. While you're at it, be sure to catch today's (Lebanon) installment of
section.
Vintage Den Beste. How I wish he were still blogging.
The problem, of course, is not just Red China; as Beijing becomes more belligerent, its neighbours must also prepare for potential military conflicts, raising the chances of regional conflict.
There are also other reasons to worry about China's regional ambitions. I wrote an editorial for The Interim last year that noted China needs a large military because of the growing number of marriage-less males, a result of the country's one-child policy. Noting Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer's Bare Branches, I said: "In Asia, high rates of abortion, fuelled by China's one-child policy and India's depopulation schemes, are leading to sex ratios so skewed that China and India may become imperialist nations just to quell the domestic problems that such ratios engender."
It's going to be a rough ride, though, as evidenced by this report of a blogger's arrest in Bahrain. Jeff Jarvis is watching Egyptian bloggers, who have justifiably mixed confidence in election reform under Mubarak.
Incidentally, neither story can be found on the CBC news website at time of writing.
Canada Breaks With U.S. Over Missile Shield (NYT)
As a result of past posts in which I've taken swipes at Canadian political and media types over their ambivilance/ignorance of the blogosphere and internet communication in general, I've been working behind the scenes with a couple of individuals who've expressed an interest in venturing into it themselves.
The learning curve is proving to be steep. For example, when explaining the pros and cons of opening comments, I've found myself explaining what a "troll" is. ("Now that over there, to the left, sir, would be your brake pedal", said the driving instructor). What I wouldn't give for a Usenet Wayback Machine.
I've discovered that explaining the blogosphere to an internet neophyte is rather like teaching a chicken to swim. All the time you're carefully describing paddling technique, the intricacy of the currents, warning about the whirlpools and submerged rocks .... you secretly wonder if you shouldn't just toss the round eyed, blinking thing into the water and offer encouragement from a safe distance.
The same way the rest of us learned.
That said, political types aren't known for their risk taking behavior, so perhaps it's more humane to direct them to this piece by Patrick Ruffini. He provides excellent advice in this post written specifically for politicians;
Oh. Who's Patrick Ruffini?
Deputy Director of Online Communications, Republican National Committee
Paying attention now?
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 26, 2005 in Weblogs | Permalink
| Comments (78)
| TrackBack
We let our friends down
The Halifax Herald editorializes:
"... Americans understandably feel let down. Mr. Martin first backed participation in missile defence. When it proved unpopular with the public and his party, he didn't try to win support for what he supposedly believed in.
At bottom, Washington wanted our moral support. Instead, Mr. Martin caved to anti-American sentiment in his party. The Americans can hardly see this as other than weak and fickle."
During a conversation with my 14-year-old son this week he explained how he saw Paul Martin's BMD snub: Canada and the United States are friends and even if we don't think we (Canada) will ever need missile defense, our friend south of the border desperately wants and needs it. But deep down we know we need it too and furthermore we know that our friends, the Americans, will place us under the protection of missile defense if for no other reason than as a form of self-defense for themselves. Therefore, we are free-loading. But true friends don't free-load. Canada has become like the friend who will never pick up the bill for lunch.
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 26, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
| Comments (17)
| TrackBack
Palestinian Anger?
Charles Johnson notices a certain lack of enthusiasm for the Tel Aviv bombing;
Palestinians expressed anger Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes.
[...]
In contrast to the dozens of previous suicide bombings, no celebrations were held in the West Bank on Saturday and militant groups didn't hang the customary posters of congratulations at the bomber's home.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 26, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
Where's the CBC?, part two
There was a "free Syria" rally on Parliament Hill. Still waiting for the CBC to give these folks a minute of airtime.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
Gee, why isn't this on the CBC?
Imagine that -- thousands of Europeans cheering for George W. Bush. I guess there was just too much on the CBC schedule to find time to mention it.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
What Terri Schindler-Schiavo can look forward to
With the agonizingly protracted execution of Terri Schindler-Schiavo set to begin on March 18, neurologist Dr. William Burke describes how one starves to death:
"A conscious person would feel it [dehydration] just as you and I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining ... death by dehydration takes 10 to 14 days. It is an extremely agonizing death."
(An important note about the column in the New York Post by Arnold Ahlert from which this is taken: Terri has not been in a comatose state for 15 years. While she has been incapacitated (unable to get out of bed or to take nutrition without the aid of a feeding tube), she has reacted to loved ones around her by following their voices, smiling and moving. It certainly is not helpful for journalists who seem to be on side to get these elementary facts of the case wrong.)
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 26, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink
| Comments (16)
| TrackBack
Is Harvard University also bigoted against southpaws?
Link: All in the Mind: 26 June? 2004? - Left Brain Right Brain: Fact or Fiction?.
Is Harvard also bigoted against southpaws?
Natasha Mitchell: What did you do to unravel what the right hemisphere does?
Michael O’Boyle: We began working with an actual theory behind all of this. And it’s a bit of a digression to get too far into it but sufficed to say that one of the things that was unusual about these extremely talented math gifted types was that there were far too many males compared to females. Like 6 to 1 at this highest level of mathematical reasoning, more males than females.
There were far too many left-handers represented in this group. In the general population left-handers constitute about 10%, in the math gifted it turned out there are about 23% to 25% representation.
That, left handedness as a sort of indicator of right hemisphere development, plus the fact that there were too many males as compared to females, suggested to a researcher long ago a neurologist by the name of Norman Geshwin at Harvard, that perhaps testosterone prenatally was exerting some kind of influence on brain development which enhanced the right side of the brain at the expense of the left which of course would mean more representative left handedness than right handedness.
And of course if you think of testosterone dosage, who’s going to get the most testosterone? Well, the males will.
Posted by Norman Spector on February 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Friday, February 25, 2005
Successful Test: BMD "Emergency Deployment"
Paul Martin's timing is impeccable.
PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KAUAI, Hawaii, Feb. 24, 2005 /PRNewswire/ -- The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. Raytheon Company develops the SM-3. Lockheed Martin develops the Aegis BMD Weapon System.
The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System.
This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single- pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace.
The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.
via Drudge.
update - One of David Frum's readers responds to Paul Martin's assertion that ""We would expect to be consulted"prior to a BMD deployment.
In other words, Canada wants no part of missile defense right up until the time of incoming. At that point we can count them in."
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 25, 2005 in Military | Permalink
| Comments (31)
| TrackBack
Kyoto Storm Warning
Record cold thins ozone layer
Cold is thinning the ozone? Wait wait wait. RECORD cold?
I thought the planet was heating up so fast the ocean's were set to boil?
More "cool" headlines here.
The Meatriarchy
Posted by Justin Bogdanowicz on February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (7)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORIES
PM draws fire over missiles
'Whimpering no' further sullies our image
RUNNERS-UP
World Anglican leaders rebuke Canadian church
Health Minister attacks makers of Vioxx
Congés parentaux: un accord imminent
Court backs deportation of Ernst Zundel
HOT TOPICS
MISSILE DEFENCE: ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY
MISSILE DEFENCE: EDITORIAL REACTION
THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Posted by Norman Spector on February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Fraser Institute on budget
Most of the post-budget talk is about the tiny tax cuts, a child care program and investment in the military. But as Jason Clemens, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute, and Niels Veldhuis, its senior research economist, note: "Program spending has increased 50.9 per cent since 1997, well beyond the rate of economic growth, increases in population, or inflation. In addition, Canadians should be particularly concerned with the huge increase in spending undertaken this current fiscal year: $16.7 billion, a 12 percent increase. " There is more to being fiscal responsible than merely balancing the budget. The cost of not cutting spending is serious tax cuts: "The government's proclivity for spending continues unabated at the expense of meaningful tax relief that would address some of Canada's more pressing economic problems, such as stagnating incomes and slower productivity growth."
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
Prairie Centre Policy Institute
I was invited today to a luncheon debate hosted by the Prairie Centre Policy Institute (which could probably be described as a Saskatchewan based conservative "think tank"), as a guest of a friend who knows of my interest in politics and reads the blog.
The debate, which was on the role of federalism in the Canadian economy, featured well known Saskatchewan entrepreneur Herb Pinder Jr. and left-leaning U of Sask professor Red Williams. Pinder's premise - that Canada has become a "country of mediocrity", due to our culture of entitlement, high taxation, equalization and politically motivated federal infiltration into provincial responsibilities - recieved no rebuttal at all from Williams, which I thought was odd. Instead, he devoted his portion of the debate to defending government involvement in the economy and weakly excusing the excesses by reminding everyone of just how darned hard a job it is to run everybody's lives.
There were a number of business leaders and provincial MLA's in attendance at the small gathering, including former SaskParty leader Elwin Hermanson, Ken Cheveldayoff, Ben Heppner and June Draud, who was seated beside me at our table. Prior to the serving of lunch, she described her frustration at how difficult it is to get a clear message from the SaskParty out through the media - unless the ideas are picked up by the governing NDP, who then get the press and the credit.
She also shared that small local newspapers have recieved threatening calls and subsequent withdrawel of government advertising for giving "too much space" to SaskParty media releases. My ears perked up. What bloggers couldn't do with a story like that.
In the short time available, I tried to explain to her the concept of the blogosphere and how it has become so powerful a force in the US. She seemed to be interested enough and asked if I had a card. I didn't. (An interesting notion, though - who has business cards for their blog?) Shortly afterwards, the speakers began so there wasn't enough time to go into things in more detail.
At the wrap-up, Pinder suggested that we take the ideas presented "back to the workplace, talk to your friends"...
Urgh. How.... 1980's.
When, oh when, are Canadian conservative parties going to wake up and realize that one of the most powerful tools for uniting conservative voices and bypassing the mainstream left-leaning press is already here, is proven to be both powerful and successful, is ridiculously inexpensive and right under their noses?
I dug up the address to the PCPI website from the back of a booklet they provided, entitled "Creating Wealth In Saskatchewan", with plans of linking to the info on the Pinder-Williams debate and adding the site to the permanent sidebar.
There was nothing there. The page hasn't been updated since Christmas.
I can't say that I was surprised.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
Defenseless
On Monday, new U.S. ambassador Frank McKenna said we were in. Then, Foreign Affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew apparently told the Americans on Tuesday we were out. On Wednesday, the PM said he hadn't even decided yet. Today, the government made an official announcement: Canada is not joining the ballistic missile defense program.
All we can do now is hope the story changes again tomorrow.
Posted by Kevin Libin on February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (32)
| TrackBack
February 23, Conservatism RIP
Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck says that yesterday's budget and Stephen Harper's description of it as addressing Conservative priorities is proof that conservatism is dead in Canada. No mainstream Canadian party now stands for lower taxes and less spending. As Brodbeck says, where's the Reform Party and Preston Manning when you need them?
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
| Comments (12)
| TrackBack
Where's the budget analysis
Several Shotgunners have analysis at their own sites: Occam's Carbuncle, Political Staples, Canadian Comment, Sobering Thoughts and Jay Currie. Best comment comes from Currie and is less about the budget than Stephen Harper's reaction: "Harper's position lets the Liberals off the hook.Which is dumb."
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Martin's move irritates U.S.
RUNNER-UP
Martin buys some love/PM buys time
HOT TOPICS
BUDGET POLITICS
BUDGET MEASURES/REACTION
PUNDITS/ANALYSTS
EDITORIAL REACTION
MISSILE DEFENCE
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Canada Says It Won't Join Missile Shield With the U.S (NYT)
U.S.-Russia Pact Aimed At Nuclear Terrorism
US Health care Costs could be 19% of economy by 2014
Posted by Norman Spector on February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
What We Have Here
... is a failure to communicate.
Out of curiosity, I ran a Google News search.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,960 for Terri Schiavo right-to-die.
Results 1 - 10 of about 357 for Terri Schiavo right-to-life
The latter look to be mostly op-eds, or include references to "right-to-life" groups or lawyers. The hard news stories are nearly uniform in the "right to die".
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 23, 2005 in Media | Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
Life In The Rall World
As gifted a writer...
"Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make mistakes or flat out lie. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guy."
as he is a cartoonist.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (11)
| TrackBack
Adrienne Clarkson Presents .. a dumb idea
The Governor-General should stick to ballet or whatever else is on her elitist mind because having two women's teams compete for the Stanley Cup is perhaps the stupidest idea to come to hockey since Gary Bettman awarded a franchise to Disney. At risk of sounding chauvanistic, I find women's hockey to be incredibly slow-moving and dull, and had there not been a chance of seeing a woman rip off her jersey and skate around in a sports bra, I probably wouldn've have even watched the gold medal final from Salt Lake. Sure, the girls get their emotions up during the Olympics and World Championships but high spirits do not an exciting game make. If Clarkson was any sort of a hockey fan, she's understand this and keep her trap shut.
Even Cassie Campbell, the great woman player, agrees:
"For us, it's about fighting to have our own championship and one that's eventually going to be just as prestigious as the Stanley Cup is now," Campbell said. "Hopefully we have an NHL-type season and we have more teams across the country and across North America, and that's where my connection is.
"It's not really about playing for the Stanley Cup. That already exists. It's about creating one for women's hockey."
There is an idea making the rounds, however, which I do find very interesting. As we all know, the Stanley Cup was originally awarded to the top amateur team in the Dominion. As there are now several trophies awarded to the various amateur levels of play -- the Allan Cup for seniors, the Memorial Cup for major junior -- perhaps a one-time tournament could be held to decided this year's winners. The most likely teams would be the national Junior 'A' champs, the CIS men's champs, and the winners of the Memorial and Allan Cups. Hold the challenge at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto in a round-robin format, with the top two teams competing in a best-of-three final. Man, the TV ratings would be through the roof.
This would be a once-in-a-lifetime event, talked about for years to come. Just like the Heritage Classic (remember that game played in a football stadium a few year's back? I think it involved Wayne Gretzky playing Jarome Iginla, or something to that effect). If nothing else, this would satisfy Lord Stanley's intent when he first presented the trophy to a young Scotty Bowman all those years ago.
This speaks much of the mindset of the GG. In attempting to do the best for "our game" and involving everyone in the sport, she had to pick the politically correct side of the argument. Had she had the opportunity, I'll bet she would also suggest having the top disabled teams challenge for hockey's ultimate prize, or the top native teams, or the top native women's disabled teams. From Quebec. Anyone except the best team currently in the realm, apparently.
Isn't her term done yet?
crossposted to BumfOnline
Posted by Rob Huck on February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (8)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Quebec dodges Health Canada
The Montréal Gazette’s AARON DERFEL reports:
RUNNER-UP
Martin shouldn't have tinkered with equalization, Manley
No whites need apply
Gomery inquiry audit possible
Court parses identity mix-up: Another Charkaoui
HOT TOPICS
MISSILE DEFENCE
THE BUDGET
MARTIN/BUSH IN BRUSSELS
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants Islamist as the Prime Minister
Japan and Korea ‘have no plan’ to sell dollars
Bush and Chirac reopen wounds
Bush Tries To Allay E.U. Worry Over Iran
Bush Says Europe Should Not Lift Its China Arms Embargo
Company’s Work in Iraq Profited Bush’s Uncle
Menace syndicale sur les Jeux olympiques à Paris
Queen 'snubs' Charles wedding
Dramatic fall in number of asylum-seekers since 2002 (UK)
The rush to war (UK AG’s pre-Iraq legal opinion)
Leica au bout du rouleau
Un espoir à Beyrouth (Le Monde editorial)
Boys, Girls Are Faring Equally, Study Finds
Posted by Norman Spector on February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Blogging CPAC
In January, I listed the bloggers who were accredited to cover CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference ). James Joyner has several posts on events as they unfolded, including an incident where Al Franken was "apoplectic" over discovering he was to guest on Michael Medvid's show with Swift Boat leader John O'Neill. Lots of links to video, etc.
Posted by Kate McMillan on February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
Domino Theory
The Domino Theory was what foreign policy analysts called the expansion of the Soviet Empire -- every country that fell to the Communists increased momentum and pressure for more to fall. It was all about bad news.
Today the Domino Theory could describe the seeds of freedom in Arabia. Afghanistan is downright placid; Iraq still buzzes from its election success; Lebanon, one of the most Westernized of Arab lands, has decided to pit "people power" against Syrian tanks.
Here are some pix of anti-Syria protests in Lebanon.
And even Egypt, the largest Arab dictatorship, is showing signs of cracking.
Let freedom ring!
.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
Question
Can we raise money to buy stuff for our troops like they do in the US?
The Meatriarchy
Posted by Justin Bogdanowicz on February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Death Of An Idea?
Anyone who visits here regularly, knows that I love anything that
Mark Steyn puts to paper. Sure his material is usually on the
depressing side (i.e. you get more disgusted with the world each time
you nod your head in agreement) but his ability to insert some humour
into a debate is amazing.
Well I suspect that Mark isn't in the jolliest of modes these days. His latest piece isn't the least bit funny:
America
and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's
are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around
the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to
be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan
in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the
lid on the noisier Continental mosques.
So what would you do in
Bush's shoes? Slap 'em around a bit? What for? Where would it get you?
Or would you do exactly what he's doing? Climb into the old
soup-and-fish, make small talk with Mme Chirac and raise a glass of
champagne to the enduring friendship of our peoples: what else is left?
This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".
If
anyone else had written that last sentence I wouldn't have dwelled on
it so much. Regardless, it kind of struck me... well I just kept
repeating it over and over.
The death of 'the West'. What
exactly does that mean? The death of us? Or is it simply the death of
an idea, easily replaced with another?
Did those present during
the fall of the Greek states lament the death of 'the West'? Did the
citizens of Rome feel the barbarian invasions meant the death of 'the
West'? Did the Spaniards fleeing from the Moors predict the death of
'the West'?
I'm certainly not qualified to answer any of these
questions but if I had to hazard a guess I would suspect in all cases
that they didn't. History is local. It always has been. The idea of
'the West' is simply too much for people to grasp. Sure you have
historians who can string the narrative together but the narrative only
fits if history allows it to.
Would we still consider Europe and
America as part of the same 'West' if the Nazi's had won World War II?
Would we have considered Europe and America part of the same 'West' if
Communism had overtaken Europe after World War II? I suspect in both
cases that we wouldn't and I suspect that most people reading this
would agree with me.
So what does this all mean? Honesty I have
no idea. Heck I don't even know where I'm going with this. I could read
a thousand books about 'the West' and yet I doubt that even then I
would feel like I understood it.
The situation in Europe does
depress me because I honestly do feel that we are seeing the end of an
era of history. I'm still not ready to proclaim the death of 'the West'
like Mark is but I do feel that the world is rapidly changing
underneath me.
I guess that the only positive way I can look at
all this is to consider that history unwinds in the most unexpected
ways. The concept of a 'free man' with rights originated over 2000
years ago in Greece. And today? All over the world we find that the
most brutal of dictators must speak the language of freedom and
democracy. The idea of a 'free man', isolated to Europe 500 years ago,
now infects the entire globe. Could this have all been an accident?
Could an idea that spans 2000 years now be at it's end? Or alternatively... does the idea need Europe?
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Dana on February 22, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink
| Comments (9)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORIES
MARTIN TIPTOES/BUSH SPROUTS IN BRUSSELS
BUSH NEVER RULED OUT WEAPONS IN SPACE
RUNNERS-UP
Government has high hopes for massive service overhaul
Martin puts Confederation at risk
PMO sent jet to get ailing MP for crucial vote
Charest stuck in a rut
HOT TOPICS
THE BUDGET
NATIONAL SECURITY
LIBERALS SCRAMBLE
ADRIENNE TALKS HOCKEY
PROVINCIALISTS
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Bush Says Russia Must Make Good on Democracy
Three Little Words Matter to N. Korea
Hunter S. Thompson RIP
EU chief dampens mood of entente with Bush
Tories gain ground on Labour
Mbeki attacks US over Zimbabwe stance
Bush et Chirac: vive le Liban libre
Bush-Chirac: les limites d'une réconciliation
Bush, Chirac sourire de rigueur
Our Mission Remains Vital (Kofi Annan)
Atlanticist small talk is all that's left (Mark Steyn)
Posted by Norman Spector on February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
That's showbiz
Well, that's one less trailer you'll have to watch before the main attraction.
On Sunday, Famous Players theatres announced that it was pulling controversial pre-movie advertisements urging moviegoers to support same-sex marriage. The ads, by the lobby group EGALE, were paid for by Famous Players Media president Salah Bachir, a flamboyant entrepreneur and philanthropist, with a soft spot for gay charities. (Famous Players Media is the company that sells commercials for the Famous Players movie chain and publishes its in-house magazine.)
The movie chain is insisting that they had to stop airing the ads because they were getting too many abusive e-mails and phone calls. Ok. But then they also said that they were hereby staying out of "issue-driven" advertising, because, they have concluded, people go to movies to get away from politics. From now on, spokeswoman Nuria Bronfman says, advertising shown before screenings "will focus on
consumer products and services and stay out of issue-driven advertising
altogether." (This, by the way, was after the movie chain told critics of the ads that if they didn't like them, they could buy their own ads to counter them. Whoops. Time's up.)
What Famous Players didn't say is that they were also facing a boycott and all kinds of bad press. And given the news today, that the theatre chain is putting itself on the market, well, it would seem funny if that weren't part of the decision not to renew the ads too.
Make no mistake: the privately-owned movie chain is free to run whatever ads it likes—and face the fallout among consumers. But, wherever you stand on the gay marriage issue, it's obvious that painting gay marriage opponents as intolerant and violent achieves much the same end as the ads in the first place. Headlines like "Threats force chain to pull same-sex ads" defame advocates of traditional marriage and have the effect of making opposition to C-38 seem irrational and visceral, ensuring Canadians feel increasingly uncomfortable about supporting the "no" side. If Famous Players' staffers received genuine threats, well, that's shameful. But clearly there were other factors at work in the calculation to defuse the controversy. Neglecting to mention that is, at best, disingenuous.
Posted by Kevin Libin on February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
Monday, February 21, 2005
Paul Martin, foreign policy dunce
Writing in the Calgary Sun, Ezra Levant concludes his column on Prime Minister Paul Martin's approach to foreign policy thusly:
"Syria, a rogue, terror-sponsoring state, has announced an alliance with Iran, another rogue, terror-sponsoring state building nuclear weapons. Syria killed Hariri. Syria's illegal occupation of Lebanon continue. And Martin think's it's all OK, in the name of 'peace.'
Remember, this is the same PM who, while in China, claimed he sat next to 'opposition politicians' at a state dinner. He actually thought the hand-picked stooges the Communist Party introduced him to were real dissidents, allowed to sit in that country's legislature."
Natan Sharansky says in his book The Case for Democracy that he and his fellow Soviet dissidents never thought that the world was divided between communists and capitalists but rather between those who were willing to confront evil and those who weren't. Paul Martin plants himself firmly in the latter category.
(Cross-posted at Sobering Thoughts)
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
| Comments (7)
| TrackBack
...And the hunter home from the hill
A weblog called "The Shotgun" cannot fail to take somber note of the suicide of Hunter S. Thompson, a journalist universally admired for his astonishing palette and stylistic bravery by brethren of all political species. I have some further thoughts, as do eminences of the weblog world ranging from Tim Blair to James Lileks to Ken Layne to Steve Sailer.
Posted by Colby Cosh on February 21, 2005 in Books | Permalink
| Comments (6)
| TrackBack
Out Elitist Infrastructure Needs Upgrades
I was watching a commercial for a local television station (sorry
I can't remember which one) and they were talking about plans to
upgrade the Ottawa International Airport. You wouldn't be amiss to
wonder why a newly built airport would require upgrades.
So
what is the problem with the new airport? Well it seems that our ruling
elite are sick of standing next to the great unwashed masses.
Plans are to build a new terminal to service government officials coming and going in those swanky new Challenger jets
the government so badly needed. The terminal would include a first
class lounge and all the amenities our elite require when they travel.
Has
our government become so detached from the people it governs that it
doesn't want to wait for a flight with them? And lets be serious,
waiting in the first class lounge isn't exactly 'mixing it up with the
people'. I've flown out of the Ottawa airport plenty of times and every
time a government minister was on the plane they were always flying
first class. And to be even more to the point, I'm sure the money for
the first class ticket upgrade didn't come out of the ministers
chequing account either.
But I guess every country needs it's
elite. How else would things get done without them? All of us people
flying ecomony class couldn't possibly understand the pressures our
elite suffer from and the long working hours they put into their jobs.
Of course we couldn't. We are the great unwashed after all.
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Dana on February 21, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (14)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Bush not on PM's list
RUNNER-UP
Budget finger-pointing begins
Thomson Awaits response on $1.5B bid for Bell Globemedia
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Strong Europe essential for world peace, declares Bush
Talking with the Enemy
Cabinet in Israel Ratifies Pullout From Gaza Strip
Bush passe l'Atlantique à des fins pacifiques
Critics pour water on fiery US foreign policy
Three reasons why the US and Europe won't make up
Les Américains maintiennent la France sous surveillance
EU plan clears Spanish hurdle
Who Needs the N.H.L. When the Moose Is on the Loose? (NYT)
Adams and McGuinness named as IRA leaders
UN chief quits over sex abuse allegations
Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Author Hunter S. Thompson Kills Himself
Posted by Norman Spector on February 21, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Bettman must go
The last minute involvement of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux highlighted a glaring problem the NHL has had since Gary Bettman became its commissioner in 1993. Bettman is an administrator and not a very effective one. What the commissioner should be, though, is an ambassador for the game, which Bettman is not. Gretzky and Lemieux are. Unfortunately for hockey fans, of which I long ago ceased considering myself, their efforts came too late. There is much blame to go around: the owners desire a salary cap because they lack the discipline to stop spending their own money; the NHL Players Association thinks that they should c0-control the sport; Bettman and NHLPA head honcho Bob Goodenow dislike each other so much it is unlikely that they can negotiate in good faith with one another. But the NHL's problem is that its commissioner doesn't think about what fans want -- whether it is a lockout or the quality of play on the ice. Any deal that does not include Bettman's removal will not solve the sport's long-term problems and to that end there is this website: removebettman.com.
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 20, 2005 in Sports | Permalink
| Comments (9)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORY
Overtime talks fail: No 2004-05 NHL season
MOST UNDER-REPORTED STORY
Paul Martin leaves Ottawa this morning for Belgium
(In fact, though he and George Bush are attending the same NATO meeting on Tuesday, I can't find a single report of the PM's trip in today's Canadian newspapers.)
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Bush Seeks to Begin a Thaw in a Europe Still Cool to Him
L'Union européenne cherche à s'imposer face à George Bush
What's US policy on Europe? No giggling (Mark Steyn)
Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense
Bombers Again Strike Iraqi Shiite Worshipers
Deep Roots Hold Syrian Influence in Lebanon
'Cynical' UK media may lose Olympics for London
Flirting with Armageddon: welcome to a new arms race
Churchgoers ordered to pray for Camilla
Posted by Norman Spector on February 20, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Lebanon Stands Up!
Le Devoir reports from Beirut:
L'opposition libanaise, réunie en séance plénière, a annoncé hier soir un «soulèvement pour l'indépendance» et réclamé un «gouvernement de transition» qui assure le retrait syrien et supervise le scrutin législatif prévu au printemps.
<...>
Les membres de l'opposition ont souligné leur «refus de considérer [l'assassinat de Hariri comme] un crime comme un autre et de reprendre une vie politique normale» et décidé la «suspension de tout débat politique ou juridique avant que la vérité ne se fasse».
Translation: the Lebanese opposition is attempting to peacefully take power and switch to a transitional government to drive out the Syrians and hold an election in the spring. "We refuse to recognize [the murder of Rafic Hariri] as a crime like any other and continue political life like everything is normal!" Emphasis and (poor) translation mine.
God Bless Them.
Canada, as a similarly French and English speaking nation (not to mention our sizable Lebanese community) has a duty to add a voice to the chorus of nations demanding, and ready to fight,
for Syrian withdrawal [in accordance with UN resolution 1559]!Cross posted at prattling-poet-pundit.
Posted by Dylan Sherlock on February 19, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
All the news that fits the agenda Part II
I will happily use your title Mr. Tuns. You had to know that the Toronto Star was not blameless in this whole thing as well.
Rempelia Prime links to an article in the Toronto Star regarding MP Stephen Harper's opening speech in the Same-Sex Marriage debate in the House of Commons and his "playing politics with the past". To counter MP Harper, Tonda MacCharles interviews several human rights experts.
What is not mentioned is that they are activist members of the left. Audrey Kobayashi is a feminist Geography Professor at Queens. Patrick Case is an LGBT activist at the University of Guelph. He and other interviewees Judy Hamazawa and Yves Savoie signed a petition decrying the Conservative newspaper ads regarding the issue and called on him to recognize SSM. Finally Yves Savoie is openly gay.
Let me be clear, I have no problem with any of the people quoted in the article playing an activist role in this issue. Bill C-38 has important implications for the future of Canada and it deserves a vigorous debate. This debate is well served by the opinions of those quoted on the issue of SSM itself. However the way in which they were quoted was disingenuous. They were asked to comment on MP Harper's comments on human rights with respect to the turning away of Jewish people and the internment of the Japanese during WWII. Kobayashi, Case, Hanazawa et al are not disinterested observers in this debate and in fact they have every reason to counter MP Harper's arguments. This activism and bias is never declared in the Toronto Star article.
This "hidden agenda" is a dishonest way of presenting an argument. In the age of Google, the Toronto Star should know better. This issue is too important to not have all the facts on the table. More details on the people quoted in the Star article can be found here
Posted by Greg Staples on February 19, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack
All the news that fits the agenda
The Globe and Mail reports that Famous Players has stopped showing ads advocating same-sex marriage which were produced by Canadian for Equal Marriage and run (sort of) gratis. (Salah Bachir, president of Famous Players Media, the advertising arm of the theatre chain, paid for the advertising himself.) The story quotes various Famous Players and Famous Player Media executives saying that they ended the campaign because of abusive calls including death threats. Earlier this month, the Canadian Family Action Coalition, the Catholic Civil Rights League, REAL Women, Campaign Life Coalition and the EPC Centre called for a boycott of Famous Players until they 1) stoppped running the ads and 2) gave equal free time to the pro-traditional marriage side. During the course of discussions with Famous Players it was discovered that the cineplex chain was scheduled to end the ad campaign on February 18. LifeSiteNews.com reported this on Tuesday. Nowhere in today's Globe and Mail story does it mention that fact. It seems that Famous Players and the Globe saw an opportunity to use the boycott as a way to delegitimize those who oppose same-sex marriage. This is not to say that some individuals did not cross the line in their letters and calls to Famous Players. But it is clear that aggressive and foolish correspondence was not the cause of the end of the pro-gay marriage ads. Shame on Famous Players and the Globe for implying such was the case.
Clarification: While it is true that Nuria Bronfman, vice president of corporate affairs for Famous Players, told the Globe and Mail (in the paper's words) that it "would be erroneous to say the slides are being pulled because of the boycott or of opposition," it is clear that the impression that the Globe wanted to give was that they were pulled because of the threats. The question remains: why not tell the whole story that these ads were to be discontinued after February 18?
Posted by Paul Tuns on February 19, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
NORMAN'S SPECTATOR
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
TOP STORIES
Patients flock to private Gatineau MD
RUNNERS-UP
PM's claim that Syrians 'keep peace' is 'valid': Islamic group
Aerospace giant received $1.5B in…handouts since 82
Cancelled NHL may be on again today
foods tainted by cancer-linked additive exported to Canada
HOT TOPICS
MR DITHERS
STEPHEN HARPER AND SAME-SEX
CHAREST SHUFFLES
CHARKAOUI OUT ON BAIL
TOP INTERNATIONAL STORIES
Suicide Bombers Kill at Least 35 in Baghdad Area
FDA Panel Opens Door For Return Of Vioxx
N.Y. Man Arrested Over Instant-Message Spam
The final proof: global warming is a man-made disaster
Bush rejects moves to boost EU military might
Sinn Féin crisis over police raids
US and Japan to renew joint security pact
Supermarket alert on cancer food dye
Bush à l'Europe : «Travaillons ensemble»
FAA Issues Directive… (Washington Post on Bombardier)
A Last-Second Save for Hockey? (NY Times)
Posted by Norman Spector on February 19, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Friday, February 18, 2005
A right turn for the Charest government?
Quebec Premier Jean Charest has just made a major cabinet shuffle. The most important change took place in the Finance portfolio: Michel Audet will replace Yves Séguin as Minister of Finance.
When Yves Séguin made his first budget speech in June 2003, he said in true libertarian fashion that "rather than asking what the state can do for us, we should ask ourselves what we can do without it." At this time, most people thought that dirigisme was over and that major cuts in taxes, regulations and government spending were on the way.
But this is not what happened. The budget presented by Séguin in March 2004 was, as he described it in his own words, "a social democratic budget." After Séguin resigned today, he said he saw himself as "a social conscience" in the Charest government.
The new Minister of Finance, Michel Audet, is said by most analysts to be more right-wing than Séguin. The next budget will soon be tabled and we will see if it will be the budget Séguin should have delivered a year ago.
Posted by Laurent Moss on February 18, 2005 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
The Death Of Liberalism
Martin Peretz tells us that liberalism is nearing its end:
Peter
Beinart has argued, also in these pages ("A Fighting Faith," December
13, 2004), the case for a vast national and international mobilization
against Islamic fanaticism and Arab terrorism. It is typologically the
same people who wanted the United States to let communism triumph--in
postwar Italy and Greece, in mid-cold war France and late-cold war
Portugal--who object to U.S. efforts right now in the Middle East. You
hear the schadenfreude in their voices--you read it in their words--at
our troubles in Iraq. For months, liberals have been peddling one
disaster scenario after another, one contradictory fact somehow
reinforcing another, hoping now against hope that their gloomy visions
will come true.
I happen to believe that they won't. This will
not curb the liberal complaint. That complaint is not a matter of
circumstance. It is a permanent affliction of the liberal mind. It is
not a symptom; it is a condition. And it is a condition related to the
desperate hopes liberals have vested in the United Nations. That is
their lodestone. But the lodestone does not perform. It is not a magnet
for the good. It performs the magic of the wicked. It is corrupt, it is
pompous, it is shackled to tyrants and cynics. It does not recognize a
genocide when the genocide is seen and understood by all. Liberalism
now needs to be liberated from many of its own illusions and delusions.
Let's hope we still have the strength.
The New Republic
is in my opinion one of the last bastions of traditional liberal
thought. Sure their content drifts around a bit but for the most part
their opinions are well thought out and logical.
Between Peretz
and Beinart it seems that even liberals are starting to see that their
philosophy has run its course. A philosophy doesn't lose it's relevance
overnight. It takes years for a way of thinking to wear itself out. One
could also claim that the original liberal objectives have for the most
part been accomplished and that liberalism has gradually lost its
relevance.
Regardless, the demise of liberalism has coinsided
with the presidency of G.W. Bush which in many ways explains the
appearance of a sudden liberal collapse. The acceptance of conservative
positions, at least in the United States, in many ways follows Arthur
Scholpenhauer's 'three phases of the truth'.
Before September
11, liberals ridiculed G.W. Bush (and by association his policies),
implying that he was inept and dim-witted (the ridicule stage). After
September 11, the extreme liberal left in the United States became
unhinged in its condemnation of American actions and motives (violent
opposition stage). And finally, we have Peretz and Beinart accepting
the fact that conservatism is the accepted truth in American politics
(self-evident stage).
So what does this mean for Canadian
politics? Personally I have no idea. I do believe that liberal thought
in Canada is just as hollow and empty as in the United States, but I'm
not sure if that will lead to conservative positions being dominant
here. The first reason I have my doubts is that many Canadians have an
instinctive reflex to position themselves against American opinion. The
second reason is that perhaps Canada has gone too far down the path to
socialism. Canada might simply have too many people whose livelihoods
depend on the good graces of government.
If only I had a crystal ball...
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Dana on February 18, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
Fighting Obesity
Now that all the great and the good are convinced of the virtues of the fight against obesity, I'm sure they'll be supportive of a private initiative that actually takes the condition seriously. After all, obesity is the hottest, politically correct public health concern of the day, so how could any right-thinking progressive object to any private measures that combat it?
On that note, I'm sure they all hope this is just the beginning of a trend in workplace public health measures:
On Monday, the flashy Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, known for its cleavage-baring booze servers, will start weighing all its "Borgata Babes" — and those who gain more than 7 percent will lose their jobs unless they lose the weight.
The new policy has infuriated women's groups and the waitress' union — but the hotel said it was merely advocating for its guests.
Of course the hotel really should dress up their justification in more self-righteous rhetoric for PR purposes.
Posted by Kevin Jaeger on February 18, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
