Posts
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Penn and Stossel on Healthcare
Meanwhile Preston Manning muses what has to happen to make reform possible in Canada. Basically he thinks that we need a miracle.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Conservatives Raise Payroll Taxes
According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we will be paying more payroll tax, starting January 1st.
The CTF’s annual projections found Canadians at a variety of income levels and in various family situations will fork over on average 2% more of their earnings to the government starting Jan. 1.So, that's a nice late Christmas present, courtesy of the Conservative Party of Canada. I was just thinking the other day that I'm simply keeping too much of my income. (Yes CPC supporters, I'm sure the coalition would have raised taxes even higher.)
If you don't believe that society has progressed
Honestly this video makes me feel sick, yet it gives me hope. The fact that if this were made today it would be met with outrage fills me with optimism.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Question to Conservative Party supporters
Hugh has two recent posts basically about confusing interactions with partisan Conservatives. I've had many of the same conversations myself. I couldn't have been that only person that burst out laughing from the Tory vs Conservative video because it mimicked of some of my past conversations. I was a member from founding in 2004 until I quit a couple years ago after the massive deficits, so I still have plenty of friends and acquaintances within the party (plus I'm still an Ontario PC member, and there is some overlap in membership). I find the people in the comments on Hugh's post are more amplified than people I speak to in person, but I suppose that's just the nature of the internet.
My basic question for CPC partisans is, do you either think that the CPC's position is closer to either #1 or #2?
1) Harper and Flaherty actually believe the stimulus is/was needed to help the economy. (This is not whether stimulus was needed to stay in power and CPC is better than the Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition, etc. I don't care about politics in this discussion. I just want to know whether you actually think that the CPC believes the stimulus was helping.)
or
2) Harper and Flaherty know the stimulus was a waste of money, but were lying when talking about the benefits.
I hear both of these basic explanations used, sometimes by the same people. I really am earnestly trying to understand the partisan position. If CPC actually is closer to #1, then I have no business being in the party under this leadership. It is fine to have different opinions, but this isn't what I signed up for when I joined the party, volunteered and donated. If they are closer to #2, this just seems wrong to me. Also, if #2 is correct, yet they keep saying they support what they are doing, how can then they go and turn around and be completely opposite if they won a majority?
Please don't comment that I am only looking for perfection or that I'm an unrealistic ideologue or any other attack on me. I don't mind being attacked, but it just isn't that interesting to read on every post. I simply want to know if CPC did the stimulus because they actually thought it was a good idea (again, good idea for the economy, not for their political lives), or if they actually thought it is a bad idea and did it anyway.
My basic question for CPC partisans is, do you either think that the CPC's position is closer to either #1 or #2?
1) Harper and Flaherty actually believe the stimulus is/was needed to help the economy. (This is not whether stimulus was needed to stay in power and CPC is better than the Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition, etc. I don't care about politics in this discussion. I just want to know whether you actually think that the CPC believes the stimulus was helping.)
or
2) Harper and Flaherty know the stimulus was a waste of money, but were lying when talking about the benefits.
I hear both of these basic explanations used, sometimes by the same people. I really am earnestly trying to understand the partisan position. If CPC actually is closer to #1, then I have no business being in the party under this leadership. It is fine to have different opinions, but this isn't what I signed up for when I joined the party, volunteered and donated. If they are closer to #2, this just seems wrong to me. Also, if #2 is correct, yet they keep saying they support what they are doing, how can then they go and turn around and be completely opposite if they won a majority?
Please don't comment that I am only looking for perfection or that I'm an unrealistic ideologue or any other attack on me. I don't mind being attacked, but it just isn't that interesting to read on every post. I simply want to know if CPC did the stimulus because they actually thought it was a good idea (again, good idea for the economy, not for their political lives), or if they actually thought it is a bad idea and did it anyway.
The Beer Wars
William Joseph has blogged about beer on this site a lot lately. I got extremely jealous that he got so many hits (really who would have thought people are so interested in beer?), so here is my own beer post (a rather lazy one though).
I encouraged everyone to not only watch this movie but try a microbeer as well.
I encouraged everyone to not only watch this movie but try a microbeer as well.
Open letter to Conservative Party supporters
Hey there Conservative Party supporters. Remember two years ago when the government brought in the ‘stimulus’ package? At the time many of you insisted to me that this was temporary spending. You applauded the shrewdness of the Prime Minister for increasing the budget in a way that will make it easy to go back into surplus later.
Usually when we had these talks I expressed my doubt that it will be that simple. Always at least one of you would give me condescending smile and say something along the line of, “It’s budgeted that way, trust me.”
Well a little while back Jim Flaherty came out with his schedule for getting the country back into the black. It was a little longer than you supporters had assured me it would take, but I understand that you were merely being optimistic. Regardless here was the Minister of Finance saying that we will be out of deficit by 2015 (a ‘mere’ 'temporary' budget deficit of 6 years).
Then Mr. Flaherty indicated that the deadline was more flexible than we first thought. Does this mean he is open to the idea of extending the deadline? Yes, but hey! He is also open to bringing forward the deadline. We could possibly be out of deficit even earlier!
Now Mr. Flaherty is “rethinking” planned cuts in next year’s budget. The economy is still not perfect you see, government needs to be active you see, and [fill in other lame excuse] you see. It is pretty clear that the government has no intention of making cuts anytime soon.
So that means that there is absolutely no way that the 2015 target will be reached. This supposedly temporary deficit is looking pretty permanent to me.
Now let me ask you, Conservative Party supporters. At what point do you stop making excuses for the government and look at its record. Is this the government you wanted when you voted and volunteered in 2006?
Usually when we had these talks I expressed my doubt that it will be that simple. Always at least one of you would give me condescending smile and say something along the line of, “It’s budgeted that way, trust me.”
Well a little while back Jim Flaherty came out with his schedule for getting the country back into the black. It was a little longer than you supporters had assured me it would take, but I understand that you were merely being optimistic. Regardless here was the Minister of Finance saying that we will be out of deficit by 2015 (a ‘mere’ 'temporary' budget deficit of 6 years).
Then Mr. Flaherty indicated that the deadline was more flexible than we first thought. Does this mean he is open to the idea of extending the deadline? Yes, but hey! He is also open to bringing forward the deadline. We could possibly be out of deficit even earlier!
Now Mr. Flaherty is “rethinking” planned cuts in next year’s budget. The economy is still not perfect you see, government needs to be active you see, and [fill in other lame excuse] you see. It is pretty clear that the government has no intention of making cuts anytime soon.
So that means that there is absolutely no way that the 2015 target will be reached. This supposedly temporary deficit is looking pretty permanent to me.
Now let me ask you, Conservative Party supporters. At what point do you stop making excuses for the government and look at its record. Is this the government you wanted when you voted and volunteered in 2006?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Top 10 Canadian Beers
Since my last post earlier this evening, a couple friends asked me about top beers in other areas of the country. So here is a quick list of my top 10 Canadian beers. This is regardless of when they came out.
