Posts
In this segment Fox New's Bill O'Reilly says that he "doesn't care what adults do, I don't care if they smoke pot." You then goes on to explain that he doesn't want children to smoke pot.
Bill O'Reilly and I are in complete agreement. Especially considering that the most harmful aspect of pot smoking is heightened in younger people. So make it legal for anyone above the age of 18.
Also note Chong's awesome shirt.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
I want to be a Member of Parliament
Usually I would sputter in outrage at the government using tax dollars for the purpose of boozing up MPs. But with billions of dollars being thrown into the waste basket every year, I just can't work up the same energy for $2 000. (Though I am surprised that the Speaker of the House has an entertaining budget of $170 000. What affairs of state would really require a Speaker to entertain?)
So instead I'm going to be very jealous. I am a man who loves his scotch (in my more honest moments I will admit that is part of the reason I came to Edinburgh for grad school). The idea that I could go to a free scotch tasting, if only I convince about 30 000 of my neighbours to send me as their voice in the Parliament of the People, is surprisingly enticing.
I may run next time around.
So instead I'm going to be very jealous. I am a man who loves his scotch (in my more honest moments I will admit that is part of the reason I came to Edinburgh for grad school). The idea that I could go to a free scotch tasting, if only I convince about 30 000 of my neighbours to send me as their voice in the Parliament of the People, is surprisingly enticing.
I may run next time around.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The best thing written about the Krieber thing
This from Scot Feschuk at Maclean's.
It is one of those rare posts that make me really wish I had written it. Though I will add one thing to it. My favourite thing about the Krieber incident is that I did not know the name of Dion's wife before this little foray into commentary. Way to be known Mrs. Krieber.
It is one of those rare posts that make me really wish I had written it. Though I will add one thing to it. My favourite thing about the Krieber incident is that I did not know the name of Dion's wife before this little foray into commentary. Way to be known Mrs. Krieber.
How to get your readers to read your article
This was the opening paragraph of this article:
Students from a Mississauga high school reached out and touched the Prime Minister's Office today, and are claiming that the PMO touched back.
Kinky eh?
Students from a Mississauga high school reached out and touched the Prime Minister's Office today, and are claiming that the PMO touched back.
Kinky eh?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Why are policies different?
There are three factors to why policies that address the same issue vary so much between political systems: ideas, interests, and institutions. No study of policy differences would be complete without reference to all three of these concepts. Ideas are defined in this essay as Craig Parsons defines them: “claims about descriptions of the world, casual relationships or the normative legitimacy of certain actions.”(Parsons 2002: 48) Interests are defined along an economic or rational choice model. That is, each actor attempts to maximize their own utility. Institutions will be defined as formal arrangements of individuals who are regulated by enforceable rules and decision making (Pontusson 1995: 25).
Each of these concepts has a place within the policy process. Solutions and perceptions of issues originate with ideas. If there is a sufficiently powerful actor with an interest connected to that issue or solution, then the policy is placed on the political agenda. Once the various actors’ interests have been negotiated or pacified the policy is adopted by the institutions. The institutions then adapt the policy to fit the existing framework. This is a simplified model of how policy is developed and implemented. It is also a simplification of the relationship between the three concepts. This model will however serve to demonstrate the reasons that policy differs between polities.
Ideas, the first stage of the model, are fundamental in explaining the origin of policy (Beland 2009: 703). Daniel Beland writes that ideas shape assumptions, provide discursive tools for actors, and often shape the agenda (Beland 2009: 702). Ideas are the most significant for how they shape assumptions. Organizational institutionalists argue that cultural assumptions produce certain policy outcomes (Campbell 1998: 382). The example of this given by Frank Dobin (as cited Campbell 1998: 382) is the difference in which France and the United States of America handled the construction of a railway network. USA, with a more individualist cultural bias, was more decentralized in their railway construction than collectivist France.
Beyond affecting solutions, ideas can shape the perception of what needs to be solved. Jean-Claude Barbier discussed French concepts of employment precariousness and its lack of counterpart in the United Kingdom (Barbier 2004). French and British employment policy would thus differ greatly because United Kingdom officials would not consider precariousness whereas it would be central in France’s employment policy. The assumptions formed by ideas create this policy difference at the very beginning of the process.
In any polity there is a limited space for policy debate on the political agenda (Beland 2009: 705). It requires a significant actor, such as political parties, unions, public servants, or businesses, to move this policy onto the agenda (Campbell 1998: 379). This is the second stage of the model mentioned in the introduction.
Since policies require an interested actor to get on the political agenda, the variant interests and distribution in power within different polities explains differences between policy outcomes. Distribution of power is important because having an interested actor is not always enough. Some actors may not be powerful enough to overcome the counter interests of another actor (Galston 2006: 549). Iain McLean in his article Rational Choice and Politics enters into a discussion of the power relations between actors with his use of the prisoner’s dilemma (McLean 1991: 502). He first assumes that politicians and civil servants, as human beings, are self interested (McLean 1991: 500). They may occasionally act in the interests of the greater good, but it is extraordinarily rare that any human being would act radically against their own interest. It is therefore important to understand how power relations work to understand why some policies are implemented and others are not.
The power relations and indeed the interests of actors are partly shaped by the institutions (Pontusson 1995: 119). It is the institutionalized power relations and interests that are crucial to the development of policy (Pontusson 1995: 120). Consider the electoral system as an example of an institution that shapes interests. Kenneth Arrow points out that in any electorate there are many possible majorities and it is the institutions that give them shape (Galston 2006: 545). A real world example of a policy affected by an electoral system would be the USA’s environmental policy bias towards ethanol fuel. The reason for this bias can easily be traced to the order of Presidential primaries, which give corn growers in Iowa disproportionate power. Presidential candidates give their support for ethanol to ensure that they would gain an early lead against their opponents. In this way the institution of the electoral system influences the policies that politicians have an interest in.
Beyond institutions affecting the interests of actors, they also affect the manner in which a policy concept is actually implemented, which is the third and final stage of the model. John Hudson et al provide a clear example of this in his comparison of Third Way policies in the United Kingdom and Germany (Hudson et al 2008). German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair were both Third Way proponents with a similar enough vision to publish a joint document of policy principles (Hudson et al 2008: 209). However, as Hudson points out, the institutional history of Germany and the UK are significantly different (Hudson et al 2008: 211). This meant that the actual application of these joint principles were different. For example Mr. Blair increased employment regulation and Mr. Schroder decreased employment regulation, which actually brought the two countries closer together (Hudson et al 2008: 217). This example demonstrates that even with the same ideas, institutions can create different policy outcomes.
This paper has been working with a simplified policy development model of ideas being adopted by interests then adaption by existing institutions. At each stage it is clear how different political systems can have different policy outcomes. Between polities ideas, interests, and institutions are all different. They each then have a different effect on the policy out comes in different polities.
(This is a thousand word essay I wrote for my graduate program. If anyone is interested in the references you can e-mail me for the bibliography hughmacintyre@aol.com)
Each of these concepts has a place within the policy process. Solutions and perceptions of issues originate with ideas. If there is a sufficiently powerful actor with an interest connected to that issue or solution, then the policy is placed on the political agenda. Once the various actors’ interests have been negotiated or pacified the policy is adopted by the institutions. The institutions then adapt the policy to fit the existing framework. This is a simplified model of how policy is developed and implemented. It is also a simplification of the relationship between the three concepts. This model will however serve to demonstrate the reasons that policy differs between polities.
Ideas, the first stage of the model, are fundamental in explaining the origin of policy (Beland 2009: 703). Daniel Beland writes that ideas shape assumptions, provide discursive tools for actors, and often shape the agenda (Beland 2009: 702). Ideas are the most significant for how they shape assumptions. Organizational institutionalists argue that cultural assumptions produce certain policy outcomes (Campbell 1998: 382). The example of this given by Frank Dobin (as cited Campbell 1998: 382) is the difference in which France and the United States of America handled the construction of a railway network. USA, with a more individualist cultural bias, was more decentralized in their railway construction than collectivist France.
Beyond affecting solutions, ideas can shape the perception of what needs to be solved. Jean-Claude Barbier discussed French concepts of employment precariousness and its lack of counterpart in the United Kingdom (Barbier 2004). French and British employment policy would thus differ greatly because United Kingdom officials would not consider precariousness whereas it would be central in France’s employment policy. The assumptions formed by ideas create this policy difference at the very beginning of the process.
In any polity there is a limited space for policy debate on the political agenda (Beland 2009: 705). It requires a significant actor, such as political parties, unions, public servants, or businesses, to move this policy onto the agenda (Campbell 1998: 379). This is the second stage of the model mentioned in the introduction.
Since policies require an interested actor to get on the political agenda, the variant interests and distribution in power within different polities explains differences between policy outcomes. Distribution of power is important because having an interested actor is not always enough. Some actors may not be powerful enough to overcome the counter interests of another actor (Galston 2006: 549). Iain McLean in his article Rational Choice and Politics enters into a discussion of the power relations between actors with his use of the prisoner’s dilemma (McLean 1991: 502). He first assumes that politicians and civil servants, as human beings, are self interested (McLean 1991: 500). They may occasionally act in the interests of the greater good, but it is extraordinarily rare that any human being would act radically against their own interest. It is therefore important to understand how power relations work to understand why some policies are implemented and others are not.
The power relations and indeed the interests of actors are partly shaped by the institutions (Pontusson 1995: 119). It is the institutionalized power relations and interests that are crucial to the development of policy (Pontusson 1995: 120). Consider the electoral system as an example of an institution that shapes interests. Kenneth Arrow points out that in any electorate there are many possible majorities and it is the institutions that give them shape (Galston 2006: 545). A real world example of a policy affected by an electoral system would be the USA’s environmental policy bias towards ethanol fuel. The reason for this bias can easily be traced to the order of Presidential primaries, which give corn growers in Iowa disproportionate power. Presidential candidates give their support for ethanol to ensure that they would gain an early lead against their opponents. In this way the institution of the electoral system influences the policies that politicians have an interest in.
Beyond institutions affecting the interests of actors, they also affect the manner in which a policy concept is actually implemented, which is the third and final stage of the model. John Hudson et al provide a clear example of this in his comparison of Third Way policies in the United Kingdom and Germany (Hudson et al 2008). German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair were both Third Way proponents with a similar enough vision to publish a joint document of policy principles (Hudson et al 2008: 209). However, as Hudson points out, the institutional history of Germany and the UK are significantly different (Hudson et al 2008: 211). This meant that the actual application of these joint principles were different. For example Mr. Blair increased employment regulation and Mr. Schroder decreased employment regulation, which actually brought the two countries closer together (Hudson et al 2008: 217). This example demonstrates that even with the same ideas, institutions can create different policy outcomes.
This paper has been working with a simplified policy development model of ideas being adopted by interests then adaption by existing institutions. At each stage it is clear how different political systems can have different policy outcomes. Between polities ideas, interests, and institutions are all different. They each then have a different effect on the policy out comes in different polities.
(This is a thousand word essay I wrote for my graduate program. If anyone is interested in the references you can e-mail me for the bibliography hughmacintyre@aol.com)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Shut up Lisa MacLeod (VI): Six things you should know about Lisa MacLeod shutting up
It was demanded upon me to make this next installment of my popular series: Shut up Lisa MacLeod.
Today's episode involves an opinion piece that she co-wrote for the National Post, regarding the HST. In it she isn't as mind numbingly foolish as she has been previously, so maybe she should get someone to co-write everything she says. But luckily for my readers there is still plenty of silliness to mock.
She makes six points in opposition to the Harmonized Sales Tax:
1. Ontario is surrendering its constitutional taxation powers.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that allows regional governments unlimited taxation powers. Believe me, many in the Scottish Government looks towards Canada with envy. So this indeed is an important power to protect. Luckily it isn't actually in danger. The Parliament of Ontario is still free to levy all the taxes that they want thank you very much.
I admit that most of the knots and bolts issues regarding the sales tax will be handled by the Federal government. MacLeod claims that this means taxation without representation. As if Ontario wasn't represented in the Federal Parliament. Wait...what province is the Finance Minister from again...I forget...
2. There will be a hidden tax
The GST is currently at 5% and the PST is currently at 8%. What exactly is being hidden here? Is it that she's afraid Ontarians can't do basic math?
3. There is no evidence that harmonized taxes work in other federal jurisdictions
Her argument here is basically that just because it has been done in other countries doesn't mean that it will work well here. This is not an entirely unfounded complaint. One of the things I'm learning about in Grad school is pitfalls of cross country policy analyses. It is not so simple to say that something was done there so we can do the exact same thing here. The institutions and organizations are different in every country.
That being said it is possible to learn from the mistakes and successes of other country's policy. We can take those lessons, adjust them to particularly Canadian needs, and apply them. How do I know that this can be done? Well because it is done all the time. You would in fact be hard pressed to find policy proposals in Canada that wasn't in some way partially based on policies in an other jurisdiction. So why won't HST work in Canada again?
4. It will cost businesses money and resources to learn the new system
This is true. It is also true of any policy change made ever. There is always a capital investment made into learning how a law, policy, or institution works. That is part of the reason why it is so hard to change things, people don't want to give up that investment. This is basically an argument against the government doing anything...hang on...hmmm...
But anyway I doubt the cost will be as much as say MPPs moving to half day or MPPs recieving free childcare.
5. Companies that are exempt won't be exempt anymore
Well good. It is bizarre to me that the government picks and chooses who pays more taxes and who pays less. The government shouldn't be giving unnatural advantages to companies or industries. If her argument here is that taxing businesses ultimately hurts consumers, then yes I agree. So we should get rid of all corporate taxes right?
6. It would be hard or impossible to undue the HST
This is a good thing if you think the HST is a good thing. It isn't really an argument for not doing it. I guess if you were unsure about the HST you would rather that it be easily reversed once it has been tested. But still, this isn't an actual argument against the HST.
Nice try though...
Today's episode involves an opinion piece that she co-wrote for the National Post, regarding the HST. In it she isn't as mind numbingly foolish as she has been previously, so maybe she should get someone to co-write everything she says. But luckily for my readers there is still plenty of silliness to mock.
She makes six points in opposition to the Harmonized Sales Tax:
1. Ontario is surrendering its constitutional taxation powers.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that allows regional governments unlimited taxation powers. Believe me, many in the Scottish Government looks towards Canada with envy. So this indeed is an important power to protect. Luckily it isn't actually in danger. The Parliament of Ontario is still free to levy all the taxes that they want thank you very much.
I admit that most of the knots and bolts issues regarding the sales tax will be handled by the Federal government. MacLeod claims that this means taxation without representation. As if Ontario wasn't represented in the Federal Parliament. Wait...what province is the Finance Minister from again...I forget...
2. There will be a hidden tax
The GST is currently at 5% and the PST is currently at 8%. What exactly is being hidden here? Is it that she's afraid Ontarians can't do basic math?
3. There is no evidence that harmonized taxes work in other federal jurisdictions
Her argument here is basically that just because it has been done in other countries doesn't mean that it will work well here. This is not an entirely unfounded complaint. One of the things I'm learning about in Grad school is pitfalls of cross country policy analyses. It is not so simple to say that something was done there so we can do the exact same thing here. The institutions and organizations are different in every country.
That being said it is possible to learn from the mistakes and successes of other country's policy. We can take those lessons, adjust them to particularly Canadian needs, and apply them. How do I know that this can be done? Well because it is done all the time. You would in fact be hard pressed to find policy proposals in Canada that wasn't in some way partially based on policies in an other jurisdiction. So why won't HST work in Canada again?
4. It will cost businesses money and resources to learn the new system
This is true. It is also true of any policy change made ever. There is always a capital investment made into learning how a law, policy, or institution works. That is part of the reason why it is so hard to change things, people don't want to give up that investment. This is basically an argument against the government doing anything...hang on...hmmm...
But anyway I doubt the cost will be as much as say MPPs moving to half day or MPPs recieving free childcare.
5. Companies that are exempt won't be exempt anymore
Well good. It is bizarre to me that the government picks and chooses who pays more taxes and who pays less. The government shouldn't be giving unnatural advantages to companies or industries. If her argument here is that taxing businesses ultimately hurts consumers, then yes I agree. So we should get rid of all corporate taxes right?
6. It would be hard or impossible to undue the HST
This is a good thing if you think the HST is a good thing. It isn't really an argument for not doing it. I guess if you were unsure about the HST you would rather that it be easily reversed once it has been tested. But still, this isn't an actual argument against the HST.
Nice try though...
Thursday, November 19, 2009
CCF fights for raw milk
Last year William Joseph wrote on this blog supporting Michael Schmidt, the raw milk crusader. Mr. Schmidt has dedicated his time and resources to reverse a law forbidding people from selling raw milk. Both Will and I have full heartily supported his cause.
Now it seems that he is going to get stronger backing than some blog (though an awesome blog).
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a well known freedom loving organization that advances the cause through the courts, has taken up Mr. Schmidt's cause.
Now it seems that he is going to get stronger backing than some blog (though an awesome blog).
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a well known freedom loving organization that advances the cause through the courts, has taken up Mr. Schmidt's cause.
The CCF has announced that it will represent Mr. Schmidt in ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the raw milk ban.
“This is about the rights of Canadians to choose a product that is safely consumed by tens of thousands of people around the world. It’s also about the right to earn an honest living free from government regulations that are unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair,” said CCF Litigation Director Karen Selick.
“There have been huge technological improvements in refrigeration, transportation and pathogen testing, in addition to the entrenchment of individuals’ constitutional rights. Consumers who want freedom of choice expect their government to make the transition to the twenty-first century and to respect their rights,” added Selick.
Marc Emery Documentary
Western Standard reports that Paul McKeever, leader of the Freedom Party, has made a documentary about Marc Emery. From the commercial it sounds like it goes as far back as his days of fighting the mandatory close on Sunday law.
Also, the Western Standard has announced that they have commissioned a biographical book on the live of Marc Emery.
Also, the Western Standard has announced that they have commissioned a biographical book on the live of Marc Emery.
Natives and Property Rights
It has long been a problem of the Native nations that their members could not own land on the reserves. All land was communally owned thus no individual could leverage their home for a loan. This prevented Natives from being able to start businesses or otherwise invest in their community.
Now in BC, at least one tribe is trying something different. The Treaty nation of Nisga'a has decided to allow its members to sell and mortgage their homes.
Hats off to the Nisga'a. It would be interesting to see how much this will improve their community.
Now in BC, at least one tribe is trying something different. The Treaty nation of Nisga'a has decided to allow its members to sell and mortgage their homes.
Hats off to the Nisga'a. It would be interesting to see how much this will improve their community.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sarah Palin in: Who cares who is coming to dinner
As I was signing into my email, a story caught my eye. Sarah Palin, former Vice President candidate and former Governor of Alaska (I'm sure she is former a lot of other stuff as well), has invited some guy named Levi Johnston to dinner.
I have to admit that I was curious. Not really curious over who Levi is or why he would be spending thanksgiving with her Formerness. No I was curious about how on Earth this could be considered news.
Turns out that Levi Johnston is the father of Mrs. Former Governor's grandchild. They seem to be having some sort of public estrangement and She Who is Former is trying to patch things up. I'm sure if I catch it on Oprah I will cry. But why would we care about this anymore than I care about anything else that comes on to that horrifically boring (though admittedly commercially successful) television show?
They say that President Obama is the celebrity politician, but they are wrong. Sarah Palin is the one that they are treating as a celebrity with endless intrusions into her personal life. I am puzzled for why Levi was interviewed by Vanity Fair or Playgirl. It's like he was someone of real interest, such as Paris Hilton, or something.
In case you have missed it, part of my point here is that Sarah Palin is a former public official. Any legitimacy the press may have in digging into a politicians family (which I think extends only as far as looking for corruption) surely ends when that politician no longer holds office.
That is to say, why should anyone give a flying fuck where Levi Johnston decides to eat turkey?
I have to admit that I was curious. Not really curious over who Levi is or why he would be spending thanksgiving with her Formerness. No I was curious about how on Earth this could be considered news.
Turns out that Levi Johnston is the father of Mrs. Former Governor's grandchild. They seem to be having some sort of public estrangement and She Who is Former is trying to patch things up. I'm sure if I catch it on Oprah I will cry. But why would we care about this anymore than I care about anything else that comes on to that horrifically boring (though admittedly commercially successful) television show?
They say that President Obama is the celebrity politician, but they are wrong. Sarah Palin is the one that they are treating as a celebrity with endless intrusions into her personal life. I am puzzled for why Levi was interviewed by Vanity Fair or Playgirl. It's like he was someone of real interest, such as Paris Hilton, or something.
In case you have missed it, part of my point here is that Sarah Palin is a former public official. Any legitimacy the press may have in digging into a politicians family (which I think extends only as far as looking for corruption) surely ends when that politician no longer holds office.
That is to say, why should anyone give a flying fuck where Levi Johnston decides to eat turkey?
Gerry Nicholls speaks to the Libertarian Party
Mr. Nicholls talks about his time at the NCC and the importance of buying his book.
(I actually did buy his book. It is a good read and I recommend it)
(I actually did buy his book. It is a good read and I recommend it)
UK citizens turn to private security firms for protection
Ultimately it is the job of the state to ensure that we are protected from violence or theft, but the state can't be everywhere nor can it do everything. That is why many citizens in the United Kingdom are hiring private firms to patrol their neighbourhoods.
According to the BBC, members of the community pay between 2 pounds and 4 pounds to have security guards protecting their area. These guards have no official police power, though the local constable can assign powers to them. The whole concept is by their mere presence they would deter any thieves.
Of course some police officials don't like this for some bizarre reason. There is a complaint being made by the Vice Chairman of the Police Federation that these guards might create confusion. People will see uniforms and be unsure about who these people are answerable to.
I am going to take a leap of faith here and assume that their uniform is not the same as a police uniform. I am also going to assume that it is illegal for any of these guards to claim to be a police officer on duty (I expect some of them are off duty or retired policemen). So exactly how are people going to be confused? When I see a mall cop or a condo security guard I don't think that they are police officers. I sincerely doubt anyone would make that mistake for longer than two seconds.
The Vice Chairman also made this claim:
I understand the public's fear of crime but actually it's the police who patrol public space and we should be very wary about giving those powers to private security companies
If the police were patrolling to the satisfaction of the public no one in the public would pay money to have more patrols. So why shouldn't the public hire more protection?
This is how former Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair would respond:
I do not see community safety as a commodity to be bought and sold and therefore we shouldn't be having the private sector in policing.
Oh it isn't a commodity is it? Then I guess police work for free, out of a sense of civic duty presumably. Seriously this is a total nonsensical argument. People have been paying for protection sense...well likely around the same time that people started paying for sex.
Also we can make a distinction here between private security and policing. No one is claiming that the justice system should be made private (at least no one here isn't). It is just that people have the freedom to hire extra protection. Much like a dance club hires bouncers or a celebrity hires bodyguards.
And finally:
Unless we get this right, we will end up with private security coming in and they will work for the rich and the poor will go without.
Or because the wealthier neighbourhoods are now better protected the police can commit more resources to those poorer areas. Or is it that you think that the rich would be better served by their private protectors than their public protectors.
Is that the real fear here? That the private sector could actually do a better job of neighbourhood patrolling than the public sector?
I leave you with that question...
According to the BBC, members of the community pay between 2 pounds and 4 pounds to have security guards protecting their area. These guards have no official police power, though the local constable can assign powers to them. The whole concept is by their mere presence they would deter any thieves.
Of course some police officials don't like this for some bizarre reason. There is a complaint being made by the Vice Chairman of the Police Federation that these guards might create confusion. People will see uniforms and be unsure about who these people are answerable to.
I am going to take a leap of faith here and assume that their uniform is not the same as a police uniform. I am also going to assume that it is illegal for any of these guards to claim to be a police officer on duty (I expect some of them are off duty or retired policemen). So exactly how are people going to be confused? When I see a mall cop or a condo security guard I don't think that they are police officers. I sincerely doubt anyone would make that mistake for longer than two seconds.
The Vice Chairman also made this claim:
I understand the public's fear of crime but actually it's the police who patrol public space and we should be very wary about giving those powers to private security companies
If the police were patrolling to the satisfaction of the public no one in the public would pay money to have more patrols. So why shouldn't the public hire more protection?
This is how former Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair would respond:
I do not see community safety as a commodity to be bought and sold and therefore we shouldn't be having the private sector in policing.
Oh it isn't a commodity is it? Then I guess police work for free, out of a sense of civic duty presumably. Seriously this is a total nonsensical argument. People have been paying for protection sense...well likely around the same time that people started paying for sex.
Also we can make a distinction here between private security and policing. No one is claiming that the justice system should be made private (at least no one here isn't). It is just that people have the freedom to hire extra protection. Much like a dance club hires bouncers or a celebrity hires bodyguards.
And finally:
Unless we get this right, we will end up with private security coming in and they will work for the rich and the poor will go without.
Or because the wealthier neighbourhoods are now better protected the police can commit more resources to those poorer areas. Or is it that you think that the rich would be better served by their private protectors than their public protectors.
Is that the real fear here? That the private sector could actually do a better job of neighbourhood patrolling than the public sector?
I leave you with that question...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Dogs fighting in Afghanistan
This is an old story about dogs landing with special forces to help sniff out insurgents.
Today an Australian soldier-dog who was missing for more than a year has been found.
I'm now going to restrain myself from making jokes about letting slip and dogs of war.
Today an Australian soldier-dog who was missing for more than a year has been found.
I'm now going to restrain myself from making jokes about letting slip and dogs of war.
Gilles Taillon: The Tories made me resign!
According to the Globe & Mail, former ADQ leader Gilles Taillon is blaming the Conservative Party of Canada for his ousting. His story is that after he cut ties with the federal party they conspired to throw him overboard.
This tale does not really scan right. First of all such ties were to the advantage of the ADQ not to the Conservative Party. In fact the ADQ had become some what of an embarrassment for Stephen Harper who was trying to patch up his relationship with Premier Jean Charest. Any Quebec strategy involving the ADQ that the federal Tories were contemplating has long since been abandoned.
All that was really left of those ties were in the body of a few party elites that moved in both federal and provincial circles, such as Senator Leo Housakos. So it is not surprising that some of these people were a little peeved at the prospect of being pushed out of the party.
Besides the connection with the Federal Tories was popular within the ADQ. They saw it as a source of pride and strength. Even if the grassroot membership didn't care, the party elites certainly enjoyed the connection. So could it be that it wasn't a Conservative conspiracy but the disgruntlement of the ADQ membership to the policies of their leader?
That scans a little better.
This tale does not really scan right. First of all such ties were to the advantage of the ADQ not to the Conservative Party. In fact the ADQ had become some what of an embarrassment for Stephen Harper who was trying to patch up his relationship with Premier Jean Charest. Any Quebec strategy involving the ADQ that the federal Tories were contemplating has long since been abandoned.
All that was really left of those ties were in the body of a few party elites that moved in both federal and provincial circles, such as Senator Leo Housakos. So it is not surprising that some of these people were a little peeved at the prospect of being pushed out of the party.
Besides the connection with the Federal Tories was popular within the ADQ. They saw it as a source of pride and strength. Even if the grassroot membership didn't care, the party elites certainly enjoyed the connection. So could it be that it wasn't a Conservative conspiracy but the disgruntlement of the ADQ membership to the policies of their leader?
That scans a little better.
Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN
Lou Dobbs informed his viewers that he was leaving to "pursue other opportunities." He lists what he thinks the concerns of the future is and instructs us, the public, to wait to see how he will contribute to solutions. Then he jumps on his familiar hobby horse of an over ideological Congress and a Washington that does not truly represent the people.
It sounds like he is running for something. Let's hope not. Lou Dobbs exemplifies what is wrong with populists. He accuses the present powers that be of lacking rigorous thought, but he would never hesitate to make emotional appeals or jump on board almost any wacky conspiracy theory bandwagon.
I can't say I rejoice at him leaving because I rarely watch CNN. If anything I fear him leaving because he may find a way to get more influence or power.
It sounds like he is running for something. Let's hope not. Lou Dobbs exemplifies what is wrong with populists. He accuses the present powers that be of lacking rigorous thought, but he would never hesitate to make emotional appeals or jump on board almost any wacky conspiracy theory bandwagon.
I can't say I rejoice at him leaving because I rarely watch CNN. If anything I fear him leaving because he may find a way to get more influence or power.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Action Democratique du Quebec is collapsing
A few days ago I commented that I thought the ADQ was doomed. Well one more nail was stuck into the coffin by the leader, Gilles Tallion, who resigned after less than a month as leader.
It could be viewed as a good thing. A controversial leader stepping down, and his controversial opponent promised not to run according to the Globe & Mail. This gives an opportunity for a compromise or peace making candidate to arrive on the scene. Perhaps someone who has stayed out of the recent conflicts. Mario Dumont himself put forth the name of Gerard Deltell.
The problem is, according to the same Globe & Mail article, that the ADQ does not have the money for a new leadership race. They are even considering the executive appointing a leader as a cost saving measure. You know you are in trouble when you are seriously considering abandoning democracy to cut costs.
Plus the wounds are still sore from the last leadership race. I know how bloody such races can be and usually they need a cooling down time. But the turmoil in the ADQ ranks has prevented people from cooling down. If anything heads have gotten hotter. It is possible, even by the admittance of ADQ members, that a new leadership race would rip the party apart.
The ADQ once gave me hope that a small government party could win in Quebec. That hope has not been completely dashed. I still think that there is an oppertunity in Quebec for a Mike Harris type politician to arise. I just don't think that politician will be a member of the ADQ.
It could be viewed as a good thing. A controversial leader stepping down, and his controversial opponent promised not to run according to the Globe & Mail. This gives an opportunity for a compromise or peace making candidate to arrive on the scene. Perhaps someone who has stayed out of the recent conflicts. Mario Dumont himself put forth the name of Gerard Deltell.
The problem is, according to the same Globe & Mail article, that the ADQ does not have the money for a new leadership race. They are even considering the executive appointing a leader as a cost saving measure. You know you are in trouble when you are seriously considering abandoning democracy to cut costs.
Plus the wounds are still sore from the last leadership race. I know how bloody such races can be and usually they need a cooling down time. But the turmoil in the ADQ ranks has prevented people from cooling down. If anything heads have gotten hotter. It is possible, even by the admittance of ADQ members, that a new leadership race would rip the party apart.
The ADQ once gave me hope that a small government party could win in Quebec. That hope has not been completely dashed. I still think that there is an oppertunity in Quebec for a Mike Harris type politician to arise. I just don't think that politician will be a member of the ADQ.
Monday, November 9, 2009
George Smitherman will run for mayor of Toronto
This is not exactly surprising but now it is finally official, Mr. Smitherman has announced that he is going to be a candidate for mayor.
I'm going to watch this campaign closely to decide who will get my support, but I like what I'm hearing so far from Smitherman. Along with his announcement Mr. Smitherman attacked tax increases and spoke of governing within "fiscal reality."
Certainly he is no right wing lunatic such as myself, but beggars can't be choosers in the city of Toronto. Besides he would certainly be better than David Miller.
There are still lots of candidates considering a run who haven't announced yet. So I'm going to wait and see how the race takes shape.
I'm going to watch this campaign closely to decide who will get my support, but I like what I'm hearing so far from Smitherman. Along with his announcement Mr. Smitherman attacked tax increases and spoke of governing within "fiscal reality."
Certainly he is no right wing lunatic such as myself, but beggars can't be choosers in the city of Toronto. Besides he would certainly be better than David Miller.
There are still lots of candidates considering a run who haven't announced yet. So I'm going to wait and see how the race takes shape.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Stelmach's victory is good for the Wildrose Alliance, but there is still a long road to travel
Mathew Johnston of Western Standard rightly points out that Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach's political survival this weekend is a good thing for the upstart Wildrose Alliance. The PC Party of Alberta may have doomed itself by deciding to continue to back their unpopular leader.
It has been the pattern of Albertan politics to elect powerful party dynasties. Then to have those dynasties suddenly collapse and have its place taken by a new dynasty. Signs of such collapse is everywhere in Alberta and there is much talk of the WA receiving the "Mandate of Heaven."
That being said, people should keep in mind that historical patterns don't work as predictions. Just because the Social Credit collapsed and was replaced by the PC Party doesn't mean that the WA is going to replace the PCs in the same way. We could be looking, for the first time in a century, at a real party competition in Alberta.
There is no guarantee that the WA will win that competition. I must caution my fellow Smith enthusiasts against setting their expectations too high. I believe that she will be premier one day. But it may take several elections and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be disheartened if it takes longer than we hope.
It has been the pattern of Albertan politics to elect powerful party dynasties. Then to have those dynasties suddenly collapse and have its place taken by a new dynasty. Signs of such collapse is everywhere in Alberta and there is much talk of the WA receiving the "Mandate of Heaven."
That being said, people should keep in mind that historical patterns don't work as predictions. Just because the Social Credit collapsed and was replaced by the PC Party doesn't mean that the WA is going to replace the PCs in the same way. We could be looking, for the first time in a century, at a real party competition in Alberta.
There is no guarantee that the WA will win that competition. I must caution my fellow Smith enthusiasts against setting their expectations too high. I believe that she will be premier one day. But it may take several elections and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be disheartened if it takes longer than we hope.
Gordon Brown's international tax
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants an international tax on the financial transactions. His argument is that it is bad that the rewards are given to so few and the costs of failure is borne by so many. That is perhaps a fair argument, but here is a novel idea, let's not bail out people who mess up.
Seriously, I agree with Gordon Brown that socialized risk and privatized rewards suck. But the solution is not to socialize rewards but to privatize risk. That way bankers actually have an incentive not to do something so risky that it would put them out of business. This "too big to fail" concept is ultimately going to destroy our economy. The mind set that a company that is big enough can do whatever it wants and if it screws up the government will come to their rescue is going to bring down the capitalist system.
I'm glad that Jim Flaherty was among those that gave Mr. Brown's proposal a flat no.
Seriously, I agree with Gordon Brown that socialized risk and privatized rewards suck. But the solution is not to socialize rewards but to privatize risk. That way bankers actually have an incentive not to do something so risky that it would put them out of business. This "too big to fail" concept is ultimately going to destroy our economy. The mind set that a company that is big enough can do whatever it wants and if it screws up the government will come to their rescue is going to bring down the capitalist system.
I'm glad that Jim Flaherty was among those that gave Mr. Brown's proposal a flat no.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Republican victory in Virginia and New Jersey a message to Obama?
McLaughlin and Associates have released a poll that shows the results of the Governor races in Virginia and New Jersey was at least partially a message to President Obama. The Republican victories there may be a prequel to the 2010 Congressional elections.
You can look at the full results here.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: One of the reasons I voted for (Christie/McDonnell) is to send a message to the Obama administration that I am unhappy with the direction they are taking Washington and the country
New Jersey: 68% agree 23% disagree
Virginia: 74% agree 22% disagree
You can look at the full results here.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: One of the reasons I voted for (Christie/McDonnell) is to send a message to the Obama administration that I am unhappy with the direction they are taking Washington and the country
New Jersey: 68% agree 23% disagree
Virginia: 74% agree 22% disagree
Shut up Adam Vaughan
From the man who wanted to tax night clubs for using sidewalks, comes this brilliant piece of policy: telling developers what kind of homes they can build.
Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan wants to ensure that 10% of condos built are "family friendly." He is concerned that downtown will become a "Child free zone." Has Mr. Vaughan given any thought to the possibility that most people with children don't want to live downtown? And if they did the developers would build homes for them to capture that market.
This is just pure idiotic micromanagement by a dimwitted political hack.
Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan wants to ensure that 10% of condos built are "family friendly." He is concerned that downtown will become a "Child free zone." Has Mr. Vaughan given any thought to the possibility that most people with children don't want to live downtown? And if they did the developers would build homes for them to capture that market.
This is just pure idiotic micromanagement by a dimwitted political hack.
The Action Democratique du Qubec is doomed
A couple weeks ago the ADQ membership elected a leader, Gilles Taillon , who is dedicated to moving the party more to the centre. The lesson of the turbulent rise and falls of the ADQ demonstrate one thing: the party is at its best when it is unabashedly conservative.
The next piece of news that came out of Quebec was that the ADQ was cutting ties with the federal Tories. These ties were once a source of pride for the ADQ party elite. It gave them credibility and resources that they otherwise lacked. Now they want to pursue a "Tory-free identity."
Finally yesterday, two out of six of their caucus members, including Tallion's main opponent Eric Claire, rebelled and are now sitting as independents. A party of this size simply can't afford this sort of internal strife. The Liberal Party of Canada has suffered defeats, in part, due to internal conflict far less vicious than this.
Eric Claire declared "This is no longer the party I worked for." He's right, the party he worked for had a chance of winning.
The next piece of news that came out of Quebec was that the ADQ was cutting ties with the federal Tories. These ties were once a source of pride for the ADQ party elite. It gave them credibility and resources that they otherwise lacked. Now they want to pursue a "Tory-free identity."
Finally yesterday, two out of six of their caucus members, including Tallion's main opponent Eric Claire, rebelled and are now sitting as independents. A party of this size simply can't afford this sort of internal strife. The Liberal Party of Canada has suffered defeats, in part, due to internal conflict far less vicious than this.
Eric Claire declared "This is no longer the party I worked for." He's right, the party he worked for had a chance of winning.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Newfoundland Lt. Governor wears sealskin coat
According to the Globe & Mail, Lt. Governor John Crosbie wore a sealskin coat in support of the seal hunt. I'm pretty sure this won't change anyone's mind, but as someone who enjoys a good "fuck you" I can appreciate the gesture.
There are two statements in this article that I would like to point out. The first is by the director of Canada's chapter of the Humane Society International:
There is no compassionate human being alive who can see what I've seen on the floes and support the commercial seal hunt.
The second statement is by a local:
“I don't really have that much against the wearing of a seal coat,” St. John's resident Wallace Taylor said. “The people up there [in remote areas] depend on it for their livelihood.”
Do you hear that "humane" society? People's jobs, that means their ability to feed their children and lead a decent life. So what is humane or compassionate about destroying someone's livelihood? Or are you people just so arrogant that you don't care about your fellow human being?
There are two statements in this article that I would like to point out. The first is by the director of Canada's chapter of the Humane Society International:
There is no compassionate human being alive who can see what I've seen on the floes and support the commercial seal hunt.
The second statement is by a local:
“I don't really have that much against the wearing of a seal coat,” St. John's resident Wallace Taylor said. “The people up there [in remote areas] depend on it for their livelihood.”
Do you hear that "humane" society? People's jobs, that means their ability to feed their children and lead a decent life. So what is humane or compassionate about destroying someone's livelihood? Or are you people just so arrogant that you don't care about your fellow human being?
UTSU marches on Queen's Park and then does nothing
I still get e-mails from my old "student union" at the University of Toronto. I got one earlier that was letting me know about:
The Day of Action is finally here. On November 5th, we will see students, faculty, workers, social justice activists, families and community members coming together to demand access to education and well-funded social services.
Basically the plan is to meet up with members of the Communist Party and stand in front of Queen's Park to listen to self important nimrods make foolish speeches. No one from the government or opposition will pay any attention.
How do I know this is what is going to happen? Because it is exactly what happened every other time they've had one of these marches. Hey just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it won't work now. If at first you don't succeed, do the same thing over and over again. And waste student resources.
The only thing that CFS and their lackeys in UTSU are good at is getting elected to student government. And they only do that by relying on the apathy of the people they claim to represent.
Have fun being out in the cold today.
The Day of Action is finally here. On November 5th, we will see students, faculty, workers, social justice activists, families and community members coming together to demand access to education and well-funded social services.
Basically the plan is to meet up with members of the Communist Party and stand in front of Queen's Park to listen to self important nimrods make foolish speeches. No one from the government or opposition will pay any attention.
How do I know this is what is going to happen? Because it is exactly what happened every other time they've had one of these marches. Hey just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it won't work now. If at first you don't succeed, do the same thing over and over again. And waste student resources.
The only thing that CFS and their lackeys in UTSU are good at is getting elected to student government. And they only do that by relying on the apathy of the people they claim to represent.
Have fun being out in the cold today.
CFS accused the Campus Conservatives of supporting a conservative
Yesterday I posted CFS's hilariously retarded website titled Campus Conservative Watch. I completely missed this page and I think it deserves its own post.
If you are wondering about the picture check out the comments on the page I linked above.
Ontario Campus Conservatives Support Far-Right Wing Leadership Candidate, Hudak
June 9, 2009 · 5 Comments
A Campus Liberal cuddles up to Hudak
Ontario campus Conservatives announced their support for Tim Hudak, the far-right wing candidate vying for John Tory’s old job as leader of the Ontario PC’s. Hudak has also been endorsed by Ontario’s most destructive Premiere, Mike Harris. Amongst his platform points, Hudak is calling for the end of the Human Rights Commission in Ontario. The Ontario Human Rights Commission enraged many Islamophobic racists when it stayed within its limited mandate to issue a statement raising “serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine…”
If Hudak wins the Ontario PC leadership race, look for the campus Conservatives to start publically howling for the blood of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Wow the Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association endorsed a candidate for leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The SCANDAL! Also I await eagerly for the howling for the blood of Ontario's censorship board.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Much too early to call a winner in Toronto mayoral race
A poll has been released for the upcoming mayoral race in Toronto. The candidates have yet to announce but there is a wide field of possibilities. On this list is former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, John Tory.
This is how the numbers turned out for the top three possible candidates:
John Tory 46% of decided voters
George Smitherman 21% of decided voters
Adam Giambrone (groan) 14% of decided voters
I would not get too excited about this poll. These are decided voters and 47% of those polled are still not decided. Also you will notice that the top three are in order of name recognition. If asked who they would vote for in municipal elections most people will pick whatever name is most familiar.
So despite the appearance of a huge lead this race is still wide open. A strong campaign from either Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Giambrone could greatly change these numbers. Both have potential since Mr. Smitherman has access to the Toronto Liberal machine and Mr. Giambrone may be able to make use of David Miller's old network.
Personally I don't have a horse in the race yet. I have an old vindictive bias against John Tory, but I will wait to see how his (potential) campaign will take shape.
This is how the numbers turned out for the top three possible candidates:
John Tory 46% of decided voters
George Smitherman 21% of decided voters
Adam Giambrone (groan) 14% of decided voters
I would not get too excited about this poll. These are decided voters and 47% of those polled are still not decided. Also you will notice that the top three are in order of name recognition. If asked who they would vote for in municipal elections most people will pick whatever name is most familiar.
So despite the appearance of a huge lead this race is still wide open. A strong campaign from either Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Giambrone could greatly change these numbers. Both have potential since Mr. Smitherman has access to the Toronto Liberal machine and Mr. Giambrone may be able to make use of David Miller's old network.
Personally I don't have a horse in the race yet. I have an old vindictive bias against John Tory, but I will wait to see how his (potential) campaign will take shape.
Maine increases access to medical marijuana
I am a little hesitant about the arguments involved in medical marijuana. I prefer arguing for legalization for the sake of personal responsibility and opposition to the nanny state. For one thing I don't like to give the implication that marijuana is healthy for you. Perhaps it is better than tobacco or alcohol, but it is still not good for you.
But still this is at least a step in the right direction.
But still this is at least a step in the right direction.
CFS hacks and the Campus Conservative Watch
In response to the Campus Conservative's CFS Watch, we now have the Campus Conservative Watch. This site is highly amusing so I encourage you to take a few moments to look at it. It seems that the main complaint is that conservative activists are actively pursuing conservatism.
One of my favourite points in when the complain about a conservative media bias. They point to "institutions" like Maclean's and Western Standard as evidence of this bias. Frankly Maclean's is at best a mixed bag. They have the king of fiscal conservative journalists, Andrew Coyne, but they also have columns by Andrew Potter. Where the balance lies I'm not sure, but you can hardly call Maclean's a mouth piece of the radical right.
And we humble bloggers of the Western Standard wish we were the mouth piece of the radical right. We are pretty open about our political views. Can the editorial board of the Toronto Star say the same thing?
My next favourite part is the evidence that they provide. There are two key parts of this "evidence." First is the Campus Conservatives being "caught trying to infiltrate student unions." By which they mean running for student government. Do they even know what the word activist means? Or are they just pissed that someone opposes them?
The second key part is the Millennium Leadership Fund. They make it sound like this was some sort of secret but it was written into the constitution that was publicly available. No one was hiding the fact that the Campus Conservatives were interested in funding conservatives. Why would they?
Besides I took the MLF out of the constitution. I did this in 2007 because I was just elected to the position that was suppose to be in charge of it, and I had no idea what it was. The institutional memory of the Campus Conservatives didn't even recall what the CFS is trying to sell as a scandal. I guess this is because people like Adam Dafaillah are off being productive members of society while old CFS hacks are still leaching of student fees.
Overall I would call this attempt pathetic. The average student is not going to be outraged by conservatives being conservative.
One of my favourite points in when the complain about a conservative media bias. They point to "institutions" like Maclean's and Western Standard as evidence of this bias. Frankly Maclean's is at best a mixed bag. They have the king of fiscal conservative journalists, Andrew Coyne, but they also have columns by Andrew Potter. Where the balance lies I'm not sure, but you can hardly call Maclean's a mouth piece of the radical right.
And we humble bloggers of the Western Standard wish we were the mouth piece of the radical right. We are pretty open about our political views. Can the editorial board of the Toronto Star say the same thing?
My next favourite part is the evidence that they provide. There are two key parts of this "evidence." First is the Campus Conservatives being "caught trying to infiltrate student unions." By which they mean running for student government. Do they even know what the word activist means? Or are they just pissed that someone opposes them?
The second key part is the Millennium Leadership Fund. They make it sound like this was some sort of secret but it was written into the constitution that was publicly available. No one was hiding the fact that the Campus Conservatives were interested in funding conservatives. Why would they?
Besides I took the MLF out of the constitution. I did this in 2007 because I was just elected to the position that was suppose to be in charge of it, and I had no idea what it was. The institutional memory of the Campus Conservatives didn't even recall what the CFS is trying to sell as a scandal. I guess this is because people like Adam Dafaillah are off being productive members of society while old CFS hacks are still leaching of student fees.
Overall I would call this attempt pathetic. The average student is not going to be outraged by conservatives being conservative.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Canada is fighting the European ban on seal products
According to the Montreal Gazette, Minister Day has announced that Canada is appealing the EU's ban to the WTO. I am a little skeptical about the international trade dispute process, but I'm glad that Canada isn't just letting it go.
This is what the spokesperson for the International Fund for Animal Welfare said about Canada's objection:
It goes against public opinion. The European public has been very clear that they don't want to provide a market for the seal hunt. It's just another knee-jerk solution by our politicians to put our dead seals into a market that doesn't want it.
Who the hell is she to decide that no one in Europe wants this product. If no one wanted this product then no one would be trying to sell it. Politicians don't "put our dead seals into a market" private businesses do that. How arrogant can this woman and the European Union be to make that decision for millions of people?
And to conclude...
...but for seals.
This is what the spokesperson for the International Fund for Animal Welfare said about Canada's objection:
It goes against public opinion. The European public has been very clear that they don't want to provide a market for the seal hunt. It's just another knee-jerk solution by our politicians to put our dead seals into a market that doesn't want it.
Who the hell is she to decide that no one in Europe wants this product. If no one wanted this product then no one would be trying to sell it. Politicians don't "put our dead seals into a market" private businesses do that. How arrogant can this woman and the European Union be to make that decision for millions of people?
And to conclude...
...but for seals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)