The Shotgun Blog
« March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008 |Main| March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008 »
Saturday, March 22, 2008
France sending more troops to Afghanistan
Seems a lot has changed since French president Sarkozy came to office last year and now 1000 more French troops will be deployed to Afghanistan to help increase the NATO presence in the country:
"A British newspaper says French President Nicolas Sarkozy plans to announce next week that France will send 1,000 additional troops to Afghanistan."
That's good news
Posted by Winston on March 22, 2008 in International Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Is Richard Warman working for the FBI?
No, he's not, at least as far as I know. But this technique the FBI has used in child porn investigations sounds like it might have come out of Warman's play book:
The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting
hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and
then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.
...
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images.
...
In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."
...
When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.
...
With the logs revealing those allegedly incriminating IP addresses in hand, the FBI sent administrative subpoenas to the relevant Internet service provider to learn the identity of the person whose name was on the account--and then obtained search warrants for dawn raids.
According to the article, the courts have upheld the search warrants obtained through the use of this technique. In one case, a graduate student is facing three to four years in prison because, after he clicked on one of the FBI's links, a search of his residence turned up "two grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible)."
Not only that, but under the law just clicking on the FBI's fake link is itself a crime.
Posted by Terrence Watson on March 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Friday, March 21, 2008
Transcript: Ezra Levant on Glenn Beck
Last night Ezra Levant had a brief interview with CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck. The topics up for discussion were Osama bin Laden's most recent tape, the recent demonstrations and violence over the Muhammad cartoons in Europe, and the forthcoming film by Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders which is critical of the Quran. Ezra predicts more threats, violence, assassinations, and also lawsuits. The most interesting piece of information for me was this story which I had missed:
"EZRA LEVANT, FMR. PUBLISHER, "THE WESTERN STANDARD": A bunch of Muslim governments recently met in Senegal and talked about a coordinated fight- back strategy to hit western liberal media hard if they dare "defame Islam." They`re talking about a united strategy, including taking us to court in our own western lawsuits. So they`re trying to use our own liberal values against us."
I'm sure that in their fervor to stifle speech these Muslim leaders aren't much for technicalities and won't limit themselves to real lawsuits consistent with western liberal values but instead that the "legal instruments" they wish to use will include pushes for new illiberal legislation and even charges in pseudo-judicial kangaroo courts.
The full transcript is here at cnn.com.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on March 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
D.J. interviewed by Howard Phillips
D.J.'s not the only one taking the opportunity of the increased scrutiny on China from the protests in Tibet and the upcoming Summer Olympics to bring attention the lack of freedom in China. Howard Phillips, founder and chairman of the Conservative Caucus, 3-time Constitution Party presidential candidate, and one of those rare breed of New Right paleoconservatives is back on the case as well.
Among the 3 episodes of Phillips' show Conservative Roundtable recently uploaded to youtube concerning the "Red Chinese Threat" is this 2004 interview with The Shotgun Blog's very own D.J. McGuire about his book Dragon in the Dark: How and Why Communist China Helps Our Enemies in the War on Terror.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on March 21, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The China e-Lobby is operational again, but . . .
. . . I will try to be a little less emphatic about the posts I make there (which will not likely be daily anyhow).
For those of you who are interested in the latest from the Red Chinese, here it is.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 21, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
York university paper justifies anti-Israel terrorism
Toronto's York University's Excalibur bulletin publishes a vile anti-semitic piece justifying the recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem that resulted in death of many innocent civilians, mainly school children. But I am not surprised at all. After all York university has a track record of allowing Palestinian terrorists to promote anti-Israel propaganda and also denying freedom of speech to those who would like to debate issues such as abortion and the war on terror.
York U is definitely a sad and depressing place, if you ask me.
Honest Reporting web site has more on it
Posted by Winston on March 21, 2008 in Media | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Is Obama a Foreign Citizen?
Over at the National Review, Jim Geraghty wonders, given that passport records don't contain travel records, just what the people snooping in Obama's file were looking for.
Let me offer a suggestion.
Obama was born on August 4th, 1961 - before Kenya became an independent nation. However, when Kenya became independent two years later the Kenyan Constitution provided the following:
Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. if his father becomes. or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
In plainer English, it's quite possible that Obama acquired Kenyan Citizenship at birth. More than that, I've been wondering - and it's possible that the people who were looking at these files were wondering the same thing - how Obama travelled to Kenya in the late 1980's.
Kenya isn't a Visa Waiver country now, and I doubt if it was in 1988. Presumably, as is the case in any other country, he'd have had to go to the Kenyan Embassy or consulate for a Visa to travel. However, I imagine that it's quite possible that, once there, he might have had a conversation with the consular official which went something like this:
OFFICIAL: Why do you want to travel to Kenya?
OBAMA: My father was Kenyan. I want to go and visit his family and see where I came from.
OFFICIAL: Oh. You don't need a Visa then. Do you have your birth certificate?
(Obama hands it over)
OFFICIAL (Con't): Yes, yes. If your father was Kenyan, then you're a citizen as well.
OBAMA: Really? Neato.
But, if you add to that, there's actually another potential issue here.
In what status did the "Barry Soetoro" of the late 1960's and early 1970's reside in Indonesia? I can't find an exact copy of the 1958 Indonesian Nationality Law online, but a brief review suggests that it's possible, especially given that Obama's step-father was an Indonesian government official, that Obama might have taken Indonesian nationality.
After all, if one reads about his background, it seems to be fairly clear that his stay in Indonesia (where he attended local schools and was taught in the local language) was intended to be permanent.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on March 21, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Free Tibet? Sure.
Recent days have brought about the sudden revival of a cause which I thought had died with the Twin Towers – the movement to free Tibet from Chinese rule. Now, I have long regarded this movement as little more than a pointless exercise in moral vanity. After all, what could be more ineffectual that protests against a non-democratic government which is utterly indifferent to words? Tibet has no great store of resources or other valuables. Nor is it positioned in an area which any particular strategic value of the West.
However, if the unrest in Tibet continues – or is violently suppressed – it offers the West a strategic opening. For too long, China has been allowed a free hand on the global stage. China’s economic manipulations are met by ineffectual tears. The Chinese military build-up continues without abatement. China continues to knowingly sell weapons which are used against Allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, I put it to you that turnabout is fair play. The Chinese military, for all of its numbers and strength, doesn’t have much experience in the field. It’s taken the United States Army – the best trained, best led, and best equipped force in the world – most of a decade to get a handle on counter-insurgency. New equipment and training aside, the People’s Liberation Army remains a tool designed to attain victory through mass. It is extremely ill-suited to the sort of careful, targeted, and well-organized operations which are vital in fighting against insurgents.
Let’s make China bleed.
For far too long, we’ve restricted ourselves to fighting symmetrical battles – while allowing our enemies to use every trick in the book against us. Let’s steal a march on the People’s Republic and make their year hell.
It could be done, if we could find the will. Use third parties to ship weapons to Tibetan extremists. You may protest that the Tibetans are followers of the Dalai Lama and believe in peace and so forth. I say – we’ll find someone to do what we want.
Take the Chinese-made weapons that we capture in Iraq and Afghanistan and use third parties to transfer them to Tibetan extremists, or whomever else is convenient and willing to use them. We don’t need a lot of attacks – the Chinese are pretty eager to shoot unarmed demonstrators as it is. It’s quite likely that a few isolated attacks would trigger a massively disproportionate Chinese response which, in turn, would generate a worldwide media frenzy and probably screw up the Olympics.
For that matter, the People’s Liberation Army doesn’t seem to be particularly well-equipped or trained to meet this threat. Swarming the area with untrained men, as they seem to be doing, may constrict movement by rebels – but it also presents more targets.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on March 20, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Obama: Typical White People are Racist
So, some people were upset because, the other day, Obama essentially claimed that his Grandmother being afraid of an aggressive black panhandler and the deranged ravings of the Rev. Wright were morally equivalent. Now, trying to back-pedal from that position, he's said something far, far dumber than that.
He said that the point he was making, in drawing such a comparison, is that his Grandmother is a "typical white person." To be clear, here's what he said about his Grandmother (who, by the way, raised him and is still alive). He described her as:
...a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
In other words, in Obama's world, all white people are afraid of black people and go around spitting out ethnic and racial stereotypes. Good to know.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on March 20, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack
Kill and release
Posted by Grant Brown on March 20, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (73) | TrackBack
An hour of darkness will come
That’s not a cryptic prophecy of some kind. An hour of darkness will come at 8 pm on March 29 for Earth Hour.
I remember "Earth Days"—the blackout that affected much of the eastern seaboard back in 2003. I don't recall whether the Rosewater Supper Club was serving organic lettuce by candlelight at that time.
Lights out in major cities has a depressing, quiet and eerie feel to it. I first experienced it in Communist Poland—where prior to 1989 many lights were out every night (and not because people were trying to be green). Ditto for the dark streets of east Berlin ten years after Communism fell. Not a great way for a girl to get home from late night classes. In other parts of the world, like El Salvador and Mexico(off the resort path) again, the flickering of a broken fluorescent bulb is more the norm than the exception.
But you know what? I support this Earth Hour so every spoiled westerner can feel and see what it’s like when the lights dim. As we congratulate ourselves for "making a difference" over a night of organic greens, perhaps some will turn their thoughts to those parts of the world where they don’t take basics (like light) for granted.
I don’t feel guilty for having these benefits. I want the rest of the world to achieve the same. I’m not going to deny the family living in poverty in rural El Salvador plumbing and electricity so that we can keep the earth cool and dark.
"See the difference you can make" is the Earth Hour slogan. "See a difference?" Well, not as I sit in the dark, I sure won't. Earth Hour--taking us toward a bold new dark age. Literally.
Cross-posted to ProWomanProLife.
Posted by Andrea Mrozek on March 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Osama bin Laden reacts to Muhammad cartoons
In an audio broadcast, Osama bin Laden has warned Europeans to expect a "severe" reaction in response to the publication of cartoons and drawings insulting to the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
On Feb. 13, Danish newspapers republished a cartoon showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban to show their commitment to freedom of speech after police said they had uncovered a plot to kill the artist.
Danish intelligence service said the reprinting of the cartoon had brought "negative attention" to Denmark and may have increased the risk to Danes at home and abroad.
The original 12 cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper triggered major protests in Muslim countries in 2006. There have been renewed protests in the last month.
Read more here.
The Western Standard also reprinted the controversial cartoons in 2006. What were we thinking? Our former publisher Ezra Levant answers that exact question:
What were we thinking?
Publisher Ezra Levant tells the inside story of why the Western Standard decided to publish the controversial cartoons--and the amazing things that happened after we did
Read the complete story here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on March 19, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
Yo dawg, stop sweatin' PotashCorp
Allan J. Evansis, Executive Director of the Prairie Policy Centre, asks an important question:
So, why don’t we value the wealth creators like we do the rappers, athletes and talking heads?
If you are one of those people outraged by PotashCorp’s compensation for senior management, I suggest you do not buy shares in the company. You should also ask your pension administrator and financial advisor to take you out of any funds that hold PCS shares because you probably own some already. Then again, maybe that’s not such a good idea considering PotashCorp is one of the world’s best performing companies.
PotashCorp is also part of a great performing sector. It was reported today that the recent surge in fertilizer sales pushed Canada's wholesale trade up by 2.6 percent in January, more than twice what was expected from Statistics Canada.
You can read the complete article by Evansis here -- and if agriculture investing floats your boat (milks your cow?) you can read my post on the subject here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on March 19, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Bringing closure to the York abortion debate
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of the Students for Bioethical Awareness at York University, I would like to thank you [Western Standard] for covering the threat to education and freedom of speech in the recent controversy surrounding a debate on abortion.
We are pleased to let you know that despite the attempts to shut down the debate by the York Student Centre, the university administration stepped in, enabling the debate to happen yesterday, Tuesday, March 18th.
The debaters were the originals, Michael Payton of York's Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists group and Jose Ruba of the pro-life Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). An estimated 130 people came to the 90 minute event, and many stayed after to continue with questions.
The response to the cancelled debate, and the turnout for the event demonstrates quite clearly that this is an issue that University Students do want to talk about.
Abortion is not settled in Canada and we are thankful that the York University administration recognized the importance of open dialogue on such important issues.
Please feel free to contact us further for more information.
Sincerely,
Margaret Fung & Maria Smolkova
Co-Presidents of Students for Bioethical Awareness
York University
Posted by Western Standard on March 19, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Democrats' advantage is gone
John McCain has held a six-point lead for three days, and now that national trend is showing up in state polls - enough to tip the electoral college if they hold. This campaign began as the Democrats' to lose, and they are doing a fantastic job of it!
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 19, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Heather Mills v. Ashley Dupre
It is a strange world we live in where a man can be ordered to pay a woman $50 million after a mere 4-year marriage, and the man is seen as the winner of the legal battle.
If you work it out, Heather Mills "earned" $1,400 per hour for every hour of her marriage to Paul McCartney. That tops what Ashley Dupre was paid by Elliot Spitzer on an hourly basis. According to the summary of the judgment that was released, Mills was seeking $7,000 per hour ($250 million) -- i.e. the amount earned by 7-diamond-rated escorts at New York's Emeror's Club. She has a high opinion of herself, evidently.
Details that have come out about the judgment, and Mills' reaction to it, don't paint a flattering picture of the ungrateful ex-wife. She is reported to have dumped a glass of water over McCartney's lawyer's head in the courtroom -- histrionic behaviour that would never be tolerated by a man in a divorce court. After delivering an 11-minute diatribe against the process and the judgment on the courthouse steps, Mills said she would not appeal the ruling and would oppose the release of any more details to the public. McCartney's only comment was, "All will be revealed." One surmises that the reasons for judgment were not particularly kind to Mills.
As usual, the aggreived ex-wife's first instinct it to pit the child against the father. Mills complained bitterly after court that she would only get $70,000 per year for little Beatice in child support. "Beatrice will have to settle for traveling in coach while her dad goes first class," she said. As if. No wonder the judge found her position on almost every issue to be unreasonable.
Still, if Mills were Canadian, she would have a point. By our standards, $70,000 per year in child support is a pittance for someone of McCartney's wealth and income. You would only have to be making about $700,000 per year in Canada to be on the hook for $70,000 in child support for one child. With an income in the order of $40 million per year, McCartney would be paying upwards of $340,000 per month -- per month! -- in child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
No wonder Erin Pizzey has described Canada as "the scariest country on the planet" for its treatment of men.
Posted by Grant Brown on March 19, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"I'm not going to vote with my vagina"
Some feminists are not voting for Hillary! But, they have so much in common. Like shoulders that are not as broad as men's, and hair that, in general, is longer, and two X chromosomes! What more do you need, Marianne Williamson? What more could you ask for? </sarcasm>
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Canadian Spitzers
Eliot Spitzer is the worst sort of scoundrel. We've been busy dredging up his illicit tale here on the Shotgun, but it isn't like his dalliances are rare. There are paramours on Parliament Hill, apparently.
According to one escort agency, "Politicians are very classy customers and that's what I want for my girls."
Right. Very classy. While insisting that prostitution is bad, bad, bad and should be illegal with one side of their mouths, they're busy doing just what they think the rest of us shouldn't with the other side of their... oh you get what I mean. No need to draw a picture.
I have nothing against prostitution. If you want to pay for sex, that's none of my business. What I do protest is the "good for me, but not for thee" attitude of the Spitzer's of the world. It's fine for him to visit hookers, but the rest of us hoi polloi are just too susceptible to the moral hazards of purchasing sex.
And that's what's wrong with Spitzer, says Valerie, an escort contacted by Sun Media:
"Eliot Spitzer deserves what's happening to him. He was a hypocrite. He shouted loud and strong that he was a righteous man and led a fight against prostitution while taking advantage of such services all the while. I'd say he was paid in kind," she said.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 18, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
That which is al Qaeda by any other name . . .
. . . will kill just as brutally.
Amidst all the discussion of Saddam and al Qaeda, we are forgetting that Osama and his allies had several groups with several names. Among the largest of them was Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Guess which organization happens to be on the list of organizations Saddam considered "friendly elements"?
Yup, Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 18, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Canadians and global warming
A recent poll shows that while Canadians pick the environment ahead of jobs and the economy as the most important issue facing Canada.
From Canwest News Service:
"When asked "what is the most important problem facing Canada today," 20 per cent of respondents said the environment, followed by 14 per cent who said health care, 13 per cent who said the economy and 10 per cent who said they were concerned about social issues or poverty. Only seven per cent said they were concerned about governance issues, followed by five per cent who said they were concerned about the war in Afghanistan and four per cent who said they were concerned about jobs and unemployment."
Wow.
Maybe this explains Dan Grice's good showing in Vancouver during the by-election yesterday. And the Greens managed to beat the Tories in Toronto Centre (although that's not too much of a surprise), and beat the NDP in another Toronto riding. These results have Elizabeth May feeling buoyed--she claims her party can win six to 12 ridings in the next federal election.
But as buoyed as May feels, and as important as Canadians think global warming is, there are at least a few of us who think that even if global warming is a reality, we really shouldn't do anything about it. Like Jan Narveson who said so here on the Standard in his most recent column.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (57) | TrackBack
Canada recognizes Kosovo independence: Serbia furious
A little while ago, right here on the Western Standard, Joseph Ben-Ami and Joseph Varner argued that Canada doesn't have much of a choice anymore, and really should recognize Kosovar independence.
Well, Canada has.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 18, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Canadian health care: a matter of life or debt?
Often in Canada, we hear fear mongering about an "American-style" health care system: "We don't want an American system. Health care should be free! You shouldn't have to make the decision to mortgage your house or die!" they'll say.
But the decision to choose between coming up with a total of $60,000 in up-front payments or dying of ovarian cancer was one that Sylvia de Vries, a Canadian woman from Windsor, Ontario had to make.
After she gained 40 pounds it was obvious that she was suffering from something more serious than irritable bowel syndrome, with which she'd been diagnosed. When four doctors in Ontario were unable to find a problem with her, Mrs. de Vries visited an American doctor who diagnosed her with ovarian cancer. She came back to Canada to have the diagnosis confirmed (as you have to to be covered by OHIP) and was shuffled back and forth between doctors and waiting lists before being told by a gynecologist that there was nothing wrong with her.
Luckily, she had the money to pay for surgery in America - four days after making an appointment, a doctor removed a 13 liters of fluid, an 18kg tumor that included her entire reproductive system and appendix, and found cancer on the outside of her stomach. The doctor has informed her lawyer that in two weeks she would likely have been experiencing multiple system failure and would have been too unstable for surgery.
Upon returning to Canada for chemotherapy, she was told there was a 6-week wait to see a doctor to get started, so she went back to America and paid up-front again for chemotherapy treatments. She is now $60,000 in debt, and in spite of the fact that Canadian law bars us from buying health insurance to cover such costs, the public system is refusing to pay for her costs because her case doesn't satisfy system's requirements for coverage.
George Smitherman's office, via his press secretary Laurel Ostfield, issued a response the day after the story was reported on in Windsor:
"The minister cannot intervene," Ostfield said. "These laws are in place in order to protect Ontario's health care system. If payment was issued for every single circumstance, we wouldn't be able to sustain the health care system for future generations. So we do have these laws in place for a reason. There are safety nets to make sure that people don't fall through the cracks and that they do receive compensation if it was necessary or deserved."
There are some very significant elements of this quote - note that the laws are in place in order to protect Ontario's health care system. No mention is made of Ontarians who might die if they refuse to circumvent the system as Mrs. de Vries did. Further, a system that has failed so utterly is apparently a system that needs to be sustained for future generations!
The sacred cow of public health care has quashed any debate over its effectiveness or its effects. Canadians are so afraid to have a price put on a human life that they can't see that all that's happened is that this price is now set by a detached government bureaucrat rather than by the people whose lives would otherwise be saved if they were allowed to buy more comprehensive insurance policies.
Finally, for all those who are worried about the poor dying as the rich benefit from any system other than a Canadian health care system, all I have to say is that I'm very, very glad that OHIP-covered Sylvia de Vries was fortunate enough to be in a financial position able to come up with $60,000 of her own money. If she had been a poorer, OHIP-covered, taxpaying citizen of Ontario, she might not be around to tell her story today.
Posted by Janet Neilson on March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Bob Rae: Socialist
Gerry: Bob Rae debated John Ridpath on the topic of "Capitalism vs. Socialism" at the University of Waterloo in 1990. I haven't yet been able to find the full video, but I have found an excerpt. It is John Ridpath responding to what I guess is Rae's opening statement. Take a look:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Grant Brown: Biology is not destiny
In his latest column for the Western Standard, entitled "Biology is not destiny," Grant Brown argues that our biology does not fully determine how we will act and what we will do. Men and women, on average, will have different personality and character traits, as well as tendencies to act in one way or another. But "on average" is a far cry from universally true. And the more we know about our genetic inheritance, and what our genes predispose us to, the more autonomous can we be.
An excerpt:
"Male chauvinists and sexist-feminists play on the same stereotypes--stereotypes that are persistent precisely because they have a basis in biology. They differ only in wanting an opposite evaluative spin on these stereotypes. These warring factions are describing two sides of the same coin, one side focusing on the up-side, and the other the down-side, of the stereotypical characteristics.
"Progress in the battle of the sexes requires that we move beyond these two forms of superficiality: first, the naïve presumption that males and females are biologically and psychologically equal in all respects; and second, the self-serving presumption that all biological differences are indicative of an ineradicable superiority of one’s own sex." Read More...
Posted by Western Standard on March 18, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Backwards Bob is Back
Well Bob Rae is officially a Liberal Member of Parliament.
Good for him.
Of course, his real goal isn't simply to be a mere MP. The former NDP socialist wants nothing less than to be Prime Minister.
Only that way can he erase his current legacy of being the worst Premier in the history of Ontario.
Mind you it won't be easy.
Lots of Liberals are not too happy with Rae's ambitions.
I remember last year talking to a Liberal Party activist who said she would rather "eat glass" than see Rae take over her party.
Should be a fun party to watch over the next little while.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
The Obama speech
Thanks to Drudge, an advance copy got out.
Here's my take:
. . . Obama is just as divisive as his would-be critics, but since the division is one of class rather than race, it sounds (to some) to be unifying and healing. It's not.
Moreover, it takes class and blithely assumes that they are as immutable as race. Are poor Americans destined to be poor forever? Obama seems to think so. Are Americans currently wealthy today guaranteed to keep their fortune? Are their heirs? Again, for Obama, these are certainties. In the American economy, however, none of these things are certain.
Finally, Obama's vision of America approaching perfection, because that vision is firmly planted to America's left, ignores several things. Here are just a few.
Obama's silence on these matters is deafening.
You can read the rest of my comments (and reaction from other American bloggers) here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 18, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (85) | TrackBack
Will Beijing's crackdown in Tibet hurt their friends in Taiwan?
It is not the best time to be perceived as Communist-friendly in Taiwan, as presidential front-runner Ma Ying-jeou is discovering. When they say "a week is a lifetime in politics," this is what they mean.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 18, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Monday, March 17, 2008
Tories Win Big in Saskatchewan, Barely Miss in Vancouver
With most of the polls reporting in, the Tories look to have taken the open Liberal seat in Saksatchewan by nearly 17%.
Meanwhile, Joyce Murray seems to have won Vancouver-Quadra for the Liberals... by one hundred and fifty-one votes. Not a good sign for them at all.
Dion's leadership is going to come under serious fire after this debacle. Especially as, given the way in which the Liberal nomination in Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River was handled, he has to bear primary responsibility for the loss of the seat.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on March 17, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBack
Free markets and leftists: Open question thread
March 15th marked the third annual Windsor Liberty Seminar. The event was a success, in my judgment (bias alert: I'm one of the founders, with Matt Bufton and Janet Neilson, of the Institute for Liberal Studies, which hosts the Windsor Liberty Seminar, the Toronto Liberty Seminar, as well as the Liberty Summer Seminar).
Speakers included the Fraser Institute's Fred McMahon, Western Standard columnist and professor emeritus in Philosophy (and Officer in the Order of Canada) Jan Narveson, as well as the Mackinac Center's Bruce Walker.
While videos of all of the speeches will be available within the next week (and I will post them here), a question that Fred McMahon raised during his talk has got me scratching my head. We posed the same question over the air on our show "Political Animals" to Fred, and tried to come up with some answers. It's a great question, so I thought I'd open it up for suggestions from Shotgun readers.
Here it is: Given that people in more economically free countries are wealthier, better educated, have longer life expectancy, lower rates of poverty, more democratic institutions, and so on, why is it that leftist advocates for the poor continue to think big government institutions are the solution? Why are they allergic to free markets?
(Denying the assumption in the question clearly won't do. I don't know of any empirical study that purports to show any correlation between generally less free market countries and good outcomes for poor people across time. Free markets, rule of law, and solid private property protection really are the keys to making people--including the poor--wealthier and better off).
I have my own pet theory, but I'd like to hear some possible explanations before I offer up my own view on why this bias towards statism persists.
Two incidentals: For one, Fred, who has been doing this a long time, explained in his talk that he still hasn't received a totally convincing answer. That's pretty surprising. For two, the question is much more interesting if we make the further assumption that the leftist in question is sincere, and has the right motivations. For the sake of getting a really interesting answer, let's just assume that they really, genuinely, sincerely, mean well. They really want to help the poor.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on March 17, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
WS Radio: Scott Reid and Fred McMahon audio
Here is the full show with this week's guests Scott Reid, Fred McMahon, and our regular Canadian commentator, Gerry Nicholls. Scott is a Member of Parliament from Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and a proponent of private property rights, Fred is the Director of the Centre for Trade and Globalization Studies at the Fraser Institute, and Gerry Nicholls is a blogger here on the Shotgun, and one of the top three political minds in Canada (or so we call him to his great dismay).
Take a listen (if the little widget doesn't work for you, here is the direct link):
Posted by Western Standard on March 17, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gay couples demand marriage, not civil unions
Via the New York Times:
Eager to celebrate their partnership, Tracy and Katy Weber Tierney were among the first in line when Connecticut created civil unions three years ago as a way to formalize same-sex relationships without using the word “marriage.”
But when Tracy was giving birth to their son, Jake, five months ago, a hospital employee inquired whether she was “married, single, divorced or widowed.”
“I’m in a civil union,” she replied. When the employee checked “single,” Tracy protested. “I’m actually more married than single,” she said, leaving the employee flustered about how to proceed.
...
Though such arrangements [civil unions] were created, often under court mandate, with a promise of treating same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples, many gays and lesbians say they have not delivered and can never do so because separate institutions are inherently unequal. Many also resent being denied use of the word marriage, which they say carries intangible benefits, prestige and status.
According to the New York Times, eight same-sex couples have mounted a constitutional challenge to Connecticut's civil union law, "arguing that they were entitled to marry the person of their choice and that nothing less would do."
In response, the state has countered that these couples "have no case because they are free to marry, just not to someone of the same sex, and that there is no gender discrimination because men and women are equally constrained."
***
The New York Times article brings to my mind at least two questions:
First: Are civil unions constitutional? the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that states may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In the famous Brown v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court struck down racially-based segregation of public schools. In the opinion of the Court,
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group.
Connecticut's civil union legislation promised same-sex couples all “rights, protections and responsibilities” the state gives to married couples. There is an argument to be made that "separate but equal" marriage law violates the equal protection clause in the same way "separate but equal" public schools violated it.
Applying the logic of the Supreme Court in Brown, one might say that it is simply impossible for the legislature to extend to same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage through the enactment of a separate institutional arrangement like civil unions. Civil unions will continue to be viewed as the inferior compared to marriage. This perception of inferiority will continue to affect the life prospects and well-being of those forced into the inferior institution because the state bars them from getting married.
The New York Times interviewed a lawyer challenging the Connecticut's law who put the point this way: “Being in a civil union is not the same as married,” he said. “If it was, they would call it marriage. I don’t know anybody who would give up their marriage for a civil union.”
Second: Do gays and straights have the same rights because both are allowed to marry whoever they wish, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex? This is a broader question, and it may seem the answer is obviously in the affirmative. But I'm not so sure.
It depends, surely, on what you think rights are for: I believe that rights, if they are anything, are tied into well-being. Rights protect the conditions necessary for the pursuit of well-being/fulfillment, and should be specified with reference to these conditions. The "right to marry" is therefore shorthand for something like "The right to have one's fulfilling, consensual relationship recognized in the law."
The state fails to uphold this right equally for all if it only recognizes opposite sex relationships.
