In a perfect microcosm of the unpredictability of this race, Mike Huckabee won Louisiana (barely, and not by enough to win any delegates) and Kansas (by a country mile). I guess the taste for squirrel cuisine is more widepsread than we thought.
Until recently I had missed something very important about Senator Obama's candidacy. His appeal to white liberals lies not simply in his being a charming black man, whose support is also a new credential of Left-wing enlightenment, it's also that he is essentially non-threatening. He is not a Richard Wright, a Nina Simone or a gangsta rapter; he's Sidney Poitier and many modern white liberals are the audience being smug about how much more liberal they are than Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracey (now played by Bill and Hillary Clinton).
When it was claimed in 2004 that Teresa Heinz-Kerry would be the first African-American First Lady, this was only in the literal sense correct. She was born in Africa, but in colonial Mozambique to a wealthy Portuguese doctor. In every sense of the word she lead a far more privileged life than the overwhelming majority of white American born women. While Obama is physiologically black his life thus far is well removed from the experiences of an average American black. He is the black man liberal whites feel comfortable with. Bill Clinton's bragging about being the first black American President was in fact closer to the truth, he has culturally more in common with a southern American black of his age than Obama does. Just as multiculturalism is a form of left-wing intellectual imperialism, projecting their values onto other cultures, missing the very real gulfs that exist between the West and the Rest, so white liberals support for Obama is a domestic version of the same world view. This is how they want black America to be, bright, optimistic and without a trace of anger or bitterness. In an early episode of the Simpsons, Lisa becomes infatuated with the pop sensation Corey. She is, at one point, seen reading a magazine, with Corey's picture, titled "Non-Threatening Boys." Obama is Corey.
Chocolate lovers are being encouraged by Merchant Law Group to join the Chocolate Makers Class Action lawsuit against North America's major chocolate producers. Hershey, Mars, Nestle and Cadbury are being investigated by the Competition Bureau for allegedly conspiring to keep chocolate prices artificially high.
Merchant said that while consumers who participate in the suit will not likely receive compensation, the companies involved in the collusion, if found guilty, could be forced to sell their products at below-market prices for a certain period. Huh? Let me get this straight: If the companies who are currently being investigated for colluding to sell their products at above-market prices are found guilty, they could be forced to commit another “crime” called predatory pricing or below-market pricing.
If chocolate company executives want to understand the logic of these news rules, they need only read this poem by R.W. Grant:
“Now let me state the present rules," The lawyer then went on, "These very simple guidelines, You can rely upon: You're gouging on your prices if You charge more than the rest. But it's unfair competition if You think you can charge less!
"A second point that we would make To help avoid confusion... Don't try to charge the same amount, That would be Collusion! You must compete. But not too much, For if you do you see, Then the market would be yours - And that's Monopoly!
In the end, lawyers, politicians and Competition Bureau bureaucrats will dust off some Soviet-era calculation for what constitutes a fair price for chocolate.
The mainstream media and business press have reported that the Competition Bureau has launched a “probe” or an “investigation” into this chocolate conspiracy matter. There’s nothing alarming in this kind of language. In fact, a “probe” or an “investigation” is exactly what you would expect from the Competition Bureau in response to these allegations. It’s a pretty benign response really, given the hostility directed toward business these days by market regulators.
However, in a scripted speech to the Economic Club of Toronto on December 11, 2007, Sheridan Scott, Commissioner of Competition for the Competition Bureau, said “our investigators raided the head offices of some of Canada’s major chocolate manufacturers as part of a cartel probe.”
I haven’t read a single report of this “raid” in the media. Why is this important? When we ask the state to regulate markets, we are asking it to use its police powers. So do we really want government agents raiding businesses over the price of chocolate?
Warren Kinsella hopes Omar Soliman will be Prime Minister some day. Soliman certainly has an impressive resume, but his recent attack on what he calls the “right to offend” movement is badly flawed.
Consider, for example, Soliman’s initial salvo against folks like Ezra Levant and yours truly.
“…For Ezra Levant and his dim-witted ‘right to offend’ movement, there is apparently nothing but
agreement for Canada's alleged “stranglehold of oppressive, politically correct thinking and strong-arms.
Canadians should get used to this kind of inflammatory rhetoric—in the name of free speech, it’s probably here to stay.”
According to Soliman, we are “dim-witted” users of “inflammatory rhetoric.” Well, I guess if we really are dim-witted, there’s no reason to pay attention to anything we say. Especially given the incendiary language to which we right-wing troglodytes are so prone. Soliman further informs us that the libertarian view of free speech” is “distinctly American.” Certainly, no one familiar with political rhetoric in Canada would think that Soliman’s style of argument here – let us call it Argumentum Ad Americanus – is lacking a distinctly Canadian je ne sais quoi.
As no less an authority on all-things-Canadian than Maude
Barlow wrote in 2006, “A vote for Stephen Harper is a vote for American style
health care.” During the election that year, the Liberal Party of Canada
launched ads attacking Harper for “being very popular with right wingers in the U.S.”
(Even Frank McKenna, our ambassador to the United States at the time, criticized
the very party that had appointed him for those ads.)
And who can forget Canadian Human Rights Commission official and agent provocateur Dean Steacy, who told us he doesn’t give freedom of speech any value because it’s just an American concept? Argumentum
Ad Americanus is all-too-common in Canadian discourse.
Besides the fact that they sound too American, Omar Soliman thinks free speech arguments aren’t worthy of attention because they get a lot of support from Nazis.
“Unfortunately, people today are seldom riled to a defense of free speech on the basis of one or
another philosophical tenets. Nope, today’s defenders of free speech are more often driven by a passionate hatred for the objects of their disapproval.”
See, the people supporting Keith Noble’s right to be sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan and Keith Martin’s private members bill are, in
fact, sympathetic to the KKK themselves. Moreover, that sympathy – which the "free speechers" hide so cleverly – is enough to undercut all of the actual arguments they make in favour of upholding a sacred liberty.
I don’t know about Omar Soliman, but I try to avoid committing the Ad Hominem Tu Quoquefallacy. I also try to avoid accusing my intellectual opponents of crypto-racism.
But, in any event, suppose it were discovered that John Stuart Mill expressed sympathy for the KKK, as ludicrous as that sounds. Would that be sufficient reason to dismiss all the great stuff he says in On Liberty? Or can we separate the validity of a person’s argument from his personal bigotries?
However, according to Soliman,
“…you can’t be a social conservative and a libertarian at the same time. You can’t be the apostle of liberty on one hand and a fierce critic of it on another. You can’t call the complainant an ‘anti-semitic imam,’ and then turn around and support the right of anti-semites to spew their hatred. It’s flawed logic.”
But the only one whose logic is flawed is Omar Soliman. Of course you can detest what someone says yet still uphold his right to say it. Confer no less an authority than Voltaire who once wrote in a letter: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." That’s what free speech is all about! There’s nothing inconsistent about me using my right to speak freely to criticize what you said when you exercised that same right. Only if I call on the state to stop you from speaking can I be accused of vacating my role as “an
apostle of liberty.”
(As for the lumbering equivocation on the moral/legal distinction captured in his first sentence, I refer you here for a bit of an education on the possibility of being a libertarian social conservative. You might think something is immoral, but whether or not it should be illegal is a different question).
Soliman dismisses us as “dim-witted,” but, for my part, I really, really, really don’t want the
government stopping radical Imams from making anti-Semitic remarks. No, really. Because, Omar, the more they talk, the more they’ll expose themselves to the contempt and ridicule of other, sane Canadians. And that’s fine by us: some people deserve to be ridiculed for what they say.
The rest of Soliman’s piece is devoted to calling Ezra
Levant a “wacko.” Apparently, in May 2004 Ezra accused Maclean's of being “pro-radical Islam and hostile to the war on terrorism.” You know, we can argue about the merit of Ezra’s accusation, but I don’t see anything in that quote that indicates Ezra was demanding the government crack down on Maclean's for being hostile to the war on terrorism.
But it doesn’t really matter. Ezra Levant has the right (for now) to criticize Maclean's, on the one hand, and, on the other, defend its right to publish an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book. Where’s the inconsistency?
Near the end of the piece, Soliman lets us know that,
There are no threats to free speech; no imminent collapse of our values or our civilization either. Just a bunch of hardcore ideologues who see a kind of twisted honour in defending the provocations of anti-semites, neo-nazi’s, and Islamophobes.
I’m sure John Stuart Mill was a “hardcore ideologue”, whatever that means. And, again, Soliman misrepresents his opposition. None of us are defending what the Zundels of the world are saying – not the content of their speech – but we are defending their right to undertake the act of speaking itself. As I wrote in a recent op-ed published in an American newspaper (I know, I know:
shock and horror!):
"At stake in Canada is a principle recognized in all liberal democracies for hundreds of years: the
principle that all speech, even hateful speech, is sacred, and not to be limited merely to prevent offense to others… Speech is sacred. This principle stands between civilization and barbarism, between the good of the
American Republic and the evil of Nazi Germany."
But go ahead, Omar. Accuse me of being a pro-American crypto-Nazi.
Conrad Black has an interesting commentary on the U.S. political scene in today's National Post. (Sorry it doesn't seem to be online).
In explaining why Republican Mike Huckabee is essentially out of the presidential race, Black has come up with the best line of the campaign:
"The only states that would tolerate a candidate who trapped and ate squirrels after cooking them on a popcorn-popper, have already voted for Huckabee."
Link Byfield is an Alberta senator-elect and chairman of the Citizens Centre. The Centre promotes the principles of personal freedom and responsible government. He is also a candidate for the Wildrose Alliance in the upcoming Alberta provincial election.
For Republican presidential campaign watchers, there's a lot to chew on in this message (see below) from Ron Paul.
First, he plans to stay in the race to the end...to the convention. No surprise here.
Second, he's reducing the size of his campaign staff. Has the amazing Ron Paul fundraising machine reached its limit – or is he just keeping his proverbial powder dry?
It was my view in a previous post that Paul should direct his efforts away from traditional campaign activities and toward educational activities. (The two are very different.) That may be what Paul is doing in response to the failure to win Alaska and the changing post-Romney landscape, the latter of which Paul addresses below.
Third, Paul once again rejects the idea of running as a third party candidate, something even Glenn Beck seemed to be inviting on the night of Super Tuesday.
Finally, Paul is redirecting some of his energy toward his congressional campaign. His Texas District 14 congressional seat is being challenged by Chris Peden. As Paul acknowledges, losing his congressional seat would destroy his presidential campaign.
Here’s Paul in his own words:
------
February 8, 2008
Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans -- and friends in many other countries -- have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.
Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.
Ok,what the Berkeley City Council really said was that Marine recruiters are "not welcome in our city...If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests." In addition,
"...the council applauds residents and organizations that 'volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.'"
According to CBS, the council also voted to give Code Pink a designed parking space at the recruiting office and a noise permit.
In response, federal lawmakers have moved to strip Berkeley of several earmarks and reroute the money to the Marine Corps. From the San Jose Mercury, the earmarked funds are presently designated for a foundation that provides lunches for public schools and a ferry service between Berkeley and San Francisco, as well as several other things.
Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said that "Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences."
On a side note, I question the legality of the Berkeley City Council's actions. Consider the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). The Maryland State Legislature had essentially enacted a special tax on the Second Bank of the United States. The tax was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Marshall, who opined, "The government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
The tax was struck down. The Court ruled that Maryland was impeding the federal government in a constitutionally valid exercise of its power. Even though the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government the power to charter banks, it does permit Congress "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution"
its enumerated powers."
Thus, the federal government derives its authority to set up Marine recruiting centers from its more general war powers, as set out in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Berkeley has no right to hamper the lawful exercise of federal authority. Given this, perhaps Senator DeMint is right to press for retaliatory measures.
On another side note, Peter Jaworski, another co-host, and myself will be interviewing the Senator on our radio show, Political Animals, on Feb. 18. We will post a link to a live webcast of the show at a later date, so stay tuned!
Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help.
-Thomas Sowell
I think I've finally put my finger on the bottom line for the anti-free speech crowd, of whom Warren Kinsella is only the most recent and vocal cheerleader, and it's this: these people want to make hatred illegal. To which the instinctive response would be: why not? After all, nobody "supports" hatred.
This intellectually dishonest trick is not new; it is employed by opponents of freedom on a myriad of fronts, as a cheap way to project sinister motives where none exist. Thus, if you question gun control, you are in favour of random shootings. If you question safety standards, you are in favour of accidents. In short, if you oppose the government passing a law prohibitng X, you must surely be an enthusiastic supporter of X (which is why, when Jonathan Kay suggests that the level of racism alleged by Kinsella et al might be overstated, the response from Kinsella's side isn't "no it's isn't", but rather "well, then you must be a racist". And I don't think much energy needs to be spent here refuting the absurd logic that flows from the misguided belief that because Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are Nazis.)
But I digress. Kinsella's view is the ultimate conflation of morality and law, the casual extension of the rule that all laws should be moral into the much more nebulous new rule that all morals must be law. It follows therefore, that since the vast majority of us agree - and we do - that hate speech is offensive, therefore we should ban it.
I don't suppose it occurred to these savants that sorting out what "really" constitutes offensive speech is, in the absence of some objective evidence, a completely arbitrary exercise, or that the very principle of free speech developed precisely in response to norms that attempted to justify censorship at the time on the grounds that many of the now-liberal notions they champion were supposedly "offensive". Finally, I don't think I need to remind this crowd about how they feel about mixing morality and law in countless other situations, including gay marriage and abortion, to name just two.
So if these same folks would agree that it's unjust to impose the moral standards of one group (pro-lifers) on others (pro-choicers), how can they justify doing the same when it comes to the words that emanate from the mouths, pens and keyboards of private citizens? If Warren Kinsella calls me a kook - and he did call all conservatives that, by the way, on his blog today - and it hurts me, should I really be able to call upon the force of the state to punish him? Is it okay if he insults me for my political beliefs, but not the colour of my skin? My weight but not my religion? My clothes but not my physical disabilities? Are these the new standards that the Kinsella crowd would have us adopt as the limits on free speech? If not, then what precisely do they propose we use as the standard?
Colby Cosh spent “Stupor Tuesday” with the libertarians at Reason magazine:
“I spent the evening of Super Tuesday at a returns-watching party thrown here in Washington by Reason, the libertarian foundation/magazine/website. The world's fiercest laissez-faire hawks came in the hundreds, packing a tiny office like Japanese commuters in a subway car. And here's the surprise: There was no general agreement on any 2008 presidential candidate. A few attendees, of course, continued to wave the flag of Congressman Ron Paul, the libertarian outsider with the magic internet fund-raising machine. But the consensus is that Paul's candidacy has, if anything, done as much harm to the movement as it has good.”
Welfare Fraud or Good Ol' Fashioned Multiculturalism?
We all heard about British polygamy, but what about Canada? From the Toronto Sun:
"Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.
Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad."
Recall that, according to three law professors at Queen's, the legal prohibition of polygamy in Canada is probably unconstitutional. But does Ontario take the extra step of recognizing polygamous unions, as long as they were formed outside Canada?
A quick check of the Ontario Family Law Act seems to show that Mumtaz Ali is absolutely correct:
"In the definition of "spouse", a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (2)."
According to Ali, "There are many people in the community who are taking advantage of this. This is the law and there's nothing wrong with it."
However, the government says that welfare benefits do not go to more than one spouse at a time. Erike Botond, a spokesman, said that the other spouses may be applying for benefits as individuals.
So what's really going on in Ontario? The law says a man can have multiple wives, but apparently only one wife can be recognized under Social Services regulations. Respected law professors are saying any blanket prohibition of polygamy is probably unconstitutional, anyway. And the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims claims that, in fact, "several hundred" Muslim men have multiple wives and are already receiving benefits for each of their spouses.
Is it welfare fraud, or good ol' fashioned Canadian multiculturalism? And if it is welfare fraud, is it going to be prosecuted, or will welfare regulations be changed to allow for polygamy? How long until the criminal prohibition of polygamy is struck down?
Harper introduces motion on mission in Afghanistan
Date: February 8, 2008
Release: Immediate
PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCES DECISIVE ACTION ON AFGHANISTAN PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Government introduces motion on mission, creates new Cabinet Committee and Task Force
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the creation of a Cabinet Committee on Afghanistan and an Afghanistan Task Force within the Privy Council Office to better coordinate and ensure the effectiveness of Canada’s activities in Afghanistan.
The Government also announced it is giving notice of a motion to extend Canada’s commitment to the United Nations mandated mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011 on the condition that Canada can secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1,000, as well medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
Today's announcements represent further action by the Government to move forward on the future of Canada's mission, and to respond directly to recommendations the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan outlined in its report of January 22, 2008.
“Our Government is taking every step to ensure the future success of Canada’s mission to Afghanistan,” the Prime Minister said. “Over the past week, I have been speaking with other NATO leaders about our collective undertaking in that country. And I am pleased to announce today these steps to bring greater coherence and effectiveness to Canada’s efforts.”
The new Cabinet Committee on Afghanistan will have the mandate to consider diplomatic, defence, development and security issues related to Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. The Committee will report to the Prime Minister and the Priorities and Planning Cabinet Committee on a regular basis.
Chaired by Minister of International Trade David Emerson, the Committee will include Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay, Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, Minister of International Cooperation Beverley J. Oda and Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier.
The Afghanistan Task Force will support the Cabinet Committee by coordinating government activities related to Afghanistan.
Mr. David Mulroney, formerly the Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, has been appointed Deputy Minister of the Afghanistan Task Force, effective immediately.
At a time when evermore student councils at Canadian universities and colleges are denying official club status to pro-life clubs, one such club has found a provocative way to fight back: file a religious-discrimination complaint at a human rights commission. The club, at North Vancouver's Capilano College, has now learned that its complaint will be heard by a tribunal.
While I am opposed to the kangaroo-court nature of human rights tribunals, and also am not completely comfortable with the specific notion that the pro-life club should be treated fairly only because its members' convictions are rooted in religion (as opposed to common sense, logic, reason, etc), I must admit that my sympathies rest with club members. I can't really blame them for using the tools available to them to fight an unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory council ruling.
Oil industry firm Nexen works the oils sands. Money from Nexen goes to David Suzuki. As a result of the donation, David Suzuki gives Nexen the title "Nature Defender" in the same year Nexen announces a major expansion in oil sands development.
Nexen pays online marketing firm Marqui to say oil is good.
David Suzuki pays the same online marking firm Marqui to say oil is bad.
Makes sense? Of course not. Here's a diagram that probably doesn't help.
If you click on the diagram, it gets bigger, and you can study it more closely. I doubt it will help you make sense of this though.
What makes the least sense to me is why anyone pays attention to David Suzuki.
But if you really want to try and puzzle this out, the full story with links to the supporting material is at Angry in the Great White North. Good luck.
Addendum: I've suggested an explanation of how this works, but it's too cynical, even for me. But here goes.
Maybe this has less to do with the environment and more to do with David Suzuki being a player of sorts in the oil industry.
He makes noises, the oil companies pay him off, he alters his message
in some way and then sells enviro-friendly titles with his name
attached. The oil companies tolerate, even encourage, David Suzuki's
environmental message since Suzuki has to be credible in his role as
environmental crusader if the oil companies are going to get their
money's worth from the labels like "Nature Defender" that they buy from
Suzuki. Meanwhile, same public relations firm handles messaging for
both sides, making sure that the agreed upon positions are communicated
properly. After all, neither side profits if the deal were to fall
apart.
While his biggest competition is no longer on the field, John McCain still has one major opponent left - Mike Huckabee (Ron Paul has never been competitive) - and Saturday will be his first one-on-one set of races.
Should McCain win all three prizes (Louisiana, Washington state, and Kansas), then the race is pretty much over. Otherwise, he may have to wait until Tuesday (Maryland, Washington DC, and Virginia) to deliver the knock-out blow.
Either way, the anti-McCain folks still have a couple of days before they have to face the truth; I hope they realize said truth is nowhere near as bad as they think it is.
North America is in the midst of an "obesity epidemic." Calgary has banned trans-fats. Mississippi is pushing legislation to make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese people. And Canadian health care experts worry about the cost to each of us, as taxpayers, of bad food choices.
North America is in the midst of a war on tobacco. Canada has just about banned smoking in all public places. Not even your cars are safe. And "private" establishments? You can't smoke there either (not in Ontario, anyways). And Canadian health care experts are busy worrying about the cost to all of us, as taxpayers, of the bad breathing choices by some of us.
Obesity "overburdens" Canada's health care system. Smokers cost Canada's health care system a lot. It's one thing, these health care experts and nanny statists say, to argue that these are "personal choices." Would that it were true! They say. But, alas, your decision to smoke or eat fried perogies affects taxpayers! We all pay for your bad choices! The Hal Johnson and Joanne Mclouds of the world are busy paying for the Michael Moore's and Marlboro mans.
Actually, they're not. Not even close. It's the exact opposite, in fact. Those who are healthy and fit and trim and don't smoke and exercise and keep a svelte figure are more costly to taxpayers than those who lounge, smoke, watch the tube, and prefer their steaks deep fried.
"Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated
with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity
prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study
was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to
obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and
to discuss the implications for prevention."
But the conclusion was:
"Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of
obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due
to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity
prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving
public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures."
"The study found that although annual health-care costs are highest
for obese people earlier in life (until age 56 years), and are highest
for smokers at older ages, the ultimate lifetime costs are highest for
the healthy (nonsmoking, nonobese) people. Hence the authors argue that
medical costs will not be saved by preventing obesity.
"Their
results tell us that that life expectancy from age 20 is reduced by 5
years for obese people and 7 for smokers. The consequence is that
healthy people live to incur greater medical expenditure subsequently
on average, more than compensating for the earlier excess expenditure
related to obesity or smoking."
Now that it's clear that the health puritans are costing the rest of us a pile of money through taxes each year, will they stick to their arguments and insist on an exercise tax, and a vegan tax? You know, because of the externalities that their lifestyle choices impose on those of us who selflessly consume tobacco and high fructose corn syrup?
I doubt it. Were knee-jerk statists ever sincere in worrying about the costs to the rest of us? Probably not. What they cared about was doing "good" things for you, doing them good and hard, whether you want them done to you or not.
It's not about saving money. It's about control. And it's about seeing to it that you live your life the way these people think you should, and not the way you think you should. Call me crazy, but this won't slow the growth of the nanny state one scintilla. But it should, at least, stem the tide of self-righteous rhetoric. And that's progress.
Give props to Liberal MP Keith Martin for his motion to remove Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. But it's not enough. Check this out, from the Prince George Citizen.
"Keith Francis William Noble, 32, was sentenced Monday in B.C. Supreme Court in Prince George to four months of new jail time on being convicted of one count of violating the Criminal Code section against wilful [sic] promotion of hatred...Three years or probation will follow...During the period of probation, Noble may not own a computer or access the Internet or go to any establishment where Internet service is the primary business. However, the judge said he would not authorize warrantless searches of Noble's residence."
How nice of the judge not to strip Noble of all his rights. I assume he was convicted under Section 318 or 319 of the Criminal Code. And what did Noble actually do?
"From 2003 to 2005 Noble helped maintain a website called Exterminance that had links with white-supremacist groups in Texas...On his website Noble attacked Jews, blacks, homosexuals and parents who allowed their children to marry members of other races. He also expressed sympathy with Ku Klux Klan views, court was told."
The guy sounds like a loser. That doesn't mean I think the state should lock him up, confiscate his computers, and prohibit him from using the Internet for the next three years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the human rights tribunals can't inflict that kind of punishment.
The constitutionality of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code has already been challenged and the laws have been upheld, under Section 1 of the Charter. As I've said before, Section 1 is the real problem. It's abominable.
Hat tip to Michael for the story, a commenter on Ezra Levant's blog, and to Fact Check, a commenter on this one.
Canadians say personal income taxes too high, too complicated and unfair - public opinion poll
• CTF poll also finds 45% of respondents believe cutting personal income taxes should be given priority over other tax measures
OTTAWA - The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) released results of a public opinion poll in advance of the 2008 budget, expected later this month. The poll was conducted by Praxicus Public Strategies Inc. for the CTF to determine what Canadians think of the personal income tax burden and gauge perceptions of the tax codes fairness and its complexity.
The CTF-commissioned public opinion survey found:
• 65% of Canadians say federal personal income tax rates are somewhat too high (33%) or much too high (32%); • 63% of Canadians believe the federal income tax system is too complicated; • 57% of Canadians deem the income tax system somewhat unfair (40%) or very unfair (17%); • 45% of Canadians said income taxes should be the federal government's top tax cut priority with gas taxes second (18%) with payroll taxes and GST tied for third at 10% each; and • 51% of Canadians prefer broad-based tax relief over 44% who like targeted tax measures.
The survey was conducted January 4 - 8, 2008, among 1,000 Canadian adults 18 years-of-age and older. The results are considered accurate to within +/-3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The results are available online: http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/PollResults2008.pdf
On January 17th, the CTF released a groundbreaking study urging the federal government to enact a multi-year tax reform/relief plan. The report, entitled Lower, Simpler & Flatter - Towards a Single Tax Rate for Canada, urges Ottawa to reduce personal income taxes and cut the number of tax brackets from four to two while maintaining only a handful of deductions like RRSP, spousal and child allowances. The goal is to both simplify the tax code while lowering the personal income tax burden in a manner that strengthens the Canadian economy. The tax reform/tax relief news release is available here: http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2781
"This poll indicates our tax reform/tax relief proposal correctly identified problems with the existing personal income tax system. Specifically, a majority think income taxes are too high, the tax code is too complicated, and the system unfair," said CTF federal director John Williamson. "The Conservative government should move to two federal income tax rates of 15% and 25% by 2012 as a way to make the system fairer and less complicated. There is public support for tax reform and tax relief."
I'm watching Romney speak at CPAC where, the reports are that he'll drop out.
He's giving an amazing speech. A really, really good speech - unlike any that I've seen him give during the course of this campaign. It's not just the rhetoric, which is different than what he's been emphasizing during this campaign, it's the tone.
One of the things which creeped me out about Romney was how, if you watch those YouTube clips of him from 1994 and 2002, he spoke with the same drone-like conviction as he spat out well-manufactured talking points, much like the CEO that he was.
This is different. He's speaking with passion and conviction. Now that it's over. For some reason, it seems like Romney seemed free only to be himself once it was over.
"Finding and executing Osama Bin Laden" - ! This is great stuff.
If this Mitt shows up, make him the Vice President.
I wonder who the poor fellow was who lost his place on Canada's Winter Olympics team 10 years ago because of a rather substantial lie that gold-medal-winning snowboarder Ross Rebagliati now admits to having made.
"David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?" -- My op-ed in today's National Post.
My state (Virginia) has its primary on Tuesday. Of course, you folks already know for whom I'm voting, but given the reaction of my fellow right-wingers, I figured another attempt at explanation was in order.
If all goes well, the nomination contest will be over soon, giving me a chance to watch the Democrats battle all the way to the convention and keep an eye on what is arguably the most important Canadian election (for Americans) ever.
Should Christian conservatives be using Human Rights Commissions to defend their interests? First Craig Chandler and now Alberta pastor Ron Leech are threatening to file complaints with the AHRC against the Alberta PC party. Shouldn't a private organization have the right to exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want? I think so, which is why Ed Stelmach should either promise to abolish these laws or invite Chandler and Leech back into his party as candidates.
---------------
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
PC ALBERTA CHRISTIAN BIAS REARS HEAD AGAIN
HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT TO BE LAUNCHED AGAINST STELMACH & TORIES
**** News Conference Tomorrow at 10:30 AM ****
(Calgary) The National Chairman of Concerned Christians Canada (CCC) is crying foul over yet another Evangelical Christian being yanked by the Alberta Progressive Conservatives. First it was Craig Chandler being yanked from Calgary Egmont and now Pastor Ron Leech from the constituency of Calgary Montrose.
"I am stunned that the Stelmach Tories continue to push people out of the PC Party and continue to disrespect the democratic choices of local constituencies. The PC slogan for this election is 'Change that works for Albertans'. The Party should change it's slogan to 'Change Through Purging'. Frank Warkentin, Treasurer and Nominating Chairman of the Calgary Montrose Constituency Association made it clear that the Nominating Committee followed the rules and nominated Pastor Ron Leech". Said Jim Blake, National Chairman of Concerned Christians Canada Inc (CCC).
Jim Blake and the CCC are very concerned about the growing attacks on evangelical Christians by the PC Party. The CCC feels the explanation by Jim Campbell, Executive Director for the Alberta Tories is yet another smoke screen for their intolerance to people who are evangelical Christians.
"The Calgary-Montrose Constituency Association did follow the nomination process, they had an approved candidate. However, that person happened to be an evangelical Christian and Ed Stelmach is clearly intolerant to that segment of society. Craig Chandler was the first to be eliminated and now Pastor Ron Leech. This trend is disturbing and must be challenged. The Christophobia we are seeing in the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party is appalling and reflective of war time Germany. I am very concerned about Democracy being Denied". Concluded Blake.
Concerned Christians Canada will be filing a Human Rights Commission Complaint against Ed Stelmach and the Alberta Progressive Conservatives by Friday, 15, 2008.
Jim Blake and Pastor Ron Leech will be holding a News Conference tomorrow:
WHAT: News Conference WHERE: East Side City Church, 1320 Abbeydale Drive SE (Memorial & 1 block east of 68th) WHEN: 10:30 AM
Via Reason's Hit & Run, we get wind of a NY Times article about Wikipedia, the online user-edited encyclopedia, getting blasted for having visual depictions of Muhammad on their entry about him.
"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking
e-mails beginning mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the
Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various
online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages. A Frequently Asked
Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove
the images: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of
representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not
censored for the benefit of any particular group."
UPDATE2: I've taken a peek at the signatures on that petition (which is now up to over 100,000 signatures), and many of the more recent signatories say things like (and I quote):
"Please DO NOT remove the pictures of Muhammad from your site." "Please post more Mohammad cartoons!" "The Giants are the Super Bowl champs!!!!!!!!!! HA HA New England!"
You know what? Forget it... Here's a screen shot (click for larger image):
(Thanks to Kalim. Incidentally, Kalim points out that Free Dominion scooped The Timeson this story, but without many comments or much interest).
Listening to Sean Hannity earlier today, I'm getting the sense that he (and Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck--who burst a blood vessel, joking about going to a therapist and quitting is just about ready to turn his back on the GOP. This, after voters simply failed to heed their recommendations of voting for Mitt Romney.
(Actually, Hannity is claiming a victory. He says McCain won thanks to Independents and Republicans who self-identify as "liberal" or "moderate." Hannity says that self-identifying "conservative" Republicans failed to show up for McCain and did, as the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck gang pleaded, turn out for Romney).
A solid conservative. Indeed, the National Review endorsed him for President in 1996. More importantly, with a very strong economic background - indeed, a former economics professor. Perfect for a year when the economy is going to be an issue and a good new model Vice President.
The odds are that we're headed to the polls this year after all. I'm surprised. Frankly, as I stated earlier this year, I thought that - having passed up the golden opportunity last fall - the Prime Minister was going to try and make it to the fixed election date.
But, now he says that we're going to have a confidence vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan, with the provisio that NATO must increase their support for our troops. Good on both counts. We need to remain committed to victory - but it's time for the rest of NATO to get off their asses and start to pull their own weight. To date, this war - the war which everyone insists that they're dedicated to winning (everyone save the NDP and their seditious friends, that is) - has been fought largely by Canada, the United States, and Britain.
As I outlined last summer, I think that there's a real opportunity here for Harper to try and make a long-term breakthrough. The Liberal stranglehold on the imagination of this country (the degree to which left-libealism is the default mode of existance) is in large measure due to the degree to which the Liberal Party has, over the last four decades, managed to conflate liberal values with Canadian ones until the point that they are, in the minds of most, one and the same. Remaining committed to the war will allow the Tories to create an alternative narrative for themselves - in the form of a kind of aggressive Canadian nationalism.
They shouldn't be - and I suppose that the Prime Minister hasn't been - daunted by poll results which show a majority favour the Liberal position. Remember - the left-wing vote in Canada is now split four ways. The Tories are going to be strongest not when they are running on issues where there is broad agreement among Canadians (save, for those like crime - where the other parties disagree with the majority of Canadians) but from those where they can grasp onto a strong position held by a large minority of Canadians (in the 40% range).
Remember - because of our electoral system and party configuration, if the Tories can make themselves the party with the absolute loyalty of 38% or so of Canadians, they can make themselves into the government of all of Canada for practically forever.
