The Shotgun Blog
Monday, June 30, 2008
Mandatory arrest claims yet another victim
The over-use of tasers by police appears to be the least of your worries, if you are male and have ever had a girlfriend.
Due to the moral panic over allegations of domestic violence -- most of which are either minor or false -- police now consider it de rigour to make an arrest before bothering to conduct an investigation. And if the male accused doesn't immediately turn himself in for finger-printing, he is liable to be followed into his home without a warrant, pepper-sprayed, and shot dead, as happened here.
Mr. LeClair might not be a saint -- who among us is? -- but the fact that he had custody of his 9-year-old daughter, and many supportive relatives and friends, suggests that he wasn't the most hardened criminal, either. Imagine the outrage if police shot dead a mother under similar circumstances. (Hard to do, I know, because it is hard to imagine the police taking any step whatsoever to pursue an allegation of domestic violence against a woman.)
The only questions that remain are which police force is going to determine that appropriate use of force was employed by the arresting officer, and which judges are going to find him not civilly or criminally responsible for taking this little girl's daddy away from her forever.
Posted by Grant Brown on June 30, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
Ron Paul: Personal freedoms and the Internet
An excerpt from Ron Paul’s latest column:
"The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free."
Click here for the full article.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on June 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
WS Radio: Tom Palmer
Listen live (QuickTime), Mondays, 4 - 6 p.m. EST
"Political Animals"--the flagship radio show of Western Standard radio--is a weekly political talk show on 88.1 WBGUFM hosted by Jay Lafayette, Peter Jaworski, and Terrence Watson.
On today's program, we'll be interviewing Tom Palmer. Tom is "Vice President for International Programs at the Cato Institute, director of the Center for Promotion of Human Rights, a Senior Fellow of the Institute, and director of Cato University, the Institute's educational arm," and a blogger.
We'll talk with Tom about the recent D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision which made clear the fact that the second amendment is an individual right to have a gun, rather than some sort of collective right.
Political Animals is on every Monday from 4 to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, broadcast out of 88.1 FM in the Bowling Green, Ohio area, and on www.wbgufm.com worldwide. To listen to a direct stream, click here (QuickTime). To participate in the discussion, you can call 
888-7-WBGUFM, or send us an email at politicalanimals-at-wbgufm-dot-com.
Posted by westernstandard on June 30, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Adam misses the point, but he makes mine
One of the biggest dangers in dealing with news out of Communist China is to make sure you get the entire picture. The situation in Weng'an, Guizhou is a prime example.
In a post yesterday, Adam Y. approvingly noted the riot that seemed to result from a coverup of a rape and murder committed by the relative of a local cadre. While those of us who follow Communist China closely can sympathize with the local citizenry, most readers of this news will see the word "riot" and quickly dismiss those who were involved, especially as nearly everyone has placed "alleged" in front of the incident in question.
I suspect, however, that these readers would be much closer to Adam and me if they knew the victim's uncle was himself beaten to death by Communist-backed thugs after he demanded justice for his niece.
This wasn't merely a reaction to a coverup of an alleged crime; this was a counter-attack against a regime that unquestionably murdered one of their own.
For myself and Adam, that wouldn't be much of a distinction, but as I said, there are a lot of Americans, Canadians, and other inhabitants of the globe who are not as informed on this subject as he or I.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 30, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Lemieux: Ugly Nationalism
This week, Western Standard columnist Pierre Lemieux argues that nationalism and liberty don't go together very well at all. Here's an excerpt:
Imposing a general context of liberty allows people who don’t like certain forms of autonomy to make private arrangements to escape them — private arrangements like marriage, religious groups, sects, corporate bodies, and miscellaneous contractual agreements. When the values imposed are not libertarian, however, the Nation State needs many laws and cops to impose the majority’s (or a minority’s) values and lifestyles on others.
...
Nationalism is necessarily a statist affair, the liberticidal imposition of some people’s values on other people... Québec solidarity means forced solidarity. What is the nation if not coerced solidarity, mainly in favour of the rulers?
Posted by westernstandard on June 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Morgentaler to get Order of Canada
LifeSiteNews.com is reporting today that the Order of Canada Advisory Council has voted to award the Order of Canada to abortion advocate Henry Morgentaler:
OTTAWA, June 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - LifeSiteNews has received confirmation through various sources that the Order of Canada Advisory Council has indeed voted to award the Order of Canada to notorious abortionist and militant atheist Henry Morgentaler today or tomorrow. There is reported to be a movement among Members of Parliament and others to attempt to stop the award or at least protest it as being inappropriate and against the opinion of a majority of Canadians.
In more Order of Canada news, The Canadian Press reported a few days ago that New Democrat MP Charlie Angus wants to strip Conrad Black of his Order of Canada. Black lost an appeal of his fraud and obstruction of justice convictions last week, which prompted Angus to call for the Governor General to remove Black for the prestigious Order of Canada.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on June 30, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Vince Miller, RIP
Antiwar.com is reporting that Vince Miller died yesterday:
Vince had been a libertarian activist for over 37 years. He was one of the founders of the Libertarian Party of Canada and was an editor of the early magazine Libertarian Option. In 1980, Vince founded the Libertarian International, to join libertarian organizations from around the world. In 1989, Libertarian International expanded by merging with the Society for Individual Liberty to create the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL).
Read the complete obituary here.
I met Vince in July 2000 at the ISIL World Conference in Waterloo, Ontario. He was a gentleman and a passionate friend of liberty.
May he rest in peace.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on June 29, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Bob Barr vs. Ron Paul: Two Visions
Congratulations to Bob Barr, Libertarian Party nominee.
First, he basically tells Stormfront to "drop dead."
Then there's this excerpt from an NPR program, Justice Talking, in which Barr was interviewed about his views on Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade in 2003. Lawrence v. Texas was a landmark ruling in which (in a 6-3 decision) the Supreme Court of the United States struck down state laws criminalizing consensual, private sexual acts.
I can't seem to find a direct link to the interview. Kip has it up on his blog here. Kip's blog is one of my daily reads and I highly recommend it.
If you don't want to listen, here is the relevant part of the interview:
"Unlike a lot of my conservative colleagues...I do think there is a right to privacy that is inherent in the Constitution...I thought [Lawrence] was a very sound decision based on privacy."
This is in contrast to Ron Paul's response to Lawrence v. Texas here. Paul argues that "The State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." Before the House of Representatives in 2004, Paul said,
The state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided
to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
So there you have it. A real libertarian affirms the constitutional right of consenting adults to do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, while Ron Paul claims that state police power legitimately extends into your bedroom, based on nothing more than the mob's will.
Two visions. I know which one I think is more consistent with individual liberty. How about you?
Posted by Terrence Watson on June 29, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Burn, Baby, Burn - Rioting in China
There are major riots going on in China tonight, related to the apparent cover-up of the rape and murder of a fifteen year-old girl by the son of a state official.
Reports say that 10,000 people surrounded and burned down a police station in response:
Good for them. Hopefully they'll keep up the good work through the Olympics and beyond.
As I've noted here before, China has a long history of going a bit nuts every few decades and setting themselves back. See the Cultural Revolution, Boxer Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion, and so forth for examples. Perhaps we should even count Tiananmen too, for that matter. Perhaps the underlying structural issues that China faces, combined with a slowing global economy and the tightening that they're seeing related to the Olympics will set something new off and do in, or at least badly injure, the current regime.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 28, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Who Needs Spies When We Have the Media?
Another major leak. This time about covert operations within Iran. To everyone's favourite traitor, Sy Hersh - the same SOB who broke My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and exposed a great deal of Israel's nuclear program.
What is it that Gen. Sherman said? That he'd kill all of the reporters following his army but, if he did, we'd have news from Hell by breakfast? It was something like that.
Seymour Hersh is worse than a spy, though. At least spies serve something.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 28, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack
Friday, June 27, 2008
Weekend Discussion Thread: Is Canada Freer than the US?
Is Canada freer than the US? That's the question Anthony Gregory asks at the LRC blog, noting that "[Canada] doesn't have quite as much a police state or as many prisoners, or an empire, and its economic freedom score according to the very pro-US Heritage Foundation is only ever so slightly lower than America's." Recently, Gregory recognized that freedom of speech and religion are rather shakier here than in the US in response to a colleague's post about the Stephen Boisson decision, but I wonder if he realizes how few gun rights Canadians have.
I find it hard to quantify and compare freedom, it's clear that individuals in Canada and the US have different freedoms, but I think that Gregory may be right to say that outside of economic freedom, Canada is freer than the US. Of course all sorts of personal biases come out when assigning relative importance of different liberties, but our lack of a heavily militarized economy and society, more reasonable drug laws and sentencing, and relative security (for a portion of) our civil liberties and privacy might outweigh the HRCs, the Firearms Act, and other liberticidal measures.
There are other ways to compare freedom: compare how much government intervention "touches" the daily lives of individuals in each country, calculate government spending per capita, a Tax Freedom Day, or some other measure, use some sort of freedom index etc., but any way you slice it, it's no exact science. There's been a bit of this discussion here at The Shotgun already, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts, dear reader.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on June 27, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Lefties ♥ Levant
Toronto's Eye Weekly has a feature article about former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant. There are, as one might expect given the publication, the usual jabs at Ezra, the "ranting neo-con stereotype", but the article is still well worth a read.
"It’s now been over 850 days since Levant’s former magazine was the subject of a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for publishing those Danish editorial cartoons, a dozen satirical images of the prophet Muhammad.
What might have been perceived as a stunt by a garrulous young media mogul to get banned from the newsstand at Indigo and gain national publicity for a regional magazine has turned into a fight against Canada’s institutional definition of human rights — and the tribunals implemented across the country to enforce it."
I'm often asked by Western Standard readers what Ezra Levant does now that he's parted ways with the magazine, the profile gives a little window into his life, background and motivations but also into his time spent blogging, researching for his book on the HRCs, and traveling for speaking engagements.
" 'Rather than seeing this as unfinished business with the magazine,' says Levant, 'I had the time to go through seven or eight years of rulings from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Not just judgments, full transcripts of 200 cases.
'I wouldn’t call it destiny, but it was a fortunate coincidence that they decided to go after me when I wouldn’t roll over. I’m stubborn — stubborn, and organized.'
The curtain rose in January of this year, when his defiant appearance before a human rights investigator was filmed — and promptly posted online, putting Levant’s daily blog diatribes in context."
Reading about Ezra's Alberta HRC investigation, I just had to go back and watch those youtube videos again. What a great start to my weekend!
Posted by Kalim Kassam on June 27, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
For those who are interested in such things...
I wrote a post on the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of incorporation here. This post was in response to Timothy Sandefur's recent erudite post on the subject, which can be found here.
An excerpt from my post:
The substantive due process interpretation of the [Due Process] Clause requires the states not only adhere to the right process, but also that the laws they pass by way of that process meet additional, more-than-formal requirements. According to the vulgar form of incorporation, these are the requirements set out in (most of) the Bill of Rights.
...
If California meets the procedural standards for the making of a law, but does not meet these other, substantive standards, then it hasn't made a law at all. Thus, when it puts people in jail on the basis of that "law" it is depriving them of their liberty without due process. It would, in fact, be exercising naked coercion, might without right.
Posted by Terrence Watson on June 27, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The CHRC rejects the complaint against Maclean's: Good news for liberty or not?
The Canadian Human Rights Commission rejected the complaint against Maclean's magazine.
Meanwhile, the left-wing blogosphere is taking this as a sign that the HRC system works.
So is the rejection of the complaint a good thing or not? Here's Ezra Levant's take.
And don't forget, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal still has a chance to uphold the complaint against Maclean's. But I think they, too, just might opt for dismissal.
Oh well. The BCHRT is also busy investigating a comedian for telling awful jokes ranting like a lunatic at some heckling audience members. Even Warren Kinsella thinks that case is making it hard to defend the Tribunal.
Updated for accuracy.
Posted by Terrence Watson on June 27, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Relax, folks, it's worse than you think
The U.S.-North Korea agreement continues to age poorly.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 27, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Al & Mike Show Episode 29 - Everything is David Suzuki's Fault
Jay Currie joins us for the hour. We go on a veritable rampage against everything!Listen Now
Posted by Mike Brock on June 26, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Individual right to bear arms vindicated: Ron Paul supporters dismayed?
One of the neo-Confederate Ronulan cultists lovely folks at lewrockwell.com is already registering dissatisfaction with the Heller decision.
Why? Because, according to Stephan Kinsella's interpretation of the law, the Second Amendment only forbids the federal government from banning guns (actually, that's inaccurate: the claim is more that the Second Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights are "irrelevant and redundant .")
Well, isn't Washington, D.C. under federal jurisdiction, and doesn't that mean the Second Amendment would apply? Things are not so simple. He cites approvingly Kevinn Gutzman's claim that, " the District of Columbia, insofar as it behaves as a state, is properly treated as a pseudo-state by the Supreme Court."
Thus, if D.C. must be treated like a state, then the federal Supreme Court can't overturn a gun ban on Second Amendment grounds, since, as noted, the Amendment (and the entire Bill of Rights) is only supposed to apply to the federal government. QED.
The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer called this line of reasoning "just plain dumb," but, anyway, that's the argument. It's the reason why not everyone is celebrating in Lincoln-hating land today. Stephan Kinsella and others are worried that the 2nd Amendment will be applied against the states through the 14th Amendment, and that highly restrictive state gun laws in places like Chicago will be struck down next.
Let me put that point more concisely: some of Ron Paul's supporters are dismayed by today's Supreme Court decision because they think it might be used in the future to prevent a democratic mob from trampling on an individual's rights. But Ron Paul himself thinks it's just fine for such mobs to restrict a person's liberty, just so long as the mob and the individual reside in the same state.
And people wonder why I refuse to call them libertarians.
UPDATE:
Timothy Sandefur responds to Stephan Kinsella here better than I ever could.
Posted by Terrence Watson on June 26, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack
An Objectivist take on American Independence
Sometimes, the ARI is a den of Rand-cultists, but other times they produce gems like this:
Next Friday, on Independence Day, all freedom lovers have some small occasion to celebrate. In a time of overwhelming statism in the U.S, a country, like Canada, with a long tradition of liberty, there seems to be a rediscovery of the principles of their Founding Fathers. We see this in the general displeasure with all branches of government, the Ron Paul r3VOLution, the growing interest in Bob Barr and the LP, the recent decisions from the Supreme Court, and the coming together of diverse groups of individuals on critical issues like civil liberties and foreign policy.
I don't know whether this 'awakening' is real or simply apparent, and I agree with soon-to-be Shotgun blogger Link Byfield, that 'Canada Day' should be re-named Confederation Day, but I do know is that on July 1st and July 4th, I'll be toasting to Canada, to America, to liberty and to the patriots who defended it.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on June 26, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Joseph C. Ben-Ami: Louise Arbour is not a disgrace, she's irrelevant
New on the Western Standard, Canadian Centre for Policy Studies President Joseph C. Ben-Ami takes issue with Vic Toews recently calling Louise Arbour a "disgrace" in the House of Commons. Better to just call her "irrelevant," he writes in "Louise Arbour isn't a disgrace, she's irrelevant."
Why "irrelevant"? Because nothing she's said has had any tangible impact anywhere.
An excerpt:
"The discerning observer will notice that the “timely” interventions cited by Ms. L’Heureux-Dube have one thing in common--they are all words. No tangible action, direct or indirect, was taken by either Louise Arbour or her office that resulted in the protection of a single innocent person or civilian.
"How many lives were saved in Zimbabwe as a result of Ms. Arbour’s stern warnings? Answer: none.
"How many rockets did Hezbollah hold back in response to Ms. Arbour’s earnest admonitions in 2006? How many has Hamas held back since? Answer: none.
"How many women convicted of adultery were spared public execution in Iran as a result of any of Ms. Arbour’s strong statements? Answer: none."
Posted by westernstandard on June 26, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
The "Comedy Police" is Not Amused
Kudos and a rim-shot for my old colleague Terry O'Neill who noticed below the woes that comedian Guy Earle is having at the hands of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. In the Province's version of the story, though, Mr. Earle is getting no help from someone who should be an ally:
But Mark Dennison, a longstanding Vancouver comedian and instructor at Langara College's stand-up comedy clinic, said there is a fine line between comedy and outright discrimination.
And from what he's heard, he said, the material Earle supposedly used was "mean-spirited" and a "pointed attack" based on "completely wrong assumptions."
"Comedy is inclusive. We laugh because we see commonality," he said.
"I don't think anything is off-limits as long as it is handled in a way that shows us what makes us the same."
I can imagine Mr. Earle being punished on the grounds that his comedy is not *inclusive* enough, thanks to Mr. Dennison's opinions.
I can also imagine U.S. late night comics like Leno, Letterman and Ferguson having a lot of fun with this. I can see Gordon Campbell being Photoshopped into the uniform of the "Comedy Police", raising gales of laughter across the United States. Well, if Mr. Campbell won't listen to reasoned arguments about how silly the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal can be, perhaps ridicule might work.
Posted by Rick Hiebert on June 26, 2008 in Humour | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The joke's on us
A lesbian, a Muslim and a dumb blonde walk into a bar. The lesbian orders a .....
Looking forward to a punch line here? Sorry, but according to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, a joke of this sort might constitute an offence under the province's menacing human-rights law.
As stated in this space before, though, don't blame the Tribunal. It's the fault of the legislation, and that means that the responsibility for this fiasco rests at the feet of Premier Gordon Campbell. Tell him what you think about the B.C. Human Rights Act by sending him a message here: [email protected].
And while you're at it, I'm sure he'd love to hear your views about the looming carbon tax.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 26, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Communist China follows in the wrong footsteps
The Soviet Union's biggest problem was that its effort to deceive and defeats its allies could never counteract the devastating indictments from former friends.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 26, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
WS Radio: Jason Sorens audio
Here is the audio for our interview with Jason Sorens, assistant professor of political science at the University of Buffalo, and the founder of the Free State Project.
You can listen to the podcast by clicking here.
Posted by westernstandard on June 25, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Krieber and 'terrorism'
The news, that Janine Krieber, wife of Stephane Dion, suggested that pro-choicers might turn to terrorism if C-484 is passed, is starting to spread.
While most national media seem surprisingly disinterested in Krieber's declarations, which I first disclosed here on The Shotgun last week, the Toronto Star's Antonia Zerbisias has now picked up the story.
Interestingly, Zerbisias is bending over backwards not to leap to any conclusions. One suspects that she would not be so prudent if, for example, a wife of a conservative politician had suggested that pro-lifers would turn to terrorism if pro-abortion legistion were to be passed.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 25, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Star Letter
I have a letter to the editor in today's Toronto Star -- it's about Prime Ministerial rudeness.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on June 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
It's time for a change in the Conservative Party of Canada
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made his retreat from anti-Communism official with the permanent appointment of pro-"engagement" David Emerson as Foreign Minister (CTV and National Post). As someone who supported Harper in the 2006 election for the anti-Communist policies he had espoused as Opposition Leader, I have no choice but to withdraw that support now and call for the Conservative Party of Canada to change leaders.
Placing Emerson permanently in Foreign Affairs is a terrible mistake; wrong on principle, wrong on national interest, and wrong on politics. That Harper did it anyway reveals a PM who has lost his way, and unless he is removed, will also lead the Tories into the wilderness.
On principle: Under Harper's leadership, the Conservative Party became arguably the most anti-Communist party in the democratic world. Its election in 2006 gave Canada an opportunity to be the world's genuine conscience (as opposed to the phony conscience the Liberals and used as a model, which the rest of the world ignored, BTW). That potential is now in ashes.
On what is best for Canada: After the scare on exports from Communist China, the numerous attempts by the cadres to grab Canadian resources, and the espionage-intimidation network exposed three years ago, one would think most politicians would be aware of the danger the Beijing regime poses to the free world. Sadly, the elite in Ottawa (much like Washington, I should add) do not see clearly enough - and one of the worst was Liberal Industry Minister David Emerson. To put him in charge of Foreign Affairs is to ignores these and many other ways where Beijing's action damage both Canadian economic interests and the health and welfare of the Canadian people.
On the politics: It is all but certain that in the next election, the Liberals will try what they always try - scare left-wing and center-left voters who have tired of them to "Stop the Conservatives." Yet, on this issue (before today), NDP and Bloc voters were closer to the Conservative view than the Liberal one. Anti-Communism was one issue where these voters would see why it would not make sense to vote Liberal just to prevent the Tories from winning a majority. That rationale is now gone.
I want to make clear that this change, in my view, must be within the CPC. This is no way is meant to imply any support for the Liberals. In fact, replacing one ex-Liberal Foreign Minister who spouts the "engagement" line on Communist China with an actual Liberal who will spout the "engagement" line on Communist China would accomplish nothing. It must be another Conservative, an anti-Communist Conservative, who replaces Harper; the sooner, the better.
Cross-posted to the China e-Lobby
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 25, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
B.C. Conservatives come to life
The B.C. NDP has been riding the No Carbon Tax train for a few weeks now in B.C., to considerable success. Now, the tiny B.C. Conservative Party is trying to play catch up, launching a petition against the tax which, as I reported in my posting below, kicks in on July 1.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 25, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Defining patriotism in Hong Kong
The Communists make a major stumble.
I'll comment on the cabinet reshuffle after it's official.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 25, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Liberty Summer Fun
If you really want to "Go Green" this summer, forget about the Liberal "tax shift" and think "Liberty Summer Seminar".
In case you haven't heard of it, the Liberty Summer Seminar brings together conservative/libertarian activists and thinkers from all across the country to discuss social and economic liberty.
But instead of taking place in some stodgy hotel, it's held on a gorgeous, wooded estate near Orono Ontario.
I have been to a couple of these Seminars and I can tell you they are the highlight of the summer season. You hear fascinating speakers, meet interesting people, enjoy excellent barbecued meals and even get entertained by a live band.<.p>
How can you beat that?
So register right away. (You can save money if you register before July 1)
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on June 25, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Tories Like Me
As someone who once wrote fund raising letters for Stephen Harper, I just couldn't resist taking a jab at the Tories over a letter they recently sent me asking for donations.
So I did.
Check out my column now posted at the Full Comment section of the National Post.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on June 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Bob Barr on McCain and Obama's energy policies
Bob Barr has been "Waiting in Vain" to see a sensible energy policy put forward by any other candidate, in this video he focuses on McCain's policy and concludes that it is "inconsistent... completely meaningless" and that Obama's "makes even less sense."
Most cringeworthy line: "The Bob Barr solution is the American people's solution." Hey, what a coincidence: That sounds like the Wayne Allen Root solution.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on June 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Is the "green shift" actually a red shift?
Steve Janke seems to think so.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 24, 2008 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Star laments lack of "serious" debate
Political columnist James Travers of the Toronto Star Liberal Party Newsletter raises an excellent point about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent low brow attack on Stephane Dion's Carbon Tax.
Responding to Harper's suggestion that Dion's tax would "screw everybody", Travers writes"it's the response of a schoolyard bully who would rather trade punches than compare ideas ...
Canadians deserve a leader who will debate serious issues seriously. They also deserve one who accepts the restraints on power that are part and parcel of a parliamentary democracy."
And yes, Travers is absolutely right. Up until Harper the bully came along Canadian politicians were world-renown for debating serious issues seriously.
Just check out the "serious" debates which dominate Question Period in the House of Commons; if you closed your eyes you would think you were hearing an Oxford Union debating club in action.
Or recall the famous time former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau cleverly uttered a colourful Anglo Saxon word beginning with "F" in the House of Commons; or how about the time he revealed his sophisticated debating style by showing his middle finger to protesting farmers.
Pure oratorical brilliance!
More recently, former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien revealed his flair for Aristotelian logic when he actually throttled a protester.
Too bad the bully Harper can't match the lofty rhetorical standards of his Liberal predecessors.
But as Stephane Dion might say, "Shift Happens."
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on June 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Tribute to the Canadian soldiers
These are trying times for the coalition forces, especially the Canadian military, in Afghanistan where Taliban has increased its brutality and insurgency recently. Let the Canadian troops know that they're supported...
Posted by Winston on June 24, 2008 in Military | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Monday, June 23, 2008
Amazing Grace
A great tribute to those fallen Coalition Forces' heroes who serve selflessly to further the cause of freedom and human dignity around the world! [+]
Posted by Winston on June 23, 2008 in Military | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
B.C. Liberals' shell game
The B.C. Liberal goverment's $100 bribe, er "Climate Action Dividend," arrived in the mail just now. Pitched by Gordon Campbell as a way of "making it easier for British Columbians to choose a lower carbon lifestyle," the cheque is viewed in the real world as a political sweetener designed to take the edge off the three-cents-a-litre carbon tax* the government is imposing on gasoline starting July 1.
The cheque was accompanied by a little pamphlet entitled "How will you spend your $100?" Suggestions include switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs ($39), weather-stripping windows and doors ($68) and installing crawl-space insulation ($243 -- a figure that would entail the pooling of my cheque with that of my wife and one of my children).
But you've got to suspect that the vast majority of British Columbians are, like me, simply going to put the money into their personal equivalent of "general revenue" and use it to help pay for the higher cost of driving a car.
Shotgun readers are encouraged to suggest other uses.
*The actual figure is 2.41 cents per litre of gasoline and 2.76 cents per litre for diesel and heating oil. The taxes will rise to 7.24 and 8.27 cents per litre, respectively, by 2012.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 23, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
WS Radio: Jason Sorens
Listen live (QuickTime), Mondays, 4 - 6 p.m. EST
"Political Animals"--the flagship radio show of Western Standard radio--is a weekly political talk show on 88.1 WBGUFM hosted by Jay Lafayette, Peter Jaworski, and Terrence Watson.
On today's program, we'll be interviewing Jason Sorens, assistant professor in political science at the University of Buffalo, and founder of the Free State Project. Jason specializes in secessionist movements and decentralization, which will be the topic of his talk at the forthcoming Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono, Ontario, over the July 26, 27 weekend.
We'll talk with Jason about the Free State Project, an attempt to move enough libertarians into New Hampshire to have an impact on legislation and politics to make it a truly free state. We'll also discuss secessionist movements like those in Quebec and Alberta.
As well, we'll talk about drilling for oil, recent revelations about the gay brain, and a pile of other news stories that we didn't get to last week.
Political Animals is on every Monday from 4 to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, broadcast out of 88.1 FM in the Bowling Green, Ohio area, and on www.wbgufm.com worldwide. To listen to a direct stream, click here (QuickTime). To participate in the discussion, you can call 888-7-WBGUFM, or send us an email at politicalanimals-at-wbgufm-dot-com.
Posted by westernstandard on June 23, 2008 in WS Radio | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Sour grapes from the gals
Obama man be the (Democrats') man, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the beneficiary of sexism. That's my main point in this week's Face to Face debate in the Tri-City News. On the other hand, the woman with whom I debate, Mary Woo Sims, smells the malodorous scent of sexism in Clinton's defeat. Then again, she'd probably be railing against racism if Obama had lost.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 23, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
God save the green?
Are Brits better informed than Canadians, smarter, or just more sceptical?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 23, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Lemieux: For Security Reasons
In his latest column, a time-consuming run-in with airport security leads Pierre Lemieux to examine the various ways in which the state seeks to limit our liberty "for security reasons." Human rights commissions and the limits they place on freedom of speech are only the latest attempt by state bureaucrats to intimidate us for our own good.
Lemieux sees past this facade, reminding us that the greatest danger to our safety comes not from the hateful bigot, but from our own government. "It is for security reasons that we must guard ourselves from the state."
An excerpt:
Perhaps to intimidate me, my luggage sniffer decided to do a heroin test on my suitcase, which came out positive. Princely, he declared he would redo it “to make sure it is not a false positive”.
...
Who would have thought that a major Canadian magazine would one day be investigated and prosecuted for a speech crime? In fact, it was easily predictable. Legislate wide powers for the state, create a self-righteous bureaucracy to enforce them, and you are bound, in due time, to see harassment and prosecutions beyond the dreams of the initial supporters.
Posted by westernstandard on June 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Gairdner's New Book of Absolutes
Here's a little secret for the readers of this blog.
Bestselling conservative author Bill Gairdner has a new book coming out this fall called The Book of Absolutes: A Critique of Relativism and a Defence of Universals.
Bill calls The Book of Absolutes "an act of political and moral resistance that is going to have all leftists, progressives, and the self-satisfied gurus of moral relativism and political correctness tearing out their hair in handfuls."
But that's not the secret.
The secret is you can order an advance copy of this book now and receive a whopping 20 percent discount!
Go here to learn more about the book and this great offer.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on June 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Weekend grab bag
Well, we have a slew of news from Communist China, the beginning of a special session in my local legislature that has no other purpose than to raise taxes, and candidate for U.S. Senate in my state that has no idea how markets work.
That last one my be of extra significance up there because most Americans don't realize that our biggest outside supplier of oil is, well, you.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 23, 2008 in Canadian Politics, International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Green Shift: Making the Case for Sharia Law
Our friend, Mme. Dion, has a plan to rob all of you. Of course, he doesn’t quite put it that way – our progressive friends never do. Instead, they tell us that it’s for our own good and that actually we’d all benefit from it. These statements are what, colloquially, we like to call “absolute Goddamned lies.”
The basic plan broadly resembles that enacted by our Provincial Government here in British Columbia. They want to enact a Carbon Tax and combine it with other showy “tax cuts” to present it as being revenue-neutral.
In reality, however, what this amounts to for you and me and for most of the rest of us is a plan to rob all of us twice. First they’re going to take our money. Then they’re going to pretend to give us some back but, actually, they’re going to give our money away to other people.
See, here’s how this works in both the BC and the Federal Plan, first they put taxes on a variety of things and then they cut other taxes, supposedly to compensate you but, in reality, actually serving as a means of wealth redistribution. The Federal Liberals even have a handy calculator to show you how much you “save” – allegedly $400ish in my case. But these numbers – just like the similar numbers put out in British Columbia – only work if you assume that these new taxes will generate no indirect costs that we be passed on by, you know, all of the companies which are going to be expected to bear the major burden of these new taxes.
In other words, when we calculate the real cost of the tax – when we factor in what it will add to the cost of transportation, what it will add to the cost of moving goods, what it will add to running our air conditioners all summer, and so forth we end up with a situation where most of us are going to be robbed twice – first to give money away to the left’s green friends and a second time to give money away to the shiftless, unproductive, and idle.
Frankly, watching all of this thievery-in-progress makes me wish that we could have just a little bit of Sharia law in this country.
This carbon tax stuff is nonsense.
I just wish that we politicians and others with the courage in this country to say that flat-out, without any caveats. The world isn’t even getting hotter – it’s actually been cooling slightly for a decade. If it was getting hotter, there’s still no authentic scientific consensus on the exact cause of climate change (and, indeed, given the countless climate shifts which pre-date modern industry, to attribute this entirely or primarily to human activity is certainly a stretch). Even if it was getting hotter and it was caused by man, the actual likely rise is relatively minimal and would probably be beneficial for us here in North America. And, even if all of that wasn’t true, the final truth is that the major carbon emitters are in the Third World and aren’t going to stop in any case – Canada’s emissions amount to less than a drop in the ocean.
In other words, in the Carbon Tax we have a perfect progressive plan – an expensive and bureaucratic “solution” to a problem that may not actually exist (and might actually be good for us if it does) that has exactly zero chance of helping to fix the problem (other than by moral example) even if the problem is real. If I didn’t know so many of them personally, I’d write off the politicians and activists who support this as merely stupid. Since I do know many of them, I’m force to conclude that this is an exercise in the basest cynicism – as pointless as a proposal to subsidize smiles and sunshine by taxing the rain.
Alas, there’s no one to speak for us on this point. Most of our politicians are cowards. I don’t say that insultingly – to survive in a democracy you have to be something of one. As Winston Churchill pointed out, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Thus, I’m willing to accept it to a minimal degree when people like John McCain are forced to condescend to the delusions of an uninformed public rather than destroy their careers trying to convey facts to people who lack the capacity to absorb them.
The environment is an issue custom-made for shrieking, hysterical women and their XY-Chromosome counterparts. It’s not an issue where it’s possible to have a rational discussion with a large percentage of the population. You lay out some basic facts – facts which one must have a passing acquaintance with reality to grasp – and end up against someone who weeps damnable tears for Mother Gaia in response. You lose because you audience consists of people who watch Dr. Phil and are open to the idea that the Moon landing was faked. Trying to explain facts about this to people who’ve gone through the Vietnamese-style re-education camps which pass for public schools in Canada is slightly more futile than telling a Scientologist about the absurdity of their faith.
But, it’s one thing to smile and nod – I’m forced to do that much all the time. I understand that. It’s another to actually go and do what the BC Liberals have done and actually take serious money for this crap. Thus I, and many other British Columbians, are left with a very difficult dilemma. I’d rather be cut in half with a table knife than ever see the NDP in power in this Province again – but how much of this can we take before we decide to do something?
Thankfully, at the Federal level, we appear to have a leader with the requisite level of cynicism to survive in this debased and flawed age of universal suffrage – Harper seems to get that sometimes we have to keep quiet rather than fritter away time and resources in futile arguments, but at least he still seems willing to call out true idiocy for what it is.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 22, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
"Responsibility 911" and the Statue of Responsibility
I've just heard about a soon to be released book called Responsibility 911. One of the Canadian contributors, Elliott Frankl, is featured in the Georgina Advocate, an Ontario newspaper. He is a distant relative of the famous Victor Frankl, whose writings are also featured.
As of today, it is still not listed at Amazon.com, but I want to respond pre-emptively to the message of this book:
" … At the heart of the book is the idea freedom cannot exist without citizens accepting responsibility for the society in which they live..."
The announcement by author Thomas Schaff from May about Responsibility 911 is available on YouTube. Thomas Schaff is also one of the trustees for the Statue of Responsibility project. Their video presentation is at www.sorfoundation.org. More information is available at the project's FAQ.
The video presents a consistent message: "Coming together... brotherhood ... in the same boat ...not just about self-interest ... the greater interest..."
Summaries of Responsibility 911 are available online (here and here).
Highlighting some of the chapters: “Everybody Matters” by George W. Bush, “Moral Courage” by Senator John McCain, “Lessons for Leaders” by Arnold Schwarzenegger, “Never Retreat” by Rudy Giuliani, “You Have a Role to Play” by Barack Obama and "Bill of Responsibilities", by Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Pending articles for the new book include other establishment figures William Bennett and David Gergen.
Reading their “Bill of Responsibilities” will give you a flavour of what Freedom's Foundation is all about. On the home page, you can watch bi-partisan buddies, Senators Biden and Hatch present the "Freedom Isn't Free Campaign" video. The Advisory Council for the Statue of Responsibility project also includes the same Senator Hatch.
In my opinion, the number of political figures listed as contributors appears to discredit whatever value the book has as a collection of works on spiritual or self-help topics. Also, the presence of works by self-help authors, and the confusion caused by mixing political and psychological concepts could make this book an appealing and effective piece of propaganda.
The whole idea of the Statue of Responsibility is to “balance” the Statue of Liberty, in effect downplaying and cancelling out the value of seeking liberty, as if liberty and responsibility are opposite values. They define “freedom” as something superior to “liberty” because they say “freedom” also includes “responsibility” (whatever they mean by that). Whatever freedom is (insert Orwellian term here), if you lose it, they say it’s your fault. You didn’t pay the price. You didn’t suffer enough or you didn't go along with the program and now it's time to really get started paying for that freedom! So you are going to sit and be lectured by the same people passing the legislation every day that destroys your real freedoms – instead of telling them to stop.
The themes of the book are very clear from the pre-release. In a pure self-help context they might be very positive, but mixed with politics, they convey a totalitarian warning: responsibility (shut up and get in line, it’s your fault, your selfishness and desire for liberty caused all these problems), leadership (we need new leaders like us to rule), accountability and social responsibility (watch out or you’re the next show trial victim like Martha Stewart), transparency (invasion of privacy and private property) and the "role" of the citizen (submission and sacrifice to the State, don't question the credibility of its institutions).
I can’t help interpreting this as a situation where the ideas of Victor Frankl and self-help authors are going to be twisted by the defenders of a corrupt political system who are given a platform by this book. Liberty means being free to do things with your life that you decide are constructive - and the right to be wrong about your choices - as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. Liberty does not equate to irresponsibility at all. In fact, we need to exercise responsibility in order to promote liberty, preserve established freedoms and hold the power-abusers in government accountable.
Posted by Alan Mercer on June 22, 2008 in Media | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Stephanie Dion, Sissy
Mme. Dion is apparently upset that the Prime Minister correctly pointed out that his plan to impose massive new taxes on energy would "screw" people around the country. I, on the other hand, am just glad that the Prime Minister had the guts to call a spade a spade.
Now, if only we could fight an election on this stuff now. As I've told my local friends, the B.C. Carbon Tax is a potentially election-losing debacle for the B.C. Liberals. I'd be happy to go at the national Liberals over this.
This would all be better if some of our national politicians would have the courage to point out what the GOP is working towards in the United States - namely that the authors of our present misfortune are those moronic environmentalists who for decades have used a tanglework of regulation and litigation to prevent the proper exploitation of our energy resources.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 22, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
"I Will Neither Stop Nor Yield"
Finally, some drivers show courage by responding correctly to idiotic road "blockades>'
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 22, 2008 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Chinooks of change for Libertarians
George Dance is an optimist; in his column for Nolan Chart and the Libertarian Bulletin he writes that "in May, the winds of change blew through North America's two national Libertarian parties like mighty chinooks from the west." He uses the word chinook deliberately, emphasizing the growing role of Albertans in the Libertarian Party of Canada: "[the party met] in Edmonton for its first convention in Alberta since 1974, and the next day elected its first leader from that province since Chuck Lyall 34 years ago."
He goes on:
"Dennis Young, of Edmonton (sic, he's from Calgary), is the new Party Leader. Young is a former Canadian infantryman who saw active duty in the NATO intervention in Bosnia, which helped shape his non-interventionist foreign policy beliefs.
'I was a working soldier for 12 years -- and I care too much about our fighting men and women to be reckless about war. Harper has become a voice for a failed Washington foreign policy. I want to be a voice for Canadian soldiers and their families,' he told the delegates in his victory speech.
Young's experience as a military police officer from 1991 to 1997 also led him to question the wisdom of the federal War on Drugs. 'We have finite policing resources and the time we spend prosecuting people for using marijuana, is time taken away from protecting people from violent crimes,' he told the applauding delegates.
Young also took aim at the Canadian Human Rights Commission's investigation of author Mark Steyn and former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant for alleged hate speech against Moslems, calling the investigations an attempt at 'media censorship.'
'The Conservative government has abandoned Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn,' he declared. 'If you care about free speech and a free press, you should vote for the Libertarian Party. When we talk about freedom, we actually mean it.'"
Dance also includes some thoughts about change coming in the form of the Ron Paul movement and Bob Barr to the US Libertarian Party, and he's written much more about why he's "on Barrd" with the conservative former Congressman from Georgia. Dance is right that there have been winds of change in the two Libertarian Parties, but the question I'm even more interested in is whether the winds in the rest of Canadian society are blowing in a direction favourable to freedom lovers, libertarians, and decentralists.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on June 21, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Milton Friedman still ticking lefties off even from the grave
The University of Chicago is slated to name an Economic institute after Milton Friedman, but the social sciences and humanities faculty (i.e. the left flank at U of C) are signing a petition to prevent the university's administration from choosing the Free to Choose author's as its namesake even though Friedman made famous the "Chicago School" right there at U of C. That's not enough for the leftists. Some 100 professors are worried
about intellectual diversity. The lefties point to statements in the proprosal that say the institute will "Typify some of Milton Friedman's most interesting academic work." That is simply unacceptable. According to one Music professor Robert Kendrick, "I don't think any institute of any educational institution should be so strongly aligned behind a single ideological program." Really Bob? Why don't you apply that logic to the Humanities and English departments at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. John Cochrane, a business professor even gets it wrong in trying to assuage the knee-jerks of the humanities lefties. "There will be no ties to any party," he said. "It will not be a home for administration officials while Republicans wait out the [ Barack] Obama administration." John, the lefties aren't worried about republicans hiding out. They are worried about free-market capitalism--not exactly something current Republicans can claim they have a consistent record of support. Read between the lines of this statement: "For many people who travel around the word, the university has had a pretty bad reputation that is tied to the Chicago School and economic principles that Milton Friedman advocated," said Yali Amit, a U. of C. statistics and computer science professor. (Okay, so maybe not all the socialists are in the humanities) In other words, its Friedman's capitalism not his politics that are causing all the kvetching.
Posted by Jay Lafayette on June 21, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Friday, June 20, 2008
Whoops! The Audacity of Hype steps in it
Barack Obama has been bashing President Bush's 2005 Energy Bill. Obviously, a good American who wants change should vote for the candidate who opposed it.
Trouble is, that candidate isn't Barack Obama; it's John McCain.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on June 20, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Al & Mike Show Episode 28 - Green Shift and Copyright Shift
Dion's Green Shift and the new copyright bill is on the agenda for this episode.
Listen Now
Subscribe to RSS: Click here for podcast RSS feed.
Subscribe in iTunes for your iPod: Click here (Must have iTunes installed)
Posted by Mike Brock on June 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack