You don’t have to be a separaphobic to think that one of the most glorious mug shots in Canadian history is Gilles Duceppe standing by the "Making Parliament Work" at the coalition rally, thinking about whether to sign it. How can you stand there and watch that? This is a sham!
*****
Mr. Dion’s parliamentary career seems to be like a fiery comet burning through the atmosphere turning into a snowball at the end. A little ice and rock.
He’s had the political shelf life of a fruit fly.
******
It’s amazing that when the time comes to speak of infrastructure, it’s public housing for seniors, homeless and Aboriginals when in fact it’s not time to Santa Claus. We need, NEED, environmental and transport lacunae to be address. BC has spent billions of dollars for port reconstruction and road improvement with the ongoing challenges BC has in those fields. There is a lack of bridges and disgraces like Victoria Harbour. This is the very harbour Mr. Campbell, the premier, works day after day. It is full of excrement. Yet, he seems to be blind to this, as are all the other first ministers.
Infrastructure that you can see immediately and that helps the favourite constituencies, is so much sexier than roads. There’s not a municipal edifice like hospitals, schools and roads and sewage treatment that doesn’t need updating in this country. They require billions to improve them. It would not only help the environment but it would help the country economically.
It could be done through a private sector effort rather than through the PPP thing, which is ridiculous. Make people pay for their use of these items. Tolls would work.
Housing is important. But the private sector could do it more efficiently. The government should make more hospital beds available for mental health.
The government should assist Aboriginals to lead normal lives. Most live off reserve because they know that no matter how much money is spent there, they will be administered badly. This won’t change no matter how much money is pumped into the sytem.
It is irresponsible to continue this way. Our seniors are one of the richest interest groups in the country.
I do congratulate Mr. Campbell for recommending changes to RIFFs, lowering taxes, levelling regulation, suggesting open skies and getting rid of economic protectionism between provinces now. I wish more premiers understood his point that the parochial politics of provincial protectionism is hurtful.
*****
It’s typical of central Canada that Mr. Yakubuski, from the Globe and Mail, a normally respectful man, quoted Jean Charest as being a possible leader for the Tories. Has Mr. Yakubuski been to a Tory meeting lately? It’s not that the party hates Quebec. Francophobia is gone and it truckles favour with Quebec at the cost of support or respect elsewhere.
But why does he think that the rest of the country wants to be governed by a man who presides over the worst large province of the country. Quebec lags economically, financially, socially and in terms of health care and education. It’s gotten worse under Mr. Charest. He has not made a single change to the province’s basket case of an economic union and corporatist system. Mr. Charest does not generate confidence he can lead. That he is from Quebec is his only commendable trait, assuming those from western Canada can forget the vicious rhetoric Mr. Charest dispenses regarding the Tory party. He is a Liberal. We always knew it.
If Mr. Harper were one day to have a freak gardening accident, I would more likely turn to the Liberal premier Gordon Campbell than Jean Charest. And this by a mile.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
July 7, 2008
SURVEYS AND COMMON SENSE: Do consumer confidence or business confidence polls ever predict anything of any value or anything we didn't already know or that could not have been predicted some other way? I'm sure the answer is no. A survey would be interesting...
As for mortgage and subprime bailout laws, why is it that someone who was improvident with his/her money and spent unwisely and borrowed badly get a better deal now that things have gone wrong than those who have worked hard and have kept their credit rating? This sort of legislation punishes good behaviour and rewards bad behaviour.
NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY: Gordon Laxer, a professor of political economy at the University of Alberta, says that we are going to run out of natural gas reserves in 9.3 years. That's all we have left. In 1993, we were supposed to have 12 years of oil reserves left and 16 years of gas left. What happened? Until we remove the biggest restriction on the development of alternative fuel technology, such as capital gains taxes, there will not be the sort of development we need from the private sector. That's where the investment is for this sector. It won't be like the Manhattan project. We're not fighting the Nazis. We're fighting to get an oil contract from ourselves instead of tyrants and dictators. Not quite the same problem. So let's stop penalizing high-tech, innovation and research companies as they try to develop the very technology and alternatives that we need to move over to other energy sources.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: The more people a representative has to represent, the less representative he/she becomes. If you look a the populations of three major democracies, the UK, the US and Canada. Since WWII, Britain's population has gone up roughly 10%. Its representation in Parliament has gone up about 5%. There are fewer MPs for people on average then there were before.
In the US, there are 435 Members of Congress (not including 100 Senators). During WWII, when the population was 50% smaller, the total was 529 (not including Hawaii and Alaska and including 100 Senators). But the population of the US has gone up 50% since then, so the average Congressman is representing twice as many people on average as his/her predecessor during WWII. While some states have declined in population, the likely figure is likely the same in most states.
The allotment of representatives is constitutionally fixed (since the 1960's) and the only reason the number of Members has increased is because of the admission of Hawaii and Alaska. There are more resources, technology and staff available now to a Congressman than there were in the 1960's. But he/she still represents twice as many people. And there are more committees to eat into his/her time.
In Canada, there were 264 Members of Parliament for nearly the first 100 years of Confederation. Our population did not affect how many members there were. In the 1970's there was a big redraw of the map and it added about 18 Members to our House and brought it up to 282. It was an unprecedented expansion of representation. We now have about 305 Members only 30 years later. We have therefore added about 10% of the original number of Members.
Our population, in the 1940's, was about 15 million. It's now twice that. The average Member is now representing about 80% more people than before. This is better than in the US, but not as good as in Britain. What's worse, a number of provinces are guaranteed a number of Members regardless of population. PEI has four and Quebec gets 75. Therefore, with the 30 year head start of the baby boom and shrinking populations in PEI and Quebec, the population is totally out of sync with its representation.
As for mortgage and subprime bailout laws, why is it that someone who was improvident with his/her money and spent unwisely and borrowed badly get a better deal now that things have gone wrong than those who have worked hard and have kept their credit rating? This sort of legislation punishes good behaviour and rewards bad behaviour.
NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY: Gordon Laxer, a professor of political economy at the University of Alberta, says that we are going to run out of natural gas reserves in 9.3 years. That's all we have left. In 1993, we were supposed to have 12 years of oil reserves left and 16 years of gas left. What happened? Until we remove the biggest restriction on the development of alternative fuel technology, such as capital gains taxes, there will not be the sort of development we need from the private sector. That's where the investment is for this sector. It won't be like the Manhattan project. We're not fighting the Nazis. We're fighting to get an oil contract from ourselves instead of tyrants and dictators. Not quite the same problem. So let's stop penalizing high-tech, innovation and research companies as they try to develop the very technology and alternatives that we need to move over to other energy sources.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: The more people a representative has to represent, the less representative he/she becomes. If you look a the populations of three major democracies, the UK, the US and Canada. Since WWII, Britain's population has gone up roughly 10%. Its representation in Parliament has gone up about 5%. There are fewer MPs for people on average then there were before.
In the US, there are 435 Members of Congress (not including 100 Senators). During WWII, when the population was 50% smaller, the total was 529 (not including Hawaii and Alaska and including 100 Senators). But the population of the US has gone up 50% since then, so the average Congressman is representing twice as many people on average as his/her predecessor during WWII. While some states have declined in population, the likely figure is likely the same in most states.
The allotment of representatives is constitutionally fixed (since the 1960's) and the only reason the number of Members has increased is because of the admission of Hawaii and Alaska. There are more resources, technology and staff available now to a Congressman than there were in the 1960's. But he/she still represents twice as many people. And there are more committees to eat into his/her time.
In Canada, there were 264 Members of Parliament for nearly the first 100 years of Confederation. Our population did not affect how many members there were. In the 1970's there was a big redraw of the map and it added about 18 Members to our House and brought it up to 282. It was an unprecedented expansion of representation. We now have about 305 Members only 30 years later. We have therefore added about 10% of the original number of Members.
Our population, in the 1940's, was about 15 million. It's now twice that. The average Member is now representing about 80% more people than before. This is better than in the US, but not as good as in Britain. What's worse, a number of provinces are guaranteed a number of Members regardless of population. PEI has four and Quebec gets 75. Therefore, with the 30 year head start of the baby boom and shrinking populations in PEI and Quebec, the population is totally out of sync with its representation.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
JULY 3, 2008
BAD HOLLYWOOD, BAD BAD HOLLYWOOD:
It is unfortunate how so many times in these action movies, there has to be a blond face at the end with a come hither look who promises more to come. Sad trend. Have to keep those contractually obligated starlets employed in some way, I suppose.
AFRICA:
It’s amazing to me that when it comes to African affairs, apparently it’s leave it to the Africans when it’s time to intervene. This is destroying the continent. We have to help them with everything else from irrigation to innoculation. But when it comes to their governments who cause these problems in the first place, something that would truly help the people of Africa, we have to leave it to them.
This is a failed policy towards Western Africa. Non interventionism is copping out. Zimbabwe is a case in point. The protection of the people is an empty doctrine.
Millions of people have died over thousands of year to prove the principles of good government, liberty, law, business, trade and freedom. This means nothing at the UN where they continue to debate them, don’t apply them and show contempt for them. It’s like if someone went to the New England Journal of Medicine and tried to publish an article saying garlic is a cure for AIDS because all the other treatments are western concepts.
Dams aren’t made of concrete because it’s a western concept. We don’t dress astronauts in cardboard because someone from the west designed spacesuits. Some principles are timeless and universal regardless of where they came from. Many of us admire Confucius and don’t care if he came from the East.
But at the UN, real debate is replaced with hatred and hypocrisy. When we catch a state in the act, we shouldn’t consult with some of that state’s friends and allies to decide what to do with it. I guess it’s time for the US and the UK and perhaps France to do something real. The UN has failed yet again. What is the point of this organization anymore? Someone else can run its programs and probably do a better job.
It’s good to talk, but there’s a limit. At some point, something has to be done. The only thing not done against Mr. Mugabe (except very severe sanctions which would have hurt the people more than him) was military intervention, arrest and prosecution of Mr. Mugabe. Now there will be people around the world who will follow his inspiration to become just like him.
What would Winston do indeed. The lot of the tyrant should be a relic by now. Winston would be shocked that the UN doesn’t stand up for this principle. Even Nelson Mandela can’t comment against Mugabe.
It is unfortunate how so many times in these action movies, there has to be a blond face at the end with a come hither look who promises more to come. Sad trend. Have to keep those contractually obligated starlets employed in some way, I suppose.
AFRICA:
It’s amazing to me that when it comes to African affairs, apparently it’s leave it to the Africans when it’s time to intervene. This is destroying the continent. We have to help them with everything else from irrigation to innoculation. But when it comes to their governments who cause these problems in the first place, something that would truly help the people of Africa, we have to leave it to them.
This is a failed policy towards Western Africa. Non interventionism is copping out. Zimbabwe is a case in point. The protection of the people is an empty doctrine.
Millions of people have died over thousands of year to prove the principles of good government, liberty, law, business, trade and freedom. This means nothing at the UN where they continue to debate them, don’t apply them and show contempt for them. It’s like if someone went to the New England Journal of Medicine and tried to publish an article saying garlic is a cure for AIDS because all the other treatments are western concepts.
Dams aren’t made of concrete because it’s a western concept. We don’t dress astronauts in cardboard because someone from the west designed spacesuits. Some principles are timeless and universal regardless of where they came from. Many of us admire Confucius and don’t care if he came from the East.
But at the UN, real debate is replaced with hatred and hypocrisy. When we catch a state in the act, we shouldn’t consult with some of that state’s friends and allies to decide what to do with it. I guess it’s time for the US and the UK and perhaps France to do something real. The UN has failed yet again. What is the point of this organization anymore? Someone else can run its programs and probably do a better job.
It’s good to talk, but there’s a limit. At some point, something has to be done. The only thing not done against Mr. Mugabe (except very severe sanctions which would have hurt the people more than him) was military intervention, arrest and prosecution of Mr. Mugabe. Now there will be people around the world who will follow his inspiration to become just like him.
What would Winston do indeed. The lot of the tyrant should be a relic by now. Winston would be shocked that the UN doesn’t stand up for this principle. Even Nelson Mandela can’t comment against Mugabe.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
July 2, 2008
It’s typical that so few have pointed out another way to bring the oil price down would be to simply make developing countries charge what the price is for oil. Many of them, including Indonesia, China and Venezuela charge a thimble’s worth of the real price of oil to its people. The result is that they use far more of it than they should. The use of oil would go down if the real price was charged. In turn, demand would go down and the price would fall. Supply would become greater than demand rather than tightly higher.
We don’t hear our politicians talk about this at all. Venezuela is charging $5.00 a barrel for domestic use. It’s a small country, but when you see China and Indonesia subsidizing oil, it becomes a massive spur on demand that is created artificially by a government and unwelcome at this time.
Other ways to downsize the oil price: drill and explore more. Announce that you’re doing it. Go for coal and develop technologies to make it ever cleaner. Go to alternatives and announce the building of more nuclear reactors. Bring in tougher mileage standards. Insist that governments of emerging economies not bring in carbon taxes but make their people pay the real price of oil.
The best way to control inflation is not to loose monetarily. Friedman said that real inflation can only come from looser monetary policy. If that is still tight, strict and has good targets, then even a commodity shock like this will not create inflation of any real level like what we saw in the 1970s. Inflation remains barely 3% when we know that in the 1970s inflation was 10-15% in any given year. Unemployment was also in the double digits then. They called the whole mess stagflation.
Most governments get this. We’re not close to that. The misery index is barely at 9%. In the 1970s it was usually in the 20% range.
The dirty secret of the carbon tax the Liberals are proposing is that it will not see its revenues drop after being added because of reduced use of carbon. In fact, it will go up and there will be more revenues from it. It will not regulate or restrict emissions. Heating oil and gas, which it will tax, are things people need. People don’t have a choice about using some of these things, especially if the weather is extreme or they need to go on a business trip. Look at the GST. It was not only considered to be revenue neutral but no one believed it would become the staple for revenue generation that it is now. That’s probably why it’s such a good idea. It will switch us over to consumption taxes in a real way. But will the income tax reduction be similar?
A clue to the Liberal intentions on this lies in the fact that except for an auditor-general’s slap on the wrist, if it does gather in more revenue than it actually returned in tax cuts, there would be no sanction or punishment for the government. Much like the GST, it could be a money spinner. No one holds the federal government (even the Liberals who promised to get rid of it) now that the GST is spinning so much revenue that it balances our budgets.
ZIMBABWE: It’s not colonialism to invade this country. Are we willing to sacrifice this entire country because we feel guilty about what we did or didn’t do in Africa in the past? Why is this different from Sierra Leone? Such hypocrisy. It’s just murder now. I guess at least Zimbabwe isn’t a "failed" state. There is a government, of sorts, that is evidently strong enough to beat the crap out of its own people.
Look at Burma and North Korea. Expect Zimbabwe to imitate the model. Expect others if we don’t intervene there.
We don’t hear our politicians talk about this at all. Venezuela is charging $5.00 a barrel for domestic use. It’s a small country, but when you see China and Indonesia subsidizing oil, it becomes a massive spur on demand that is created artificially by a government and unwelcome at this time.
Other ways to downsize the oil price: drill and explore more. Announce that you’re doing it. Go for coal and develop technologies to make it ever cleaner. Go to alternatives and announce the building of more nuclear reactors. Bring in tougher mileage standards. Insist that governments of emerging economies not bring in carbon taxes but make their people pay the real price of oil.
The best way to control inflation is not to loose monetarily. Friedman said that real inflation can only come from looser monetary policy. If that is still tight, strict and has good targets, then even a commodity shock like this will not create inflation of any real level like what we saw in the 1970s. Inflation remains barely 3% when we know that in the 1970s inflation was 10-15% in any given year. Unemployment was also in the double digits then. They called the whole mess stagflation.
Most governments get this. We’re not close to that. The misery index is barely at 9%. In the 1970s it was usually in the 20% range.
The dirty secret of the carbon tax the Liberals are proposing is that it will not see its revenues drop after being added because of reduced use of carbon. In fact, it will go up and there will be more revenues from it. It will not regulate or restrict emissions. Heating oil and gas, which it will tax, are things people need. People don’t have a choice about using some of these things, especially if the weather is extreme or they need to go on a business trip. Look at the GST. It was not only considered to be revenue neutral but no one believed it would become the staple for revenue generation that it is now. That’s probably why it’s such a good idea. It will switch us over to consumption taxes in a real way. But will the income tax reduction be similar?
A clue to the Liberal intentions on this lies in the fact that except for an auditor-general’s slap on the wrist, if it does gather in more revenue than it actually returned in tax cuts, there would be no sanction or punishment for the government. Much like the GST, it could be a money spinner. No one holds the federal government (even the Liberals who promised to get rid of it) now that the GST is spinning so much revenue that it balances our budgets.
ZIMBABWE: It’s not colonialism to invade this country. Are we willing to sacrifice this entire country because we feel guilty about what we did or didn’t do in Africa in the past? Why is this different from Sierra Leone? Such hypocrisy. It’s just murder now. I guess at least Zimbabwe isn’t a "failed" state. There is a government, of sorts, that is evidently strong enough to beat the crap out of its own people.
Look at Burma and North Korea. Expect Zimbabwe to imitate the model. Expect others if we don’t intervene there.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
June 24, 2008
1)The real question to ask politicians is how are gas prices a crisis or a problem? The second one is if the price of gas is a problem, what do you propose to do to reduce it? If the answer to the first question is yes, they should be coming up with ways to reduce the price of gas and oil. If the answers are inconsistent in the sense that things are being proposed that on the other hand will increase oil and gas prices, like carbon emission reductions and things like this, then you have to wonder about their real good offices and good faith and consistency and lack of hypocrisy.
You cannot be for both things at the same time. You can be for low gas prices and be for carbon emission control. Anyone who says they can is lying or stupid.
I have no problem with being honest in saying that someone may want higher gas prices and carbon emission controls. But I do have a problem with someone who pretends that they can be for both things at the same time.
May left wing politicians, especially Mr. Layton, act like they are for both. Mrs. Clinton is another.
Want to use wheat to make paper instead of cutting down trees? Oh no! The price of wheat is up too.
The idea of using wheat paper or ethanol is more soothing to the conscience of some people than the thought of feeding people. Cutting trees is bad. Too bad there’s not enough food. If it’s the chaff of the wheat being used, it’s too bad reporters aren’t pointing that out. Especially on the CBC.
2)Randy Cross pointed out that in his opinion most of the guys on the American Idol stage couldn’t sing. Not a bad voice, but no strength. They didn’t have the voice necessary to carry a career. They have everything and they look good, but they can’t get out there and prove themselves without the support of the show.
I thought I was alone in thinking the same thing.
3)Herouxville occurred spontaneously. A town counsel of its own volition issued a statement requiring people to obey certain rules when they came to Quebec and giving instructions to immigrants about how to behave. That wasn’t a concoction of the media.
Blaming the media, as the Reasonable Accommodations Commission did in Quebec seems to be the result of legitimate concerns and in some cases irrational ones that were simply reported by the press. The treatment of the press by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission suggests to me that another chapter in the sorry story of the blaming of the media by political and academic elites, especially if the media reports things that are inconvenient, ugly and troubling and don’t fit in with the political elite’s perception of how society should be. If there is any better example of this trend, it is the complaints against Ezra Levant and McLean’s by the Human Rights Commissions of Alberta, BC and Canada. This is a chilling thing that can only have the effect of freezing investigations of things that are bad that the government is doing or things that are bad that people are doing.
This is an unwelcome part of the well-meaning Commission’s work.
You cannot be for both things at the same time. You can be for low gas prices and be for carbon emission control. Anyone who says they can is lying or stupid.
I have no problem with being honest in saying that someone may want higher gas prices and carbon emission controls. But I do have a problem with someone who pretends that they can be for both things at the same time.
May left wing politicians, especially Mr. Layton, act like they are for both. Mrs. Clinton is another.
Want to use wheat to make paper instead of cutting down trees? Oh no! The price of wheat is up too.
The idea of using wheat paper or ethanol is more soothing to the conscience of some people than the thought of feeding people. Cutting trees is bad. Too bad there’s not enough food. If it’s the chaff of the wheat being used, it’s too bad reporters aren’t pointing that out. Especially on the CBC.
2)Randy Cross pointed out that in his opinion most of the guys on the American Idol stage couldn’t sing. Not a bad voice, but no strength. They didn’t have the voice necessary to carry a career. They have everything and they look good, but they can’t get out there and prove themselves without the support of the show.
I thought I was alone in thinking the same thing.
3)Herouxville occurred spontaneously. A town counsel of its own volition issued a statement requiring people to obey certain rules when they came to Quebec and giving instructions to immigrants about how to behave. That wasn’t a concoction of the media.
Blaming the media, as the Reasonable Accommodations Commission did in Quebec seems to be the result of legitimate concerns and in some cases irrational ones that were simply reported by the press. The treatment of the press by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission suggests to me that another chapter in the sorry story of the blaming of the media by political and academic elites, especially if the media reports things that are inconvenient, ugly and troubling and don’t fit in with the political elite’s perception of how society should be. If there is any better example of this trend, it is the complaints against Ezra Levant and McLean’s by the Human Rights Commissions of Alberta, BC and Canada. This is a chilling thing that can only have the effect of freezing investigations of things that are bad that the government is doing or things that are bad that people are doing.
This is an unwelcome part of the well-meaning Commission’s work.
Friday, June 13, 2008
June 13, 2008
-The problem with the NDP is that they can never confront the reality of their own policies. A perfect example is carbon tax.
The NDP is faced with the problem of deciding how to attack it. Perhaps because they wanted the companies to pay for it, not the consumer.
If you believe in global warming, you believe carbon emissions are a bad thing. The best way to attack it is to attack the consumer’s comsumption of carbon emissions. The emission of carbon is based on consumption. A carbon tax is the most pervasive way to attack that emission.
The NDP has never found reality to be a strong suit.
-The health care wait time insurance that is being proposed in BC is very exciting. The CBC reporter that was covering it could not help question whether it was legal. Typical Canadian.
I have to admit that between provinces, such insurance might run into legalities, depending on whether the provinces bother to enforce the Canada Health Care Act. Any number of provinces don’t, including Quebec, Alberta and BC where there are private clinics. Manitoba has them too.
We all know about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the system. This health care wait time insurance is the best example yet of how dysfunctional our system is and how lots of us are in denial about it.
It’s a great idea: you pay $1,300.00 a year and your whole family gets up to $5 million in insurance for health care provision outside of your province. I have to say that I have no idea how anyone will be able to stop a company from selling insurance to people to get health care outside the country. If the proceeds are used to pay for the health care of a person in the US, for instance, and the claim isn’t made against a health ministry in any province, what does the government of Canada or any province have to do with that? Nothing.
Frankly, I think you may see more of these sorts of approaches without euphemistic titles. One day, I suspect you’ll see global health insurance, like travel insurance.
If the choice is between waiting for the system to become more rational and attack the wait times problems and getting a guarantee you won’t have to wait more than 21 days for a procedure through affordable health care insurance, it’s obvious what the choice is going to be for most people who can afford it. At $1,300.00 a year, it will be affordable to an enormous segment of Canadian society.
-Bill C-38, the bill to mandate 5% ethanol content in fuel, is nothing more than a farm aid bill. That’s why it’s supported by the two parties with the most farmers in their caucuses: the Liberals and the Conservatives. For them to wrap themselves in the flag and fuel independence and global warming while we see corn riots going on in Mexico is obscene.
We should be ashamed as a party. And those members of our caucus who represent consumers (and which one doesn’t?) should vote against this.
-Raw sewage was pumped into the Ottawa River from Aylmer. I know this because the sailing launch that my dad used for sailing was only a few yards away from the bubbling outlet in the river. My father and the rest of us had to make sure we showered after sailing so that we did not get any poisonous material on our bodies from the dirty water.
The Ontario side did not do this. How is it that Aylmer was able to do this without attracting the attention of Environment Canada? After all, that raw sewage didn’t just stay on the Quebec side. It almost certainly affected the Ontario side. Therefore, an effluent over interprovincial boundaries becomes a federal matter and concern.
There is the double irony of the fact that it was occurring at the doorstep of Parliament and other federal installations. I’m sure some of them contributed to it. Why didn’t Ottawa intervene?
The answers appear unattractive, but it raises the question as to why the federal government could not intervene and stop this sort of activity either through penalties or through court orders. It’s certainly an example of the double standard that some governments are held to in this country with regards to issues like the environment and the lackaday attitude of the federal government to environment issues. The US federal government and the all-powerful EPA appear in stark contrast.
Where is our superfund to clean up REAL pollution? We don’t have one. And we don’t have an EPA with real power. That might not be such a bad thing. The EPA has been known to overreach. But we have raw sewage being pumped out in this country. Someone need to control and stop this.
The NDP is faced with the problem of deciding how to attack it. Perhaps because they wanted the companies to pay for it, not the consumer.
If you believe in global warming, you believe carbon emissions are a bad thing. The best way to attack it is to attack the consumer’s comsumption of carbon emissions. The emission of carbon is based on consumption. A carbon tax is the most pervasive way to attack that emission.
The NDP has never found reality to be a strong suit.
-The health care wait time insurance that is being proposed in BC is very exciting. The CBC reporter that was covering it could not help question whether it was legal. Typical Canadian.
I have to admit that between provinces, such insurance might run into legalities, depending on whether the provinces bother to enforce the Canada Health Care Act. Any number of provinces don’t, including Quebec, Alberta and BC where there are private clinics. Manitoba has them too.
We all know about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the system. This health care wait time insurance is the best example yet of how dysfunctional our system is and how lots of us are in denial about it.
It’s a great idea: you pay $1,300.00 a year and your whole family gets up to $5 million in insurance for health care provision outside of your province. I have to say that I have no idea how anyone will be able to stop a company from selling insurance to people to get health care outside the country. If the proceeds are used to pay for the health care of a person in the US, for instance, and the claim isn’t made against a health ministry in any province, what does the government of Canada or any province have to do with that? Nothing.
Frankly, I think you may see more of these sorts of approaches without euphemistic titles. One day, I suspect you’ll see global health insurance, like travel insurance.
If the choice is between waiting for the system to become more rational and attack the wait times problems and getting a guarantee you won’t have to wait more than 21 days for a procedure through affordable health care insurance, it’s obvious what the choice is going to be for most people who can afford it. At $1,300.00 a year, it will be affordable to an enormous segment of Canadian society.
-Bill C-38, the bill to mandate 5% ethanol content in fuel, is nothing more than a farm aid bill. That’s why it’s supported by the two parties with the most farmers in their caucuses: the Liberals and the Conservatives. For them to wrap themselves in the flag and fuel independence and global warming while we see corn riots going on in Mexico is obscene.
We should be ashamed as a party. And those members of our caucus who represent consumers (and which one doesn’t?) should vote against this.
-Raw sewage was pumped into the Ottawa River from Aylmer. I know this because the sailing launch that my dad used for sailing was only a few yards away from the bubbling outlet in the river. My father and the rest of us had to make sure we showered after sailing so that we did not get any poisonous material on our bodies from the dirty water.
The Ontario side did not do this. How is it that Aylmer was able to do this without attracting the attention of Environment Canada? After all, that raw sewage didn’t just stay on the Quebec side. It almost certainly affected the Ontario side. Therefore, an effluent over interprovincial boundaries becomes a federal matter and concern.
There is the double irony of the fact that it was occurring at the doorstep of Parliament and other federal installations. I’m sure some of them contributed to it. Why didn’t Ottawa intervene?
The answers appear unattractive, but it raises the question as to why the federal government could not intervene and stop this sort of activity either through penalties or through court orders. It’s certainly an example of the double standard that some governments are held to in this country with regards to issues like the environment and the lackaday attitude of the federal government to environment issues. The US federal government and the all-powerful EPA appear in stark contrast.
Where is our superfund to clean up REAL pollution? We don’t have one. And we don’t have an EPA with real power. That might not be such a bad thing. The EPA has been known to overreach. But we have raw sewage being pumped out in this country. Someone need to control and stop this.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
June 11, 2008
-- If the Warner/McCain/Lieberman bill for cap-and-trade is adopted for carbon emission control, you will see lobbying expand exponentially such that it won’t be K Street by the year 2050 where the lobbyists live. It’ll be A to Z Streets. You can be sure that the average working Americans, those who create and produce, will be the last people who will have attention paid to them.
-- It is incredibly ironic and eerie that two years ago, the television series West Wing had its swan song by having a presidential race between two candidates. One was a Republican moderate who was in his 70’s but had certainly intellectual conservative positions but was moderate on social issues (and anti-ethanol, by the way). The other was a Democrat from a visible minority who, while not really a moderate and broadly liberal, was cunning, crafty and was able to be moderate enough, especially given his military background, to convince the population that he was not a traditional liberal.
Except for the military background, the Democrat on offer this year is exactly the same and has many of the same charismatic and attractive features as Jimmy Smits’ character in West Wing. The Republican, who was played by Alan Alda, is almost completely aped by John McCain. One hopes that the twist ending where the Republican loses what appears to be a sure victory because he is found to have lobbied hard for a nuclear plant in his home state that has an accident, won’t be caught by a similar October surprise when he’s running against Obama. In the tv series, they were replacing a Democrat who was relatively popular. In real life, they’re replacing a Republican who is one of the least popular exiting two-term presidents in history. Certainly, John McCain might only wish that the only problem he had was a far-fetched deus ex machina accident. I wonder if anyone’s noted the remarkable similarities on a blog somewhere.
-- I think for the first time in his campaign, Mr. Obama might have ended a speech at the right time. I don’t know what he’s talking about when he says that this was the moment we got jobs for the jobless. There’s 5% unemployment right now. I do give him credit for not bothering to mention that he is the first African-American candidate. It would have been unseemly for him to do so. He showed a surer touch for what needed to be said or done. He acted like a gentleman. Hillary did not.
-- I saw two windmill blades being carried on large flat-bed trucks on the highway. I wondered what they were. I figured it out because of one of these jumped-up energy commercials.
-- If everyone is good, then no one is good. The invasion of Poland by the Nazis cannot be compared to the invasion of Iraq by the US. This sort of relativism cannot continue.
-- If I see one more picture of Mr. Bernier going to Rideau Hall with Ms. Couillard in her now-famous dress I will spit.
-Now is the time for Mr. Obama to prove to us that he is capable of the leadership and daring that he cut himself out as having in his earlier campaign. He has three opportunities. He has the chance to denounce the likes of Rev. Wright and the statements made in the past that were problematic. I don’t know how Obama is going to get that opportunity back.
He could have asked for a re-do in Florida and Michigan, but that’s not going to happen now. It would have made everyone forget about everything. I never believed it was impossible for him to consider, but others felt differently. There is karma in politics. People understand courage and daring. It would have been brilliant. Even if he had lost, he would have still won the nomination.
The last opportunity for glory is to offer the running-mate position to Mrs. Clinton. There are two possible results. One is that she refuses. But he would have offered it up and that would be clear to everyone. She would have had her chance. It would be a stunning event like the Kennedy-Johnson ticket of 1960. Obama would be a unifying figure Most of her supporters would come over. It would prove he can work with other camps.
If she accepts the benefits are incalculable. Republicans would jump. There are also negatives that they’ll try to play on. Like Bill Clinton and his role in an Obama-Clinton administration. Like Mrs. Clinton being untrustworthy and the anathema of what Mr. Obama stands for. But Obama will have shown himself to be the ultimate ideal of the sort of politician he says he is. It will be hard for the Republicans to hold off the Democrats in swing states.
-- It is incredibly ironic and eerie that two years ago, the television series West Wing had its swan song by having a presidential race between two candidates. One was a Republican moderate who was in his 70’s but had certainly intellectual conservative positions but was moderate on social issues (and anti-ethanol, by the way). The other was a Democrat from a visible minority who, while not really a moderate and broadly liberal, was cunning, crafty and was able to be moderate enough, especially given his military background, to convince the population that he was not a traditional liberal.
Except for the military background, the Democrat on offer this year is exactly the same and has many of the same charismatic and attractive features as Jimmy Smits’ character in West Wing. The Republican, who was played by Alan Alda, is almost completely aped by John McCain. One hopes that the twist ending where the Republican loses what appears to be a sure victory because he is found to have lobbied hard for a nuclear plant in his home state that has an accident, won’t be caught by a similar October surprise when he’s running against Obama. In the tv series, they were replacing a Democrat who was relatively popular. In real life, they’re replacing a Republican who is one of the least popular exiting two-term presidents in history. Certainly, John McCain might only wish that the only problem he had was a far-fetched deus ex machina accident. I wonder if anyone’s noted the remarkable similarities on a blog somewhere.
-- I think for the first time in his campaign, Mr. Obama might have ended a speech at the right time. I don’t know what he’s talking about when he says that this was the moment we got jobs for the jobless. There’s 5% unemployment right now. I do give him credit for not bothering to mention that he is the first African-American candidate. It would have been unseemly for him to do so. He showed a surer touch for what needed to be said or done. He acted like a gentleman. Hillary did not.
-- I saw two windmill blades being carried on large flat-bed trucks on the highway. I wondered what they were. I figured it out because of one of these jumped-up energy commercials.
-- If everyone is good, then no one is good. The invasion of Poland by the Nazis cannot be compared to the invasion of Iraq by the US. This sort of relativism cannot continue.
-- If I see one more picture of Mr. Bernier going to Rideau Hall with Ms. Couillard in her now-famous dress I will spit.
-Now is the time for Mr. Obama to prove to us that he is capable of the leadership and daring that he cut himself out as having in his earlier campaign. He has three opportunities. He has the chance to denounce the likes of Rev. Wright and the statements made in the past that were problematic. I don’t know how Obama is going to get that opportunity back.
He could have asked for a re-do in Florida and Michigan, but that’s not going to happen now. It would have made everyone forget about everything. I never believed it was impossible for him to consider, but others felt differently. There is karma in politics. People understand courage and daring. It would have been brilliant. Even if he had lost, he would have still won the nomination.
The last opportunity for glory is to offer the running-mate position to Mrs. Clinton. There are two possible results. One is that she refuses. But he would have offered it up and that would be clear to everyone. She would have had her chance. It would be a stunning event like the Kennedy-Johnson ticket of 1960. Obama would be a unifying figure Most of her supporters would come over. It would prove he can work with other camps.
If she accepts the benefits are incalculable. Republicans would jump. There are also negatives that they’ll try to play on. Like Bill Clinton and his role in an Obama-Clinton administration. Like Mrs. Clinton being untrustworthy and the anathema of what Mr. Obama stands for. But Obama will have shown himself to be the ultimate ideal of the sort of politician he says he is. It will be hard for the Republicans to hold off the Democrats in swing states.
Friday, June 6, 2008
JUNE 6, 2008
One of the very interesting things I found in the "1215" book I’m reading is about the Church’s interdict of 1208 that lasted until 1214 under Innocent III. The church bells were ordered not to ring in England.
One is reminded of the much later and milder winter of discontent of 1979. In England, no one was buried during those years.
*****
My idea for a primary election: start with the smallest state by population and go upwards from there until the last state, California, number 1 in population, is the last one to hold a primary. It would be exciting and a great build-up. It would also mean that little candidates could hang in there longer and would not be as crushed by defeats. Who’s going to get excited if Hillary Clinton loses Delaware? By March, we’d start moving into Wisconsin and Minnesota, some of the middling states. It’ll be harder for someone to be completely destroyed when they know that New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California and New York are still coming.
*****
Why are oil and energy the only industries where, we have decided, that what the people who run it every day and work in it and manage it and develop it and make profits from it, do, say and think about this are somehow wrong and we know everything that they don’t? What makes this the one industry where we know better than the people who are professionals in it?
We don’t do this for automotive, construction, food production and distribution or the law or medecine.
In 1960, American direct access to oil reserves was 85%. Now it’s 7%. The total demand for oil is 86 million barrels a day now. In about 30 years, it’s going to be 120 million barrels.
The CEO of Coneco-Phillips spoke recently in Alberta and said that right now, we provide 20% of the US’s oil. In about 20 or 30 years it will be about 50-60%. It’s important that we know that people like Jeffrey Simpson, who believes that eventually we won’t be able to sell oil to the US, might be wrong.
One is reminded of the much later and milder winter of discontent of 1979. In England, no one was buried during those years.
*****
My idea for a primary election: start with the smallest state by population and go upwards from there until the last state, California, number 1 in population, is the last one to hold a primary. It would be exciting and a great build-up. It would also mean that little candidates could hang in there longer and would not be as crushed by defeats. Who’s going to get excited if Hillary Clinton loses Delaware? By March, we’d start moving into Wisconsin and Minnesota, some of the middling states. It’ll be harder for someone to be completely destroyed when they know that New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California and New York are still coming.
*****
Why are oil and energy the only industries where, we have decided, that what the people who run it every day and work in it and manage it and develop it and make profits from it, do, say and think about this are somehow wrong and we know everything that they don’t? What makes this the one industry where we know better than the people who are professionals in it?
We don’t do this for automotive, construction, food production and distribution or the law or medecine.
In 1960, American direct access to oil reserves was 85%. Now it’s 7%. The total demand for oil is 86 million barrels a day now. In about 30 years, it’s going to be 120 million barrels.
The CEO of Coneco-Phillips spoke recently in Alberta and said that right now, we provide 20% of the US’s oil. In about 20 or 30 years it will be about 50-60%. It’s important that we know that people like Jeffrey Simpson, who believes that eventually we won’t be able to sell oil to the US, might be wrong.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Keeping Abreast of Things
John Bitove, who is the KFC Canada CEO, sent a letter to Pamela Anderson, a vegetarian acting on behalf of PETA, in response to her concerns about their cruel chicken preparation practices.
His letter invited her to come for eats at one of his KFCs, reminded her of the facts as they company found them, and promising to keep her "abreast" of any developments.
For that letter, he deserves the continued KFC cruelty picketing they got until they recently settled with PETA.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less if my KFC was beheaded or gassed as long as it’s greasy and crisp. The same doesn’t go for Ms. Anderson being "abreast".
*****
The Stanley Cup is the redwood of sports trophies. It keeps growing every year and you can literally mark certain periods or eras in history just be seeing where you are on the Cup.
*****
The average auto worker makes, under the latest agreement, $67.00 an hour. That’s about $134,000.00 a year. It’s 30% more than the average non-unionized non-American car plant worker. In rejecting a demand to simply get closer to that level, CAW said it wouldn’t be compared to non-unionized car workers, even if they were working in the US and Canada. And they wonder why jobs and plants are moving away.
Those workers now make as much as hour as a legal aid lawyer made in the 1990’s.
*****
How the setting up of another speculative market can be justified is beyond me. Food, oil and metals are all up. Carbon’s next. There won’t just be a cap-and-trade market, but eventually there will be speculative markets on cap-and-trade. The price of carbon might just go through the roof.
Ironically, the government will benefit from that speculation.
*****
It’s always amusing when one is confronted with a story that makes the politically correct, especially the CBC, wonder where to turn. How about the Endangers Species Act "threatened" statement regarding the polar bears of the US? The Bogey Man comes back again. Now, it’s harming the hunting of Inuit by bringing in the plan to protect the threatened polar bear.
On the other hand, I thought the hunters and the souvenir grabbers were the real problem. They’re the ones insensitive to the shrinking ice that is causing the decline of species like the polar bear. Normally, should we not be exalting the US as protecting an endangered species?
It’s hard to know how to be consistent intellectually on these things. I think the Endangered Species Act is scam and a boondoggle which has harmed the more important species (humans) many times over. It’s done very little to help animals. Certainly not those who rely on some sort of species control so they can live as well. It’s also harmed the living of all sorts of Northwestern economic activities in the US.
Now, we Canadians are getting a taste of the tyranny of this regime. AT the same time, we can’t help but enjoy the irony that the exaggerated and threatened state of the polar bear (some populations are indeed growing, especially in Russia) is non-existent as is the ridiculous global warming theory.
This is the result. The Inuit, who are simply trying to pursue their usual way of life to earn what money they can from US tourists, are harmed.
*****
McCain campaign slogan: Don’t go back to the past. Who wants another Carter term?
*****
Indiana Jones is only old for those too young to remember it the first time.
His letter invited her to come for eats at one of his KFCs, reminded her of the facts as they company found them, and promising to keep her "abreast" of any developments.
For that letter, he deserves the continued KFC cruelty picketing they got until they recently settled with PETA.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less if my KFC was beheaded or gassed as long as it’s greasy and crisp. The same doesn’t go for Ms. Anderson being "abreast".
*****
The Stanley Cup is the redwood of sports trophies. It keeps growing every year and you can literally mark certain periods or eras in history just be seeing where you are on the Cup.
*****
The average auto worker makes, under the latest agreement, $67.00 an hour. That’s about $134,000.00 a year. It’s 30% more than the average non-unionized non-American car plant worker. In rejecting a demand to simply get closer to that level, CAW said it wouldn’t be compared to non-unionized car workers, even if they were working in the US and Canada. And they wonder why jobs and plants are moving away.
Those workers now make as much as hour as a legal aid lawyer made in the 1990’s.
*****
How the setting up of another speculative market can be justified is beyond me. Food, oil and metals are all up. Carbon’s next. There won’t just be a cap-and-trade market, but eventually there will be speculative markets on cap-and-trade. The price of carbon might just go through the roof.
Ironically, the government will benefit from that speculation.
*****
It’s always amusing when one is confronted with a story that makes the politically correct, especially the CBC, wonder where to turn. How about the Endangers Species Act "threatened" statement regarding the polar bears of the US? The Bogey Man comes back again. Now, it’s harming the hunting of Inuit by bringing in the plan to protect the threatened polar bear.
On the other hand, I thought the hunters and the souvenir grabbers were the real problem. They’re the ones insensitive to the shrinking ice that is causing the decline of species like the polar bear. Normally, should we not be exalting the US as protecting an endangered species?
It’s hard to know how to be consistent intellectually on these things. I think the Endangered Species Act is scam and a boondoggle which has harmed the more important species (humans) many times over. It’s done very little to help animals. Certainly not those who rely on some sort of species control so they can live as well. It’s also harmed the living of all sorts of Northwestern economic activities in the US.
Now, we Canadians are getting a taste of the tyranny of this regime. AT the same time, we can’t help but enjoy the irony that the exaggerated and threatened state of the polar bear (some populations are indeed growing, especially in Russia) is non-existent as is the ridiculous global warming theory.
This is the result. The Inuit, who are simply trying to pursue their usual way of life to earn what money they can from US tourists, are harmed.
*****
McCain campaign slogan: Don’t go back to the past. Who wants another Carter term?
*****
Indiana Jones is only old for those too young to remember it the first time.
June 4, 2008
I was sad to learn that Bill Shatner is a Malthusian. He believes that overpopulation is the core of all of our problems. How sad. After all, his own career is proof of the possibility of the human being.
In the many ways he makes money, in everything from bran cereal to cheap airplane tickets to pulp sci-fi suggest that he’s not doing so badly from overpopulation.
I can’t believe that the philosophy of Gene Rodenberry was about there being too many people. A man that is so full of joy and vigor like Shatner who has time and time again proven pessimists wrong in his career would have such a glum view of the world and its prospects.
We are better off then we ever have been. Certainly we’re better off than when young Bill Shatner tried to go to McGill on a Jewish quota.
James Kunstler in his book "A World Made By Hand" is another one of these backwards thinkers. We make more oil than ever. We are not past our peak. The bottom line is that China is supposed to be an economic superpower by 2050. How is that going to happen if there is no more oil? Both things can’t happen. There is going to be enough oil for everyone. It’s just a matter of unplugging the taps, and that’s going to happen as well as people realize that the luddite view that we’ve peaked and are now declining is as legitimate a belief as that that the shape of Mount Everest can tell us how many chickens we’ll produce next year. We should rest assured that these predictions will be no more legitimate than the prediction of the book that was the basis for Soylent Green in the 1960s, the one that we would all run out of food in the 1980s or the prediction by a number of experts, including the economist Simon, that we would run out of oil by 1980. We were supposed to be in an ice age by now according to some in the 1970s. Nuclear war has not reduced the planet to a diamond pit. Always bet on the human race.
We have more oil, food and more of nearly every other commodity than we ever had before. Some are going up in price, but not because of any shortage. There are lacks of infrastructure and planning. There is speculation. But no shortages.
These same declinists have been wrong time and time again about most everything. Some were even wrong about Bill Shatner’s career. But we keep listening to them. They get rich and we overcome and forget about the fact that we made them rich. Free entreprise and capitalism hard at work. Hurray!
The risk that these unsound theories might take hold is greater if we render them self-fulfilling. We make oil scarcer by making it less available by limiting production or infrastructure and increasing taxes on it. The real test about any of these predictions coming true will be met by our ability to resist the unfortunate supporters of doom. Those who stand up and say things will be well aren’t usually met with support. The media doesn’t like good news. It’s hard to focus optimism.
That’s why democracy is important. And not just the kind at the ballot box, but the general popular will that is felt in even the most sodden dictatorships wherein a country, like China, bends to the pressure of its emerging middle class not to deny it the things that the Western world has enjoyed. It could be the American Dream, but it might be larger families or good medical care.
Ask yourself honestly: If China is going to be an economic superpower in the next 20-30 years, how can we possibly be going to the point where we would have no oil left. It doesn’t make any sense. China has 1/5 of the world’s population and it’s economic wellbeing depends on the US continuing to be an economic dynamo. Therefore, one can’t believe there won’t be enough oil. Even amongst those politicians that claim they advocate anti-oil policies, there will come a realization that they can’t politically survive if they continue to forward these policies. The oil will become available.
It might take some time and the sadness I have is that we may have to go through a mild slump like the 1970’s before we finally come to a new realization where we stop fantasizing that sanely regulated capitalism is the only way to deliver all goods, including energy. If there are going to be new and exciting alternatives, they are not going to be delivered by a government subsidy or program. They are going to occur by innovation driven by private capital demand.
The brilliant and exciting new idea about steam capture that was mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly is one of those. Green Spirit also has some great ideas like the revisitation of nuclear power in all sorts of guises, some of which are surprising. France at this very moment gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear sources. Sweden also relies on nuclear energy as well as hydro electricity. That’s why it’s one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto guidelines for carbon emissions.
Coming to these practical realizations will be sooner than later, I hope. But the political climate, as ever, could distort the progress so that we go through far more pain than we should. Those who think we’re going to power our economy through an ear of corn are short-termists, especially those who think so out of a desire for profit. The ones that understand that saying we’re addicted to oil is tantamount to saying we’re addicted to food are the true long-term thinkers.
This conclusion tempered with efforts to find other practical solutions to our energy desires and needs will lead to a better solution. It is difficult for people to understand that 6 billion people on earth are far less than the number of people that could be supported by the planet. The resources of our oceans and seas far outweigh all of the resources we’ve used in history.
Does this mean we should not have any care for husbandry or conservation? No. But the truly honest environmentalist is the one who realizes that the best way to husband those resources is through the private system and the removal of regulations and subsidies, incentives and counter incentives and other practices that countervail the natural forces that determine what resources our world economy needs.
If the environmental fight is couched in terms of the private economy, free thinkers everywhere score points. We need to show how fighting pollution, improving our environment and conditions of the air and water and other efforts to make the world cleaner are simply better managed and at lower cost by private delivery systems. This is similar to the strategy that a Thatcherite would pursue for government service delivery and that many other conservatives have said they want to pursue (with overall success, though mixed in some cases). There is no reason why they could not make the same compelling argument for this whole area of policy as we do in such things as competitive assistance for health care or education.
In these sectors, and in particular for infrastructure, conservatives have always argued that there is no reason why the government could not continue to regulate or provide standards for these fields. All we argue is that the actual service should be delivered privately rather than by the government itself.
Why should the government pay for the cost of building the road? It should restrict itself to designing the paramaters for the road and then on the basis of a logical approach. Three inches of gravel may be required of a specific grade, but the government should not dictate where that gravel comes from. The road would be essentially owned by the private company and a toll charged. This is green too, because a toll is a more efficient way of using the road than one that is completely free. The user pays something for using something that creates congestion.
The government doesn’t have to provide scrubbers. It should simply set minimum regulations of emission standards. We do this already. There could be many other areas where this is also more sensible, such as water and sewage treatment. The asset would be private as well as the investment. Therefore, the private company would ensure that it works more efficiently and is kept repaired to make the most money possible.
We do need to upgrade our infrastructure. Taxes don’t have to go up to provide these facilities if we allow the private sector to deal with it in return for a certain level of royalty. It benefits us all to have the infrastructure. This leads to a better environment for the community and provides jobs and revenue as well. It also leads to expertise that could be very useful in the rest of the world, for countries like China and others that are developing infrastructure, who will see their quality of life improve.
Look at Victoria Harbour in BC. It’s obvious the government has botched the job. Private companies could clean up the mess. Sewage is the real pollution there, not greenhouse gasses. It’s disgraceful and embarassing.
In the many ways he makes money, in everything from bran cereal to cheap airplane tickets to pulp sci-fi suggest that he’s not doing so badly from overpopulation.
I can’t believe that the philosophy of Gene Rodenberry was about there being too many people. A man that is so full of joy and vigor like Shatner who has time and time again proven pessimists wrong in his career would have such a glum view of the world and its prospects.
We are better off then we ever have been. Certainly we’re better off than when young Bill Shatner tried to go to McGill on a Jewish quota.
James Kunstler in his book "A World Made By Hand" is another one of these backwards thinkers. We make more oil than ever. We are not past our peak. The bottom line is that China is supposed to be an economic superpower by 2050. How is that going to happen if there is no more oil? Both things can’t happen. There is going to be enough oil for everyone. It’s just a matter of unplugging the taps, and that’s going to happen as well as people realize that the luddite view that we’ve peaked and are now declining is as legitimate a belief as that that the shape of Mount Everest can tell us how many chickens we’ll produce next year. We should rest assured that these predictions will be no more legitimate than the prediction of the book that was the basis for Soylent Green in the 1960s, the one that we would all run out of food in the 1980s or the prediction by a number of experts, including the economist Simon, that we would run out of oil by 1980. We were supposed to be in an ice age by now according to some in the 1970s. Nuclear war has not reduced the planet to a diamond pit. Always bet on the human race.
We have more oil, food and more of nearly every other commodity than we ever had before. Some are going up in price, but not because of any shortage. There are lacks of infrastructure and planning. There is speculation. But no shortages.
These same declinists have been wrong time and time again about most everything. Some were even wrong about Bill Shatner’s career. But we keep listening to them. They get rich and we overcome and forget about the fact that we made them rich. Free entreprise and capitalism hard at work. Hurray!
The risk that these unsound theories might take hold is greater if we render them self-fulfilling. We make oil scarcer by making it less available by limiting production or infrastructure and increasing taxes on it. The real test about any of these predictions coming true will be met by our ability to resist the unfortunate supporters of doom. Those who stand up and say things will be well aren’t usually met with support. The media doesn’t like good news. It’s hard to focus optimism.
That’s why democracy is important. And not just the kind at the ballot box, but the general popular will that is felt in even the most sodden dictatorships wherein a country, like China, bends to the pressure of its emerging middle class not to deny it the things that the Western world has enjoyed. It could be the American Dream, but it might be larger families or good medical care.
Ask yourself honestly: If China is going to be an economic superpower in the next 20-30 years, how can we possibly be going to the point where we would have no oil left. It doesn’t make any sense. China has 1/5 of the world’s population and it’s economic wellbeing depends on the US continuing to be an economic dynamo. Therefore, one can’t believe there won’t be enough oil. Even amongst those politicians that claim they advocate anti-oil policies, there will come a realization that they can’t politically survive if they continue to forward these policies. The oil will become available.
It might take some time and the sadness I have is that we may have to go through a mild slump like the 1970’s before we finally come to a new realization where we stop fantasizing that sanely regulated capitalism is the only way to deliver all goods, including energy. If there are going to be new and exciting alternatives, they are not going to be delivered by a government subsidy or program. They are going to occur by innovation driven by private capital demand.
The brilliant and exciting new idea about steam capture that was mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly is one of those. Green Spirit also has some great ideas like the revisitation of nuclear power in all sorts of guises, some of which are surprising. France at this very moment gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear sources. Sweden also relies on nuclear energy as well as hydro electricity. That’s why it’s one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto guidelines for carbon emissions.
Coming to these practical realizations will be sooner than later, I hope. But the political climate, as ever, could distort the progress so that we go through far more pain than we should. Those who think we’re going to power our economy through an ear of corn are short-termists, especially those who think so out of a desire for profit. The ones that understand that saying we’re addicted to oil is tantamount to saying we’re addicted to food are the true long-term thinkers.
This conclusion tempered with efforts to find other practical solutions to our energy desires and needs will lead to a better solution. It is difficult for people to understand that 6 billion people on earth are far less than the number of people that could be supported by the planet. The resources of our oceans and seas far outweigh all of the resources we’ve used in history.
Does this mean we should not have any care for husbandry or conservation? No. But the truly honest environmentalist is the one who realizes that the best way to husband those resources is through the private system and the removal of regulations and subsidies, incentives and counter incentives and other practices that countervail the natural forces that determine what resources our world economy needs.
If the environmental fight is couched in terms of the private economy, free thinkers everywhere score points. We need to show how fighting pollution, improving our environment and conditions of the air and water and other efforts to make the world cleaner are simply better managed and at lower cost by private delivery systems. This is similar to the strategy that a Thatcherite would pursue for government service delivery and that many other conservatives have said they want to pursue (with overall success, though mixed in some cases). There is no reason why they could not make the same compelling argument for this whole area of policy as we do in such things as competitive assistance for health care or education.
In these sectors, and in particular for infrastructure, conservatives have always argued that there is no reason why the government could not continue to regulate or provide standards for these fields. All we argue is that the actual service should be delivered privately rather than by the government itself.
Why should the government pay for the cost of building the road? It should restrict itself to designing the paramaters for the road and then on the basis of a logical approach. Three inches of gravel may be required of a specific grade, but the government should not dictate where that gravel comes from. The road would be essentially owned by the private company and a toll charged. This is green too, because a toll is a more efficient way of using the road than one that is completely free. The user pays something for using something that creates congestion.
The government doesn’t have to provide scrubbers. It should simply set minimum regulations of emission standards. We do this already. There could be many other areas where this is also more sensible, such as water and sewage treatment. The asset would be private as well as the investment. Therefore, the private company would ensure that it works more efficiently and is kept repaired to make the most money possible.
We do need to upgrade our infrastructure. Taxes don’t have to go up to provide these facilities if we allow the private sector to deal with it in return for a certain level of royalty. It benefits us all to have the infrastructure. This leads to a better environment for the community and provides jobs and revenue as well. It also leads to expertise that could be very useful in the rest of the world, for countries like China and others that are developing infrastructure, who will see their quality of life improve.
Look at Victoria Harbour in BC. It’s obvious the government has botched the job. Private companies could clean up the mess. Sewage is the real pollution there, not greenhouse gasses. It’s disgraceful and embarassing.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
According to Lorne Gunter who I normally trust and respect quite a lot as a Post columnist, the treaty of Westphalia kept "Europe largely at peace for more than three centuries". I don’t think so. How do you explain the 18th century. War was constant, at least with the major powers. I do know there were a number of invasions and counter invasions during the 16th century. It wasn’t Westphalia that brought about the Pax Britannica. It was the British Navy and the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Paris.
Germany invaded Austria and France during that period and lesser countries got in on it too. Westphalia had a loophole in it the size of a locomotive that was used over and over again by Napoleon, King Louis and Bismarck to "defend their territory" that had nothing to do with security or autonomy.
For most of our lifetime and the history of mankind, there have been dictators and thugs in control of countries. We have the chance to eradicate them. I don’t think sitting by and allowing Burma to kill hundreds of thousands of its own people is justified in the name of peace. It brings more trouble and gives comfort to all those aspiring juntas and others who look up to the likes of the president of Sudan and his likes.
The 1930’s are more instructive here. The more comfort and leeway you give dictators, the more trouble you get. Nihilism doesn’t work for me on this. The answer is for Western countries to back up the deals they make for the peace and security of peoples, whether or not the UN agrees.
Gunter points out that any of these countries could be secured by one brigade of troops. It doesn’t make it any better to sit back and let it go on. It’s excessive that we have the luxury of allowing people to die and molder and be poor and miserable while we comment on how safe our way of life is. Democracy would not have come to half the world by now if we had had that attitude in the past sixty years.
We have the means of eliminating the terrible scourge of blindness in children due to malnutrition just by the use of golden rice in the developping world. This isn’t happening because GM foods have been banned due to the activities of groups like Greenpeace.
We have victory in our grasp but we still seem determined to snatch defeat from its jaws.
*****
Does anyone ask in the Middle East who controlled the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip before the Six Day War? This war is cited as the turning point of Middle Eastern politics. Gaza, along with Sinai, was owned by Egypt which it lost in 1967 and only got back in 1978 when it achieved a peace treaty with Israel. Golan was held by Syria. No Palestinians lived there as far as I know. The West Bank was held by Jordan. Why weren’t the Palestinians given a state by those countries? The official reason: we’re waiting for Israel to be destroyed. The real reason: these countries had no more interest or desire in seeing a Palestinian state than Israel does now. They feared the Palestinians having any control over this territory. They wanted it for themselves and they thought the Palestinians would start a fundamentalist Islamic movement in its own country.
King Hussein of Jordan (who escaped assassination at least twice by these elements) was particularly worry about this. At least one-third of his country is Palestinian already, even without counting the West Bank. Certainly the Egyptians, always with an eye on the Muslim brotherhood, are worried about the same result.
It is hypocritical in extreme for these countries to talk about a homeland for the Palestinians when all of them, including the countries that held any of these territories before 1967. They had an opportunity to give the Palestinians a state and refused to do so time and time again. They continue to hold the dark dream that one day Israel will disappear through whatever means.
And for all those Christian Arabs who had the dream of living free in an Arab state once the Israelis were evicted from their various settlements, they should look at Lebanon and see their future.
*****
John Baird had this incredible faculty for convincing me to support something I don’t like. Recently, in an attack on the carbon tax that Stéphane Dion is considering putting into his platform (something I’m a little soured on of late), Mr. Baird said people have to ask themselves if they can trust Mr. Dion to spend any money he’d collect on the gas tax on the environment. This is why nothing happens regarding greenhouse gases.
I don’t care if the money raised is spent on the environment. That’s not the point. The point is to discourage people from doing things that create emissions. I don’t agree with the concept entirely and don’t agree with the underlying principle that we have to go out and fight global warming, I do find it amusing that Mr. Baird has found the wrong way to attack the issue. How would one spend it on the environment? If you can find a way, great. But since Mr. Dion is promising it will be revenue neutral, the money would be spent on the areas that income tax was spent for. Frankly, since I’ve advocated a consumption tax rather than income taxes, I find it attractive in that sense. I hope it’s married with a general tax cut so that there are equivalent reductions in income taxes otherwise people won’t understand it. Mr. Dion needs to explain how it’s going to be revenue neutral.
Mr. Baird is a one-note wonder who has no imagination at all. I don’t know if I support the carbon tax idea, but Mr. Baird is doing a good job of making me think about supporting it. Well done.
Whatever criticism I might have about a carbon tax, one thing you can say about it is that it would be a big step in getting rid of greenhouse gases. It would be more than Mr. Baird has done in well over a year of being the Environment minister.
Mr. Baird and Jack Layton are only the most recent examples of moron politicians (like Jim Prentice) who bring in more and more things to make it harder for us to get out oil and the gas the we need and then complain about the high prices of gas and how something needs to be done about it. If you believe that the consumption of this stuff is bad, who cares how high the price goes up? Why doesn’t Mr. Layton tell everyone to get on a bike? Why doesn’t he get on his?
*****
After the recent earthquake, China has declared the Olympics to be safe.
What about the Chinese?
Germany invaded Austria and France during that period and lesser countries got in on it too. Westphalia had a loophole in it the size of a locomotive that was used over and over again by Napoleon, King Louis and Bismarck to "defend their territory" that had nothing to do with security or autonomy.
For most of our lifetime and the history of mankind, there have been dictators and thugs in control of countries. We have the chance to eradicate them. I don’t think sitting by and allowing Burma to kill hundreds of thousands of its own people is justified in the name of peace. It brings more trouble and gives comfort to all those aspiring juntas and others who look up to the likes of the president of Sudan and his likes.
The 1930’s are more instructive here. The more comfort and leeway you give dictators, the more trouble you get. Nihilism doesn’t work for me on this. The answer is for Western countries to back up the deals they make for the peace and security of peoples, whether or not the UN agrees.
Gunter points out that any of these countries could be secured by one brigade of troops. It doesn’t make it any better to sit back and let it go on. It’s excessive that we have the luxury of allowing people to die and molder and be poor and miserable while we comment on how safe our way of life is. Democracy would not have come to half the world by now if we had had that attitude in the past sixty years.
We have the means of eliminating the terrible scourge of blindness in children due to malnutrition just by the use of golden rice in the developping world. This isn’t happening because GM foods have been banned due to the activities of groups like Greenpeace.
We have victory in our grasp but we still seem determined to snatch defeat from its jaws.
*****
Does anyone ask in the Middle East who controlled the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip before the Six Day War? This war is cited as the turning point of Middle Eastern politics. Gaza, along with Sinai, was owned by Egypt which it lost in 1967 and only got back in 1978 when it achieved a peace treaty with Israel. Golan was held by Syria. No Palestinians lived there as far as I know. The West Bank was held by Jordan. Why weren’t the Palestinians given a state by those countries? The official reason: we’re waiting for Israel to be destroyed. The real reason: these countries had no more interest or desire in seeing a Palestinian state than Israel does now. They feared the Palestinians having any control over this territory. They wanted it for themselves and they thought the Palestinians would start a fundamentalist Islamic movement in its own country.
King Hussein of Jordan (who escaped assassination at least twice by these elements) was particularly worry about this. At least one-third of his country is Palestinian already, even without counting the West Bank. Certainly the Egyptians, always with an eye on the Muslim brotherhood, are worried about the same result.
It is hypocritical in extreme for these countries to talk about a homeland for the Palestinians when all of them, including the countries that held any of these territories before 1967. They had an opportunity to give the Palestinians a state and refused to do so time and time again. They continue to hold the dark dream that one day Israel will disappear through whatever means.
And for all those Christian Arabs who had the dream of living free in an Arab state once the Israelis were evicted from their various settlements, they should look at Lebanon and see their future.
*****
John Baird had this incredible faculty for convincing me to support something I don’t like. Recently, in an attack on the carbon tax that Stéphane Dion is considering putting into his platform (something I’m a little soured on of late), Mr. Baird said people have to ask themselves if they can trust Mr. Dion to spend any money he’d collect on the gas tax on the environment. This is why nothing happens regarding greenhouse gases.
I don’t care if the money raised is spent on the environment. That’s not the point. The point is to discourage people from doing things that create emissions. I don’t agree with the concept entirely and don’t agree with the underlying principle that we have to go out and fight global warming, I do find it amusing that Mr. Baird has found the wrong way to attack the issue. How would one spend it on the environment? If you can find a way, great. But since Mr. Dion is promising it will be revenue neutral, the money would be spent on the areas that income tax was spent for. Frankly, since I’ve advocated a consumption tax rather than income taxes, I find it attractive in that sense. I hope it’s married with a general tax cut so that there are equivalent reductions in income taxes otherwise people won’t understand it. Mr. Dion needs to explain how it’s going to be revenue neutral.
Mr. Baird is a one-note wonder who has no imagination at all. I don’t know if I support the carbon tax idea, but Mr. Baird is doing a good job of making me think about supporting it. Well done.
Whatever criticism I might have about a carbon tax, one thing you can say about it is that it would be a big step in getting rid of greenhouse gases. It would be more than Mr. Baird has done in well over a year of being the Environment minister.
Mr. Baird and Jack Layton are only the most recent examples of moron politicians (like Jim Prentice) who bring in more and more things to make it harder for us to get out oil and the gas the we need and then complain about the high prices of gas and how something needs to be done about it. If you believe that the consumption of this stuff is bad, who cares how high the price goes up? Why doesn’t Mr. Layton tell everyone to get on a bike? Why doesn’t he get on his?
*****
After the recent earthquake, China has declared the Olympics to be safe.
What about the Chinese?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
May 29, 2008
I have a new category for my register of interesting things that have happened. This is in the "proof that the revolution is irrevocable" category. Boris Johnson beat Red Ken Livingston in the London mayoralty race. Once upon a time it took someone like Lady Thatcher to go out and beat Ken because he was considered to be a threat to civilization and abiding evidence of the constant communist inevitability. Conventional wisdom said he was hard to beat.
Boris Johnson beat him. While I respect certain things about Boris, one of them is not that he’s a political heavyweight. There’s hope for us all.
Now if we could only get the Europeans to come along at the same time. I’d also like to see the Americans buck their own leftward trend too, but you can’t have it all.
I give McCain a 50% chance of winning the election. It’s still chancy.
*****
George Stephanopoulos says if all economists are against an economic policy, it should be done. If that was their role, then the Democrats would have to rescind half their platform. I don’t think there is a single economist out there, except for some loony, who would agree with it. The Economist recently called Mr. Obama’s economic platform "disturbing".
*****
Some thoughts on the Hillary strategy. Since the Federal era, 11 presidents have not gotten their party’s nomination after less than two terms in office. Only one of those lost it, Chester Allen Arthur, an accident president. Every president other than that has left of his own accord, sometimes under the severe pressure.
What does this mean for Hillary? If, as it appears is going to happen, she doesn’t win the nomination and she doesn’t get the vice-presidential ticket there are two things that have to happen besides them surviving for another four years politically and that is either Obama has to turn out to be one of the worse presidents in history (if he wins) and either voluntarily leave or fail to get his nomination. In other words, Hillary will have to take the nomination away from an incumbent president. This hasn’t been done since Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan (against Presidents Ford and Carter). It seems almost certain that unless Obama resigns voluntarily that he’s not going to fail to get his party’s nomination after a first term. This is a very unlikely scenario.
I guess this means that the Clinton camp is praying for Obama to lose. That means that McCain is the next president. His presidency would have to be worse that George Bush Sr’s. And his term was pretty good. The US became the sole superpower in the world. The Wall fell. Domestically, it wasn’t so good and he went back on his tax pledge. But his failings were nothing compared to Carter’s.
Bill Clinton beat Bush in 1992 because of Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote. Those who agreed with Perot about Bush but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Perot, voted Clinton. If only one if forty voters did that, Clinton got the margin he needed.
Can Hillary pull it off? It seems very unlikely. She can’t count on accidents or disasters.
Boris Johnson beat him. While I respect certain things about Boris, one of them is not that he’s a political heavyweight. There’s hope for us all.
Now if we could only get the Europeans to come along at the same time. I’d also like to see the Americans buck their own leftward trend too, but you can’t have it all.
I give McCain a 50% chance of winning the election. It’s still chancy.
*****
George Stephanopoulos says if all economists are against an economic policy, it should be done. If that was their role, then the Democrats would have to rescind half their platform. I don’t think there is a single economist out there, except for some loony, who would agree with it. The Economist recently called Mr. Obama’s economic platform "disturbing".
*****
Some thoughts on the Hillary strategy. Since the Federal era, 11 presidents have not gotten their party’s nomination after less than two terms in office. Only one of those lost it, Chester Allen Arthur, an accident president. Every president other than that has left of his own accord, sometimes under the severe pressure.
What does this mean for Hillary? If, as it appears is going to happen, she doesn’t win the nomination and she doesn’t get the vice-presidential ticket there are two things that have to happen besides them surviving for another four years politically and that is either Obama has to turn out to be one of the worse presidents in history (if he wins) and either voluntarily leave or fail to get his nomination. In other words, Hillary will have to take the nomination away from an incumbent president. This hasn’t been done since Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan (against Presidents Ford and Carter). It seems almost certain that unless Obama resigns voluntarily that he’s not going to fail to get his party’s nomination after a first term. This is a very unlikely scenario.
I guess this means that the Clinton camp is praying for Obama to lose. That means that McCain is the next president. His presidency would have to be worse that George Bush Sr’s. And his term was pretty good. The US became the sole superpower in the world. The Wall fell. Domestically, it wasn’t so good and he went back on his tax pledge. But his failings were nothing compared to Carter’s.
Bill Clinton beat Bush in 1992 because of Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote. Those who agreed with Perot about Bush but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Perot, voted Clinton. If only one if forty voters did that, Clinton got the margin he needed.
Can Hillary pull it off? It seems very unlikely. She can’t count on accidents or disasters.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Ma 28, 2008
Pandering is the word used to label the retail sales tax/gas holiday by Mr. Obama, especially because it hasn’t worked, but apparently raging against oil companies full-time and calling for winfall profit taxes that in the past have been no only not working but destructive is not pandering. It’s apparently noble. No one is pandering to anyone there by attacking oil companies, no, of course not.
Someone asked what Mrs. Obama was like. Let’s strip away the colour of her skin and consider her for what she and her husband are: they are about as liberal in outlook, instinct and attitude as any other Democrat. If you vote for them, you are going to get people who are that way. If you want more government, if you want more government in more things and in control of more things, if you want more government regulation, more taxes and more costs, then vote for them. They won’t put US interests first in dealing in international relations.
Bill O’Reilly said he didn’t know what Mrs. Obama’s attitude was towards life, liberty and happiness. Life s fine, but she’s for abortion. Liberty is great unless it’s for guns. Happiness is also fine, as long as it doesn’t involved excessive profits that should then be confiscated.
There are reasons to vote for Mr. Obama that are positive. If you’re very concerned about global warming, vote for him. But if you don’t like ethanol because of its effects on food prices, then don’t. If you want out of Iraq stat and you think that’s sane and appropriate, vote for him. Though he thinks "stat" is 18 months.
The fundamental problem the Democrats have is their track record. They haven’t won a presidential election against a sitting Republican president since 1976. They haven’t won a majority of the vote since then either. Ford wasn’t even elected to the presidency. Why should we think that the Obama campaign will do any better? Has higher voter registration meant a victory for any party? I don’t know. Statistically, as much as 25% might not vote for Obama because of disappointment over Clinton losing the nomination.
A number of registered voters might not vote at all. This is especially important in light of the fact that many of these new voters are young people who don’t vote. Campus voters are traditionally unlikely to because they’re not residents. It’s an interesting conundrum. We won’t be able to tell until there is an actual election. Three million new registrants is an interesting figure because that was the margin of victory in the popular vote of Bush over Kerry in the last election.
*****
In Britain, it comes out that the closed circuit cameras they have around the country, 50,000 of them, may not be very useful for crime fighting. At best, they do serve as a deterrent. It’s hard to use them for prosecutions and maybe even impossible because of how much footage there is.
Don’t expect them to come down anytime soon or for even the Conservatives, for instance, to get rid them or the scary warrants act they have over there that allows local town counsels to go out and investigate you and tap you and do surveillance on you to see if you are letting you dog poop in the park and other "criminal matter". If George Orwell was alive today, he’d be shocked but also, perhaps, bemused.
Britons may never be slaves, but they sure as hell are being watched.
*****
Why doesn’t anyone say the obvious about this fringe element out there that voted against Ms. Clinton because she’s a woman and voting for Mr. Obama because he’s a man. There are probably some women who are doing that too. How many times have we heard about those surveys about news anchors who lost their jobs because they were getting older and especially because they were getting bad ratings even among female viewers.
*****
I’m struck during this Burmese crisis how no one says "where’s China?". This is another example of how lucky that government is. Time after time there is an episode that occurs, often involving another country, that highlights China’s bankruptcy as a regional statesman and leader. This country has said nothing and done nothing about this crisis when its influence would be enormous. It could have easily persuaded this regime to back down and allow the aid in. It doesn’t bode well for the Olympics.
*****
The latest person that I’ve decided it’s my sacred sovereign duty to despise and completely ignore is Céline Dion, Eurovision winner for… Switzerland. These people go to Davos, tell us we’re not paying enough taxes and we have to sacrifice and fight climate change while they sit in their tax shelters so they can get a Eurogong from their neighbours.
This is like our Governor-General who tells us we’re racist. We’re so racist that we send out best and brightest to fight and die for the rights of people all over the world who aren’t Canadian.
An old news segment on Canadian tv brought up an old Canadian political issue. This was the Coyne affair which is mostly forgotten now by most Canadians. This was the show-down between the Diefenbaker government and the governor of the Bank of Canada over monetary policy which resulted in the governor being forced to step down and the government being notoriously attacked for enacting the "Diefendollar" which at the time was a scandalous 92.5 cents on the American dollar. One of the economists on the panel was Jacques Parizeau. He seemed to think that Coyne had the right policy: the tightwad approach.
It’s fascinating that at the time, the Star men were viciously attacking Diefenbaker for having a defence and foreign policy that was not aggressive and militaristic enough and not strongly enough in favour of the US policy. The country’s fiscal house was not in order and relied to highly on economic stimulus. Five years later, they were singing the praises of a Liberal government that did exactly the same thing. Lament indeed.
Someone asked what Mrs. Obama was like. Let’s strip away the colour of her skin and consider her for what she and her husband are: they are about as liberal in outlook, instinct and attitude as any other Democrat. If you vote for them, you are going to get people who are that way. If you want more government, if you want more government in more things and in control of more things, if you want more government regulation, more taxes and more costs, then vote for them. They won’t put US interests first in dealing in international relations.
Bill O’Reilly said he didn’t know what Mrs. Obama’s attitude was towards life, liberty and happiness. Life s fine, but she’s for abortion. Liberty is great unless it’s for guns. Happiness is also fine, as long as it doesn’t involved excessive profits that should then be confiscated.
There are reasons to vote for Mr. Obama that are positive. If you’re very concerned about global warming, vote for him. But if you don’t like ethanol because of its effects on food prices, then don’t. If you want out of Iraq stat and you think that’s sane and appropriate, vote for him. Though he thinks "stat" is 18 months.
The fundamental problem the Democrats have is their track record. They haven’t won a presidential election against a sitting Republican president since 1976. They haven’t won a majority of the vote since then either. Ford wasn’t even elected to the presidency. Why should we think that the Obama campaign will do any better? Has higher voter registration meant a victory for any party? I don’t know. Statistically, as much as 25% might not vote for Obama because of disappointment over Clinton losing the nomination.
A number of registered voters might not vote at all. This is especially important in light of the fact that many of these new voters are young people who don’t vote. Campus voters are traditionally unlikely to because they’re not residents. It’s an interesting conundrum. We won’t be able to tell until there is an actual election. Three million new registrants is an interesting figure because that was the margin of victory in the popular vote of Bush over Kerry in the last election.
*****
In Britain, it comes out that the closed circuit cameras they have around the country, 50,000 of them, may not be very useful for crime fighting. At best, they do serve as a deterrent. It’s hard to use them for prosecutions and maybe even impossible because of how much footage there is.
Don’t expect them to come down anytime soon or for even the Conservatives, for instance, to get rid them or the scary warrants act they have over there that allows local town counsels to go out and investigate you and tap you and do surveillance on you to see if you are letting you dog poop in the park and other "criminal matter". If George Orwell was alive today, he’d be shocked but also, perhaps, bemused.
Britons may never be slaves, but they sure as hell are being watched.
*****
Why doesn’t anyone say the obvious about this fringe element out there that voted against Ms. Clinton because she’s a woman and voting for Mr. Obama because he’s a man. There are probably some women who are doing that too. How many times have we heard about those surveys about news anchors who lost their jobs because they were getting older and especially because they were getting bad ratings even among female viewers.
*****
I’m struck during this Burmese crisis how no one says "where’s China?". This is another example of how lucky that government is. Time after time there is an episode that occurs, often involving another country, that highlights China’s bankruptcy as a regional statesman and leader. This country has said nothing and done nothing about this crisis when its influence would be enormous. It could have easily persuaded this regime to back down and allow the aid in. It doesn’t bode well for the Olympics.
*****
The latest person that I’ve decided it’s my sacred sovereign duty to despise and completely ignore is Céline Dion, Eurovision winner for… Switzerland. These people go to Davos, tell us we’re not paying enough taxes and we have to sacrifice and fight climate change while they sit in their tax shelters so they can get a Eurogong from their neighbours.
This is like our Governor-General who tells us we’re racist. We’re so racist that we send out best and brightest to fight and die for the rights of people all over the world who aren’t Canadian.
An old news segment on Canadian tv brought up an old Canadian political issue. This was the Coyne affair which is mostly forgotten now by most Canadians. This was the show-down between the Diefenbaker government and the governor of the Bank of Canada over monetary policy which resulted in the governor being forced to step down and the government being notoriously attacked for enacting the "Diefendollar" which at the time was a scandalous 92.5 cents on the American dollar. One of the economists on the panel was Jacques Parizeau. He seemed to think that Coyne had the right policy: the tightwad approach.
It’s fascinating that at the time, the Star men were viciously attacking Diefenbaker for having a defence and foreign policy that was not aggressive and militaristic enough and not strongly enough in favour of the US policy. The country’s fiscal house was not in order and relied to highly on economic stimulus. Five years later, they were singing the praises of a Liberal government that did exactly the same thing. Lament indeed.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The March of the Democrats
Here’s my political utopia. The time when it comes that a black American will be able to vote Republican or Democrat, Obama or Clinton, without regard to race and entirely upon the basis of merit. I’d like to see that happen.
We didn’t think a lot of whites would vote for someone who is black, but it happened. Now, will blacks vote for a white person, even though the opponent is black and Democrat?
*****
For the Democrats, Obama’s winning with groups with the Democrats do well with isn’t surprising. He does well with blacks, young people, well educated people and a lot of the affluent. But Clinton is winning with the groups they need to win over. If they don’t get a respectable performance with these groups, the Democrats are going to lose. Obama does badly with these groups: Hispanics, the working class, the poor, small business owners, white men, older people and women.
These groups deserted the Democrats in their worst hours. They are Reagan Democrats. I don’t see how Obama is going to get them to vote for him. Clinton’s best argument is that he wins the groups the Democrats always get, even when someone like Dukakis or Kerry run. She wins the groups that they need to win, the groups that decide elections.
No one really talks about Obama swaying independents anymore. It’s not surprising since they are deserting him in droves, they’re participating less and are generally turned off by the whole cultural mean that was built up by the Wright and San Francisco controversies.
McCain is drawing better on independents better than either Clinton or Obama. Independents are very important in elections. They usually decide them for obvious reasons.
It’s almost like the Democrats are on a suicide pact with Obama that they can’t get out of. It doesn’t mean that there might not be thoughtful super-delegates who may yet go with Clinton, but it’s very unlikely now and there are so few left that it might not matter.
Obama’s result in North Caroline was sufficiently impressive that the super-delegates he has will be intimidated into staying with him. Those results cannot be changed. They’re stuck with him.
I think a lot of people are deluded about Obama’s power as a candidate.
We didn’t think a lot of whites would vote for someone who is black, but it happened. Now, will blacks vote for a white person, even though the opponent is black and Democrat?
*****
For the Democrats, Obama’s winning with groups with the Democrats do well with isn’t surprising. He does well with blacks, young people, well educated people and a lot of the affluent. But Clinton is winning with the groups they need to win over. If they don’t get a respectable performance with these groups, the Democrats are going to lose. Obama does badly with these groups: Hispanics, the working class, the poor, small business owners, white men, older people and women.
These groups deserted the Democrats in their worst hours. They are Reagan Democrats. I don’t see how Obama is going to get them to vote for him. Clinton’s best argument is that he wins the groups the Democrats always get, even when someone like Dukakis or Kerry run. She wins the groups that they need to win, the groups that decide elections.
No one really talks about Obama swaying independents anymore. It’s not surprising since they are deserting him in droves, they’re participating less and are generally turned off by the whole cultural mean that was built up by the Wright and San Francisco controversies.
McCain is drawing better on independents better than either Clinton or Obama. Independents are very important in elections. They usually decide them for obvious reasons.
It’s almost like the Democrats are on a suicide pact with Obama that they can’t get out of. It doesn’t mean that there might not be thoughtful super-delegates who may yet go with Clinton, but it’s very unlikely now and there are so few left that it might not matter.
Obama’s result in North Caroline was sufficiently impressive that the super-delegates he has will be intimidated into staying with him. Those results cannot be changed. They’re stuck with him.
I think a lot of people are deluded about Obama’s power as a candidate.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Food and No Food
This is incredible! Canada have made a decision that is overwhelmingly good for the poor and the hungry of the world: untying our food aid to Canadian purchases. This allows agencies to buy the food from someone besides Canadian farmers.
If we were talking about this in any other context, we’d call it protectionism. But Stuart Wells from the National Farmers’ Union criticized, saying it would be hard to know if the food was going to the people who were supposed to get it or if the money would go to local farmers rather than brokers in the harbour.
Who cares? This is for food aid to people who are hungry. It’s not a competitive matter. The problem isn’t where the food comes from. We’re trying to get it to go to the right places. Securing the supply is an inherent problem in these situations.
Mr. Wells is all about protecting his market. It’s just plain greed. These farmers have stopped being businessmen and have long ago become wards of the state. They believe their entitled to a permanent subsidy for anything, including feeding people in a starvation crisis.
Mr. Wells also wants us to go to the WTO and suggest that it caused these foods crises. This is simply about farmers keeping a firm grip on the bottom line at the expense of anyone else, including their customers and those who need food.
The Americans do this too and have still not untied their aid. Bad Ag!
*****
How can anyone be surprised when the US government says that the Burmese government is incapable of caring for its own people. They never did before. They’ve chosen to abuse their people. We should intervene. It sickens me that aid agencies have to wait for visas just to go in and give food to starving people.
If we were talking about this in any other context, we’d call it protectionism. But Stuart Wells from the National Farmers’ Union criticized, saying it would be hard to know if the food was going to the people who were supposed to get it or if the money would go to local farmers rather than brokers in the harbour.
Who cares? This is for food aid to people who are hungry. It’s not a competitive matter. The problem isn’t where the food comes from. We’re trying to get it to go to the right places. Securing the supply is an inherent problem in these situations.
Mr. Wells is all about protecting his market. It’s just plain greed. These farmers have stopped being businessmen and have long ago become wards of the state. They believe their entitled to a permanent subsidy for anything, including feeding people in a starvation crisis.
Mr. Wells also wants us to go to the WTO and suggest that it caused these foods crises. This is simply about farmers keeping a firm grip on the bottom line at the expense of anyone else, including their customers and those who need food.
The Americans do this too and have still not untied their aid. Bad Ag!
*****
How can anyone be surprised when the US government says that the Burmese government is incapable of caring for its own people. They never did before. They’ve chosen to abuse their people. We should intervene. It sickens me that aid agencies have to wait for visas just to go in and give food to starving people.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
More bits and pieces
Who will stand up again and speak up against people like Susan Riley and Time Magazine who compare the fight against global warming and climate change to WWII and fighting the Nazis? It isn’t. It’s not the same thing. People aren’t being killed in the millions just for what they are.
Those who think that cheapen the sacrifice of people in the war. Shameful.
*****
In the Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rausch talks about incrementalism. It’s alright if it’s going to the right. Too often it’s going to the left. When did bringing in health care insurance in the US from any perspective ever represent anything less than a radical shift. Apparently it’s fine when incrementalism goes to the left, but when it goes to the right, it’s radical.
What does that make Reagan and Thatcher?
*****
The Clintons: He’s a little bit country, she’s a little bit rock and roll.
*****
History works in strange ways. If Churchill had not been in exactly the right place at the right time, he would have been bankrupted in the late 1930’s as his political enemies tried to do to him and tried to move him out of his seat.
Forget about all the other torturous things that would have happened to the world. But think about how he would have been remembered. Likely, a failed politician, a minor historian of some talent and another example of a Churchill gone wrong politically. Possibly remembered as a bigot because he wasn’t keen on India or an oppressor of the worker because of his actions during the General Strike in the 1920s. Perhaps unfair, but there it is.
It’s a slender thread between sainthood and irrelevance.
*****
It’s very strange to see McLeans’ complaining about our energy guzzling and our supposed low ranking environmentally against the rest of the world. Strange how we do worse than Finland, Norway and Sweden. And what about the UVic professor who says if everyone gets the American Dream, it’ll be a global disaster. Smug. Victoria is secure and rich and she would condemn people to poverty in the name of the environment. It’s the ultimate statement of declinism, only overshadowed by the other bizarre complaints that one of the things we should worry about is that our homes are three times as large as they were in the 1950’s. Last time I checked, that’s progress.
Whatever happened to the report in which we were told over and over again by everyone from the Globe and Mail to the CBC that we have only earned as much this year as we did in real terms in 1980. So what? We can do more with that money. That’s progress too. With the same money, our houses are three times as large.
Those who think that cheapen the sacrifice of people in the war. Shameful.
*****
In the Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rausch talks about incrementalism. It’s alright if it’s going to the right. Too often it’s going to the left. When did bringing in health care insurance in the US from any perspective ever represent anything less than a radical shift. Apparently it’s fine when incrementalism goes to the left, but when it goes to the right, it’s radical.
What does that make Reagan and Thatcher?
*****
The Clintons: He’s a little bit country, she’s a little bit rock and roll.
*****
History works in strange ways. If Churchill had not been in exactly the right place at the right time, he would have been bankrupted in the late 1930’s as his political enemies tried to do to him and tried to move him out of his seat.
Forget about all the other torturous things that would have happened to the world. But think about how he would have been remembered. Likely, a failed politician, a minor historian of some talent and another example of a Churchill gone wrong politically. Possibly remembered as a bigot because he wasn’t keen on India or an oppressor of the worker because of his actions during the General Strike in the 1920s. Perhaps unfair, but there it is.
It’s a slender thread between sainthood and irrelevance.
*****
It’s very strange to see McLeans’ complaining about our energy guzzling and our supposed low ranking environmentally against the rest of the world. Strange how we do worse than Finland, Norway and Sweden. And what about the UVic professor who says if everyone gets the American Dream, it’ll be a global disaster. Smug. Victoria is secure and rich and she would condemn people to poverty in the name of the environment. It’s the ultimate statement of declinism, only overshadowed by the other bizarre complaints that one of the things we should worry about is that our homes are three times as large as they were in the 1950’s. Last time I checked, that’s progress.
Whatever happened to the report in which we were told over and over again by everyone from the Globe and Mail to the CBC that we have only earned as much this year as we did in real terms in 1980. So what? We can do more with that money. That’s progress too. With the same money, our houses are three times as large.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Freedom of the Press
Mark Stein and McLeans’s have become the targets of persecution not by the police or CSIS but by the Human Rights Tribunals of Canada and British Columbia. Jack Layton has sent a letter of support not to Stein or McLean’s in support of freedom of the press, but in support of the Canadian Islamic Congress, according to its lawyer. Tommy Douglas and David Lewis would both be ashamed.
Douglas believed, for instance, that separatists deserved the protection of the law against the War Measures Act. He thought civil liberties were not something you picked and chose for people just because you liked them or not. It was precisely when speech was inconvenient and annoying and a little offensive that it was in need of protection the most in a free society. Mr. Layton forgot. Disgraceful.
The best you can say about Mr. Layton is that he is a vote-mongering politician like all the others. Even his own colleague, Robin Sears, understands how dangerous this situation is, especially regarding the Elections Canada issue. Other have forgotten about that because is concerns the Conservatives who got raided. I wonder how they would feel about being raided themselves.
These are attacks on our civil liberties that are occurring and just because the victims aren’t popular doesn’t make it anything less than an attack on all of us. People should understand that freedom of the press means a different thing in Canada than it does in Syria or Iran, and it has to be that way. The weeping press that sheds crocodile tears for terrorists can’t see it and loathesomely takes advantage and suggests that the election was not legitimate.
Douglas believed, for instance, that separatists deserved the protection of the law against the War Measures Act. He thought civil liberties were not something you picked and chose for people just because you liked them or not. It was precisely when speech was inconvenient and annoying and a little offensive that it was in need of protection the most in a free society. Mr. Layton forgot. Disgraceful.
The best you can say about Mr. Layton is that he is a vote-mongering politician like all the others. Even his own colleague, Robin Sears, understands how dangerous this situation is, especially regarding the Elections Canada issue. Other have forgotten about that because is concerns the Conservatives who got raided. I wonder how they would feel about being raided themselves.
These are attacks on our civil liberties that are occurring and just because the victims aren’t popular doesn’t make it anything less than an attack on all of us. People should understand that freedom of the press means a different thing in Canada than it does in Syria or Iran, and it has to be that way. The weeping press that sheds crocodile tears for terrorists can’t see it and loathesomely takes advantage and suggests that the election was not legitimate.
Monday, May 12, 2008
How things are better now.
Today’s interesting fact: the average American paid half the taxes, about $10,000.00 in federal taxes in 1965 that he/she pays now in inflation adjusted terms, which is now about $22,000.00. In 1941, 8% of the economy in the US went to federal taxes or collections. It’s now 18%.
The reality is that since 1965, they’ve brought in Medicare, Medicaid, pharmacare and the expansion of social security and that’s where the extra burden is coming from because tax rates actually fell for most Americans after that, especially for those people at the high end.
Under the old high tax rates that the rich had, the actual tax rate was far lower because there were far more deductions. Trump said he didn’t mind the 90% tax rate along with the old deductions. Nihilistic on his part, but a telling point.
Then there’s this unwillingness of politicians to confront the real problem of entitlements. These are unsecured liabilities. All the debt the US has incurred operating is secured by bonds and other financial instruments, but these programs are not. Until the US confronts that, its fiscal sanity may be in far more jeopardy. These programs will have to be deregulated and/or privatized so that most people who pay into them will not really get the defined public benefit from them. If they are going to get a benefit at all, it will be through their own private investment and effort. It is not only fiscally insane but also morally unjust and wrong to expect everyone to get the same benefit no matter what their means are.
They will have to de-universalize these programs. If a life insurance policy was set up for everyone who got the life insurance benefit no matter whether they died or not, that company who offered it would be bankrupted and would be charged with fraud and be unable to get market investment. Similarly, one should not get social insurance regardless of what your outcome is in life. If you retire rich and affluent, you should not get a social security payment or old age benefit. That should go to people who retire indolent and poor and genuinely asset-starved.
A sophisticated means test should be used to ensure that a person who has assets from other sources, such as real estate and the like, is not allowed to collect a benefit because of paper poverty. These are steps that have to be taken. Is there a sufficient supply of politicians brave enough to call for these changes before it is too late?
This third rail in politics stymies even popular politicians in both houses of Congress, like George Bush. If you propose something, it never goes anywhere or you get fried politically if you’re vulnerable. Those who don’t make proposals, are intimidated to find it in their interests not to change the status quo.
That’s why it was particularly disgusting when someone like Paul Tsongas was told by Democrats like Schlessinger that he was in the wrong party for proposing efforts to preserve the fiscal soundness and probity of these programs. How could it be in the interests of social justice not to?
The comment was that our median income on average in Canada had not gone up since 1980, when it was $43-44,000.00 in real adjusted inflationary terms. This is what simplified dodo economics works like. All it sees is the cold statistical figure.
I’m not one of those who says statistics, damned lies and statistics. I certainly believe statistics are very instructive and useful. But you can’t tell me that $40,000.00 odd in 1980 could buy the same things it buys now.
For instances, how many computers did people own in 1980? Oh, wait, there were no home computers in 1980. The only ones who had them were governments, large public agencies or major corporations.
How can you measure the quality of life, standards of living and enjoyment of people in 1980 who, with that $40,000.00, couldn’t buy a computer as compared to someone today who can. Most people use part of their income for a computer or some part of computing technology in everyday living. That’s just one example.
How about kidney medicine? It’s doesn’t affect everyone, but in 1980 there was nothing you could do with that $40,000.00 to buy better kidney medicine. In those days, a problem with a kidney was practically a death sentence or it meant that you were going to have no functional life at all. Now, you can extrapolate this to all sorts of diseases, but this is a simple example of the change in medical technology. With that $40,000.00 today, a Canadian citizen has the power to change the dynamics of life with kidney disease, and this after having spent very little or nothing on the technology which was almost entirely developed in the US.
How about video games? That’s also related to computers, but how many were purchased in 1980? Quite a lot. There were Atari and Pong. But who thinks the TV video games we had then were anything like we have now. In fact, most kids didn’t have video games then. Having an Atari video system was a sign of wealth and prosperity. It meant you were affluent or rich. Today, you’d be laughed out of school if you said you had one of those. After all, everyone from Conrad Black’s grandkids to mine has a system and the games are far better than they were then. There was no amount of money even the richest kids could spend in 1980 to get a game like those we have now. How do you measure that in money?
Because the service sector is dominant in our economy now, one can’t suggest we all have Wal-Mart jobs. Does that include computer programming? That’s a service job too.
How about pools? When I was a kid, if you had a pool, you were rich and affluent. No one could spend part of their $40,000.00 in 1980 on a pool. There would have been no money left for food.
The government delivers far more for the lesser taxes we pay too. People are coming here from around the world because they want less money than others? It’s hard to start over for everyone, but it does get better over time. Look at our Vietnamese or Chinese families now.
The reality is that since 1965, they’ve brought in Medicare, Medicaid, pharmacare and the expansion of social security and that’s where the extra burden is coming from because tax rates actually fell for most Americans after that, especially for those people at the high end.
Under the old high tax rates that the rich had, the actual tax rate was far lower because there were far more deductions. Trump said he didn’t mind the 90% tax rate along with the old deductions. Nihilistic on his part, but a telling point.
Then there’s this unwillingness of politicians to confront the real problem of entitlements. These are unsecured liabilities. All the debt the US has incurred operating is secured by bonds and other financial instruments, but these programs are not. Until the US confronts that, its fiscal sanity may be in far more jeopardy. These programs will have to be deregulated and/or privatized so that most people who pay into them will not really get the defined public benefit from them. If they are going to get a benefit at all, it will be through their own private investment and effort. It is not only fiscally insane but also morally unjust and wrong to expect everyone to get the same benefit no matter what their means are.
They will have to de-universalize these programs. If a life insurance policy was set up for everyone who got the life insurance benefit no matter whether they died or not, that company who offered it would be bankrupted and would be charged with fraud and be unable to get market investment. Similarly, one should not get social insurance regardless of what your outcome is in life. If you retire rich and affluent, you should not get a social security payment or old age benefit. That should go to people who retire indolent and poor and genuinely asset-starved.
A sophisticated means test should be used to ensure that a person who has assets from other sources, such as real estate and the like, is not allowed to collect a benefit because of paper poverty. These are steps that have to be taken. Is there a sufficient supply of politicians brave enough to call for these changes before it is too late?
This third rail in politics stymies even popular politicians in both houses of Congress, like George Bush. If you propose something, it never goes anywhere or you get fried politically if you’re vulnerable. Those who don’t make proposals, are intimidated to find it in their interests not to change the status quo.
That’s why it was particularly disgusting when someone like Paul Tsongas was told by Democrats like Schlessinger that he was in the wrong party for proposing efforts to preserve the fiscal soundness and probity of these programs. How could it be in the interests of social justice not to?
The comment was that our median income on average in Canada had not gone up since 1980, when it was $43-44,000.00 in real adjusted inflationary terms. This is what simplified dodo economics works like. All it sees is the cold statistical figure.
I’m not one of those who says statistics, damned lies and statistics. I certainly believe statistics are very instructive and useful. But you can’t tell me that $40,000.00 odd in 1980 could buy the same things it buys now.
For instances, how many computers did people own in 1980? Oh, wait, there were no home computers in 1980. The only ones who had them were governments, large public agencies or major corporations.
How can you measure the quality of life, standards of living and enjoyment of people in 1980 who, with that $40,000.00, couldn’t buy a computer as compared to someone today who can. Most people use part of their income for a computer or some part of computing technology in everyday living. That’s just one example.
How about kidney medicine? It’s doesn’t affect everyone, but in 1980 there was nothing you could do with that $40,000.00 to buy better kidney medicine. In those days, a problem with a kidney was practically a death sentence or it meant that you were going to have no functional life at all. Now, you can extrapolate this to all sorts of diseases, but this is a simple example of the change in medical technology. With that $40,000.00 today, a Canadian citizen has the power to change the dynamics of life with kidney disease, and this after having spent very little or nothing on the technology which was almost entirely developed in the US.
How about video games? That’s also related to computers, but how many were purchased in 1980? Quite a lot. There were Atari and Pong. But who thinks the TV video games we had then were anything like we have now. In fact, most kids didn’t have video games then. Having an Atari video system was a sign of wealth and prosperity. It meant you were affluent or rich. Today, you’d be laughed out of school if you said you had one of those. After all, everyone from Conrad Black’s grandkids to mine has a system and the games are far better than they were then. There was no amount of money even the richest kids could spend in 1980 to get a game like those we have now. How do you measure that in money?
Because the service sector is dominant in our economy now, one can’t suggest we all have Wal-Mart jobs. Does that include computer programming? That’s a service job too.
How about pools? When I was a kid, if you had a pool, you were rich and affluent. No one could spend part of their $40,000.00 in 1980 on a pool. There would have been no money left for food.
The government delivers far more for the lesser taxes we pay too. People are coming here from around the world because they want less money than others? It’s hard to start over for everyone, but it does get better over time. Look at our Vietnamese or Chinese families now.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ontario wanting to become have-not?
Do I believe it is inevitable that our province will become a have-not? No. I think the first thing the province should to is give everyone a rebate for any capital gains tax that was paid federally and then flatten income taxes completely. In the meantime, it could get rid of marketing boards, liquor boards and everything else that distorts, twists and oppresses our economy and makes it less profitable, efficient and job full. Go and unleash this economy.
Ontario has all sorts of natural trade and commerce advantages. Take advantage of them. Take the lead on opening up the province for trade with the rest of the country. Unilaterally remove all barriers to trade. Fight hard for the single market for commodities and stocks and, above all, take away the burdens on the economy of government overspending, the monopolization of health and education and subsidy of money-losing businesses. Get rid of regulations and costs that make good businesses run away.
Tell the mayor of Toronto to implement his own commission’s recommendations about how to make Toronto more efficient before either the province or the city goes to Ottawa to beg for assistance. Get your house in order.
There is no way or reason why our province should ever be have-not. Give it the chance to go out there and work.
This might be an agenda for the Conservative Party of Ontario if it is interested.
Ontario has all sorts of natural trade and commerce advantages. Take advantage of them. Take the lead on opening up the province for trade with the rest of the country. Unilaterally remove all barriers to trade. Fight hard for the single market for commodities and stocks and, above all, take away the burdens on the economy of government overspending, the monopolization of health and education and subsidy of money-losing businesses. Get rid of regulations and costs that make good businesses run away.
Tell the mayor of Toronto to implement his own commission’s recommendations about how to make Toronto more efficient before either the province or the city goes to Ottawa to beg for assistance. Get your house in order.
There is no way or reason why our province should ever be have-not. Give it the chance to go out there and work.
This might be an agenda for the Conservative Party of Ontario if it is interested.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Interesting fact from McLeans: In 1990 the total of all government spending by GDP was 48.5% in Canada. In 2001, it was something like 41-42%. Now it is 38.5%. A very good trend. It’s not far above the US ratio.
Odd question about The Economist: I don’t know why it is so sure that the oil finds in Brazil will hinder real government reform by insulating the governments with winfall revenues there. After all, some of the most important economic and structural reforms in Britain under Thatcher came shortly after the North Sea oil discoveries which had coincided with two of the biggest oil shocks in world history.
*****
Mr. Obama’s reverend Mr. Wright has called his latest spectacle the Redemption Tour. That would suggest that somehow he has something to apologize for or that he feels he needs to be forgiven. Listen to him talk: he absolutely has no belief that he has done anything wrong and I am sure that if he said he felt that he needed to be forgiven or redeemed, we would know that it was a lie. At least he is being honest in that he does not feel he has done anything wrong at all. One is left with puzzlement as to why he would call this the Redemption Tour.
I wonder if Rev. Wright’s brilliant comebacks with regards to 9-11 incidents being chickens coming home to roost would be something for which to ask forgiveness. He quoted the Iraqi foreign minister. The one for Sadam Hussein’s government? The one for which we haven’t heard the whole sermon? We know the whole sermon is worse than the excerpt. What about the one in which he says America is a terrorist state and got what it deserved? If I am Mr. Obama, I’m thinking thank you so much holy reverend.
Another example of answering a question about a controversial matter in a way that is more controversial is when Rev. Wright would declare Louis Farrakhan persona non grata. He said no, how can I, he is not my enemy and has done nothing to me. All of Black America listens to Mr. Farrakhan. It doesn’t mean they agree with him. Mr. Farrakhan could not be called an enemy any more than Nelson Mandela could say that Fidel Castro is his enemy. Rev. Wright says that after all, Louis Farrakhan did not enslave him, after all, and therefore is not his enemy. In other words, White America is his enemy. Way to put that fire out, Reverend.
*****
How dare climate change people their cause of a big gas cloud to the cause of stopping millions of people being gased to death. The Iwo Jima raising of the tree cover on Time magazine alluding to the war on global warming is worrisome. Always worry about a cause where humans are the problem.
How ironic that the illustration used to illustrate the food crisis in the Globe and Mail is a group of Marines raising an enormous fork instead of an American flag Iwo Jima style. One cause is for bio fuels which is turn is causing the food crisis. Seems like these Marines are fighting other Marines. We should call them graphic Marines.
Odd question about The Economist: I don’t know why it is so sure that the oil finds in Brazil will hinder real government reform by insulating the governments with winfall revenues there. After all, some of the most important economic and structural reforms in Britain under Thatcher came shortly after the North Sea oil discoveries which had coincided with two of the biggest oil shocks in world history.
*****
Mr. Obama’s reverend Mr. Wright has called his latest spectacle the Redemption Tour. That would suggest that somehow he has something to apologize for or that he feels he needs to be forgiven. Listen to him talk: he absolutely has no belief that he has done anything wrong and I am sure that if he said he felt that he needed to be forgiven or redeemed, we would know that it was a lie. At least he is being honest in that he does not feel he has done anything wrong at all. One is left with puzzlement as to why he would call this the Redemption Tour.
I wonder if Rev. Wright’s brilliant comebacks with regards to 9-11 incidents being chickens coming home to roost would be something for which to ask forgiveness. He quoted the Iraqi foreign minister. The one for Sadam Hussein’s government? The one for which we haven’t heard the whole sermon? We know the whole sermon is worse than the excerpt. What about the one in which he says America is a terrorist state and got what it deserved? If I am Mr. Obama, I’m thinking thank you so much holy reverend.
Another example of answering a question about a controversial matter in a way that is more controversial is when Rev. Wright would declare Louis Farrakhan persona non grata. He said no, how can I, he is not my enemy and has done nothing to me. All of Black America listens to Mr. Farrakhan. It doesn’t mean they agree with him. Mr. Farrakhan could not be called an enemy any more than Nelson Mandela could say that Fidel Castro is his enemy. Rev. Wright says that after all, Louis Farrakhan did not enslave him, after all, and therefore is not his enemy. In other words, White America is his enemy. Way to put that fire out, Reverend.
*****
How dare climate change people their cause of a big gas cloud to the cause of stopping millions of people being gased to death. The Iwo Jima raising of the tree cover on Time magazine alluding to the war on global warming is worrisome. Always worry about a cause where humans are the problem.
How ironic that the illustration used to illustrate the food crisis in the Globe and Mail is a group of Marines raising an enormous fork instead of an American flag Iwo Jima style. One cause is for bio fuels which is turn is causing the food crisis. Seems like these Marines are fighting other Marines. We should call them graphic Marines.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Super Delegates
If you’re a Democrat super delegate, you might be swayed by the argument the Clintons might that you should not be required by rote to support the democratic results when there is only a margin of a few hundred thousand votes out of millions, or 1-2%, a margin of 100 or so delegates out of thousands and there are no votes from Michigan and Florida. Those states have been removed from this race. How is that democratic?
If you are a super delegate, you may feel that in fact your honourable duty would be to weigh the democratic results equally with other things like winability, electability, judgement, durability, name recognition, the problem of baggage… You have to sit back and weigh these other things.
I still think it’s likely a super delegate would go with Obama for other reasons besides the democratic results. Most super delegates from what I understand don’t like Clinton. Certainly it is still hard for me to accept that the results are democratic when two of the largest states of the union are excluded.
If you are a Clinton supporter, you’re saying give those states a chance to vote in some way or we’re not forced to accept these results and we’ll fight this all the way to the convention floor. That would be very hard for the party to take.
*****
The Maoist Party, which has just won a smashing victory in Nepal, after killing half the country for the past thirty years, has now declared that it is called the Maoist Party but it is also believing in capitalism and wanting freedom and democracy to continue. Why didn’t it just call itself the Jeffersonian Party?
If you are a super delegate, you may feel that in fact your honourable duty would be to weigh the democratic results equally with other things like winability, electability, judgement, durability, name recognition, the problem of baggage… You have to sit back and weigh these other things.
I still think it’s likely a super delegate would go with Obama for other reasons besides the democratic results. Most super delegates from what I understand don’t like Clinton. Certainly it is still hard for me to accept that the results are democratic when two of the largest states of the union are excluded.
If you are a Clinton supporter, you’re saying give those states a chance to vote in some way or we’re not forced to accept these results and we’ll fight this all the way to the convention floor. That would be very hard for the party to take.
*****
The Maoist Party, which has just won a smashing victory in Nepal, after killing half the country for the past thirty years, has now declared that it is called the Maoist Party but it is also believing in capitalism and wanting freedom and democracy to continue. Why didn’t it just call itself the Jeffersonian Party?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Pennsylvania
The human being is the only species that is not allowed to migrate naturally. It should be allowed naturally. It will add to the economy of the whole world and a plus-plus benefit for everyone all around, including not only the host nation but the originating nation that will have one less person to feed and support and it will be getting money back from that person as he/she makes it in the new country.
*****
We’ve known this for a month now. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is terminal, but so is the Democrat party.
As for her victory speech in Pennsylvania, I expected bland defiance. The Democrat Party is the Donner Party at the rate they’re going at. And they’re headed to Denver. At least the Donners got into the interior of California.
Soon the Democrats are going to have to confront the inconvenient truth that however much Mr. Obama wins everything else in terms of votes, delegates, and states, at this point, Mrs. Clinton stubbornly refuses to lose the states that they need to win to win the election. Ohio, New York, California. What do you do with that when you are the super delegates? It will be the super delegates that will have to decide this. The pledged delegates cannot nominate the candidate thanks to the absolutist tyranny of the Howard Dean DNC.
Senator Barack Obama won the black vote in Pennsylvania. Mrs. Clinton won every other sector of the vote.
*****
I don’t like Ron Reagan right now. Will someone tell him that the only reason he is on Larry King is because of his name? He even made Lanny Davis look good, which is really hard to do. Mr. Reagan acted like some sort of a pitt bull attacking Mr. Davis when he pointed out that Joe Lieberman is not a lap dog for the Republicans and wasn’t acting in a way that should give him instant membership with them. He supported Democrats 98% of the time in a progressive, liberal way. The Democrats wouldn’t have the Senate if Mr. Lieberman had not stayed loyal.
Mr. Reagan turned on Lanny Davis. He spent most of the show pretending to be an independent and then had to admit that in fact he was not voting for the Republicans under any circumstances and was an Obama supporter. Mr. Davis wondered why Mr. Reagan pretended to be an independent when the decision as to who he would vote for was already made. I think Ronald Reagan would have been embarassed.
*****
In terms of lawyers, my profession, I should say that I admitted Saturday night publicly that lawyers don’t say thank you
and they don’t say sorry.
*****
Fox had the perfect formula. When tv wasn’t on strike, you would be harassed and cajoled and bullied by an Englishman pretending to be an American doctor. When it was on strike, Fox would have you harrassed, cajoled and bullied by an Englishman cook lording it over American sous-chefs.
In the meantime, you could have an English music impresario bully not only American constestants and American music judges. Perfect.
I’m beginning to see a pattern. Americans love to get their licks from Englishmen, preferably in some sort of faux guise. English S&M for the Americans. I wonder what the founding fathers would have made of that.
*****
Thanks to the dock workers of Africa, there is a new event in the torch relay for the China Olympics: the arms, bullets and guns going to Zimbabwe relay. They are showing more and more conscience than any protester in the Olympic torch relay has so far. Certainly they have more than the South African development community has.
*****
The Patriots are so secretive in how they get ready for a thing like draft weekend and other aspects of their off-season work that they are like that elegant, well-dressed sullen fellow who stands off to the side in a martial arts film while all the other characters are having knock down drag out fights. He waits and waits until everyone else is driven mad with suspense trying to figure out what he’s going to do. They all know that eventually, he’s going to make a kick-butt move like no one else has done.
*****
We’ve known this for a month now. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is terminal, but so is the Democrat party.
As for her victory speech in Pennsylvania, I expected bland defiance. The Democrat Party is the Donner Party at the rate they’re going at. And they’re headed to Denver. At least the Donners got into the interior of California.
Soon the Democrats are going to have to confront the inconvenient truth that however much Mr. Obama wins everything else in terms of votes, delegates, and states, at this point, Mrs. Clinton stubbornly refuses to lose the states that they need to win to win the election. Ohio, New York, California. What do you do with that when you are the super delegates? It will be the super delegates that will have to decide this. The pledged delegates cannot nominate the candidate thanks to the absolutist tyranny of the Howard Dean DNC.
Senator Barack Obama won the black vote in Pennsylvania. Mrs. Clinton won every other sector of the vote.
*****
I don’t like Ron Reagan right now. Will someone tell him that the only reason he is on Larry King is because of his name? He even made Lanny Davis look good, which is really hard to do. Mr. Reagan acted like some sort of a pitt bull attacking Mr. Davis when he pointed out that Joe Lieberman is not a lap dog for the Republicans and wasn’t acting in a way that should give him instant membership with them. He supported Democrats 98% of the time in a progressive, liberal way. The Democrats wouldn’t have the Senate if Mr. Lieberman had not stayed loyal.
Mr. Reagan turned on Lanny Davis. He spent most of the show pretending to be an independent and then had to admit that in fact he was not voting for the Republicans under any circumstances and was an Obama supporter. Mr. Davis wondered why Mr. Reagan pretended to be an independent when the decision as to who he would vote for was already made. I think Ronald Reagan would have been embarassed.
*****
In terms of lawyers, my profession, I should say that I admitted Saturday night publicly that lawyers don’t say thank you
and they don’t say sorry.
*****
Fox had the perfect formula. When tv wasn’t on strike, you would be harassed and cajoled and bullied by an Englishman pretending to be an American doctor. When it was on strike, Fox would have you harrassed, cajoled and bullied by an Englishman cook lording it over American sous-chefs.
In the meantime, you could have an English music impresario bully not only American constestants and American music judges. Perfect.
I’m beginning to see a pattern. Americans love to get their licks from Englishmen, preferably in some sort of faux guise. English S&M for the Americans. I wonder what the founding fathers would have made of that.
*****
Thanks to the dock workers of Africa, there is a new event in the torch relay for the China Olympics: the arms, bullets and guns going to Zimbabwe relay. They are showing more and more conscience than any protester in the Olympic torch relay has so far. Certainly they have more than the South African development community has.
*****
The Patriots are so secretive in how they get ready for a thing like draft weekend and other aspects of their off-season work that they are like that elegant, well-dressed sullen fellow who stands off to the side in a martial arts film while all the other characters are having knock down drag out fights. He waits and waits until everyone else is driven mad with suspense trying to figure out what he’s going to do. They all know that eventually, he’s going to make a kick-butt move like no one else has done.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Memoranda
All I can say to Bill Clinton is, Bill, if she can’t remember where she was at 11:00 pm because she’s tired, how is she going to be at 3:00 am? And why did you use the analogy when you were saying that Barack Obama should not benefit by claiming that he doesn’t take money from oil companies and said that that’s taking credit for not stealing cars?
In addition, during her debate, she let her side down by not questioning Mr. Obama on his lack of experience and his judgment and his associations. I think they ‘re legitimate things to wonder about. They’re not hard, substantive issues, but I think it’s a substantive issue to determine whether he’s a man who is fit in temperament and judgment and experience. It’s no indication of going for the jugular. Sometimes you have to.
This is about the presidency of the US, not who’s going to head up the Women’s League of Peoria, though I am sure the deliberations and agenda are very important to the League. Does it vote Republican?
John McCain flip flopped again. Instead of being fiscally strong like he was at the beginning of a week saying that reckless home owners should not be bailed out by the taxpayer, it’s become that home ownership is the number one priority, we have to help people out. Very sad.
*****
Then we have the crazed example of Michael Prentice going out for media approbation by blocking the sale of the Canadarm company. Nothing more than a media grab. At the same time, Risen says that he should get America to reduce it’s trade restrictions. Sure. We’re just shut down an American purchase of one of our companies and now we’re going to ask them to open up their trade. Do you think the American’s are complete morons?
National security and intelligence interests are not a good reason for not selling something like this to a US company. We have two security and intelligence agreements with the US. We have two major military alliances with it. The US is our best friend and ally. What do we care if this stuff is used for military purposes of their own? How can any Canadian have any question or concern about this stuff being used for military purposes?
That’s the sort of garbage the NDP peddles.
The US is our ally. We can trust them with our high security equipment. Maybe they’ll start to believe they can’t trust us. This is a 200 year old relationship. Mr. Prentice’s nose is so far up his… Well, so far you’d have to send the Esquimalt Search and Rescue team out to find it.
The federal finance minister was questioned as to how to regulate pension funds because some pipsqueak clerk was not able to research an analyze the fact that everyone knew the company he was about to dump people’s nest egg into was worth garbage. This clerk could not read a Standard and Poor’s bulletin. Now the federal government is thinking about how to regulate that while at the same time Minister Prentice is sending a letter to the buyer of the Canadarm company that will almost destroy a a $1.3 billion deal that the shareholders of the Canadian company might have enjoyed. The net benefit to Canada is that money would have come into the country from the sale.
I wonder how much money is spend on space by the federal government. It bet it’s not that much. And I bet it’s not $1.3 billion. But $160 million has been knocked of the value of the Canadarm company.
This meddling is at cross-interests to the Canadian interest. This is not what the Tories got elected to do. We have become the first government to block a foreign take-over since Parliament enacted the Investment Canada Law in 1985. A dubious distinction indeed. The closes this minister ever got to markets is when he buys groceries or gets his financial advisor’s statement.
*****
Memo to Dick Pound: The real thugs are not the protesters of the Olympic Torch. They are the ones who would arrange for the Olympics to be held in a country dominated by thugs.
*****
Memo to the Democrats: No candidate in the history of the US has won an election by calling for retreat, withdrawal or surrender in any war that as being fought. McLelland in 1864 is the last example. Every candidate since then has known it’s poison to do it. Nixon said he’s bring peace with honour in Viet Nam. Eisenhower said he’d go to Korea and promised to bring about peace. Madison won reelection in the middle of the War of 1812. Clinton and Obama are behind McCain in New York state and it’s nothing like 1992. Bill Clinton is a better candidate then either of his wife or Obama and there is no Ross Perot figure to bail out the Democrats. McCain is also a better candidate than Bush Sr. was.
*****
I never thought I’d ever hear this said about the Cold War that it had grand simplicities and old certainties. That’s not the Cold War I remember. That one was so difficult, complex and sophisticated that it would never be able to solve through the facile approaches of old and it would be an endless conflict that could not ever be resolved. These are the same people who are writing about the present conflicts. They never learn.
*****
Memo to Mr. Obama: Guns and religion when you’re bitter and angry? Sometimes you need to let off steam, such as a hobby or pass time. It’s no different than saying you have to take it out on the ninth tee. What about golf? Hunting quail? Mr. Obama has the bitter vote. Hurrah!
*****
Memo to Jim Flaherty: What about reducing the capital gains tax rate to that of the US? Right now, it’s at at a rate at least twice as high as the American one. Let’s bring it down to 15%. If they can, we can.
*****
I wonder if a white politician who had gone to a cocktail party and was on the board of directors with someone who had bombed a black church when he was a KKK member would be able to get off as lightly as Mr. Obama apparently did regarding his association with Mr. Ayers.
*****
I have a new rule of Reverse Government Intentions and Purposes. What the government does achieves exactly the opposite of what it intended. You could found a party around that motto. Perhaps it could call itself the Aggressive Libertarian Party.
*****
Wouldn’t it be nice if life could be like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and he ran into insurmountable difficulties and you could just phone a friend or have lifelines? How many would you get? Do you get an extra one if you get past the age of 40? Maybe one for wisdom? How do you earn that one?
*****
The whole Taser incident and situation shows you how insidious it is. This is the sort of weapon you get, knowing it is generally not lethal and, guess what, it means you’re going to use it more. Look at the subway police in Vancouver. They’ve used it ten times for people who had not paid their ticket. If you gave them a gun and they’re well trained and practiced and are qualified, they almost certainly won’t use it.
When you’re confronted with a person who hasn’t paid for his ticket, you’re not going to draw your weapon. The psychology is completely different. I think it’s a great tribute to the sanity of having a weapon like a gun. It not only deters crime but also deters the user. Everyone knows that weapon is very likely to cause death. No so with the Taser. It can, and it can cause injury, but you don’t know when. It’s therefore a far more dangerous instrument. It will cause more pain to more people for far less reason.
I have no problem with subway police having guns. Some of the worst crimes can occur on the subway and they attract some of the worse types of people. The New York subway is a perfect example. Constant patrolling by officers with lethal weapons was one of the reasons the subway there was cleaned up. But don’t let them get Tasers. We’ve seen the results and they’re very disturbing.
*****
Memo to those who think things aren’t better: it may become legal to buy an electric toaster in Cuba by 2010. Cubans can buy cellphones now, DVD players and things like that. They can also go into the tourist apartheid hotels. Toasters can’t be far behind. Goodness knows what threat electric toasters posed to the revolution.
*****
Top Ten reasons Mitt Romney quit the race:
1. Once his wife realized his wife he couldn’t win, his financing dried up.
2. He fell and broke his hair at a rally.
3. There was only room for two Christian candidates in the race.
4. He thought there were more Osmonds.
5. Their theory that as Utah went so went the country proved to be wrong.
6. He wanted to get out of his dark suit and tie and kick back and relax in a light suit and tie.
7. He decided to grow fat, get a beard and try to win the Nobel Peace Prize instead.
8. As a gun enthusiast, if he didn’t quite the race soon enough, he’d miss varmint season.
9. He was sick of all of those corkscrew plane landings under sniper fire.
And My Number 10: He was smart.
In addition, during her debate, she let her side down by not questioning Mr. Obama on his lack of experience and his judgment and his associations. I think they ‘re legitimate things to wonder about. They’re not hard, substantive issues, but I think it’s a substantive issue to determine whether he’s a man who is fit in temperament and judgment and experience. It’s no indication of going for the jugular. Sometimes you have to.
This is about the presidency of the US, not who’s going to head up the Women’s League of Peoria, though I am sure the deliberations and agenda are very important to the League. Does it vote Republican?
John McCain flip flopped again. Instead of being fiscally strong like he was at the beginning of a week saying that reckless home owners should not be bailed out by the taxpayer, it’s become that home ownership is the number one priority, we have to help people out. Very sad.
*****
Then we have the crazed example of Michael Prentice going out for media approbation by blocking the sale of the Canadarm company. Nothing more than a media grab. At the same time, Risen says that he should get America to reduce it’s trade restrictions. Sure. We’re just shut down an American purchase of one of our companies and now we’re going to ask them to open up their trade. Do you think the American’s are complete morons?
National security and intelligence interests are not a good reason for not selling something like this to a US company. We have two security and intelligence agreements with the US. We have two major military alliances with it. The US is our best friend and ally. What do we care if this stuff is used for military purposes of their own? How can any Canadian have any question or concern about this stuff being used for military purposes?
That’s the sort of garbage the NDP peddles.
The US is our ally. We can trust them with our high security equipment. Maybe they’ll start to believe they can’t trust us. This is a 200 year old relationship. Mr. Prentice’s nose is so far up his… Well, so far you’d have to send the Esquimalt Search and Rescue team out to find it.
The federal finance minister was questioned as to how to regulate pension funds because some pipsqueak clerk was not able to research an analyze the fact that everyone knew the company he was about to dump people’s nest egg into was worth garbage. This clerk could not read a Standard and Poor’s bulletin. Now the federal government is thinking about how to regulate that while at the same time Minister Prentice is sending a letter to the buyer of the Canadarm company that will almost destroy a a $1.3 billion deal that the shareholders of the Canadian company might have enjoyed. The net benefit to Canada is that money would have come into the country from the sale.
I wonder how much money is spend on space by the federal government. It bet it’s not that much. And I bet it’s not $1.3 billion. But $160 million has been knocked of the value of the Canadarm company.
This meddling is at cross-interests to the Canadian interest. This is not what the Tories got elected to do. We have become the first government to block a foreign take-over since Parliament enacted the Investment Canada Law in 1985. A dubious distinction indeed. The closes this minister ever got to markets is when he buys groceries or gets his financial advisor’s statement.
*****
Memo to Dick Pound: The real thugs are not the protesters of the Olympic Torch. They are the ones who would arrange for the Olympics to be held in a country dominated by thugs.
*****
Memo to the Democrats: No candidate in the history of the US has won an election by calling for retreat, withdrawal or surrender in any war that as being fought. McLelland in 1864 is the last example. Every candidate since then has known it’s poison to do it. Nixon said he’s bring peace with honour in Viet Nam. Eisenhower said he’d go to Korea and promised to bring about peace. Madison won reelection in the middle of the War of 1812. Clinton and Obama are behind McCain in New York state and it’s nothing like 1992. Bill Clinton is a better candidate then either of his wife or Obama and there is no Ross Perot figure to bail out the Democrats. McCain is also a better candidate than Bush Sr. was.
*****
I never thought I’d ever hear this said about the Cold War that it had grand simplicities and old certainties. That’s not the Cold War I remember. That one was so difficult, complex and sophisticated that it would never be able to solve through the facile approaches of old and it would be an endless conflict that could not ever be resolved. These are the same people who are writing about the present conflicts. They never learn.
*****
Memo to Mr. Obama: Guns and religion when you’re bitter and angry? Sometimes you need to let off steam, such as a hobby or pass time. It’s no different than saying you have to take it out on the ninth tee. What about golf? Hunting quail? Mr. Obama has the bitter vote. Hurrah!
*****
Memo to Jim Flaherty: What about reducing the capital gains tax rate to that of the US? Right now, it’s at at a rate at least twice as high as the American one. Let’s bring it down to 15%. If they can, we can.
*****
I wonder if a white politician who had gone to a cocktail party and was on the board of directors with someone who had bombed a black church when he was a KKK member would be able to get off as lightly as Mr. Obama apparently did regarding his association with Mr. Ayers.
*****
I have a new rule of Reverse Government Intentions and Purposes. What the government does achieves exactly the opposite of what it intended. You could found a party around that motto. Perhaps it could call itself the Aggressive Libertarian Party.
*****
Wouldn’t it be nice if life could be like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and he ran into insurmountable difficulties and you could just phone a friend or have lifelines? How many would you get? Do you get an extra one if you get past the age of 40? Maybe one for wisdom? How do you earn that one?
*****
The whole Taser incident and situation shows you how insidious it is. This is the sort of weapon you get, knowing it is generally not lethal and, guess what, it means you’re going to use it more. Look at the subway police in Vancouver. They’ve used it ten times for people who had not paid their ticket. If you gave them a gun and they’re well trained and practiced and are qualified, they almost certainly won’t use it.
When you’re confronted with a person who hasn’t paid for his ticket, you’re not going to draw your weapon. The psychology is completely different. I think it’s a great tribute to the sanity of having a weapon like a gun. It not only deters crime but also deters the user. Everyone knows that weapon is very likely to cause death. No so with the Taser. It can, and it can cause injury, but you don’t know when. It’s therefore a far more dangerous instrument. It will cause more pain to more people for far less reason.
I have no problem with subway police having guns. Some of the worst crimes can occur on the subway and they attract some of the worse types of people. The New York subway is a perfect example. Constant patrolling by officers with lethal weapons was one of the reasons the subway there was cleaned up. But don’t let them get Tasers. We’ve seen the results and they’re very disturbing.
*****
Memo to those who think things aren’t better: it may become legal to buy an electric toaster in Cuba by 2010. Cubans can buy cellphones now, DVD players and things like that. They can also go into the tourist apartheid hotels. Toasters can’t be far behind. Goodness knows what threat electric toasters posed to the revolution.
*****
Top Ten reasons Mitt Romney quit the race:
1. Once his wife realized his wife he couldn’t win, his financing dried up.
2. He fell and broke his hair at a rally.
3. There was only room for two Christian candidates in the race.
4. He thought there were more Osmonds.
5. Their theory that as Utah went so went the country proved to be wrong.
6. He wanted to get out of his dark suit and tie and kick back and relax in a light suit and tie.
7. He decided to grow fat, get a beard and try to win the Nobel Peace Prize instead.
8. As a gun enthusiast, if he didn’t quite the race soon enough, he’d miss varmint season.
9. He was sick of all of those corkscrew plane landings under sniper fire.
And My Number 10: He was smart.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Depression thoughts
Wasn’t it soul-destroying reading the Toronto Star, privately owned as it is and in a privately-regulated industry, singing the praises of continued regulation of our television broadcasting in their article in which it was reported that the CanCon crowd was trying to make us believe that 75% of us really believe that we will have less Canadian choice in our programming if our broadcasting is deregulated. I’d love to see what the number of respondents and the other raw data was for that poll.
Turn on the TV. If you’re worried that the Americans are coming, don’t. They’re already here.
You notice too than when CanCon supporters talk about US programming (never British or Japanese) that the regulations do what Friedman said they would do: benefiting not the public but the company that regulates the industry. Between the CRTC, the companies and the CanCon supporters, they all work together to provide each other with a raison d’être. They want to advance their ridiculous belief that Canadian sovereignty will fall apart if we watch one more episode of On The Buses on Vision TV. The companies that the CRTC purports to regulate go along with this scam and make millions and don’t have to compete with their real rivals in the US.
It’s a scam. What would the Toronto Star would think if someday someone would call for their to be a Canadian newspapers commission that would make sure that newspapers had a certain amount of content? What about sports? Even the hockey section is almost 90% American. And the arts section.
Two important forces support this scam: the fear of capitalism (as opposed to deregulation and the forces of the private sector) and the fear that the Americans are coming.
Every good program ever made since the beginning of time have been produced by the private sector.
Let the police figure out of something is obscene. Get the bureaucrats out of programming and let our companies run themselves like every other company in every other industry: rationally according to what the market demands.
*****
The Economist just referred to the Al-Kassem brigades as master suicide bombers for the Hamas movement in Palestine. I ask you: how in goodness’ sake do you become a master suicide bomber?
*****
A depressing fact: the GDP to debt ratio is now 35%. In 1975 it was 15%.
I don’t agree with the Economist’s assessment that the next president will largely have to concentrate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel/Palestine and not make a wholesale shift in the direction of his energies towards Russia and China. I think it’s a false choice and a false dichotomy. There is no reason he will have to beggar on to satisfy the other.
It is urgent that more energy be poured into the Chinese and Russian questions. There should be plenty of room in the agenda for doing that. The Middle Eastern problems should also be dealt with. This is the US after all. It’s not like the President doesn’t have enough advisors and staff to help carry out his policy and agenda. Any president that goes into the next term not thinking about Russia and China as much as he is thinking about the Middle East will probably be beggaring them at least in the end as well. Those two countries, as the Economist itself pointed out, are at least indirectly and in some cases specifically behind the problems that the US has in the Middle East.
For instance, Russia has set up alliances with central Asian countries hostile to the US. China is a block to the Sudanese situation. Russia supplies arms to both Iran and Syria as well as Venezuela.
Ignore the Western Hemisphere at your peril if you’re president of the US. Latin America has to become an important priority as well.
Busy agenda? Yes. That’s what happens when you’re the sole superpower and you’re the president of the US. Get used to it.
*****
Who’s spinmeister for China now? CTV referred to Tibetan activitsts who were arrested by the police as terrorists, even CTV and CBC insist that it is their journalistic integrity at stake if they call a bus bomber in Tel Aviv or London a terrorist.
Spin is the domain of the likes of Tony Blair or Lee Steinberg. Not that of thugs and gangsters, which is what the Chinese government is. There should be a qualifier every time they get news from the propaganda machine known as the People’s Republic, making it clear that it is indeed propaganda.
Turn on the TV. If you’re worried that the Americans are coming, don’t. They’re already here.
You notice too than when CanCon supporters talk about US programming (never British or Japanese) that the regulations do what Friedman said they would do: benefiting not the public but the company that regulates the industry. Between the CRTC, the companies and the CanCon supporters, they all work together to provide each other with a raison d’être. They want to advance their ridiculous belief that Canadian sovereignty will fall apart if we watch one more episode of On The Buses on Vision TV. The companies that the CRTC purports to regulate go along with this scam and make millions and don’t have to compete with their real rivals in the US.
It’s a scam. What would the Toronto Star would think if someday someone would call for their to be a Canadian newspapers commission that would make sure that newspapers had a certain amount of content? What about sports? Even the hockey section is almost 90% American. And the arts section.
Two important forces support this scam: the fear of capitalism (as opposed to deregulation and the forces of the private sector) and the fear that the Americans are coming.
Every good program ever made since the beginning of time have been produced by the private sector.
Let the police figure out of something is obscene. Get the bureaucrats out of programming and let our companies run themselves like every other company in every other industry: rationally according to what the market demands.
*****
The Economist just referred to the Al-Kassem brigades as master suicide bombers for the Hamas movement in Palestine. I ask you: how in goodness’ sake do you become a master suicide bomber?
*****
A depressing fact: the GDP to debt ratio is now 35%. In 1975 it was 15%.
I don’t agree with the Economist’s assessment that the next president will largely have to concentrate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel/Palestine and not make a wholesale shift in the direction of his energies towards Russia and China. I think it’s a false choice and a false dichotomy. There is no reason he will have to beggar on to satisfy the other.
It is urgent that more energy be poured into the Chinese and Russian questions. There should be plenty of room in the agenda for doing that. The Middle Eastern problems should also be dealt with. This is the US after all. It’s not like the President doesn’t have enough advisors and staff to help carry out his policy and agenda. Any president that goes into the next term not thinking about Russia and China as much as he is thinking about the Middle East will probably be beggaring them at least in the end as well. Those two countries, as the Economist itself pointed out, are at least indirectly and in some cases specifically behind the problems that the US has in the Middle East.
For instance, Russia has set up alliances with central Asian countries hostile to the US. China is a block to the Sudanese situation. Russia supplies arms to both Iran and Syria as well as Venezuela.
Ignore the Western Hemisphere at your peril if you’re president of the US. Latin America has to become an important priority as well.
Busy agenda? Yes. That’s what happens when you’re the sole superpower and you’re the president of the US. Get used to it.
*****
Who’s spinmeister for China now? CTV referred to Tibetan activitsts who were arrested by the police as terrorists, even CTV and CBC insist that it is their journalistic integrity at stake if they call a bus bomber in Tel Aviv or London a terrorist.
Spin is the domain of the likes of Tony Blair or Lee Steinberg. Not that of thugs and gangsters, which is what the Chinese government is. There should be a qualifier every time they get news from the propaganda machine known as the People’s Republic, making it clear that it is indeed propaganda.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Taxation without...
The problem with the discussion of what to tax and when not to tax and, lately, the sector and activity driven bout of taxation we’re having is that it does not address the central issues of taxation that every society has had to address since time immemorial. Nor does it address the verities that are available to even the most lowly educated individual as to what is the best way to tax. This recent discussion of taxing oil and gas companies more because the prices of oil and gas are up is a perfect example. The sector is oil and the consumption of oil and gas, and yet the taxation is directed to the productivity of those companies. Of course, removing the tax credits and exemptions that those companies may enjoy will result in a tax increase to them.
So what happens next? Do you expect that the oil companies will produce at the same level they did before? Do you know for a fact that the oil prices will be the same or higher in the future? No. In fact, the reality is that the last time a major windfall tax was brought in on oil companies, their profits collapsed and there was a recession in Texas, amongst other things, of a severity that most Texans still remember. Albertans also suffered a similar program, the NEP. None of these things resulted in more revenue for the government and in fact certainly resulted in less revenues than the government had before the provisions were brought in.
The real problem, as is evidenced by the stack-of-Bibles-sized income tax codes and statues that we have is that we are ignoring reality. Every society in history has had to decide what to tax more and what to tax less. There are really only two sane choices. Only productivity and earnings on one hand and consumption on the other bear examination for taxation.
Every economist, even the most left wing, has admitted that of the two activities, the one that should be taxed more is consumption. The one that should be valued more as an activity and taxed less is productivity. In detail, the country that taxes productivity more is usually less wealthy. The one that taxes productivity more is usually more wealthy.
Does this mean that most countries don’t have productivity taxes. No. Almost all of them do. But, all things being equal such as infrastructure, the rule of law and education and the like, the rate at which they have them almost certainly predicts growth, prosperity and economic advances they make. This is the economic no-brainer of all time.
By the same token, the country that taxes consumption more will likely consume less. The one that taxes it less will consume more. Unfortunately, the US provides the example on both sides. It has no VAT, so it consumes much more, but it has less taxes of productivity (such as income, corporate or capital gains) so it generally does produce more than most countries, except for some of the more marginal nations such as Hong Kong.
It has been pointed out that business and corporate rate in the US are the second highest in the Western world. It is a matter of simplicity and fairness and predictability. These basic principles are needed for a tax system.
The better answer if one system of taxation or another and not a hybrid of both. I believe that consumption should be taxed and this puts me at odds with my own government. It is the right way to go. I believe it will unleash productivity forces that we cannot even imagine in this country and make us an investment hub and create ever new higher levels of standard of living and wealth and prosperity for us that will make the post-War boom seem like a pop by comparison.
It is all about simplicity. The shame is that except for a few principalities, almost no major country has opted for one or the other. The closest we have are the flat taxes of the eastern European states which at least have the advantage of being simple in the taxation of productivity and have almost no real consumption tax. The result has been unparalleled prosperity. We should perhaps take a look at that. In my mind, though, this is simply a very high rate of taxation on consumption of any sort and no taxes on productivity.
Imagine the spin-off salutary benefit it would have in just the environmental sphere alone. It’s a green idea an its time has come.
In short, my grand bargain is a 25% VAT on any good and service in the country in return for no income, capital, investment or interest taxes. Based on the present GST rates, it would certainly be at least enough to gather $150 billion in revenues for the federal government. That leaves $60-70 billion to make up for spending levels that our government has now, but I believe that can be made up for by other forms of consumption tax such as carbon, gas or tariffs on more wealthy nations. It’s start, though.
Certainly, we would save money immediately on tax collectors.
*****
How fascinating it was to hear the Current finding no one who would do anything less than poo-poo the idea of the Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. Let’s face it: the people who produce this show were cheering when Ed Broadbent wanted us to leave NATO in the 1980’s. No wonder they feel its relevance is tested. When Bill Clinton used NATO in Yugoslavia, I guess that was alright. Loathsome was the comment made by the Brookings Institute representative that 60% of Ukrainians were against joining NATO. Polls are for dogs, as Diefenbaker knew. We know that about half of the population of the Ukraine are of Russian extraction. Russia was just in the recent past an enemy of NATO. They might give a result such as this one on the question of joining NATO. It’s akin to saying that we should have a poll as to whether the president of Czeckoslovakia should have accepted the Munich deal if enough Sudetens stacked the ballot boxes to go along with Hitler’s deal.
How hard it was the Brookings man worked to prove to us all that certain western Europeans nations’ objections to these countries joining NATO have nothing to do with a cowardly fear of Putin in Russia cutting off their energy supplies. I’m sure they really just want to go slow. Thank goodness for those countries from the former Russian empire that are already part of NATO.
The discussion of people who oppose it always centres on one thing: the US is the moral equivalent of Russia. They never learn. They said the same thing during the Cold Ward. They fervently believe that the US having an alliance with Georgia, a country that was brutalized by Russia and just recently had a provocative attack by the Russian Air Force, is akin to the Russians establishing an alliance with Cuba.
If you accept that Russia and the US are morally equivalent, I suppose that all makes sense. But if you realize that NATO is a force for democracy and has been a force for freedom for most of Europe for the past 60 years and should be celebrated, and you realize that Russia is still at best a flawed democracy (at worse a thugocracy), you know that the Ukrainians and Georgians have a deep need to join NATO.
Yet, this was cheapened as somehow an inappropriate singular reason for wanting to join NATO. It’s like saying the Poles and Czecks who wanted a defence agreement with the UK in the 1930’s because of their fear of Germany was too singular a reason for wanting that alliance. What a stupid way of thinking.
The only people who will be celebrating if Russia gets its way and manages to make NATO deny these countries their membership will be the Russians and their friends in those countries who continue to try to undermine the fragile democracies those countries have developed. Russia has nothing to fear from the likes of Georgia and the Ukraine, or the Baltic republics, being unified and allied with the Security Alliance against incursion and invasion. Those countries have everything to fear from being separate and easily picked off by the Russian bear in the area.
The chief aggressor in this region is Russia. Russians have nothing to fear from these countries if they trade with them peacefully and interact with them peacefully like every other civilized nation. Maybe one day, Russia will be a member of NATO.
*****
Interesting statistic from Fox Talk: in a certain period of time, the oil companies have one-half trillion dollars in profits. The government made $1.3 trillion.
*****
There are only two things that politicians are worried about: where the money is coming from and where they can send it.
So what happens next? Do you expect that the oil companies will produce at the same level they did before? Do you know for a fact that the oil prices will be the same or higher in the future? No. In fact, the reality is that the last time a major windfall tax was brought in on oil companies, their profits collapsed and there was a recession in Texas, amongst other things, of a severity that most Texans still remember. Albertans also suffered a similar program, the NEP. None of these things resulted in more revenue for the government and in fact certainly resulted in less revenues than the government had before the provisions were brought in.
The real problem, as is evidenced by the stack-of-Bibles-sized income tax codes and statues that we have is that we are ignoring reality. Every society in history has had to decide what to tax more and what to tax less. There are really only two sane choices. Only productivity and earnings on one hand and consumption on the other bear examination for taxation.
Every economist, even the most left wing, has admitted that of the two activities, the one that should be taxed more is consumption. The one that should be valued more as an activity and taxed less is productivity. In detail, the country that taxes productivity more is usually less wealthy. The one that taxes productivity more is usually more wealthy.
Does this mean that most countries don’t have productivity taxes. No. Almost all of them do. But, all things being equal such as infrastructure, the rule of law and education and the like, the rate at which they have them almost certainly predicts growth, prosperity and economic advances they make. This is the economic no-brainer of all time.
By the same token, the country that taxes consumption more will likely consume less. The one that taxes it less will consume more. Unfortunately, the US provides the example on both sides. It has no VAT, so it consumes much more, but it has less taxes of productivity (such as income, corporate or capital gains) so it generally does produce more than most countries, except for some of the more marginal nations such as Hong Kong.
It has been pointed out that business and corporate rate in the US are the second highest in the Western world. It is a matter of simplicity and fairness and predictability. These basic principles are needed for a tax system.
The better answer if one system of taxation or another and not a hybrid of both. I believe that consumption should be taxed and this puts me at odds with my own government. It is the right way to go. I believe it will unleash productivity forces that we cannot even imagine in this country and make us an investment hub and create ever new higher levels of standard of living and wealth and prosperity for us that will make the post-War boom seem like a pop by comparison.
It is all about simplicity. The shame is that except for a few principalities, almost no major country has opted for one or the other. The closest we have are the flat taxes of the eastern European states which at least have the advantage of being simple in the taxation of productivity and have almost no real consumption tax. The result has been unparalleled prosperity. We should perhaps take a look at that. In my mind, though, this is simply a very high rate of taxation on consumption of any sort and no taxes on productivity.
Imagine the spin-off salutary benefit it would have in just the environmental sphere alone. It’s a green idea an its time has come.
In short, my grand bargain is a 25% VAT on any good and service in the country in return for no income, capital, investment or interest taxes. Based on the present GST rates, it would certainly be at least enough to gather $150 billion in revenues for the federal government. That leaves $60-70 billion to make up for spending levels that our government has now, but I believe that can be made up for by other forms of consumption tax such as carbon, gas or tariffs on more wealthy nations. It’s start, though.
Certainly, we would save money immediately on tax collectors.
*****
How fascinating it was to hear the Current finding no one who would do anything less than poo-poo the idea of the Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. Let’s face it: the people who produce this show were cheering when Ed Broadbent wanted us to leave NATO in the 1980’s. No wonder they feel its relevance is tested. When Bill Clinton used NATO in Yugoslavia, I guess that was alright. Loathsome was the comment made by the Brookings Institute representative that 60% of Ukrainians were against joining NATO. Polls are for dogs, as Diefenbaker knew. We know that about half of the population of the Ukraine are of Russian extraction. Russia was just in the recent past an enemy of NATO. They might give a result such as this one on the question of joining NATO. It’s akin to saying that we should have a poll as to whether the president of Czeckoslovakia should have accepted the Munich deal if enough Sudetens stacked the ballot boxes to go along with Hitler’s deal.
How hard it was the Brookings man worked to prove to us all that certain western Europeans nations’ objections to these countries joining NATO have nothing to do with a cowardly fear of Putin in Russia cutting off their energy supplies. I’m sure they really just want to go slow. Thank goodness for those countries from the former Russian empire that are already part of NATO.
The discussion of people who oppose it always centres on one thing: the US is the moral equivalent of Russia. They never learn. They said the same thing during the Cold Ward. They fervently believe that the US having an alliance with Georgia, a country that was brutalized by Russia and just recently had a provocative attack by the Russian Air Force, is akin to the Russians establishing an alliance with Cuba.
If you accept that Russia and the US are morally equivalent, I suppose that all makes sense. But if you realize that NATO is a force for democracy and has been a force for freedom for most of Europe for the past 60 years and should be celebrated, and you realize that Russia is still at best a flawed democracy (at worse a thugocracy), you know that the Ukrainians and Georgians have a deep need to join NATO.
Yet, this was cheapened as somehow an inappropriate singular reason for wanting to join NATO. It’s like saying the Poles and Czecks who wanted a defence agreement with the UK in the 1930’s because of their fear of Germany was too singular a reason for wanting that alliance. What a stupid way of thinking.
The only people who will be celebrating if Russia gets its way and manages to make NATO deny these countries their membership will be the Russians and their friends in those countries who continue to try to undermine the fragile democracies those countries have developed. Russia has nothing to fear from the likes of Georgia and the Ukraine, or the Baltic republics, being unified and allied with the Security Alliance against incursion and invasion. Those countries have everything to fear from being separate and easily picked off by the Russian bear in the area.
The chief aggressor in this region is Russia. Russians have nothing to fear from these countries if they trade with them peacefully and interact with them peacefully like every other civilized nation. Maybe one day, Russia will be a member of NATO.
*****
Interesting statistic from Fox Talk: in a certain period of time, the oil companies have one-half trillion dollars in profits. The government made $1.3 trillion.
*****
There are only two things that politicians are worried about: where the money is coming from and where they can send it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)