10. Black Oak Ten Bitter Years (Ontario)
(look at post below for details) Only Ontario beer to crack my top 10, coming in at last spot. This was not available at all in the LCBO, brewery only sales plus in craft beer bars on tap/cask.
9. Phillips Skookum Cascadian Brown Ale (British Columbia)
Formerly known as Black Toque India Dark Ale, this is in the Cascadian Dark Ale category. Hoppy and roasty.
8. St-Ambroise Stout Impériale Russe (Quebec)
A Russian Imperial Stout that came out in late 2009. I have a bottle of the 2010 version that I haven't tried yet.
7. Garrison Imperial IPA (Nova Scotia)
Unlike Keith's, this is a real IPA from Nova Scotia. Thanks to Free Our Beer for bringing this into Ontario as a private order, eventually opening the way for the LCBO to bring it in as part of their fall seasonal release.
6. Half Pints Humulus Ludicrous (Manitoba)
My favourite Canadian double IPA. I believe the name is latin for hops.
5. St-Ambroise Oatmeal Stout (Quebec)
The little brother of the RIS mentioned earlier. This is possibly the best oatmeal stout in the world, and it is regularly available in Ontario.
4. Dieu du Ciel Péché Mortel (Quebec)
An imperial coffee stout. If you like stout and like coffee, this is heavenly. Try it on cask if you get the chance.
3. Charlevoix Dominus Vobiscum Lupulus (Quebec)
A beautiful Belgian IPA from one of the best breweries in the country. This was somewhat expensive at $15-$20 per 750mL bottle, but completely worth it.
2. Central City Red Racer IPA (British Columbia)
Easily the best IPA in Canada. Can stack up against any American IPA.
1. Simple Malt Impériale Stout (Quebec)
Amazing imperial stout from a relatively new Quebec brewer.
Do you notice a trend here? In Quebec, where a brewery can sell in any corner store, clearly leads the country in craft beer. Getting into the provincial liquor monopoly stores in many provinces is quite a difficult process. There is a huge hurdle to climb to get a product listed, that it limits risk taking, and as a result you end up with blander beer (as Bill Davis said, "bland works"). If a beer doesn't sell in Quebec, no problem, take it off the shelves, come up with a new recipe, then put that in the stores (or even a single store as a test) in a month or two. Innovation is not impeded by government hurdles. In Ontario, you'd have to apply for a completely new listing, go through LCBO lab BS, then hope it gets approved (and it may not). Hopefully the next 10 years for the Ontario beer scene won't be so bitter (though I hope the beer is).
10. Black Oak Ten Bitter Years (Ontario)
(look at post below for details) Only Ontario beer to crack my top 10, coming in at last spot. This was not available at all in the LCBO, brewery only sales plus in craft beer bars on tap/cask.
9. Phillips Skookum Cascadian Brown Ale (British Columbia)
Formerly known as Black Toque India Dark Ale, this is in the Cascadian Dark Ale category. Hoppy and roasty.
8. St-Ambroise Stout Impériale Russe (Quebec)
A Russian Imperial Stout that came out in late 2009. I have a bottle of the 2010 version that I haven't tried yet.
7. Garrison Imperial IPA (Nova Scotia)
Unlike Keith's, this is a real IPA from Nova Scotia. Thanks to Free Our Beer for bringing this into Ontario as a private order, eventually opening the way for the LCBO to bring it in as part of their fall seasonal release.
6. Half Pints Humulus Ludicrous (Manitoba)
My favourite Canadian double IPA. I believe the name is latin for hops.
5. St-Ambroise Oatmeal Stout (Quebec)
The little brother of the RIS mentioned earlier. This is possibly the best oatmeal stout in the world, and it is regularly available in Ontario.
4. Dieu du Ciel Péché Mortel (Quebec)
An imperial coffee stout. If you like stout and like coffee, this is heavenly. Try it on cask if you get the chance.
3. Charlevoix Dominus Vobiscum Lupulus (Quebec)
A beautiful Belgian IPA from one of the best breweries in the country. This was somewhat expensive at $15-$20 per 750mL bottle, but completely worth it.
2. Central City Red Racer IPA (British Columbia)
Easily the best IPA in Canada. Can stack up against any American IPA.
1. Simple Malt Impériale Stout (Quebec)
Amazing imperial stout from a relatively new Quebec brewer.
Do you notice a trend here? In Quebec, where a brewery can sell in any corner store, clearly leads the country in craft beer. Getting into the provincial liquor monopoly stores in many provinces is quite a difficult process. There is a huge hurdle to climb to get a product listed, that it limits risk taking, and as a result you end up with blander beer (as Bill Davis said, "bland works"). If a beer doesn't sell in Quebec, no problem, take it off the shelves, come up with a new recipe, then put that in the stores (or even a single store as a test) in a month or two. Innovation is not impeded by government hurdles. In Ontario, you'd have to apply for a completely new listing, go through LCBO lab BS, then hope it gets approved (and it may not). Hopefully the next 10 years for the Ontario beer scene won't be so bitter (though I hope the beer is).
Top 10 New Ontario Beers of 2010
It's the time of the year where people like to post lists. The arbitrary dividing line of changing your calender seems like as good time as any to post my top 10 list for new Ontario beers of the past year.
The rules for my list:
- Debuted in 2010 (or at least pretty close to it)
- Was at least a semi-regular offering. Specifically, one-off casks at places such as Volo, C'est What? or Great Lakes Project X do not count.
- A seasonal beer brewed once is fine, as long as it made it into bottles or pubs outside the brewery.
You may disagree with my list, but I assure you I didn't leave anything off due to ignorance. Other than the Muskoka Double Chocolate Cranberry Stout (getting to it!), I have tried essentially every new beer in Ontario this year that fits my criteria for this list and would likely have a chance to make it - which says a little bit about me (I'm a beer geek) and the Ontario beer community (way too small). On with the list.
10. Beau's Vrienden
I'm totally stealing the description of this from Beau's website: "To commemmorate the 65th anniversary of liberation of The Netherlands by Canadian troops, this special beer was commissioned by the Dutch embassy. A collaborative effort with De Koningshoeven brewery, this cloudy wheat beer uses organic juniper berries and maple syrup as a way to feature traditional ingredients from both countries." All I need to add is this was delicious.
9. Great Lakes Miami Weisse
This is essentially a hoppy wheat beer. I heard this was modelled after 3 Floyds Gumballhead (Indiana), which makes sense because Gumballhead immediately jumped into my mind when I had my first sip of this. I had pints of this at several places around Toronto and I believe bottles were available at the brewery's Project X event, though I wasn't able to make it that month. Hopefully this will be back next year.
8. Muskoka Harvest Ale
This is a malty, hoppy pale ale, made with all local ingredients. Yes, this was made last year as well, but this year's is different enough for me to include it as a new beer (I actually forgot it was made previously). A few bottles are still kicking around at LCBO's. This beer made it into all the Duke pubs in Toronto at least, while being in several other known beer bars. I hope next year's is just as good as this one.
7. Grand River Plowman's Anniversary Ale
Possibly the most consistent Ontario brewery made a stronger, and hoppier, version of their Plowman's Ale for their 3rd anniversary. This is a nice amber ale, that is hopped up closer to some of the American ambers that you can buy in Buffalo (but not Ontario). Bottles of this were available at the brewery and this was on tap several places. I hope this is brought back again.
6. Great Lakes Lackey's Casky
As the name would imply this beer is available on cask only and has been at several places in Toronto, including currently at The Burger Bar (at least at the time I type this). This is a hop forward pale ale. Great fresh hop flavour with pleasant bitterness. Possibly my favourite Ontario made American Pale Ale.
5. Duggan's #5 Asian/Sorachi Lager (thought it would be fun to put at 5)
Technically this debuted in December 2009, but the brewpub only had essentially a soft opening then, with their grand opening in January 2010. This beer is one of the standouts at Duggan's. It uses rice not as an adjunct, but as a flavour enhancer. While being only 4% abv, this is not your typical light lager. If you think Asian style is limited to Asahi and Sapporo, you need to try this beer. It is typically always available at Duggan's, though I've seen it on tap at a few other places. This beer was renamed from Asian Lager to Sorachi Lager it seems.
4. Taps Belgian IPA
I first tried this at the Volo's Cask Days in October 2010, but it has since been popping up on beer lists, as well as at the brewpub in Niagara Falls. A Belgian IPA is essentially a cross between a Belgian tripel and an American IPA. This beer is probably closer in bitterness to a double IPA, huge citrus hops with the dry Belgian yeast. I hope they have this on tap in a few days so I can pick up a growler for my family Christmas in St. Catharines.
3. Flying Monkeys Netherworld Cascadian Dark Ale
This originally debuted (I believe) at Volo's Cask Days in 2009 as a hoppy imperial porter. Later in 2010, the recipe was tweaked to make it hoppier and the name changed to calling it a Cascadian Dark Ale (or Black IPA, or American Style India Black Ale, or...). The style name causes debate, but it is essentially a beer made with the roast that you typically find in a porter or stout, combined with big American hops. This beer recently made it to the LCBO.
2. Flying Monkeys Smash Bomb Atomic IPA
This came 2nd place in Volo's cask IPA competition (Greak Lakes My Bitter Wife won), though I don't understand how it didn't win. Part of the reason was I was drunk and forgot to vote. My excuse - $4 pint night during the finals to kick off Toronto Beer Week. The beer is a west coast style hoppy IPA. Really nicely balanced, with a citrus hop kick. I'm excited for this beer to reach the Control Board.
1. Black Oak Ten Bitter Years
This technically did get released near the end of 2009, but it was very limited on tap/cask only. Bottles were released in spring 2010 at the brewery only. The release was announced on The Bar Towel forums, with the brewer saying they expected it to last a month. It only lasted a few days - I'm glad I convinced a friend to drive me on a lunch break the 2nd day of sales! The beer is a big double IPA, the first Ontario one that could actually hang with some of its American competition. Not necessarily the hoppiest in the world, but has a really fresh, fruity hop bite.
The rules for my list:
- Debuted in 2010 (or at least pretty close to it)
- Was at least a semi-regular offering. Specifically, one-off casks at places such as Volo, C'est What? or Great Lakes Project X do not count.
- A seasonal beer brewed once is fine, as long as it made it into bottles or pubs outside the brewery.
You may disagree with my list, but I assure you I didn't leave anything off due to ignorance. Other than the Muskoka Double Chocolate Cranberry Stout (getting to it!), I have tried essentially every new beer in Ontario this year that fits my criteria for this list and would likely have a chance to make it - which says a little bit about me (I'm a beer geek) and the Ontario beer community (way too small). On with the list.
10. Beau's Vrienden
I'm totally stealing the description of this from Beau's website: "To commemmorate the 65th anniversary of liberation of The Netherlands by Canadian troops, this special beer was commissioned by the Dutch embassy. A collaborative effort with De Koningshoeven brewery, this cloudy wheat beer uses organic juniper berries and maple syrup as a way to feature traditional ingredients from both countries." All I need to add is this was delicious.
9. Great Lakes Miami Weisse
This is essentially a hoppy wheat beer. I heard this was modelled after 3 Floyds Gumballhead (Indiana), which makes sense because Gumballhead immediately jumped into my mind when I had my first sip of this. I had pints of this at several places around Toronto and I believe bottles were available at the brewery's Project X event, though I wasn't able to make it that month. Hopefully this will be back next year.
8. Muskoka Harvest Ale
This is a malty, hoppy pale ale, made with all local ingredients. Yes, this was made last year as well, but this year's is different enough for me to include it as a new beer (I actually forgot it was made previously). A few bottles are still kicking around at LCBO's. This beer made it into all the Duke pubs in Toronto at least, while being in several other known beer bars. I hope next year's is just as good as this one.
7. Grand River Plowman's Anniversary Ale
Possibly the most consistent Ontario brewery made a stronger, and hoppier, version of their Plowman's Ale for their 3rd anniversary. This is a nice amber ale, that is hopped up closer to some of the American ambers that you can buy in Buffalo (but not Ontario). Bottles of this were available at the brewery and this was on tap several places. I hope this is brought back again.
6. Great Lakes Lackey's Casky
As the name would imply this beer is available on cask only and has been at several places in Toronto, including currently at The Burger Bar (at least at the time I type this). This is a hop forward pale ale. Great fresh hop flavour with pleasant bitterness. Possibly my favourite Ontario made American Pale Ale.
5. Duggan's #5 Asian/Sorachi Lager (thought it would be fun to put at 5)
Technically this debuted in December 2009, but the brewpub only had essentially a soft opening then, with their grand opening in January 2010. This beer is one of the standouts at Duggan's. It uses rice not as an adjunct, but as a flavour enhancer. While being only 4% abv, this is not your typical light lager. If you think Asian style is limited to Asahi and Sapporo, you need to try this beer. It is typically always available at Duggan's, though I've seen it on tap at a few other places. This beer was renamed from Asian Lager to Sorachi Lager it seems.
4. Taps Belgian IPA
I first tried this at the Volo's Cask Days in October 2010, but it has since been popping up on beer lists, as well as at the brewpub in Niagara Falls. A Belgian IPA is essentially a cross between a Belgian tripel and an American IPA. This beer is probably closer in bitterness to a double IPA, huge citrus hops with the dry Belgian yeast. I hope they have this on tap in a few days so I can pick up a growler for my family Christmas in St. Catharines.
3. Flying Monkeys Netherworld Cascadian Dark Ale
This originally debuted (I believe) at Volo's Cask Days in 2009 as a hoppy imperial porter. Later in 2010, the recipe was tweaked to make it hoppier and the name changed to calling it a Cascadian Dark Ale (or Black IPA, or American Style India Black Ale, or...). The style name causes debate, but it is essentially a beer made with the roast that you typically find in a porter or stout, combined with big American hops. This beer recently made it to the LCBO.
2. Flying Monkeys Smash Bomb Atomic IPA
This came 2nd place in Volo's cask IPA competition (Greak Lakes My Bitter Wife won), though I don't understand how it didn't win. Part of the reason was I was drunk and forgot to vote. My excuse - $4 pint night during the finals to kick off Toronto Beer Week. The beer is a west coast style hoppy IPA. Really nicely balanced, with a citrus hop kick. I'm excited for this beer to reach the Control Board.
1. Black Oak Ten Bitter Years
This technically did get released near the end of 2009, but it was very limited on tap/cask only. Bottles were released in spring 2010 at the brewery only. The release was announced on The Bar Towel forums, with the brewer saying they expected it to last a month. It only lasted a few days - I'm glad I convinced a friend to drive me on a lunch break the 2nd day of sales! The beer is a big double IPA, the first Ontario one that could actually hang with some of its American competition. Not necessarily the hoppiest in the world, but has a really fresh, fruity hop bite.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Punched Drunk
I've already had two alcohol liberation posts today, so may as well make it a third. Through the completely awesome Free Our Beer blog, I discovered a website devoted to documenting much of the history of the Ontario government's creepy liquor control board. I'm glad they aren't as invasive as Punched Drunk shows they were, but remember, it is still completely absurd that we have this government liquor monopoly in a liberal democracy. So cheers to Punched Drunk for their excellent work. If this site doesn't creep you out, there is something wrong with you.
The site apparently comes from a book, with the same name: Punched Drunk - Alcohol, Surveillance and the LCBO 1927–1975. I may have to seek out this book.
The site apparently comes from a book, with the same name: Punched Drunk - Alcohol, Surveillance and the LCBO 1927–1975. I may have to seek out this book.
Ontario announces happy hour ban (CBC Archives)
In 1984, the puritanical Ontario government banned happy hour. Thanks to an anonymous commenter in a recent post for the link to this video from the CBC archives. Why is this silly law still on the books? This should be an easy issue for all the provincial parties to agree on. I hope someone proposes this and gets it done.
(I don't know how to embed links from this website, but go here and watch it)
Ontario announces happy hour ban
http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/consumer_goods/clips/12741/
(I don't know how to embed links from this website, but go here and watch it)
Ontario announces happy hour ban
http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/consumer_goods/clips/12741/
Eliminate the Beer Sales Tax (B.S.T.)
The Freedom Party of Ontario just released a pre-election ad on youtube about eliminating the Beer Sales Tax.
Transcript "On Canada Day, 2010, the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty quietly introduced the B.S.T.: a tax only on beers brewed in Ontario. There's no B.S.T. on imported beer. A Freedom government will eliminate the B.S.T.. That will knock as much as five dollars and seventy-six cents off the price of a case of the many fine beers brewed right here in Ontario. Freedom Party. No B.S. ...T."
Good for them. The taxes on alcohol are ridiculous. Regardless if the Freedom Party has a chance to win or not, this is a good policy. This is the type of thing that Hudak should be adding to the PC Party platform if he wants to continue on the narrative of McGuinty being "Premier Dad".
Here is the full policy page from the Freedom Party's website.
Transcript "On Canada Day, 2010, the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty quietly introduced the B.S.T.: a tax only on beers brewed in Ontario. There's no B.S.T. on imported beer. A Freedom government will eliminate the B.S.T.. That will knock as much as five dollars and seventy-six cents off the price of a case of the many fine beers brewed right here in Ontario. Freedom Party. No B.S. ...T."
Good for them. The taxes on alcohol are ridiculous. Regardless if the Freedom Party has a chance to win or not, this is a good policy. This is the type of thing that Hudak should be adding to the PC Party platform if he wants to continue on the narrative of McGuinty being "Premier Dad".
Here is the full policy page from the Freedom Party's website.
A Freedom government will eliminate the beer, wine and wine cooler taxes. That will knock as much as $5.76 off of the price of 24 beer (for example, a box of 24 having a price of $29.95 would drop to $24.19). It will take as much as 16.1% off of the price of a bottle of wine (e.g., the price of a $15.00 bottle of wine would drop to as low as $12.92). It will remove as much as 16.1% from the price of wine coolers (for example, a U.S. sangria currently selling for $11.55 would drop to $9.95).
Wikileaks is not terrorism
United States Vice-President Joe Biden is the most senior government official that I have heard accuse Wikileaks founder of being a terrorist. I find the use of such a word as ‘terrorist’ in this case to be puzzling. Usually terrorists employ bombs to increase fear in general society. People just don’t know when a bomb will go off. At anytime, suddenly your life or the lives of those you love can end. That is the terror of a terrorist.
How does that exactly mesh with someone who is publishing leaked government documents? The comparison between a terrorist and Mr. Assange is ever more puzzling when you consider that there are more easily comparable events in US history. A common comparison has been the Pentagon papers in the 1970s that showed the Vietnam War for the error that it was.
Joe Biden rejects that comparison:
Claiming that Wikileaks is closer to terrorism than the Pentagon papers implies a spectral view of what terrorism is. The place on the spectrum, it is also implied, can be judged by the amount of harm it does. In that case Mr. Biden, give us an example of the harm that has taken place due to these leaks:
That’s it? Your assistants are temporarily forced to cool their heels in the hallway and you define this as terrorism? Compare that to the destruction of any terrorist act and the inconvenience caused by the Wikileaks pales.
It seems that the word terrorist has slid from being defined as a murderer of the innocent to a political enemy of the state. This is a horrifying development. Angered by being inconvenienced, Joe Biden is looking for a moral justification to use the full force of the state against Mr. Assange. It is better, for the state’s purposes, to cast him as something we find evil not praise worthy. He must be viewed as an evil murderer of children not as an intrepid truth revealer for the public to view force against Mr. Assange as justified.
This is why we are being presented with this horrifying fallacy: terrorists are enemies of the state, therefore all enemies of the state are terrorists.
The only comfort I take is that Joe Biden is a buffoon who doesn’t understand the importance of the meaning of words. Small comfort when you consider that this buffoon is the second highest official in the United States government.
How does that exactly mesh with someone who is publishing leaked government documents? The comparison between a terrorist and Mr. Assange is ever more puzzling when you consider that there are more easily comparable events in US history. A common comparison has been the Pentagon papers in the 1970s that showed the Vietnam War for the error that it was.
Joe Biden rejects that comparison:
"I would argue it is closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers. But, look, this guy has done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world.”
Claiming that Wikileaks is closer to terrorism than the Pentagon papers implies a spectral view of what terrorism is. The place on the spectrum, it is also implied, can be judged by the amount of harm it does. In that case Mr. Biden, give us an example of the harm that has taken place due to these leaks:
"He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends. For example, in my meetings – you know I meet with most of these world leaders – there is a desire now to meet with me alone, rather than have staff in the room. It makes things more cumbersome – so it has done damage."
That’s it? Your assistants are temporarily forced to cool their heels in the hallway and you define this as terrorism? Compare that to the destruction of any terrorist act and the inconvenience caused by the Wikileaks pales.
It seems that the word terrorist has slid from being defined as a murderer of the innocent to a political enemy of the state. This is a horrifying development. Angered by being inconvenienced, Joe Biden is looking for a moral justification to use the full force of the state against Mr. Assange. It is better, for the state’s purposes, to cast him as something we find evil not praise worthy. He must be viewed as an evil murderer of children not as an intrepid truth revealer for the public to view force against Mr. Assange as justified.
This is why we are being presented with this horrifying fallacy: terrorists are enemies of the state, therefore all enemies of the state are terrorists.
The only comfort I take is that Joe Biden is a buffoon who doesn’t understand the importance of the meaning of words. Small comfort when you consider that this buffoon is the second highest official in the United States government.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
End Maclean's Magazine's subsidy
Senator Vivienne Poy is calling for the end of the $1.5 million subsidy for Maclean’s Magazine. Her reason is because of this article which she and others accuses of being racist. My personal reading of the article is that it is reporting on racism and is not racist itself. Though I admit the author gets murky at points on if she is presenting her own or someone else’s opinion.
In a land of free press we have to...
Wait, did I just write $1.5 million subsidy for Maclean’s Magazine? What the hell? Maclean’s is getting a $1.5 million subsidy? For god’s sake why?
Does anyone else ever get the feeling that corporate welfare is completely random?
Now I don’t care if the article is racist or not. Maclean’s should not be given this artificial and unfair advantage of competition. The Conservative government should use this article as a smoke screen, if they have to, to end this ridiculous subsidy.
In a land of free press we have to...
Wait, did I just write $1.5 million subsidy for Maclean’s Magazine? What the hell? Maclean’s is getting a $1.5 million subsidy? For god’s sake why?
Does anyone else ever get the feeling that corporate welfare is completely random?
Now I don’t care if the article is racist or not. Maclean’s should not be given this artificial and unfair advantage of competition. The Conservative government should use this article as a smoke screen, if they have to, to end this ridiculous subsidy.
A typical conversation with a Tory die hard
The resilience of Stephen Harper’s hardcore supporters is truly something to behold. Even though he has violated every conservative principle he once held, many Conservative party members still defend him as “Canada’s most conservative Prime Minister.”
They insist that his massive increase in the size of government, deficits, anti-property rights, anti-trade, and anti-free market behaviour is merely pragmatic. Or alternatively that there is actually a secret plot to make the country more conservative and somehow not being a conservative is the first part of Stephen Harper’s master plan.
These people can be so silly in their blind faith that a friend of mine has termed that Harper Truthers (after the 9-11 Truthers).
The willingness to ignore all evidence and hang on to absurd myths (such as he is just being pragmatic) is nothing new to the human psyche, but it can be very frustrating to talk to such people. Below is a video that presents a pretty fair re-enactment of the typical conversation with a Harper Truther.
They insist that his massive increase in the size of government, deficits, anti-property rights, anti-trade, and anti-free market behaviour is merely pragmatic. Or alternatively that there is actually a secret plot to make the country more conservative and somehow not being a conservative is the first part of Stephen Harper’s master plan.
These people can be so silly in their blind faith that a friend of mine has termed that Harper Truthers (after the 9-11 Truthers).
The willingness to ignore all evidence and hang on to absurd myths (such as he is just being pragmatic) is nothing new to the human psyche, but it can be very frustrating to talk to such people. Below is a video that presents a pretty fair re-enactment of the typical conversation with a Harper Truther.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
CCF to defend Liberty Summer Seminar and the Jaworski family
Good news, the Canadian Constitution Foundation has announced that it will be defending the Jaworski family:
Notice of Constitutional Question filed in Liberty Summer Seminar Case
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) today announced that it is providing pro-bono legal counsel to Marta, Lech and Peter Jaworski, in their defence against charges in respect of an alleged violation of a zoning by-law of the municipality of Clarington in Ontario.
The CCF also today filed a Notice of Constitutional Question informing the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario that it intends to argue that a provincial law and by-law that the municipality of Clarington interprets as prohibiting the holding of the annual Liberty Summer Seminar, is a violation of the freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Liberty Summer Seminar, founded in 2001, is an annual two-day seminar and barbecue that celebrates and promotes Canadian freedoms–individual liberty, private property, and economic freedom.
CCF Executive Director and lawyer Chris Schafer said, “The Jaworskis escaped Poland in 1984 fearing persecution by the government for distributing pro-freedom literature. It’s ironic that they are now facing charges in Canada for allowing their son to host an event in support of freedom on their property”.
According to Marta Jaworski, “I will always let my son use our property for what he believes in, and for the freedom we came to Canada to find”.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is a registered charity, independent and non-partisan, which defends constitutional freedoms through education and litigation.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Message to the Liberal Party of Canada: leave health care to the provinces
There is an increasing consensus in the academic world that Canada’s health care system is not sustainable. Spending on the public side has been increasing at a rate that far outpaces increases in government revenue. Even during the good economic times, government spending on health care has eaten away at government total expenditures at an alarming rate.
The current federal government has not done a lot to deal with this growing problem. The Conservatives have thus far preferred a hands off strategy, allowing the provinces to find their own solutions.
To my mind this is the correct strategy. Provincial governments are more aware than the federal government of their particular challenges. A one size fits all national strategy is unlikely to bring best results in every province.
The Liberal Party, once the party of provincial rights, thinks that they can fix health care from their offices in Ottawa. They are proposing to expand coverage to include drug costs, home care, and long-term care. This exposes a dangerous ignorance to the problems that Canada now faces in health care policy. We cannot afford the coverage that already exists; expanding that coverage will only hasten us towards a day of financial collapse.
Furthermore, the Liberal Party’s desire to expand a system that is already strained to the breaking point underlines why provinces need to take the lead in health care reform.
Ultimately it is the provinces that are responsible for both providing and funding the public health sector. It is also the job of the provinces to regulate and set the limits on the private health sector. Do you really think that federal politicians are fully aware of all the intricacies of all ten provincial systems?
If coverage under the Canada Health Act is expanded it is the provinces not the federal government that will be responsible for implementation. It should then be the provinces that decide coverage.
Health care in general should be left to the provinces, and the federal government should not interfere.
The current federal government has not done a lot to deal with this growing problem. The Conservatives have thus far preferred a hands off strategy, allowing the provinces to find their own solutions.
To my mind this is the correct strategy. Provincial governments are more aware than the federal government of their particular challenges. A one size fits all national strategy is unlikely to bring best results in every province.
The Liberal Party, once the party of provincial rights, thinks that they can fix health care from their offices in Ottawa. They are proposing to expand coverage to include drug costs, home care, and long-term care. This exposes a dangerous ignorance to the problems that Canada now faces in health care policy. We cannot afford the coverage that already exists; expanding that coverage will only hasten us towards a day of financial collapse.
Furthermore, the Liberal Party’s desire to expand a system that is already strained to the breaking point underlines why provinces need to take the lead in health care reform.
Ultimately it is the provinces that are responsible for both providing and funding the public health sector. It is also the job of the provinces to regulate and set the limits on the private health sector. Do you really think that federal politicians are fully aware of all the intricacies of all ten provincial systems?
If coverage under the Canada Health Act is expanded it is the provinces not the federal government that will be responsible for implementation. It should then be the provinces that decide coverage.
Health care in general should be left to the provinces, and the federal government should not interfere.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Michael Moore posts bail for Assange
My personal attitude towards the Wikileaks is a tad ambivalent. I like the concept of how the information age has made it impossible for the government to keep secrets from its people. On the other hand it is important that State Department employees are able to speak frankly among themselves.
A lot of what has been leaked is embarrassing but pretty petty. I don’t find myself more informed about what the US government is up to because I now know that they refer to Vladimir Putin as an “alpha dog” in internal memos.
But if it these leaks have accomplished anything it has forced me to give my grudging respect for something that Michael Moore has done (and I hate Michael Moore).
This can easily be dismissed as another publicity stunt by one of America’s biggest (not a fat joke) media whore. I do, however, have to give him credit for his willingness to put his money where his mouth is.
A lot of what has been leaked is embarrassing but pretty petty. I don’t find myself more informed about what the US government is up to because I now know that they refer to Vladimir Putin as an “alpha dog” in internal memos.
But if it these leaks have accomplished anything it has forced me to give my grudging respect for something that Michael Moore has done (and I hate Michael Moore).
Michael Moore Posts Bail for WikiLeaks Honcho
Michael Moore has anted up $20,000 to help post bail for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange.
Moore just blogged, he will do anything he can to keep WikiLeaks "alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."
Moore takes note of Rep. Peter King, who called WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."
Moore fired back, "And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others.
Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!"
It looks like Assange will get out on $310,000 bail.
UPDATE: Swedish prosecutors are challenging Julian's bail ... so he'll remain in custody for the time being.
This can easily be dismissed as another publicity stunt by one of America’s biggest (not a fat joke) media whore. I do, however, have to give him credit for his willingness to put his money where his mouth is.
Bank of Canada is to blame for excessive consumer debt
Statistics Canada has released data that economists and policy makers are rightly concerned about. Debt-to-disposable income ratio is as high as 148%. This represents a startling lack of responsibility on the part of those consumers who are accumulating this debt. It is almost like they think they won’t have to pay it back.
There are some ideas of how to deal with this growing problem. Many have suggested new regulations that will limit both borrowers and lenders. This interference in an individual’s economic freedom will at best mask the underlining problem. We should focus on the disease and not the symptoms.
The disease is the central bank, the Bank of Canada.
It is evident that the Bank of Canada is the fundamental problem by the words of the Bank of Canada’s own governor, Mark Carney:
I couldn’t agree with this statement more, and to be fair to Mr. Carney he has been very consistent on this point. He also knows that it is his own policies that are creating the problem:
Having correctly identified that low interest rates are problematic, Mr. Carney is laying the political groundwork to raise interest rates. Still it will take time for the Bank of Canada to go through its review process, and it is impossible to say if the adjustments will be too little or too much. The economic problem at the end of the day is a knowledge problem.
In his much celebrated essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” F.A. Hayek outlines the basic difficulty everyone faces (both individuals and governments) in making economic plans. People don’t know and can’t possibly know everything that is happening in an economy. How could even a perfect genius be sure they are making the right decision when all the facts are not knowable?
Hayek’s solution was simple, beautiful, and best of all it was already widely practiced. The solution to lack of knowledge is price signals. If peanut butter suddenly becomes scarce the price will rise. People will then consume less peanut butter thus ensuring that an increasingly scarce resource is preserved. There is no need for consumers to know why the peanut butter is scarcer or even to know that the peanut butter is indeed scarcer. All they need to know is that the price is higher and they will take the appropriate action.
In the credit market the price signals that we rely on to make our decisions are lying to us. The cheep credit is telling us that we are in boom time and that there is plenty of unused capital just waiting to be borrowed. Considering that most of us are having trouble making ends meet it is perfectly rational to try and use that unutilized capital (even though that capital does not in fact exist).
Think about it. You reading this post are more likely than most to be familiar with what is going on in the economy, but most people are not like you.
Pretend for a moment that you are someone else. Say that your hours have been cut in half at the Dofasco plant and you are worried that you won’t be able to afford the same standard of living as before. You review your options and one of the things you consider is taking out a second mortgage. Upon investigating this option you find that the price of a loan is absurdly low. You don’t read the Financial Post so you haven’t heard Mr. Carney’s warnings. All you see is that the price is low.
How is it not then rational to take out a loan?
By manipulating interest rates the Bank of Canada is disrupting price signals. Individuals in the market place are being fooled into thinking there is an abundance of spare capital. Even if the Bank of Canada does decide to raise interest rates it will just be another disruption in price signals. It is impossible for a central agency to simply estimate the true cost of lending.
If Canada’s economy goes back into recession because of too much consumer debt, then it will be the fault of the Bank of Canada.
There are some ideas of how to deal with this growing problem. Many have suggested new regulations that will limit both borrowers and lenders. This interference in an individual’s economic freedom will at best mask the underlining problem. We should focus on the disease and not the symptoms.
The disease is the central bank, the Bank of Canada.
It is evident that the Bank of Canada is the fundamental problem by the words of the Bank of Canada’s own governor, Mark Carney:
“Cheap money is not a long-term growth strategy,” Mr. Carney said in an address to a Toronto luncheon. “Low rates today do not necessarily mean low rates tomorrow. Risk reversals when they happen can be fierce: the greater the complacency, the more brutal the reckoning.”
I couldn’t agree with this statement more, and to be fair to Mr. Carney he has been very consistent on this point. He also knows that it is his own policies that are creating the problem:
“The influence of sustained low interest rates in major advanced economies on risk-taking behaviour is a powerful dynamic that bears watching,” the central bank said last week. “A long period of very low interest rates may be associated with excessive credit creation and undue risk taking.”
Having correctly identified that low interest rates are problematic, Mr. Carney is laying the political groundwork to raise interest rates. Still it will take time for the Bank of Canada to go through its review process, and it is impossible to say if the adjustments will be too little or too much. The economic problem at the end of the day is a knowledge problem.
In his much celebrated essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” F.A. Hayek outlines the basic difficulty everyone faces (both individuals and governments) in making economic plans. People don’t know and can’t possibly know everything that is happening in an economy. How could even a perfect genius be sure they are making the right decision when all the facts are not knowable?
Hayek’s solution was simple, beautiful, and best of all it was already widely practiced. The solution to lack of knowledge is price signals. If peanut butter suddenly becomes scarce the price will rise. People will then consume less peanut butter thus ensuring that an increasingly scarce resource is preserved. There is no need for consumers to know why the peanut butter is scarcer or even to know that the peanut butter is indeed scarcer. All they need to know is that the price is higher and they will take the appropriate action.
In the credit market the price signals that we rely on to make our decisions are lying to us. The cheep credit is telling us that we are in boom time and that there is plenty of unused capital just waiting to be borrowed. Considering that most of us are having trouble making ends meet it is perfectly rational to try and use that unutilized capital (even though that capital does not in fact exist).
Think about it. You reading this post are more likely than most to be familiar with what is going on in the economy, but most people are not like you.
Pretend for a moment that you are someone else. Say that your hours have been cut in half at the Dofasco plant and you are worried that you won’t be able to afford the same standard of living as before. You review your options and one of the things you consider is taking out a second mortgage. Upon investigating this option you find that the price of a loan is absurdly low. You don’t read the Financial Post so you haven’t heard Mr. Carney’s warnings. All you see is that the price is low.
How is it not then rational to take out a loan?
By manipulating interest rates the Bank of Canada is disrupting price signals. Individuals in the market place are being fooled into thinking there is an abundance of spare capital. Even if the Bank of Canada does decide to raise interest rates it will just be another disruption in price signals. It is impossible for a central agency to simply estimate the true cost of lending.
If Canada’s economy goes back into recession because of too much consumer debt, then it will be the fault of the Bank of Canada.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Maxime Bernier versus the Federal Reserve
Former Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier has released a video where he talks about the danger of the QE2. He correctly identifies the Federal Reserve’s policies as a fundamental cause of the economic crisis, and he warns that the Fed’s current policy will only make things worse:
The Fed will then have two choices: either to let prices dangerously go up and the American dollar collapse; or else increase interest rates and take the surplus money out of the economy, which might provoke another crash.
The policies of the Federal Reserve have been a complete disaster from the beginning. A cursory look of the Fed’s history reveals consistent miscalculations and grievous errors. At the same time looking back over the same period we can see the solutions for how to move forward. In the words of Mr. Bernier:
The Federal Reserve must stop trying to play god with our money. There needs to be a realistic re-evaluation of what we expect central banks to accomplish. A utopian world of economic stability is simply not possible, and all that the Federal Reserve ever accomplishes is to put off the crash for another day.
This monetary policy is now being criticized by more and more people, in the US as well as around the world. It should be obvious to everyone that printing money does not increase the quantity of goods and services and cannot make anybody richer.
This policy is the equivalent of a time bomb. For now, consumer price inflation stays relatively low because banks are keeping much of this new money in their reserves and not lending it. That does not prevent inflation in some areas. The prices of energy, metals and agricultural products are very much going up.
But at a certain point, the money kept in reserves will start circulating in the economy at large. When there is more money chasing the same number of goods, prices necessarily go up. We’re talking here not just about some more money, but about enormous amounts of money.
The Fed will then have two choices: either to let prices dangerously go up and the American dollar collapse; or else increase interest rates and take the surplus money out of the economy, which might provoke another crash.
The policies of the Federal Reserve have been a complete disaster from the beginning. A cursory look of the Fed’s history reveals consistent miscalculations and grievous errors. At the same time looking back over the same period we can see the solutions for how to move forward. In the words of Mr. Bernier:
Economics has taught us that to have sustainable growth, we need monetary stability and prudent economic policies that favour entrepreneurship and trade. But for many years now, western countries have tried on the contrary to produce wealth with more debt and more money created out of thin air. This is a recipe that has never worked and which may only prolong the crisis we are in.
We need to change direction, and the sooner the better.
The Federal Reserve must stop trying to play god with our money. There needs to be a realistic re-evaluation of what we expect central banks to accomplish. A utopian world of economic stability is simply not possible, and all that the Federal Reserve ever accomplishes is to put off the crash for another day.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Why are Ontario liquor laws so puritanical?
I recently took a trip to Oregon and California. I've traveled around the US before and knew their liquor laws were more liberalized, but this trip really struck home how absurd our laws appear to be to someone that didn't grow up with them. I'm going to provide three examples of experiences I had.
1) I was in a brewpub in San Francisco for some pre-dinner drinks and started talking with a couple locals that I met there. We were discussing microbreweries and places to visit in California. I mentioned that Pliny the Elder (from Santa Rosa, California) is my favourite beer. It turns out the girl was from Santa Rosa and loves the beer as well. She asks, "Can you get that in Toronto?" I say we barely get any American microbrews in Ontario, and nothing at all from California. Her next question was, "Don't you have Whole Foods? They should have it there." She was not asking me this with any hint of sarcasm. It didn't even occur to her that it could be illegal to sell alcohol in Whole Foods, that you could have government run liquor monopolies that control all the products that come into the province. I explain our backward liquor laws and her exact response was, "I thought you guys were liberal there?" I say, "Ya, I guess", she replies, "Then why are you guys so puritanical?" To her, restrictive liquor laws are a sign of a religious right take-over, similar to a few of the dry counties in the south. We had gay marriage before San Francisco did, how could we possibly be behind for simple liquor laws?2) The next day I was in a specialty beer store (no, The Beer Store is not a specialty beer store) called City Beer Store. They only had craft beer on the shelves and in the fridges (you can do this when you aren't owned by Molson and Labatt). On top of that, you could actually drink beer while shopping for beer! They had several beers on tap, a small bar, plus a couple places to sit down. Any beer for sale to take home could be opened in there, for the purchase price plus a $1 "corkage" fee, and they'll provide you with proper glassware. This store would be illegal in about 30 different ways in Ontario. Given I had to buy a lot of beer to bring back with me, being able to relax with a pint in my hand made the shopping experience so much nicer.
Our restrictive, or puritanical, liquor laws are not just limited to limiting products that can come in or preventing private stores can sell alcohol. On the trip there were three of us, two from Toronto and one American. It became a running joke of pointing out things that were banned in Ontario to him. We were having happy hour drinks one afternoon and I mentioned that happy hour is illegal in Ontario. He didn't believe me until a Google search. I pointed to a seasonal winter beer in at a convenience store with a cartoon picture of Santa Claus on the label and mentioned that it would be banned in Ontario (since it certainly would have been). Later he mentioned something about cheap beer and we told him about the price floor of $1.07 per bottle. He was flabbergasted by much of this. When we jokingly told him that bars were banned from offering volume discounts so they couldn't sell pitchers of beer, he actually believed us! Why wouldn't he believe us though? Our laws make absolutely no sense so he had nothing to judge the reasonableness of anything we told him.
So I pose the question that I was asked in the bar in San Francisco. Why are we so puritanical?
Is John Cook a bigot?
A member of the governing body of the Texas State Republican Party (known as the SPEC) is being accused of being a bigot. Mr. John Cook, the accused, is opposing the Jewish House Speaker Joe Straus in favour of a Christian alternative. This in of itself does not make him a bigot (of course), but he was caught sending an e-mail stating "We elected a house with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it."
This certainly sounds bigoted, but reporter Abby Rapoport conducting an interview with Mr. Cook, and she encourages her readers to judge for themselves based on what he says.
So Mr. Cook, I will take Ms. Rapoport’s advice, and try to judge if you are a bigot based on your own words.
Okay so it doesn’t matter to you if someone is Jewish or Muslim, as long as he/she is a Christian. You also think that Christians are superior at being in office than other religions. You are not helping your case that you are not a bigot, but I will allow you to clarify.
It is a little confusing why a leader of a pro-life group would support someone who is pro-choice. Your complaint that he isn’t pro-life then seems a little…ambiguous. This issue isn’t even mentioned on Mr. Straus’ website, so I guess I’ll just take your word for it that you are unsatisfied with his position. Still, why do you insist on the sort of rhetoric that says ‘Christian conservative?’ Why do you not use the more neutral term ‘social conservative?’
You prefer someone who is a Christian but you are willing to help someone if he is not a Christian. Let me rephrase that, “I would support the Jew if there wasn’t a good Christian option.” That could be an unfair interpretation but it could also be a fair interpretation. My suspicion is aroused by your enquiring into Ms. Rapoport’s own background.
Why would it matter if the person you are talking to is Christian or not? I suspect that you were trying to invoke some sort of group solidarity. Or is it that you are concerned that someone who isn’t a Christian might misinterpret phrases like, “I got into office to put Christian conservatives into office?”
Again I don’t understand why you keep saying ‘Christian conservative’ as apposed to ‘social conservative.’ The latter implies that your values are shared by a cross section of humanity and the former implies some sort of superiority of Christians. It is because you keep harping on the importance of Christianity above other considerations I have to judge you to be a bigot. The attitude that being a Christian makes you inherently superior is bigoted, and it is clear that you have this attitude based on your comments about the ‘founding fathers.’
Mr. Cook, based on your words as reported in this article, I will say you are a bigot.
This certainly sounds bigoted, but reporter Abby Rapoport conducting an interview with Mr. Cook, and she encourages her readers to judge for themselves based on what he says.
So Mr. Cook, I will take Ms. Rapoport’s advice, and try to judge if you are a bigot based on your own words.
"When I got involved in politics, I told people I wanted to put Christian conservatives in leadership positions," he told me, explaining that he only supports Christian conservative candidates in Republican primary races.
"I want to make sure that a person I'm supporting is going to have my values. It's not anything about Jews and whether I think their religion is right or Muslims and whether I think their religion is right. ... I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. They're the people that do the best jobs over all."
Okay so it doesn’t matter to you if someone is Jewish or Muslim, as long as he/she is a Christian. You also think that Christians are superior at being in office than other religions. You are not helping your case that you are not a bigot, but I will allow you to clarify.
His opposition to Straus, he said, was rooted largely in his belief that the current Speaker is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights. "He's a pro choice person basically," Cook said. (Earlier in his career, Straus did vote against banning gay couples from serving as foster parents and against a ban on late-term abortions, albeit on two rather technical votes on amendments. However Kyleen Wright, president of Texans for Life, has been one of his biggest conservative supporters, among others.) Cook called the Republicans who worked with Democrats to elect Straus "turncoat RINOs." (Republicans in Name Only.)
It is a little confusing why a leader of a pro-life group would support someone who is pro-choice. Your complaint that he isn’t pro-life then seems a little…ambiguous. This issue isn’t even mentioned on Mr. Straus’ website, so I guess I’ll just take your word for it that you are unsatisfied with his position. Still, why do you insist on the sort of rhetoric that says ‘Christian conservative?’ Why do you not use the more neutral term ‘social conservative?’
But during the primary season, Cook said, "I try to select every time a Christian conservative to help." In a general election, however, he'll support the Republican even if the candidate is not a Christian—so long as the candidate shares his values. "Christian isn't even the most important thing when it comes to leadership," he allowed. "I want somebody in office that has moral values."
You prefer someone who is a Christian but you are willing to help someone if he is not a Christian. Let me rephrase that, “I would support the Jew if there wasn’t a good Christian option.” That could be an unfair interpretation but it could also be a fair interpretation. My suspicion is aroused by your enquiring into Ms. Rapoport’s own background.
Then he asked me if I was a Christian. "I just need to know who I'm talking to so I can understand," he explained. "The Bible is true to me. God exists, Christ is his son and the holy spirit is in the people who are Christian." As a general rule, I don't disclose my religion, but I explained I would do my best to understand his point of view.
Why would it matter if the person you are talking to is Christian or not? I suspect that you were trying to invoke some sort of group solidarity. Or is it that you are concerned that someone who isn’t a Christian might misinterpret phrases like, “I got into office to put Christian conservatives into office?”
Again I don’t understand why you keep saying ‘Christian conservative’ as apposed to ‘social conservative.’ The latter implies that your values are shared by a cross section of humanity and the former implies some sort of superiority of Christians. It is because you keep harping on the importance of Christianity above other considerations I have to judge you to be a bigot. The attitude that being a Christian makes you inherently superior is bigoted, and it is clear that you have this attitude based on your comments about the ‘founding fathers.’
Then our conversation somehow turned to history. If someone couldn't see the connection between Christianity and government then "you don't like our founding fathers," Cook said. "They were Christians.... Why would I not what to be like our founding fathers?"Some of them were also slave owners, why don’t you want to be a slave owner like the founding fathers? Or is simply being Christian all the morality that you need?
Mr. Cook, based on your words as reported in this article, I will say you are a bigot.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The History of 200 countries over 200 years in 4 minutes
If ever you despair for the progress of humanity, watch this video:
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The poor can get poorer as long as the rich do not get richer
Mike Brock of The Volunteer makes the case against blaming the market place for the income gap. It reminded me of this classic video of Margaret Thatcher talking about the left's obsession with income gaps:
Ontario regulation restricts beer selection
If you ever get into a debate on the question of how absurd Ontario’s alcohol laws are, all you have to do is describe what the laws actually are. Here is a description from a Buffalo news outlet:
The Ontario beer menu is shorter because there are only two retail choices, Enright said: The provincial government's Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) outlets, and the Beer Store outlets, which are run by large beer companies, Molson, Labatt and Sleeman.As a result of this silliness beer lovers from Ontario are forced to go to Buffalo to get a proper taste of the booming micro-brewery industry. And as a friend of mine put it, “people should never have to go to Buffalo.”
Brewers can approach the Beer Store for shelf space, but the entry price can be too steep for many of the smaller American companies.
"The majority of brands at the Beer Store are different brands from the big brewers, multiple products from Molson, Labatt, Coors, Bud, that kind of thing," plus mass-produced internationals like Heineken and Stella Artois, Enright said.
The Liquor Control Board stores have the widest selection, but it's not easy for small American brewers to meet its requirements, Enright said. Varieties, even short-run seasonals like a pumpkin ale, have to be submitted for possible inclusion a year before they can appear on shelves, Enright said. Labels have to be printed in French as well as English.
"It's not like you have small, independent stores where you can talk to the beer buyer and he'll take a couple cases," he said. "It's a process that takes a year for a beer to get onto the shelf, which makes it very challenging to a lot of small craft brewers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)