Libertarians will argue that there is no "right to marry" and that the state ought to get out of the marriage business entirely. That may be true. But the state provides many services it has no right to provide. Suppose (for example) the state has no right to tax income. Nevertheless, in the real world, it does tax income. While it is wrong for the state to do this, it would be wrong on an additional level if whites were taxed more than blacks, merely for being white. If the state is going to impose some cost or provide some benefit, it ought not to arbitrarily discriminate in the way it goes about doing so.
Thus, as long as the state continues to be in the marriage business, I can see no reason on libertarian grounds to think the state ought only to recognize opposite sex relationships.
Posted by Terrence Watson on March 17, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Lemieux: McTeague's bill was good
In Pierre Lemieux's latest column, "McTeague's bill was good," Lemieux explodes the myth that politicians and bureaucrats work in the interest of the governed. Instead, politicians and bureaucrats work for (surprise, surprise) their own interests. This means, in general, that policies will be, in general, liberticidal. Thus any bill, like Liberal M.P. Dan McTeague's education savings plan (Bill C253), that limits the amount of money the government receives in revenue, is a good bill.
An excerpt:
"We can imagine a world where the passage of a bill like McTeague’s would be bad news. In this world, a benevolent government tables, in the interests of all citizens, a budget which sets taxes at the level required to finance essential public services. Thus, any tax break on top of this would disturb the delicate optimum, forcing tax increases elsewhere or the curtailment of crucial public services, and hurt everybody.
"The problem is, every statement in this scenario is false; the world it describes belongs to a fairy tale. The government is no more benevolent than the self-interested individuals who man it. There cannot be a budget in the interests of all citizens: like the typical public policy, a budget hurts some in order to help others. And optimal public services and taxes are a myth." Read More...
Posted by Western Standard on March 17, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
McCain by six
As the political world obsesses over Obama's pastor and Clinton's potential gain from it, they both fall further behind John McCain.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 17, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Bush as Hoover? Not quite.
The Dems are trying to pin the ultimate failure label on President Bush. Larry Kudlow sets the record straight.
I do wonder, though, does R.B. Bennett still get press this bad today?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 17, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
As the countdown to the Communist Olympiad continues . . .
. . . the blogosphere is beginning to express - or to be precise, repeat - its earlier bewilderment at Beijing getting the games.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 17, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
WS Radio: Scott Reid and Fred McMahon
UPDATED.
Listen live (QuickTime), Mondays, 4 - 6 p.m. EST
"Political Animals"--the flagship radio show of Western Standard radio--is a weekly political talk show on 88.1 WBGUFM hosted by Jay Lafayette, Peter Jaworski, and Terrence Watson.
Today, our phone-in guest will be Scott Reid, Member of Parliament for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Scott has been a strong supporter of private property rights in Canada, and we'll talk with him about property rules in Canada, and how they differ with the United States.
UPDATE: We will also have Fred McMahon, Director of the Centre for Trade and 
Globalization Studies at the Fraser Institute, joining us at the top of the second hour to discuss economic freedom. He manages the annual Economic Freedom of the World report, a report we anticipate eagerly every year here at Political Animals.
Gerry Nicholls, one of the best political pundits in Canada, will, as always, join us at the top of the first hour to talk about Canadian politics.
Political Animals is on every Monday from 4 to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, broadcast out of 88.1 FM in the Bowling Green, Ohio area, and on www.wbgufm.com worldwide. To listen to a direct stream, click here (QuickTime). To participate in the discussion, you can call 888-7-WBGUFM, or send us an email at politicalanimals-at-wbgufm-dot-com.
Posted by Western Standard on March 17, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Bjork hurts the feelings of the Chinese
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China will tighten its controls over foreign singers and other performers after Icelandic singer Bjork shouted "Tibet! Tibet!" at a Shanghai concert last weekend, the Ministry of Culture said on Friday.
...
The performance "not only broke Chinese laws and regulations and hurt the feelings of Chinese people, but also went against the professional code of an artist," the ministry said in a statement quoted by the official Xinhua news agency.
Poor Bjork. But at least the Chinese Minister of Culture seems capable of distinguishing between breaking the law and hurting peoples' feelings. If only Richard Warman and Lori Andreachuk were able to make that distinction.
Posted by Terrence Watson on March 16, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack