The Shotgun Blog
« March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008 |Main| April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008 »
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Honouring fallen heroes; Differences in Canada and Britain
The British newspaper Daily Mail tells us how different Canada and Britain each honours their fallen soldiers.
.
Posted by Winston on April 12, 2008 in Military | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Canadian MPs to go to Iran?
Iranian regime Tehran Times paper reports that a delegation of Canadian MPs are to visit Tehran.
That'd be very interesting to know which political party they are from. I have already guessed their party affiliation though. Have you?
And if this terrible news confirmed, we the bloggers and ordinary citizens must try to stop them from going to Iran by signing petitions, emailing or calling their offices and telling these politicians that it is really wrong to give legitimacy to a theocratic regime.
Posted by Winston on April 12, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack
"Time, place, and manner" restrictions
This may be a libertarian-oriented blog, but it doesn't follow that there should be no "time, place, and manner" restrictions imposed on posters. As has been noted by several regulars recently, too many people abuse their privileges to post on this blog, by clogging up discussion threads with lengthy, irrelevant, taunting, insulting, abusive, and hateful comments. Shouting down and intimidating others isn't an exercise of free speech; it is a negation of it.
In a libertarian space, the government doesn't get to make the call as to what is appropriate commentary, and what is abusive. The owners of the space have the right to make that call. That's not "censorship" any more than keeping creeps and bums out of your house is denying their mobility rights. If you can't respect the "time, place, and manner" restrictions the owner of the blog requests (and may impose), start your own blog and post away to your heart's content.
I agree with Max Yalden that we shouldn't have an "anything goes" free speech law. No reasonable person advances such a view. It's a caricature and a straw man. Where I differ from Yalden is in who should control the spaces in which speech takes place, and what principles should inform the "time, place, and manner" restrictions that do get imposed.
Posted by Grant Brown on April 12, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack
Obama's Gaffe
Here's a chance to actually hear what Obama said that's been causing so much buzz:
It's easy to see the problem. As has been pointed out elsewhere this "what's the matter with Kansas?" (thesis: liberals promise poor people free money so, therefore, poor people who don't vote for liberals are stupid) stuff is pretty standard on the left.
But, come on, the man is allegedly the bringer of hope, blah, blah, blah and then he goes to San Fransisco and tells a bunch of in-the-know liberals that, "well, we have to understand why these hicks are so dumb." Typical of the left.
Also, as others have noted, the trade thing is interesting. Obama goes around denouncing NAFTA and working to block new free trade agreements, but then - when he thinks that he's safe - he basically labels opposition to free trade as xenophobic? What an absolute hypocrite. And, on that note...
Just a few days ago, Obama (courting these very voters that he's insulted) was claiming to be "pro-gun." But, when he's in San Fransisco, he's talking about how hicks, "cling to their (emphasis added) guns or religion." Notice "their" guns and religion. Not his.
This one's going to sting.
First of all, Obama's just undone a lot of his own campaigning and spending. He's reportedly massively outspending Hillary in Pennsylvania in the hopes, one assumes, of scoring a knock-out. I don't think that's going to happen now.
Pennsylvania was already a tough road for Obama - looking demographically so much like Ohio where, of course, he was blown out. But now he's gone and insulted a sizable percentage of the people whose votes he was fishing for. This is particularly difficult in Obama's case because, of course, this simply reinforces the pre-existing impression of the man in many people's minds - namely that he's an effete urban liberal.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 12, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
Lao Tzu and God were early libertarian thinkers
Tibor Machan has written an interesting article on the long history of libertarian ideas. In “Classical liberal ideals go back to ancient times,” he writes:
At times, libertarian or classical liberal or pure laissez faire capitalist ideas are dismissed as part of a misguided modernity that’s lacking proper pedigree. But this is all wrong. Already back in circa 600 B.C.E. the Chinese sage Lao Tzu had weighed in with libertarian ideas, writing:
Why are people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving.
Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious....
You can read the entire article here. And if libertarian ideas interest you, The Libertarian Reader is a great book that includes early essays and writings on the subject. You might be surprised that this compilation starts with the Bible and 1 Samuel 8.
In this passage, God warns Samuel that the people’s request for a King to govern Israel will bring all sorts of problems and that the King will demand a tenth of the people’s wealth. A tenth! I guess not even God could predict the modern welfare-warfare state which consumes over 40 per cent of GDP in Canada.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 12, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Friday, April 11, 2008
A few interesting facts on Cuba
A few interesting facts about Cuba. You can have your Commie friends read these facts. It might help open their eyes and change their attitude about a country that is run under the Communism rule for more than 50 years now.
"Cuba in 2008 should be the Hong Kong or Singapore of Latin America. That it is not is the fault of Castro and his cronies."
Posted by Winston on April 11, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Full surrender to North Korea (UPDATED)
For five and a half years, the United States demanded, then asked, then suggested North Korea come clean about its uranium weapons program. First, the regime had to come clean before any aid was resumed; then it had to come clean as aid was being sent. Now, it doesn't have to come clean at all.
Even worse, America is ready to remove North Korea from the list of terrorist states, despite the fact that the regime refuses to divulge any information about how it was helping Syria become a nuclear power before the Israeli Air Force permanently altered Bashar Assad's plans.
In other words, just about everyone in the northern Pacific (except Kim Jong-il and his Beijing masters) is less safe today.
UPDATED: I have now written a complete column on this. The title says it all: North Korea won.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 11, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Man the barricades! YWAM is coming!
Kevin Potvin, the editor of the free newspaper The Republic of East Vancouver, does warn his readers, in the slogan on his paper's website, that his is a "completely biased news source." So, I should not have been surprised to see this article in the latest issue, raising an alarm that the Christian missionary group Youth With A Mission (YWAM) was hoping to get permission from the city of Vancouver to rezone what was a private hospital in East Vancouver. The former hospital has been vacant for a long time, and YWAM hopes to get permission to use it as a local operations center and occasionally bring in small groups of young adults for training.
I'll admit my own bias--I have friends in YWAM. Nevertheless, I was puzzled when I read Mr. Potvin's catalogue of various "scary" conservative YWAM positions and statements, as I know that some of my YWAM friends do things that everyone would see as a non-threatening influence in the community, such as helping with my church's weekly distribution of warm food to the poor. Yet, judging by what he wrote, I doubt that Mr. Potvin would be reassured to learn (as he would have had he done any interviews for the story) that my friends, in many ways, are probably very much like his readers in the neighborhood centered on Vancouver's leftist and quirky Commercial Drive.
I'm also puzzled by Mr. Potvin's observation that "...someone should at least speak for the loss to rental housing stock this permit [to rezone the hospital] seeks..." After all, if he fears that potentially conservative youngsters will be brought in and trained by YWAM, and then sent out to influence his neighborhood on their way to mission fields around the world, what is to prevent 10-20 Shotgun readers from moving into the former hospital as condo tenants and permanently infecting the neighborhood with their politically or socially conservative views? Unless, of course, you used it as social housing and then, in order to "protect The Drive", had a committee of dour-faced landlords ask would-be conservative renters those "Are you now, or have you ever been..?" types of questions that the left has historically enjoyed having to answer.
I would ask, however, that Mr. Potvin, following his paper's motto that it "...supports no party, advocates for no cause, represents no group, serves no master, and considers problems with no preconceived notions...", use the same standards to assail all forms of religious "extremism" that could possibly threaten his neighborhood. Just as he did in November 2002, when he bravely published an editorial assailing the small group of Islamic extremists who turned their back on peaceful efforts to help humanity on September 11, 2001:
....I have a terrible confession to make. When I saw the first tower cascade down into that enormous plume of dust and paper, there was a little voice inside me that said, "Yeah!" When the second tower came down the same way, that little voice said, "Beautiful!" When the visage of the Pentagon appeared on the TV with a gaping and smoking hole in its side, that little voice had nearly taken me over, and I felt an urge to pump my fist in the air.
This is a revolting confession, I know. But it's what happened....
Oh well.
I can nevertheless appeal to Mr. Potvin's better nature as a journalist...just as I hope that an active Youth With A Mission center in his neighborhood--which would incidentally help the poor and troubled as it evangelized--would appeal to his better nature as a human being.
Posted by Rick Hiebert on April 10, 2008 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Al & Mike Show Episode 20
Gerry Nicholls, columnist and former vice president of the National Citizens Coalition and a Senior Fellow with the Democracy Institute joins us and talks about the conservative movement in Canada. In the second half-hour we talk to Kathy Shaidle about the lawsuit that has been brought against multiple bloggers.
Listen Now
Subscribe to RSS: Click here for podcast RSS feed.
Subscribe in iTunes for your iPod: Click here (Must have iTunes installed)
Posted by Mike Brock on April 10, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Hunger Opportunity
Forget everything that you’ve heard in the last few years about “peak oil”, the credit crunch, and the falling dollar. Instead, I have one word for you: food.
People are finally beginning to wake up to the real crisis: a global food shortage. Already, there are reports of food riots around the world. Nervous governments are imposing restrictions upon the export of food, in the hope of controlling prices and supplies.
It’s just the beginning. Just wait and see how the harvest turns out in the Northern Hemisphere this year and see where food stocks are by the time we hit fall. That’s when the real panic is going to set in.
A few years ago, I remember having a conversation with several people who insisted that the United States was doomed because they “don’t produce anything that anyone wants to buy anymore.” I pointed out that the United States was the world’s leading producer of pretty much every single key foodstuff. “Anyone can grow food,” they replied. “Yeah, we’ll see,” I said. And so we shall.
Of course, people could have produced their own food. But, for various reasons, they didn’t. Instead, they listened to environmentalists who ranted about the dangers of genetically-modified seed. Foolishly (including here in North America) millions of tons of corn were converted to biofuel in order appease both the farm lobby and environmentalist howls. Europe insisted on continuing to lavishly subsidize their inefficient and under-producing farms.
The net result of all of this is that the United States produces 33% of the world’s wheat exports, 12% of its rice exports, nearly 58% of the world’s coarse grains, and 39% of the world’s soybean exports. Oh, yes, and the U.S. also accounts for 24% of the world’s meat production.
If one adds in other Anglosphere nations (mainly Canada and Australia) the Anglosphere accounts for 53% of total global wheat export and 64% of the world’s coarse grain exports.
In other words, when it comes to food, the United States is Saudi Arabia and then some.
The policy implications of this are multi-fold.
First of all, as I’ve already suggested, the connected bubbles that have developed in Gold, Oil, and the Euro, are going to pop. All three have run up, in large measure, as a reaction the decline in the U.S. Dollar. Remember – one of the main reasons for the appreciation in the Canadian Dollar has been the rise in oil prices which, in turn, has been driven (in part) by a decline in the U.S. Dollar. You have all of these forces working in one direction. But they can shift as swiftly as the wind – and will do just that. Food prices soar, therefore people need to buy more U.S. Dollars in order to buy food (especially when higher prices are combined with high demand and lagging production) which, in turn, will set off declines elsewhere. It really is a beautiful system.
Second, it’s clear to me that our politicians are going to have to get to thinking about agriculture – and quickly. It’s the least glamorous and most un-sexy of subjects, I realize. Many of us are pretty far removed from the farm. It’s been at least four generations since anyone in my family was a farmer. I don’t think I’m that rare. All of us are going to have to do some reading on the area.
This second point is especially true since, like most sudden panics, this one has been obviously coming down the road for several years – it’s just that none of us have been paying real attention. The obvious end result of the massive demand for oil and other raw materials – materials being used to produce things in China, India, and elsewhere – was always going to be an increase in the standards of living for people in those lands and the obvious result of a higher standard of living for those people was always going to be them eating more. I attribute the fact that so few of us thought this through until recently (if even by now) to how far we’re removed from rural life. Honestly, I’ve never given much thought to how food gets to the supermarket – I’ll generally skip agricultural stories when reading the business pages.
We need to understand how this works – and quickly – so that we can figure out how to best profit from one of the best opportunities that I’ve seen in years. Think about it – we’re facing a massive global shortage of a universally essential commodity for which not only are we a major supplier but where, in many cases, we already control the majority of the marker and where we have the capacity for further expansion of production which others lack.
For example, it occurs to me that one area where this might obvious effect is the settlement of the illegal immigration question. Don’t get me wrong – I continue to despise illegal immigrants for the reasons that I’ve set out before – but it looks like we might be soon facing an all-hands-on-deck situation so far as agricultural labor is concerned. Perhaps this will be the time to hurry some sort of guest worker program into being. After all, someone’s going to need to harvest all of those crops – and it’s sure not going to be me (and probably not 99%+ of you folks, either).
As well, at first blush, we might also reconsider our biofuel policy, since it consumes valuable grains. On the other hand, we might well choose to maintain (or even increase) that policy since there’s always going to be more than enough food in North America and continuing to divert all of that corn to Ethanol production will constrict global supplies and, therefore, increase prices.
This is not going to be a quick crisis. Food production is limited not only by land – but also by equipment, manpower, and other materials. You can’t turn people into farmers overnight. Indeed, in general, history shows that it’s pretty hard to turn people into farmers in any case. As the dimensions of this crisis become clearer, we’re going to have all sorts of frantic attempts to respond put into practice and most of them are going to fail because most of them are going to be conceived and implemented by New Class global elite types who are at least as far removed from the farm as I am.
If you think I sound slightly amused by this, that’s because I am. In their haste to run American down, a lot of people forgot that America just happens to feed most of the world. In their haughty rejection of genetically-modified foods, environmentalists forgot that, in the end, people were going to have to be fed from somewhere. Other governments which adopted unwise policies such as land redistribution or enacted lavish subsidies which denuded production are going to pay too. Proof, perhaps, that there is a God.s
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 10, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Unintended consequences: Alberta slow to learn basic economic lessons
In a press release today from the Alberta government on new royalty programs for high cost oil and gas development, the term “unintended consequences” was thrown around liberally.
In economics, an unintended consequence is typically defined as a negative outcome that is not intended and normally unforeseen. The slowdown in Alberta’s oil patch as a result of the New Royalty Framework announced in October 2007 is being called an unintended consequence, and the Alberta government is now scrambling to undue the harm it has done.
To its credit, the government announced today that it is creating new tax programs in response to declining investments in high cost oil and gas development projects. The tax reductions are expected to leave $237 million more annually in the hands of oil and gas investors. That’s great. What’s not great is that Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight is essentially admitting that he was surprised by an oil and gas industry slowdown resulting from the higher taxes announced last year.
After announcing the tax cuts, Knight said “Addressing the unintended consequences with these programs will help Alberta achieve the necessary levels of investment and production to generate the royalties anticipated by the New Royalty Framework.”
So let me get this straight: To generate the oil and gas royalty revenues anticipated in the New Royalty Framework, the government has been forced to lower the royalty tax increases announced last year in the...New Royalty Framework.
All this unintended consequences stuff must be very confusing for Knight and his colleagues in the Alberta government. Perhaps they’ll find this explanation easier to understand:
Taxes kill jobs and investment.
CORRECTION - I reported that the royalty tax reduction would amount to $37 million. This number included deep oil royalty tax reductions, but did not include deep gas. The total royalty tax reduction announced is actually $237 million.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 10, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Playing with fire in Iraq
The Iranian regime is definitely playing with fire in Iraq. Witnessing their attacks on Baghdad's green zone to the recent skirmishes with the US led coalition forces in Basra and Sadr city, it becomes clear that the occupational mullahs of Iran would like to destabilize the fragile Iraqi situation and challenge America for their domestic purposes. I'm hopeful that Iraq becomes the graveyard of the Iranian regime once and for all. It's about time to get rid of the clerical establishment in Iran and replace it with a more responsible, civilized and secular form of government that doesn't threaten the world security.
President Bush warns the mullahs of Iran to stop interfering in Iraq.
"The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. [If] Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners."
I think this could mean the end of the game for the crazy clerical regime of Iran. Their very next move in Iraq will be critical because, from what I hear now, President Bush won't hesitate to do the necessary job of attacking the terrorist training camps inside of Iran. The options for this crazy regime is getting narrower on a daily basis. Their nuclear ambition is making the world more worried and their endless support for Islamic terrorism in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and else where is another major concern for the international community.
Michael Ledeen, again, has a new piece on the Iranian issue
Posted by Winston on April 10, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Western Standard and Marc Emery on abortion
Since its launch in 2004, the Western Standard has provided what might be called friendly coverage of the pro-life side of the abortion debate.
Western Standard readers may recall a cover story by Andrea Mrozek on sex-selection abortions in Canada. We've heard of couples overseas aborting female fetuses for want of a boy. In her story “Canada's lost daughters,” Mrozek’s investigative report reveals it's also happening right here in Canada.
Mrozek continues to write about abortion issues on the Shotgun blog. You can read her posts here and here.
Last year Western Standard reporter Patrick McGee wrote about the efforts of pro-life activists to change the abortion-on-demand status quo in Canada. In his article “Informing choice,” McGee reported on the Crossroads Pro-Life public education campaign that involved activists walking from Vancouver to Ottawa to bring awareness to the issue of abortion.
More recently, we published an article by John Williamson on “A not-so-private matter of abortion.” In this article, Williamson writes...
While few Canadians are clamouring for legislative restrictions on abortion, it is doubtful those same voters would support government promoting it. Hence, the pro-abortion lobby employs language that implies the state has little to do with it. They say it's about the freedom to choose, an individual's choice and the state has no business interfering in a private decision. It's a position that satisfies small-government libertarians as well as those claiming to be both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Yet, government is more involved in promoting abortion than Canadians realize.
Terry O’Neill is also well known to readers as a pro-life reporter, columnist and blogger. You can read O’Neill’s posts on the Shotgun here and here.
The Western Standard’s mission is to build an online news and opinion website with a libertarian / conservative perspective. So, with this objective in mind, how should we tackle the issue of abortion?
Well, we will continue to give pro-life viewpoints friendly coverage in our news reporting and will share the opinions of pro-life libertarians and conservatives.
My personal view, which will no doubt find its way into our coverage, is that abortion should not receive government funding. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions makes a mockery of the notion of choice, and choice is said to be at the centre of this debate.
But not all our readers, and not even all libertarians and conservatives, are pro-life, and their perspectives should be part of our news coverage and editorial discussions.
This brings me to Marc Emery’s latest opinion piece for the Western Standard. Titled “On my vasectomy and my girlfriend's 2nd trimester abortion,” Emery has written a shocking and graphic personal account of...well, his vasectomy and his girlfriend's abortion.
Why would we publish this? Well, first, Emery is perhaps Canada’s best known libertarian activist and publisher. Second, he makes a number of challenging points in his article. Here are a couple of excerpts worth discussing:
There is no statute of limitations on murder or infanticide. If the pro-life position appears in legislation, then doesn’t that make 40,000,000 North Americans (or those still alive) murderers? And is every doctor, nurse, advocate, friend who helped, husband or wife an accessory to any such act? Can we really criminalize upwards of 100,000,000 people in two countries for their abortions?
If one state makes abortion illegal, and a woman leaves the state to get an abortion in another state, is she criminally liable for that abortion when she returns to her home state? Or could she never return to her home state again under warrant of arrest? What about the person who helped her over state lines? Is that person an accessory to a capital crime? I respect Ron Paul, who is intense about his pro-life views, in that he doesn’t believe a woman should be punished for having an abortion, but his political stance that under the U.S. Constitution any of the 50 states can regulate abortion is a prescription for civil war.
Emery has a visceral style. (If you’re not pro-life already, you may be after reading his account of his girlfriend’s abortion experience.) With that cautionary note, you can read his complete article here – but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on April 10, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack
When one lie doesn't work, try a new one
That seems to be Communist China's modus operandi; just days after a "terror raid" in Urumqi, East Turkestan was exposed as a fake, they hatch up another "terror plot."
Meanwhile, their Korean puppets may have been caught helping their Iranian allies get nuked up.
All that (and more), here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 10, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Reminder: Al & Mike Show Live at 7:30pm EDT / 4:30pm PDT
A reminder to tune into the Al & Mike Show tonight at 7:30pm EDT / 4:30pm PDT. We'll be joined by Gerry Nicholls for the first half hour.
You can listen live, or subscribe to the podcast here.
You can bet we'll be talking about the Warman suits.
Posted by Mike Brock on April 10, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Another former censor comes out in defense of censorship
The National Post has published an opinion piece by Maxwell Yalden, formerly of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In the piece, entitled "Human Rights are More Important than Anything-Goes Free Speech," Yalden chastises the Post for its "below-the-belt bashing of our human-rights institutions."
We could take Yalden apart bit by bit. Yet again, an "expert" on human rights has brought out the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater example (at least he refers to it as an "old saw.") But, really, what would be the point? Yalden's not interested in debate.
Instead, I think I'll just quote what (for me) was the funniest part of Yalden's piece:
Is a 19th-century English philosopher (even John Stuart Mill, whom I admire greatly as a defender of individual rights against an overbearing state) really the best arbiter of Canadian human rights standards in the 21st century? At the time Mill wrote, England was openly racist, sexist and anti-Semitic. After two disastrous world wars and the horrors of the holocaust, we are surely obliged to judge rather differently the anything-goes theory of free speech.
I leave it up to readers more familiar with Mill's work to point out exactly where Mill's view diverges from the "anything goes" strawman Yalden has set up here. But no one I know treats Mill, or any philosopher, as an "arbiter" of human rights standards. That's because, unlike Maxwell Yalden, J.S. Mill argued for his position. We don't need to take his word on where the limits on speech ought to be drawn; we can actually assess his arguments and come to our own conclusions.
But we have to assess the arguments against censorship fairly. We can't just dismiss them because, at the time Mill wrote, England was a sexist, racist place.
Would Yalden dismiss Karl Marx for those reasons? One wonders...
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 10, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
A mutating human-rights monster
CAIR-Can, the radical Islamic group whose full name is the Council on American-Islamic Relations CANADA, has just issued a news release in which it congratulates "the Ontario Human Rights Commission statement on the Maclean's magazine complaint filed by four Osgoode Hall Law School students."
The release continues: The Commission today stated it had "serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean's magazine and other media outlets." The Commission also viewed the media coverage as "contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslims, Arabs and South Asian Canadians."
Here's the link to the full text of the statement issued by the Commission, which--significantly--has rightly decided it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Nevertheless, even while admitting it doesn't have jurisdiction, the commission still felt compelled to criticize Maclean's.
Ominously, the Commission declares that this isn't its last kick at the Maclean's can: "The Commission intends to further consider these issues in the coming months as it embarks on its new mandate [emphasis added], which places a renewed emphasis on addressing human rights tension and conflict through inquiries, consultation, public education, policy development and constructive debate and dialogue." Ahh yes, the debate and dialogue must always be "constructive," mustn't it?
Meantime, April 9 is shaping up as a real red-letter day in the human-wrongs industry, as Ezra Levant has revealed he and other are being sued by Richard Warman.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 9, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
If Mr. Nicholls wants meaningful actions . . .
. . . and he's not willing to consider the propaganda bonanza that the Communists will reap from having the Western powers attend the Games, perhaps this Armed Forces Journal (US) story will get his attention:
China has launched more than 36 new submarines since 1995 — far outpacing U.S. intelligence estimates from a decade ago. Additionally, supersonic indigenous cruise missiles, rumored development of an anti-ship ballistic missile, dynamic mine warfare and amphibious warfare programs, invigorated aerial maritime strike capabilities, as well as a variety of new, sleek and modern surface combatants, suggest a broad front effort by the People’s Liberation Army Navy.
If Mr. Nicholls is willing to call for an increase in the Canadian Navy to help combat this threat (I've been asking the U.S. Navy to do this for years), then we can agree to disagree about the meaning of an Olympic boycott.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 9, 2008 in International Affairs, International Politics, Military | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Olympic Boycott Alternative
But I have a better idea.
Rather than going through all the trouble and hassle of a boycott, we should just set aside a single hour --- we could call it"Tibet Hour" or maybe "Dalai Lama Hour", during which time we would sit down and think nice thoughts about Tibet.
Would that help the Tibetans?
No, but it might make us feel better and isn't that what meaningless, symbolic gestures are really all about?
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 9, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Hugo Chavez To Nationalize Cement Industry
I know, I know. A socialist nationalizing whole sectors of the economy? And dogs bite, cats meow, and bears defecate in the vicinity of trees.
According to the article, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants the state to take over the cement industry because foreign cement companies are charging too much for the stuff and sending too much of it to other countries. I'm sure Chavez will fairly compensate Cemex, the largest of the foreign cement producers operating in Venezuela, when he steals the company's property.
Facing food shortages, Chavez recently seized a major Venezuelan milk supplier. This quotation from the article is revealing:
"We have to intervene in all idle land,'' Chavez said today during a ceremony to commemorate the government's nationalization of a milk plant, in comments broadcast by state television. "We have to make them produce.''
Hear that? We have to make those companies produce! And if they don't, we'll just send in the men with the guns and REALLY give them an incentive to produce more. Who needs tax cuts to spur investment when you have the power of the almighty socialist state behind you?
If you want a real laugh, check out this forum thread from a left-wing message board. While a few contributers seem unsettled by Chavez's actions, most just wish someone would get on with nationalizing industries in the United States.
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 8, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
When no assault is sexual assault
From p. B2 of today's Edmonton Journal:
Sexual predator's sentence upheld
An Internet sex predator who committed "premeditated torture" when he blackmailed two teens into stripping for him online is stuck with his seven-year sentence, Alberta's Court of Appeal ruled Monday.
Joshua Innes, 25, pleaded guilty... to manipulat[ing] the 13- and 14-year-old girls into performing sex acts on webcams. He then threatened to publish the videos online unless they continued to strip for him. In one case, the extortion continued for eight months...
...provincial court Judge James Wheatley... ruled that Innes's online crimes were tantamount to a sexual assault, in part because the psychological impact of Innes's crimes on the girls was so profound.
-------------------------------
Comment: This was a particularly evil case of voyeurism and extortion, with several major aggravating factors (multiple victims, age of victims, duration of crime). But to suggest that having one's privacy invaded is "tantamount to a sexual assault" is either meaningless or guilding the lilly.
'Sexual assault' includes everything from patting a woman's bottom at a bar, to a brutal rape. This case is incomparably worse than the former, and incomparably better than the latter. So what did Judge Wheatley mean to suggest?
Given the 7-year sentence imposed, Judge Wheatley obviously intended to compare the case to a brutal rape. Consider that a mere month later, Justice Dorene Acton sentenced Darcy Bannert to 8 years for raping, beating, and abusing his 4-year-old step-daughter in the most horrific ways imaginable over a period of months. And she sentenced the girl's mother to -- get this -- 2 years of house arrest and a year of probation for her part in this extreme physical and sexual abuse.
I guess that standing by while your partner rapes, beats, and abuses your own 4-year-old daughter -- beating and abusing and neglecting her, too, into the bargain -- is deemed incomparably less deserving of jail time than manipulating teen girls into stripping on a webcam.
Maybe Innes deserves 7 years in jail for what he did. But if so, then Bannert deserved life, and the mother deserved 15 years -- if the principle of proportionality still means anything in our criminal-justice system. (Or should that be our "criminal justice-system"?)
Posted by Grant Brown on April 8, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
How Long Before Polygamy (Formally) Comes to Canada?
Legal experts are pushing for the B.C. Government to make a reference to the B.C. Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of laws against polygamy. Given that Attorney General Wally Oppal is as staid, dull, and conformist a member of any Cabinet that I can ever recall, it seems likely that it will happen.
After all, can you really imagine Wally Oppal - or anyone else in this most cautious of Provincial Governments - having the guts to step out and say something like, "polygamy is wrong, abusive, and runs contrary to our fundamental values. We will do whatever we can do to stamp it out - even if it means invoking the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution." Me neither.
I'm the reactionary here. I'm the one alleged to be the misogynist. Can I really be the only one who thinks it an absolute disgrace that we allow a cult essentially dedicated to child abuse to roam free in this province?
Anyone want to give odds that the court won't find a constitutional right to polygamy? Anyone?
Heh. I thought not. After all, polygamy is already de facto legal in Canada. Hundreds of Moslems in Ontario (and doubtless elsewhere) are collecting welfare for their extra wives and the Mormon fundamentalists at Bountiful abuse women with impunity and barely anyone cares.
After all, as many people pointed out at the time, once homosexual marriage is legalized, what legal or constitutional argument exists against polygamy? If "husband" and "wife" are just technicalities in this area, can anyone tell me with a (pardon the pun) straight face that the number of participants matters?
Yes, yes, I know that back during the debate over gay marriage all sorts of supporters stood up and told us that the idea that gay marriage would lead to polygamy was absurd and "homophobic" but, frankly, I'm also just old enough to remember when those very same people were telling us the same thing about concerns that writing homosexuality into human rights laws and enshrining it as a "right" under the Constitution would lead to gay marriage. The wonderful thing about collectivists is that, having few moral opinions and thoughts of their own, they can execute a turn on an issue with the precision of a North Korean dance troupe.
Just watch. The left knows the score. Multiculturalism is all about winning votes for them. Once they realize that they can use this to import tens of thousands of polygamist wives (who will vote exactly according to the dictates of thier husbands) from the Third World, they'll embrace this with gusto. Anyone who opposes it will be branded as a "racist" since polygamy is a part of traditional "Islamic culture."
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 8, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack
Many nations are forced to confront Islamic terrorism; Communist China is not one of them
The latest Communist propaganda on occupied East Turkestan has just been debunked.
The link also has some details on why Communist China suddenly decided to come clean on its support for Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 8, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Harper's Amnesia
It's about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's failure to defend free speech in this country.
Crossposted at Making Sense with Nicholls
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 8, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Pierre Lemieux: Don't phone and drive?
This week in his column "Don't phone and drive?," Pierre Lemieux explores the arguments underlying the prohibitions on hand-held cell phone use while driving which now exist in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Québec. Pierre discovers that new evidence contradicts and therefore weakens the intuitive conclusions that cell-phone use increases the incidence of accidents or that bans on hand-held cell phone use are effective at reducing them. In scrutinizing the logic and evidence behind these sorts of nanny state regulations, Pierre concludes that there is no benefit to imposing them nor any limit to how far this sort of thinking could be taken to restrict our personal liberties. An excerpt:
Many reasons could explain why drivers’ cell phones do not increase the net number of accidents even though they appear to be distracting. Individuals who face new constraints adjust their behaviour so as to maintain their preferred levels of risk--what has been called the “Peltzman effect”. A 1975 study by economist Sam Peltzman suggested that automobile safety regulations (like compulsory seat belts) do not save lives because the drivers are made to feel safer and will therefore drive less carefully. The same could happen with cell phones. Another phenomenon to consider is that cell phone conversations may actually forestall accidents due to boredom and driver fatigue.
Similarly, individuals with hand-free, as opposed to hand-held, cell phones may stay longer on the phone, get into more animated conversations, and get as distracted as with hand-held phones.
Posted by Western Standard on April 8, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Monday, April 07, 2008
WS Radio: Warren Kinsella audio
Earlier today, "Political Animals" interviewed Warren Kinsella. Warren was nice enough to stay on the phone for an hour-long interview, which you can listen to by clicking here.
Posted by Western Standard on April 7, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Marni Soupcoff on the CHRC
In today’s National Post, columnist Marni Soupcoff wrote...
The Canadian Human Rights Commission still doesn’t get it. The problem isn’t the foul-mouthed sneering racists among us; it’s the CHRC....
Never does one like to come out against “human rights.” Perhaps that is why Canadians have been so patient with their federal human rights commission despite the intrusive and unhealthy limitations it puts on our freedom of speech. But with the recent high profile CHRC cases against Maclean’s magazine and former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant — which have highlighted the lack of due process in the CHRC’s procedures — that patience is finally starting to wear thin.
Read the entire column here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 7, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
WS Radio: Webcam
Posted by Western Standard on April 7, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Centre sets up new online forum
Drop in and have a say.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 7, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Chicken Little squawks again
To mark World Health Day today, Dr. Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization, issued a statement saying unequivocally that "climate change endangers human health."
Among the many problems with her declaration are these: 1. She provided no source material for her alarmist predictions; 2. She failed to mention the many beneficial effects that a slightly warmer earth might bring; 3. She ignored evidence that, over the past decade, the earth has not actually warmed.
Typical of her alarmist rhetoric and facts-obscuring conclusions is a section of the release in which, to support her assertion that climate change will take a terrible toll on humanity, she lists "Examples" which "already provide us with images of the future." Thereafter, she describes five events, such as outbreaks of cholera and Hurricane Katrina.
However, after trotting out these familiar monsters, she then concedes, "These trends and events cannot be attributed solely to climate change," but only illustrate the kind of adverse impacts global warming might have. What a joke.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 7, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Wrong rights
Mary Woo Sims, my regular debating partner in the Tri-City News, is a former chair of the B.C. Human Rights Comm ission, so it should come as no surprise that her rhetoric often looks as if it has been put through a human-rights meat grinder.
This week's offering is no different. Concerns about an alleged, century-old "genocide" against aboriginial children at residential schools should be examined because citizens "have a right" to know the truth, she says. There certainly is something to be said for getting to the bottom of this question, but basing any probe on the dubious grounds of some sort of new "right" to know just doesn't cut it.
Here's my take on the issue.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 7, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
WS Radio: Warren Kinsella interview
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 Warren Kinsella, former Liberal "attack dog" and archnemesis of Conservatives (and conservatives) across Canada. Kinsella is the author of several books, including "Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics," and "The War Room." Until very recently, Kinsella was a columnist with the National Post.
While we will ask Kinsella about the split with the Post, our questions will mostly be about Kinsella's opposition to freedom of speech, and support for the human rights commissions that we here at the Western Standard have been busy arguing against. Kinsella does not support the complaints against the Western Standard for publishing the Muhammad cartoons, and neither does he support the complaints against Maclean's and Mark Steyn, but he does support the HRCs in principle, and in some cases. We'll push him on this issue.
Gerry Nicholls, one of the best political pundits in Canada, will, as always, join us at the top of the second hour to talk about Canadian politics from his cell phone on his way to the airport.
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 April 7, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Do not forget Zimbabwe (supplemented)
What with the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the bloodshed in Tibet, it's easy to ignore one of the poorest dictatorships in Africa. Here's why we shouldn't.
Meanwhile, rather than inflict another post on the readership, I thought I'd just add this morning's news post to this one.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 6, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Your Sunday distraction: Gravel does Beatles (and more)
Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel made news in the Democratic primaries and caucuses for saying just about anything (like, for instance, telling everyone that he's "afraid" of all of the Democratic candidates), and for producing a series of videos that made no sense at all. Here's the best of the senseless videos that made me laugh:
It looks like he plans on staying in the news for--someone explain this to me please--running for leader of the U.S. Libertarian Party. "Mike Gravel, libertarian" is a moniker I never expected to give him. I'm mostly confused about how Gravel thinks he fits with the Libertarian Party. Sure, he wants to end the war on drugs, he cares deeply about civil liberties, and he shares Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy. But when it comes to economic matters, he's as socialist as they get.
Here's his attempt at an explanation (it still doesn't help me to understand):
But never mind. Enjoy this bizarre cover of The Beatles' "Helter Skelter" featuring Gravel:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on April 6, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack