The Shotgun Blog
Saturday, November 03, 2012
New International Trade Crossing: Bridge Math
Click cartoon to enlarge.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 3, 2012 in Canadian Politics, U.S. politics, Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Vote Omar for grand poobah of the blogosphere!
Yesterday, the Shotgun's newest blogger Omar formally introduced himself. He attracted the attention of the editors because of his blog Abu Hatem, one of the brightest spots in the traditional conservative blogosphere with a unique perspective: one firmly grounded in the traditions of Islamic natural law and American constitutionalism; I've been a longtime reader and sometimes correspondent and I'm so pleased to welcome him here.
Now Omar has been nominated for a $10,000 College Scholarship for his blogging and he needs votes to win. He's behind in the early voting, but the polls don't close until next Monday and I think The Shotgun readers can help push him over the edge. Go help out a friend of liberty in Canada by voting here for 'Omar'.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on November 11, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Monday, September 29, 2008
Pierre Lemieux: Crucial battle lost
"Your papers, please!" We hear this line or something like it at the border. In less free societies, government agents can make this demand at almost any time, with dire penalties for those unable or unwilling to offer up the required documentation.
Is our society moving in that direction? Pierre Lemieux thinks we might be. For example, the UK has unveiled a new national ID card for foreign nationals. Some think this is the first step toward requiring citizens to also carry some sort of standard identification card. In Canada, Bill C-31 requires people to bring government issued photo ID with them to the voting booth.
Thus, next time you vote, you may hear "Your papers, please!" And only those who have government-issued photo ID -- like a driver's license -- will be allowed to cast their ballots.
In his column this week, Lemieux examines some of the arguments that have been offered in support of national identification cards and relates programs. What these arguments miss, he claims, is the most powerful reason to resist a national ID card:
Just think of what the state is unable to do when it cannot rapidly and reliably identify peaceful individuals. Like a (diminishing) host of procedural and substantive restraints on the state, the absence of official ID papers increases the cost of enforcing laws that delve into people’s private affairs and invade private property. Thus, without official ID papers, such laws are less likely to be adopted. We should know because we lived in a free society a few decades ago.
We don't usually think that making it more expensive for the government to enforce the law is a good thing. Typically, the more efficient some process is, the better.
When it comes to the enforcement of the law, however, Lemieux may have a point. After all, one argument in favor of the individual right to bear arms (as enshrined in the Second Amendment to the American Constitution) is simply that tyranny becomes more costly to the tyrant when his potential subjects are armed.
Contra a certain left-wing straw-person, we don't even have to imagine a citizenry so well armed that it can defeat the government in battle. Rather, an armed citizenry can make tyranny so expensive to enforce -- think of government agents gunned down at every turn by citizens-turned-snipers -- that would-be tyrants have to rethink their plans.
In contrast, a national photo identification system, combined with modern biometric technology, makes it easier for tyrants to enforce most any law their minds might devise. Want to keep track of people's movements? As apartheid South Africa discovered, it's easy when everyone has to carry an ID card linked to a national database. Want to know what your citizens are spending money on? Again, it's easy when everyone has to present a national ID card before opening a bank account.
Want to know which of your citizens visit the Western Standard website a little too often? Make them present their ID card before getting Internet access.
If Lemieux's argument has a flaw, it's that it's already pretty easy for the government to know most of the things about its citizens we just discussed. A national ID card might make things a little worse, but not by much.
More excerpts from Lemieux's column are below the fold.
The argument for official ID papers is that they facilitate law enforcement, which is why conservatives are all excited. Any realistic appraisal of the world around us shows that this argument is exactly upside down: it actually runs against ID papers. For which law enforcement are we talking about? Laws against murder and theft were enforced long before official ID papers appeared. And after the state had introduced them, sophisticated criminals and terrorists obtained or falsified them. Nearly all the 9/11 terrorists had proper ID.
...
The crucial battle against official ID papers has, I fear, been lost. A formal ID card is being introduced in the U.K. In the U.S., the federal government is standardizing state drivers’ licences and transforming them into a de facto national ID card; the Canadian government is slavishly imitating this fraud.
Posted by Terrence Watson on September 29, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Monday, August 25, 2008
Levant gets an apology from Fast Forward Weekly
Fast Forward Weekly issued an apology to Ezra Levant and the “Western Standard community” for publishing a letter-to-the-editor in 2007 that claimed, among other things, that Levant misused company funds to travel.
In an unsigned letter, Fast Forward Weekly wrote “In particular, we recognize that as a publisher Mr. Levant would have gone to all efforts to promote and improve the Western Standard, locally, nationally and internationally, including ensuring that any use of company funds was appropriate. Any suggestion to the contrary was based on the opinion of the author of the letter and Fast Forward Weekly does not share those views.”
The offending letter was written by a former employee of the Western Standard after the Western Standard announced that it was shutting down its print edition in October 2007. The former employee has refused to apologize for the letter and the defamation matter is now headed for court.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 25, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (93) | TrackBack
Monday, August 11, 2008
Lemieux: Random health services
Let's say you and nine others are patients of Dr. X, an M.D. overwhelmed with work. Since doctors aren't allowed to make as much money as they want, there are few doctors servicing the same area as Dr. X.
In fact, let's suppose he's the only one.
Dr. X isn't a mean person, but he's only human, and he can't work 24 hours a day. Thus, he puts the names of you and the nine other patients in a big hat, and starts drawing names. Unfortunately, the first one is yours. Too bad; now you'll have to find another doctor. Also too bad, but there's this lump you really wanted Dr. X to take a look at -- might be cancer, might not, and surely you'll be able to find another doctor soon, right...?
But the hat has spoken!
Sound bizarre and unfair? It's happening right now across Canada, as the National Post reports. In northern Ontario, Dr. Ken Runciman resorted to his version of the "sorting hat" to decide which of his patients had to be let go. Says Dr. Runciman:
"It was just my way of trying to minimize the bias ... rather than going through the list and saying 'I don't like you, and I don't like you,' " said Dr. Runciman. "It wasn't something that I wanted to do."
You can't really blame Dr. Runciman for restricting the flow of patients into his waiting room; after all, according to the NP, he's already working 11 hour days.
In this week's column, Pierre Lemieux examines the fallacy at the root of Canada's health care system: the idea that you can reduce the price the user of a good pays to zero, without having to resort to rationing or lotteries in order to determine who gets to have access to that good.
These days in Canada, health care seems to be in short supply. But since the users of health care (qua users, not taxpayers) don't have to pay for the use of the good, demand for it has far outstripped supply -- as it would even if there were a dozen Dr. Runcimans. Thus, the need to ration the good, in one way or another.
Typically, as Lemieux points out, rationing occurs through the health care bureaucracy and its odious waiting lists. These waiting lists have claimed real victims: people like Janice Fraser, for example. In Chaoulli v. Quebec, three Canadian Supreme Court judges found that Quebec's waiting lists were so dangerous they violated the Charter's guarantee of security of the person.
Critics will claim that allocation of health care through the market is just as arbitrary as waiting lists and lotteries. But this is not clearly so. Janice Fraser's friends and family wanted -- needed -- to gather enough money together to pay for her care. This would have been a hardship for them, to be sure, as life-saving expenses often are. However, under Canadian law, they were forbidden from spending their own money on the care of a loved one. How arbitrary is that? In order to secure the integrity of the system's precious bureaucracy, a family was prohibited from taking care of one of its own in immense need.
Now that's arbitrary. Lemieux notes that using a lottery to purge a waiting list is even more random, and even more ridiculous. Health care, but only if you're lucky and the hat favors you that day.
Yet, if you're a golden retriever in Canada, you can still get health care if and when you need it.
Excerpts from Lemieux's column are below the fold.
"Queues are a more neutral and less visible way to solve the rationing problem. Let the gatekeeper open the gate one person at a time and let the others wait their turn. In this system, however, prices do find a way to creep back through non-pecuniary costs, like waiting times and investments in connection building or in learning how to cajole gatekeepers. Those individuals whose time has lower opportunity costs (because they are paid less or have less to do in life) will support the wait, while others with higher opportunity costs will build abilities to jump the queue. Those in between won’t get much — until they are dying."
...
"Moreover, a lottery is not more just than a system based on any other random factors, like good genes or a better environment. We have come back nearly full circle: from natural random factors as they interact with private property rights to random government allocation interacting with bureaucratic and political right holders. We have sacrificed efficiency and liberty in the move."
Posted by Terrence Watson on August 11, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Greetings
Peter was kind enough to invite me to blog here. I already maintain and contribute to the University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog, but the opportunity to blog here was quite exciting. I hope to post distinct entries on both blogs, but occasionally I may cross-list a posting.
By the way of background, I am an associate professor of law at the University of Alberta, where I am also the associate dean of graduate studies and the acting associate dean of research in the faculty. Having recently received tenure and recently been saddled with these long titles, my scholarship will now inevitably diminish. That being said, I did manage to produce some work in order to convince my colleagues that I am worthy of staying on here, and you can see my CV and links to some of my papers here.
I look forward to posting and hearing your comments both positive and negative. One thing, I should warn you, that I am prone to is hyperbole and exaggeration. I do this to provoke discussion, and I really do benefit (and many times revise my opinions based on) from comments.
Posted by Moin A Yahya on July 17, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Grant Brown: Women are always victims, even when they're not
Western Standard columnist Grant Brown is a stickler when it comes to impartiality and equal treatment before the law. This week, in "Women are always victims, even when they're not," Brown explores the double standards that came into play in the investigation of a murder-suicide by London Police Service Inspector Kelly Johnson. An excerpt:
"The report notes that the vast preponderance of murder-suicides is perpetrated by men in the context of a separation. Given the “markers” listed by the authors in the case of Kelly Johnson, it should be easy even for Faulkner to see why. Most men who are involuntarily separated from their partners suffer from most of the stressors she faced, and many more significant ones, besides. In addition to the personal rejection, sometimes by a very long-term partner, men also have to deal with being forcibly ejected from their own homes and the consequent loss of contact with their children, the automatic confiscation of a large chunk of their incomes, and sometimes the indignity of an investigation into false allegations of abuse or (worse) child sexual abuse.
In my family-law practice, I saw many male clients who were in far more dire circumstances than Johnson was facing. I was frequently amazed at the resilience and stoicism men show in the face of the unbearable expectations and outrageous injustices that are heaped upon them. Ironically, one stressor the authors specifically note is that Johnson was a woman in a demanding, male-dominated occupation. But the risks and stresses associated with male-dominated occupations affect men just as much as women. The surprising thing isn’t that most murder-suicides are perpetrated by men in the context of a separation; the surprising thing is that even more men do not snap under the burdens placed upon them by social expectations and our adversarial, mother-friendly family courts."
Posted by Kalim Kassam on July 16, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Ric Dolphin Writes Again
Although loath to use another of those horrible words concocted by the geeks who, sadly, have inherited the world, there seems to be no avoiding it. I now have a "blog" which I shall endeavor to update at least every Monday and which you are
invited to visit at, ricdolphin.com
Be aware that, unlike when I wrote for Western Standard magazine, I am not being censored for language. I am also not specifically writing about politics, although the subject may be broached on occasion. Be assured, however, that I shall never use "blog" as a verb.
Posted by Ric Dolphin on July 9, 2008 in Aboriginal Issues, American History, Books, Canadian Conservative Politics, Canadian History, Canadian Politics, Canadian Provincial Politics, Crime, Current Affairs, Film, Humour, International Affairs, International Politics, Media, Military, Municipal Politics, Religion, Science, Television, Trade, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Western Standard, WS Radio, WStv | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Friday, July 04, 2008
Pierre Lemieux: The Idea of America
Americans are busy celebrating the 4th of July today, but do many of them really know what the idea of America was? What were the revolutionaries -- the signers of the Declaration, the men and women who abandoned their old ties to call America home -- doing all of this for? What was that glorious idea?
Pierre Lemieux, our firebrand libertarian columnist, has produced a monograph entitled "The Idea of America," (PDF) published by the Western Standard, to answer this and related questions. His analysis is, in my judgment, accurate and cutting. Once upon a time, Americans (and Canadians) wouldn't even think of the government when presented with a problem.
Once upon a time, no American worth her salt would ever stand for identification papers, gun control, nanny state regulations, and so on. What happened to those Americans? Maybe they lost their grip on the idea of America, and were coddled and pacified by unparalleled wealth and prosperity. Or maybe they were flummoxed by the snake-oil salesman cum politician, insisting that they could get something for nothing, or frightening them with tales of bogeymen under every bed.
"...consider the first decade of the 20th century," writes Lemieux, "[i]n general, anybody could start a business, find investors, and sell his product without any government license and oversight. There was no SEC, no IRS, no FCC, no FDA, no OSHA, no USCIS (formerly INS), no EPA. The absence of regulation did not prevent the development of vibrant capital markets, and New York City was on its way to becoming the top financial place in the world. The right to keep and bear arms, so typically American in the 20th century, had survived relatively unscathed. There was no witch-hunt and, in a legal fight between an individual and the government, it is the latter that felt handicapped. Writing in 1910, Lord Acton could confidently say that the American people are “more free than any other the world has seen.” In her celebration of American liberty in the early 20th century, Rose Wilder Lane could exclaim: “That is what Europeans meant when, after a few days in this country, they exclaimed, ‘You are so free here!’.”
Once, maybe, there was America. But what happened to that idea?
"Americans are now caught in the “network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform” that [Alexis de] Tocqueville forecasted. Virtually all activities—even those protected by the Bill of Rights—are regulated in some way, and most often in many ways. Just at the federal level, there are probably 4,000 statutes, although it’s hard to tell the exact number, notes a Wall Street Journal reporter, “because the statutes aren’t listed in one place.” And this does not include the regulations. “We continue to claim that nobody is supposed to ignore the law,” wrote French legal theorist Georges Ripert in 1949, “but those who know it are certainly to be commended.” In 2001, federal prosecutors brought more than 80,000 cases. To this must be added the laws, regulations and prosecutions at the State and local levels. It is stimated that 15 per cent of all Americans have an arrest record. France has come to
Read the monograph. Pass it on. It's the 4th of July, and the idea of America is still worth fighting for.
Posted by westernstandard on July 4, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Western Standard-sponsored investment seminars
Does your investment portfolio need a boost?
You’re invited to the “Real Assets, Real Returns” investment seminars in Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton.
Find out about RRSP-eligible investments that offer cash-flow and equity appreciation, with the safety that only real assets can provide.
How do you take advantage of the global food crisis? Is farmland the next big investment opportunity?
Will the demographic shift, rising home prices and tightening credit market benefit real estate investors? Where is the hot new market for investing in multi-family properties?
Find out at the “Real Assets, Real Returns” investment seminars.
From farmland to multi-family properties, don’t miss presentations from two of Alberta’s best real estate experts.
Learn more about farmland investing in Saskatchewan from Stephen Johnston, investment director with Agcapita Partners.
Learn more about wealth creating strategies for investing in apartment buildings in emerging markets from Thomas Beyer, president of Prestigious Properties.
Here are the details:
June 24, 2008 – Calgary
Lunch presentation (12:00 Noon – 2:00 PM)
Evening presentation (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM)
Location: Best Western (Strathmore Room 1 & 2), 1935 McKnight Blvd
June 25, 2008 – Red Deer
Evening presentation (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM)
Location: Red Deer Conference Centre (Gull Lake Room)
June 26, 2008 – Edmonton
Lunch presentation (12:00 Noon – 2:00 PM)
Evening presentation (7:00 PM – 9:00 PM)
Location: South Side Delta (Edmonton Room)
Space is limited so RSVP today by emailing [email protected] or calling 403-701-3045.
Posted by westernstandard on June 17, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Monday, June 16, 2008
Lemieux: A Fraudulent Apology
In his weekly column, Pierre Lemieux attacks the federal government and its hypocritical apology to aboriginal Canadians who participated in the residential schools program. The government may have something to apologize about, but it has no right to apologize on behalf of the rest of us who have done nothing wrong.
Here is an excerpt:
"The apology is marred by many problems typical of today’s state-talk. The first problem lies in what is identified as wrong with the programme...The basic wrong was not the underlying negative value judgment on aboriginal “cultures and traditions”, but the coercive removal of children from their families.
The few reported cases of violence and sexual abuse were just a natural consequence of the original state coercion.
...
Kidnapping children for public policy purposes continues. It is not generally based on race, but it still feeds on faddish ideas and relies on state coercion. Parents who do not raise their children as the state thinks they should routinely see them seized by “child protection” agencies.
...
Perhaps it can be argued that the current statocrats in Parliament and in public bureaucracies have, by participating in Power, assumed some responsibility for the state’s crimes, and that they should pay for it. But the Indian residential programme has nothing to do with you and I. Associating us with the statocrats’ apology is a fraud."
Posted by westernstandard on June 16, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Comments on the Shotgun blog
Dear Western Standard reader,
20 recent comments on this blog were accidently deleted. If one of your comments was removed, I sincerely apologise. Thank you for contributing to the Shotgun.
If you want to email me about this, I can be reached at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Matthew Johnston
Publisher
Western Standard
Posted by Matthew Johnston on June 15, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Filibuster: Will she, won't she?
As news trickles in slowly about Hilary Clinton's next move (she's not quitting yet, but she still might), we bring you WS cartoonist J.J. McCullough's latest comic: The Chessmaster (click image to see it full-size in a pop-up window).
Posted by westernstandard on June 3, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Miller: Pro-life groups told to shut up
The Canadian Federation of Students is supporting York University's York Federation of Students' decision to block club status for pro-life groups. With most students out for the Summer, the YFS has managed to make life harder for pro-life student groups and clubs. The rationale? Pro-life groups are "anti-choice" and sexist.
Johanna Miller, President of the National Campus Life Network--a national pro-life organization--sums up the feelings of many in her opinion piece entitled "Pro-life groups told to shut up."
An excerpt:
"The time has come for Canadians to awaken to the reality of totalitarianism in our midst. Ironically, the CFS claims to represent students of differing ethnicities, creeds, ages, and sex; however, it has taken a stance contrary to tolerance and inclusivity. This recent decision demonstrates that the CFS has adopted a dogma of dictatorship. The Federation has employed rhetoric to defame pro-life students as “anti-choice,” and has made a sweeping motion at a time when students are not at school. This lack of transparency, and obvious restriction of the right to choose to be actively pro-life, is startling and unjust."
Posted by westernstandard on May 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack
Monday, May 26, 2008
Lemieux: Support Native resistance
When the law is unjust, people need to be willing to break it to defend our traditional liberties. In Canada, Natives have been fighting against paper crimes and unjust laws, which is why Pierre Lemieux, in his latest column, is asking liberty-lovers to "Support Native resistance."
An excerpt:
"In the world as it is, Canadian Native resistance helps protect our liberties, for it keeps the state from becoming a total, uncontested authority. It is thanks to the Natives that five or ten per cent of the population can purchase affordable cigarettes and that the smokers of legal cigarettes are not taxed even more. To the extent that they are involved in other peaceful black market activities — drugs for example — the Natives are helping to satisfy other consumer demands. And some honest citizens may soon have to rely on them to find guns or light bulbs or whatever. Granted that lot of damage is done in the process, but the totalitarian alternative is even worse."
Posted by westernstandard on May 26, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Sunday, May 18, 2008
How Mario Dumont could save Canada . . . by destroying it
As the day of the Canadian bureaucracy's laughably ironic tribute to Franz Kafka approaches, the forces of free speech are growing increasingly glum. Already, Mark Steyn and Macleans have been convicted in the court of pessimistic opinion, with little, if any, relief in sight.
However, there is, IMHO, one person who could bring this entire charade to a screeching halt, if only he knew (1) that he could do it, and (2) how much it is in his interest to do it. That person is Mario Dumont.
Quebec's opposition leader is not having his best year, but he is still in a position to radically change the entire nature of this debacle. For one, he still has 41 MNA's in Quebec City. Secondly, his support for Jeff Fillion (on which he was practically alone in Quebec politics) gives him the free-speech credentials he would need for what I am about to suggest. Finally, given what has been happening to him and his party recently, he doesn't have much to lose.
So, what dramatic statement could he make that could reshape the entire human rights tribunal fiasco? I was figuring something like this: threatening to introduce legislation for a referendum on Quebec independence the moment Steyn, Levant, Macleans, or anyone else exercising free speech is convicted by any tribunal.
What makes this actually powerful (as opposed to useless grandstanding) is the current state of politics in Quebec. As soon as Dumont were to make this statement, the PQ would have to choose between supporting him or watching half its vote go permanently to the ADQ. I'm guessing they'll take the former - meaning the human rights commissions will have to add "potentially killing Canada" to the already long list of damaging consequences from going after Steyn, Levant, Macleans, etc., especially if - as I suspect - the new, right-wing justification for separation puts the "Yes" side back in front (at least on the condition that convictions are handed down) for the first time in a dozen years. The entire episode would take on a new dimension, and it would be front-page news every single day for weeks (if not months).
Furthermore, odds are Premier Jean Charest, in a desperate attempt to deflect this, will himself be compelled to come to the defense of free speech and in opposition to any conviction. He might even try to burnish his credentials on this by calling for an end to Quebec's human rights tribunal. Either way, the entire Quebec political establishment would end up on the side of freedom (whether it wants to be there or not). This would force federal politicians to take a stand, or risk the wrath of la belle province.
Naturally, the usual suspects will flip out, but so long as they include the Muslim muzzlers who are going after Steyn, Levant, and Macleans, it will be spring 2007 for Dumont all over again.
More to the point, the lefties who are so desperate to silence the Canadian right will have to ask themselves if its worth bringing Canada itself (or their version of bilingual, multicultural Canada) to an end.
For decades, the left has been using the Quebec separatist threat to hold Canada hostage for bigger and more oppressive government. The question is: will the right be willing to do the same for free speech? Is it ready to destroy Canada in order to save it?
Or is this just easier for me to consider because I'm an American?
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 18, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics, Canadian Politics, Canadian Provincial Politics, Current Affairs, Media, Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Grant Brown: The Curious Case of Country C
Do we have a real-world case of a country with discrimination against one group and in favour of another in an industrialized, highly-ranked by the UN, country? Sure we do.
In his latest column for the Western Standard, Grant Brown takes a look at the curious case of a country he's dubbed "country C." Just so you can get past all of your pre-conceived biases and judgments, Grant has called one group "X" and the other group "Y." He then rolls out the facts and the statistics on infant mortality rates, official preferential treatment, officially sanctioned discrimination, and so on.
The numbers will surprise you. As will the identity of the Xs and the Ys.
Is injustice and discrimination worth fighting against? Sure. But what happens when the facts and figures demonstrate that the victims are a group you are probably not likely to sympathize with?
An excerpt:
"The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.
"In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys."
Posted by westernstandard on May 15, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Monday, May 12, 2008
Lemieux: My Crimes
Sometimes, we commit crimes unwittingly or unknowingly. In those cases, we're probably glad the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that we're the guilty party, rather than on us to prove our innocence. Then again, maybe we're happy that not all apparent crimes result in a call to the police but are handled informally.
In his latest column, Pierre Lemieux confesses his crimes. Not fake crimes like owning a gun without a licence or making use of so-called "illicit" drugs as an adult, but real crimes--crimes against legitimate property owners.
An excerpt:
"Legal safeguards are important because it can easily happen that somebody looks obviously guilty while he is innocent. This is what three little anecdotes of mine illustrate...
"... I was pushing a cart with a few items I had just purchased. Like an absent-minded professor, I started walking out of the store without thinking of paying. A security guard stopped me. I made a gesture of the sort, “Gosh, I have forgotten to pay!” The guard frowned severely and showed me the direction of the nearest cash register. Nothing else happened.
"This happened at about the time Claude Charron, a Parti Québécois Minister, was caught with stolen clothes in the same store, arrested, and later convicted. I must have looked more honest than him. One advantage of being honest is that one looks honest. Still, had the guard arrested me and the cops laid charges, would my absent-mindedness have been a persuasive defence?"
Posted by westernstandard on May 12, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Grant Brown: The special pleading section of the Charter
Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is aimed at ensuring equality. That's how it reads, that's what it says, and that's what everyone should rightly expect.
Unfortunately, the meaning of "equality" is not entirely perspicuous (philosophers sometimes call it an "essentially contested concept" which means, at bottom, that there is no one meaning of the word that competent speakers can agree to). The result is section 15 jurisprudence that has more to do with political correctness than treating each individual equally before the law.
Or so Grant Brown argues in his latest column for the Western Standard entitled "The special pleading section of the Charter."
An excerpt:
"Mallot was charged with murdering her partner. Her defense--nowadays de rigour
in cases where women kill their partners--was the (scientifically
baseless) “battered woman’s syndrome.” In the course of delivering her
reasons, Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dube said in obiter dicta:
"To assume that men who are victims of spousal abuse are affected by
the abuse in the same way [as women], without benefit of the research
and expert opinion evidence which has informed the courts of the
existence and details of ‘battered woman syndrome’ would be imprudent."
“Imprudent” or not, s. 15 of the Charter is supposed to guarantee the
equal protection of the law for men and women. In the absence of
compelling evidence showing that men and women are different in some
respect, therefore, the legally required presumption is that they be
treated similarly." Read More...
Posted by westernstandard on April 1, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Monday, March 31, 2008
Lemieux: Why defend free speech?
In his latest column for the Western Standard and Liberty in Canada, Pierre Lemieux offers his defense of freedom of speech and expression.
Pierre argues that freedom of speech needs to be permitted even for "despicable opinions" (like those of the neo-Nazis) because this freedom is the best way to discover the truth, to share these discoveries with others, to advance scientifically and economically, to temper the powerful, and because censorship requires political power and we have no reason to expect the politically powerful to be more enlightened than the rest of us.
An excerpt:
"That these laws were often used against alleged neo-Nazis does not matter, for free speech must be defended up to, and including, the expression of despicable opinions. Lately, as was to be expected, the "human rights" commissions (there are provincial ones, too) have been going after other targets.
"Talking about Nazis, it is worth noting that the real ones were also great fans of speech bans. Section 23 of the 1920 program of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for a "legal fight against conscious political lies."... A Nazi government decree of March 21, 1933, aimed to punish "[a]nybody who intentionally creates or publishes a false or seriously misleading piece of information that could gravely undermine the... Reich." Statists have a way to be similar across time and place." Read More...
Posted by westernstandard on March 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Lemieux: Verboten for an opressed minority
Bruce Montague has been sentenced to 18 months in jail, the forfeiture of his firearms, one-year probation, and a lifetime firearms prohibition; his wife Donna has received six months probation. Their terrible crime? They didn’t rob a local convenience store or wound a bystander in a careless crossbow practice session, they weren’t found with a stolen shotgun or assault the judge with nasty soubriquets. They did, however, have some unlicensed firearms and some others which just weren’t permitted in Canada. In this edition of his weekly column "Verboten for an opressed minority," Pierre Lemieux reflects on the sentences handed down to the couple by a Kenora, Ontario judge yesterday. He says that Canadian gun owners are an ignored and aggrieved minority who don’t have the political clout to change the laws under which they live through the traditional avenues of our majoritarian democracy. If there is a higher law than mere government legislation, after a certain line is crossed isn’t peaceful civil disobedience justified?
An excerpt:
“The issue of civil disobedience was central to the case. A high point of the sentencing hearing came when Ed Hudson, the leader of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Association (soon to be rechristened "Canadian Unlicenced Firearm Owners Association,") unexpectedly stood up in the courtroom, asking if he could make a statement. The self-righteous Crown prosecutor objected, but to no avail.
Dr. Hudson said he wished to take responsibility for Bruce Montague’s actions, and presented a short plea for civil disobedience and for the accused. The judge replied that Mr. Montague had been "seduced by precepts which are American," that we live under a regime of "peace, order and good government," and that the law should always be obeyed as long as the political system is accessible — even though he admitted that the new gun controls are "convoluted and dangerous for honest citizens."”
Read more…
Posted by westernstandard on March 26, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Grant Brown: Biology is not destiny
In his latest column for the Western Standard, entitled "Biology is not destiny," Grant Brown argues that our biology does not fully determine how we will act and what we will do. Men and women, on average, will have different personality and character traits, as well as tendencies to act in one way or another. But "on average" is a far cry from universally true. And the more we know about our genetic inheritance, and what our genes predispose us to, the more autonomous can we be.
An excerpt:
"Male chauvinists and sexist-feminists play on the same stereotypes--stereotypes that are persistent precisely because they have a basis in biology. They differ only in wanting an opposite evaluative spin on these stereotypes. These warring factions are describing two sides of the same coin, one side focusing on the up-side, and the other the down-side, of the stereotypical characteristics.
"Progress in the battle of the sexes requires that we move beyond these two forms of superficiality: first, the naïve presumption that males and females are biologically and psychologically equal in all respects; and second, the self-serving presumption that all biological differences are indicative of an ineradicable superiority of one’s own sex." Read More...
Posted by westernstandard on March 18, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Monday, March 17, 2008
Lemieux: McTeague's bill was good
In Pierre Lemieux's latest column, "McTeague's bill was good," Lemieux explodes the myth that politicians and bureaucrats work in the interest of the governed. Instead, politicians and bureaucrats work for (surprise, surprise) their own interests. This means, in general, that policies will be, in general, liberticidal. Thus any bill, like Liberal M.P. Dan McTeague's education savings plan (Bill C253), that limits the amount of money the government receives in revenue, is a good bill.
An excerpt:
"We can imagine a world where the passage of a bill like McTeague’s would be bad news. In this world, a benevolent government tables, in the interests of all citizens, a budget which sets taxes at the level required to finance essential public services. Thus, any tax break on top of this would disturb the delicate optimum, forcing tax increases elsewhere or the curtailment of crucial public services, and hurt everybody.
"The problem is, every statement in this scenario is false; the world it describes belongs to a fairy tale. The government is no more benevolent than the self-interested individuals who man it. There cannot be a budget in the interests of all citizens: like the typical public policy, a budget hurts some in order to help others. And optimal public services and taxes are a myth." Read More...
Posted by westernstandard on March 17, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Narveson: Cooling it on Warming
All the hot air surrounding global warming needs a little cooling down. There is no solid evidence that global warming is anything other than a minor irritant. In fact, the real, bona fide scientific evidence suggests that global warming will heat the Earth a staggering 0.1 degree Celsius. That's enough to, uhm, do nothing about.
Which is exactly what politicians should be doing about global warming--according to Jan Narveson in his latest column titled "Cooling it on warming"--nothing.
An excerpt:
"A public policy that imposes draconian restrictions on all of our lives in order to bring about a result like that is, to put it bluntly, completely irresponsible. But essentially all the nations in the world are lining up in support of Kyoto. Even the Americans, who held out for quite awhile, are now agreeing that we must “do something.” Indeed, it is very difficult to find, anywhere in our history a comparable level of irresponsibility in reaction to a supposedly scientific finding.
Rationally speaking, and on the contrary, what we "must" do is nothing. We should certainly sign off from any Kyoto- or Bali-type measures. We should pipe down and return the whole subject to the scientists. Many years down the road maybe something will have happened with enough shape to justify some sort of policy--though I doubt it. Weather and climate are just too complicated, and contributions to it by forces that are far, far beyond human control are just too obvious." Read More...
Posted by westernstandard on March 12, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Varner: Putin's Power Play
Dmitri Medvedev, the new president of Russia, might feel a little bit like the old president. That's because Vladimir Putin's hand-picked successor will likely toe Putin's line. The two have a long history, and, as Joseph B. Varner argues in "Putin's power play," that history will mean a de facto presidency for Putin, even if, de jure, Medvedev has the title.
An excerpt:
"Putin himself would have remained president except that Russia's constitution prohibits him from holding that office for three consecutive terms. It doesn't stop him from being prime minister though. Putin will be running in December's parliamentary elections on the United Russia Party list and, given that party's virtual lock on the Duma (Russia's Parliament) and the fact that the prime minister is elected by the Duma, there is no doubt whatsoever that he will succeed. Having secured control of the majority Party, the Duma, the security and defense ministries, and even the president himself, Putin will have succeeded in making himself Russia's newest strongman." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on March 4, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Friday, February 29, 2008
Fair trade is a poor answer to global poverty
Fair trade sounds pleasant--after all, what could be wrong with "fairness"?--but it's awful, argues Alex Singleton in his most recent column for the Western Standard. And it's awful particularly for the poor and indigent.
An excerpt:
"Instead of allowing producers to make their own choices, the Fair Trade
scheme demands they conform to their utopian vision of co-operatives,
seemingly in the belief that these promote development. The truth is
that poor country co-operatives often end up being oppressive. Many
co-operative leaders win elections time and time again through rigged
elections, and then cream money off the top that ought to go to
farmers, who are left in the dark. Of course, many producers want no
part of co-operatives, preferring to remain organised as small business
owners." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 29, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
No Choice Now: Canada must support Kosovo independence
Now up at the Western Standard is a feature article by Joseph C. Ben-Ami and Joseph B. Varner entitled "No Choice Now: Canada must support Kosovo independence."
An excerpt:
"The truth is that there are no good choices available to policy makers on the question of Kosovo’s independence--only bad and worse. By delaying a decision on recognition of Kosovo’s independence, Canada has already demonstrated its unease with the situation, and its frustration that the mission in Kosovo should have been so badly botched in the first place. It is now time for Canada to demonstrate its commitment to the alliance by rising above these vicissitudes and joining its allies." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 27, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (83) | TrackBack
Friday, February 22, 2008
Your Friday cartoon
Resident cartoonist J.J. McCullough pulls no punches. This time, Castro is in his sights in "Castro's Legacy."
Posted by westernstandard on February 22, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Narveson: Freedom of speech, its meaning and limitations
Western Standard columnist, and professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Waterloo, Jan Narveson gives us his take on freedom of speech and expression in "The meaning and extent of freedom of speech."
An excerpt:
"Those who seek protection from criticism of their beliefs are cause for concern. The oddly famous case of the Danish cartoons is a case in point. Did Muhammad and his followers in fact have the properties the cartoons implied? Isn't it important whether he did or not? (There's ample evidence against him: his followers murdered non-believers just for being non-believers, rather than sitting down with them to persuade them of their errors. John Stuart Mill did have the definitive word about such people: "There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation." The Alberta "Human Rights Commission," as Mark Steyn points out, is wholesale into the business of protecting people in the latter way, against people trying to contest what they believe. That commission, and the province that supports it, have ample reason to be ashamed of themselves.)" Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 21, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Courting McCain
J.J. McCullough, cartoonist at the Western Standard, takes a look at what's left of the Republican presidential campaign in "Courting McCain."
Posted by westernstandard on February 20, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Free and green
The Western Standard has added another columnist to its roster--this time, it's Dr. Glenn Fox, natural resource economist at the University of Guelph, and one of the few, but growing, pro-free market academics working on environmental issues. His first column for the Standard titled "Free and green," pokes a hole in Arthur Cecil Pigou's famous "trains and sparks" example used to show the necessity of government intervention to promote environmental outcomes.
An excerpt:
"To many people, including many of my students at the beginning of the semester, the words "Free Market Environmentalism" appear to not belong together, like "Military Intelligence," "Business Ethics," "Government Efficiency," or "University Innovation." One student proposed that, to resolve the conflictedness of that phrase, I should write it as "Free Market ≠ Environmentalism." I expect that this view is held by many Canadians." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 20, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Women and children first
In the second of his three-part opening series of columns, Grant Brown further unmasks the face of contemporary feminism. In "women and children first," Grant makes it plain that the call for equality does not go nearly as far as the principle should imply.
An excerpt:
"The sinking of the Titanic illustrates powerfully how gender expectations that favour women go almost unnoticed--or if noticed, approved--even in our equality-conscious age. If a contemporary statistic is needed to support this claim, consider that 97.4 per cent of occupational deaths occur to men. This is not an employment opportunity that anyone seems eager to equalize. A century after the Titanic, we still instinctively lump women and children together, first, in almost every social policy or program where gender is a relevant variable." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 19, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Monday, February 18, 2008
Lemieux: Losing our freedoms
Pierre Lemieux used to be a regular columnist with the print edition of the Western Standard. Well, he's back with a regular, weekly column published here and at Liberty in Canada, an online news source and project of the Canadian Constitution Foundation edited by Pierre.
Pierre is many things--professor, author, journalist, and economist--but his most salient character-trait is his unabashed and radical love of liberty.
In his first column, Pierre gives voice to what many of us are thinking: Our country, founded on a deep reverence and respect for individual liberty, is seeing many of those liberties erode on a daily basis. Why are we letting it slip through our fingers? Did we forget to keep our powder dry?
An excerpt:
"We have lost traditional liberties in property rights and freedom of contract, certain areas of free speech, certain lifestyle choices, personal security, privacy and, despite the charters, legal protections (think about the often reversed burden of proof or the arbitrary enforcement of laws by bureaucrats). This assault on our liberties has been financed by making us pay twice in taxes what we paid a hundred years ago (as a proportion of our incomes)." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 18, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Friday, February 15, 2008
The HRC on Trial, Part 2
Ori Rubin has been busy digging into the law and the history of the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. How did a Commission with such laudable purposes and intentions become one of the largest threats to freedom of speech and expression in Canada? In his second of a three-part special series for the Standard, Rubin shines a light on the Commission and finds section 13 of the Human Rights Act to be the real danger.
An excerpt:
"...it's easy to see how the HRCs advantages in processing complaints of discrimination can make it dangerously effective at quashing political expression. The complaint process eats up a respondent's time and money. Then, the respondent goes up against a stacked house. Instead of a neutral judge, the respondent faces a Tribunal made up of members chosen to "reflect the diverse nature of [a province]" and for their "strong interest... in human rights." Nor is a public lawyer provided for the respondent, if he does not bring his own. Such an environment is almost equivalent to the presumption of guilt. Perhaps the "spectacular 100 per cent conviction rate" noted by Mark Steyn is not so hard to understand." Read more...
Posted by westernstandard on February 15, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Thursday, February 14, 2008
WStv: Soharwardy drops complaint (CBC)
Posted by westernstandard on February 14, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Saving Golubchuk
Yesterday, a judge in Winnipeg ruled that Samuel Golubchuk, an 84-year-old Orthodox Jew, is to remain on life support. Doctors at Grace General Hospital had wanted to pull the plug, in spite of Sam's family's protestations to the contrary. Whether or not Sam stays on life support will be settled in a court trial some time very soon.
If Canada included more private options for medicine, this wouldn't have been a legal issue. Sam's family, friends, and community could have paid for his medical care without having to go to court.
Joseph C. Ben-Ami, president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, explains Sam's predicament, and offers his diagnosis in "Saving Golubchuk: God save us from our health care system."
An excerpt:
"The intention of the architects of Canada's government-run health care system were noble. They wanted to ensure that everyone had access to proper medical care regardless of their ability to pay. The belief that the best way to achieve this objective was by making taxpayers responsible for everyones medical bills, instead of individual patients, turned out to be a colossal mistake. By detaching consumers--that's what patients are, after all--from the cost of their consumption, government control only succeeded in setting off an explosion in demand, causing health care budgets for all governments to spiral out of control." Read the rest here...
Posted by westernstandard on February 14, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack
Valentines from Dion
J.J. McCullough, resident cartoonist here at the Standard, gives us his take on the Valentine's Day cards Stephane Dion may be sending out to his sweethearts across the country in "Valentines from Dion."
Posted by westernstandard on February 14, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Greens should look to the market
Environmentalists continue to push for ever-more regulations to help the environment. But old regulations are keeping the Canadian-made ZENN (Zero Emission, No Noise), and the Toyota Prius off the streets. In "Unacceptably Green," Tim Mak gently suggests that the greens should look at good, old-fashioned free market deregulation first.
Posted by westernstandard on February 12, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Saturday, February 09, 2008
WSTV: Mark Steyn on Martin's bill
Posted by westernstandard on February 9, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
The WS Cartoon
J.J. McCullough's take on far-right commentators and John McCain in "Eating their own."
Posted by westernstandard on February 9, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Freedom needs a better defence
Paul McKeever, lawyer and leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario and Canada, weighs in on Ezra's appearance before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. While he thinks Ezra has the right conclusions, Paul thinks Ezra's arguments leave much to be desired.
In "Freedom needs a better defence," Paul offers his diagnosis of the problems with Ezra's arguments, and offers his own defence not just for freedom of speech and expression, but for freedom in general.
Excerpt:
"The only thing worse than not defending freedom is defending it so poorly that one's audience is left thinking maybe freedom is not defensible. Consider Ezra Levant, who is currently responding to a human rights complaint for his allegedly "offensive" publication of the famous Muhammad cartoons. Ezra condemns our human rights commissions' procedural and evidentiary standards for not being court-like. He thereby implies that censorship would be acceptable did our commissions have court-like standards." Read on...
Posted by westernstandard on February 6, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The Battle of the Sexes
Grant Brown, a lawyer who holds a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford University, is the Western Standard's newest columnist. His beat? Most broadly, he takes an interest in the battle of the sexes, as his first column is titled.
More specifically, Grant has been busy defending fathers in Canada--in parental custody cases where fathers get short shrift, in cases of domestic violence where husbands received markedly different treatment compared with wives, and in popular culture where "deadbeat dads" dominate headlines at the expense of the nuanced truth--and we can expect him to do the same here at the Standard.
Welcome aboard, Grant.
Posted by westernstandard on February 5, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Monday, February 04, 2008
WSTV: Rex Murphy on the CHRC
Posted by westernstandard on February 4, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
New at the Standard
In "A New Declaration of Independence," Western Standard reporter Terrence Watson assesses the recent attempt at secession by the Lakotah-Sioux, and compares it with Canada's deal struck with the Nisga'a. What he discovers is surprising.
Posted by westernstandard on February 4, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
New at the Standard
Think non-governmental organisations in third-world nations are helping? Think again. Alex Singleton, founder of the London-based Globalisation Institute, issues his first salvo for globalisation and free markets in his new and regular column for the Western Standard with "Enemies of the Poor."
Posted by westernstandard on February 4, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Friday Cartoon
This week, J.J. McCullough brings you a special double feature.
In Game Over, Rudy, McCullough skewers Giuliani and in Heir to the Throne, he takes on the Democratic front-runners.
Posted by westernstandard on February 1, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ezra Levant on CTV
Posted by westernstandard on February 1, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The cost of abortion: John Williamson
John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, looks into the surprising costs to taxpayers of abortion in "A not-so-private matter of abortion."
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on January 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (3)
New at the Standard
Ori Rubin gives us the first feature installment of a special three-part series on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions entitled "The HRC on Trial."
Posted by westernstandard on January 31, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack