from the elections, and darn near anything could happen. Yoshi might be right; Paul could catch fire somewhere. I just doubt it, and I further question the conventional wisdom that it's the Republicans who will get burned.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on October 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (103) | TrackBack
The Abrogation of Markets in British Columbia
Jack is spending some time in British Columbia. He writes that the provincially operated auto insurance is,
.".. far pricier than the private Ontario system, in part because of subsidies to bad drivers who wouldn't be insurable there."
This is to be expected. If the risk pool includes people who impose high costs on the system, and if they cannot be charged premia to match those costs (probablistically), then everyone else will have to bear a share of those costs. It is inefficient because the system tends to encourage too many risky drivers to be on the roads; it also, because of the higher insurance premia, tends to discourage some very low risk drivers from driving.
Jack continues,
"Privatized alcohol businesses compete with the Provincial outlets. Prices about 25% higher than Ontario though, flying in the face of the usual predictions."
This seems unlikely to me. I know from nothing about the BC retail liquor business, but here are my suspicions:
- It is extremely unlikely that gubmnt and private retail liquor outlets compete head-to-head; labour costs in gubmnt run outlets are almost surely much higher than in the private ones.
- One way the gubmnt stores can survive is if they are subsidized, directly or indirectly.
- More likely in this instance is that the prices are regulated and kept above the Ontario levels to guarantee the survival of the gubmnt stores. Otherwise the private outlets would compete the snot out of them.
Posted by EclectEcon on October 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
iPhone Release in Canada?
The strange rumour of the day: the iPhone at Holt Renfrew?
To say the least, it’s a bit odd. Though, it’s off-the-wall enough that I can’t help but think that there might be something to it. The quoted price point of $799 is, of course, twice that of the U.S. – which makes it all the stranger.
My guess, if it’s true, is that Apple might be at some kind of stand-still with Rogers. In particular, it seems that Apple has made a large and affordable data package a basic requirement for anyone who wishes to market the iPhone and Rogers – the only Canadian cell phone carrier capable of deploying the iPhone – seems disinclined to offer such a deal.
Of course, I already have an unlocked iPhone up on the Rogers/Fido network – as do many others. Indeed, one can’t visit a mall cell phone kiosk without seeing one at $699 or so. So, perhaps, Apple’s decided – seeing the number of unlocked iPhones moving in Canada at such a price – to release their own version at a price point which would prevent it from being widely sold internationally.
It goes a lot without saying that this would all be a lot easier if this country had a telecommunications policy which made some semblance of sense. One might argue that our obscene cell phone rates are tied directly to the resistance against foreign entry into the Canadian telecommunications network. After all, one of the most popular and competitive US Carriers in T-Mobile, which is German-based. T-Mobile, I ought to add, also operates in the United Kingdom and numerous other European nations without the world ending.
There’s are reason why the CRTC is persistently the most annoying and upsetting arm of the Canadian Government.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 5, 2007 in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Apparently he needs to wear a plaid shirt in Parliament...
A new poll suggests that a majority of western Canadians do not view Stephen Harper as one of their own.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll, an online survey of 1,400 residents from the four western provinces, found that 42 per cent said they thought of the prime minister as a western Canadian, but 58 per cent did not.
Granted the cat was born in Toronto but is this another case of Canadians beating up on their own?
Posted by Steve Martinovich on October 4, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBack
Skepticism is expanding
There's an interesting profile of MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen in this month's Outside magazine notable, apart from the fact that a Washington Post reporter is actually writing about someone who disagrees with Al Gore, for actually admitting that the ranks of the climate change skeptics -- when it comes to the man-made aspect -- is actually expanding rather than contracting.
Now all we have to do is stop the Conservative government from continually talking about climate change...
Read on.
Posted by Steve Martinovich on October 4, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
As good as it gets
Lawrence Martin in Globe and Mail: The toughest guy in Canadian politics is put to the test
While the rest of country watches the Liberal Party meltdown, sentimentalizing Canadian political mythmaker ("rugged bearing . . . indomitable drive. . . raw-boned. . . street fighter's courage. . ." blah blah) Lawrence Martin finds inspiration for Stéphane Dion in the fact that Jean Chrétien didn't die on the operating table after quadruple bypass surgery. Well, most people don't die during surgery; in that age group (70-74) near as I can tell only about 6 per cent don't make through the 30 days following the procedure. So I would say the odds were in Mr. Chrétien's favour, like the political odds were in his favour when he faced a divided opposition while his party raked in huge corporate donations in the 1990s. Martin ends it with this shallow interpretation of the Chrétien record;
"Mr. Chrétien survived three terms as prime minister. He survived a quadruple bypass yesterday. For sheer endurance, the beleaguered Mr. Dion couldn't find a better model."
Does Mr. Martin mention that when the Liberals wanted Chrétien gone, despite his winning record, he was toast? Nope.
Posted by Kevin Steel on October 4, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Militant Tendency
Sorry, folks. I guess I should have realized that you don’t write about a group of fairly well-organized and irrational fanatics without getting an irrational and fanatical response. I have no idea how many comments there will be by the time I get up, but I’d wager it’ll be north of one-hundred. I hope no one’s getting them all as e-mails or something like that. Heh.
Now, though, at least I know who they remind me of – the Labour Party’s own Militant Tendency. That is to say, Ron Paul’s supporters are practicing a form of entryism, wherein they are attempting to force their way into the Republican Party in the hope of causing disruption and chaos. They are coming in Republican/conservative clothing when, in truth, their goals and motives are far, far different.
Some who I’ve spoken to think that I’m over-estimating Ron Paul and his base of support. I’m not so sure. I hope that I am – I fear that I’m not. They don’t have to be large to cause an awful lot of trouble.
In any case – I think that these anti-war and, well, awfully nutty people need to be written out of the conservative movement altogether as singularly undesirable, just as – for example – Objectivists once were.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 3, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack
Enough, Mother
When did it become possible for politicians to pick up votes by emulating the behaviour of the overbearing mothers of children we all pitied in school? Whenever I see politicians vow to address obesity or ‘bullying” or whatever else is the fashionable cause of the day I just inwardly shudder. “Shut up and go away,” I think. Well, not quite – I had to clean up the language quite a bit to make it family friendly.
Though, even if one believes that governments ought to focus on such urgent issues as getting kids to run in circles, McGunity’s proposals and claims are astonishingly pathetic. Twenty minutes of physical exercise each day? I’d like to hear from some parents how that works out in practice. Being just eleven years removed from elementary school (and assuming that not too much has changed) I imagine that the time is mostly eaten up in the exit and re-entry into the school and, in any case, isn’t marked by anything resembling useful exercise.
Now I see that he’s promising to fight obesity by expanding high school intramural sports. That would be an effective strategy, if the people inclined to participate in expanded sports were, you know, not the kind of people who already participate in sports. The only way that they’re going to get the rest of those kids to join in is if they add Halo, Facebook, and text messaging to the list.
Of course, some wag will respond to this by linking one of my pictures on Facebook and some place and pointing out that I’m fat myself, which I will fully concede. Though, I note, I myself have lately begun to attend the gym on a substantially more regular basis – motivated by the news that Jenna Fischer and her husband have separated. Perhaps there’s something to be taken from that. Though, I admit, that’s probably a highly individualized form of motivation without any general applicability.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 3, 2007 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Ron Paul Problem
We have a problem here.
Of course, many of you know it already. But, I think the time has come to make it official: Ron Paul’s campaign for the Presidency now presents a serious challenge to those who love liberty and seek its preservation against the Islamist assault on our civilization. It is no longer sufficient to simply dismiss those who support him as a motley collection of nuts and morons. It’s not that I deny that many of them are – it’s just that nuts and morons get to vote too.
It is fashionable for conservatives to dismiss Ron Paul, citing his flat poll numbers – just a few percentage points in most polls. I believe this to be a mistake – not only are national polls worthless in assessing the results of individual primaries, but they also fail to consider support that polls – especially polls partisan primary polling – might fail to pick up. While there’s absolutely zero chance that Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, there is a very high probability that he will be able to raise enough money to remain in the race and get enough votes to continue to receive media coverage. Worse still, it is entirely possible that he will win a sufficient number of delegates to cause trouble during the Republican National Convention (even, say, thirty could be a serious annoyance and disruption) and that he will go on to run as a third party candidate. There is also, if Senator Clinton secures the Democratic nomination early, the possibility that the internet-savvy leftist nutroots might organize in order to give Paul the illusion of more support.
Of all opposing forces, fifth columnists are the hardest to defeat. And that is what makes Ron Paul such a serious threat – because he is nominally a “Republican” he gets to go up on stage with the serious candidates for the Republican nomination and to spew his garbage all over the stage.
(It goes on and on and on at my blog. As you might have surmised, I really, really, really don't like Ron Paul).
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 3, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (181) | TrackBack
The Harper Gambit: Effective Majority for Conservatives
The Babble-left will deny it...the mushy Ontario elite will decry it...but on the opening day of the Major League Baseball playoffs, Stephen Harper has played a game of serious political hardball, and has given himself an effective majority in the upcoming Parliamentary session.
Hyperbole, you say? I don't think so. Here are his comments from today's impromptu news conference, in which he lays down the ground rules for the opposition (via CBC):
“The choice is not an election or obstruction. The choice is an election or give the government a mandate to govern.”
Harper said he doesn’t want an election before 2009. But the prime minister added that he would consider any votes during the upcoming parliamentary session on items in the speech from the throne as confidence motions.
“If they get approval of the throne speech, we’re going to expect those things to be passed,” Harper said.
In other words: Steffi, keep your mouth shut and instruct your caucus to vote arm-in-arm with my back-benchers, or I'll force you into an election that you know may reduce your party to PC '93 proportions. With the NDP and Bloc clearly unwilling to prop up Harper's government, it's a threat the Libs must take seriously: even the most myopic Lib-backers know that the electoral prospects are dire.
It's checkmate for the chess master Harper, and utter humiliation for Dion. For the political right in Canada, accustomed to weak-kneed get-alongers, sellouts, grand compromisers, and utter fools, it's a wonderful breath of fresh air to see a leader willing to step to the mound unafraid, and deliver a brushback pitch, 95-MPH, right under the chin.
Posted by Neil Flagg on October 3, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
It's About Leadership Alright
I had blithely assumed that John Tory would be elected Premier of Ontario on October 10th 2007. It was an assumption I held from the day he became leader of the Progressive Conservatives until about two weeks ago. There is little substantive difference between Tory's Red Toryism and the Dalt's Blue Liberalism. The election, then, would be about leadership, which usually means about nothing. Tory would make a few vague commitments, promise to spend as if the second coming of Bill Davis was nigh - which with Tory's Tories in power would come to pass - and let the electorate decide between someone who has had actual responsibility in a real job in the real world and the Norman Bates look-alike currently in charge. No doubt John Tory imagined it would work out that way too.
Continue reading at the Gods of the Copybook Headings
Posted by PUBLIUS on October 3, 2007 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Byfield blaze
Unhappy news from Edmonton, where fire has badly damaged the home of Western Standard columnist, conservative icon, and my old mentor Ted Byfield.
The last I heard, Ted and wife Virginia were trying to raise enough money to finish off their Christian history series. Let's hope all their files didn't go up in smoke.
UPDATE: This story makes it clear that the computer files for the next volume of the series were saved.
NEW LINK: My Report and Standard colleague Colby Cosh has now posted on the subject, noting in his usual elegant and insightful prose the importance of the home itself.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 3, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Common sense vs. the left
My latest "Face to Face" debate in the Tri-City News centres on the issue of Canada's recent vote in the UN against a declaration on aboriginal rights.
I think it was the right move: a common-sense response to an open-ended and ultimately dangerous initiative. My reliably leftie debating opponent, Mary Woo Sims, believes Canada's vote was shameful.
I think I know how the majority of Shotgunners will come down on the issue, but I'd still be interested in your responses to the reasoning we employed in our respective presentations.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 3, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Al Gore's propaganda
A judge in the U.K. has ordered schools showing Al Gore's 90-minute campaign ad Oscar winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to preface it with a warning that it's partisan propaganda.
Isn't that's why it's being shown to children in the first place?
Posted by Ezra Levant on October 3, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Something's happening here . . .
A US group calling itself Students for Burma is organizing a National Campus Day of Action for Burma scheduled for Oct. 5, this Friday. They've got a sign up sheet here. I don't know at this point if any Canadian campuses are involved.
Posted by Kevin Steel on October 3, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Gaia be gone!
From the National Post today:
A Toronto mosque is telling Muslims not to say "Happy Thanksgiving" or invite friends into their homes for turkey dinner on the holiday weekend. The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque says to "avoid participating" in dinners, parties or greetings on Thanksgiving because it is a kuffaar, or non-Muslim, celebration. A two-part article on the mosque Web site says Muslims should also "stay completely away" from "Halloween trick-and treat nonsense," Christmas, New Year's, anniversaries, birthdays and Earth Day.
Well, at least they got the Earth Day part right.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 3, 2007 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack
Tory, Tory, Tory
Parliament still isn't sitting, there's been no Throne Speech, there's been no non-confidence vote, there's been no visit with the G-G, and there's been no election call. But this national affairs pundit, at least, is already smelling a Conservative majority government.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 3, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Coming soon to a country near you
"12 U.S. citizens [are murdered by] illegal aliens each day.
"...13 Americans ... [are] killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals."
Not to mention the odd Canadian, and his son.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on October 3, 2007 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Gen. Hillier going to be replaced
General Rick Hillier, Canada's Chief of Defense Staff, will be replaced CTV News reports.
I personally can't believe what the mainstream media want me to believe, so I am going to wait until I hear the official side of this story.
Posted by Winston on October 3, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Pragmatic politics from the PMO
Even though I'm no supporter of Vancouver's addiction-facilitation, er, safe-injection site, I think its supporters have correctly concluded that today's six-month extension of its operating "licence" is designed to take the issue out of play during a possible fall election.
Savvy politics by the Tory party which, if it wins again, will then be in a position to close down the site permanently.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 2, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Putting our own house in order
With my post below in mind, here we now have Investment Executive: One in 20 Canadians a victim of investment fraud: study.
"Also, over 90% of Canadians believe the impact of investment fraud is as serious as that of violent crimes, but most people think the criminal justice system as a whole does not treat investment fraud as seriously as other crimes."
Are we cultivating a culture of corruption here at home in the private and public sector?
The reason I threw in the public sector there is because I'm thinking back to this Sept 24 story, Ottawa Citizen: Man held in $2.7M government fraud. See also the Ottawa Sun version (italics mine);
"They allege Gagnon has used his position since 1996 to perpetrate the fraud.
"The government of Canada takes these allegations very seriously," said Public Works spokeswoman Lucie Brosseau.
"Our special investigations directorate uncovered some irregularities in July as part of our normal operations.""
So you conduct "normal operations", what, every 11 years? How normal is that? How serious do we take these things? Anyway, the Sun story does take a paragraph at the end to mention the huge DND fraud committed by Paul Champagne, Cholo Manso and Peter Mellon. You want to see distrust and cynicism towards the system? Check out this thread on the DND fraud in a Ottawa Business Journal forum, with some contributions by people who seem to know the main players. Example;
"There appears to be 2 rules of law now in progress. The Public servant who is sitting in jail with all his assets now in the hands of the RCMP for stealing 2.7 million dolars and Champange and Manso who stole 140 million and 25 million who have yet to spend 1 minute in prison and are as mention, sitting in his hot tube having a good laugh."
Posted by Kevin Steel on October 2, 2007 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Signing onto the good fight
You may have read the news stories this morning about Maxime Bernier's speech at the UN. Not reported yet is what Canada's foreign affairs minister did after that speech; he ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption. Here's the presser. This backgrounder on UNODC site explains some of the significance;
"In a major breakthrough, countries agreed on asset-recovery, which is stated explicitly as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This is a particularly important issue for many developing countries where high-level corruption has plundered the national wealth, and where resources are badly needed for reconstruction and the rehabilitation of societies under new governments."
See also Transparency International's Sept. 26 press release on its 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index, and a Business Anti-corruption Portal on the Convention.
Posted by Kevin Steel on October 2, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Will the school uniforms come with ski masks?
Somebody put Jim McKay on retainer!
"An Islamic group accused of having links to al Qaeda wants to open a school near the 2012 Olympic village."
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on October 2, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Monday, October 01, 2007
Why We’ll Have a Fall Election
I think that the conventional wisdom these days is that the Liberals will find some way of dodging voting against the Throne Speech, regardless of what it contains, in order to avoid fighting a fall election on what can only be described as disadvantageous terms for the Liberal Party. Frankly, as is so often the case, I think that this wisdom is wrong – the efforts of some (such as MP Byron Wilfert to float ways of avoiding an election) notwithstanding.
You might ask how I arrived at this opinion, as you are entitled to do. Put simply, I would sum up my belief as follows: while it may not be in the interests of the Liberal Party to have an election this fall, it is very much in the interests of Stephane Dion to have an election this fall – and he’s the one who ultimately gets to make the call.
Why would Stephane Dion want an election now? Put simply – it’s probably the only chance he has to ever become the Prime Minister of Canada. Perhaps more, it’s the only way he can solidify his tenuous grasp on the leadership of the Liberal Party. While, at the moment, I don’t see any scenario for a General Election that ends with M. Dion in 24 Sussex
After all, what’s the alternative? Dion was the fourth (and much further down the list if you count the many people who declined to run) choice of the Liberals, selected without much thought or consideration simply because all of the other major candidates were in some way unacceptable to a large group within the party. In essence, he’s the movie that they rented at 11PM on a Saturday when all of the bestsellers were out. If he doesn’t pan out, most Liberals won’t hesitate before they pop him out, slap him in the case, close him up, and never think of him again.
If Dion tries to wait a year, the odds are pretty good that he will be out. His opponents barely even sheathed their knives before they drew them again. A lot of his supporters are already looking for cover. For Dion, this is now or never. He must not stand still. He cannot step backwards. So it must be forward.
In addition to the possibility that Harper will stumble in some spectacular way (see Tory, John), there’s another pair of linked thoughts which must already have crossed his mind. Simply put, Dion’s greatest weaknesses as a leader are probably fixable over time. True, at the moment he’s hobbled by his inability to communicate effectively in the English language – but he’s a smart guy, and I’m sure he can get better with time. The same hold for his management of his own caucus and his general abilities as a leader. Given enough time, these problems can be dealt with.
Dion probably doesn’t even have to win a fall election to come out a winner. At this point, with expectations having been sufficiently lowered, it seems probable that – with some skilful manoeuvring – Dion might well be able to hold onto the leadership after holding the Tories to another minority – an act which might buy him some serious time insofar as it seems likely that, after yet another election, every party would be in need of several years to recover.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 1, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Demagogue Bob Rae Wants to Tap the Treasury
Being the good foot soldier he is, Liberal leadership runner-up Bob Rae has chosen the most vulnerable period in his party leader's tenure to publish a policy statement outlining his view of federalism in the Globe & Mail. Titled "Why something called the spending power matters", the former NDP Premier of Ontario who took a blowtorch to our economy in the early 1990s unleashes a blistering personal attack on Stephen Harper, and a manifesto on his vision of Canada as a highly centralized nanny state.
He interprets Canadian history as a sort of modified Marxist dialectic, in which the addition of national programs like medicare and day care are steps along the way to our ultimate destiny. He then accuses those skeptical of federal intrusion on provincial matters as un-Canadian:
Mr. Harper is taking us where even R. B. Bennett would have been afraid to tread. Canadians who want their federal government to support early childhood education, decent housing, cities that work, a healthy environment, new initiatives in health care, more mobility for students, better research and stronger universities should be appalled at this emasculation. The vision of a fairer, greener and more prosperous Canada that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has rightly put at the heart of modern liberalism requires a federal government that dares to speak its name and exercise its powers. (note: this final sentence is worded cleverly to endorse Dion's ideology, but certainly not his leadership.)
And, since building up your own ideology is never enough, he finishes by attempting to tear his rival down with ad-hominem smears:
Thirteen fiefs putting up more walls and moats between themselves and their neighbours does not make a country. If the next session of Parliament becomes a battleground on this issue, so be it. Mr. Harper's Ayn Randist fantasies need to be put to rest. We don't need another trip down the lane of constitutional definitions.
The great issues of the future will be in areas never dreamed of in 1867. We need the flexibility, the courage and the capacity to deal with them without the harnesses and ideological trappings foisted on us by this strange duo of Mr. Harper, who doesn't believe in government, and Mr. Duceppe, who doesn't believe in Canada.
Bob Rae is proving himself to be a man who will say anything and do anything to get his hands on the Federal budget. God help us all if he manages.
(Modified version of original post at Flaggman's Canada)
Posted by Neil Flagg on October 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack
Fantasy Foreign Policy
The tony Literary Review of Canada asked me to review Michael Byers' awful book on foreign policy, Intent for a Nation. Just reading it, I felt like I was caught in the middle of one of those old Soviet kisses, but instead of getting between Honecker and Brezhnev
, it was a love-in amongst Lloyd Axworthy and the Trudeau boys.
Click here for my review in full; here is an excerpt about Darfur:
Byers is not against all military missions... He is positively giddy about a Canadian invasion of Sudan to liberate Darfur. “Neither the Janjaweed [militia] nor the Sudanese military constitute a serious fighting force,” he claims. “One or two thousand highly trained infantry, a few CF-18 fighter aircraft and the Canadian Forces’ fleet of Griffin helicopters” should do the trick, writes Byers, enjoying the frisson of naughtiness that any peacenik would feel when daydreaming about being a military commander. Proposing a unilateral invasion, unsanctioned by the UN, must be twice as exciting.
Byers doesn’t get his hands dirty with any operational questions, of course, for this is fantasy. Sending “one or two thousand” troops (which is it?) would require several times that number of support personnel, from engineers to cooks. In Afghanistan, our troops are there at the invitation of the Afghan government, with NATO cooperation on everything from airlifts to communications to laying landmines for us; the Sudanese government specifically rejected Canadian troops offered by Paul Martin. How would General Byers even get the troops there? He scoffs at the primitive technology used to attack Darfur civilians, but he ignores Sudan’s increasingly modern army, replete with Russian MiG-29 fighter jets, Mi-24 attack helicopters and Chinese maintenance crews.
Darfur is like Afghanistan before September 11: a conflict with no Canadian national interest at stake, where leftists can talk about their fantasy wars. Canada taking on Darfur unilaterally is not only militarily unfeasible; it is also a complete contradiction of Byers’s angry reasons, outlined a few pages earlier, for opposing the Afghan mission. He rails against the Afghanistan war for being expensive, for taking away from other potential missions (he suggests an adventure in Lebanon, as well as Darfur), for straying from peacekeeping into real fighting, for potentially provoking terrorist attacks back in Canada, for violating “rules” of international law and, amazingly, for using rough language (he is upset that General Rick Hillier, Canada’s top soldier, called the Taliban “detestable murderers and scumbags”). Those are weak reasons for opposing any war; the Second World War violated each one, for example. But Byers’s Darfur fantasy fails his own checklist even more miserably than he claims Afghanistan does, because Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghanistan government.
If you've ever wandered into a Chapters bookstore lately, you'll know that this book is sure to be a best-seller.
Posted by Ezra Levant on October 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
'Tainted blood' verdict
Judge finds tainted-blood defendants "not guilty."
And let's not forget the U.S. connection to this whole, sordid affair.
Nor the fact that some Canadians are still working to remove the Canadian Blood Services' rule against accepting blood donations from homosexual men.
Here's the full list, found on the second page of the linked document, of questions now being used by the CBS to screen out donors on the grounds of homosexual behaviour and drug use, among other things. It's a list of questions that, if asked 25 years ago, would undoubtedly have saved a lot of lives.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 1, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
The power of personhood
And while we're on the subject of abortion (see Kathy's post, below), new B.C. blogger John Sutherland has just posted an interesting, in-depth piece about personhood (which Canadian law denies to the unborn) and which -- as Sutherland reminds us on this day of an aboriginal man's appointment as lieutenant-governor of B.C. -- was once denied (from a political point of view, at least) to native Indians as well.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 1, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Remember what Winston Churchill said about abortion?
Nope, me either...
If Jesus were here today, walking with - just say for arguments sake - Rudy Giuliani, would you be among those asking him why he was eating with those sinners over there, those tax collectors and Galileans who were not perfect in faith and observance?
Jesus didn’t give the Keys to the Kingdom to a “suitable” candidate who had long-proved his religious bona fides. He gave them to a self-admitted “sinful man,” an impetuous man with a temper and a touch of cowardice - no one’s “ideal” of a leader - who was also a rock.
We have already seen - twice, now - that a pro-life Christian president does not translate into pro-life policies. Even when the Congress managed to pass a ban on partial birth abortions that law was stayed within hours by the courts.
The courts are where Christians need to keep their focus. And even a “sinful man,” can serve the cause for life, in the courts, if he is the sort of man who has displayed in his career, a respect for the constitution and the rule of law.
Sometimes I get the feeling that Christians forget that God can do anything.''
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on October 1, 2007 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack
Jack Thinks We Should Leave
Jack Layton says Canada should pull out of Afghanistan immediately, while the Liberals and the Bloc want to leave at the end of our current NATO commitment, due to expire in 2009.
Here are a few recent examples of what would continue to happen to the Afghan people if we abandon them, as people like Layton and Dion suggest.
Taliban insurgents in Ghazni province ambushed a police convoy on Sunday, killing eight officers.
But people like Jack Layton feel we should leave immediately and try to negotiate with these ‘people’. They seem like reasonable people to me? I’m sure they’ll be open to discussions with you Jack!
The Taliban said international troops must leave the country before any talks are held.
There is no word on whether Jack Layton will take the terrorists at their word when they say they will cooperate with peace talks once all NATO troops are removed and Afghanistan is left defenseless and at the complete mercy of the Taliban regime.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on October 1, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Please excuse this digression
While news that "buxom" Pamela Anderson is again off the market is no doubt dampening spirits around the ol'shotgun I say this is no time for frowning. For it is October, and October is a great time of the year for sports.
The yellowing of the mighty Canadian poplar tree serves notice that the NHL is gearing up for another season, the NFL is well underway and it looks as if the CFL has almost made it through another season.
So I will be the first here to boldly proclaim this season's winners in each of the aforementioned leagues:
NHL: Calgary Flames. Poor preseason aside, when Mike Keenan inherits a talented team, he turns them into cup contenders.
CFL: Calgary Stampeders. Once Burris recovers from his injured shoulder the league's top offence will be amped to lay a licking on all comers.
NFL: Kansas City Chiefs. A long-shot but their tough D served notice to LT and the mighty Chargers yesterday. Also, you gotta love their colours.
What're your picks?
Posted by Cyril Doll on October 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Suzuki as Atlas
The CBC has taken out a big four-page spread, in today's National Post, to advertise its new season. As part of it, the Corp. has decided to re-use the 2006 promo photo of a nude David Suzuki shown holding a globe, Atlas-like.
Which gets me thinking: the photo is certainly arrestingly funny, but it also displays a certain arrogance in that its implicit message is that Suzuki is a one-man force to save the world. Or maybe it's all intended as irony.
So what do Shotgunners think: humour or hubris?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 1, 2007 in Media | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Keith Martin's big, bad mouth
The Tories are reportedly on the eve of announcing a new national strategy to fight drug addiction. There's widespread speculation that the strategy will not include a continuation of Vancouver's drug-addiction-facilitating experiment, also known as the "safe-injection site."
The site is controversial, and I fully understand the support it receives from those who believe that adoption of a "harm-reduction" strategy is the best approach for dealing with drug addiction. I respect this position, even though I think that, in the long run, it will harm addicts.
It's clear, though, that one of the biggest backers of the site does not respect his opponents. Floor-crossing MP Keith Martin says that, if the Tories end support for the site, they essentially will be committing murder. I want to be the first (on this site, at least) to condemn this sort of intemperate, inflammatory, mean-spirited rhetoric from the Liberal MP.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 1, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack