Jim Watkin Interview on Prohibition

This was recently put up by the Institure for Liberal Studies. Enjoy.

Oh how the cow turns

There is a famous political cartoon from the early 20th century. It shows western Canada feeding a cow and Ontario milking it. The symbolism is clear. Western Canada puts in the work and the resources but Ontario benefits. It is a symbol that is very close to the hearts of Albertans even today (or at least the idea behind the image).

In that context this cartoon has a certain amount of historical irony.



Update**

A kind commentor sent me this, so that you would know what I'm talking about:

John Tory in the wilderness? No Way!

The Toronto Star says that John Tory is still in trouble. This of course takes me totally by surprise. I really thought that the party would unite behind the mighty leader after his huge majority of support. I don’t get why some people would still be bitter at the leader. So what if his lackies strong armed anyone who dared oppose him? Why should it matter that he abused his position in a campaign to save his job? People that are still pissed at having their delegate status unfairly challenged are just full of sour grapes.

Look at all the wonderful things that he has done in the last seven and a half months! For example he (content missing) and he (content missing). Every Ontarian will remember how he (content missing). Truly he has left a lasting impression on Ontarians and has been a powerful voice for change.

Personally anyone who will not get behind this Leader does not deserve to be in this Party. We should create a list of anyone who will not swear an oath to the Leader. Then we drive away anyone not on that list. This is how you build a party. This is how you win elections.

State of Nature

I have always said that inaction in Caledonia only encourages other protestors to break the law. According to this Globe and Mail report that is exactly what happened last Saturday. A native group blocked and did considerable damage to a road. Unlike Caledonia the police decided to uphold the rule of law and arrested the Mohawk Chief and took down the barrier.

The protestors in Caledonia blocked a nearby highway in response.

Order only exists when the law is enforced. Once any group of people think that they can defy the Leviathan, chaos and disorder strips us of our freedoms. Caledonia is not going to bring down the state, but it does weaken the state’s ability to maintain peace in society.

Fear and self loathing in the political spectrum

A friend of mine was recently sent this mass e-mail (typos and all)

Canada’s Fearful, Self-Loathing Conservatives

by John S.

Itis not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strongman stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. Thecredit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face ismarred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs andcomes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the greatdevotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knowsachievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails whiledaring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold andtimid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
- Theodore Roosevelt, From a speech given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910

An increasingly popular mantra being echoed today by some Canadian conservatives is thatPrime Minister Harper’s Conservatives are no better than the Liberals, and that thereis no discernible difference between how the two parties would govern.They are loud in the various part of the conservative blogosphere, someeven going so far as to have us believe that this country would not beany worse off if Dion’s Liberals were at the helm of our federalgovernment. Surely these anonymous bloggers and online posters realize how strongly committed Mr. Dion and his Liberals are to expanding the size and cost of the federal government,advancing equality rights in the name of social justice, and overridingprovincial and other constitutional rights. And this is to say nothingabout leadership qualities. Exempting the few stealth warriors thatalways exist in the often murky world of the blogosphere, do theseconservative posters really want to return to the days of Liberalmajorities in Ottawa? That may be the practical effect of theirefforts, but the answer is no.

These bloggers and online posters know full well that the coalitionsupporting Prime Minister Harper’s Conservatives is not a monolithicone. Without going into too many nuances, one could say there are threemain groups within this coalition including those who are fiscallyconservative, socially conservative, and nationalist conservatives.Many conservatives in Canada identify with more than one of thesegroups to varying degrees, while many others only identify stronglywith one group. Beyond the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the PCs,the difficulty for Prime Minister Harper has always been to bringtogether these three different strains of conservatism. This is not tomention his additional challenge of articulating the unique expressionsof conservatism of French-speaking Quebecers. The result of thisbalancing act is becoming clearer. The Conservative Party cannot moveforward the agenda of any one of these three groups in the coalitiontoo quickly lest the other two groups believe the party is leaving thembehind in the dust. Nor should the Conservatives do so, since thephilosophy of conservatism itself necessitates gradual or incrementalchange as opposed to extreme or revolutionary upheaval.

But regardless of the philosophical persuasion of theseconservatives, there is something fundamentally ‘un-conservative’ aboutthese conservative bloggers who expect their party to implement theiragenda at the click of a mouse. The more socially conservative inclinedare clamouring for an exodus to the Canadian Heritage Party to teachPrime Minister Harper a lesson in morality, completely oblivious of thegrave immorality of this act to Canadian taxpayers. Those stillsuspicious that the Prime Minister Harper is advancing theConservatives’ not-so-hidden hidden agenda of creating a theocraticCanada are attempting the raise the Progressive Party back from thedead in the form of the Progressive Canadian Party. All the while somenationalist conservatives are attempting to revive the Reform Party,desiring we return to the political wilderness and toward Egypt ratherthan live with the shame of a Conservative Prime Minister seeminglyunable to make even a dent in the golden calf known as the Charter ofRights and Freedom. They are incensed now that they realize the Charterdoes not guarantee free speech, but restricts speech according to thewhims of the judiciary.

These on-line conservatives have become like self-hating Jews. As muchas they will deny it, they have embraced the Liberals’ template ofthemselves by internalizing the negative stereotypes said about them bytheir left-wing adversaries in the media. They have done this to thepoint where they have convinced themselves that for them tosuccessfully play the game of realpolitik in “Liberal Canada” wouldequate to an abandonment of conservative principles. Even the modest electoral success of the Conservatives have convinced them that their party canno longer hold these principles. They have accepted a kind ofmartyr-complex that falsely asserts that power and principle cannot beharmonized. And any legislation that reflects conservative principles is dismissed since it doesn’t fitthe template of ‘Liberal Canada’. So in response they have retreatedfrom the political arena and insulated themselves inside in thecomfortable bubble of the blogosphere. Thankfully, there are manyconservatives who are proud to support Prime Minister Harper’sachievements. They are the ones supporting their riding associations,contributing money to the party, and involving themselves inface-to-face policy discussions and electoral strategies with theirpeers. It’s high-time for these fearful, self-loathing conservativesbreak through their self-imposed bubble and join them.

I don’t know where to begin with this…

John S. throws the word Conservative around a lot. He doesn’t really define what he means by that word. For example what exactly is nationalist conservative? I suppose that he is referring to Quebecers that want greater provincial autonomy, but I only figured that out by the context. The term nationalist conservative has no meaning in Canadian politics.

The mistake that John has made is not an uncommon mistake. He has failed to distinguish conservative with the Conservative Party. What is in a name? What does it mean to be conservative and what is the Conservative Party?

I would have difficulty calling myself conservative by its literal meaning. In some ways I am but in most ways I am not. I propose some radical changes to economic policy and social policy in this country. That is the antithesis of the word conservative. Simply because John decides to name me as a ‘fiscal conservative’ does not mean I fit into the Conservative Party.

Why do I support the Conservative Party? It is the party that I believe serves as the best platform for me to achieve my policy agenda. John suggests that I owe that party my automatic loyalty. He implies that if I do not support Harper I am self loathing in my ideas.

I don’t loath myself and I doubt that many bloggers loath themselves. It takes a certain amount of arrogance to think other people care about your opinion. Arrogance and self loathing don’t often live together. I don’t need someone to tell me that I am not a stereotype and that my ideas are worthwhile. I know these things and I would suspect so does other bloggers.

My ultimate loyalty does not belong to any political party. I don’t think anyone should give their unconditional loyalty to a political party. My loyalty belongs to what I value and what I hold to be true. As long as the Conservative Party has some chance of advancing those values I am happy to call myself a Conservative Party member.

The City Teat

I just saw on the news that Queen’s Park is meeting for an emergency sitting. They are going to pass legislation forcing the unions back to work. There are some unions that I approve of and some that I do not, the TTC Union is definitely one that I do not. The worst unions are public sector unions. Yes I know the TTC is a private business, but it is a government funded monopoly. For the purposes of the union it might as well be government ran. The union boss can suck out of the teat of government spending.

A few days back I was sitting on a deck talking to some law students. One of them mentioned that the problem with the proposal that will be voted on today is the arbitration. Often the system is slanted in favour of unions. He told me that some unions have gotten concessions out of arbitration that they could never get out of striking.

A University of Toronto law student who is interning for a management labour firm may not be the best source on this sort of thing, but he isn’t the worse either. I can suppose at the very least that there are potential problems with the present proposal. Often government passes a law to one purpose and that law ends up having the opposite effect. I’m not surprised by it anymore, now will I be surprised if this legislation backfires.

I offer no solutions. I have no practical idea on how to deal with this arrogant and destructive union. The only thing I can suggest is that the City cuts off the teat.

One Canada and Ten Provinces

Sinclair Stevens attacks Stephen Harper’s idea to decentralize Canadian governance. Mr. Stevens is one of those people that causes an automatic rolling of the eyes. He likes saying things like this;

Does Harper not realize that prior to Confederation, the colonies of British North America were autonomous and that Lord Durham in his famous report reaffirmed their colonial status while Britain retained control over foreign affairs and the military?

It is strange that Harper's mission today is to make all our provinces autonomous with Ottawa mainly looking after foreign affairs and defence as Britain did in colonial days.

Do you call that progress or just ludicrous?

What the hell does the Durham Report have to do with anything? The Durham Report recommended responsible government and the creation of the Province of Canada. I’ve read it and I don’t recall any passages that bothered to reaffirm British dominion over BNA. That wasn’t the question at all. So what the hell are you trying to say here Mr. Stevens?

It appears that Harper is being accused of establishing a government based on the British Imperial model. This is absurd if not outright crazy. For one thing colonials never got to send representatives to the United Kingdom’s Parliament. For another thing London was across an ocean and was a global Empire. Comparing British Empire to a decentralized Canada is plainly idiotic.

The title of Mr. Stevens’ op-ed is “One Canada or Ten Canadas.” This more than anything else makes it clear that he misses the point. The reality is one Canada with one Ontario, one Quebec, one Alberata, one Nova Scotia, etc. Canada is a collection of parts which makes up a whole. Each province entered into Confederation by making an agreement with the previous members of Confederation. Each new member added their own elements to the greater civic nationality, but none completely sacrificed their own uniqueness. Every province is a ‘distinct society’ within Confederation. As Wilfrid Laurier put it, “Fraternity without absorption, union without fusion.”

This idea of Canada is not my own. It is as old as our country. It is called the provincial compact theory. It is the idea that Canada is an agreement by these ten provinces to unite our governance. This is the concept that Mr. Stevens fails to grasp, the very nature of Canada and our nationality.

Putting aside the theory, a decentralized Canada does work on a pragmatic level. Each province has its own culture, economy, resources, and politics. Each province should be able to operate according to their needs without being overburdened by the interests of other regions. Think of NEP. The National Energy Plan was not for the nation of Canada, it was for the sake of Ontario. The interests of the west were made subservient to the interests of Ontario. The reason for this is purely democratic; Ontario has more votes.

NEP was one of those times that democracy becomes the enemy of freedom, in the way that J.S. Mill warned us. If the country’s economic policy is purely set by Ottawa, those regions that are left out of the governing plurality can be and have been victimized. This does nothing but harm the unity of our country. The one thing that will always guarantee rebellion is control.

I would go to Home Depot Station

Some bright soul has decided Toronto should take our lead from Dubai and sell the right to name our subways to corporations. This would mean having a Home Depot Station or a Tim Horton’s Station. In exchange I would expect the city to ask for tens of millions of dollars.

I think that this is a fantastic idea. It would cost the city very little to implement and there will be a huge profit. In a time that they are talking about expansion while the TTC is striking every two or three years, this money could be of great value.

The strike against it is a phrase that drives shivers up my spine. "It is absolutely outrageous to be corporatizing our important public spaces," said that TTC Vice-Chair. This is the exact same language used when my student government tried to stop Timothy’s from expanding on campus. Everyone wanted it to expand. The time waiting for coffee has been cut in half, but they still opposed it.

"The question Torontonians need to ask themselves is: Do we want Wal-Mart station? Do we want McDonald's station? Do we want Canadian Tire, Home Depot station? I don't think Torontonians want to go there."

The city was outraged when they renamed the Skydome. I am still pissed and refuse to recognize the new name. They could have easily called it “Roger’s Skydome.” This, however, is not the same thing as renaming a station. Subway stations are not important iconic city landmarks. They don’t matter in the way that the ACC and the Skydome matter (and I don’t even watch sports). Some people will likely grumble, but I doubt that many people would care if we changed subway names.

The only three subway names I would not change are; Museum, Queen’s Park, and Union. Union Station is a bit of a city icon. Plus the station itself actually predates the subway line and it is connected to the railway. Museum and Queen’s Park I think are names that are helpful to tourism (I agree that Dupont should be renamed to Casa Loma). All of the other names can be changed without much bother.

I want to commend Peter Milczyn, the man who is pushing this idea. It is this sort of inventive solution that I have come not to expect from my city officials.

How screwed are we?

Climate change is real and it is at least partially caused by humanity. I have heard a great multitude of debates on the matter and I have been convinced that this much is true. It is less certain, it seems to me, the extent or the full outcome of the problem. The thesis put forth in the movie Day After Tomorrow has been debunked. So have many other alarmist theories.

A lot about the environmentalist movements bothers me. For one thing this whole Earth Hour thing is awful. It allows people to feel like they are contributing without actually doing anything. One hour of cutting back your energy is not going to accomplish anything. Yet your conscience becomes clear and you can think of yourself as part of the solution. Meanwhile you can drive your SUV without feeling bad about the environmental damage.

Too much of what is being done are symbolic niceties. I heard Oprah describe environmentalism as have claim to the same social position as diets did 5 years ago. That is actually a very important insight. This has all the characteristics of a celebrity fad not a global crisis.

My other problem was articulated in a recent Reason Magazine article. The article describes the various “carbon footprint tests.” Ronald Bailey, the writer, goes on to argue convincingly that the only way to get the carbon footprint down to an acceptable level is to return to “19^th century poverty.” The 19^th century is my favourite century to study in history, but like every other time in place I would not like to live there. We, in all honestly, live in the best of times. Even the poorest in Canadian society live a higher standard of living than they could have 100 years ago.

The carbon footprint tests are either scientific or meaningless. If it is scientific we are all screwed. There is no way to return to those carbon levels. If we did half the world’s population would starve to death. We would fight wars (they would have to be fought with swords) and revert back to the darkness of history. Unless some brilliant new technology comes to save us, we are doomed to chaos or destruction.

If they aren’t reliable then they are hurting the cause of fighting climate change. It is hurting the cause in the same way that Day After Tomorrow damaged people’s faith in the science of climate change. Anytime that there is an irrationally extreme dire prediction of our ultimate and unavoidable demise, people take the whole problem a little less seriously. It strips more reasonable scientists of their credibility.

One thing is clear. No one is really sure what will happen. If they claim to be absolutely sure they are either deluded or a liar. No one can possibly know what the future holds. A rational scientist can make the best predictions that he can, but ultimately there is only one reliable experiment and we are living in it.

President Bush on trade with Columbia

I fault President Bush on a lot of things. Under his watch civil liberties in the United States has declined. Torture became an acceptable practice for American prison guards. The deficit as reached disastrous levels and spending has boomed uncontrollably. It hardly needs saying that invading Iraq was a mistake. In many ways Bush has betrayed the part of the Republican Party I admire the most. He has forever soiled the name of neoconservatives.

Bush has at least one positive point in his corner. He has done well on trade. He has protected NAFTA against the protectionist forces in Congress. He has fought to expand free trade in the hemisphere. As much as Bush is possibly the worst President, and certainly the most spend thrift President, you cannot disagree with this. (You have to wait for the commercial to be over...capitalism...sigh)

Well if Jimmy says they're cool with it...

According to Jimmy Carter, Hamas is willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist. It is nice to hear this pronouncement from Mr. Ex-President. Can I please hear it from the Hamas leadership?

Carter says that the US should stop blocking Hamas from the negotiation table. Israel says that meeting with Hamas just emboldens them. Personally, if I were Carter, I would ask the Hamas leadership to stop advocating the stoning of adultery. I would ask them to allow free speech and freedom of religion. I would ask Hamas to stop manipulating children into strapping bombs to their chest.

You should generally negotiate for there to be a peace everyone can live with. For negotiations to take place both sides have to be reasonable and truly desire peace. Hamas is not reasonable, nor do they truly desire peace. It is not really that Israel shouldn’t negotiate with Hamas. It is more that they can’t. How can you negotiate when they will just take everything you offer and attack you anyway?

The sins of my father are not my own

Yesterday I read a speech given almost a year ago in front of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The speaker was Janie Jamieson. I had only heard that name once before, and it was in connection with some of the nuttiness that has become native activism. I encourage everyone to read the speech. It is insane. It reeks of paranoia and rewritten history. It paints a picture of the delicate peaceful people of the Six Nations, and the brutal uncaring murderous Europeans.

We can put aside her historical analyse. We can completely ignore the fact that it was the Iroquois that wiped out the Huron. We will ignore that it was not the Europeans that invented the horrific practice of scalping. You can go ahead and believe your idealised version of history. It won’t interfere with my main counter argument against the speech.

My ancestors did sin against their ancestors. They were treated unfairly and unkindly. Perhaps my ancestors had the best intentions, but judging intent in the modern era is difficult enough without the distance of a century. Jamieson lists some of the injustices perpetrated against the native peoples. I could name a few more that she did not mention. None of that justifies the breaking of the law.

Her argument is that the Canadian government violated the Rule of Law by not fulfilling its treaties. She may have a point, and we can have a legitimate historical legal debate about that. The reality is that such violations do not excuse other violations.

This is the metaphor that Jamieson uses; the Canadian government stole the native’s car and are now offering to give them a portion of the rent garnished from that car. This is a childish metaphor. No one alive today stole anything from the natives. No one alive today had anything stolen from them. Those that suffered under the Residence Schools should be and I think will be compensated. Any other legitimate wrong done against a living being should be corrected as best as possible. Everything else, however, is history.

The metaphor should go like this; person A steals a car from person B. Person A dies and leaves the car to his son. Does person B still have rights over that car? Do the children of Person B have rights over that car? How many generations go by before those rights are forfeit? The car has been in Person A’s family for 6 generations. Over the decades the car has been fixed, modified, and enhanced. Do Person B’s decedents have any claim over that car? This is not an easy question but I will give it an easy answer, no they do not. The descendents of Person B never owned that car.

I am very much against the idea that historical wrongs should be fixed in the modern day. It is unending. Everyone’s ancestors have been screwed or harmed by someone else’s at some time. Where do we draw the line? What insults or cruelties are worthy of compensation?

Around 300 years ago the Duke of Argyll slaughtered the families of some of my ancestors. 180 years ago they were driven off their land by another Duke of Argyll and forced to come to Canada. Do I still have claim over that land? Should I spit in the face of anyone that has the last name Campbell? No of course not, that would be absurd.

Wouldn’t it?

Can America win in Iraq?

I’ve heard legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate. People of education, understanding, and integrity have deeply differed on the possible outcomes of the American war in Iraq. It was not so different during World War II and the American-Vietnamese War. No one was sure what could happen no one knew the outcome before hand.

War is like that. It may seem that this war is murkier, but I assure you that it is not. In hindsight Operation Barbarossa was a huge mistake. At the time, however, the undefeated German war machine was facing off against the demoralized and practically weaponless Red Army. I certainly would not have predicted the outcome.

A turning point appears to be upon the US mission. According to this Globe & Mail article, the war leader Sadr is preparing to end his “unilateral truce.” There is no such thing as a unilateral truce. For hostilities to end both sides have to at least implicitly agree to it.

As far as I can tell Sadr was regrouping and consolidating. The American and government forces took the opportunity to assault other threats. Now that threat appears to be pretty much on the run. The government forces are turning to deal with Sadr.

Just like Operation Barbarossa, I have no idea what will happen now.

Scam Alert

I got a new laptop yesterday. In the process of downloading the usual devices I typed in 'Firefox' in Google. The first thing that appeard was a scam. They asked for money for free software. It did the same thing for Itunes. The real websites were the second one on the Google list.

Hamas endorses Obama

I signed up to the McCain e-mail list about a year and a half ago. At the time I was trying to learn as much as I can about the different candidates. I'm still not completely convinced by McCain. Basically it boils down to if you think the United States has a chance to win in Iraq and how much that would cost. If it is possible to do it without completely destroying American power, I'm alright with McCain. If it is the reverse I think I would bite my lips and hope for Obama.

All that said McCain has a pretty decent propaganda machine. Take a look at this e-mail I got yesterday:

Team,

Wednesday's Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama's positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation's top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran's president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

During the debate, Barack Obama once again refused to condemn former President Jimmy Carter- who publicly supports Obama- for holding talks with the Hamas terrorist group, a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran.

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

John McCain's foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama. As president, John McCain will provide the leadership we need to win the war against Islamic extremists. We need your help today to reach out to Americans across the country to spread the message of John McCain's plan for your national security. Please follow this link to make a financial contribution to our campaign today.

We are in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, and I am confident that the leadership and bold solutions John McCain will provide as our commander in chief are what our nation needs. We need your immediate donation to take John McCain's solutions to the American people.

John McCain will always put the interests of American families above all else. This is the type of leadership we need as a nation, and I hope you will take the time today to join our campaign and make a financial contribution to ensure the policies of Barack Obama do not become the policies of America.

Sincerely,

Christian Ferry
Deputy Campaign Manager

P.S. - The differences between our campaign and that of Barack Obama's could not be more clear. While Senator Obama would surrender in Iraq and hold talks with the Iranian regime, John McCain will never surrender in the struggle with Islamic extremists. Please join our campaign today by making a generous donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or $2,300. Thank you.

(Pretty funny eh)

An Interesting New York Times Op-Ed

A Speech About Nothing

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 15, 2008

A string of technological revolutions have made American workers much more productive. Over the past 30 years, steel producers have reduced the number of hours it takes to produce a ton of steel by up to 90 percent.

A social revolution has radically increased the number of women in the work force and pushed down the wages of men.

A medical revolution has led to enhanced diagnosis and treatment but also rapid health care inflation that burdens American employers and eats into workers’ weekly paychecks.

An information revolution has increased the economic rewards of education and punished those who lack it.

A pedagogical revolution has led to ferocious competition to get into the top universities but a decline in quality at the primary and secondary levels. For the first time in the nation’s history, workers retiring from the labor force are better educated than the ones coming in.

All of these huge social forces have had profound effects on how Americans work and live. All of them have combined to create a mass upper class, but also a struggling working class. They have all contributed to rising living standards — and also to the feelings of anxiety that show up in poll after poll.

You would think that if you were a thoughtful presidential candidate, addressing voters in an economically complicated state like Pennsylvania, you would want to describe how these pervasive forces are shaping the lives of voters and how government should respond. But, then again, you are not trapped in a campaign bubble. You have not outsourced your brain to political tacticians.

Barack Obama delivered a speech in Pittsburgh on Monday on the economic stresses facing American workers. In the speech, he devoted one clause in one sentence to the single biggest factor affecting the workplace: technological change. He then devoted 45 sentences to one of the least important: trade deals.

Economists differ over how much outsourcing will change the American job market in the future, but there is little evidence that trade has been a major cause of job loss or even wage stagnation so far. As Robert Z. Lawrence of the Peterson Institute for International Economics wrote in a recent study: “The recent increase in U.S. inequality ... has little to do with global forces that might especially affect unskilled workers — namely, immigration and expanded trade with developing countries.”

And yet all Democratic domestic policy discussions have to start with trade and, in 99.9 percent of the cases, end with trade.

And we have not even begun to plumb the insignificance of Obama’s emphasis on Monday. He wasn’t even talking about trade in general. He was talking about the Nafta- and Cafta-style trade agreements whose negative effects on the American economy are barely measurable. And, to make matters even more inconsequential, he wasn’t even taking a clear stand on such deals themselves.

Obama stuffed his speech with the textbook clichés that Democratic consultants tell their candidates to use when talking about trade — warnings about Chinese perfidy and lead paint in toys. But instead of following those clichés into the realm of economic populism, he hedged.

He wound up in the no-man’s land between Lou Dobbs-style populism and Bill Clinton-style free trade. He made a series of on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand distinctions about which sort of trade deals he’d support and which he wouldn’t. It added up to a vague, watered-down version of economic light beer. In the end, he suggested a few minor tweaks in the U.S. tax code that would have a microscopic effect on outsourcing, and a few health and safety provisions which might have teenie-weenie effects on investment decisions. The ideas he sketched out in the speech aren’t dangerous. They’re just trivial.

We all know why Obama spoke the way he did on Monday. The forces transforming the American economy are big and hard to control. If you think your listeners aren’t sophisticated enough to grasp them, it’s much easier to blame those perfidious foreigners for all economic woes. It’s much more heroic to pretend that, by opposing Nafta, you can improve the lives of middle-class voters. Furthermore, these trade deals have become symbolic bogies for union activists. Instead of concerning themselves with the tidal waves washing overhead, they’ve decided to insist on bended-knee submission in the holy war against Colombia.

What I don’t understand is why the political consultants prefer this kind of rhetoric. Aren’t there windows in the vans they use to drive around the state? Don’t they see that most middle-class voters are service workers in suburban office parks, not 1930s-style proletarians in the steel mills?

American voters aren’t so stupid as to think their problems are caused by foreigners and malevolent lobbyists. When Obama speaks down to his audiences, it makes me so bitter I want to cling to my laptop and my college degree.

Andrew Lang and his crappy literature

Andrew Lang is the Liberal candidate for the Danforth as of Wednesday. I managed to get hold of one of his lit pieces. He was running practically unopposed but that is no excuse to have such a crappy piece. It is one of the clumsiest pieces of propaganda I’ve seen out of the Liberal Party.

Which Canada will you choose?

This is a through back to the 2004 campaign. It worked 4 years ago because the Conservative Party was an unknown entity. I doubt it would work now that they have been in power for 2 years. (Can you say “we are in power” if you are a member of the party. Or should you only say that if you are a member of the caucus or a staffer? How close to the centre of authority do you have to be before you can say, “We are in power)

A Canada that refuses to address the crisis of children living in poverty while offering tax cuts for the wealthiest Canadians OR a Canada that recognizes a moral duty to quickly and effectively address poverty?

Sometimes I think that the Liberal Party and the NDP really wish they could run against George Bush. Tax cuts for the wealthiest? The GST cut advantages the poor more than another social class. It is the poorest members of society that benefit from the increase in real wealth that the cut provided.

A Canada that abandons working families by ignoring our daycare crisis OR a Canada that provides desperately needed affordable child care through a national daycare strategy?

Harper hates your children. No seriously he really truly hates them. If he didn’t he would create a massive program that will suck a perpetual amount of money out of the public coffers. I realize that this is meant for party faithful but come on. You can have an honest disagreement on what the most effective method is, but to say that the government has no daycare strategy is a blatant lie.

The rest of it is poorly laid out and poorly written. He uses words like crisis and catastrophe several times. As if the world was coming to an end because the Liberal Party is not in power.

I doubt they spent much time or effort on this piece. I understand that Land had one opponent and it wasn’t a serious challenge. Still it would not be hard to make something better than this piece of crap.

(Note to the Lang campaign. I’m graduating in a couple month and have no idea what I’m going to do to keep myself in beer and slushies. I am willing, if not eager, to sell my soul)

Oh shut up Lisa MacLeod (III)

The Liberal government wants to keep Ontario’s legislature open from 9 to 6. You may be surprised to learn that it wasn’t open normal business hours before. It doesn’t make much sense how it is now. It is out of sync with the normal working hours of both government and business. You can also see how it would affect MPPs with families. With the evening sessions mothers and fathers find it difficult to come home for dinner. Parents could also miss school plays and other important events in their children’s lives. More than that, evening sessions discourage attendance. MPPs often have fundraisers or other events in the evenings. Such events are usually more important to their career than debating in the House, so they skip debates.

All in all this seems to be a good idea. Who could possibly have a problem with this? It appears to be simple common sense.

Well Lisa MacLeod has a problem with common sense.

I read the Canadian Press report about the issue. It included a couple of quotes from Ms. MacLeod.

"I thought we were negotiating in good faith and that we were trying to do something for people in our generation to really modernize the legislature," said MacLeod

I thought that the 9 to 6 work day was pretty modern but okay.

"Instead, he manipulated the process. He went behind our backs and he did exactly what any woman would expect a good-old-boy lawyer from downtown Toronto to do."

I’m not sure what this means. It seems to imply that lawyers from Toronto don’t like woman or at least commonly act against their interests. Also I’m not sure how Michael Byrant went behind their backs. I first heard of this proposal in February. Was she just not paying attention?

Her true complaint becomes clear when you find out she commutes from Ottawa every day. It’s not that the proposals are bad for MPPs, their families, or Ontario. Her issue is that it is inconvenient for her. She will have to change her living arrangements. She wants the schedule of the House to revolve around her.

It sucks for MPPs and MPs sometimes. A Member from BC has to live half a continent away from his home and often his family. Yet they knew this going into the job, it is a sacrifice that they made to serve in the legislature.

So stop whining MacLeod. You live about 4 hours away by car and 30 minutes by plane. You don’t have it that bad. It’s not like the Premier doesn’t know the problem you are going through. Sure he has an official residence now but he was once an opposition MPP much like you. He too had to balance his career with the needs of his family. Stop playing the martyr, grow up, and deal with it.

There are real issues that the House has to deal with. Ask your caucus colleague, Christine Elliot, about her mental health bill. Maybe then you would have something else to think about than yourself.

The Audacity of saying politicians are human

I finished Chapter 4 of the Audacity of Hope, titled ‘Politics’. Unlike chapters 1, 2, and 3, I liked this chapter. Basically Obama points out all the human foibles that turn decent well meaning people into the stereotypical politicians. The incentives and the pressures placed upon a politician are such that it is inevitable that people would start talking like politicians. He accuses the media of creating a disincentive for honest debate and unscripted humanity. He also blames the attack dogs of both parties and the fear that a single decision can end a career. Politicians sacrifice so much of their own family and comfort that the idea that one wrong call can bring it all crashing down must be horrifying.

In my own experience I find politicians from all parties to be mostly decent people. There are a few that I think are dinks but even those are clearly directed by a desire to improve life for Canadians. I like to say that you have to be a little crazy to be a politician. Really what it takes is a deep confidence that you know what policies are the best and an even deeper desire to see those policies enacted. This tends to make politicians arrogant. Frankly I don’t think someone can be a good leader if they didn’t have just a touch of arrogance.

I hate it when people call politicians scum. I find it hilarious when they call all politicians scum but have respect for their own mayor or MP. All those surveys that say politician is the most hated profession. I bet you if you changed the word politician to Member of Parliament or Prime Minister the results would be massively different. The word ‘politician’ itself has become a dirty word. The word ‘politics’ has become a word of contempt.

Politics is the interactions of power relations. Politics exists in every aspect of social life. Politics exists in a marriage, the office, and everywhere else. The politics of the high school clique or the dance club is far more brutal and petty than the politics of Parliament. Everyone has the capacity to be nasty or childish. So why should a politician be different? When someone says a politician is scum they are really saying that they expect them to be better than everyone else.

It is fair to demand more of politicians than the usual. They are arrogant enough to say they can lead us, they should be held to a higher standard. At the same time they are not super humans. They may be on television but they are not characters in a tv show. They are real people. I think too many of the electorate forgets that.

"Israel Apartheid" groups hate Jews

This is a good article from the National Post about the “Israeli Apartheid” people. I can honestly say that I’ve felt physically threatened by these people on the University of Toronto campus. When I was running for Vice-President Internal of the student government, it was these people that accused me of being in league with the Zionists to take over the campus. I guess that was true. I did get support from the Pro-Israel groups. What did I have to promise them? I told them I would not ban their groups from campus.

You can try and have an honest debate with them, but you can’t. Believe me I have tried on many occasions to engage them in discussion. You can’t simply because their position isn’t actually rational. They are not pro-Palestine, they are ant-Israel. More than that, they are anti-Semitic.

Barbara Kay: York University must get serious about taking back their campus from anti-Zionist radicals

Posted: April 16, 2008, 10:44 AM by Marni Soupcoff

Barbara Kay

What is it with York University? Is their administration actually trying to get a reputation as North America’s most pusillanimous in dealing with anti-Zionist aggression on campus?

Just when other universities are starting to put a lid on the excesses of the “Israel Apartheid” thugs who have become ever more emboldened by the permissiveness accorded their bullying tactics, York seems determined to pursue their counter-productive laissez-faire policies, as long as it’s only Jewish students bearing the brunt of anti-Zionist strong-arm tactics.

Two weeks ago Hillel ran an event featuring Knesset member Natan Sharansky. His speech was disrupted by the Palestinian Students Association and Students Against Israeli Apartheid@York group (SAIA). They yelled and disrupted his talk and talked over him on their cell phones, according to witnesses.

One witness from a Zionist group, Hasbara, said she was terrified by remarks like “Get off our campus, you genocidal racist” and “you are bringing a second holocaust upon yourselves.”

Last week’s Jewish Tribune reported that a crowd of SAIA rioters had swarmed the “intimidated” York president Dr Mahmoud Shoukri’s office and then stormed the senate chambers. Permission was granted for them to speak to the president in spite of their lawless method of gaining access. According to some who witnessed the subsequent disruptions of Sharansky’s speech, the Palestinian students took the president’s meeting with them as encouragement for a continuation or even escalation of their hostile and threatening behaviour.

Fourth year student David Elmaleh commented, “York has demonstrated that when democratic and orderly processes do not achieve a desired outcome for a group of students, deplorable intimidation and mob tactics do.”

The York administration pays lip service to the goal of turning down the heat on this issue, but where is the proof if it? There seems to be no end in sight to the constant violations of civic discourse initiated in every case by belligerent anti-Zionists.

One student told the Tribune, “I can honestly say I no longer feel safe on campus…What if one of the [anti-Zionist] students carried a gun? Or a knife?...How can York stand idly by when members of the York community stand up in Vari Hall, use a sound system that is clearly not allowed and proudly state that the Holocaust was a myth and a Jewish creation?”

When security guards at the disrupted speech were begged to intervene and disperse the crowd and shut down the illegal sound system, they did nothing (not for the first time). They told the student “to file a complaint and set up a meeting, even after a Jewish student almost got thrown over the railing….”

When he was minister of Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs in 2002, Natan Sharansky toured campuses in North America and Europe to assess in general the extent of what Daniel Pipes calls “the palestiniazition of the academy” in the Diaspora. He was particularly struck by York University as a worrisome centre of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish virulence.

Here we are six years later and nothing has changed. The York administration must get serious about taking back their campus from radicals, and for ensuring that all their students feel safe and protected from violence or the threat of violence. It’s enough already.

This is why I ignore polls

Media outlets are always incredibly irresponsible when it comes to reporting on polls. They like to use them to create stories for the Canadian public. I’ve never taken a statistical analysis course (I really wish I had) but I do know from my political “science” studies that jumping to conclusions about stats is a dangerous thing.

This is what the Globe & Mail reported about the latest polls and trends.

The margin of error is 3%. Look at those numbers and you’ll have trouble finding a change that is more than 3%. The Greens and the NDP are the only ones that experienced significant changes in support.

The February and March polls both show the Conservatives to be 12% or 11% ahead of the Liberals. Yet the actual percentage change in support is still within the margin of error of the 2006 election. The fact that the numbers stayed about the same for two months and the percentage of support for the Conservatives did grow more than the margin of error from November to February indicates that there was a real increase of support for the Conservatives. This poll would have to be compared to other polls at the time to be able to absolutely say that the Conservatives had more support. That possible increase, however, was not overwhelmingly awesome. The Conservatives would most likely still have a minority if those numbers were shown to be true.

The number has now dropped, within the margin of error, to the same percent number that the Conservatives received during the last election. This could indicate a drop of real support; it could also indicate that the previous number exaggerated the level of support. Really we would have to look at what the other polls taken at the same time reported.

Now that is all technical stuff and my understanding is limited to a layman’s conception on how margin of error works. If there is anyone who reads this that does know how it works, please correct any mistakes I’ve made.

The main problem I have with the poll is the conclusion they jump to. They point to an 8% drop (didn’t tell us the margin of error for Ontario) of Conservative support in Ontario and blame Flaherty because of his “war of words” with McGuinty. I have no idea what they based that conclusion on. It is not a completely unfair possible explanation for the drop, but it is hardly the only explanation. An alternative is found within the very same article. Ontario, they say, are particularly concerned about a recession. A public that is concerned about economic downturns often lose faith in the governing party. If the polls were taken at the same time, then it is even more likely that Canadians were considering the economy when voicing their support. My explanation has more evidence than Brian Laghi’s and yet it was not mentioned.

I don’t mind that Laghi gives his own impression on what the polling trends signify. I object to him presenting only one possibility. I understand that reporters like stories, and so they like to make things into nice neat narratives. Life unfortunately does not work like that, and they should not reject any information or possibility that does not fit their invented story line.

Funny Hillary 3am spoof

This cracked me up.

The Demoprotectionists

I'm not a big fan of McCain or most of the Republican Party. But crap like what Speaker Pelosi pulled on the free trade agreement with Columbia makes me really hope the Democrats don't get the White House.

We should all remember that Canada does very well by trading with the US. If a protectionist President gets into power it would be bad for America and it would be bad for Canada.

This is what the Wall Street Journal had to say on the Pelosi's idiocy...

Pelosi's Bad Faith
April 10, 2008; Page A14

The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America.

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.

Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.

The latest Democratic objection is that Bogotá isn't doing enough to protect labor activists. But the murders of trade unionists have fallen by almost 80% since 2002, in part because of special protection programs, and Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has reduced other violence by nearly every measure, particularly against narco-traffickers. But any excuse will do. Yesterday Ms. Pelosi said the bill would harm "the economic concerns of America's working families." Yet over 90% of Colombian imports enter the U.S. duty-free, while the agreement would open the Colombian market to American goods that face tariffs as high as 35%.

Even if the free trade agreement is somehow removed from cold storage, Ms. Pelosi's cheating is a first-order strategic blunder. Colombia is one of America's closest friends in a hostile region menaced by Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. For all the talk of repairing the U.S. "image" in the world, the Democrats don't really mind harming that image if it pleases the AFL-CIO.

The Audacity of Gushing

The third chapter in Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope is called “Our constitution.” It is about…surprise…the American constitution.

Apparently he thinks the American constitution is a good thing. I suppose that is a positive trait in an American president. He gushes a lot in this chapter. I suppose he gushes a lot in general.

Specifically he gushes about the tradition and power of the Senate. He devotes a good deal of time to Senator Byrd and how important his position is as the Dean of the Senate. Personally I’m unimpressed with Senator Byrd’s ability not to drop dead. With the best (worse) incumbency return rate in any western democracy, all a Senator has to do is keep breathing to stay in power. So basically Byrd gets to be the Dean because he got in young enough and never let Ted Kennedy drive him home. (cheap shot I know but its 3 in the morning I can’t sleep so I’m in a bit of a mood)

He gushes about Madison and the other founding fathers. Madison was the President that decided a certain collection of colonies to the north was fair game for conquest. Obama didn’t mention that. Instead he talked about how Madison framed the constitution.

This led to gushing about the constitution. He describes it as a living document; as a set of guidelines to mold and deliberate democratic discussions. He dismisses the idea that the constitution should not be taken literally in all places and claims it is the underlining principles that he cares about. I don’t know much about the American constitution (something about separating something) nor do I really care about the American constitution. So I’m going to just put that bit of intellectual acrobats to one side.

My main problem with this chapter is that it didn’t really tell me anything about Obama’s vision. I’m three chapters into this book and I don’t think I have a better understanding of Obama’s idea of America than I did before. The little content hidden away in his rhetoric is either unoriginal or painfully dull.

I am told that he contributes a great deal to the writing of his own speeches. I believe it. This book is written in much the same manner. It sounds impressive but is ultimately meaningless.

He also gushes about his daughters and his life in Washington without his family. But I suppose I can forgive a man for getting sentimental about a family he rarely sees.

Warren Kinsella on Political Animals

The radio show Political Animals interviewed Warren Kinsella. One of the interviewers was Peter Jaworski, another blogger on the Bloggingtories role.

The interview, not surprisingly, was about the HRC. Kinsella came off as not quite the cheerleader that I thought he was, though he is still wrong in my humble opinion.

At any rate it’s a good show. If you have an hour to kill you should listen to it.

About an hour into it some idiot pulls out a copy of J.S. Mill’s On Liberty and quotes it. I hate it when people do things like that.

Can the Liberal Party please start acting like an oppostion party?

Norma Greenaway reported yesterday that 2/3 of Canadians want the flag to go at half mass every time a soldier dies.

Well no kidding. Of course most Canadians want to honour our fallen soldiers. I’d be interested to know exactly how the questions of this survey were worded. I have the suspicion that it was something like, “Should we honour the death of a soldier with lowering the flag?” Who is going to say no to that?

Greenaway misses the point. The Legion has said that they don’t want the flag lowered. The Legion often acts as a sort of soldier’s union. They speak for the interests of veterans and soldiers. So if the voice of the soldiers doesn’t want it then why do it?

Think about it this way: we lower the flag with the purpose of honouring the slain. If the soldiers don’t feel like it honours their dead comrade, then it is an empty gesture. No one is actually being honoured.

This is nothing but political gamesmanship. The Liberals say that the Conservative government wants to hide the impact of the war by not lowering the flag on the Peace Tower. Are they stupid? Do you think some guy in Winnipeg is going to not know that a soldier died because a flag in Ottawa is at half mass? Do you think that the media won’t report the death?

No I don’t think they are stupid. I think they know what they are saying is ridiculous. I think they know that the Conservatives care about the soldiers at least as much as they do. I think they are using this purely to score points, and I think that is disgusting.

I don’t hate Liberals. I don’t even hate the NDP. I like to think that all Canadian politicians are good people (with a few notable exceptions). So when I say that it is disgusting this is not a partisan attack. If the Tories were doing the same thing it would be just as despicable.

Now put this in context with everything else that has happened since Dion was elected.

The Liberal Party attacks with full force anytime there is a hint of a scandal. Now look at each of these ‘scandals.’ Mulroney accepted money in a shady business deal 16 years ago. A couple of overzealous twits offered a bribe to a now dead MP 3 years ago. A junior MP made a distasteful joke 17 years ago, and has given an honest apology for it. This is my favorite; a MP looks at pictures of his hot girlfriend during Question Period.

Okay so they have a lot of pretty lame scandals here. Really Cadman was the only thing that looked like it could be something, but pretty much everyone involved agrees that Harper didn’t know anything at the time. So even that looks like it’s going nowhere.

At the same time the Liberal Party has allowed every single budget to pass unchallenged. Harper is practically running a majority with his ability to get legislature through.

Attacking on nothing scandals and not seriously opposing government policy…

I am left with the only possible conclusion. The Liberal Party has no idea how to be an opposition party.

Colombia and Secretary Rice

Ever wonder what it would look like for the US to follow Canada's lead? Well here it is with Secretary of State Rice in the Wall Street Journal.

She makes the administration's case for free trade with Colombia. These arguments are pretty much what Harper's government used with our FT agreement with the troubled country. I found them convincing for Canada and they are even more convincing for the US.

The Colombia Trade Stakes

By CONDOLEEZZA RICE
April 7, 2008; Page A13

It is not every day that our government, with one bold stroke, could strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. workers; support a democratic ally on the cusp of achieving lasting national success; weaken those who would sow instability and autocracy in our hemisphere; and send an unequivocal signal to the entire world that the United States is a confident, capable global leader that acts not only in its own interest, but in the interest of its friends.

All of this is what we can gain if Congress approves the free trade agreement that our administration has negotiated with Colombia. We have had ample time for deliberation. Soon it will be time for a decision.

With courage and sacrifice, Colombians have taken their nation from the verge of failure to the brink of peace and prosperity in little more than a decade. The U.S. has been with them every step of the way. With our sustained bipartisan support, begun by President Clinton and Congress in the 1990s and expanded by President Bush and Congress since 2001, Colombia's democratic government and its people have reclaimed their country from the FARC – a narco-terrorist group that, disturbing new information suggests, has been receiving assistance from beyond Colombia's borders.

Today, as war has given way to growing security, Colombians who once fled their homes in fear are returning by the thousands. Democratic institutions and the rule of law are growing stronger and more inclusive. Unemployment and poverty are at their lowest levels in over a decade and a growing economy is creating good jobs for Colombians in their own country. In short, Colombia is becoming a normal nation again.

In February, I saw some of this progress firsthand when I visited Medellin with nine Democratic members of Congress. Once the murder capital of the world and the home of Pablo Escobar, Medellin today is a place of safer neighborhoods, thriving businesses and a palpable hope that pervades the city. Medellin is but one reflection of the brave and difficult decisions that Colombia's government is making nationwide. Passing the free trade agreement would reinforce these good decisions and enable Colombia to expand prosperity and social justice to more of its people.

Colombia's transformation to an increasingly stable and prosperous democracy is one of the world's great victories for human rights. Still, this progress has been accompanied by violent crimes, including the murder of labor leaders and other innocent people. This is unacceptable to us and it is unacceptable to President Alvaro Uribe, whose government is working to bring the guilty to justice and to protect all Colombians. Since 2002, the murder of trade unionists has fallen by nearly 80%. But as President Uribe has rightly said, when it comes to murders and crimes against innocent Colombians, his goal is "zero."

Colombia is a functioning democracy. The fact that our friend remains imperfect, and that it still faces overwhelming challenges, should lead us not to withdraw our support, but to increase it – to help Colombia's legal and democratic institutions function more accountably, more effectively and more transparently. And that is exactly what this trade agreement would do.

This agreement is also a far better deal for U.S. workers than the one they have now. At present, more than 90% of Colombian goods enter the U.S. duty-free, while our exports to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35%. This agreement would level the playing field for U.S. workers, enabling them to send the products of their labor to Colombia on the same terms that Colombians now send theirs to us. The result, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, would be an annual increase of approximately $1.1 billion in U.S. exports to Colombia.

Beyond our economic interests, this agreement will also further our national interest in a free and peaceful hemisphere. Some in the Americas today want to shove the region toward authoritarianism. This system has failed before, and it will fail again. The only question is how much harm it will cause in the meantime, and in large part that depends on us – on whether we support the vast majority of people in the Americas today who believe, as we do, that security and social justice are best achieved through liberty and the rule of law, free and fair trade, and responsible democratic governance. Colombia shares these values, and we have invested billions of dollars in our ally's success. How could we possibly retreat now?

The fate of this agreement raises even larger questions: How does the U.S. treat its friends, especially when they are under pressure and attack? Will we remain engaged as a global leader or will we pull back unilaterally? Will we define our role in the world by confidence in our own principles or by capitulation to unfounded fears? The eyes of many nations, particularly those in our own hemisphere, are upon us, and let no one think that the choices we make will not echo around the globe.

For more than a decade, U.S. policy toward Colombia has clearly demonstrated that Republicans and Democrats can work together, elevate the national interest above partisan politics and sustain an effective strategy to achieve critical long-term goals. It is now time to write the next chapter in this venerable bipartisan story. We must approve this free trade agreement with Colombia – for the sake of both of our peoples' success.

Ms. Rice is U.S. secretary of state.

More Blockades?

Some native leaders are threatening actions like the blockade of Highway 411 last year. It annoys me that they think they can break the law without impunity. It angers me that Caledonia proves that they can.

There are a few things that are nonsense about the position presented in this article.

For one thing any native protests will be nothing like the civil rights movement in the States. There are no segregated schools, there are no restaurants that refuse to serve them, they do not have to sit at the back of the bus, they get free access to University, and they don’t pay income tax. There position is not the same as black America before the 1960s.

The situation on reserves is bad. I don’t think there is anyone denying that. Some reserves are better than others, but the standard of living tends to be the lowest in Canada. A lot of the reason for this is because of things that the federal government has done to them. A lot of the reason for this is because of what their own leadership does.

I’m not accusing them of corruption. I have no evidence that any of them are, but I will say that they are incompetent.

Consider the biggest bone of contention between the Chiefs and the Federal government. Chuck Strahl wants to audit the tribal councils. Think about it. The Federal government is giving them money and now wants to know where that money is going. The tribal governments do not want to allow such an audit.

This is basic accountability. They are always screaming for more money, but there is never evidence that they are putting the money they have to good use.

I’ll say one last thing. Blockading is the wrong strategy. Even if you take out the legal issues it is not what they should do. All it does, all that Caledonia does, is inconvenience the rest of society. It prevents people from getting to work to make money for the care of their family. It prevents people from visiting loved ones or going to plays and other entertainments. All it does is piss everyone off. People lose sympathy and begin to wonder why the OPP doesn’t just drag them off to jail.

They say that support for natives is a mile wide and an inch deep. All that they will be doing is making it just a little shallower.

The Nanny State says eat your veggies

Children need to be protected. They don’t have life experience or basic knowledge that is required to make rational decisions. Of course they are going to eat nothing but candy. Even if they are told that it would make them sick they’ll still do it.

This is the rational of MP Rosario Marchese. He wants to ban food advertisement to children. Those capitalists scum have been manipulating Canadian children. They have been tricking them into wanting unhealthy food that tastes really good. How do they make children eat candy? Well they have this team of psychologists that brainwash them through the television.

I find this very aggravating because he comes so close to the fundamental point that he is missing.

“Because we consider children to be a vulnerable group, our view is that we should prohibit commercial advertising altogether, so that we don't have to worry about distinguishing between this and that. We leave that to parents.”

That’s right the parents. How do you think these kids are getting the candy? I don’t know any 10 year olds that are independently wealthy enough to become fat. It’s the parents that provide the candy (or the allowance the buys the candy); it is the parents who are ultimately responsible.

Sure an ad on TV can affect the demands that the child makes, but when was the last time kids asked for something healthy anyway? When my parents asked me what I wanted I would always say skittles, marshmallows, and Kraft Dinner. My mom would generally buy them (she’s a softy) but she would also buy (this is key) healthy foods. If I wanted to eat the unhealthy stuff I had to eat the healthy stuff too.

My parents weren’t strict about monitoring my diet. Mostly I made good decisions (goodish) on my own. A child who is obese is not making good decisions. The parents should more actively control their child’s diet.

Banning candy commercials won’t help much. Children will still want candy and not broccoli no matter what is on TV. The free speech of these corporations should not be curtailed simply because some children over eat their product. It is the parent’s job to make sure that the children are healthy. It is not the job of the corporation nor is it the job of the state.

The Audicity of Being Dull

Yesterday I finished the second chapter of Obama’s Audacity of Hope, titled Values. Since I said I will post a report on each chapter here it is:

It was well written but very boring. I have never read anything that said nothing so well. He talked about how Americans all have similar values and how politicians struggle with their values in competitive politics. Blah, blah, blah, etc, etc.

One of the values he stated as being in important is politeness. He gains hope for the fate of humanity anytime that a young person says sir or thank you. Well yippee Mr. Obama. Good for you. You figured out that most people believe in politeness and apple pie. It’s nice that Americans have more in common than they have different, but their commonality does not gloss over the difference.

How do you reconcile someone who thinks homosexuality is an abomination with someone that goes out looking for gay love every night? Sure these two people might have some values in common. They might both like the words please and thank you. Yet the one value difference is important enough to them that they have trouble coexisting.

I kept waiting for a solution to that problem, but none came.

I will give him some credit though; he went out of his way to not demonize President Bush. He even claimed to have put his arm around him.

Marc Emery is writing for the Western Standard

I guess the title says everything that needs saying. Enjoy.

Supply and Demand

Both Canada and the United States are going to have to make a decision. It is a decision between green house gas and cheep energy. If you want to cut down on the use of oil and energy you should cut subsidies and price controls. If you want low energy prices you are going to have to deal with high levels of green house gas emissions.

The way it should be

Abortion was being debated at the University of Toronto St. George campus yesterday. Two sides of the debate were handing out literature, making their arguments. Men and women of passion were debating the merits of either side. They were talking biology, theology, and philosophy to describe their ideas on this divisive matter. I saw no one shouting. I saw no one yelling hateful things or cruel insults. This is the way it should always be.

I am pro-choice, but I have a respect for the pro-life position. I think that they have strong arguments. Not strong enough to convince me, but strong enough to be worthy of intellectual respect. There are those in the pro-choice movement that likens the banning of abortions to the beating of wives. I find this sort of argument disgusting.

Why can so few people have a rational debate about this topic? Why must it always degenerate into abusive words on both sides? I’m proud that my University has such debates openly and intelligently, unlike a certain group.

The pro-life group had posters. The posters displayed images of aborted babies. I always thought that this was a fair tactic. If their argument is that a fetus is a baby, showing pictures that demonstrate that they look like babies is fair.

There was one poster that I thought was out of line. It implicitly compared pro-choice people as being Nazis and the KKK. I guess the poster was meant to shock, as was the other pictures. It is unfortunate and does not promote open debate. Pro-life people should recognize that pro-choice supporters have legitimate and strong arguments. We are not heartless nor are we cruel.

I think most pro-life people are respectful of the opposing side, and overall I am happy with the way my fellow students conducted themselves. If any of you know of any incidents that makes a lie of my positivity, I think at this point I would rather remain ignorant and impressed by the maturity of my peers.

Okay no constitutional negotiations

So it would appear that the Hon. Blackburn is a bit of an idiot.

Cannon Had to come down from the mountain and tell us that the Conservative Party has no interest in opening up the constitution. I'm glad that we don't have to go down that quagmire. Just keep practicing 'open federalism' and it will all be gravy.

Dion Weirdness

Politics has always been a strange business but Dion is making it weirder and weirder. The Globe and Mail tells me that they are dropping the injunction on the Liberal list of Quebec candidates. This is probably a good idea, but I cannot for the life of me understand why they would have launched legal action in the first place.

This is the part that confuses me the most:

The party sought the injunction because it was concerned for the privacy of some of the individuals, arguing their careers could be harmed if it became known that they were considering running for office.

First of all I thought this was a list of candidates, not potential candidates. These aren’t people considering running for office, they are running for office. The distinction is important. They have made the choice to leave private life and enter electoral politics. Not that this mean they have no right to privacy, but how they hell or why the hell should they hide that the very fact that they are candidates?

You have to get elected. The earlier you start trying to do so the better. The moment a good candidate gets the nomination he should be out there introducing himself to people. Secrecy works against them.

What careers do these people have? Running for public office is a constitutional right. No boss can interfere with that. If they are civil servants I suppose it would hurt their career. They would no longer be trusted to be unpartisan. Yet, I’m sorry to sound harsh, they are now candidates. They have made their decision to take that risk. The people should know who it is that wants to represent them in Parliament.

The only thing I can think of is that they want to stop the list from being public to cover up a lie. The Liberals told us that they had 50 candidates with 12 ‘star candidates’. The list only has 33 names.

I have faith in one thing and one thing above all things, the Liberal Party’s ability to lie convincingly. If 50 candidates was a lie it was a bad lie. A bad lie is a lie that would be easy to prove is false. A bad lie is a lie that can be shown wrong by a leaked list.

The Liberal Party, upon viewing the list, now claims that the list is not the real full tally of candidate names. I take this as more of a backing down.

“Oh this is the list you were talking about! That’s alright then. I thought you were talking about something else.”

I don’t really care, nor do I know, if the list is the complete compilation or not. The true message here is…Dion is just weird

Dough Ray Me

Everything you ever wanted to know about monetary policy but was afraid to ask.

here, here, and here

Change the constitution again?

Jean-Pierre Blackburn says that the Conservatives could be willing to open up the constitution if they win a large number of seats in Quebec. This makes me uneasy because I’m not sure what he means. He refers to historical demands but even as a student of Canadian history I don’t know what that is. Different time’s different groups have demanded different things. I would, for example, be very comfortable in giving into the Union Nationale’s demands in the 1940s. Mainly to be left alone and there be no conscription.

The possible changes that the Globe and Mail brought up come from the Meech Accord. My main problem with the Meech Accord is that it operates in a cultural compact theory (Canada is an alliance of two cultures). I much prefer the provincial compact theory (Canada is a collection of distinct provinces). I think that the latter really represents the true nature of Canada.

The possible changes are:

- Recognition of Quebec as a distinct society

Sure as long as you recognize the neighbourhood around Dundas-Spadina as a unique society.

- Participation in appointing Supreme Court judges

Umm…not sure why Quebec should get this power or why they would particularly want it. If you were to do this I would say have all the provinces equally participate. Really though, I think that this is an appropriate power for the federal government.

- Increased powers in immigration

This one is a little obvious. They wanted to only allow French speakers. Well sometimes immigration policy is affected by foreign policy. If a country signs a treaty that says they have to open their borders to immigrants than Quebec has to be included. This is a provincial government overreaching into what is appropriately federal jurisdiction.

- Limiting Ottawa's spending powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction

I agree with this one.

- A Quebec veto on constitutional change

Only if every province gets one. This is the most “cultural compact” inspired of the five. If you buy into provincial-compact theory instead this provision makes no sense. Quebec has a large influence on constitutional changes as it is. There is no need to increase it.

I don’t think that Harper would propose these ideas again. He is a westerner so I doubt that he has a cultural-compact vision of Canada. He would know too well the deep divisions within “English Speaking Canada.”

I sincerely hope that if there is a serious proposal that he presents it well before an election. Constitutional changes are not the sort of thing you announce in…well let’s pretend something like that was once announced in the middle of a campaign debate. Wouldn’t that look stupid?

I'm joining the Liberal Party

Some of you may know that I am dating a Liberal. I have been for more than 5 months. It has been a long process, but finally she has convinced me. I am leaving the Conservative Party and joining the Liberal Party.

Looking back at my life as a Conservative I can’t believe how cold hearted I was. Why didn’t I ever care about the poor or the oppression of women? Why didn’t I want the government to take action to make life better for everyone? Of course the rich should pay for everything. They are the ones with money after all! They are just being greedy if they are not willing to pay more taxes. After all it is the poor that makes their business possible.

Government programs are clearly the solution for any problem.

How do you stop global warming? You cut worldwide Carbon emissions by .5% of course!

How do you fix poverty? You give them more money! What could be more obvious?

How do you stop crime? You recognize the true victims are the criminals and you assign them a social worker. That is the compassionate way to deal with murderers and thieves.

As well as policy I find that my views on people have begun to change. Conrad Black was an prick that got what he deserved. George Stroumboulopoulos suddenly looks very sexy and cool to me. Ezra Levant is a self centered dick that hates muslims and wants to destroy human rights! But most of all…Stephane Dion is a leader!

The media is out to get him. It is a grand right wing conspiracy in the media to destroy the Liberal Party. But that’s okay! Dion is simply playing the expectations game. He is going to lower expectations so much that when there is actually an election…wow! He’s going to blow us away with his “soft charisma” and his Parisian charm.

You Conservatives hate him because you know that he is everything that you are not. He is compassionate. He cares about our children’s future. He is sophisticated and educated.

That’s another thing. I never stopped to think, “Why are so many academics on the side of the Liberals?” The smartest people in the University system! I mean really…obviously only an idiot would be a Conservative.

Thank you my dear girlfriend, and thank you mighty leader Dion. I am now free to believe in the awesome power of the state.

The Audacity of Blaming the Baby Boomers

I get my dickish sense of humour from my father. A while ago I was feeling stressed with a litany of essays to write and a head cold that wouldn’t go away. My dear old father promised me gifts to cheer me up. He brought me the first season of Gilmore Girls and Obama’s The Audacity of Hope.

I watched the Gilmore Girls and actually found it to be a fascinating study of agrarian romanticism and class resentment. But that is a post for another time I suppose.

I have decided that I am going to review each chapter of Obama’s book. I likely won’t read it very quickly because I am at the same time reading Nietzsche, Mills, and a junk novel by Bernard Cornwell. But anytime I work my way through a chapter I’ll report my thoughts on it.

The first chapter is titled, Republicans and Democrats. Barack tries to explain the reasons why Washington has become dysfunctional. He starts by pointing to a cycle of nastiness, attack ads and name calling. He makes an effort not to sound like he is blaming the Republicans but really he is. Then again he makes no pretense in being anything but a Democrat, so I can let that go.

What I find most interesting is that he blames the 60s as the origin of the politics of division. He makes it sound like all the issues of the last 40 years is defined by the old grudges earned in 1968. Reagan is suppose to be a reaction to the hippy liberalism; a resentment by those that did not follow the counter culture. Since Reagan, Obama supposes, America has been subjected to the continuation of an old campus feud.

I find this perspective difficult to argue against and nearly impossible to accept. I just don’t have the generational experience to say, “that’s not what happened.” I only know about the 60s because I’ve seen Forrest Gump and That Thing You Do. I accuse the campus socialists of generational envy when it comes to campus riots and protests. Yet I doubt they have any better understanding of the 60s than I do. How can I talk about a post-60s world? How can fish talk about water?

From a perspective limited to my own generation, I find it hard to simply accept that something so removed can have such an effect. For one thing not everyone’s 60s was portrayed in Across the Universe. The entire body politic did not find its origins in various apposing social clubs of 1968 Yale and Harvard. How can you attribute such power to one piece of a puzzle?

Obama’s own idea of the 60s is generationally removed. He did not become politically aware in the 60s. He did become politically aware with the romantic ideal of the 60s that was presented by his mother (he himself described this). Of course he is going to have an exaggerated view of the importance of 1968. He was taught that exaggeration his entire life.

Also I think he has a bit of an ideological blindspot when it comes to Reagan. He describes Republican trust in the market as a blind faith. He doesn’t suppose any intellectual reason for thinking that the Free Market does solve most problems. Instead he attributes Reagan’s Presidency and popularity as being a reactionary force, or a counter-revolution. It only came about because the liberal governments failed to make true of their promises. Never mind that they failed not out of ineptness; it failed because it was based on a now debunked theory of economics.

I am not convinced by the way that Obama frames the issue, but I can’t disagree with his fundamental conclusion:

Democrats and Republicans do not agree with each other.

Thank you for clearing that up Mr. Obama.