The Shotgun Blog
« December 5, 2004 - December 11, 2004 |Main| December 19, 2004 - December 25, 2004 »
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Political Escapism--Further Thoughts
I suppose you could call Kathy Shaidle's last posting "Canadian content."
However, I suspect that, like me, she read it yesterday in James Taranto's best of the web.
Like Kathy, I found it very amusing. However, Taranto has a larger objective in mind than to make us chuckle.
Taranto is anti-Kyoto, and he makes his point to an American audience by showing the stupidity of this woman.
Canadians who are anti-Kyoto, and who want to do Canadian politics, would be better off staying away from material like this.
As you can see from the comments today, it leads to the regurgitation of arguments that play well south of the border, but have not carried the day in Canada.
Besides, Canadians who are anti-Kyoto have hit the motherlode today.
In the Montreal Gazette, Environment Minister Stephane Dion acknowledges that Kyoto makes no sense, is a lousy deal for Canada and he's looking for an alternative.
You'd think Canadian conservatives would be all over this statement, but I've not seen any comments on the Shotgun site.
Kathy, perhaps it's your position on abortion that has taken you out of the Canadian political arena. It would be great if you didn't try so so hard to take others with you. We need them here.
Posted by Norman Spector on December 18, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Sell Out Indian
"Raskolnikov", from Times of Winnipeg:
I have met many indian artists. Although most are not as radical as Eh, many, if not all, of them, seem very limited in outlook. They can paint one hell of an eagle and their headresses bow before no one; when I ask them, however, as artists, how they feel towards, say, Leonardo and his use of sfumato, a key technique that I often see in indian painting and it's use of bold color and transitional shadowing/lighting, I often get no reply, or a simple grunt of dissmissal. The vibe I get is that these artists either have no idea who Leonardo, Raphael, Giotto et all are, or else they do know and don't care, these foreign artists and the connotation of being representatives of oppressive colonial countries rendering them irrelevant. (Not that Italy handed over many pox-infected blankets, but maybe I'm just splitting hairs)
Good stuff.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 18, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Your daily CanCon requirement
"Severe weather caused by global warming can pose greater physical danger to women than men, a Canadian attending a UN conference on climate change said Friday.
"'For instance, often women don’t know how to swim, so in a flood situation that can lead to a higher instance of death or injury,' Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change, said."
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on December 18, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
US papers lead with another risky pain-killer, Celebrex.
Only the New York Times fronts today’s top international story—the EU’s long green light to Turkey. The Times also reports on trade winds from Canada.
The Washington Post off-leads President Bush signing the new intelligence law. The Los Angeles Times fronts corruption in Guinea and a sex scandal at the UN.
The New York Times’ editorial board weighs in on Celebrex, interest rates and increased aid for the Palestinians.
Nicholas Kristof looks back at the Rwandan genocide and at Darfur today.
The Washington Post’s editorial board serves up tough questions to NASA, and a challenge to the UN in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board says Venezuela ’s Hugo Chavez is becoming another Castro, but is enthusiastic about Google’s latest.
In the UK, there were more revelations in the Blunkett affair. The Government is preparing for FOI legislation by, get this, destroying old e-mails.
The Independent reports the Blair government is balking at implementing the Law Lords decision on the anti-terrorism law. There are more horror stories in the National Health Service.
France has been hit with a powerful storm—reminding many, including me, of Christmas in Paris in 1999.
The unions are fighting among themselves about how to fight changes in the 35-hour week. And a big shake-up is coming in the defense industries.
At home, Ralph Klein says you can fuggedabout same-sex marriage in Alberta. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have driven a stake through Irwin Cotler's case.
Québec commentators are busily interpreting the latest Léger poll. For the first time, a majority of voters—francophone and Anglophone—think the PQ would do better without Bernard Landry.
Federal politicians hoping that Gilles Duceppe will de-camp to Québec will be saddened to learn that Pauline Marois would be as popular a replacement.
Political strategists should note that, while dissatisfaction with the Charest government has declined to 59% (sic!).
Nearly a third of Québecers say they’d vote against both major parties, with 10 % opting for a third party that does not yet exist.
The only good news is that the PQ’s lead is shrinking.
The Toronto Star editorial board says Paul Martin lacks focus; the paper fronts Muammar Ghaddafi keeping him in the dark, along with the city’s top cop rejecting gay sensitivity training.
Vince Carter will be leaving town. (Here it is tab-style.) Jim Travers explains that federal politics these days is all about making Québec happy, even if it makes for lousy policy.
Miro Cernetig and Rick Westhead report on Bombardier. Ian Urquhart explains Ontario ’s bilingualism policy. Lynda Hurst writes about a shift in Canada ’s Mideast policy.
Daniel Girard reports on BC’s Citizens Assembly. Kelly Toughill reports on tough-guy Danny Williams. Peter Calamai has the latest on climate change.
The Globe and Mail fronts Celebrex, teen violence in Toronto, the latest in airport snoozing and, on the eve of Paul Martin’s visit, Libya wanting to learn from Canada. Is this why they’re keeping Paul Martin in the dark?
Inside, Edward Greenspon touts Doug Saunders’ interview this week with Ghaddaffi Jr—and rightly so--it was world-class journalism and left the New York Times in the dust.
Konrad Yakabuski dissects Paul Tellier’s departure from Bombardier. Rex Murphy poops on Paul Martin and Jack Layton for not giving MPs a free vote:
“Mr. Layton's certitude that same-sex is a human-rights issue, and is therefore outside the convention that MPs may vote their consciences on matters of high moral import, is troubling. I would think that issues that call for individual MPs to do the most delicate calibrations on issues of morality, discrimination, religion, tradition and law are precisely those issues where the particular judgment of the particular MP gets its more-exercised play….
Mr. Martin has said that as a practising Roman Catholic he has had a severe struggle with this issue. It would seem to flow that if it was something of an exquisite judgment for him, it might be so for any or all of his colleagues.”
Jeff Simpson sums up the past six months:
“The surprises of this first phase of the second Martin government, therefore, have not been what has figured prominently in the bulk of the end-of-year parliamentary media analyses.
Rather, the important trends have been the marginality of Parliament, despite the expectations driven by its minority nature, and the centralization of power in the same institutions, a state of affairs that used to be criticized by Mr. Martin and his supporters before they got to run those institutions.”
Heather Mallick obviously knows nothing about practical politics, but she’s the perfect columnist for rabble.ca; today, she revels in David Blunkett’s downfall:
“Mr. Blunkett was one of the Labourites who destroyed the Labour Party, so much so that it can scarcely be distinguished from the Tories who preceded Tony Blair's victory.”
The editorial board weighs in on anti-terrorism laws, in the wake of the UK Law Lords decision:
“The Canadian system is not without problems. Two cabinet ministers sign security certificates ordering a non-citizen terrorist suspect to be jailed until he can be deported. Some of the evidence for the certificate is secret, and cannot be seen by the suspect or his lawyer. (In Britain , the government appoints lawyers with a security clearance for the detainees; these lawyers cannot discuss the evidence with their clients.) It may be difficult for judges to weigh the evidence when they cannot ask the other side directly about all of it. But, as the Federal Court of Appeal said in the Charkaoui case, the system meets a constitutional standard of fairness because judges, not the state, decide what information must be kept secret to protect national security, and most of the case is not a secret at all. “Generally speaking, however, the evidence will be comprised of various elements most of which will have been disclosed or given to the person . . . either in whole or in the form of a summary that will allow him to gain reasonable knowledge of the content, nature and scope of the evidence.”
The choice for democracies is not between liberty and security. Liberty needs security to survive. And governments need room to make reasonable choices when battling terrorism, as long as they allow for due process, supervised by independent judges.”
The National Post and Ottawa Citizen front the next East-West spitting match and strippers visas--today's top story.
The Citizen also continues to make a big deal about the RCMP raid on its reporter’s home, while the Post adds Celebrex and Vince Carter to the front-page mix.
The Citizen serves up the runner-up for top story--it turns out that Stephane Dion is less than 100% sold on Kyoto.
Inside, too, Juliet O’Neil says she was fortunate to have had a lawyer after the RCMP came knocking.
Frankly, I don’t see anything heroic in publishing a self-serving document leaked by the RCMP to cover up its bungling in the Arar affair—a document that contained the avails of Syria ’s torture of Arar.
Inside the Post, Terence Corcoran poops on the OSC. Paul Berman wades in on the roots of Mideast terror; it’s obvious that he doesn’t know the first thing about the region.
John Ivison serves up a puff-piece on Belinda Stronach; here’s a sample of his memorable journalism:
“There's no question that I've learned a lot. It's you up there and you can get advice from people -- it's important to seek input -- but we have to make our own decisions and live with the consequences," she said in an interview, by now wearing her more customary Manolo Blahniks.”
Andrew Coyne wades in with just one of the reasons mainstream media and journalists don’t want you to know about a certain book (yours truly has written about the other reasons in the Afterword):
“The book of the year is also, curiously, the least noticed. In any other country, William Kaplan's A Secret Trial: Brian Mulroney, Stevie Cameron and the Public Trust would be a sensation. Parliament would be in an uproar. Public inquiries would be ordered. The implications would be thrashed out in every newspaper, on every talk show. We would be sick to death of it by now.
Consider just some of the events the book describes. The former prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, mere months after leaving office, accepted payments totalling $300,000 in a series of meetings with one Karlheinz Schreiber. In cash. In hotel rooms….
A strange, disquieting silence has fallen over the whole story. Aside from the Globe, none of the major papers that I am aware of even published a review -- this, for a book that for several weeks was among the top 10 bestsellers in Canada ….
The coincidental timing of the Gomery inquiry's hearings into the goings-on in government under Mr. Mulroney's successor, Jean Chretien, highlights how low our expectations have sunk. Our last two elected prime ministers, men who governed us for most of the last 20 years, have both left office under an ethical cloud. And hardly anyone thinks this worth mentioning.”
The Post’s editorial board says natural remedies are not always good for you. In letters, Industry critic James Rajotte stupidly responds to columnists attacking the Conservatives on Bombardier:
“I note that the National Post has been strangely silent about the aggressive lobbying campaign for massive taxpayer subsidies for the Asper museum in Winnipeg . I think your readers would be interested in knowing whether your paper supports these government subsidies for this endeavour and your position on taxpayer subsidies in general before attacking the Conservative Party for positions that we have not even taken.”
Elsewhere in CanWest land, Norman Webster is onto Australia in the Montréal Gazette. The Calgary Herald editorial board weighs in on contaminated feed.
In the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington plumps for Michel Drapeau as next military Ombudsman; there go his chances. In London, Chip Martin has the poop on local MPs and same-sex marriage.
TOP STORY
Thugs prompted stripper program
The National Post’s Robert Fife reports:
Posted by Norman Spector on December 18, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Friday, December 17, 2004
Dishonest Reporting Awards
Honest Reporting hosts their "fourth annual recognition of the most skewed and biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
Not surprisingly, Gwynne Dyer and CBC conspiracy theorist Neil MacDonald are featured.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 17, 2004 in Media | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Casino surveillance
I found this story rather hilarious:
New Jersey casino regulators have fined Caesars Atlantic City $80,000 for using surveillance cameras to spy on women wearing revealing clothing, the state's Casino Control Commission said on Thursday.
Being a bit of a math geek one of my pastimes is counting cards at blackjack tables whenever I travel to casino towns. Since casinos hate cardcounters one of the skills you have to develop is to be able to play without having surveillance detect what you're up to.
We've always known that if you sit next to someone with massive cleavage they pay no attention at all to the card counter at the table and you can play as long as you want with no worries. It appears regulators have just figured out where their attention was focused, too.
Posted by Kevin Jaeger on December 17, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Operation Receive
A little Iraqi girl with a teddy bear stops a US Marine convoy in its tracks.
Via 2Slick. More on Operation Give here .
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 17, 2004 in Military | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Daily dose of CanCon
With reference to Mr. Spector’s comment about CanCon on this site, I must admit that he has a point. I guess I am guilty as charged, although I think my posts are more international in nature as opposed to American. I think this boils down the problem outlined in Mark Steyn’s latest article in our host’s magazine entitled “What’s the big idea?”
…Successful conservatives don’t move toward the political centre. They move the political centre toward them. That’s what Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher both did.
…not just because they were powerful personalities, but because they had powerful ideas.
Since the Conservative Party of Canada has not presented any such big ideas, their reason for being is to replace the Liberal Party. Also, lacking such big ideas forces Canadian conservatives to fight internally (so-cons vs. fisc-cons) over policies. I present as evidence the lack of postings on this site (some in the comments, but generally ignored by posters) on the same-sex marriage issue. I would contend that this is because half the group is perfectly ok with the issue and the other half is afraid to add fuel to “hidden agenda” charge.
Sorry to bring up the US, but I think the conservative situation in Canada compares to the liberal situation in the US. Here they have the liberal hawks vs. the MoveOn.org/Michael Moore wing (see Peter Biernat) fighting to move to the center or further to the left. Here we have the PC ideology vs. Reform ideology. Again I will reference Mr. Steyn:
…But the point about moving toward the “political centre” is that, in doing so, you move the centre. If the Liberals are at one on the scale and the Tories are at nine, and their focus groups tell them to move to five, all they’ve done is ensure that henceforth the centre will be three, and they’ll be fighting entirely on the left’s terms and the left’s issues.
Until we determine which hills we are prepared to die on, how do we dig in and fight?
Cross-posted to PoliticalStaples
Posted by Greg Staples on December 17, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Sorry, but this is way cooler than "firewalls"...
"Starting today, Rogers Digital Cable customers will enjoy a 90 day free preview of Fox News on channel 197. This channel is now available to customers in Ontario and New Brunswick."
I still don't understand why it's ok to post news from European newspapers due to a whimsical time zone quirk and the fact that one is an early riser, but less ok to post stuff from US papers because Canadian conservatives might find it inspirational. Colour me baffled. I shall present myself at the nearest Double Good Think re-education camp just as soon as I finish up my daily handful of cold rice.
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on December 17, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
In the UK, one day after David Blunkett resigned, the Law Lords struck down a major part of his anti-terrorism law.
The military is being reorganized and famous regiments will disappear; sort of.
The papers are bullish on the British role in Mideast peace, after yesterday’s conciliatory speech by Ariel Sharon.
The Independent interviews Rwanda’s Paul Kagame; Africa could be in for a lot more bloodshed. The Financial Times reports on a flurry of M & A activity.
In France, the EU’s vote to talk Turkey is playing big, as is the UN’s deferral of sanctions on Ivory Coast.
Having stupidly banned headscarves in schools, the French are now turning their attention to the fate of Christmas trees.
In the US, the New York Times leads with increased aid for the Palestinians, and off-leads today’s top UK story, Blunkett’s bill.
The Washington Post leads with a local story and off-leads Osama’s latest message.
The Los Angeles Times leads with the Army National Guard not meeting recruitment targets.
The New York Times’ editorial board says the end of textile quotas is good news for free trade, and pans the latest big-name Washington lobbyist.
Paul Krugman poops on George Bush’s social security reform. Timothy Garton Ash says the US doesn’t appreciate the potential of the EU as an ally.
The Washington Post’s editorial board poops on the cops for hassling an anti-war 11-year old.
Two former Secretaries of State, James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher, weigh in on staying safe. Charles Krauthammer says leave Christmas alone, and hold the Hanukkah equivalency.
David Ignatius explains how Iran is winning the Iraq war. E. J. Dionne Jr. says US journalists are under attack.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board, unlike their counterparts in New York, says the timing is good to start the Iraq trials. Another editorialist says US students stink at math but are tops in self-delusion about it.
Francisco Letelier, whose dad was assassinated, makes the case against Pinochet. Jonathan Tait says Bush’s tax cuts are useless.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board says the Pinochet arrest is a victory for Chilean, not international justice. Daniel Henninger says bloggers have dictators on the run.
Daniel Akst says Google is democratizing knowledge. The Journal fronts another blow at Kyoto.
At home, notwithstanding having signed the protocol, we risk becoming an international pollution pariah.
Charges were laid in a huge immigration scam. Grapes says we should not give up on the season.
Speaking of notwithstanding, same-sex marriage slid into a Martin-Harper slugfest over section 33 yesterday. (Here’s my take, in today’s Vancouver Sun.)
From the peanut gallery, Ralph Klein also stepped into the ring. In the Calgary Sun, Link Byfield plumps for a referendum, while Rick Bell poops on his Premier.
In Edmonton, Paul Stanway reports that Alberta Tories are venting. In the Ottawa Sun, Michael Harris poops on official Ottawa. The Health minister is huffing and puffing.
Speaking of the gallery and same-sex and huffing and puffing, Don Newman made liberal use of Liberal talking points yesterday in presiding over another high-decibel, low-knowledge heckling match of the party communications directors.
In fairness, Newman, who’s been around the block a few times and has a great political memory, took a great shot at the panel’s BQ rep on Québec’s liberal use of the notwithstanding clause; the weakness of the bow-tied response was more than a matter of language.
Later in the program, Stephen Harper—who unlike most of the journalists he must deal with daily has a first-class mind--patiently explained the Supreme Court decision to Newman, who admittedly outshines the Conservative leader below the collar.
In truth, Newman has been woefully out of his depth since day one—when a dejected-looking law professor, Bruce Ryder, tried repeatedly to explain the significance of the Supreme Court not answering question # 4.
Yesterday, he looked distinctly uncomfortable when Harper, urging journalists not to pre-judge the outcome of future Supreme Court decisions, gently reminded Newman that he had completely blown it the first time.
He was not the only one. You’ll have to tune in to Newman’s regular Friday afternoon roundtable with the Toronto Star to see if the notwithstanding penny has finally dropped in the press gallery.
Speaking of the Star, Tonda Maccharles, who has a good head on her shoulders, dishes up a good run-down of the day’s events. Les Whittington chases yesterday’s National Post blockbuster Gomery interview, as does Daniel Leblanc in the Globe.
The Star fronts Karla Homolka, new rules for distributing foreign television and the latest on Detroit Toronto teen violence. (Here it is tab-style.)
The Hell’s Angels are into billboard advertising. Carol Goar dumps on security certificates. Lloyd Axworthy says Paul Martin must reject missile defence.
The editorial board tub-thumps for the Snowbirds continuing to soar, and is cheered by the prospect of a Pinochet trial. The managing editor is leaving, and she says journalism is about speaking truth to power.
Speaking of the truth, the Star corrects lots of trivial errors but still has not run this correction to Mitch Potter front-page story on Wednesday.
The Globe and Mail fronts the Martin-Harper spitting match, Toronto cops and gay-sensitivity training, a court quashing MP3 fees and the Montréal school library firebombing.
Turns out the perp cracked watching television news; I wonder which network.
Inside, Tu Thanh Ha has more on the investigation of the politically-motivated crime. The Montreal Gazette adds some interesting poop the others miss.
Back in the Globe, John Ibbitson says the notwithstanding clause might eventually go the way of the disallowance power. Barrie McKenna is a day behind the curve on the latest Washington lobbyist.
A bouquet to Shawn McCarthy, who has the poop on M & A activity, the lead story in today’s Financial Times. And to Stephanie Nolen, for a report on a refugee report.
In commentary, Reg Stackhouse takes on the view of religion served up yesterday by Preston Manning:
“In my own lifetime, Canadians have learned to live with a succession of changes in lifestyle, each one feared as the first step on a slippery slope. Yet we have remained “a peaceable kingdom,” a place envied around the world by men and women eager to live where they can be free. Not so that they can wallow in sin. Just so that they can be themselves.
But that has not made Canada a wasteland of godlessness. We have opened up Sunday. We have decriminalized contraception, abortion and homosexual activity. We have given ready access to divorce and remarriage. In six provinces and one territory, we already have same-sex marriage. But we also have a vigorous spiritual life. If all the country's worship services are added together, they can still outdraw the total attendance at all our sports events — even when the NHL is playing. So, as a Christian citizen, I am not going to urge my MP to vote “No.” This country is the world's best place to live because we accommodate one another. The Fathers of Confederation showed it when they fashioned a Constitution that accepted differences. Our MPs can show it again.”
Rick Salutin is pleased that Pinochet will stand trial but disapproves of the procedures for Saddam Hussein.
Jeff Simpson says Paul Tellier would make the perfect ambassador to Washington, though he’s not sure whether he has Paul Martin’s confidence.
The editorial board weighs in on missile defence:
“Mr. Martin should stop dithering, stop prattling from the sidelines, stop playing to the anti-American sentiment on Canada 's main streets, and do the right thing. The strategic interests of this country demand it.”
The National Post fronts Martin slamming Harper and praising Muammar Ghadaffi—who’s the villain?, it asks--along with John Ivison remembering Lockerbie and serving up his take on the meeting.
In commentary, Brian Lee Crowley says things are hopping in Halifax. Sheila Copps weighs in with governor-generalities about multiculturalism but—unlike the agnostic headline writer--never states her position on same-sex marriage.
Don Martin—who scored the big interview yesterday--votes John Gomery man of the year:
“The good thing about having a cattle rancher in charge of a government inquiry is that these people know bulls--t when they smell it. And Gomery, facing dozens of overpriced lawyers and witnesses scrambling to protect their butts from a legal kicking, undoubtedly senses the odour of bovine fertilizer everywhere. Here's hoping somebody gives Justice John Gomery a shovel for Christmas.”
The editorial board says Irwin Cotler has been misrepresenting the Supreme Court decision, and Jonathan Kay is right about his fellow Yalie.
Elsewhere in CanWest land, the Calgary Herald fronts the Harper-Klein rift. The editorial board weighs in on child porn.
In Vancouver, an accounting watchdog has been bilking clients. The editorial board touts a better way to negotiate with teachers. In Victoria, the editorial board is gung-ho for anti-smoking rules.
The Montréal Gazette fronts snowmobile restrictions, the school library firebombing and foreign television in Canada.
Josée Legault dumps on Lucien Bouchard:
“It was thanks to a series of investigative pieces in Le Devoir that Lacroix's backroom lobbying was finally exposed. It was so clandestine even the CHUM board hadn't been informed of it when Lacroix started lobbying the Charest government.
Fearing the government will opt for the St. Luc site, Bouchard ironically is now asking for more "transparency and information" regarding the CHUM. When he was premier, he never did practise these two virtues whether on the CHUM or a host of other issues.
As for Desmarais' role, it remains troubling on two counts. First, he negotiated with CP the sale of its rail yard without any mandate from the government or the CHUM board. Last time Quebecers looked, Desmarais, though he might be powerful, was neither health minister nor premier.
Second, it's impossible to escape the impression that La Presse, a paper he owns, has been commandeered in the lobby campaign for the Outremont site through a number of favourable articles, editorials and columns. Bouchard's op-ed piece - also reported on the front page - is the latest attempt to try to sway the government's choice.
La Presse has the freedom to defend what it wants, but Bouchard or anyone else shouldn't take offence such relentless campaigning in a paper owned by a man who belongs to Lacroix's lobby raises more than a few eyebrows. Especially considering the opposition to the Outremont site keeps mounting among the public as well as community and health-care groups.
If the cruel truth be told, Quebecers might have been able to afford Lacroix's grandiose project if Bouchard's own zero-deficit follies hadn't crippled our health-care system. Bouchard failed to invest to meet two crying needs: more doctors and nurses and better equipment. Those should be the priority.”
The Ottawa Citizen fronts charges in the immigration scam and the threat of US spooks getting hold of data on Canadian students.
Inside, Susan Riley says our problems could be a lot worse, and she’s right. The editorial board weighs in on the Gomery interview:
“Watching the Gomery inquiry unfold, however, one can't help but wonder if the sponsorship program is more than just a workaday case of "system breakdown." Could it be that the safeguards to ensure accountability and good management were so artfully omitted from the very architecture of the program that its misuse was not so much inevitable as preordained? Too conspiratorial? That's for Mr. Gomery to determine.”
Posted by Norman Spector on December 17, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
We're Number 1!
Let it not be said that Canada's Kyoto "efforts" are not being recognized:New Zealand ranks high among the industrialised countries now facing greehouse gas emissions beyond their agreed targets for 2012, Reuters reports. The Kyoto protocol to cut greenhouse gases goes into effect two months from now and Canada leads the laggards with emissions growth at 20 per cent from its levels in 1990 although it has committed to a 6 per cent reduction by 2012.At least we're an example for New Zealand to point at. It is interesting to New Zealand politicians being more honest than Canadians:
Energy Minister Pete Hodgson, convener of the Government's ministerial committee on climate change, has previously said the Kyoto Protocol has "close to zero" chance of providing any significant relief from global climate change. Instead, he sees the first commitment period as just the first step in changing national behaviour on greenhouse gas emissions.It's not really about climate, it's just a tool for behaviour control.
Posted by Kevin Jaeger on December 17, 2004 in Science | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Do the Christmas shuffle
Despite Prime Minister Paul Martin's spokesman Scott Reid's denials that "there is no cabinet shuffle" (in other words, there is not, at this exact moment, a cabinet shuffle), Judy Sgro's time at the cabinet table is about to come to an end. Canadian Press is reporting "the Privy Council Office has ordered the Immigration Department to prepare new briefing books this week in the event of a shuffle. "
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 16, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Pamela Anderson's library
Here's a little somethign to satisfy the unofficial CanCon rule/expectation for The Shotgun: what Pamela Anderson is reading.
Star - by Pamela Anderson
Power of a Praying Woman - by Stormie Omartian
Siddhartha - by Herman Hesse
The Sermon on the Mount - by Emmet Fox
The One Year Bible...The entire Living Translation arranged in 365 daily readings - by TYNDALE
The Canadian-born star of VIP also provides a list of the books from her library, which is more like a single shelf of literary, spiritual, psychology and self-help books.
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 16, 2004 in Books | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Political Escapism
Several months ago, a gentleman (from Kelowna, I believe) posted a note wondering why there's so little discussion of Canadian issues on this site.
Today, with Stephen Harper fighting the good fight against same-sex marriage--fending off assaults from Ralph Klein and Paul Martin and with the media piling on for good measure--I'd like to second the point.
Sure there are a lot of interesting things going on in the US. But, unless you are a dual citizen, obsessing on their issues is a form of escapism.
Ladies and gentlemen, we vote here, not there. And while it's much harder work, the challenge is to influence others who vote in Canada.
Posted by Norman Spector on December 16, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Launch Failed?
Against the backdrop of Paul Martin squelching hope in the cattle industry, the MSM has been reporting a "failed" test of the missile defense shield. From Powerline this background information;
The Reuters report by Jim Wolf of a failed missile defense test last night is flawed by either intent or ignorance.
The first test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed on Wednesday when the interceptor missile shut down as it prepared to launch in the central Pacific, the Pentagon said.
The interceptor missile did not shut down because of some malfunction, it was shut down intentionally because of inability to monitor performance of a boost stage rocket detected during pre-launch system checks. The boost stage might have been set to work properly or it might not have, but a test of this magnitude and expense demands ability to monitor all mission critical systems so that all necessary data is available for post-mission review. When it became clear that this would not be the case, the mission was scrubbed, not failed.[...]
The MSM will continue to denounce missile defense as impossible--I think they've given up on the argument that it would be "destabilizing"--right up to the moment when it is successfully deployed.
That's the usual pattern.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 16, 2004 in Military | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Unknown Ideal
I am tired of hearing the sports media talk about the "free market" as it relates to the hockey labour dispute.
So I have written a really really really long post about it over at The Meatriarchy.
Here is a small sample:
All other unions negotiate the salary of their members at one collective bargaining agreement. The salaries (hourly rates) are fixed for the term of the contract. This gives labour the money they want and management “cost certainty".
However in professional sports if you try this it is called a “salary cap” and is for some reason the devils handiwork. If you are an owner advocating such a cap you are to be scorned by the tweed jacket and bearded set that write for the sports sections of various papers because you are somehow a free market hypocrite.
The real hypocrites are the players in this case. If you want a free market for your services then you shouldn’t be in a union. Sorry a union by it’s very nature is anti-free market
If this hasn't bored you to death you can read the rest here.
Posted by Justin Bogdanowicz on December 16, 2004 in Sports | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
In the UK, new details are emerging on Yasser Arafat’s death, and on George Bush’s cabinet.
However, all papers with lead with news that the Home Secretary has resigned over a stripper’s nanny’s visa.
Remember folks, whether it’s spelled nanny or stripper, deleting e-mails does not erase them from your hard drive.
Meanwhile in the US, The New York Times is still trying to find the nanny who led to Bernard Kerik’s downfall.
Speaking of men monkeys, the paper reports the discovery of a new species in the Himalayas.
At home, taxes are going up in Ottawa. Calm down. DND is into two-tier health care.
Greg Weston says Judy Sgro must go—and not just because of the stripper. Susan Delacourt interviewed the US ambassador, who had some interesting things to say about missile defence.
It was an embarrassing day for the RCMP at the Gomery Commission. Things aren’t looking too good for the Captain of the Chicoutimi either.
In France, the Mayor of Paris is a ditherer. The president, Jacques Chirac, took to the airwaves to persuade 65 million Frenchmen that they can be and are wrong about talking Turkey.
A former Prime Minister has become a blogger. Bring on the competition, say I.
Back in the US, the New York Times leads with a failed anti-missile missile; maybe Paul Martin is a rocket scientist specialist after all.
The editorial board says Iraq’s government should not be playing politics with war crimes trials, and praises an Israeli-Egyptian trade deal.
Tom Friedman reports the Administration is holding up release of the third Arab Human Development report.
The Washington Post leads with a local story, baseball, but Expos fans should not get their hopes up. Prospects for Arctic drilling have improved.
The editorial board says the US should not renege on textile promises made to China. Jim Hoagland is onto reform in Ukraine.
The Los Angeles Times leads with President Bush promising a strong dollar. The editorial board says China is beating up on Nike and LeBron James.
Max Boot says the EU should welcome Turkey. Margaret Carlson uses the Kerik screw-up to dump on Rudy.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board plumps for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Peggy Noonan says the Democrats should support Christmas.
The Toronto Star stuffs what, in my humble estimation, is today’s top story.
It fronts the US missile flop and new anti-smoking rules in Ontario, and torques some old news about Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien on their way to the Gomery Inquiry.
Robin Harvey explores links between the Premier and a tobacco lobbyist. The editorial board praises the new rules, and poops on the US softwood stance.
The Globe and Mail catches up with the Blunkett story you’ve been reading about here for days. Inside, it reports another story you’ve been reading about—the Sprint-Nextel merger.
The Globe also fronts the RCMP at the Gomery Inquiry and the Chicoutimi sub inquiry which is honing in on the Captain.
Chinese students are kissing and revolting and Ralph Klein is onto same-sex. (Yours truly weighs in on the issue in today's Le Devoir.)
From New York, Shawn McCarthy reports on Kofi Annan’s attempt to re-build his relationship with the US. Lawrence Martin endorses Québec’s domination of Canadian politics:
“While Quebec's sovereigntist movement almost destroyed the country, the excess of Quebec power in Ottawa has preserved it.
Imagine if the western provinces had owned 24 Sussex for much of this time and had produced the dynamic leaders who could ignore Quebec interests because the province was of little political value to them. What kind of country, if a country at all, would it have been? How would a Quebec — barely willing to put up with its own people running the show in Ottawa , never mind leaders beholden to another region — have stayed in?
Given the conservative lean of Western Canada and the overwhelming pull of the United States, how far without Quebec would this country have moved in that direction? How far would it have moved away from its respect for language rights, social justice and other progressive values?
The four-decade domination of Quebec is unprecedented, unfair and unending. It has nothing to recommend it, save for the fact that it may well have saved the country.”
Preston Manning weighs in on same-sex marriage:
“The preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” The rule of law is a founding principle — not a branch, but a root — to be recognized, protected and applied consistently.
But, according to the Charter, acknowledgment of God and the values that flow from a spiritual conception of law and morality is also one of Canada 's founding principles. It, too, should be recognized, protected and brought to bear on the realities of modern life, including the institution of marriage. Besides, the Constitution existed for more than a century before the Charter was added as a schedule (an appendix) — grafted from the French and U.S. constitutional traditions onto a trunk rooted in British constitutional tradition.
While contemporary Canadian courts, largely Liberal-appointed, are obliged by the Charter to make Charter compatibility the principal criterion for judging every law and public policy, federal and provincial legislators have the right (and obligation) to take a broader and deeper approach, as the Charter itself acknowledges. At the insistence of the premiers, it contains the “notwithstanding clause” that allows Parliament and the legislatures, if they so choose, to base certain laws and policies on principles and values other than those enshrined in the Charter. If Canadians want their legislators to base the definition of marriage on something broader and deeper than Charter conformity, they should urge MPs and MLAs to do so.”
John Ibbitson, who says Natural Resources minister John Efford is probably toast because of the equalization negotiations, assesses him on same-sex:
“It may simply be that Mr. Efford is torn between his genuine conviction that marriage is something only men and women can enter into together and his deep desire to remain in cabinet. Since this column is written in Ottawa , here's betting that Mr. Efford finds a way to support the government. But what does anyone in Ottawa know about what's really happening in Avalon?”
The editorial board poops on Stephen Harper’s same-sex marriage position:
“Mr. Harper has made it difficult to know exactly where he stands, but the ground supporting him looks like quicksand.”
Another editorialist has advice for Paul Martin:
“Mr. Martin should let the ministers vote their consciences. Yes, there is an important civil right at stake, but an even greater right — the right to live — was at stake in the 1987 vote on whether to reintroduce capital punishment, and that was put to a free vote. Then-prime-minister Brian Mulroney, who personally opposed the death penalty, allowed his ministers the freedom given to other MPs. Mr. Martin should do the same here.”
The National Post fronts the mob and child pornography, an OSC investigation and Don Martin’s interview with Judge Gomery:
“It's impossible not to like Chuck Guite," Mr. Gomery grinned. "Let's face it, he's a charming scamp and he had his department mesmerized. He got himself promoted just before his retirement and thereby built up his pension. I'm going to hear more about Mr. Guite. He'll probably have to testify again." …
"People are extraordinarily turned off right now and they're turned off partly because of this scandal. I think shining the light of day on the facts will allow a sort of purging. We need to expose the facts, come to a conclusion, and only then can we turn the page." …
"I have nothing to lose. I'm 72, I have no ambitions, I'm going to retire in three years, I'm not going to run for office, I'm not looking for any reward, I'm not getting any reward. I'm about as free as anybody could imagine. And I really don't give a damn what they think," he said during a lunch break in hearings this week.
But Judge Gomery is disappointed Mr. Martin recently vowed not to call an election until after the inquiry issues its report.
"That, I have to tell you, bothers me because it puts me into the political arena. We decided on our schedule long before the Prime Minister made that statement," he said.”
Inside, Colby Cosh says Ralph Klein is actually a libertarian:
“Although Klein has been speaking all the familiar social-conservative phrases about the great antiquity and singularity of traditional marriage, his language, closely examined, suggests that the fight has more to do with the "feelings of [his] caucus" than with his own passion for heterosexual exceptionalism. Alberta may not be same-sex paradise, but its Premier is a pretty live-and-let-live kind of guy.”
Warren Kinsella wades in on Paul Martin’s trip to Libya:
“According to the RCMP, Canada 's Foreign Affairs Department and Southam News, which conducted a rigorous investigation into the death of their employee, Halens raised the ire of the Libyan secret police when he started asking questions about Gaddafi's involvement with neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and terrorists. (The notebooks Halens had been using all that week in Tripoli were never found.) He was murdered for doing his job as a journalist, in other words. That, certainly, is the view of his family, friends and colleagues….
If Canada is to enhance its stature in the international community as a defender of human rights, it should start by standing up for its own citizens. Mr. Martin must demand a full and frank accounting not only of Halens' death, but also of the issue that brought him to Libya : the country's support for terrorism and extremism.”
Bruce Garvey serves up an especially ignorant column connecting Paul Martin’s position on same-sex marriage to the murder of Theo van Gogh on Holland.
Elsewhere in CanWest land, the Vancouver Sun fronts contaminated cattle feed.
Here on the island, a Victoria cop has been charged in the investigation that raided the Legislature. The editorial board plumps for retaliation against US lumber producers.
The Montréal Gazette fronts the bad news for Huntington textile workers, Karla Homolka (here it is in the Toronto Sun) and charges against the dad of les Canadiens’ goalie. The editorial board says textile aid should be tied to structural change.
The Ottawa Citizen fronts the RCMP at the Gomery Inquiry, two-tier health care at DND and another instalment of its terrorism and the law series.
From Queen’s Doug Bland says it’s time to pay the military bill. The editorial board wades in on Mideast peace:
“Only when (if) Mr. Abbas is president will it be possible to ascertain his intentions, by seeing whether he uses the intelligence and security apparatus available to him to disrupt Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups operating in the territories.”
TOP STORY
No space weapons, envoy says
The Toronto Star’s SUSAN DELACOURT reports:
“The United States is prepared to guarantee the Canadian government that the proposed missile-defence program will not put weapons in space, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada , Paul Cellucci.”
Posted by Norman Spector on December 16, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Sentenced to death row
The Boston Globe has some interesting figures on how the death penalty is (not) utilized in California. Consider:
* There are 641 people on death row in the Golden State;
* Since capital punishment was re-instituted in 1978, California has executed a total of 10 inmates.
* During that same time, 38 death row inmates have died of other causes, including being murdered by other prisoners (3), committing suicide (12) and dying of natural causes (23).
In other words, more than twice as many criminals who have been sentenced to death have died of natural causes than have been executed. Perhaps that is one reason why capital punishment does not deter. And why there is widespread disillusionment with the criminal justice system.
(Cross-posted at Sobering Thoughts)
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 15, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Ministerial Responsibility
If you want a refresher course on how a Westminster Parliament and the tradition of ministerial responsibility is supposed to work, it's useful to follow how things still work in the UK. There, when Ministers are caught abusing their authority they do the honourable thing and resign:
David Blunkett has quit as home secretary after an e-mail emerged showing a visa application for his ex-lover's nanny had been fast-tracked. The e-mail had said "no favours but slightly quicker".
Mr Blunkett said he had not been aware of its contents and insisted he had done nothing wrong.
But he said questions about his honesty had damaged the government.
This is just for expediting a visa for a nanny, he didn't personally benefit.
Meanwhile, in Canada, Judy Sgro had a stripper working as part of her campaign staff and rewards her appropriately. I'm not sure what's worse. That the Liberals are utterly without shame over abusing the system for their own ends or the passive apathy Canadians show in putting up with it.
Posted by Kevin Jaeger on December 15, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Incorrectly reading the tea leaves
I'm thinking that Gary Collins, B.C.'s finance minister until he...
(see http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3e0a55ed-36fb-4df6-ab9b-9b82ea467187)
...resigned today, may be readying himself for a future B.C. Liberal leadership run in addition to spending more time with his family.
This is a wild guess on my part, but I am reminded of the example of Bill Vander Zalm, who suddenly discovered in 1983 that he needed to spend more time with his family, only to return in 1986 to win the leadership of the Social Credit Party. He then served four years as B.C.'s premier.
A few years off from politics would allow Mr. Collins to spend time with his family and make some extra money. It would also allow him to disassociate himself from Gordon Campbell's government, and run for the leadership as a "new and improved" politician.
Interestingly, former B.C. deputy premier Christie Clark, who also recently quit politics to spend more time with her kids, is...
( see http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/11/07/704808-cp.html )
...finding time to keep a media profile by criticizing her former party for not recruiting enough women into politics. I am wondering if she is also keeping her political powder dry. (Why do I say this? Well, if Clark really wanted to turn her back on politics completely, she could say "No comment" when asked about issues like this. Think of former premier Rita Johnston, who seemed to drop off the face of the earth after the Socreds lost the 1991 election. She merely retired, but political retirement for Johnston meant completely leaving the political scene.)
If Clark and Collins are making future political plans, they may both be banking on the B.C. Liberals narrowly winning the upcoming provincial election. A chastened Gordon Campbell would serve as premier for three or four more years and then "outsiders" Clark and Collins would run to replace him.
A B.C. Liberal loss in the next election would throw a wrench into the works. Campbell's job could then open up quickly and the next B.C. Liberal leader would presumably be given a chance to contest the next election.
Posted by Rick Hiebert on December 15, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Deserters welcome?
[cross-posted to Daimnation!]
In an end-of-year interview with Global TV, Paul Martin said Americans who avoid serving in Iraq may be allowed into Canada:
In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq.
"In terms of immigration, we are a country of immigrants and we will take immigrants from around the world. I'm not going to discriminate," said Martin, when reminded that former prime minister Pierre Trudeau opened Canada's doors to draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War.
When asked whether the prime minister was referring to ongoing attempts by Jeremy Hinzman, a 26-year-old U.S. deserter, to gain asylum in Canada after refusing to serve in what he calls "an illegal war," Martin spokesman Scott Reid said the prime minister "was not commenting on any individual case and certainly was not sending a signal to the immigration board."
If Martin merely means Americans who want to leave can take their place in line and become legal immigrants to Canada - and that is the way I read his comments - I can't argue with that. But if he's talking about some kind of amnesty for U.S. army deserters (like the "refugees" who've gotten so much sympathetic media attention up here), I can call it nothing less than an open admission that we're comfortable with American failure in Iraq.
Posted by Damian Penny on December 15, 2004 in Military | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
You tell me
Which party is taking the extremist position on gay marriage?
Posted by Alan Rockwell on December 15, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR,where the articles are hotlinked.
The New York Times leads with a post-mortem on the White House appointment screw-up, and it’s full of juicy details.
The Los Angeles Times fronts the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, as does the Washington Post.
Aside from baseball, the Post fronts the upcoming trial of Saddam Hussein’s aides.
In the UK, the leader of the BNP was arrested and questioned about inciting racial hatred. Auditors face stiff penalties for misleading reports.
Tony Blair’s government pushed through a “living will” law, and has agreed to store foreign nuclear waste.
Meanwhile, the diplomatic corps is in mourning at having to close missions, and the police are under attack for discrimination.
The Independent fronts my ex-CBC sparring partner, Robert Fisk, in possession of documents that “show beyond any doubt that Mr [Baha] Mousa was killed in British Army custody.”
Perhaps, but Fisk—an iconic figure to many people—has misquoted or misunderstood documents on the Mideast before.
In France, President Jacques Chirac takes to the airwaves this evening to sell his policy on Turkey and the EU to a sceptical nation.
Hizbullah’s television station, Al-Manar, has thrown in the towel on broadcasting to Europe. Specialists are treated specially in a new deal with the doctors.
At home, same-sex marriage continues to roil the two major parties. The Prime Minister is ruling out an election next year, today's top story.
There was more damaging testimony at the Gomery Inquiry yesterday, though you won’t know it if you rely on the CBC and the Toronto Star for your news. To the Star's credit, it alone continues to poke around the Millennium program.
The NHL talks are deadlocked and the lockout continues. New international rules are causing layoffs in Québec, and the government is falling over itself to respond.
Personally, I’m waiting for Industry Minister David Emerson to explain how, like aerospace, the schmatte business is a strategic sector--one in which Canada has comparative advantage.
Also in Ottawa, the press gallery viewed the Prime Minister year-enders; only in one of the many reports today do we learn that the scribes broke out in laughter when Mr. Martin insisted he was decisive.
Back in the USA, the New York Times’ editorial board poops on the Bush Administration’s weak dollar policy, and weighs in on the Pinochet trial.
Nicholas Kristof says a fascist Russia is better than a communist one. Bill Safire is bullish on stem cells.
The Washington Post’s editorial board praises the Administration’s push for Mideast reform. David Broder evaluates Bush’s second cabinet.
Neo-con Bill Kristol will set tongues wagging in Washington today with his piece pooping on Don Rumsfeld. Anne Appelbaum says Russia is sinking. Robert Samuelson says retirement benefits are unsustainable.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board weighs in on the Peterson trial and capital punishment, and NASA. Senator Joseph Biden is onto the Mideast ’s second chance.
In the Wall Street Journal, Claudia Rosett sees a renaissance of democracy in the Ukraine story. The editorial board says Syria is working against the US in Iraq.
Another editorialist explains why US students did poorly while Finland and Alberta finished 1-2 in the recent OECD education study; you’ll not have seen this in any Canadian media:
“The recipe for success, as project director Andreas Schleicher explained at a recent briefing in Brussels, is a decentralized system where schools are given a large degree of autonomy over curriculum and budget decisions. Whether schools are public or private is not as important as whether they "operate like a private one," Mr. Schleicher said.
-- Another important element is an open, flexible education system. In Germany, where the abysmal results of the 2000 study caused much public debate, the system is very rigid and often predetermines a child's future at an early age. As early as the age of 10, teachers decide whether a student will attend a school that ends with a university qualification or one where the diploma only opens the opportunity to learn a trade or to enter a low-level university.
-- Last but not least, successful schools have teachers who have a large degree of autonomy and responsibility, which leads in turn to a high degree of professionalism. It is not simply a matter of remuneration. Teachers in Finland get paid relatively little, but according to Mr. Schleicher there is a strong professional ethos and teachers routinely exchange experience to improve their skills.”
The Toronto Star fronts Abu Mazen changing the Palestinians’ course, tougher anti-smoking rules in Ontario and an optimistic take on the NHL lockout.
Inside, Tim Harper reports on an award ceremony in Washington. Richard Gwyn supports a referendum on same-sex marriage.
Carol Goar dishes up those doing the spade work on Paul Martin’s L-20 “crusade.” Omigod, I thought the word was a no-no.
Hugh Segal says Paul Martin is doing a good job. The editorial board makes the case for Bombardier, and pats Taiwanese voters on the back.
The Globe and Mail editorial board says the Government should ask Bombardier some hard questions before opening the taps:
“Bombardier is a company in serious difficulty. And, while Mr. Tellier's turnaround strategy (primarily lowering costs and refocusing on core businesses) hasn't yet borne fruit, there's no reason to believe anyone else has a better solution. If anything, Mr. Beaudoin may make matters worse. The history of family-controlled conglomerates that eschew professional management is not a glorious one.
This is not to say the company should be summarily written off. But there should be hard evidence of a credible strategic plan — such as the one Mr. Tellier had in place — before Ottawa comes leaping to the rescue, chequebook in hand.”
Another editorialist says it’s time to say goodnight to the Starbirds:
“Perhaps some day, after the Canadian military is rebuilt, this country will once again be in a position to field a top-echelon, superbly equipped aerobatic team. For now, it isn't. The choice for Defence Minister Bill Graham is hard, but clear.”
The Globe fronts the NHL, the Cons and the Grits on same-sex marriage, Canadian doctors performing tiny miracles and date-rape drugs in Vancouver.
Inside, the Goat serves up the latest business/media gossip. Doug Saunders reports on the sorry state of migrants to Libya.
Jeff Simpson says Stephen Harper is misleading Canadians in refusing to say he’d have to use the notwithstanding clause to affirm the traditional definition of marriage; Simpson invokes a companion piece by Peter Hogg to buttress his view.
Aside from being a lousy political tactician, Simpson should begin by acknowledging that most pundits were wrong about how the Court would decide the case last week.
Since there are no facts in the future, no one can guarantee how the Supreme Court would rule on the traditional definition. Judges, too, read the newspapers. Even Hogg—who argued the case for Ottawa --goes no further in the piece Simpson quotes, than to write:
“the court dropped some broad hints that it agreed with the lower court decisions that the opposite-sex requirement for marriage was discriminatory and contrary to the Charter.”
Even if the Court did eventually strike down the traditional decision, no one can say now whether its decision would be well argued or patently political. No one can say now how the public would feel then about the use of the notwithstanding clause.
In short, Simpson is jumping the gun-which is fine for a columnist but not advisable in government.
Also in commentary today, John Ibbitson says Paul Martin has no legacy to speak of:
“This Liberal government has spent one full year preparing the ground for what it calls transformative change. Thus far, nothing has been transformed. The government has until June to implement the core of its agenda, while also dealing with the same-sex-marriage and missile-defence files, and dealing with whatever excitements of the day might arise. After that, the increasing instability of a minority Parliament will make major legislation increasingly harder to pass.
The Liberals, in other words, are running out of time.”
The National Post and Ottawa Citizen front the NHL and Paul Martin on missile defence.
The Post adds a deportee who’s been using a toy gun in stick-ups. The Citizen adds stolen snowblowers, an abusive soccer coach and Canadians jailed abroad in the war on terrorism.
Inside, Peter Foster trashes last week’s PollutionWatch report. The editorial boars says Paul Martin has gone mushy on missiles.
Andrew Coyne wonders what’s happened to Stephen Harper, who opposes a referendum on same-sex marriage and supports Bombardier subsidies.
John Ivison spent the day watching Paul Martin’s year-enders, and serves up one of his favourite moments:
“Back in the real world, tough love demanded that someone shake Mr. Martin gently and point out that writing cheques to the provinces for health, daycare and cities is hardly the stuff from which prime ministerial legends are made.
"The role of the federal government is to establish national objectives and build the consensus behind them," he said defensively at one point, which would be fair enough if that's what he'd been doing. In fact, as Bob Fife pointed out, Mr. Martin has introduced a new vision called asymmetrical federalism, which allows provinces to strike separate deals. "Critics say that will lead to a checkerboard Canada and that you, in essence, are the head waiter for the provinces," the reporter said, to be greeted with an icy retort.
"Let me just tell you that's just -- that's just sheer nonsense. I have and I always will defend Canada. That's my role as prime minister and it's one of the reasons I wanted to be prime minister."
Elsewhere in CanWest land, the Montréal Gazette editorial board wants light shone on Bombardier. Their counterparts in Ottawa laud Rick Van Loon’s achievements at Carleton.
In British Columbia, the finance minister has resigned (here’s the new job and here’s the Globe version), and the government is playing ball with polygamists.
The Sun’s editorial board says hockey will survive; in Victoria, the tall foreheads pan the sex-offenders registry.
Posted by Norman Spector on December 15, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
The state has no business in the rinks of the country
Paul Martin said his government could intervene in the NHL lock0ut although he did not indicate in what capacity. The Globe and Mail reports on Martin's interview with the CBC:
"There's only a role for Ottawa if the parties want it ... There's not a role for Ottawa if Ottawa simply goes in there and says to either the players' association or the owners, 'Look now, here we come' ... But I've made it very clear if both sides thought there was a role for us to play that we would be prepared to play it."
Now imagine what the reaction would be if President George W. Bush suggested he might become involved in any sports' labour dispute.
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 14, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Abbas Making the Right Moves
I have always thought that if the Palestinians were willing to use peaceful methods, instead of the violence favored by Yasser Arafat, they would have had a much better chance of getting their own state. Using nonlethal methods of protest would have put them on par with Israel in the eyes of much of the world, making a agreement between the two more likely. In the past it has been too easy to dismiss the Palestinian side because of their reliance on terrorism.
Sure terrorism got their cause noticed worldwide in the early years, but it should have been abandoned long ago in favor of a different and more peaceful route. Their leaders never prepared the people to move past the use of violence as the only means of getting a state. But lately, Mahmoud Abbas seems to be the man to lead the Palestinians to a brighter, more peaceful and prosperous future.
Last week Abbas apologized to Kuwait, because the Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war. This week he is saying what so many already know, that the armed uprising of the last four years has been a mistake and that Palestinians should only use nonlethal means to acquire a state.
"The use of weapons is harmful and it should stop,"
It has been a long time that I've waited to hear a leader of the Palestinian people say those words. Let's just hope that Abbas gets himself elected and has a strong mandate from his people to lead them in a more productive manner than the old corrupt leadership did. Peace depends on a strong and accountable Palestinian government.
It seems to me like its now or never for the Israelis and Palestinians to put the past behide themselves and cooperate on a future together. We can only hope that Abbas wins out over the likes of Hamas and the other rejectionist groups, because if he doesn't, things are only going to get worse instead of better, and that is unthinkable.
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Bob Matheson on December 14, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Postpartum obsession
The Globe and Mail seems absolutely captivated by the terrible incident of the Andrea Labbe murders, in which the Toronto wife and mother of three, brutally killed her husband and two of her babies, and are advancing with great vigour the post-partum depression angle.
Yesterday's piece ran a (print only) headline: She probably didn't even know how depressed she was.
Today's: A common illness not uncommonly overlooked
In other words, Labbe was clearly a victim of all this too. The victim of a society not attuned to listen for a mother's cries for help. That's if there had been cries for help, since the poor dear didn't even know that she needed help.
The murders are heartbreaking and there is little doubt that anyone who is capable of knifing a toddler to death is sick in the head. But my experience is that mental illness sympathies are rarely if ever trotted out to excuse brutal murder/suicides committed by fathers. And rightly so. Psychosis is surely a factor in many of these cases, but to allow that to obscure the mendacity of the act itself would be to compromise too much.
Last week, Anne Kingston had some keen insights into this impulse to excuse Labbe for a murder that may not have been postpartum depression after all (subscription required). Here's an excerpt:
. . . None of Gartner's research, which spans 100 years, includes one case of a woman who killed both her husband and her children. "Men commit familicide, but it's highly unusual for women to do it," she says.
Indeed, the reasons why women kill their husbands and the reasons they kill their children are diametrically opposed. Women kill their husbands most often out of fury -- because they are being left, because they have been betrayed or because they have been abused.
They kill their children because they believe, often delusionally, that they have failed them, which is also cited as a reason men murder their families. But when women do it, it's called "altruistic suicide," a term that implies that even when murdering their children, women are exercising maternal duty. Some scholars even view infanticide as a mother's suicide by proxy, though most mothers who kill their children do not kill themselves. And they usually do not do so in as violent a manner as Labbe did.
It was Dr. Verinder Sharma, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario, who dared make a heretical suggestion to a reporter looking into the postpartum angle. "We shouldn't really jump to the conclusion that it's got to be mental illness," he told this paper on Saturday. He is correct. But when women kill, especially when mothers kill, we inevitably do.
In England, for instance, the Infanticide Act automatically reduces the penalty for all acts of maternal aggression from murder to manslaughter on the basis of insanity if the mother is seen not to have fully recovered from the act of giving birth.
. . .
Andrea Labbe left behind a suicide note, which suggests premeditation. The police are not making it public, which means we'll likely never know whether or not it sheds light on this horrific dark mystery. But to trust its contents would require that we believe it's possible Labbe did know what she was doing, that she was acting of free will. And if the narrative that has emerged from this unknowable murder-suicide teaches anything, it's that this is a truth we're not yet prepared to accept."
Evidently the Globe and Mail isn't.
Posted by Kevin Libin on December 14, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
You know you are near the truth when
I was watching Claudia Rosett, fellow of the Foundation to Defense of Democracies, being interviewed on C-SPAN. She is one of the key figures in exposing the corruption behind the UN Oil-for-Food program. It is amazing how this has become a partisan debate. Just look at some of the questions she was during the interview (her answers are pretty long so I put them here instead)
Caller: I’ve got a question and a comment. You call it a scandal, I don’t because nothing happens with the United States knowing it, right? Where was Halliburton during all this time? Still doing business with Saddam. All I want you to do is follow the money trail. Who’s going to benefit from it? Host: There is also this related email. Please discuss the difference between Vice-President Cheney’s exit package from his company, Halliburton, prior to taking office and Kofi Annan’s son’s exit package.
Translation: VP Cheney is a bad man! So whatever the UN did must be irrelavent.
Questioner: I looked at the website (the foundation for the defend of democracy: defenddemocracy.org) and it appears that Republican insiders dominate the FDD’s board and staff, it also appears that they are coordinating her appearance on CNN [sic] and with the Reverend Moon owned Washington Times article today and she is an alum of the Wall Street Journal. CNN [sic] have you completely abandoned any sense of objectivity and fair reporting? Are you completely dominated by these people?
Translation: Republicans can't possibly be interest in the truth. Besides only wackos are interested in spreading freedom (or where those people supposed to be liberals, oh, I get so confused...)
I would think that both the left and the right would be interested in non-corrupt UN. The right would prefer to have an effective UN that was interested in promoting it's charter of advancing peace, human rights, justice and freedom Furthermore, the case the left made against the War in Iraq would have been much stronger without evidence that Saddam Hussein was (allegedly) using the UN to rebuild his regime and (allegedly) attempted to buy votes on the UN Security Council. But of course this is why the loonies have come out of the woodwork. Much of their worldview would be crushed if their dream of an all good and mighty world government proves to be illusory. So HALLIBURTON! NEOCON CONSPIRACY! BUSH LIES! it is.
Posted by Greg Staples on December 14, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Global warming doomsayer needed
A global warming propaganda session conference had to be postponed in Toronto yesterday because Environment Canada's scheduled speaker was in jail on a first degree murder charge. There is apparently no truth to the rumour that he allegedly murdered his girlfriend after stumbling in on her while she was giftwrapping Michael Crichton's latest book State of Fear.
Environment Canada meanwhile will have to find another doomsayer for their propaganda tour. If you have experience in global warming or other doomsday cults send in your resume now.
Posted by Kevin Jaeger on December 14, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of: NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
In late-breaking news, another car bomb has exploded in Baghdad. Abu Mazen is calling on Palestinians to down arms.
In the UK, the Guardian fronts British-Saudi arms deals. The Beeb’s audience has shrunk to a new low.
Labour MPs are revolting—this time over living wills and over the sale of housing association homes to tenants.
The Germans are coming after the London Stock Exchange—again. Mark Steyn, addressing global warming, says species come and go.
In France, Jacques Chirac is playing the Armenia card in Turkey’s bid to join the EU, thus disproving the adage that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Hizbullah’s channel, al-Manar, has been booted off the satellite. And Le Monde chortles about US problems in the Arab world.
In the US, the rich are getting richer. The murder rate is down and interest rates are expected to rise slightly today.
The New York Times leads with an exciting addition to Google’s data base, and fronts the arrest of Augusto Pinochet.
That story, and revelations that former Spanish PM Aznar wiped the Madrid attack from his hard drive before leaving office, is playing big around the world.
The Los Angeles Times leads with the Peterson murder trial and fronts Unocal agreeing to settle a human rights lawsuit in Myanmar.
The west coast Times also fronts news of a shady Russian businessman being used by US contractors in Iraq.
The Washington Post leads with the newest Bush cabinet member, editorializes about the nomination that went sour and fronts embryo gender selection.
In commentary, Richard Holbrooke begins his new column with a look at Ukraine and Russia.
E. J. Dionne Jr. says the Democrats suffer from Rove-envy. David Ignatius looks at the latest book on war strategy.
The New York Times’ editorial board opines about souped-up sluggers, and the secret intelligence program Senators have been trying to kill.
David Brooks serves up a fine piece on the policy wonks’ loya jirga this week in Washington.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board weighs in on a terrorism threat that will be of interest to Canadian authorities, the Ukraine poisoning and the Kerik screw-up.
Robert Scheer piles on the former police NYC commish. Jonathan Morrow weighs in on Iraq ’s constitution.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board sides with the NAACP against the tax department on an issue that’s arisen in Canada . Brendan Miniter looks at arms shortages in Iraq .
At home, NHL owners turned down the players’ proposal. Ho hum. The cops are investigating a former Judy Sgro staffer on national security matters.
Paul Tellier is out and Laurent Beaudoin in at Bombardier. (Here’s Le Devoir’s report and editorial.)
Ottawa and Québec insist this changes nothing on the subsidy front. I can't wait to hear David Emerson’s explain it to his Vancouver constituents and Stephen Harper’s me-too.
Speaking of Harper, he weighs in today with a fine piece on same-sex marriage in the Globe and Mail:
“Paul Martin is still trying to whip his members into supporting his same-sex marriage legislation by arguing that the Supreme Court requires it. Of course, it has done no such thing, and Liberal MPs are free to vote according to their consciences or the wishes of their constituents. This is the approach that the Conservative caucus will follow. While I support the traditional definition of marriage and will vote against the government bill as currently drafted, I respect the freedom of my MPs — including my shadow cabinet — to disagree with me. Will Mr. Martin have the courage to allow a free vote for all Liberal members, ministers and parliamentary secretaries as well?
In addition to having the opportunity to support same-sex marriage, MPs should also be allowed to vote to uphold traditional marriage. …
The court's decision also has important implications for religious freedom. …The court said the religious freedom guarantees of the Charter are probably sufficient to protect religions that do not recognize same-sex marriage — but we won't know how conflicts will be resolved until courts rule on this matter on a case-by-case basis in the future. Legislatively, the protections proposed in the Liberal draft bill are meaningless.
The Conservative Party will work to ensure that any bill changing the definition of marriage contains the most vigorous protections for religious groups, including protections for religious organization employers and employees alike and preserving the charitable status of organizations that support the traditional definition of marriage.”
Margaret Wente agrees MPs should have a free vote:
“why are so many people okay with civil unions but not so okay with marriage?
I don't think it's just a matter of religion. It's something deeper. The family, clan and kinship systems that are as ancient as the human race were based on women marrying men. Marriage evolved as a means of rearing children and assuring (in theory, at least) their paternity. But it also became the main instrument for making alliances, divvying up property, and determining class, status and inheritance. Marriage was also the most important way to socialize young men into the community of responsible adults.
Marriage has always been much more than some arbitrary culture-bound patriarchal social preference. It's been the central institution around which society has organized itself. That's why homosexuality was regarded as such a threat to social order. That's why it was suppressed, and demonized, and confined to the far shadows of private life. Even today, in most of the world, virtually everybody is expected to get married. (What they do for recreation, companionship or true love is another matter.) Today, marriage in Western society has lost its broader social purpose; we marry mainly for love and self-actualization. And so there's no longer any logical or social reason for marriage to be linked to gender. But this change has overtaken us at warp speed. I don't blame people for wanting time to reflect on it.”
The editorial board errs in agreeing with Jeff Simpson that anyone who supports traditional marriage must propose invoking the notwithstanding clause. No one can guarantee the Court decision, because judges read the newspapers—including opinion polls—and there are no facts in the future; moreover, a good politician makes only one tactical move at a time. (Here’s my take, in yesterday’s Globe.)
In any case, it’s a rhetorical point, since the editorialist would no doubt be the first to decry anyone who made the suggestion; today, he or she has a better target:
“Ralph Klein sure has a well-developed mischievous streak. By calling Friday for a national referendum on same-sex marriage, the Alberta Premier managed not only to distance himself from a contentious issue in his province but also to stick yet another shiv in the back of his supposed Conservative comrade but actual rival, Stephen Harper.”
The Globe fronts Tellier, the NHL, the rift between federal and Alberta Conservatives, Cape Breton coal and a toddler who got sick after drinking his dad’s date-rape drug.
(I know you’ll find it hard to believe, but this happened in British Columbia and it’s the lead story in the Vancouver Sun.)
Inside, Barrie McKenna sets up this week’s economic summit in Washington , and Allan Freeman explains that the Kerik screw-up is the talk of the town, but you already know that, if you’ve been reading this review.
In commentary, Jeff Simpson wades in on Bombardier:
“Quebec, however, is driving the Bombardier file. No province can mass such pressure on Ottawa. It has happened over and over for three decades, and it's happening again, as any prime minister can attest.
This concentrated pressure drives other regions to distraction, but it's effective. (Remember the infamous CF-18 maintenance contract that went to Canadair of Montreal rather than to Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg under the Mulroney Conservatives?)
The provincial government puts on the public heat, which it's doing in part through newspaper leaks about what Quebec City will do and Ottawa must do. The provincial media fall into line. So do the unions and the general business community.
In this instance, the Bloc Québécois is putting the Liberals on the defensive in the Commons, claiming that, since Ontario 's automotive industry gets help, why not Quebec 's aerospace industry? (Bombardier, by the way, has large interests in Ontario.)
Quebec backbenchers and ministers start pressing. The federal government eventually caves. But before it does, the government must figure out how to spread money across the entire country to defend itself against accusations of listening only to Quebec.
Which is exactly what Industry Minister David Emerson is working out. Ottawa has this huge Technology Partnerships Canada program that is supposed to give money to companies in return for a share of profits. The investments often are long-term ones, and they don't yield much.”
John Ibbitson has checked out the don’t-call bill:
“The Canadian legislation actually does little more than empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to establish the registry and levy fines for firms that break the rules. The Conservatives support the bill in principle, so, with luck, it will make it through the House before the snow melts. The only unsettling news is that the CRTC moves slower than erosion, and it does have the important task of deciding which groups, if any, will be exempted from obeying the proscription. For example, polling and market-research firms insist they must be exempted, because otherwise they would all go out of business, although some will argue that a world without polls or market research would be an even better place than a world without telehucksters.
Political parties also want an exemption, on the grounds that phoning you to ask for your vote is vital to the democratic process. Businesses want the right to call people who have purchased their product to ensure the customer is satisfied. (And may we interest you in a vacuum cleaner?)
Charities want an exemption, claiming their fundraising efforts could be harmed. But at least some telefundraising is fraudulent and, in other cases, the telemarketer keeps a large chunk of the donation for itself. It really is better to give at the office. The CRTC should think hard about exempting charities.”
Eric Reguly looks at the Tellier bombshell:
“The chattering classes had plenty of theories about Mr. Tellier's forced abdication. Some said he was cooling to the idea that Bombardier, given its waning financial health, should pursue the C-Series jet (unlikely, especially since two-thirds of the cost would be financed by governments and parts suppliers). Others said he wanted the Bombardiers to scrap their cherished multiple-vote shares to make future equity financings, and a listing on the New York Stock Exchange, easier (possible, though that alone probably wasn't enough to put Mr. Tellier on the family's black list). Still another theory opined that Mr. Tellier wanted to kill the dividend against the family's wishes (also possible).
What's more likely is the family was simply embarrassed by the firm's share price collapse, the debt's junk status, the slow progress in improving train division profit margins, and the vanishing regional jet order book. At Sept. 30, the firm order backlog for regional jets was only 291 units. At current production, 85 per cent of the backlog will be gone in 16 months, Veritas said. …
The problem is there is no indication that Mr. Beaudoin knows how to sell airplanes any more than did Mr. Tellier. On the contrary, there is some evidence — yesterday's plummeting share price, for instance — that he may be even worse at it. Investors, bankers and creditors seemed to recognize that Bombardier's fortunes were largely out of Mr. Tellier's control, and if he could just manage the company's decline, that is, spare it from a bankruptcy protection filing, he was doing well. Forget the return to glory — staying alive was the challenge. Mr. Beaudoin's first day on the job was little short of a disaster. If Mr. Tellier's departure was good for the company, he might want to explain why.”
The editorial board weighs in on next steps in Mideast peace:
“Now that Mr. Arafat is gone, the hope is that the Palestinians will reform their politics. Nothing can happen until they do. Only free and fair elections can produce a leadership with the authority to stand up to the Palestinian men of violence and make the concessions that will be necessary in any settlement of the dispute. As U.S. President George W. Bush pointed out during his visit to Canada this month, it is futile to try to broker a peace deal if one of the partners is both unreliable and unrepresentative. “Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of pressuring one side or the other on the shape of a border or the site of a settlement,” he said. “As we negotiate the details of peace,we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a Palestinian democracy.”
But the Israelis obviously have a role, too. If the Palestinians need to get their act together, the Israelis need to give them the room to do so. After Sunday's bomb attack, Mr. Sharon said there would be no peace talks until Palestinian leaders had reined in the militants — the standard Israeli position for some time. Such a demand was understandable when Mr. Arafat was in charge. Even the internationally sponsored road map to peace required the Palestinian leadership to crack down on militants as a condition for progress.
Now, Israel must show some flexibility. If Palestinians elect Mr. Abbas next month, it is unreasonable to expect him to be able to shut down well-organized (and, sadly, quite popular) groups such as Hamas overnight. To insist on a complete end to violence as a precondition for talks is to give the militants and terrorists the power of veto. If the Palestinians elect Mr. Abbas, who clearly wants to curb violence and reform Palestinian government, Mr. Sharon should talk to him.
The very least he can do is engage Mr. Abbas in talks about how Israel will withdraw from the Gaza Strip, a practical matter in which the Palestinians should have a say. If that goes well, perhaps the two sides will learn to trust each other enough to discuss the issue that divides them: the fair and just division of the Holy Land .”
The National Post and Montréal Gazette front Tellier’s departure. The Gaz also has the latest on Adscam--as does the Ottawa Citizen—along with textile industry woes and today’s best correction:
“In a story that appeared on Page A1 on Saturday, The Gazette reported incorrectly that Dr. Adrien Dandavino faces an allegation of sexual misconduct. In fact, Dr. Dandavino is acting as a syndic or investigator on behalf of the Quebec College of Physicians and is making the allegation of misconduct against another doctor, Rejean Vanier.”
The Citizen adds Chrétien and the subs to the front-page mix (it's stuffed in the Globe), along with the public servant charged with murdering his girlfriend, Alzheimer’s and another instalment in its terrorism and the law series.
The Post also features the NHL, Toronto monster teens, the Ontario crime victims office being dismantled and an old man who survived frigid seas.
Inside, Sean Silcoff explains the dispute at Bombardier. The editorial board weighs in on the Ukraine poisoning. David Frum wades in against same-sex marriage:
“Canada has spent the past decade reinventing marriage in ways that do not address any of its family problems -- and will very likely aggravate them. The harm done to Canadian family policy might just possibly have been justifiable if it were necessary to protect some endangered minority. But it turns out that the same-sex marriage was of only very theoretical concern to gay Canadians: Canada will soon have same-sex marriage, but it is likely to see very few same-sex marriages.
Is it too early to conclude that this whole debate has been a very destructive diversion? Since 1980, Canada has made policy choices that have brought about a plunging birthrate, deteriorating home conditions for children and instability in domestic partnerships among adults, with all the attendant problems of poverty, illness, dependency and violence. Open discussion of these choices is made impossible by a climate of denial.
Mr. Siksay is right to say that Canadian society has not collapsed, not yet anyway. But the ability of Canada 's governing elite to think rationally and talk honestly about priorities sure has.”
The Canada West Foundation’s Roger Gibbins takes on Paul Wells and other opponents of appointing Alberta ’s elected Senators (here’s my take on the plan from our East):
“At the very least, the opponents of the Alberta Senate reform initiative should acknowledge the decentralizing consequences of their opposition. By striving to ensure that the Senate remains unelected, unequal and ineffective, they are necessarily channelling the reform impulse in Western Canada toward greater decentralization. Whether this would be in the best interests of the West or Canada is very much an open question.”
Inside the Citizen, the editorial board plumps for DND’s proposed new headquarters, defends snowmobile noise and says same-sex marriage should be decided by MPs.
Charles Gordon agrees a referendum is not the way to go; on the other hand,
“The way is open for members of Parliament to follow in the footsteps of NHL hockey players and take a pay cut. Fortunately (or maybe not), MPs can't strike, but they can decide to do less work, and a strategy for that has already been designed.
It was designed in Alberta, by the noted constitutional thinker, Ralph Klein. Mr. Klein would have Parliament step aside and let the Canadian people decide in a referendum what the federal government should think on the question of same-sex marriage.
It then would be natural, wouldn't it, for federal MPs to negotiate themselves a pay cut, since they are letting the voters do some of their work for them? If that works, we could have referendums on budgets, speeches from the throne and routine supply motions.
In Edmonton, they’re attuned to Northern light. In Victoria, we’re thinking of working less, if you can believe it. In Windsor, a former NDP candidate has been acquitted of hassling Customs officers.
In Vancouver, they’re running out of industrial land. The Sun editorial board approves of the don’t-call registry, as do the tall-foreheads in Edmonton.
The Toronto Star fronts the NHL, Tellier, teen fighters switching to knives in Detroit Toronto.
Inside, Jim Travers says Ottawa is reeling at the departure of Paul Tellier. Tom Walkom says the EU and the US are growing apart and we’re going nowhere.
The editorial board says same-sex marriage should be decided by MPs, not a referendum, and plumps for a national securities regulator. The Star gets the runner-up award today for best correction:
“A Sunday feature in A&E about author Mark Winegardner (The Godfather Returns) and successor to Mario Puzo, confused former U.S. president Herbert Hoover with J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972. The Star regrets the error.”
In the Edmonton Sun, Neil Waugh looks at farmers’ beefs. In Calgary, Paul Jackson tub-thumps for George Bush.
From Ottawa, Val Sears looks at missile defence and sees Diefenbaker. Greg Weston says the same-sex legislation could be defeated. In Winnipeg, Tom Brodbeck says the provincial government is risking taxpayers’ dollars.
TOP STORY
Police probe Sgro security
The Toronto Sun’s TOM GODFREY reports:
“A NATIONAL security probe has been launched into the office of Immigration Minister Judy Sgro after a senior staffer was quietly fired for suspicion of being a threat to the country, government officials say. The staffer, a Canadian of Sri Lankan origin, had worked for several weeks in Sgro's Ottawa office, according to sources close to the case.”
Posted by Norman Spector on December 14, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Monday, December 13, 2004
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Laurie Hawn on the Snowbirds;
I have advocated in the past that the Snowbirds are much more than an Air Force Squadron. For reasons I have already alluded to, they are a national program and a national treasure. As such, they should be financially supported by more than the Department of National Defence.The Snowbirds represent a lot more Canadian Heritage than many of the things that we waste taxpayers' money on today. I think that more Canadians would go to watch an airshow than would trek into the forests of Manitoba to view a work of art paid for by you and me and called "A Salute to Putrefaction", consisting of dead rabbits hanging to rot from tree branches. I think that more Canadians would rather get a ticket to an airshow in the mail than a small Canadian flag from Sheila Copps, the rabbit lady. Two pieces of art hanging in the National Gallery are particularly "marvelous". One is a very large canvas that is all black. It is called, duh, "Shades of Black", and the other is a very large canvas with two large red and one large blue stripes (or the other way around). I'm not sure what that one is called, but "Thanks, Suckers" would be appropriate.
Quite.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 13, 2004 in Military | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The tampon tax
The Globe and Mail reports that NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis re-introduced a private members bill that would remove the GST on feminine hygiene products. The 'tampon tax,' Wasylycia-Leis said, is "unfair and discriminatory. It targets women financially, solely because of our reproductive role." I'd appreciate hearing from The Shotgun's lady readers if they feel this is a great injustice that requires federal action. I for one, am just happy to see an NDPer on record opposing any tax.
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 13, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Maybe She's Too Shy To Announce It Herself...
(I know, I know... Kate? Shy?) but Shotgunner Kate of small dead animals has been voted Best Canadian Blog in the 2004 Weblog Awards. Fellow Shotgunner Damian Penny placed a strong second (probably that weird Newfoundland and Labrador half-hour time difference thinger...). Congratulations guys!
Posted by Account Deleted on December 13, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
1. Remove phone from ear. 2. Replace in cradle
Over the years, I have become quite adept at dodging the telemarketers. Since they call at fairly predictable times, I can usually just screen them out to begin with (in fact I screen most callers), and on those occasions when I do pick up the phone, that telltale three second pause while their predictive dialer computer routes me through to an available operator is the perfect opportunity to hang up again. The odd time they manage to catch me on the phone, I just tell them they have the wrong number, and there's no "Karving Leeboon" at the house, or that I am not allowed to make any purchasing decisions, they must first go through my wife. And, no, she's not home; in fact she sometimes disappears for weeks at a time. At worst they're a nuisance, at best, they're one of those quotidian annoyances, like lousy hospital food and people who can't use bank machines, that give us all some common fodder to gripe and chuckle about and are the lifeblood of the stand-up comedian industry.
But in Ottawa-land, something that's slightly annoying needs to be heavily regulated. Today the Liberals introduced a bill to create a Do-Not-Call list, which they hope to have passed by Christmas. The idea, as was implemented in the U.S. last year, is to let people opt-out of all telemarketing pitches by putting their name in a central database, and anyone who violates their wishes will be fined severely.
A populist bill like this isn't likely to meet much opposition. In fact, I'll bet you dollars to trans fatty donuts that this bill easily cuts across party lines. But like the trans fat bill of last month, a bipartisan effort led by NDP's Pat Martin and the Tories' Stephen Fletcher, it's a piece of a broader, more dangerous trend, wherein Ottawa feels obliged to get involved in the minutia of our everyday consumption patterns when simple, homemade solutions would suffice just as easily.
I know that the fact that this is a voluntary opt-out makes it seem like a reasonable policy. But no other form of marketing is exposed to this kind of reasonableness. If TV viewers were permitted to opt out of commercials, we all would. If we could opt out of seeing billboards or subway ads, there would be strong response, too. All it takes is one bad telemarketing experience and the consumer is lost to the industry forever. No other sort of marketer faces such government-imposed vulnerability.
People who don't like telemarketers can hang up on them when they call the same way they can flip the TV channel if they don't want to watch a commercial or silence the radio if they hate a particular song. (And if marketers are such an affront to phone-owners, then why has no savvy telco introduced a spam-less phone service that, for a fee, guarantees no telemarketers will call you, the way that TIVO and Sattelite radio have delivered ad free premium content to Americans?) Maybe Canadians just can't bring themselves to hang up in some human's ear—though having some knowledge of call centres, I can tell you the operators don't take it personally (in fact, many prefer it, since it means they get to defer for one more call going into the long sales spiel that they resent every bit as much as you do). But in asking the feds to save us from having to assert ourselves, we're only (doubly) reaffirming the fact that we're all terribly weak and dependent and need our nanny state to watch over us, whether it's in buying groceries, answering the telephone, listening to our favourite Quebec City radio station or arming ourselves.
It seems obvious: Once you let the state into your home, it won't ever want to leave. So why do we keep sending invitations?
Posted by Kevin Libin on December 13, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Michael Moore is a big, fat, white idiot
The evidence: his latest message. He complains that Republicans are sore winners, "promising everything short of martial law if the Democrats don’t do what they are told." At times like this martial law looks pretty good. What is it with the Left and their complaining that they have no right to speak out against the president? For crying out loud, Moore's movie won and is nominated for numerous awards, in the summer he got to cover the GOP convention for the largest daily circulation newspaper in America, he is often interviewed by both political and entertainment writers and he has his own successful website (he claims "perhaps 10 million or more" readers -- and the maker of Fahrenheit 9/11 wouldn't lie) . I wish I were as silenced as Michael Moore. Obviously dissent is dead.
Well, in this week's message -- something that would never have been permitted in Poland under martial law -- Moore employs the metaphor of the beaten wife for how American liberals are feeling and what they must do:
"First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less if you don't resist and fight back.
Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 57 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you've learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 57 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse.
We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 57 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don't know how. "
For once, I am at a lost for words. Well, almost. Anyone who thinks that "We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal ... as we need to be" can't be taken seriously. It's too bad the fawning press and the Democratic Left don't understand that.
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 13, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
A World Away, Part 3
Roger Simon hosted Mohammed and Omar of Iraq The Model last evening.
...I think I can speak for the others present when I say both brothers exuded a unique combination of calm, warmth and intelligence. They are also deep lovers of freedom in a way it is difficult to be for those of us who grow up with it. If many Iraqis are like these two young Baghdad dentists, I am quite anxious to go to Iraq.
I was relieved by what they were like on a deeper level as well. They don't know this, but on the darkest days of the war, at the times the media were at their gloomiest and I was racked with guilt that I had so adamantly supported our actions, I almost always turned first to them. I didn't look to them for unbiased opinions. There is no such thing. I looked to them to see how real Iraqis were reacting to a situation that affected them more directly than it could ever affect me or the prognosticators of doom in our media. They were the ones who bucked me up-not the other way around, as it should be. In a certain sense they helped my sanity. And I suspect I am not alone in that. Few writers in or out of the blogosphere can say as much.After we ate and imbibed, Mohammed and Omar fielded our questions and told amusing anecdotes about their visit here, including to the White House. (Bush evidently joked about having his teeth examined.) Mickey Kaus asked if Sunnis would participate in the election. Omar and Mohammed, who are Sunnis themselves, said that many would, that the impression we get of the Sunni Triangle is skewed by reporting. I hope they're right. These people are incredibly courageous. When you meet them it's hard to understand why some of us could be rooting against them, but the not-so-sub subtext of many of the war's opponents is just that. You see, they keep saying, look how bad it is-it's our fault. I wish they could talk to Mohammed and Omar. I think even the Michael Moores of the world would have trouble saying it to them face-to- face. These men are the hope of democracy. I hope some day to meet their brother Ali... in Baghdad.
Go read brother Ali's comments from Baghdad as well. Previous posts here and here.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 13, 2004 in Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
In France, Le Figaro leads with a five-country poll that’s bad news for Turkey and for Jacques Chirac if he hopes to sell EU membership to his party.
Parisians are waiting to see the plan to refurbish one of the ugliest areas of the city, Les Halles. The economy continues to be a concern.
In the UK, the Guardian leads with yesterday’s top international story about the US' latest bugging target.
The Financial Times fronts a Canadian story that is resounding around the world.
In other British papers, a Bank of England loans warning, another lost generation, military cuts, public health care woes and, for a change, some good news--a possible cure for diabetes--receive front-page attention.
In the US, The New York Times leads with Pentagon disinformation, The Los Angeles Times with FBI deserters.
The Washington Post features a Republican plan to pack the courts. In today’s Globe and Mail, yours truly weighs in on same-sex marriage and how we do it effortlessly in Canada .
Yesterday, the Prime Minister wisely rejected a national referendum to decide the issue. He's about to have the Ethics Czar sicced on him, but must be relieved to have first-year retrospectives behind him.
(You’ll find them summarized here. And, if you think Martin has problems, here’s Ezra Levant ’s lame defense of Stockwell Day, who made the mistake of circulating an offensive column by David Frum about Yasser Arafat dying of AIDS.)
Back in the USA, The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board predicts George Bush will win the real presidential election today, and urges him to enact fair tax reform.
The New York Times’ editorial board weighs in on the new Agriculture secretary, says AIDS has become a women’s disease and pans the Catholic Church for cutting back child protection efforts.
Bill Safire poops on imperial judges threatening freedom of the press. Gene Robinson weighs in with the latest from scientists on genes, nature and nurture.
The Washington Post’s editorial board says UN is failing to keep the peace in Congo .
A group of former foreign ministers, including Lloyd Axworthy, weigh in with advice on how to handle Iran.
Sebastian Mallaby is onto privatized social security. Fred Hiatt poops on Putin’s approach to the private sector.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board is pleased that universities are dropping racial preferences.
Mark Helprin wades in on the China threat, John Fund on how bloggers are transforming US politics. David Gelernter says IBM is making a mistake by selling out to the Chinese.
The Globe and Mail editorial board looks at Internet pharmacies, which
“are not going to fade away, even if they are driven out of Canada by overzealous regulators. What's needed is not an outright ban, but stricter enforcement of existing rules and codes of ethics to protect consumers and honest retailers. Provincial regulatory bodies should be rooting out the unscrupulous drug sellers and greedy doctors willing to trade their signatures and their souls for a wad of cash. The federal government must also protect Canadian consumers from any possible shortages stemming from the booming export trade, and ensure that such shortages are not artificially created by the manufacturers or distributors.”
The Globe fronts the deadly Snowbird accident, Ukraine’s presidential poisoning, Paul Martin nixing a referendum on same-sex marriage, Muammar Ghadaffi’s female bodyguards (whom I guess he'll soon meet) and follow-up on a gruesome case of family violence.
Inside, Geoff York reports on yesterday’s Taiwan election, Matthew Kalman on the race for the Palestinian presidency, Barrie McKenna on Wal-Mart stumbling.
As you might expect, lots of letters today on same-sex marriage; here’s my favourite:
“If we hold a referendum on same-sex marriage, could the following question be added as well: Should Alberta gas and oil be sold in Canada at a lower price than it is sold to the United States?”
In commentary, Hugh Winsor uncovers Ottawa’s “dirty big secret”—it will take years to fulfill Paul Martin’s commitment to add 5000 troops to Canada’s military; I could have sworn some Admiral or other spilled the beans a couple of weeks ago in front of a parliamentary committee.
The Toronto Star fronts another couple of murders in Detroit Toronto (here it is tab-style), the latest on violence and peace in the Mideast and racism in hockey in Russia.
Inside, Martin Regg-Cohn reports on the new Democratic leader in Hong-Kong. Carol Goar says Paul Martin could lead the way on Darfur; if that’s all there is, count on genocide continuing.
Ian Urquhart reports Ontario parents are going to court over autism funding. The editorial board is onto Toronto transit, and poops on Chinese investment.
The National Post fronts parent-teachers meetings, the Snowbird rescue screw-up and a dangerous arthritis drug.
Inside, the editorial board plumps for tax cuts, and sees signs of hope in the Mideast.
Stephen LeDrew says Paul Martin had a good first year. Responding to Terence Corcoran, Stephen Harper insists he is too a conservative.
Professor Henry Srebrnik disembowels Saturday’s encomium to Jean Chrétien by Warren Kinsella:
“the Clarity Act was really the brainchild of the Reform Party…
Unlike the Liberals, who had refused to discuss such issues, Reform faced the question head on. Mr. Harper pressed the government for its response to Reform's "Twenty Realities," but, he complained, received no satisfactory answers. Yet most of what appeared in "Twenty Realities" was later incorporated into the Liberal party's own Clarity Act.
As for Liberal support in Quebec, when Adscam hit the fan shortly after Paul Martin became prime minister, the Bloc Quebecois won 54 of the province's 75 seats in last June's election and still remains the dominant party in Quebec. Enough said.”
Elsewhere in CanWest land, Todd Bertuzzi is back on the ice in Vancouver.
The Victoria Times-Colonist is onto bilingual signs, as is the Sun; if you're wondering, the other language ain't French.
The Calgary Herald fronts Paul Martin pooping on Ralph’s referendum; the editorial board pans Toronto ’s flashing hockey mom.
The Edmonton Journal really sticks the knife into Ralph, fronting a CP story on same-sex marriage stimulating tourism.
The Ottawa Citizen and the Montréal Gazette front a national don’t-call registry.
The Citizen also features a senior bureaucrat charged with murder, the RCMP back in the spy business, and some decisions the Ethics Commissioner is being asked to re-visit.
The editorial board looks at a Dutch businessman charged with abetting genocide, and says judges deserve justice too. Susan Riley says it has not been a banner year for Paul Martin:
“The list of what the Martin Liberals have failed to accomplish in their first months in power -- promises deferred, or apparently forgotten -- is much longer than the list of what has actually been done.”
Posted by Norman Spector on December 13, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Give the devil his due
If one is going to compile a "most admired politicians" list, one ought to keep a few places open for when the historical record of our time is finally complete and we know which Liberals took the biggest early risks to ease Jean Chretien out of office after he had lost the confidence of his caucus. I'm sure there are better-informed people than I who could come up with a short list already. Those of us who make a habit and/or career of Liberal-bashing should remember how onerous the "dictatorship" of the Prime Minister's Office had become in the last days of Chretien, and acknowledge that the system is still, in extremis, capable of working the way it's supposed to. Obviously the backbench (and frontbench) rebels had selfish reasons for organizing Chretien's exit, and on net they may actually have done harm by not following through fast enough. But last year's rebellion was an important blow for the dignity of Parliament, which had constantly been subverted since 1919 by the power of party organizations. It demonstrated that MPs aren't doomed to behave as Pierre Trudeau's "nobodies".
Posted by Colby Cosh on December 12, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Most admired pols
In an earlier post, I listed my Top Ten Most Annoying politicians and "naw-na-naw-naw" comments "Forget 'top 10 most annoying pols' - try to think of more than two or three you admire." Again assuming that we are limiting this to Canadian politicians here's my list: 1. Conservative MP John Williams (amazing work as chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts) 2. Conservative Senator Anne Cools (it takes a lot of courage to cross the floor) 3. Ontario Conservative MPP and candidate for the provincial Tory leadership race Frank Klees (he took a strong stand in favour of multi-tier healthcare) 4. Conservative MP Stockwell Day (great work as foreign affairs critics -- it's too bad you don't get to second chance to make a first impression in Canadian politics). But I would hard pressed to name more than another two or three. It's a little too early to put Alberta MLA Ted Morton and new Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre on that list but they will definitely be a fixture on such lists in future years.
Posted by Paul Tuns on December 12, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Axis Of Appeasals
Canadian Strategy To Combat Terrorism : "Be proactive. Do not wait for threat to emerge. Announce preemptive surrender."
Iraqis living in Canada and Germany face problems in taking part in next month's elections because the two countries are worried that polling centres might be attacked, Iraq's electoral commission said.
The Axis Of Appeasals.
The Canadian government told the IOM that "for security reasons it could not hold foreign elections on its territory", Ayar said in a statement.This could lead to a deal on voting arrangements for the country's 36,000 Iraqis, most of whom live in or near Toronto, being delayed or even scuppered, he said.
Huh. Wasn't that easy? If only we'd know about this "scupper Toronto votes" thing in time for the last federal election.
Then again, there aren't any Libranos on the IOM ballots.
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 12, 2004 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Soldier, Spy, Breeding Stud, Movie Star
After 40 years in North Korea, Charles Jenkins is home to tell his story.
hat tip - Bob Tarantino
Posted by Kate McMillan on December 12, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Press Review
From today's edition of: NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
The poisoning of the Viktor who's likely to win the upcoming, re-run Ukrainian election receives considerable attention around the world.
In the US, The Washington Post leads with a blockbuster about American spooks tapping the phone of the world’s top nuclear watchdog.
The New York Times goes with the proposed top dog in US security who wouldn’t bark.
The Los Angles Times leads with Bush and Putin starting to snarl at each other.
In the UK, David Blunkett is not yet out of the doo-doo on his nanny affair. The police and the military are sinking in it.
At home, Paul Martin met the Haitian president yesterday, and some demonstrators came along. His people are denying that they chewed out Quebec Liberals for voting against missile defence.
Today’s the first anniversary of Martin's takeover of the PMO.
You’ll find my fairly positive grade buried in this rather negative piece in the Toronto Sun. If you’re wondering about my sunny disposition, it could be due to insular thinking.
Yesterday, Montréal was hit by a good-old fashioned snow storm and the river overflowed its banks near Québec.
In Ottawa, aside from the storm which was mixed with freezing rain, they’re still bitching about bilingualism.
In Victoria, it was top-down weather all the way to the beach and we’re expecting a slightly-less-balmy repeat today.
Back in the USA, The New York Times’ editorial board wades in on rescuing the Hubble Space Telescope. Maureen Dowd piles onto Rummy in a seasonal way.
Tom Friedman criticizes the EU, the Arab League and NATO (which is us) for not helping out in Iraq. Public Editor Daniel Okrent says the Times should better explain how it works to readers.
The Washington Post’s Ombudsman, Michael Getler, takes a critical look at his paper’s coverage of several stories over the past week; you’ll never find anything like this in Canadian media—broadcast or print.
The Post’s editorial board weighs in on Mideast peace. Pollster—and Columbia man--Khalil Shikaki reviews Palestinian public opinion.
David Broder looks at polarization in US politics, Jim Hoagland at the situation in Iraq.
George Will’s advice today is for liberals, Robert Blackwill’s is on how to repair the rift with France.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board pans the re-appointed Treasury Secretary. Peter Bergen says another al-Qa’ida attack is germinating—in Europe. Michael Kinsley weighs in on same-sex marriage.
The Toronto Star’s editorial board says Canada needs a press shield law; no indication whether it should apply to bloggers, or what its limits should be. Another editorialist says Ontario must fight pollution.
The Star fronts a hospice, worries over greenbelt delays and more violence in DetroitToronto, which is what I’d be worried about. (Here it is tab-style.)
Inside, Martin Regg-Cohn reports on greed in Hong Kong, Mitch Potter on Mideast peace prospects.
Graham Fraser says the jury’s still out on Paul Martin’s foreign policy—a polite way of saying there’s been a lot of hot air so far. Linda McQuaig says the rich are getting richer. Richard Gwyn says democracy is on the rise.
In CanWest land, the Calgary Herald dishes up Daniel Pipes’ legal dispute. The Victoria Times-Colonist, which supported the same-sex decision on Friday, says the family is in danger. Go figure. In Edmonton, Lorne Gunter grades Paul Martin:
“There is no question Martin has failed to live up to his advance billing. The expectations created for him before he became Liberal leader and prime minister were impossibly high. Admittedly he and his handlers created those expectations to hurry Jean Chretien out of office. So now Martin is being hanged with his own rope.
And there is no doubt the PM seems incapable of pulling the trigger. His government has no goals and 100 goals all at once. He and his team seem to have spent 12 years plotting to make him prime minister, but not 12 minutes wondering what he should do once there.
And he is lousy at handling scandals; downright awful. He neither squashes them hard, as Chretien did, nor gets to the bottom of them meaningfully, as he continually pledges himself to do. Instead he merely apologizes for them endlessly.
Chretien would never have allowed Judy Sgro's favours-for-strippers scandal to fester for three weeks. He either would have defended her so forcefully that the opposition and media gave up on the subject, or he would have appointed her ambassador to Denmark .
I'd give Martin no more than a C for his first year. He's made progress on Canada-U.S. relations, but no breakthroughs. But surely he's not been as dreadful as his "friends" claim.”
The Montréal Gazette fronts the storm and the strike, Paul Martin on Haiti , and the Yuschenko poisoning.
The editorial board says banks are getting away light on taxes. James Ferrabee weighs in on Canada-US relations:
“But there were Canadian and American leaders who were not close. Pierre Trudeau and Reagan never clicked, probably because Trudeau shared the European view of Reagan. And Jean Chretien became a pal of Bill Clinton's, but could never deal with Bush, whom one of his aides called a "moron." There is no doubt when the top men are at odds, relations between the two countries suffer.
Happily, Martin appears to favour the Louis St. Laurent-Brian Mulroney approach to U.S.-Canada relations. His actions point to his preference for a close personal relationship with Bush that transcends ideology and disputes about American foreign policy.
He knows when leaders get to know each other and have a confident relationship, this will be reflected in the day-to-day relations between the two countries. When the two leaders are seen to be on friendly terms, it trickles down to both countries' diplomatic services and bureaucracies, where most of the action is played out.”
The Ottawa Citizen fronts the Ukraine poisoning, a cramped DND looking for more office space, the terrorism law and how Christian-Jewish couples celebrate “Chrismukkah”; I get full just thinking of all the calories.
Inside, David Warren serves up an ignorant piece that even I, an opponent of same-sex marriage, find offensive:
“Gay marriage" is itself only the latest branch of a utopian outreach that is in theory infinitely extendible. In pure theory, we could continue along it to polygamy; and then stretch it to include tame animals, and whatever else took someone's fancy. Each would be an act of "progress" towards that indefinitely receding goal of perfect equality and inclusiveness. In practice, the catastrophe arrives first.”
In Winnipeg, Tom Brodbeck says Parliament will be the final arbiter on same-sex marriage; I doubt it, and will explain why in tomorrow’s Globe and Mail.
In Calgary, Ted Byfield says the fight is not over. Licia Corbella is onto the Maple Leaf.
In the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington says our Afghanistan mission was a success, notwithstanding what CBC “experts” tell you. Speaking of which, Eric Margolis says Osama got just what he wanted in Afghanistan.
Bob MacDonald is onto Ukraine. Christina Blizzard is confused by Ontario’s stand on the doctors’ deal. Linda Williamson liked the Supremes on same-sex.
In Edmonton, Paul Stanway says the stipend is off the table and pressure for Senate reform is still on.
From Ottawa, Greg Weston reviews Paul Martin’s first year. Doug Fisher says Paul Martin has a strong front bench, but he and two of the other party leaders have been failures.
And John Crosbie says it’s time for the PM to make some tough decisions, which presumably would not include increasing the gas tax.
Posted by Norman Spector on December 12, 2004 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack