The Shotgun Blog
« April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008 |Main| April 27, 2008 - May 3, 2008 »
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Poll shows majority believe the criminal offence of polygamy trumps freedom of religion
An Angus Reid poll released today shows that a strong majority of Canadians would welcome legal action against the Bountiful, British Columbia polygamous community. The highest levels of support for prosecuting the community came from BC residents, women and older Canadians. Here are the key findings:
KEY FINDINGS
» 62% believe the residents of Bountiful should face prosecution because bigamy is a criminal offence in Canada
» 19% think the residents of Bountiful are free to practice their beliefs under the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
In a press release, Angus Reid explains that...
Earlier this month, British Columbia Attorney-General Wally Oppal said he'll decide "soon" what to do about the polygamous community of Bountiful. A report by special prosecutor Leonard Doust recommended referring the issue to the B.C. Court of Appeal, to decide whether Canada's laws restricting polygamy could endure a court challenge on the grounds of religious freedom.
Western Standard blogger Adam T. Yoshida has his own thoughts on this case. Read his post “How long before polygamy (formally) comes to Canada?” here.
UPDATE – April 27, 2008
You can also read Terry O’Neill’s article “Counting on polygamy” from the Western Standard archive. O'Neill asks the question “Will redefining marriage open the door to polygamy?” It looks like we’re getting closer to an answer.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 26, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBack
Poll shows 'in-and-out' scandal has hurt Tory credibility
A Toronto Star / Angus Reid poll released today shows “the ongoing dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party has had a negative effect on the current minority administration.”
58 percent of respondents think the so-called “in-and-out” scandal has damaged the credibility of the Conservative government. Here are the key findings:
KEY FINDINGS
» 58% think the dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party has damaged the credibility of the Conservative government
» 47% say the Conservative Party won the 2006 federal election in a fair manner
» Respondents are almost evenly split on whether political parties should be allowed to channel funds for advertising from the national campaign to local campaigns
» 52% believe the Conservative government should not resign over this matter
Readers can learn more about this story by reading posts by Western Standard blogger and post-partisan pundit Gerry Nicholls here and here -- and Western Standard blogger Steve Janke here and here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 26, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack
Is the bad international publicity reason enough to call off Canada's seal hunt?
Marni Soupcoff and Michael Coren debate this question in “Face-off: Sealing our fate.” Soupcoff says “yes” and Coren says “no.”
If the seal hunt ever does succumb to political and economic pressure, it won’t just be the sealers who lose. Jamie Tarrant reports for the Western Standard that the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) rakes in roughly US$16 million in annual donations from its anti-sealing campaigns.
In “Seal protest makes a killing,” Cyril Doll also reports for the Western Standard that Canada's $30-million per year seal industry is a great fundraising event for animal rights groups.
If that’s not enough seal hunt news, you can watch sealer Wayne Dickson on YouTube. Dickson pulls no punches as he blames Paul Watson and other anti-seal hunt activists for the deaths of four sealers in the "Tragedy of the L'Acadien II."
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 26, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack
Friday, April 25, 2008
Should the U.S. arm rebels in Zimbabwe?
James Kirchick, the guy at the New Republic who helped break open the story about the racist newsletters published in Ron Paul's name, had a column in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
The title of the column is simple and to the point: Arm Zimbabwe's Opposition. Kirchick points out that even after (probably) losing in recent elections, Robert Mugabe, the current president of Zimbabwe, seems unwilling to give up power. Not only is Mugabe trying to rig the election results, but he's also persecuting just about everyone who opposes him.
Kirchick cites a report by Human Rights Watch claiming that Mugabe has constructed "torture camps" for those who support the opposition. According to CNN, farmers are being attacked for not voting for Mugabe in the recent elections. In addition, Mugabe's agricultural reforms have plunged the country into famine.
The Chinese are trying to send weapons to Mugabe and have probably armed him before. At least two shipments of guns, RPGs, and other munitions from China -- the first in South Africa last week, and the second in Angola on Friday -- have been intercepted and will not make it into the hands of Mugabe and his band of thugs.
In his column, Kirchick is not proposing that the U.S. or anyone else invade Zimbabwe, but he does advocate arming the opposition. Is this the kind of thing a libertarian should condone? I try to answer the question myself below the fold.
Libertarians typically think most government expenditure is illegitimate because the government's revenue is taken from people by force. Roads, police, courts, and national defense are sometimes considered legitimate government projects, often because it is believed that these are goods the free market is not able to provide on its own. But, outside these exceptions, libertarians typically hold that there is no moral justification for other government projects and programs.
Thus, for these reasons among others, many libertarians will believe it would simply be illegitimate for the government to arm the opposition in Zimbabwe. I'm going to set that argument aside: not because I think it is a bad argument, but because it provides no specific reason to reject arming the opposition. I can think that everything the government does is bad, while maintaining that some of the things it could do would be worse than others.
Would arming the opposition be especially bad, bad in a way all the other illegitimate stuff the government does is not? Or, in contrast, would arming be the opposition be slightly more acceptable than expanding SCHIP, the state children's health insurance program? What are the relevant variables that make some of what the government does better than some of the other things it does -- even if none of those factors add up to a wholesale justification of the government's activities?
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal strikes again
According to its website, Kitchener-based Christian Horizons is "Ontario's largest provider of developmental services." The Kitchener-Waterloo Record reports that the evangelical non-profit required its employees to sign a contract promising they would not have homosexual relationships.
When she was first hired by Christian Horizons, Connie Heintz, now 39, signed the contract like all other employees. However, after five years of employment, Heintz discovered she was a lesbian. The Human Rights Tribunal claims that after Christian Horizons found this out, they "required" her to leave the organization. The Record states that she left voluntarily, after negative reactions from other employees and supervisors.
Heintz complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled just recently that Christian Horizons could not require its employees to sign the statement. According to the Tribunal, "the prohibition on homosexual relationships was not a legitimate job requirement for providing quality care and support to disabled residents."
From the Tribunal's press release:
In addition to awarding Ms. Heintz lost wages, general damages and damages for mental anguish, the decision sets out that Christian Horizons will: no longer require employees to sign a lifestyle and morality statement; develop anti-discrimination policies; provide training to all employees and managers; and review all of its employment policies to ensure that they are in compliance with the Code.
While on the surface this may appear to be another case in which the government is telling a private organization how to run its affairs, the Record claims that Christian Horizons receives $75 million annually from the province.
I suppose this is a question for libertarians, mainly: does the fact that an organization receives public funding give the government greater latitude in regulating that organization's hiring policies? And, if so, to what extent?
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (61) | TrackBack
Different takes on conservatism
Rebecca Walberg, who works as a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, has an excellent column in the Sun media chain today discussing some of the ideas I put forward in my manifesto, The Trudeau Empire Has Fallen and it Can't Get up.
Walberg compares the arguments I make as to how conservatives can win the war of ideas with the arguments put forward in two other works: David Frum's Comeback and Tom Flanagan's Harper's Team.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Status of Women versus Women
There's women's views, and then there's the Status of Women view. It bears repeating that these are not one and the same. If there's one agency that needs to be defunded pronto, it'd be them. I'd argue this by starting simple, with their name. "Status of Women" Whose status? Which women? And we could move on from there.
(cross-posted to ProWomanProLife)
Posted by Andrea Mrozek on April 25, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Action star Wesley Snipes will spend three years in jail for misdemeanour tax charges
Action movie star Wesley Snipes was sentenced today to three years in prison.
Federal prosecutors wanted to make an example of Snipes in looking for the maximum penalty for misdemeanour tax charges.
From 1999 to 2004, Snipes earned $38 million from playing staring roles in movies including the popular Blade series.
Snipes paid no taxes on this money. He claims he got tax advice that he didn’t have to pay. This advice came primarily from tax denier and protester Eddie Ray Kahn.
Kahn is part of the growing tax protest movement in the US that claims either that income tax is unconstitutional or that the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the power to tax, was never properly ratified. These claims have never held up in court.
A hero in this tax denier movement is the late Aaron Russo. Russo, who died last year, produced a documentary on the subject called America: Freedom to Fascism. He is also advisor emeritus to Jews for Ron Paul.
In the movie series Blade, Snipes plays the character Blade, a half-man, half-vampire superhero who hunts vampires to protect humankind. But it’s one thing to take on fictitious bloodsucking vampires; it’s quite another thing to take on the IRS.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 24, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Al & Mike Show Episode 22
We talk about the RCMP raid on Conservative Party HQ, Earth Day, and more on the Human Rights Commissions.
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 24, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I wonder if they will thank me?
I don't like to brag.
But I would be remiss if I didn't point out an interesting fact: I am doing a better job of defending Prime Minister Harper over this Elections Canada mess than is the Junior Kindergarten class now operating the Prime Minister's Office.
Let's face it, the PMO's pathetic attempts at damage control on this issue have only made things worse.
By contrast, I have been in the media on an almost daily basis: in the National Post, in the Globe and Mail, on Newsworld, on Newsnet, on Global TV and on the radio, hammering home the point that Elections Canada might be carrying out a vendetta to hurt Stephen Harper.
And now, thanks to my almost single-handed efforts, the press is beginning to pick up on this theme.
Oh and if you guys at the PMO are reading this, put down your crayons because I have some free advice for you.
Use this battle with Elections Canada to mobilize your base. Shoot out a letter/email to your supporters explaining how unelected, biased bureaucrats are unfairly using their power to undermine the Prime Minister just so they can settle an old score.
If you need help writing it, just let me know.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack
And you think Harper's gone soft?
I can understand how so many right-wing Canadians are miffed at the leftward drift of this government. We don't have that problem down here in the good ol' US of A - no worries about our President throwing in the towel to an outlaw regime that was caught just last year trying to help Bashar Assad become a nuclear power.
Oh, wait . . .
. . . never mind.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 24, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (94) | TrackBack
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Iraq - Like Every Other American War
The Wall Street Journal hits on a point that's been rattling around in my head for some time.
But like Lincoln in the Civil War and FDR in World War II, Mr. Bush eventually found the right men and the right strategy in Iraq.
Indeed, this is a recurring pattern in the wars of the English-speaking peoples. As Churchill (Peace Be Upon Him) himself once said:
The late M. Venizelos observed that in all her wars England -- he should have said Britain, of course -- always wins one battle -- the last.
The military establishments which exist in peacetime are ill-suited for war-fighting. They tend to promote bureaucrats and time-servers to the highest ranks. Indeed, the lack of absolute commitment to the war has, in this particular case, impeded the necessary house-cleaning in a number of departments and areas but, in the most critical - the forces in the field in Iraq - it seems to have occurred.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 23, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Penis panic in Congo
The Internet is abuzz about a wave of so-called penis panic in Congo.
From Reuters:
Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's penises after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft.
...
Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure.
...
"It's real. Just yesterday here, there was a man who was a victim. We saw. What was left was tiny," said 29-year-old Alain Kalala, who sells phone credits near a Kinshasa police station.
According to the article, the rumors started last week and were quickly spread on talk radio programs.
Call me culturally insensitive, I don't care: there's something kind of funny about the idea of sorcerers going around shrinking men's penises with their magic. But there's nothing funny about the lynchings and deaths that penis panics have caused in the past.
In one of his older colums, Mark Steyn wrote about the significance of penis panics that occurred in Sudan, back in 2003. In that case, evil foreign magicians were stealing the manhoods of Sudanese men just by shaking their hands.
As Steyn is wont to do, he uses the penis panic as a starting point for a broader analysis of world affairs. From the column:
Tales of the vanishing penises ran rampant round the city, spread by cell phones and text messages. Sudan's Attorney General Salah Abu Zayed declared that all complaints about the missing penises would be brought before a special investigative committee, though doctors had determined that the first plaintiff was "perfectly healthy."
...
It is, in that sense, the perfect emblematic tale of Islamic victimhood: The foreigners have made us impotent! It doesn't matter that the foreigners didn't do anything except shake hands. It doesn't matter whether you are, in fact, impotent. You feel impotent, just as — so we're told — millions of Muslims from Algerian Islamists to the Bali bombers feel "humiliated" by the Palestinian situation. Whether or not there is a rational basis for their sense of humiliation is irrelevant.
Steyn's column is surprisingly harsh (not unreasonably so.) But the overall thesis of the piece is still worth considering:
A handshake-fearing guy with a cell phone is one thing; what happens when the handshake-fearers have cell phones and a suitcase nuke? It's at the intersection of apparently indestructible ancient ignorance and cheap, widely available western technology that the dark imponderables of the future lie.
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Alberta budget shows Tories have lost conservative agenda
In its 2008 budget released yesterday, Alberta Finance Minister Iris Evans announced the government will eliminate health care premiums by 2009. Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), Scott Hennig, is applauding this decision:
"Undoubtedly, taxpayers will be pleased to see the hated health care premium eliminated ahead of schedule. The CTF has long campaigned for their elimination and it's certainly satisfying to know Albertans will be saving hundreds and thousands of dollars each year starting in 2009."
(Western Standard readers may recall the discussion with Hennig on this blog about heath care premiums titled “Are health care premiums a ‘good’ tax?”.)
The CTF was less impressed by the government’s spending announcements. Overall spending has increased by 12 percent from the last budget.
“This is now four budgets in a row where the Alberta government has had a double-digit increase in program spending," continued Hennig. "This rate of spending increase is simply not sustainable."
Part of the spending increase included $12 million in additional funding for arts and culture.
The province also committed $100 million to create the Alberta Free Enterprise Corporation. (After releasing a $37 billion annual budget, the largest in Alberta’s history, the Tories announce $100 million in government spending for a free enterprise-focused crown corporation? The Tories may have misplaced their conservative agenda, but not their sense of irony.)
The CTF points out that provincial revenues are growing by only 2 percent.
With this lacklustre budget, Stelmach is wasting his unexpected super-majority. Is anyone surprised?
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 23, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Good news from Argentina
According to the Cato Institute's blog, a federal court in Argentina just decriminalized the personal consumption of drugs. I can't read the original source article the blog links to, but this sounds like great news.
The court ruled that the punishment of drug users “creates an avalanche of cases targeting consumers without climbing up in the ladder of [drug] trafficking.” Indeed.
Meanwhile, in Venezuela, "Government-set prices have hardly risen since they were introduced in 2003, leading many producers, who are unable to operate at a profit, to close down plants and reduce production levels. This drop in production has led to shortages of many basic food products including milk, eggs, meat, chicken and wheat flour."
Here's a picture of where price controls on food inevitably lead:
Good job, Hugo!
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 23, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Wheat is the staff of life (and a nice place to poop)
The politics of high food prices have been discussed at length on the Western Standard blog.
In Emaciation Proclamation, I look at reports by former Western Standard writers Kevin Libin and Colby Cosh on the impact of biofuels on food prices.
In Pay Dirt, I look at what these high food prices will mean to agri-business. (Things have never looked better for farmers.)
In The Hunger Opportunity, Western Standard blogger Adam Yoshida writes about the global food crisis, and the opportunities it presents.
But despite our comprehensive coverage of global food shortages, we missed something -- kitty litter. If you’re troubled by what Fidel Castro calls the “sinister idea of turning foodstuffs into fuel,” you might be equally troubled by a product that turns food into kitty litter.
Swheat Scoop® cat litter is made from wheat, and is being promoted as an environmentally friendly product.
Environmentally friendly? Where have we heard that before?
Don't get me wrong. I haven't lost my trust in the free market. Swheat Scoop has every right to buy wheat for cat litter. I'll feel better, though, when high food prices realign our priorities when it comes to the uses of food. (Let's just hope global governments don't interfere with this market process.)
Until then, I'm going to teach my cat to use a composting toilet.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Is this Hillary Clinton's only shot?
The short answer is No.
The longer answer is here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 23, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"Just because Anders says it doesn't make it wrong"
Rob Breakenridge says what I've been thinking in the Calgary Herald. I continue to be amazed that the Liberal Party continues to push the "engagement" nonsense, thus ensuring Dippers and Blocquisites have enough reason to stay clear of any future "stop Harper" plans.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 23, 2008 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs, Media | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Let's face it, voters are clever
I have a column in the Sun Media chain today examining the election laws which are in the news so much thanks to the Stephen Harper -- Elections Canada vendetta.
My point is that these laws which essentially stifle free speech are bad for democracy and should be scrapped.
Crossposted at Making Sense with Nicholls
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Canadian woman 'devastated' by guilty verdict from Mexican judge
570 News is reporting that...
GUADALAJARA, Mexico - Brenda Martin, already distraught over her imprisonment in Mexico, was "devastated" Tuesday when a judge found her guilty of involvement in a scam operated by her former boss, and immediately began making arrangements to be taken to Canada, her lawyer said.
Despite the conviction, everyone from Liberal MP Dan McTeague to Federal cabinet minister Jason Kenney want to see her retuned to Canada and released as quickly as possible.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 22, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (50) | TrackBack
Who Was that Medal of Honor Winner?
In her speech, Senator Clinton mentioned a Medal of Honor winner’s daughter who gave her a picture of her father accepting the Medal from President Truman, with the winner’s words – in shaky handwriting – encouraging her to go on.
So, that begs the question: who was it?
There are only thirty living winners of the Medal of Honor from World War Two. Some of them are out:
1) Vernon Baker – Didn’t actually receive the Medal until 1997, from President Clinton.
2) Van Barfoot – Received the Medal in the field in 1944.
3) Walter D. Ehlers – Received Medal in 1944.
4) John William Finn – Received the Medal from FDR.
5) Barney F. Hajiro – Received Medal from President Clinton.
6) Daniel Inouye – Democratic U.S. Senator.
7) Alton W. Knappenberger – Received Medal in 1944.
8) Robert D. Maxwell – Awarded medal during Roosevelt Administration.
9) Everett P. Pope – Received Medal from FDR.
10) George T. Sakato – Received Medal from President Clinton in 2000.
11) James E. Swett – Received Medal from FDR.
That leaves nineteen possible contenders:
1) Melvin Biddle – Received the Medal in October of 1945.
2) Mike Colalillo – Received the Medal in early 1946.
3) Charles H. Coolidge – Received the Medal in July of 1945.
4) Francis S. Currey – Received the Medal in August of 1945
5) Michael J. Daly – Received the Medal in September 1945.
6) Russell E. Dunham – Received Medal in 1945.
7) Nathan Green Gordon – Date of Medal unknown (former Lt. Gov. of Arkansas).
8) John D. Hawk – Received Medal in 1945.
9) Arthur J. Jackson – Received Medal in 1945.
10) Jacklyn H. Lucas – Received Medal in 1945.
11) Vernon McGarity – Received Medal in 1946.
12) Charles P. Murray, Jr. – Received Medal in 1945.
13) Robert B. Nett – Received Medal in 1946.
14) Nicholas Oresko – Received Medal in 1945.
15) Wilburn K. Ross – Received Medal in 1945
16) Alejandro R. Ruiz – Received Medal in 1946.
17) George Edward Wahlen –Received Medal in 1945.
18) Paul J. Wiedorfer – Received Medal in 1945.
19) Hershel W. Williams – Received Medal in 1945.
Perhaps someone better placed than I might ask the Clinton campaign which of those men it was? I wonder because she didn’t mention a name. If I was going to guess, the former Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas is the most obvious choice. But, still, it immediately struck me that she didn’t name whoever it was.
UPDATE: Her exact words:
Not long ago a woman handed me a photograph of her father as a young soldier. He was receiving the Medal of Honor from President Truman at the White House. During World War II, he had risked his life on a daring mission to drive back the enemy and protect his fellow soldiers. In the corner of that photo, in shaky handwriting, this American hero had simply written: "To Hillary Clinton, keep fighting for us." And that is what I'm going to do because America is worth fighting for. You are worth fighting for.
Interesting. Reading it closely, I suppose that might well rule out some of the people I listed - I'm going to look into that. Basically, as I see it, her description would rule out anyone not on the ground.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 22, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
Will Pennsylvania Be the End? (Hillary Wins - But By How Much?)
I'm going to be sporadically liveblogging the results from Pennsylvania. You can follow them with me here.
Fox has some execrable thing on about how "Millennial" voters are strongly for Obama. This is a phenomenon that is easily explained - being a member of that generation myself: Millennials are, on average, astoundingly stupid and have spent an average of twenty years being indoctrinated in the Soviet-style factory of ideological conformity known as the "public education system."
Of course they love Obama - he represents everything that they've been raised to admire - cowardice, effeminacy, and treason. No wonder I hate the man so. I've spent so many years struggling against this movement that would destroy our civilization. He - and his supporters - represent everything that is evil and wrong with the world. If given the chance to wield power, they would destroy us through their moral weakness.
They are not Barbarians come to destroy - far from it. They are the sons and daughters of luxury who will moan with idle pleasure as the barbarians ride up and over the seventh hill.
Continued below, until I get bored and decide to watch "Boston Legal."
The polls are closed. Fox says too close to call. I think that Hillary wins by six or seven points - but not enough. Not nearly enough.
There are two factors here. First of all, I don't think that Ayers and Bittergate are particularly large factors here with Obama - for leftist Democrats (Obama's base) being associated with terrorists and despising God are a plus.
As well, I'd say that the Democrats must be eager to get this thing over with.
UPDATE: Still no results. Once again, they're reporting that the exit polls and the actual vote totals for Obama don't synch up. The Wilder effect in action, one supposes. It's interesting in this context, as others have mentioned, that McCain consistently does better in the Rasmussen robo-poll than in human-based polls.
UPDATEX2: Fox calls it for Hillary. But, by how much?
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on April 22, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Cool heads over hot air
Just in time for Earth Day, more than 76,000 people have now signed an online petition opposing climate alarmism.
And, oh yes, there was frost in Greater Vancouver this morning.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 22, 2008 in Science | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack
Another Communist killer export
Remember the Communist export scare? Well, it's back, and then some; blood thinner exported from Communist China caused "hundreds of serious adverse reactions and scores of deaths among patients."
UPDATE: I explore this a little further here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 22, 2008 in International Affairs, Trade | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Monday, April 21, 2008
The War on Fun (and ornamental balls)
The balls on this guy!
Maryland Del. LeRoy E. Myers Jr. has a bill before the General Assembly to ban the oversized plastic testicles that truckers dangle from the trailer hitches of their pickups.
This a fairly common sight in Alberta.
So what’s next? A ban on gun racks...empty gun racks?
This sounds like another volley in the war on fun, which brings me to our special Western Standard offer. Every donation over $20 made this week to the Western Standard will come with a free copy of Ezra Levant's book The War on Fun.
Thanks in advance for your support.
H/T to Reason magazine
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Today on Political Animals
It's that time again. Today Political Animals will talk about (in no particular order):
- Hugo Chavez stealing the sugar
- Barack Obama's chances in PA.
- A Yale art project in which the student repeatedly induced abortions in herself and then filmed the results (ick.)
- The Pope's visit to the United States
- An "anti-feminist bake sale" that took place here in Bowling Green just last week
- An Ohio teacher who got into trouble for keeping a Bible on his desk, and
- Lots and lots of other stuff.
Tune in at 4 pm Eastern time for Political Animals. Live Internet feed for audio is here.
Please call us at 1-888-7WBGUFM to chat and suggest other topics for discussion. Hope to hear from you soon!
Best,
The Political Animals
Posted by Western Standard on April 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Harper's Red Populist Nationalist Alliance
I have a column published in the "Web Exclusive" comment section of the Globe and Mail today.
In it, I explain how and why Prime Minister Stephen Harper is trying to create a new political coalition, a coalition I like to call the Red Populist Nationalist Alliance.
It's an alliance that has room for everybody, everybody that is except for free market conservatives.
Crossposted at Making Sense with Nicholls
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Am I the only person . . .
. . . who thinks David Miller is ridiculous?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 21, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Dissenters from the drug war: a 420 tribute
Today is April 20th (at least it is for another 7 minutes); it’s the annual international day of protest against marijuana prohibition.
Marijuana legalization rallies and smoke-ins were organized across the globe today to mark this occasion. But since placards, protests and pot are not normally part of my weekend, I thought I would show my personal solidarity by sharing this Western Standard exclusive by Pierre Lemieux.
In "Dissenters from the drug war,” Lemieux writes...
Journalist H.L. Mencken characterized Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Whether some drugs help or hinder happiness should be for each individual to decide for himself. Nineteenth-century economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Who are the statocrats to decide that alcohol, tobacco, this or that drug, sex, or whatever, is good or bad for me, and to arrest me if I don't agree?
Read the entire article here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Sunday, April 20, 2008
RCMP raid targeted alleged Tory campaign spending scheme
Tomorrow’s (Monday's) Globe and Mail is reporting that...
The RCMP raid on Conservative headquarters last week was initiated to obtain information related to an alleged scheme to exceed spending limits during the 2006 federal election, documents released yesterday [Sunday] confirm....
“Funds were transferred into and out of each of the bank accounts of the 67 campaigns identified as having participated in the alleged scheme, entirely under the control of and at the direction of officials of the Conservative Fund Canada and/or Conservative Party of Canada,” CTV reported, quoting Mr. Lamothe's affidavit....
[Ronald Lamothe is the assistant chief investigator of the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.]
Essentially, Mr. Lamothe said, the party was trying to get around the election spending limit of $18,278,278.64 by getting local candidates to pay for national ads – and then asking Elections Canada to reimburse the candidates for those costs.
CTV is also reporting that Conservative Party officials spoke privately Sunday night to a select group of reporters saying “the party did nothing wrong and that they had followed all regulations in election spending” and that “other parties had acted in a similar way during federal elections.”
The only good that can come out of this mess is perhaps a broad realization that campaign finance laws unjustly restrict free political speech and have the real potential to create a whole new class of "paper criminals," to borrow a phrase from Pierre Lemieux.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (129) | TrackBack
Commies at the United Nations
As a follow up to my previous post on the glorious socialist revolution of Hugo Chavez, here is "Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food."
In an interview with an Austrian newspaper, Ziegler blamed the West for mass starvation in poor countries.
In particular, Ziegler implicated biofuels, European export subsidies, and commodity speculation as factors contributing to the continual starvation of people around the world.
In the past, I've criticized the subsidization of ethanol in the United States. There's certainly a case to be made that by propping up the ethanol industry and subsidizing agriculture, western nations have worsened the situation of people in poorer countries. I kind of wish Ziegler had stuck to criticizing these policies, but it seems that he just had to get his left-wing groove on.
Ziegler said he was bound to highlight the "madness" of people who think that hunger is down to fate.
"Hunger has not been down to fate for a long time -- just as (Karl) Marx thought. It is rather that a murder is behind every victim. This is silent mass murder," he said in an interview.
Ziegler blamed globalization for "monopolizing the riches of the earth" and said multinationals were responsible for a type of "structural violence".
"And we have a herd of market traders, speculators and financial bandits who have turned wild and constructed a world of inequality and horror. We have to put a stop to this," he said.
So, according to Ziegler, global capitalism actually represents the intentional mass murder of poor people through starvation and a world of "inequality and horror." Just as Marx thought, I guess.
Does Ziegler know that the worst cases of genocide-through-intentional-starvation in the 20th century were the work of Marxists, like that perpetuated against the Ukrainians? And that Engels himself endorsed the elimination of the "Slav barbarians" and other "reactionary peoples" from the face of the earth?
Structural violence, indeed.
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
The Singing Revolution: How Estonia got her groove back
In a package that arrived this weekend from the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), I learned about the newish documentary The Singing Revolution. The ISIL newsletter calls it “the amazing story about how the Estonians sang their way to freedom.”
I visited the film’s website and read that...
Most people don’t think about singing when they think about revolutions. But song was the weapon of choice when, between 1987 and 1991, Estonians sought to free themselves from decades of Soviet occupation. During those years, hundreds of thousands gathered in public to sing forbidden patriotic songs and to rally for independence.
You can learn more about the history of Estonia’s struggle for freedom here.
Reason magazine interviewed James Tusty, the co-producer and co-director of the film, about “the need for historical awareness when talking about freedom and liberty.”
This story of struggle in Estonia has had a happy ending, at least so far. Reason reports that “Upon its freedom in 1991 and under the direction of libertarian Prime Minister Mart Laar, Estonia rapidly became one of the most economically and politically free countries in the world.”
Since its independence, the political culture in Estonia has shown a strong and resilent libertarian streak.
Here’s a photo of Andrus Ansip, the current Prime Minister, holding a copy of Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises, the founder of the Austrian school of free market economics.
Since the film isn’t showing at a theatre near me, I would invite Western Standard readers who have seen the film to send us their thoughts.
The Western Standard’s original film reviewer, Neil McLennan, is now associate editor with Western Living magazine -- but he left us with his reviews of politically significant films including The Passion of the Christ and Team America.
Happy reading, and happy viewing.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack