The Shotgun Blog
« January 20, 2008 - January 26, 2008 |Main| February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008 »
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee still entertains
Amidst the McCain-Romney hoopla (and the Paulites), it's worth noting that there is one other candidate in the race - Mike Huckabee . . .
. . . who just managed to remind the rest of us why we don't want him anywhere near Washington:
When asked why folks such as Sean Hannity are supporting Romney, Huckabee - using the “some folks are saying” method of putting forth an accusation - claimed Bain Capital (the firm Romney ran in his private sector days) was pushing Sean because of its ownership of Clear Channel (Video here - Fox News via Mark Levin, who effortlessly debunks this nonsense on the Corner).
Before he donned the tin-foil hat, Huckabee was considered a possible Vice Presidential pick. I can only hope this nonsense will pop that trial ballono.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 2, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sounds like...
My fellow Report magazine alumni, and Report readers who might have heard Ted Byfield talking on radio or television, might be amused when watching The Pink Panther (the original movie made in the early 1960s) on DVD.
I was playing the director commentary for the movie and I thought to myself, "Gosh, Blake Edwards' voice reminds me of Ted Byfield's voice."
See if you agree. :)
Posted by Rick Hiebert on February 2, 2008 in Humour | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Gipper, Canada, and our man McCain
I feel bad for the Gipper. Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest leaders in the history of the United States. He made the world a better place by taking on the Soviets. He made both his country and Canada better places with his support for free trade and a better continental friendship. That's why it's sad to see Mitt try to claim Ronald Reagan's mantle while attacking John McCain. A tax and spend governor has no business doing that.
D. J. McGuire has already shown us that McCain's fiscal conservative credentials are pretty strong, and there are only so many times his opponents can parrot the one-liner on the Bush tax cuts before it becomes painfully obvious how much they're omitting.
Somewhere along the way-- probably after Newt rolled up his contract and retired, leaving just political youngsters in the sandbox-- too many republicans became fixated on side issues. Since when did immigration trump spending control as a priority ballot issue? Imagine the lunacy of a conservative refusing to vote Tory in Canada because they disagreed with the Prime Minister over Compact Flourescent Bulbs. A republican might be understandably miffed that McCain isn't lockstep with him on every issue, but why elect a guy who's even more offside on big stuff as a response? Spite?
I see some GOP guys who are pissed and and some who are scared. They're pissed about McCain's bipartisan work and they're probably scared at the thought of his proposed limits on spending and his fight against earmarks. Too many of these guys are shamefully addicted to earmark pork.
There has been no attempt to meet, match or exceed McCain's anti-spending campaign by any GOP contender (note I said "contender," Ron. . .). Clearly they haven't got the grapes to attack the deficit or the big spending federal government that has served too many buddies in recent years.
Meanwhile Canadians get an earful of the Democratic race, as if it was the main show. I guess they're learning that folks like it when you use the word "hope" instead of punctuation in a speech. That's about it.
Most Canadians probably assume that it's in their interest to see a president Obama or a president Clinton again. It's an almost glandular reaction. It's also wrong.
Let me help connect the dots. Canadians should know that McCain is the closest thing you have to "your guy" in the 2008 US Presidential race:
The US needs to get its fiscal house in order, as much for the sake of the world's economy as anything else; McCain is rated as a "taxpayer hero" by the waste-fighting watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste.
Canada needs a less protectionist US to avoid more protectionist gong shows like those we saw with softwood, beef, and other needless trade tiffs. The free trade experts at the CATO institute give McCain a top notch rating. (OK, he's no Jeff Flake, but we can always talk Flake '12 or '16).
The Manley report just pointed out that Canada needs help from allies in the fight against the Taliban; McCain's approach on Iraq and the war on terror shows he's not afraid of sending in the guys and gear needed to get the job done.
You follow? I may not agree with all of his policies, but I can think of worse things than having McCain in the White House for the next few years.
Posted by Liam O'Brien on February 2, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Friday, February 01, 2008
Speaking of Reform
As I was setting off yet another argument about the Reform Party, its legacy was burnished again, in the most unlikeliest of people: Liberal MP Keith Martin (Small Dead Animals):
M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.
As I have since learned, this is the section that regulates "hate speech." it takes a brave MP to propose this, and an especially brave Grit.
But should we be surprised? Not necessarily. I've been following politics in Canada long enough to remember when Martin was a Reform MP (from his election in 1993 until the party became the Canadian Alliance; in fact, he stayed with the CA until it was merged with the PC Party). Remarkably, even within the federal Liberal caucus, you can tell the Reform alumnus apart from the rest.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 1, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Jason Cherniak: Trudeau Gave Us Our Rights (And Be Careful How You Use Them)
According to 28-year old Canadian blogger, lawyer, and Central Region President for the Liberal Party Jason Cherniak, our freedom of expression came from the hand of Pierre Trudeau. And like Liberal censor Warren Kinsella, he's okay with you using that right as long as you don't make other people feel bad.
Here is the post in which Cherniak lays out his argument, such as it is:
"In the case of hate speech, a person might claim that all Muslims believe in terrorism...The person might claim that this is an inherent problem with the Muslim religion and that all Muslims should be discounted when they argue otherwise. Ultimately, that person would be attempting to remove the right of Muslims to be Muslim. That person would be using free expression to remove the right to freedom of religion."
The claim that all Muslims believe in terrorism is obviously false. But does making the claim "remove" another person's right to freedom of religion? What does that even mean? Consider these three potential scenarios in which someone says "All Muslims believe in terrorism and their rights should be taken away":
- No one believes the person making the statement. He keeps making it anyway, and we all have a good laugh at his expense.
- A few people -- even a hundred -- come to believe the statement and say it along with him. They set up a web page to propagate their message. A few Muslims see the page and it makes them uncomfortable. (Richard Warman sees the page and starts thinking about his bank account.)
- Lots of people come to believe the statement. Even a majority. Canadian Muslims become understandably very uncomfortable.
It is only in this last case that one might even begin to say that Muslims are having greater difficulty practicing their religion than they otherwise might if no one had ever made the offending statement. But exercising rights will always be more costly for some people than for others. No power on earth, not even the Canadian human rights tribunal, can equalize those costs.
Here's an example. Everyone knows Mitt Romney is a Mormon. A while back, Mike Huckabee observed (erroneously, many have said) that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. I'm sure some non-Mormon Christians heard that comment and it changed their view of a Mormon friend just slightly. From what I know, a lot of Christians have a negative attitude toward Mormonism anyway. All of this raises the cost of being a Mormon.
Don't even get me started on the cost of being an atheist. But since those costs stem from the attitudes and perceptions of others, they won't be changed by the rulings of a human rights tribunal. If anything, government interference could cause scenario #3 as reliably as simply letting the guy spout off repeatedly would.
In fact, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence points out, neither Pierre Trudeau nor the rhetoric of bigots can give us rights or take them away. Our rights are inalienable. While exercising those rights can be costly, the cost is not -- in itself -- an infringement of them. Muslims would not be prevented from practicing their religion, not even in scenario #3.
Consider scenario #4, if you'd like, in which a hateful mob beats up an innocent Muslim, and someone's rights really do get violated. This seems to be the scenario that keeps Jason Cherniak awake at night. But we already have laws against beating people up. And they're enforced by the police and the courts, not by the pseudo-courts of Richard Warman, Dean Steacy, and divorce lawyer Lori Andreachuk.
Cherniak rejects Keith Martin's attempt to abolish Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. "Every once in a while, people are wrongly accused of crimes," he says. "Do we argue that the law against murder should be removed because Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard and Donald Marshall Jr. were wrongly convicted?"
Well, no. But that's because we (what are we being called now, the "free-speechers"?) think that arbitrarily killing someone is, um, actually wrong. We don't think saying nasty things about people is wrong. That's why we reject Section 13. We don't think the inquisition of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Maclean's is a case of a good law being used in a bad way. We reject Section 13 wholeheartedly. We think there is no way in which Section 13 could be enforced that would be just -- no way that would protect rights, instead of violating them.
That's why we think Section 13 ought to be committed to the flames. Because it is unjust, not just in practice, but also in principle.
As for Cherniak, he's proof that John Locke and J.S. Mill should be required reading in Canadian law schools. And throw in the Declaration of Independence too, just to be sure.
Update: Sometimes you don't even have to read the entire post. BigCityLib entitled his post on Keith Martin's bill, "Liberal MP Moves To Ensure Nazi Rights!" Here's a keepsake quotation: "Will the LPC become the party of the Mark LeMire's and Ernst Zundel's of this country?" I did read the post, though, I'm kind of a masochist that way. Plus, it was short.
All this and more via Mark Steyn's blog.
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 1, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
European allies can't be trusted?!?
Germany rejects US troops surge appeal and it doesn't sound good for Canada and the English speaking countries that are doing the most of the heavy-lifting in Afghanistan:
"Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued both the US and the UK with an ultimatum - that Canada will end its military mission in the dangerous south of Afghanistan unless other NATO countries send more reinforcements."
Unfortunately, many western European countries such as Germany can not be trusted when the security and freedom of the western world is at stake. And I wondered what if Germany had requested for assistance? Canada, US and UK would have rushed to their assistance quickly but when it comes to us asking them for a helping hand they simply refuse it. These so-called "allies" can not be trusted at all.
Posted by Winston on February 1, 2008 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
McCain: Surprisingly Liberal
I've been listening to a lot of talk radio here in Ohio of late. Rush, Levin, Hannity, Beck, and others. There appears to be a growing consensus against John McCain. Now, Newsmax and others have put together a pretty devastating ad against McCain, which will air on Fox News some time soon. Take a look:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 1, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
The Friday Cartoon
This week, J.J. McCullough brings you a special double feature.
In Game Over, Rudy, McCullough skewers Giuliani and in Heir to the Throne, he takes on the Democratic front-runners.
Posted by Western Standard on February 1, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A question for the Canadian readers up there
With four days left until Super Tuesday, both parties appear headed for titanic battles in their primaries, with neither being settled. While the big news today is from the Democrats, my question for the Canadian readership is largely inspired by the Republicans.
The probable (but not definite) nomination of John McCain for President has many on the GOP right up in arms. I've never seen anything like this in my life. To give you folks up there an idea, Ann Coulter told the world yesterday she'd vote for Hillary Clinton over McCain.
In 2000, Pat Buchanan tried the 3rd party route and took a smidgeon of the vote; 3rd party talk surrounds Ron Paul like moons spin around planets these days. I had always dismissed such talk - until now.
I'll say up front, I'm a McCain guy, so the whole notion that McCain is an unacceptable nominee is foreign to me, but all the anger, upset, and split-off talk had me thinking about the history of the Reform Party up there.
So I'm curious: what do Canadian right-wingers think about the Reform Party? Was it a noble failure? A necessary and successful movement that forced the squishes to notice the "base"? How much can it take credit for bringing Stephen Harper to power? Was it worth the Chretien years? Would they have occurred (i.e., the Liberal victories) even against a united center-right party anyway?
I ask because, in the past, the American right never had a historical example from which to draw lessons when this subject has come up. This time, there is a twenty-year case study (which I would call still ongoing even post-merger) right next door.
So . . . what do you think?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 1, 2008 in Canadian Politics, International Politics | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
McCain derangement syndrome?
Quick question to all of you folks up there. I know the analogy is far from perfect, but was there this much resistance to Stephen Harper's 2002 leadership campaign against Stockwell Day?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 1, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Klaus the iconoclast
You've gotta love Vaclav Klaus. The conservative Czech economist-turned-politician is running for a second five-year term as president in an election that takes place next week, and he hasn't retreated an inch from his long campaign against global-warming/climate-change alarmism. Here's the latest news.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 1, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
New Group Supports Afghanistan Mission
The Committee believes Canadian troops must stay in Afghanistan and that Canada must remain dedicated to that country's reconstruction and to preventing the Taliban from coming to power.
Supporters of this new association include New Democrats and Conservatives, Muslims and Jews, Christians and atheists, gay rights activists and feminists.
Any association that can unite such a diverse crowd must have something going for it.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on February 1, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Ezra Levant on CTV
Posted by Western Standard on February 1, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Mark Levin gets too dizzy spinning for Romney (Part II)
Having spent quite a bit of verbiage correcting Levin’s errors on the McCain-Romney-Iraq argument, I’ll use this post to set McCain’s overall record straight.
This is how Levin describes it in NR:
Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
I’ll start by answering Levin’s question at the end: No, you shouldn’t overlook at candidate’s record. Thus, Levin should not have overlooked McCain’s support for requiring a 2/3 Senate majority for any spending increases (vote), his opposition to the bloated, ever-expanding Medicare Part D (both votes), his support for a permanent end to the death tax (vote), his support for a ban on lawsuits against gun makers (vote), his vote to cap government spending at 2006 levels (vote), his opposition to habeas corpus for enemy combatants (vote), and his support for increased funding for the Border Patrol (yes, you read that last one right - not only did he vote for it, he sponsored it).
For the rest, including a more detailed look at Mitt Romney's record, look here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 1, 2008 in International Politics, Media | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Mark Levin gets too dizzy spinning for Romney (Part I)
It really hurts for me to write this. I’ve liked Mark Levin from the moment he went on the air, for he is just about the only talk radio host who notices the danger from Communist China. However, I have to respond to the erroneous (and I’m being generous) attack Levin launched against John McCain in his spin-laden endorsement of Mitt Romney in National Review.
I’ll start with the worst one - Levin’s insistence that McCain “lied” about what Romney said on Iraq back in April. Here’s Levin’s paragraph on the subject:
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Out of the eight sentences written there, seven are incorrect.
If you want the details, look here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 31, 2008 in International Politics, Media | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
The cost of abortion
John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, looks into the surprising costs to taxpayers of abortion in "a not-so-private matter of abortion."
Posted by Western Standard on January 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
None of the Above?
That's the question the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies is asking on its online poll.
So far, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are neck and neck.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on January 31, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (81) | TrackBack
Politics 101: Keep Your Base Happy
It was good politics, I argued, because "law and order" issues play well to Harper's base. I remember the reporter who interviewed me was skeptical about this because, after all, Canada is such a liberal country.
Well lo and behold a recent poll shows that 53 percent of Canadians support the government's position on this.
What's more, support for revoking clemency is highest in British Columbia (61 per cent) and Alberta (58 per cent) which just happen to be the two provinces where a large chunk of the Conservative base resides.
So maybe the lesson from all this is that Harper should play to his base a little more.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on January 31, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Feeding the blog machine
What I find especially interesting in this Washington Post story, about concerns over the conservative bona fides of John McCain, is the matter-of-fact, fourth-paragraph reference to McCain's having conducted a conference call with bloggers.
A politician treating bloggers like real journalists. What's the world coming to?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 31, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New at the Standard
Ori Rubin gives us the first feature installment of a special three-part series on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions entitled "The HRC on Trial."
Posted by Western Standard on January 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
My debate observations
Basically, it settled to three questions:
1) How many Americans realize "timetables" was indeed the buzzword for withdrawal when Romney used it back in April?
2) How is it that no one took the time to crticize Arnold Schwarzenegger's idiotic "global warming" plans?
3) Will anyone really remember this amidst McCain's parade of endorsements and tomorrow's Dem debate?
Unless the answers are (1) few, (2) no one cares, and (3) yes, I don't see anything stopping McCain from winning the GOP nomination. The again, I would say that.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 30, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Apotheosis of Ronald Reagan
Listening to the Republican debate, I can't help but think that the Reagan worship has gotten wildly out of control. I mean, really, folks - he was a great man and one of the greatest Presidents but, the way that people are talking about him these days, I'm starting to think that we should forget about building a Reagan Memorial in Washington and instead just get it over with and build a temple to worship the man.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 30, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
Commercial interruption...
The Western Standard hosts regular seminars about investment opportunities presented by our advertising partners.
Farmland
Here’s one on investing in farmland being presented by Amcapita Investments. I think you’ll enjoy their presentation in Calgary and their research report on the macro-economic trends driving the agriculture boom. Amcapita Investments has created Canada’s first RRSP-eligible farmland investment partner – and they are big supporters of the Western Standard.
Mining
If you live in Northern Alberta, you may want to attend the North of 60 Resource Conference. With gold reaching new highs everyday, many investors have turned their attention to mining stocks. The Western Standard is a proud sponsor of the North of 60 Resource Conference each year. Canada’s North is becoming a resource hotspot with many exciting projects and investment opportunities in the junior mining sector. Don’t miss this resource show in Edmonton on February 12th. Here are the details.
The Western Standard events page will be up shortly and I'll post this information there in the future.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Matthew Johnston
Western Standard
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Promising trend
What do you call the firing of five senior government bureaucrats?
A good start.
OK. I’m not funny.
I got this list from a Liberal party email:
• Linda Keen, President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, fired in the “dark of night” for embarrassing the government by exercising her mandate to enforce nuclear safety regulations.
• Adrian Measner, President and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board, fired for his decision to follow the direction of the CWB’s farmer-elected Board of Directors.
• Johanne Gélinas, Environment Commissioner, fired after publicly commenting to the media about her not receiving sufficient information from the government about its "Made in Canada" environmental plan.
• Yves Le Bouthillier, President of the Law Commission of Canada, fired after all federal government funding for the Commission was eliminated.
• Allan Amey, President of the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, created to oversee federal compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, fired in 2006 and the agency dismantled.
They took a more cynical view of this “dangerous trend” than I did.
Let's hope the job vacancies go unfilled for a while. Capitalism might just break out.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Are health care premiums a “good” tax?
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) will be delivering 2,000 more petitions to Premier Ed Stelmach tomorrow calling on the Alberta government to eliminate health care premiums. This brings their petition count to 11,000 names.
According to the CTF, Alberta's health care premiums cost the average family $1,056 per year and bring in $979-million in tax revenues. The 64,000 member strong, tax-fighting advocacy group thinks the Alberta government doesn’t need any more money and that eliminating health care premiums will help average families in need of tax relief.
It’s a nice thought, but I’m not sure scrapping health care premiums is a good idea. Health care isn’t free – and health care premiums are a good reminder of this. In fact, maybe these premiums should go up to reflect the rising cost of health care.
Instead of scrapping health care premiums, why not scrap public health care and invite Albertans to direct those same premiums toward private insurance? If that’s too radical a proposal, just cut general revenue and leave this user fee in place until Albertans are ready for a real free market solution.
Tell me why I’m wrong, Scott.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Love thy neighbour! And that's an order!!
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has called for the outlawing, essentially, of heated debate:
"The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting," he said to the Times.
I guess this would mean that rabble-rousing iconoclasts, preaching revolutionary theological concepts that scandalize the establishment, would be breaking the law. Or does the archbishop have a loophole in mind that would allow a modern-day Jesus to escape the net of his censorious law?
(h/t Mark Steyn)
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 30, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
The caffeinated tax code
An exclusive Western Standard article by Seyitbek Usmanov:
"Forget the free lunch--employees can't even have free coffee without noting it on their income taxes."
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Big city? Big government
An exclusive Western Standard article by Terrence Watson:
"As the Conservative Party is learning, buying votes by lavishly doling out grants is not as easy as it used to be."
Posted by Matthew Johnston on January 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
For once, the alternative media gets it wrong
I'm guessing that nearly every American source of news trusted by the Canadian readership (NR, Fox News, talk radio, most bloggers, etc.), will insist that McCain sandbagged Romney by claiming he (Romney) once supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
FWIW (and that may not be much to you folks up there), the usually exceptional right-wing media missed this one:
When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”
For why this quote is so damaging (and why McCain is right to point it out) read on.
Full disclosure: I've been a McCain supporter since Sunday.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 30, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
A Sensible Shade of Red
Alexander Cockburn might, under ordinary circumstances, be the sort of crypto-communist who I'd like to have exiled to an Alaskan work-camp but even a stopped clock can be right once a day.
Cockburn joins the long list of people who've said perfectly sensible things about the hysteria over Climate Change and resultantly been subjected to a level of abuse ordinarily encountered only by someone wearing a yarmulke in Mecca.
Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy Indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; BA hands it on to some non-profit carbon-offsetting company which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch. This kind of behaviour is demented.
Of course, other people have said this all the time - but it's refreshing to hear an out-and-out red say it. At least the whole world hasn't gone crazy.
Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted.
Indeed, if he could step back a step further, he might observe that this sort of derangement is a central part of the modern left. Indeed, that the basic character of a good portion of his side is totalitarian at heart.
Just for the record - and in the interest of averting comments about my first comment in relation to my remarks about the left, my opening remark was a joke. Cockburn's niece is way to hot for me to wish him any specific harm.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 30, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Liberal Fascism Finally Arrives in Canada
Chapters-Indigo's site is down at the moment, but - as of a few hours ago - Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism, has finally hit Canadian shelves. There were five copies listed as in-stock at the Coles store at Lougheed Mall in Coquitlam, BC. I'm guessing that stock at the rest will arrive and be set up tomorrow or the day after, since books tend to arrive company-wide when ordered.
Perhaps someone might ask our nation's monopoly bookseller why it took the better part of a month for them to get a New York Times-bestselling book onto their shelves. They don't seem to have any trouble stocking the other side's books. But, as I recall, they did have some difficulties with Mark Steyn's last opus. For that matter, they had their issues with the print version of this magazine.
Now, I'm a long-time Chapters customer (well, I'd pretty much have to be, wouldn't I?) - but I don't think that it can be denied that there's always a certian liberal bias in which books they stock, which they discount, and which they display. As a private business, of course, that's their right. However, one has to wonder if such behaviour is appropriate for a company which holds an effective monopoly on book retailing in this country (at least, a bookstore monopoly). I'm not free to just go to the local Barnes and Noble, after all (though, it should be said, that the Barnes and Noble in Bellingham didn't have it in stock last night either - said they were sold out - and that the girl at the counter gave me a real look when I asked after it).
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 30, 2008 in Books | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Made in China: It Might be Expensive, But it's Still Junk
One of the downsides of made-in-China stuff is that, while it might be cheap, it's still junk. It's just that, ten years ago, in general you only got junk if you were buying the same.
In the past week, I've had the following items die on me:
a) My iPhone headset.
b) An adapter plug to use a conventional headset with my iPhone.
c) A Logitech wireless mouse.
d) A wireless router.
None of these items were cheap off-brand knock-offs. They were all either relatively high-end products or accessories. None of them was much more than a year old (the router, I believe, was the oldest item at thirteen months).
(Continued after the break, if you want to learn a lot more about my present and future electronics)
The interesting thing is that, for the most part, I replaced these with more or less identical items. Indeed - I drove literally minutes ahead of the snowstorm which blanketed the Lower Mainland in order to replace my iPhone headset at the AT&T store in Bellingham, WA (yes, I realize that this is probably further evidence that I'm deranged, but I'm cool with that). The mouse, I bought another Logitech mouse - but actually went up to one of their VX Revolution models.
But, for the most part, that was because of a lack of a reasonable alternative.
My point isn't just to whine - it's that there's a market opening here. If someone were to manufacture products of a deliberately superior quality - and to advertise touting their relaibility at fairly reasonable prices - I would pay a premium.
Indeed, I'm in the market to consolidate my mess of computers (three in use at present) into a single unit, for reasons of portability. I'm looking at either getting one of the current-generation MacBook Pro's refurbished from Apple, or waiting for the Penryn-based Pro's to ship. But, frankly, as an avid reader of Apple forums, I'm a little concerned about the generation-after-generation reliability problems that we've seen in the Pro's (everything in the first gen, and all sorts of LED-related fun in the present gen). The result is that I'm thinking of a T62 ThinkPad as an alternative which, despite also being Chinese-made, seems to have a much better track record so far as reliability is concerned.
Though, I don't think that will happen - since I'm kind of in love with the MacBook Pro. More than kind-of, actually. I want a brand-new one as badly as... Well, I'll just leave it at that.
Of course, the biggest part of the manufacturing problem is that the Chinese are able to work unbelievably cheaply becuase they've replicated in an economic sense their traditional approach to warfare - the human wave. When you have a lot of people and don't care too much about their living conditions (don't have to care, for that matter) you can simply throw people into producing notebook computers - or at machine gun nests - and eventually numbers will tell, unless technology offsets mass.
And there's where the West's real chance lies. Human waves aren't terribly effective against people with fully automatic weapons. "For we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not," said the British a century ago. That's the real secret to beating back the Chinese economic threat - we need the economic equivilant of a Maxim gun.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 30, 2008 in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
McCain is only inevitable until tomorrow
As we say often down here, a week is a lifetime in politics.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 29, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's Over - McCain is the GOP Nominee
McCain won Florida. It looks like he's going to win bigger than indicated by polling. Seven or eight points is my guess.
Now comes word that Giuliani will endorse him tomorrow in California.
John McCain is, without a miracle for Romney on a bigger scale than McCain's own comeback (and in a single week) going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States and, given how well he polls - and how ugly the Democratic race is getting - I'd say that McCain is now the odds-on favourite to be the 44th President of the United States.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 29, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Opposing 'liberal fascism'
Ron Gray, national leader of the Christian Heritage Party, has just issued a communique (not yet on the CHP's website) urging Canadians to light a fire under politicians so they will adopt an idea that I advanced last week in the National Post. My Post op-ed called on Stephen Harper and provincial premiers to amend the law so that human rights commissions no longer have the power to censor journalists such as Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and, for that matter, me.
Here's the full text of Gray's communique, complete with its rather arresting headline:
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 29, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
If you think the Republican contest was unpredictable
Jim Geraghty of National Review offers a scenario for the Democratic nomination that could split the party in half.
If both Hillary and Obama are short of the majority necessary, there will be 156 delegates from Michigan and 210 delegates from Florida, most of which will be for Hillary, sitting on the sidelines (DJ's note: the Dem Nat'l Committee stripped them of their delegates because they moved their primaries up so early). The Clintons will fight tooth and nail to get those into the count.
Under that scenario, the Obama camp and their supporters will be able to legitimately charge that yes, they did have the nomination stolen from them.
I further extened that possible scenario (here's my logic train, FWIW), and came up with this:
the GOP convention will begin four days after the Democratic one ends. So odds are any attempt at “healing” will still be in the early (and unproductive) stages when the GOP nominee (whoever it is) can shake things up even further by picking an African-American running mate (say, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele or former Congressman J.C. Watts).
. . . titanic “ifs,” but should they all hold up, we could be headed for a realignment election of earth-shattering proportions.
If a Canadian spring election is added to all this, we political junkies may need some serious rehab after this year.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 29, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
This is a good ruling, I think...
The case of William Whatcott brings together two of our favorite topics around here: abortion and freedom of speech. Whatcott, a nurse, had the bad sense to protest in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saskatchewan. In 2004, this off-duty activity earned him two convictions of professional misconduct from a disciplinary committee of the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (SALPN.)
His punishment? A $15,000 fine and a 45 day suspension.
However, on January 16th, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals overturned the convictions, arguing that disciplining Whatcott was not "rationally related" to SALPN's legitimate objective of upholding public respect for the nursing profession.
“There is no evidence that any member of the public thinks, or will think, less of nurses because of Mr. Whatcott’s behaviour,” Justice Jackson wrote. “In the absence of evidence, one way or the other, one might as easily hypothesize that licensed practical nurses are respected, as a general rule, not for what occurs during their off-duty hours, but for their direct activities in the case of patients.”
All in all, a good decision. Why should Mr. Whatcott's professional body be able to punish him for expressing his opinion in a legal manner while he was not even on the clock?
On the other hand... consider the actual content of Whatcott's speech:
Whatcott carried signs with pictures of fetuses, captioned “Planned Parenthood Aborts Babies.” He shouted phrases such as: “Planned Parenthood will give you AIDS”; “This place is the world’s biggest baby killer”; “Don’t let Planned Parenthood corrupt you;” “Planned Parenthood murders innocent babies”; and “fornicators will not inherit the kingdom”.
SALPN's definition of "professional misconduct" includes lying and making defamatory statements, because these are activities that might bring their profession into disrepute. Whatcott's "Planned Parenthood = AIDS" comment is arguably false and defamatory. Shouldn't professional bodies be able to punish their members for telling outrageous lies?
Posted by Terrence Watson on January 29, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Social conservatism and libertarianism
I met Joseph Quesnel at last year's Liberty Summer Seminar. He was thoughtful, erudite, and a nice guy all-around. So it comes as no surprise that he would be the author of this magnificent essay on social conservatism and libertarianism in the C2C Journal of Conservative Ideas.
An excerpt:
"Thus, it would be illogical for a social conservative to declare that they want to impose their beliefs and morality on society. That would be a violation of the right of religious conscience. Within the New Testament, Christ spoke often of the Kingdom of God in the future tense and as distinct from the earthly realm. His will was that individuals come to repentance and change their individual lives. There was never any mention of imposing the Kingdom of Heaven on earth or forcing people to accept beliefs they disagreed with. After all, most of the sins and sanctions mentioned within the Bible are applicable only to Christians who voluntarily accept them. This is one area social conservatives need to work on. Without compromising their beliefs, their judgments could be better spent in making existing believers more committed than in judging those who do not come under their moral code. This would entail social conservatives disentangling their morality from the justice system, which may prove a problem with some.
"This social conservative belief in individual conscience is what allows it to enter into conversation with libertarianism. If religious conviction is ultimately private, there is room for other conceptions of the moral good life in society. It would be immoral to impose a religious vision on another. It stands to reason within most religions or moral codes that they are more meaningful if they are arrived at through genuine faith coming from the individual.
"Therefore, there is absolutely no contradiction between holding social conservative beliefs and being libertarian as a matter of policy. As long as social conservatives do not try to legislate their values or impose them on others, they are following the libertarian commitment of respect for individual rights."
Bravo! There is more to be said about this, and Joseph spends a lot of his essay saying much, much more. Do head on over, and read the piece in its entirety. It is worth the time it takes to read it.
I should note that I'm always surprised by how much content some want to stuff into "libertarianism." At bottom, libertarianism is a commitment about what government institutions should look like, the concept alone does not tell us exactly why government institutions should look like that. As Joe makes plain, you can be a thorough-going social conservative, and still have a commitment to liberty and small government; a commitment to generating social conservative outcomes through persuasion, rather than at the point of a gun.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 29, 2008 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Putting on blinders to avoid seeing the truth
The National Post's Jonathan Kay is appalled that Canada has no law regulating or outlawing second- and third-trimester abortions, and wonders how this has come to pass. He thinks he found his answer at a Toronto "symposium."
He writes, "Locked in what they feel to be a tribal culture war against pro-lifers, the pro-choice camp allows itself no nuance. This is essentially the reason Canada has no abortion law: Any stirring of legislative action arouses such tribal war fury among pro-choicers as to send politicians scurrying."
In other words, the pro-aborts are fanatics.