The Shotgun
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Nazi children taken away
Last year in Winnipeg, a 7 year old girl went to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. It was later revealed that the girls mother drew the symbol on her daughters arm to send a message to the school; that she was upset about discrimination against white people at the school, which prominently displayed posters boosting minority pride, but not for white people.
Child and Family Services were called in who went to the home of the girl. Once there, they saw neo-Nazi symbols and flags. On the spot, CFS took the girls 2 year old brother away from his family, the girl was taken from the school and never went back home.
Social workers at the time had this to say.
In court documents, social workers say they're worried the parents' conduct and associations might harm the emotional well-being of the children and put them at risk.
I find a threat that the emotional well-being "might" be harmed to be quite non-specific. That could be said of nearly every household in Canada.
Since the kids were originally taken more details about the parents have come out; that the mother may have a mental defect, some drug and alcohol abuse, and instability in the home. These points are moot though since they kids were removed from their parents long before these details came out; they were taken because the CFS workers didn't like the beliefs of the parents.
For now it's neo-Nazi's, later it may be people who teach bigotry about Aboriginals, or homosexuals, or another particular group.
Manitoba Child and Family Services are seeking permanent custody of the children, who have been in foster care since being kidnapped from their parents. The custody trial wrapped up on Friday, which a decision still to be made by the courts, which could take weeks or months.
While I do not approve of racist attitudes and beliefs, I also believe in free speech and free thought, even when I disagree with that speech and those thoughts. It is and should not be illegal to be a racist, promote your racism and teach it to your children; if you want to be able to teach your kids your values then you must allow the same for other people.
Posted by Scott Carnegie on July 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
The Idea of America by Pierre Lemieux
Yesterday marked American Independence Day. Last year, the Western Standard published an exclusive monograph by our columnist Pierre Lemieux entitled "The Idea of America" (PDF). Here's how we described the monograph:
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 America."
Read the monograph (for a second time, if you've read it already). Pass it on. It's the 4th of July weekend, and the idea of America is still worth fighting for.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Elizabeth May stands firm on marijuana legalization and opposition to mandatory minimums
What does the Green Party have to offer libertarian voters? That’s the question I had in mind when I attended a wine and cheese fundraiser for Elizabeth May in Calgary on Thursday.
The Western Standard has reported on May’s opposition to the war on drugs, her support for Iraq war resisters and the party’s new policy calling for the legalization of prostitution. These policies certainly resonate with libertarians, but is there anything else?
May opened her speech to party supporters by talking about income splitting as a way to relieve the tax burden on Canadians, but didn’t really move her audience until she made a gratuitous attack on Milton Friedman and the free market Chicago School, right before offering her support for Keynesian economics and stimulus spending. On fiscal policy, May is a pretty typical Canadian, I would argue. She doesn’t like deficits, but thinks they can be necessary. She wants taxes to be low, but still high enough to pay for a cradle-to-grave welfare state. She wants Canada to embark on a Green New Deal, an activist government scheme to green the economy.
None of this appeals to me, of course. And Libertarian Party leader Dennis Young, who accompanied me to the event, was visibly disturbed by the anti-capitalist rhetoric.
The evening improved, though, thanks to marijuana legalization activist and writer for Skunk Magazine, Lisa Kirkman. Kirkman, a one time assistant to former Cannabis Culture editor Dana Larsen, pressed May on hemp, marijuana legalization and Canada’s new mandatory minimum law.
May answered without hesitation in support of reforming Canada’s drug laws. She argued that prohibition fuels organized crime; that the government’s hysterical anti-marijuana propaganda is teaching children to mistrust all anti-drug messages; and that mandatory minimum sentencing doesn’t work.
May continues to show courage on social policy, opposing harmful government prohibitions. Her scepticism of big government, however, disappears when it comes to fiscal and economic policy, where she prefers interventionism.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 4, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Permalink
| Comments (16)
Jefferson vs. Hamilton
In honor of Independence Day, here is a clip from the excellent HBO John Adams miniseries:
Question: who was right? Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton?
Posted by Terrence Watson on July 4, 2009 at 08:22 PM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
Canadian termites in the global trading system?
Matthew Johnston recently reported on the recent bilateral free trade agreement signed between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which includes non-EU member states Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. I am of course a great believer in the benefits of free trade. But there’s a problem here. This agreement falls under the recent trend of bilateral preferential trade agreements (PTA's) that more and more countries have been signing as the Doha Round of trade liberalization talks at the WTO breaks down.
In short, PTA’s are not unambiguously good. The Doha Round
aimed to bring down the barriers to all markets at once, and this would have
brought immense benefits by reducing distortions in prices between domestic and
foreign goods and between goods in
competing foreign countries. By contrast, bilateral PTA's are often not even a
decent second-best solution. They may actually do harm and this is how: By not
bringing down the barriers to all markets, they distort the relative prices of
imports and exports from different countries. This can lead to less efficient
producers' winning out solely because of differences in bilateral trading
relationships. This is of course to be weighed against the benefits that come
from removing the differentials between the domestic and preferred trading
partner. But often the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
I first saw this argument presented at a lecture at the LSE by notorious free trade advocate and all-around brilliant economist Jagdish Bhagwati, and it can be found in his recent book Termites in the Trading System. There is thus a compelling reason for free traders to regard bilateral PTA’s with ambivalence: They may not actually improve economic efficiency. This is also one more reason why the talks at the WTO are still the best chance for bringing about the potentially immense benefits of freer global trade.
So the failure of the Doha Round really is worth lamenting, and it is also worth remembering the main reason why it has failed: the unwillingness of Western nations to give up their unjustifiably generous support for their agricultural sectors. Canada is hardly the worst culprit in this game, but keeping the Wheat Board around is not really a sign of a willingness to contemplate freer global trade in agricultural products. If Western governments are interested in what could be a real global economic stimulus, they should consider revising their positions on the Doha Round, particularly their intransigent commitment to protecting their agricultural sectors from global competition.
Posted by Malcolm Lavoie on July 4, 2009 at 05:37 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Electing the leader is now top Green priority; May looking for rural riding
At a wine and cheese fundraiser in Calgary on Thursday, Green Party leader Elizabeth May told a packed room of party supporters that getting the leader elected to parliament is now the party’s first priority in the next federal election.
May ran against popular Conservative cabinet minister Peter MacKay in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova in the last election and came second. Many party supporters wanted to see May run in a more winnable riding in order to represent the party in parliament. May, who lives in New Glasgow, told the audience that while she has never been comfortable with the idea of being a parachute candidate, she will now consider running outside of Nova Scotia in a rural riding with strong Green support.
May also told supporters that electing the leader was not a priority of the party in the last election, establishing broad-based support across the country was. With 6.8% of the national vote in the last federal election, the Green Party was the only major party to increase its total vote from the 2006 federal election. May is calling this a victory.
While May would only say that she is looking at running in a rural riding, there is speculation that she is considering the Ontario riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound where the Green Party received over 27% of the vote in 2008 or the British Columbia riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
Who is Jennifer Welsh?
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced Thursday a 12-member Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy. This is the Premier’s new go-to team for advice on Alberta's ailing economy.
One member of this illustrious team is Jennifer Welsh. Welsh has an impressive resume, but none of her experience or education makes her particularly suited to offer practical economic advice to the Premier on economic matters.
Here’s the biography provided by the Alberta government:
Professor Jennifer Welsh is Professor in International Relations at the University of Oxford, a Fellow of Somerville College and a Trudeau Foundation Fellow. She is a former Jean Monnet Fellow of the European University Institute in Florence, and was a Cadieux Research Fellow in the Policy Planning Staff of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. Dr. Welsh has taught international relations at the University of Toronto, McGill University, and the Central European University (Prague). She is the author, co-author, and editor of several books and articles on international relations. She also sits on the Board of Trustees of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation.
Her current research projects include the evolution of the notion of the ‘responsibility to protect’ in international society, the ethics of post-conflict reconstruction, the authority of the UN Security Council, and a critique of conditional notions of sovereignty. She is a frequent commentator in Canadian media on foreign policy and international relations.
So Welsh is a foreign policy expert of the soft power, internationalist variety. Fine. When Alberta separates, raises its own army, and needs a policy on Darfur, someone in the provincial government might want to give her a call. Until then, I have no idea what practical advice Welsh might have for the Premier of Alberta on economic policy. Or why she might have been selected for this Council over other intellectuals and policy experts.
The closer one investigates the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy the less it makes sense as a genuine advisory council or even as a political showpiece.
(By the way, Welsh co-authored a book on Edmund Burke titled Empire and Community. Anyone read it?)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 4, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Permalink
| Comments (7)
Friday, July 03, 2009
Sarah Palin will resign as governor of Alaska
Former Republican vice-presidential candidate and governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, announced this afternoon that she will resign as governor effective July 25.
"Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional Lame Duck status in this particular climate would just be another dose of politics as usual, something I campaigned against and will always oppose," Palin wrote in a release on her website.
"It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success."
Sarah Palin, who was voted the "most controversial celebrity" of 2008, will be replaced as governor by the current lieutenant governor Sean Parnell on Saturday, July 25th.
Some are speculating that this move will give her more time to focus on running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
Politico reports:
By not running for re-election, Palin liberates herself from the political constraints that come with running for president while still in elected office.
Leaving office at the end of the month, the former vice presidential hopeful will be able to travel the country more freely without facing the sort of repeated ethics inquiries she’s been fending off since returning to Alaska earlier this year.
Here is initial video of her resignation:
This story is developing...
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 3, 2009 at 02:21 PM
Permalink
| Comments (6)
What's Palin planning?
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has announced she'll be leaving the post. What's next for the most-intriguing Mrs. Palin?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 3, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Permalink
| Comments (10)
Senators Behaving Badly
Don't ya love politics?
Posted by Scott Carnegie on July 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Permalink
| Comments (3)
Stelmach asks new Premier’s Council to “think big” about Alberta's future
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced Thursday the 12 members of the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy. The council will be chaired by business executive and former Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson and will consider long-term goals for Alberta and provide advice on actions the Alberta government can take to best position the province for the future.
“We’ve put together an impressive range of experts from around the globe to advise on how we can best position Alberta for the future - and reach our full potential as a province,” said Premier Stelmach. “I want them to think big and provide an external perspective on our efforts to boost innovation, diversify the economy, enhance our quality of life, and sustain prosperity over the long-term.”
So far, the “think big” strategy of the Alberta government under Stelmach has been confined to big government, big spending and big deficits.
Council members are Elyse Allan, Professor Sir John Bell, Robert (Bob) Brawn, David Dodge, Juan Enriquez, James K. Gray, Clive Mather, Honourable Anne McLellan, Courtney Pratt, Dr. Lorne Taylor and Professor Jennifer Welsh.
It’s a collection of accomplished people, for sure, but will this “ideas incubator,” a term the province is using, really improve the quality of life for Albertans? I don’t think so.
In a recent post titled “Thanks to President Obama, smart is the new fabulous -- and why that’s a bad thing in politics,” I wrote:
While I’m not convinced President Obama’s team is any smarter than the Bush team, I am, however, convinced that it doesn’t matter. Did Soviet central planning fail because the Politburo was staffed with idiots? Of course not. It failed because central planning and socialism doesn’t work due to what economist Ludwig von Mises called the economic calculation problem.
The economic calculation problem is a criticism of socialist economics, or more precisely economic planning. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 and later expounded by Friedrich Hayek. The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The capitalist solution is the price mechanism; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. (Source: Wikipedia)
The danger of inviting the so-called best and brightest into politics is that they believe they can overcome this economic calculation problem. They think they can succeed in engineering a better world where others have failed – and by a better world they invariably mean a socialist one. They’ll work harder, do more research, bring in the best minds and commit themselves fully to the task. The results of these efforts, of course, are always disastrous, and often bloody. Communism, the most ambitious utopian scheme to date, cost almost 100 million innocent lives.
To go from Stelmach’s 12-member public relations team to the mass murder under communism is a bit of a leap, but the thinking is the same: compel outcomes, through the force and coercion of government, that the market -- the freely expressed preferences of consumers -- won’t achieve or is prevented from achieving due, ironically, to government interference.
Putting aside my general suspicion of political brain trusts, central planning and social and economic engineering, the Council seems like a missed political opportunity. The Stelmach government faces a very real threat from the conservative Wildrose Alliance and risks losing its conservative base over issues like the New Royalty Framework, growing deficits and spending, not to mention non-fiscal policy like inaction on reform of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. So why not appoint a beloved Alberta figure like Preston Manning to chair the Council? I don’t find myself in agreement with Manning much these days, but he’s as qualified to sit on this Council as anyone and his appointment would have signalled to conservative voters that the party hasn’t abandoned its base entirely. The appointment of two former Liberal cabinet ministers to the Council, Anne McLellan and David Emerson, sends a very different message.
Furthermore, while it is well understood by those outside the political classes that Alberta’s’ energy sector drives the rest of the economy in the province, only three members of the Council come from this sector: Bob Brawn, Jim Gray and Clive Mather. This is no accident. Stelmach has made it clear that he wants to see diversification in Alberta’s economy, with more jobs coming from things like green energy, bio-sciences and high-tech manufacturing. It’s not a bad vision for the province, but the way to get there is to lower taxes and decrease regulatory costs that might keep these industries away. Taxing oil and gas companies into bankruptcy to pay for government schemes to engineer a Green New Deal is the wrong approach.
When the energy sector in Alberta is performing well, there’s a feeling in the province that anything is possible. Oil money in the private hands of fearless Alberta entrepreneurs flows freely into a broad range of business ideas. It’s what made the province wealthy and vibrant. Premier Stelmach’s “think big” model for the future is a throwback to Soviet-era economic thinking and is an insult to the laissez-faire culture of Alberta.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Permalink
| Comments (10)
The Right to An Eyesore
In 1963 Penn Station, in New York City, was demolished. Based on the baths of Caracalla, and designed by the legendary firm of McKim, Mead and White, it was one of the finest examples of Beaux Art architecture in America. Its replacement was a mediocre piece of design described, rightly, by theNew York Times as a tin can. The destruction of Penn Station galvanized a movement to preserve old and artistically significant buildings. This was fine, as far as it goes. The 1960s, however, were in many ways the high watermark of twentieth century statism. If there's a problem, went the attitude, there ought to be a law. Elaborate systems of historical classification were in tme set up, curbing the rights of property owners, should the state deem their building historically significant. Since one man's historically significant is another man's eyesore, this has naturally lead to some bizarre bits of paternalism: The building is in fact the Third Church of Christ, Scientist. Built in 1971, it exemplifies a form of modernist architecture with a well-picked name: “brutalism.” The poured-concrete walls are high, and their starkness is emphasized on the east side by an extended slab from which several cold, metallic church bells hang. “There’s no great reaching to the heavens in the architecture,” said Chris Derosa from Oakhurst, N.J., a tourist who recently walked by the church. “There’s nothing emotional there.” Another example of exceptions making bad laws.
This type of modernist architecture has impoverished urban streetscapes across the country. Far from an aesthetic movement, brutalism conceives of itself as a cultural revolution, one that replaces bourgeois ornamentation — moldings, columns, entablatures, and steeples — with featureless concrete façades to provide the New Socialist Man with “machines for living” in the egalitarian and classless society that this architecture would supposedly help to create.
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 3, 2009 at 06:29 AM
Permalink
| Comments (1)
The Portuguese Solution
For a backward country, they're pretty far ahead of us:
While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.
Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 3, 2009 at 06:27 AM
Permalink
| Comments (8)
Jacked
Like Icarus really. A socialist, mustachioed Icarus: By throwing in his lot with the Liberals, led then by Stéphane Dion, the NDP leader saw a chance for real power. However, his ambitions came crashing down when Governor General Michaëlle Jean agreed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request to prorogue Parliament, sending MPs home. Since his power play, Layton's party has lost the momentum it had during the 2008 election and his personal popularity has nosedived. While part of the NDP's decline can be traced back to Layton's role in the failed coalition, it is the growing strength of the Liberals led by Michael Ignatieff that is really pushing the party to the margins. When he was compared to the hapless Dion, Layton looked good but the changing Liberal dynamic has voters wondering what he stands for, other than opposing everything the Conservative government proposes.
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 3, 2009 at 06:25 AM
Permalink
| Comments (3)
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Addiction is not a disease
The general consensus in our society is that addiction is a disease. The general consensus also is that there is no such thing as a miracle.
How, then, can "victims" of alcoholism or drug addiction cure themselves, by themselves, without any traditional or scientific medical intervention? If not by a miracle, then by what?
It seems that one of the two above-noted consensus beliefs is incorrect. Either addiction is not a disease. Or miracles do, indeed, take place. Or, perhaps, both are wrong.
Read more of my thoughts here, in my latest Tri-City News column.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 2, 2009 at 06:01 PM
Permalink
| Comments (26)
Canada cancels all debt owed by Haiti
Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced that the Government of Canada will forgive $2.3 million in debt owed by the Republic of Haiti through the Canadian Debt Initiative. With this relief, Canada has now cancelled $965 million worth of debt owed by the world’s poorest and most heavily indebted countries, including all of the eligible debt owed by Latin American and Caribbean nations.
"Today’s announcement frees up valuable financial resources that can be better spent on Haiti’s priorities, not its liabilities," said Minister Flaherty. "At a time of unprecedented hardship in the global economy, Canada continues to eliminate financial burdens faced by Haiti and other nations as they take the steps needed to strengthen their economies."
Haiti is the 13th country to meet all of the debt relief requirements of the Canadian Debt Initiative, which will forgive $1.3 billion once all eligible countries have completed the process.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 2, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Permalink
| Comments (13)
Stockwell Day’s Canada Day gift to the nation: free trade
Stockwell Day, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, today announced that Canada’s free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) came into effect on July 1, 2009. Many Canadian exporters and producers will immediately benefit from duty-free access to the markets of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
“Increasing trade and investment is a priority, and our government continues to open doors for Canadian business,” said Day. “As we fight the global recession, this government is taking a strong stand against protectionism and moving forward with new free trade agreements.”
(Picture: Stockwell Day)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on July 2, 2009 at 09:15 AM
Permalink
| Comments (20)
FDR: Patron of the Arts
More things change.... Roosevelt responded favorably to the suggestion and passed it along to the Treasury Department, which put Edward Bruce, a lawyer-turned-painter-turned-lobbyist, in charge of the effort that became the PWAP. Lasting only from December 1933 until June 1934, the PWAP temporarily put “unemployed” artists to work decorating public buildings and civic spaces across the country. Over its seven-month existence, the program employed 3,700 artists, spent $1,312,000, and generated some 15,000 works of art before being folded into the Emergency Work Relief Program. “1934: A New Deal for Artists” displays 56 of the PWAP’s products in honor of the 75th anniversary of the program — which conveniently coincides with the latest round of economic troubles (“the worst since the Great Depression”) and the Obama administration’s massive federal intervention. The artists represented in the exhibition — who were largely unknown before the PWAP began and mostly remained so after it ended — were relative neophytes; some of them were actually amateurs. Accordingly, the collection, which depicts their vision of Depression-era American life — bleak urban scenes and rural landscapes, workers, factories, farms, and so forth — is low on originality.
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 2, 2009 at 07:03 AM
Permalink
| Comments (18)
A Gipper for All Seasons
Ramesh Ponnuru on the silliest debate in the GOP: Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana says that Republicans must be the party of hope, not the party of memory. Reagan managed to lead both parties simultaneously. George Will, correcting a widespread misunderstanding at the time Reagan took office, said that he did not wish to take the country back to the past: He wanted to restore the past’s way of facing the future. Conservatism must constantly adapt. Burke knew it. So did Reagan. He was simultaneously a traditionalist and a reformer. Let all conservatives be so.
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 2, 2009 at 07:00 AM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Waiting for the Dogwood Alliance
After a promising election campaign this past spring, the ever-struggling B.C. Conservative Party has just lost its leader and many of its directors. See the press release, below.
Co-deputy leader Chris Delaney told Kari Simpson and me on Roadkill Radio last night that he believes the party can now move forward and start with a clean slate at its AGM Sept. 26 in Chilliwack. But, really, there's been so much destructive in-fighting surrounding this group over the past decade that the prospect of a revivial has to be bleak.
Anyone for a Dogwood Alliance?
***
June 30, 2009
BC CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER AND BOARD MEMBERS RESIGN
CRANBROOK: BC Conservative Party Leader Wilf Hanni and several members of the Provincial Board of Directors issued the following statement today:
“Wilf Hanni has been Party Leader since 2005 and since that time, we have fought hard to unite this Party and to build it into a force to be reckoned with in B.C. Politics. At times the fight seemed overwhelming, but we stuck with it and despite the difficulties, we were able to accomplish a lot.
We have spent much of the last four years fighting a long and protracted battle with a group of dissidents. As a result, the Party has amassed almost $30,000 in legal bills and we still have not managed to unite the members of the Board of Directors. A small band of Board Members still insists on fighting and having its own way.
Despite these difficulties, under Wilf Hanni’s leadership and with the help of our hard working and dedicated Board members, we have managed to adopt a great new set of policies and a good constitution. We have also built our Party membership several times over. In addition, we have more than tripled the number of candidates in the 2009 Election campaign, compared to the 2004 election and have also tripled our percentage of the popular vote in the ridings in which we ran candidates.
We were hoping to achieve peace in the Party so that we could work together to build on our success and turn our Party into a real force in the next election campaign, but our efforts continue to be undermined. The constant infighting is continuing and there does not appear to be any end in sight.
Accordingly the following members of the Board of Directors have decided to resign from our positions and from the BC Conservative Party, effective immediately:
Wilf Hanni, Party Leader
Bob Eedy, Vice-president
Maria Dobi, Party Secretary
Shirley Abraham, Director and Former President
David Duncan, Director
Yvonne Dunlop, Director and Recording Secretary
Liz Eedy, Director
Barb Smith, Director
Mathew Hanni, Director
In addition, the following people have resigned since the May 12th General Election because of this ongoing infighting.
Gill Picard, Party Secretary and Webmaster
Lis Quinn, Treasurer and Financial Agent
Gary Johncox, Director and Fundraising Manager.
- 30 -
Wilf Hanni, Leader, BC Conservative Party – (250) 426-9807
www.conservativesbc.com leader@conservativesbc.com
Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
The Maple Leaf Forever
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 1, 2009 at 04:45 AM
Permalink
| Comments (13)
Dominion Day 2009
How shall we speak of Canada, the Conservative Party dead? Not dead literally, the old girl has got plenty of life in her, electorally speaking. The great Iggy surge has been stemmed. The relief that Michael Ignatieff is not Stephane Dion is passing. We see the Count in the light of day and are not amused. We are back to two middle aged men quarreling over who knows what. It scarcely matters. Iggy wants more money for EI. Stephen wants less. Since Employment Insurance is not insurance, or really a proper charity, it fails to do either job well. It encourages people to stay where they are, regardless of where the jobs might be. As an "insurance" scheme it is, like agencies of the state, subject to political interference. None of this matters, except to policy wonks and that dwindling band of "puritanical" libertarians and classical liberals. I hadn't heard the term "puritanical libertarian" until quite recently. It was someone's description of Barry Goldwater's objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legendary Arizona Senator, and 1964 Presidential Candidate, had objected to Title II of the Act, which barred discrimination in privately owned hotels and stores open to the public. Goldwater remarked: "You can't legislate morality."
Posted by PUBLIUS on July 1, 2009 at 04:43 AM
Permalink
| Comments (15)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Registering political speech: Harper welcomes new Commissioner of Lobbying
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today welcomed the appointment of Karen Shepherd as Canada's new Commissioner of Lobbying. The appointment was recently approved by the Senate and House of Commons and is effective immediately.
In its Federal Accountability Act and Action Plan, the Conservative Government introduced specific measures to help strengthen accountability and increase transparency and oversight in government operations.
A key component of the Federal Accountability Act, the position of Commissioner of Lobbying was established July 2, 2008, under the Lobbying Act, to ensure that lobbying is transparent and ethical. The Commissioner enforces the lobbyist registration law, conducts investigations and reports to Parliament.
In a Western Standard report in April 2009 titled “Don’t restrict lobbyists; restrict government,” I wrote:
It’s easy to hate lobbyists. Most voters think lobbyists sneak around representing the interests of either big business or big labour, undermining the democratic process.
Lobbyists, of course, proliferate directly in correlation to the size and scope of government and the corresponding opportunities to rent seek, free ride, curry favour, and generally live at the expense of others.
So the Federal Accountability Act, the Lobbyist Registration Act and other government measures to restrict and monitor lobbyists address a symptom while ignoring the disease. These measures also expand the power of government to restrict political activity, much like the draconian campaign finance laws, all in the interest of democracy.
If Harper is interested in creating accountability, transparency and oversight in government, he should start by making it smaller.
(Picture: Stephen Harper)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 30, 2009 at 08:44 PM
Permalink
| Comments (11)
Saskatchewan trespassing legislation to bypass criminal code
The Saskatchewan Trespass to Property Act takes effect on Canada Day.
The legislation allows police to issue a ticket for trespassing, rather than charging people under the federal Criminal Code.
"Police forces and municipalities asked us for legislation to let them deal quickly and easily with simple cases of trespassing," said Justice Minister and Attorney General Don Morgan "Now, police can issue a ticket, instead of having to go to court with a more complex Criminal Code charge."
Under the Act, police can issue a ticket for a fine of up to $2,000 to anyone who refuses to leave private or commercial property or who ignores posted "no trespassing" signs.
Apart from Quebec, Saskatchewan is the only province that did not have trespassing legislation.
Will this new law better protect property rights in Saskatchewan, or simply decriminalize trespass?
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 30, 2009 at 08:02 PM
Permalink
| Comments (6)
Lively discussion upcoming on Roadkill Radio
Listen live tonight to Roadkill Radio, as Kari Simpson and I are "on the air" once again with a great lineup of opinion, insight and news.
We'll start by interviewing Dr. Scott Lively, a pastor, lawyer, human-rights advocate and author of the book Redeeming the Rainbow. Controversial? Only if you consider an expose about the gay-rights movement to be so.
Next, we'll talk with the great conservative columnist Don Feder, who is now spokesman for World Congress of Families V, which is being held in Amsterdam Aug 10-12. Listen and discover why this year's meeting is so important to everyone with conservative values.
And finally, we'll talk with blogger Hugh MacIntyre about last weekend's Ontario conservative leadership race and about the deteriorating state of the province.
All this and Roadkill Radio's Warrior of the Week too. Listen live from 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. Pacific at www.roadkillradio.com, or log on and listen to the archived show later.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on June 30, 2009 at 04:40 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Al Franken declared winner of Minnesota Senate race
CNN is reporting that Minnesota's Supreme Court has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the state's disputed U.S. Senate race.
Western Standard editor Peter Jaworski has some background on this story here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 30, 2009 at 03:33 PM
Permalink
| Comments (9)
Smart grids and alternative energy: a plan to bring power production to the people of Manitoba
Rather than watch Manitoba Hydro and the provincial government develop massive new hydroelectric dams and transmission lines, Les Routledge with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy wants to see power production brought to the people with smart grid technology and alternative energy.
In a recent column provided by Troy Media and published on the Western Standard here, Routledge lays out a plan for decentralized energy production including small scale alternative energy schemes, an idea made possible by smart grid technology that allows even the smallest energy producer to sell excess power back to the grid.
Routledge writes in “Moving Manitoba towards smart energy” that:
At the very minimum, to move to smart grids and distributed energy (i.e. energy generated from many instead of a few locations) would: improve the security of supply of energy across Manitoba; distribute benefits associated with electrical energy production more equitably throughout Manitoba; encourage the adoption of combined heat-and-power energy systems in agricultural, commercial, industrial and institutional settings; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and negative environmental impacts associated with energy mega-project development; create a platform to implement demand-side energy management systems and time-of-use rates; more fully utilize existing electrical transmission and distribution assets throughout Manitoba.
That’s a lot of upside for an “at the very minimum” case.
Decentralized power production feeding into a smart grid could make the promise of alternative energy a reality and inspire an army of engineers and inventors to develop small scale power generating processes. These innovations could even improve large scale power production processes.
The real attraction for libertarians in all of this is the potential to shift the balance of political power from state-owned or state-mandated monopoly power producers to smaller, even community-based, private providers.
In a story titled “Power from the people” in the May 2008 print edition of Reason Magazine, Brian Doherty asks the question “What happens when creative consumers decide to generate their own energy?” You can find the complete answer to that question here, but, in short, you get innovative energy solutions ranging from the bizarre to the brilliant.
There is nothing inherently wrong with large scale power production, of course. In fact, there are likely economies of scale at work that will secure a place for mega-projects in the power market into the foreseeable future. The problem with mega-projects, however, is that they attract, perhaps necessitate, government involvement, which attracts waste, incompetence and corruption. And the end result of a government-sponsored mega-project is often a regulated, protected and distorted market for power in which no room is made available for innovation and entrepreneurship.
(Picture: Brian Doherty)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 30, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
Milke follows Levant down a dangerous road in his review of Shakedown
Mark Milke with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy opens his review of Ezra Levant’s powerful new book on Canada’s so-called human rights industry with this:
It has the makings of a joke: What do you get when Canada's premier gay rights organization gets into bed with a conservative pastor from a small city in Alberta? Here's the non-funny answer: The birth of an unnatural alliance, one born from an attack on free expression.
The recounting of how Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (Egale) came to the rhetorical defence of a socially conservative Red Deer pastor, Stephen Boissoin, in his fight with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, is chronicled in Ezra Levant's new book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights.
Milke goes on to write a largely excellent review of a largely excellent book, but while he starts with a roar, he finishes with a whisper.
Milke concludes his review of Levant’s devastating critique of the censorship powers of Canada’s human rights commissions with this recommendation:
Instead, let the real courts deal with claims of discrimination, and not the fake/pretend bodies with their wide-ranging and too-often abused and unchecked powers.
To be clear, what Milke is arguing is that while Canadians should not have the right to complain to human rights commissions when they are offended by hateful language or other forms of expression, they do have a right to complain to the police and the courts when they feel discriminated against by private sector employers or landlords.
He is also arguing that the courts are better suited to handle these cases than human rights commissions as these commissions do not respect the rules of evidence or other procedural safeguards of the justice system.
But the answer to Canada’s out-of-control human rights industry is not to find fresh victims for human rights bureaucrats, nor is the answer to saddle these fresh victims with the crippling cost of defending human rights complaints in the courts. I have expressed this criticism before here and below, as Levant makes the same arguments as Milke:
But are bigoted landlords any different than bigoted publishers, which is not to say Levant was ever a bigoted publisher? Which is more dangerous to the public order? Why should human rights laws apply to one and not the other?
I wonder, for instance, if a Jewish landlord shaken profoundly by the events of 9/11, who refuses to rent to radical Islamists, preferring to rent to fellow Jews, would be an appropriate target for human rights commissions by Levant’s standard of justice.
Would Levant defend this Jewish landlord’s right to exclude Muslim tenants with the same vigour as he defends the right of Maclean’s magazine to exclude certain Muslim columnists from its editorial pages? Western Standard readers may recall that the four students at Toronto's Osgoode Hall Law School who brought a human rights complaint against Maclean's over an article titled “The Future Belongs to Islam,” by the legendary Mark Steyn, demanded access to the editorial pages of this magazine in the interest of balance and diversity. The management team at Maclean’s said “no,” exercising their property right to exclude. Did Maclean’s restrict the free speech of these Muslim student activists? Of course not. As Ayn Rand wrote, free speech “does not mean that others must provide [you] with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express [your] ideas.”
If we can restrict the landlord’s right exclude, why not the publisher's?
It might be unfair to ask of Levant that he take on the entire human rights industry, but in ignoring the importance of property rights he is creating weaknesses in his own argument and is making future reforms of these laws more difficult.
It might also be unfair to ask Milke to take on the entire human rights industry, but suggesting that the police and the courts investigate and prosecute the thought crime of discrimination is a monumental injustice that sets back the fight for free speech and expression and strips this concept of any meaningful legal and philosophical foundation.
Milke and Levant need to be careful not to provide legitimacy to these unjust human rights laws.
(Picture: Mark Milke)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Permalink
| Comments (17)
Canada West Foundation dismisses New Royalty Framework impact on energy sector
In April 2008, the Western Standard reported on the first of many attempts by the Alberta government to undue the harm to the energy sector caused by the New Royalty Framework. In a post titled “Unintended consequences: Alberta slow to learn basic economic lessons,” I wrote:
In a press release today from the Alberta government on new royalty programs for high cost oil and gas development, the term “unintended consequences” was thrown around liberally.
In economics, an unintended consequence is typically defined as a negative outcome that is not intended and normally unforeseen. The slowdown in Alberta’s oil patch as a result of the New Royalty Framework announced in October 2007 is being called an unintended consequence, and the Alberta government is now scrambling to undue the harm it has done.
To its credit, the government announced today that it is creating new tax programs in response to declining investments in high cost oil and gas development projects. The tax reductions are expected to leave $237 million more annually in the hands of oil and gas investors. That’s great. What’s not great is that Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight is essentially admitting that he was surprised by an oil and gas industry slowdown resulting from the higher taxes announced last year.
Knight is not the only one pleading ignorance these days to the well-established relationship between high taxes and decreased economic activity, something most common-sense fiscal conservatives take for granted. Jacques Marcil, senior economist with the Canada West Foundation, wrote in a recent report on the state of Alberta’s economy that “who knew” the new tax scheme would kill jobs and investment?:
In the middle of 2008, the one significant issue in this area was the introduction of a new royalty regime on natural resources. Following a study it commissioned, the government decided to hike the royalty rates to provide Albertans with a “fair share” of the exploitation of their natural resources. The industry viewed this initiative as a job and investment killer. With hindsight about energy prices, the government’s timing could have been better, but who knew then? In any case, the global recession turned out to be the industry’s biggest foe, not necessarily the new royalty regime.
The comment “who knew” is strange coming from an economist whose job it is to make economic forecasts. It is especially strange given the well-documented economic truism that “taxes kill jobs,” a favourite conservative campaign message. In fact, most free market political observers and pundits saw this slowdown coming the moment the new taxes were recklessly proposed by Alberta premier Stelmach. No other outcome was possible, with or without a global recession.
Also, the comment by Marcel that “the global recession turned out to be the industry’s biggest foe, not necessarily the new royalty regime” is equally hard to reconcile with the facts. With oil prices at US$70 and once crippling labour costs now under control, Alberta’s energy economy should be robust. What’s wrong? Blaine Maller, President of Calgary-based White North Energy, helps explains the situation for Marcil, Knight and others:
The latest tweak to the royalty and drilling incentive program is simply an extension of the 1 year program for one more year. Nothing else has changed and the New Royalty Framework (NRF) has not been rolled back in any way, shape or form.
....
Many companies have already moved their focus to BC and Saskatchewan and internationally, many will totally leave here now and the rush will be on in those provinces; they are more competitive jurisdictions and we don’t need a long drawn out chin wag with the government as CAPP and SEPAC continue to do and accomplish nothing. The government has totally misunderstood the entire industry and how it operates with respect to risk and reward, the costs, the compliance, the regulations and environmental costs, the demands of the capital markets, the potential profits and potential liabilities for the companies involved. And the service sector get’s crushed in the process.
They do not understand the damage they have done to their own reputations as credible, reliable, stable Ministers of the Crown. They have no more credibility in the eyes of a growing number of influential people from all sectors of the economy.
So when the Premier says wait for gas prices to increase and things will improve rig activity wise, he is wrong again. Ten (10%) of the rig fleet is working. Oil is already very economic to drill and produce in other provinces at US$70. Why has activity not picked up in Alberta on the oil side? Because their cash flow has been severely reduced by the royalty increases on oil. The returns are greater and the costs per barrel are less in BC and Saskatchewan and the red tape is significantly less. There is only so much money to go around in these days of reduced budgets and major restrictions on access to capital so they have to get the best return possible for the investors. And that is anywhere but Alberta.
While the Canada West Foundation report seems to dismiss the serious impact of the New Royalty Framework (NRF) on oil and gas activity, the Calgary Economic Development (CED) State of the Economy report for the first half of 2009 released on June 22nd fails to even mention the NRF. The report acknowledges that Calgary’s energy sector drives the rest of the economy, but blames the recession on the global reduction in demand for energy, never mentioning the radical new changes to the tax framework for the sector.
The only organization less willing to accept the negative impact of the NRF than the Alberta Tories, Canada West Foundation and Calgary Economic Development is the Alberta NDP. In response to the Stelmach government’s decision on June 25th to again extend drilling incentives, NDP MLA Rachel Notley said:
“Minister Knight has just tacked $1.5 billion onto next year’s deficit, and he can’t justify it,” Notley said. “This government continues to dole out cash to the oil and gas industry, but it’s done nothing to help out-of-work Albertans get back on their feet.”
Allowing energy entrepreneurs to keep and invest more of their income can only be described as “doling out cash” by people who believe Alberta’s energy sector properly belongs in government hands, a position not far removed from Tory policy these days.
Paul Hinman, Wildrose Alliance leader, is the only provincial politician to consistently oppose the new tax scheme.
(Picture: Paul Hinman)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Permalink
| Comments (3)
Ignatieff tries to win the west by demonizing Calgary
Michael Ignatieff has long been a proponent of the Liberal Party reaching out to western Canada. I remember in the first leadership race that he ran in, he would often say that the party should do more to bring westerners into the Liberal fold. In a recent Globe & Mail article Michael Ignatieff had this to say:
“The big issue for me is I don't want to be a party of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, which is what this party is,” Mr. Ignatieff said in an interview. “Because you can't be a good prime minister unless you represent all Canadians.”
This is true. The great weakness of the Liberal Party is that they have become the urban party. They even elected an urban intellectual elite as their leader (I hope to become an urban intellectual elite one day), though Mr.Ignatieff had a response to this:
“Frankly,” he said, “I think it's condescending to westerners that being a so-called intellectual is some big liability. People out here are as devoted to the life of the mind, and the life of culture, as anybody else in the country. So I don't think that's going to fly. It's just stupid.”
This at the very least shows that he doesn't think of all westerners as dumb rednecks. He sees that there is an intellectual life beyond Toronto and Montreal.
He is even willing to put down the anti-oil sands 'stick':
“I think sometimes we tried to establish our environmental bona fides by running against the oil sands,” he said. “And I just think: This is a national industry. It's pumping something like $8-billion into the federal treasury. So it's slightly bad faith to beat the goose that lays the golden egg over the head with a stick."
Then he said this:
“The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
I don't really understand the political strategy of trying to win over a region by bashing one of its major centres. Of course Calgary is not the be all and end all of all there is in western Canada, but as an outsider to the region is it really such a good idea to take such pot shots? He is demonizing Harper because he comes from a western city, is that really the way to gain new western support? It makes the rest of his fine words ring rather hollow.
Put this together with the recent Liberal activity to prevent a vote to abolish the gun registry. I think Mr. Ignatieff needs to realize that if the Liberal Party is going to have any success west of the Great Lakes he needs more than fine words. He needs to change his and his party's attitudes.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on June 30, 2009 at 08:14 AM
Permalink
| Comments (22)
With a Thud
Iggy hits the ground, hard:
The Liberals cannot expect a rookie politician to turn into a seasoned leader overnight. The bigger problem is that there could be more at work in their tepid poll numbers than just a mishandled parliamentary showdown. In central Canada, Ignatieff is fast losing the momentum generated by his successful honeymoon.
On that score, his last visit to Montreal earlier this month was a triumph for the Quebec Liberal organization and a bust for the leader.
Presented with a large, mostly francophone business audience, Ignatieff threw out the economic notes his handlers had prepared (it's nice to know such a speech actually existed) to serve up what are becoming familiar bromides.
Posted by PUBLIUS on June 30, 2009 at 07:45 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
Understanding the Great Recession
Unlike the Great Depression, which occurred over 75 years ago, the global recession is a mystery to most. It’s understandable, as the Great Recession is happening now, taking away the hindsight the Great Depression now provides us. Even still, many people falsely blame ideology for these financial crises, when it is many reasons that all tie into each other, none of which lay claim to any particular ideology.
Some reasons are “conservative” or even libertarian, while others are “liberal” and left-leaning. In the end however, one can only blame humanity and accept -– and learn -– from this event.
The first point we need to understand is the housing bubble and it’s inevitable burst. From that comes mortgage securitization and the complexity of large insurance firms that fooled the banks and subsequently the world. Finally, the lack of regulations surrounding foolish financial activity was the green light for the Great Recession. In a darkly hilarious manner, even the U.S. government, for better or for worse, helped speed up the Great Recession. Clearly it was for the worst.
Putting it all together, one will see how the term “bad” in macroeconomics is not very subjective, and that it’s that way for a reason. Macroeconomics is not about theory or ideological origin –- it’s about using history and our amazing capability of reason to our advantage to predict the future of the worldwide economy and to educate how it works. Why is this fact overlooked in most aspects of every day human life? In the end, it’s not about who to blame but how it really happened and why we must fix it. Never creating a severe recession would be a bonus, but humanity is far too short-sighted for that.
Continue reading "Understanding the Great Recession"
Posted by Dane Richard on June 30, 2009 at 07:15 AM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
The Smell of Statism
I live in a condo. We have private garbage collection. It's very nice here. How about where you are? Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he won't be legislating a quick end to Toronto's civic workers strike. A while back I called for declaring the TTC an essential service. Depriving people of the right to strike is not Publius' first option in any situation, but the TTC is a government monopoly. More to the point, it's a government monopoly that's hard to replace - you can't dig up a subway system over a long weekend. How long would it take to privatize garbage collection in Toronto? Weeks? Hours if the price was right?
McGuinty told reporters at a news conference Wednesday morning after shuffling his cabinet that as a Toronto resident he is inconvenienced by the garbage strike, but he will let negotiators do their job.
''I think it's right that we hold our fire and let the two sides do what they're doing,'' he said.
The premier added, however, that he would be happy to send a provincial mediator to help, if that's what the city and the two CUPE locals want.
Posted by PUBLIUS on June 30, 2009 at 06:39 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
Hysterics
"Do you think any of your predecessors would have dropped everything and gone up to London because a bunch of hysterics carrying candles needed help with their grief?" The observation of the Queen Mother, or in any case the character of the Queen Mother in Stephen Frears and Peter Morgan 2006'sThe Queen. The hysterics then were mourning the death of Princess Diana. The hysterics are back, perhaps some of the same, mourning Michael Jackson. Regulars will note that Old Publius is not much of a fan of modern pop music. The audio equivalent of bubble gum. Then again I'm a snob. Yet even a snob can see talent. Fred Astaire said of Michael Jackson: “I didn’t want to leave this world without knowing who my descendant was. Thank you Michael!” Frank Sinatra said: “The only male singer who I’ve seen besides myself and who’s better than me – that is Michael Jackson.”
Who is Publius to quibble with the Greats? The talent is beside the point. So is the bizarre personal life, and the traumas that drove the most famous black man in the world, the weak excuses aside, to transform himself into a pale looking freak. The death of strangers, even of strangers who impact our lives deeply, is a removed experience. Most of us can remember being saddened at the death of a person, within our own lifetime, we have never met Yet weeping uncontrollably at the news of the death of a stranger is something else. We live in an emotionally incontinent age. To question the public wailing is to be cold and callous, the only sin left. Which turns the mind to the public institutions that once managed public grief:
If decline continues, Christian Research has estimated that in five years' time church closures will accelerate from their present rate of 30 a year to 200 a year as dwindling congregations find the cost of keeping them open too great.
Perhaps the most worrying set of statistics for the Church of England is the decline in baptisms. Out of every 1,000 live births in England in 2006/7 only 128 were baptised as Anglicans.
The figure rises by a small amount if adult baptism and thanksgiving services are included but it is hard to see the Church of England being able to justify its position as the established church on the basis of these numbers.
By way of contrast, out of every 1,000 live births in England in 1900, 609 were baptised in the Church of England. Figures for church marriages show an equally catastrophic decline.
In between the crusading and witch-burning, organized religion did find time for other things. Coming from the "warts and all" school of amateur historians, albeit its infidel branch, the torture and terrorizing was balanced by the emotional solace and moral guidance religion provided. It gone, people turn elsewhere. C.S. Lewis observed:
Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
Honouring people of genuine talent and accomplishment isn't gobbling poison. Lewis' deeper point about the need for spiritual food remains. Celebrity culture, where the vicarious thrill becomes all consuming, is the gobbling of poison in large doses. The doppelganger Queen Mum thought it was just a bunch of hysterics carrying candles. As we are finding out this week, the hysterics are beginning to form a critical mass.
Posted by PUBLIUS on June 30, 2009 at 06:36 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
Those were the days . . .
So which prominent Canadian recently said this?
“When I studied Canadian history in my last year of high school, we concentrated a good deal on the evolution of our system of government from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 through the Quebec Act of 1774, right up to the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and the Letters Patent of 1947. This last document – the Letters Patent – is of vital importance and set in place the contemporary powers of the governor general which it transferred from the monarch. Yet it is virtually unknown to the general public. We also focused heavily on the King/Byng crisis of 1926; our entire class, contrary to most current opinion, thought that Lord Byng had done the right thing!"
If you want to know the answer, head over to Janet Ajzenstat's always interesting blog.
But before you do, please pause to marvel at the fact that once upon a time Canadian high-school students actually received a rigorous education.
Posted by Craig Yirush on June 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Permalink
| Comments (3)
Monday, June 29, 2009
Ayn Rand never missed an episode of Charlie’s Angels with Farrah Fawcett
Dying on the same day as Michael Jackson, the passing of actress and American sex symbol Farrah Fawcett at age 62 became somewhat of a secondary story.
Amy Wallace with The Daily Beast, however, produced an excellent story on the beautiful Texan that should interest Western Standard readers.
In an email exchange with Fawcett just months before her death, Wallace discovered that novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand was a fan of the actress. Wallace wrote:
But here are a few things that almost no one knew about Fawcett:
1) Fawcett and the writer Ayn Rand shared a birthday, February 2.
2) Rand, the inventor of the philosophical system called Objectivism, never missed an episode of Charlie’s Angels. She was such a Fawcett fan, in fact, that she sought to cast the actress as the lead in a planned TV miniseries version of her best-known work, the gargantuan novel Atlas Shrugged. (NBC later scrapped the project).
3) Rand, perhaps better than anyone else, helped Fawcett understand her place in American culture.
Would Farrah Fawcett have made a good Dagny Taggart, the tough and able railroad executive in the novel Atlas Shrugged?
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 29, 2009 at 02:14 PM
Permalink
| Comments (14)
DEW line clean-up project a $580 million Cold War legacy
National Defence offers this background on the origin of the DEW line:
During the Cold War, North America relied on radar networks to provide an early warning of airborne attacks inbound over the North Pole. From the early 1950s, a series of isolated radar stations were constructed in Canada, Alaska, and Greenland to identify unfriendly aircraft and direct fighter planes that would intercept them.
The most northerly of the networks, the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line of radar sites, was established in the late 1950s and extended along the Arctic coastline (roughly along the 69th parallel) from northwestern Alaska to Iceland. The DEW Line was planned, built and largely funded by the United States according to an international agreement. Out of the 63 sites which comprised the DEW Line, 42 were located within Canadian territory.
In the early 1960s, 21 of these sites were decommissioned and became the responsibility of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The remaining 21 sites continued to be operated by the Department of National Defence (DND) until they were replaced by the North Warning System in 1993.
With DEW line infrastructure now obsolete, the Department of National Defence today announced a $580 million demolition and clean-up project of the 21 remaining sites. This “busy work” for local Aboriginals will no doubt be counted among the jobs created by federal stimulus spending, but it is difficult to see how this project will add to the wealth of the nation. It may, however, be part of Prime Minister Harper's "use it or lose it" Arctic sovereignty strategy.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Permalink
| Comments (9)
BDC survey shows recession fails to dampen entrepreneurial spirit
Entrepreneurs are more optimistic about their business's prospects than they are about their industry or the economy as a whole in the current recession, a Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) survey has found. The poll also found that tight credit conditions remain a problem for a significant number of Canadian businesses.
The BDC survey shows an impressive 86% of Canadian entrepreneurs were very or somewhat optimistic about their company's growth potential. But they were less upbeat when asked about the potential for growth elsewhere. Optimism fell to 75% when the entrepreneurs were asked about their industry's potential for growth and 60% for the economy as a whole.
"Entrepreneurs see opportunities where others may see only difficulties," said Edmée Métivier, Executive Vice President, Financing and Consulting at BDC. "The SME [small and medium enterprise] sector has always contributed the lion's share of economic growth and, as a result, it will be pivotal to an economic recovery. More than ever, lenders to the SME market need to bring a flexible approach to their financing and investment decisions."
In other findings, entrepreneurs pointed to tightening credit as the number one factor that may adversely affect business growth in the near future. Fully 70% of entrepreneurs identified tight credit as a negative for growth, followed by the recession (65%), increased fuel costs (45%) and material (40%).
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
The Ontario PC Party goes 'right' but that isn't enough
The Toronto Star and other Liberals have delighted in the last couple months in accusing the PC Ontario Party of 'moving to the right.' Perhaps this is an accurate description, though it doesn't have the negative connotation that the Star seems to think that it does. Christine Elliott was hailed as the moderate candidate and she was promoting massive tax cuts in the form of a flat tax. That is to say, the moderate candidate was 'right' of Stephen Harper.
Tim Hudak has definitely claimed the mantle of 'blue Tory.' He has invoked Mike Harris time and time again. Which is a remarkable change from the previous leader (who once introduced Bill Davis as the greatest living Premier). Indeed if the results of this election tells us anything it is that the grassroots desire a more conservative party.
I despise labels such as 'right' and 'left.' They are the tools of dim witted journalists and intellectually lazy academics. I try to avoid using such terms as much as I can, though I admit I am sometimes trapped into the habit and ease of simplifying political discourse into a two dimensional spectrum.
So it is not enough for me to say you are 'right wing' or to invoke Mike Harris or Ronald Reagan as your personal heroes. We don't need a 'right winger' we need someone who is dedicated to shrinking government, cutting taxes, and desisting the constant state interference in our personal choices. If you want to call that 'right wing' then so be it, but you can't just say it you have to do it.
That is my message to Tim Hudak, the new leader of PC Party of Ontario.
Anyone who has been reading my posts know that I wasn't a fan of his candidacy. I found his rhetoric to be disheartening and many of his policies were adaptations of Harperian big government ideas. But now I think that I will reserve judgement. I want to see how he acts as Leader of the Opposition and which of his policies make it pass the cutting board.
My vote has to be earned, but I do hope that Mr. Hudak earns it.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on June 29, 2009 at 08:50 AM
Permalink
| Comments (9)
Less is More
The representatives of the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities point to the fact that, in countries like Canada, Korea, and Japan, “more than 50 percent of young adults hold college degrees,” while only 41 percent do in the United States.
No reason is given why one of these numbers is better than another. Apparently the implicit assumption is that education is a “good thing” that it is always better to have more of. But, if that is the case, why 55 percent rather than 75 percent, 95 percent, or 100 percent?
Even food is not a “good thing” categorically, without limit. We can’t live without it but, beyond some point, it causes obesity and shortens our lives.
A certain amount of education is undoubtedly very beneficial for some people but, at some point, enough is enough, even for geniuses. For each individual, depending on that individual’s interests and dedication as well as ability, the time comes to leave the classroom and go out into the real world.
Posted by PUBLIUS on June 29, 2009 at 06:29 AM
Permalink
| Comments (9)
The Best We Could Hope For.....Until Later
10%. Not an overwhelming number to be sure. Randy Hillier finished fourth, a weak fourth on the first ballot trailing behind Christine Elliot's 26%. Some moderate conservatives will interpret this as the end of the Hillier phenomenon. In some quarters of the once Big Blue Machine, Randy is not mentioned in polite conversation. His "decisive" defeat will be brought forth as prima facie evidence that the libertarian wing of the party is too small to count. A fringe element of a minority party. Hopefully the redneck will return to he backwoods. In Toronto-centric Ontario politics you can't get much more backwoods than Lanark. Besides he never went to Queen's or U of T. He didn't even go to university. How can he be expected to understand the sophisticated world of modern politics?
Randy didn't embarrass himself, he embarrassed the choir invisible of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The Bill Davis-Hugh Segal faction. Some hick from nowhere isn't suppose to do a bit less than half as well as a slick lawyer from the GTA, whose husband is the Minister of the Finance. Old political hands like Elliot, Hudak and Kless should have wiped the floor with a novice like Hillier. They didn't. If the libertarian-classical liberal elements of the party are simply blue Tories on steroids, then Tim Hudak should have neatly folded this bunch into his camp. You can't get any bluer than Michael Dean Harris, and guess who the Mike was voting for?
In a few months the Man from Lanark has demonstrated that a principled and essentially pro-freedom voice can be heard. Much of party politics, particularly for a leadership campaign, is driven by organization. Experience and connections count in leadership battles. Hillier had little support outside his regional base, less because of his radical views and more for the simple reason very few people know who he is. While his presentation skills are unpolished, though they have improved dramatically since the campaign began, his voice is remarkably soft. It will be difficult to portray him as a raving right-wing mad man on television. He sounds too reasonable and well meaning. I'd get the teeth fixed though. Mr and Mrs Average Ontario notice this stuff. Pierre Berton once observed that you could get away with saying anything in Canada - he was a socialist and atheist - as long as you wore a bow-tie. Lester Pearson, the most radical Prime Minister in Canadian history, certainly proved that in politics. Bow-ties are out. Suspenders are in. Hopefully Tim Hudak remembers that.
Posted by PUBLIUS on June 29, 2009 at 06:27 AM
Permalink
| Comments (2)
One step forward, two steps back: Day signs trade agreement, Cannon signs tax agreement
Stockwell Day, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, today signed four new agreements to increase trade and investment between Canada and Jordan.
“Following the visit by King Abdullah II to Canada in July 2007, our countries have made significant progress in strengthening trade and investment,” said Day. “Our efforts have led to the signature of four agreements that will help open doors for Canadian and Jordanian business.”
This free trade agreement with Jordan will eliminate tariffs on the majority of Canadian exports to Jordan, directly benefiting Canadian exporters in sectors including forestry, manufacturing, and agriculture and agri-food.
On Monday, Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, will sign the Convention between the Hellenic Republic and Canada for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital.
International tax treaties like this one limit competition among tax jurisdictions while promising to harmonize tax law, reduce barriers to trade and prevent double taxation. When there is less competition for a tax base, there is less pressure on governments to keep taxes low.
(Picture: Stockwell Day)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 29, 2009 at 01:13 AM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Did the military act justly to restore constitutional democracy and rule of law in Honduras?
Peter Kent, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), today issued a statement condemning what the Canadian government is calling a coup d'état in Honduras. But is Canada rushing to judgement in criticizing military action to preserve constitutional democracy and the rule of law in this Central American country?
In response to military action that saw Honduras President Jose Manuel Zelaya driven from office and the country, and replaced by provisional president Roberto Micheletti, Kent said:
“Canada condemns the coup d'état that took place over the weekend in Honduras, and calls on all parties to show restraint and to seek a peaceful resolution to the present political crisis, which respects democratic norms and the rule of law, including the Honduran Constitution.”
It has been debated on the Western Standard here and elsewhere as to whether or not countries should meddle in the affairs of other nations, even when it comes to issuing statements condemning violence. Putting aside this debate, are the Harper Conservatives right in describing the actions of the Honduras military a coup d'état?
Here’s a review of the facts from a CNN story:
Ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya was pushing forward with an illegal referendum in search of a mandate to extend his presidency beyond constitutionally set term limits. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, but Zelaya pledged to proceed in violation of the law. The military intervened to stop Zelaya and Congress voted to strip the president of his powers, naming democratically elected Congressman Roberto Micheletti provisional president.
According to CNN, “The political developments that swept Honduras over the past weeks and led up to Sunday's coup had the makings of a crisis, but the situation in the Central American nation of 8 million people was calm.” The news outlet also reported that Roberto Micheletti was “sworn in as provisional president to the applause of members of Congress” and that protests are “limited” and “mostly peaceful.”
If these facts can be relied on, Kent’s comments may be needlessly inflammatory and could fuel violence and instability in the country. If the Harper Conservatives are genuinely interested in improving the political, and thereby the economic, situation in Honduras, they should look to colleague Stockwell Day. As Minister of Trade, Day has been working hard to liberalize trade with Honduras and other countries in Central and South America.
(Picture: Peter Kent)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Permalink
| Comments (7)
Peter Kent on the situation in Honduras: Canada condemns coup
Peter Kent, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), today issued the following statement on the situation in Honduras:
“Canada condemns the coup d'état that took place over the weekend in Honduras, and calls on all parties to show restraint and to seek a peaceful resolution to the present political crisis, which respects democratic norms and the rule of law, including the Honduran Constitution.
“Democratic governance is a central pillar of Canada’s enhanced engagement in the Americas, and we are seriously concerned by what has transpired in Honduras.
“We will continue to closely follow developments on the ground. Through our mission to the Organization of American States (OAS), we are also working with hemispheric partners to determine what role the organization can play to help diffuse the situation.
“The Government of Canada encourages Canadians in Honduras to exercise prudence, and for Canadians considering travel to the country to consult Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada’s travel report, which will be kept updated.”
The government is warning against non-essential travel to Honduras.
(Picture: Peter Kent)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on June 28, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Permalink
| Comments (7)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
R.I.P. Michael Jackson
Now that the Ontario PC Leadership Race has ended, I figure we can follow the rest of the media by getting on our knees and paying homage to Michael Jackson.
While the coverage of this event has been a little excessive (CTV News Channel seems to have been all Jackson all the time for the past few days), he was certainly an influential figure who many of us grew up listening to. He also exhibited lots of strange behaviour, including changing his skin colour, dangling his child from a balcony, as well as being accused of reprehensible acts of child abuse. Yet, it is likely that he will be remembered for his glory days when he was on top of the world:
What are your thoughts on the media coverage of Jackson's death and the man himself?
Update: The following video has been brought to my attention. I think it's hilarious and raises some good points, but I'm posting it against my better judgment, as it contains strong language and is not safe for work.
Continue reading "R.I.P. Michael Jackson"
Posted by Jesse Kline on June 27, 2009 at 08:51 PM
Permalink
| Comments (19)
Will the economy recover and what will it look like if it does?
The American Thinker has an interesting article that questions whether or not the U.S. economy will ever recover from the current recession:
Haven't they heard? The America that always recovers is not in anymore. Any assumption of a recovery fails to consider the idea that we now have a government run by people who ignore American history and who are hell bent on changing America's future.
Obama has done more than apologize for America's greatness and generosity while abroad. He is wreaking havoc on the economy that paid for that greatness and generosity at home. Don't you remember? He is "the one" we've been waiting for to finally do something right around here.
Thus the conviction that Americans always bounce back and bring their economy with them is not necessarily relevant anymore. The rules for business have changed and continue to do so daily. Incentive has been devastated. The reliable motivations of the past do not matter, because most of those dynamics have been targeted as what is wrong with this country and they are systematically being removed at a stunning pace.
In reaction, Atlas is shrugging. And who can blame him (and her).
We cannot be on the verge of any meaningful recovery because we are in a downward swirl of liberal policy consequences -- and we have a government determined to correct this by getting more and more liberal.
Likewise, a recent report from Sprott Asset Management looks at the question of who is going to buy the massive amount of new debt the American government is creating and comes up with some troubling conclusions:
As we hope the breakdown above has revealed, the future solvency of the United States as a nation state is currently in jeopardy. It is in far deeper trouble than the mainstream press cares to admit. There are simply not enough new buyers of debt on this planet to support the spending programs of the United States government - and it appears that current holders of debt are beginning to sell. Because it is impossible to balance the budget from outside sources of capital, the only source of funds left for the US, in all reality, is continued money printing.
The Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing is failing. The US budget is ludicrous, spending is out of control, spending promises are out of control, the world knows it - and we know it. For all the pundits who see the economy improving over the next year, we invite you to explain to us how this debt crisis will resolve itself without significant turmoil. We've tabulated the numbers above - and they do not lie. As we wrote this past January, welcome to 2009.
While these are troubling signs, I think there's little doubt the American economy will bounce back eventually. As just about any economist will tell you, the business cycle is cyclical, rising and falling every ten years or so. This is one reason why I was surprised by all the fear mongering talk of "the next great depression" when the recession first hit. The bigger question is what the economy will look like when this is all said and done.
I think that a lot of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about the economy was largely created by the media. The tangible effect of this fear was a global recession and a willingness on the part of world governments—including Canada's Conservative government—to implement Keynesian economic policies. Despite the fact that Keynes claimed he was trying to save capitalism, I would argue he's actually a socialist, as is anyone who is now trying to blame the recession on a failure of the capitalist system. The argument might hold some weight if we had a capitalist system to begin with.
The legacy of this worldwide shift to the left will likely be an economic system that bears little resemblance to capitalism. Capitalism is the most efficient economic system known to man. Granted, it is not always fair, but life in general is not fair either. The role of government should be to help people deal with economic shifts, rather than try to ensure they don't happen in the first place. Capitalism achieves its efficiency by weeding out inefficient companies and industries and shifting resources to more efficient sectors. In this respect, recessions are not only expected, they are necessary.
Capitalism operates in the same manner as evolution, the dodo birds go extinct, while humans thrive and conquer the Earth. By trying to bailout inefficient industries through government intervention, we are managing the economy as though it were communist. This, history has shown, does not work. Now that Bush and Obama have spent trillions bailing out the banks, is there any reason to expect they won't make the same stupid mistakes again? None whatsoever. This is like giving a dog a bone every time it pees on the carpet. How can you expect it not to repeat the same bad behaviour, when it actually has a disincentive to do so?
Likewise, when North American governments bailed out the auto sector, they ensured that land, labour, and capital would continue to be tied up in an inefficient and uncompetitive industry, rather than being shifted to industries that could help the North American economy thrive in the long-run. So what will the economy look like in the future? I worry that our children will by left to deal with the effects of an inefficient socialist economy and a massive debt load, all because our politicians made the politically expedient moves, rather than the economically sound ones.
Posted by Jesse Kline on June 27, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Permalink
| Comments (14)
Ontario PC Leadership Race: Tim Hudak wins the leadership
Here it is, the final result:
Hudak: 5606 (55%)
Klees: 4643 (45%)
Congratulations to everyone who worked on Tim Hudak's campaign. I'm
going to reflect upon this for a while and come back with an analysis.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on June 27, 2009 at 03:15 PM
Permalink
| Comments (1)
Ontario PC Leadership Race: John Laforet comments on Liberal tactics at the convention
John Laforat is a Liberal Party activist that I met when I attended the University of Toronto. I found him to be a well meaning liberal without an overly partisan attitude. He demonstrates this in a video posted by United and Strong:
Here is the press release that he refers to.
*update*
I have been told that he is no longer a member of the Liberal Party,
but he was active in the Liberal Party a couple of years ago when I
knew him.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on June 27, 2009 at 02:44 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Ontario PC Leadership Race: Randy Hillier on the first round
Stephen Taylor has posted this video of Randy Hillier:
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on June 27, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Permalink
| Comments (0)
Ontario PC Leadership: second round shows Tim Hudak as likely winner
Hudak 4128 (40%)
Klees 3299 (32%)
Elliott 2903 (28%)
Christine Elliott is now out of the running. It is a little unclear who most of her supporters will pick as a second choice, but it is unlikely that Frank Klees will recieve enough to put him over the top. Frank Klees would require 1866 of the redistibuted electoral votes to defeat Tim Hudak. That represents around 64% of Christine Elliott's electoral votes. The high of a persentage didn't even go from Hillier to Hudak.
There is now no question in my mind. Tim Hudak is going to be the next leader of the PC Party of Ontario
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on June 27, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Permalink
| Comments (1)