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.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
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.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Profiteering
You were for Clinton before because he was a winner, guaranteed. She was a favourite. Now, if you’re still for Clinton, it’s probably because you’re fanatical. There aren’t many Clinton fanatics left, let’s face it.
Peggy Noonan and Carl Bernstein describe the Tuszla incident as a watershed moment in Clinton’s campaign. I think it’s more like the woodshed moment.
*****
It’s interesting how making a lot of money in one industry is fine, especially when a Democrat’s in power. The dotcom industry is an example of that. But making a lot of money in another industry, especially if it’s oil industry while Bush is in power is obscene and wrong. Greedy, even.
One has to ask one’s self: what do they mean when they say that the oil companies making a lot of money is wrong? What does that mean? When does it become wrong? When is it less wrong? When gas was at $1.00 a gallon? Four dollars? When do you draw the line?
And who exactly is wrong? The workers? The technologists? The scientists? Gas station attendants? Shareholders? The big executives who get $20 million a year even though the company is not profitable? Oh, wait, it is profitable, so maybe they should get $20 million a year. Who exactly is part of the wrongdoing? That money goes to US companies. Would they prefer that it go offshore?
Oil is a commodity like anything else. You don’t see a politician running around saying that the grain brokers are thieves and that they’re making too much money. Even if, as we know, there have been riots recently in Mexico over how high the price of corn has gone. Many senators and politicians that scream and yell about the wrongness of oil profits are the same ones who, by supporting things like ethanol, have artificially upped the price of corn and various other items that might be the subject of their green fantasies.
Do they ever say that corn farmers are ripping off consumers? Of course not. Most corn farmers do not appear in the local famers’ digerst in DeMoine. They’re not even people. They’re major corporations, factory farms. This is the inconsistent world of politicians of all stripes, including Republicans and consservatives. They say what they think we want to hear.
What I really wonder is if this is really what we want to hear? Is this what we want to think? If so, we’re pretty ugly. We cheer while politicians take from one pocket and boo when they bring to our attention the oil profiteers. No one boos the farm profiteers who take our subsidies, enjoy supply management, marketing boards and other instruments that artificially inflate the price of everything we consume. Maybe we deserve what we get.
Peggy Noonan and Carl Bernstein describe the Tuszla incident as a watershed moment in Clinton’s campaign. I think it’s more like the woodshed moment.
*****
It’s interesting how making a lot of money in one industry is fine, especially when a Democrat’s in power. The dotcom industry is an example of that. But making a lot of money in another industry, especially if it’s oil industry while Bush is in power is obscene and wrong. Greedy, even.
One has to ask one’s self: what do they mean when they say that the oil companies making a lot of money is wrong? What does that mean? When does it become wrong? When is it less wrong? When gas was at $1.00 a gallon? Four dollars? When do you draw the line?
And who exactly is wrong? The workers? The technologists? The scientists? Gas station attendants? Shareholders? The big executives who get $20 million a year even though the company is not profitable? Oh, wait, it is profitable, so maybe they should get $20 million a year. Who exactly is part of the wrongdoing? That money goes to US companies. Would they prefer that it go offshore?
Oil is a commodity like anything else. You don’t see a politician running around saying that the grain brokers are thieves and that they’re making too much money. Even if, as we know, there have been riots recently in Mexico over how high the price of corn has gone. Many senators and politicians that scream and yell about the wrongness of oil profits are the same ones who, by supporting things like ethanol, have artificially upped the price of corn and various other items that might be the subject of their green fantasies.
Do they ever say that corn farmers are ripping off consumers? Of course not. Most corn farmers do not appear in the local famers’ digerst in DeMoine. They’re not even people. They’re major corporations, factory farms. This is the inconsistent world of politicians of all stripes, including Republicans and consservatives. They say what they think we want to hear.
What I really wonder is if this is really what we want to hear? Is this what we want to think? If so, we’re pretty ugly. We cheer while politicians take from one pocket and boo when they bring to our attention the oil profiteers. No one boos the farm profiteers who take our subsidies, enjoy supply management, marketing boards and other instruments that artificially inflate the price of everything we consume. Maybe we deserve what we get.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Realist v. Neo-Conservatism
I don’t know why I didn’t figure this out before, but now I’ve spotted how ludicrous it is for American writers to be celebrating the concept of realism of foreign policy analysts and specialists. This realism is really delusional in its belief that you can spread democracy in the world by force.
Then I saw it: the article by Thomas Parker in the same magazine The American Interest, where I saw the original article that proponded realism against neo-conservatism, "George Washington, Reluctant Realist". Well, I haven’t read the articled yet, but I am sure it will try to say that Washington was in fact a realist who did not in fact believe you should spread democracy by force. It also is silly to identify oil in the Middle East as the reason for the Iraq War as a neo-conservative idea. The realists are the ones who are supposed to be keeping their eyes on the national interests at all times.
I know why this is all ludicrous. American was born by the use of force. There are aspect of this realism, such as getting France to join Alliance, but there is no doubt that in using force to achieve independence and in consolidating the US’s nationhood during its war for independence, that the founding fathers were showing great signs of being neo-conservative. I do reject the idea that simply believing that the US should act as an avatar of democracy around the world, sometimes spreading it by economics and sometimes by diplomacy or trade, and occasionally by force, makes you a neo-conservative.
Does anyone think that Japan or Germany would have accepted democracy if McArthur and the allied commissioners in the West in Germany did not have 500,000 armed men there to support them in enforcing democracy? Does anyone think the Cold War would have come to an end if the US had not at least shown the threat of force? To me, the use of force is not only putting it into the theatre and using troops shooting guns (or the use of proxies), but it is also the threat of force.
Countless democracies that arose in the 1980’s and 90’s would never have arisen if the US had not had an ongoing commitment to the use of force, and one some occasions, used it.
Look at Panama. I know it’s a small country, but there is no way there would be democracy in Panama if the US had not been willing to use force to take out he dictator.
It is delusional to think that force can always bring about democracy in a country. It is equally delusional to believe that democracy can be achieved at all times without it.
I am also realizing that the idea that somehow neo-conservatives are inconsistent because they don’t want intervention at home but only abroad is ludicrous. Certainly the best example this is the Carter presidency, which was very interventionist domestically but did very little abroad because it seemed to think it was a bad idea to intervene abroad. Mr. Eisenhower intervened abroad all the time in the 1950’s, but was not a very active person in social affairs domestically, except for the inter-state highway. William Jennings Bryan, one of the biggest social reformers of his day, hated the idea of foreign intervention and left the Cabinet with Wilson wanted to get into WWI. There are other examples. The point is it absolutist, extremist and delusional to say that one should always only be interventionist at home and never abroad, or vice versa. In other words, the choice should be made according to what makes the most sense in the context of the situation. It’s rather like jurisprudence. Cases should be decided on a case by case basis according to the circumstances and facts that obtain.
These realists don’t want to confront, from a historical perspective, how they would have approached the 1930’s in terms of diplomacy.
Realists always say we have to be balanced and objective in our defence of Israel. It is the only democracy in the Middle East. Is there another region in the world where democracy is not fully backed up by the US when it is surrounded by dictatorships? Does anyone know any realist who says that the US should pick and choose between democracy and dictatorship in any area? What about North Korea v. South Korea? Does any realist seriously say that those two countries should be objectively treated the same way? Of course not. I fear that there tends to be somewhat anti-Semitic in saying that somehow the US is not balanced or objective in its treatment of the Middle East because it support Israel. This has to be said since a recent book, apparently written by a Jew, suggested that neo-conservative is a Jewish phenomenon, albeit admitting that some non-Jews like Jean Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were in favour of neo-conservatism.
We don’t see this happening on any other continent. If there is a democracy and it is surrounded by dictatorships, even the realists know that there is no way that the US is going to objectively treat that country the same way that it treats the other countries in the area. One has to say that at the very it betrays the fact that those other areas aren’t chock full of oil.
I thought the secret reason for invading Iraq was to actually bring freedom and democracy to that country. Apparently it was all about oil. Sounds more like Kissinger than Wilson to me.
Then I saw it: the article by Thomas Parker in the same magazine The American Interest, where I saw the original article that proponded realism against neo-conservatism, "George Washington, Reluctant Realist". Well, I haven’t read the articled yet, but I am sure it will try to say that Washington was in fact a realist who did not in fact believe you should spread democracy by force. It also is silly to identify oil in the Middle East as the reason for the Iraq War as a neo-conservative idea. The realists are the ones who are supposed to be keeping their eyes on the national interests at all times.
I know why this is all ludicrous. American was born by the use of force. There are aspect of this realism, such as getting France to join Alliance, but there is no doubt that in using force to achieve independence and in consolidating the US’s nationhood during its war for independence, that the founding fathers were showing great signs of being neo-conservative. I do reject the idea that simply believing that the US should act as an avatar of democracy around the world, sometimes spreading it by economics and sometimes by diplomacy or trade, and occasionally by force, makes you a neo-conservative.
Does anyone think that Japan or Germany would have accepted democracy if McArthur and the allied commissioners in the West in Germany did not have 500,000 armed men there to support them in enforcing democracy? Does anyone think the Cold War would have come to an end if the US had not at least shown the threat of force? To me, the use of force is not only putting it into the theatre and using troops shooting guns (or the use of proxies), but it is also the threat of force.
Countless democracies that arose in the 1980’s and 90’s would never have arisen if the US had not had an ongoing commitment to the use of force, and one some occasions, used it.
Look at Panama. I know it’s a small country, but there is no way there would be democracy in Panama if the US had not been willing to use force to take out he dictator.
It is delusional to think that force can always bring about democracy in a country. It is equally delusional to believe that democracy can be achieved at all times without it.
I am also realizing that the idea that somehow neo-conservatives are inconsistent because they don’t want intervention at home but only abroad is ludicrous. Certainly the best example this is the Carter presidency, which was very interventionist domestically but did very little abroad because it seemed to think it was a bad idea to intervene abroad. Mr. Eisenhower intervened abroad all the time in the 1950’s, but was not a very active person in social affairs domestically, except for the inter-state highway. William Jennings Bryan, one of the biggest social reformers of his day, hated the idea of foreign intervention and left the Cabinet with Wilson wanted to get into WWI. There are other examples. The point is it absolutist, extremist and delusional to say that one should always only be interventionist at home and never abroad, or vice versa. In other words, the choice should be made according to what makes the most sense in the context of the situation. It’s rather like jurisprudence. Cases should be decided on a case by case basis according to the circumstances and facts that obtain.
These realists don’t want to confront, from a historical perspective, how they would have approached the 1930’s in terms of diplomacy.
Realists always say we have to be balanced and objective in our defence of Israel. It is the only democracy in the Middle East. Is there another region in the world where democracy is not fully backed up by the US when it is surrounded by dictatorships? Does anyone know any realist who says that the US should pick and choose between democracy and dictatorship in any area? What about North Korea v. South Korea? Does any realist seriously say that those two countries should be objectively treated the same way? Of course not. I fear that there tends to be somewhat anti-Semitic in saying that somehow the US is not balanced or objective in its treatment of the Middle East because it support Israel. This has to be said since a recent book, apparently written by a Jew, suggested that neo-conservative is a Jewish phenomenon, albeit admitting that some non-Jews like Jean Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were in favour of neo-conservatism.
We don’t see this happening on any other continent. If there is a democracy and it is surrounded by dictatorships, even the realists know that there is no way that the US is going to objectively treat that country the same way that it treats the other countries in the area. One has to say that at the very it betrays the fact that those other areas aren’t chock full of oil.
I thought the secret reason for invading Iraq was to actually bring freedom and democracy to that country. Apparently it was all about oil. Sounds more like Kissinger than Wilson to me.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Note to myself
Note to myself:
How lucky can I be that I not only had a flat tire at the right pit stop on my way to Ottawa where there was a mechanic shop, but that I found one who actually said to me: “Oh, you can’t get that spare to deploy? Lemme take a blow torch to it and get it cut out.” Thank God for Jerry at Rekmans.
If you wanna make a fortune, figure out how to build a simply assembly for tires stored under vans. If I could do that, I’d be rich…
* * * * *
It is a good point that was made by a caller recently about Barack Obama. How, the caller asked, could I vote for this man to be president over me who thinks I am his oppressor? It is quite a poignant comment and very telling. Tony Snow is saying that people like Rev. Wright are “crapping” on Dr. King’s legacy every time they open their mouthes. Whatever happened to brotherhood and getting together, black or white, regardless of skin colour? What about the content of your character? Comments like Rev. Wright’s forces people into racist thoughts. Just terrible.
* * * * *
Just in case anyone thought the Liberals and the left of Canada were forgiving creatures, tolerant open-minded individuals who are ready to open themselves to the fact that sometimes people change their minds over time and should not be held to the sins of their youth, they prove that this is not so. It’s okay for young offenders who actually commit crimes to get a fair shake and another chance. But not if you’re a Conservative Member of Parliament who said severely homophobic things when you were 16, years before you were a Member of Parliament or had any responsibility at all. It’s not good enough that as an MP you have said sorry, said you’re ashamed at being caught on tape saying these things while fooling around with some friends, and do this in the most abject and public way. No, you must resign.
Frankly, I don’t believe this member’s riding is as intolerant as the press makes it out to be. He is the MP for this riding and if this is true, a lot of a people want to run him out on a rail because of something he said when he was 16. It’s more likely that two-thirds of the people in the riding said that boys say stupid things.
I wonder if a Liberal MP who was separatist when he was 16 would suffer the same calls for his resignation. Maybe not. Hell, the CBC can’t use the phrase “visible minority” because it believes it is tantamount to racism. After all, the UN Anti-Racism Committee says so. The UN also says that Dalton McGuinty is tantamount to a KKK grand master for fighting Mr. Tory’s plans to bring public funding to al religious schools regardless of denomination. The UN said that having Catholic schools as the only publicly funded religious school in Canada was a violation of the Human Rights Charter. I must say that I did say hurray as I tend to agree. It’s wrong for us to have a system. But I know a lot of other Canadians will tell the UN to butt out. This is also the same organization that allows the likes of Lybia and China to sit on its Human Rights Commission.
This is a politically correct sham taken to its worst extent. I am sick and tired of the UN judging countries like ours and those of our friends by a different standard, especially when these countries do take human rights seriously. When the UN starts acting consistently, it’ll be taken seriously in the countries that are dealing quite well, thank you, with their visible minorities. There are real criminals out there that need dealing with by the UN.
* * * *
When are governments and their participants going to understand that in a free and democratic society, when the government does something wrong, like killing a person who was simply waiting for his mother to pick him up at the airport, and was considerably irritated with tasers without any provocation while his arms are up in the universal gesture of “I surrender”. Will the governments investigating such an incident think that they should open up the discussion to the public? When the people expect that, it’s difficult to accept comments about respecting the participants’ rights. Hearings should not be held in camera. The process should be public. When you do that, people think you’re covering up and lying and protecting the wrong doers. They think you’re part of the problem. There needs to be accountability.
For instance, I would like to know what the Prime Minister’s office is telling our members on that committee about this investigation. It shouldn’t be telling them anything. This is something that should be opened up to the widest possible review but still making sure that any legal proceedings, especially criminal charges, are not affected. But there is no reason why you can’t have open investigations that the public can see and hear and read about and not still have criminal charges and investigations at the same time.
Politicians weren’t elected to run the country. We run the country. Politicians don’t own the government, they’re trustees of it on our behalf. We own the government. One day, we’re going to throw out governments and MPs that don’t get this.
*****
A note re Bill Clinton and his tax avoidance, offshore scheme:
If there is any example now of the hypocrisy of liberals, socialists and democrats and labour, this has to be the number 1 example. There is no better example than this.
*****
How can you argue with your political opponents, especially in Iraq or Afghanistan when they essentially argue that worse than failure would be success? My favourite thought is that Iraq’s neighbours mistrust its unseasoned Shia politicians, but they would be even more threatened by ambitious pro-Western reformers in Baghdad. Pessimism. Even to the point of being pessimistic about optimism.
It took 40 years for Korea to become a democracy. Does anyone think that the US’s involvement in the Korean War did not essentially augur that or help provide the conditions for it? I’m sure some will say it had nothing to do with the US, but I think it’s a perfectly good example. The culture in Korea was hardly democratic. There was no tradition of democracy there or in Japan or Germany of the Philippines. They have all become thriving, top industrial democracies. Why shouldn’t Iraq?
For some, the Marshall Plan was an ephemeral phenomenon. Good will and generosity came from everywhere but the US.
*****
To witness the liberal factions talk about the Bush oppression and the violation of civil liberties and unconstitutionalities, though nothing has been proven to come to that level, it’s difficult to believe that they are still considered to be the lunatic fringe of their party. But their spiritual soul brothers in Britain, New Labour, have brought in far more oppressive measures to battle a threat that is far less than, say, the Irish threat was when Thatcher was fighting it, and she received far more vitriol from the press whenever she did anything that might not be according to Hoyle fighting them. One shivers to think what the self-righteous Gordon Brown would do if the Muslin fundamentalists were as successful in the 2000’s as the Irish were in the 1980’s. But US commentators, particularly those who are liberal democrat, who have sung praise for Brown and Tony Blair certainly don’t want to point that out when they fight the comparitively limited things Pres. Bush has done in a far more difficult executive constitutional arrangement. This was after an attack on the US that was fare more devastating than the one that has occurred in Britain.
*****
Someone has to tell me why it is that ARM mortgages have been a source of foreclosure. Interest rates are plunging. Surely if you have an ARM, the rate would be adjusting down, not up. I can’t understand any ARM that would have the rate going up. Someone needs to clarify this.
*****
I was the original Mountie freak. One of the things I loved was the little costume that my mother bought me when I was four. I also loved my box of Mountie toy soldiers. I went to the Centennial show in 1973 and was so excited. I was in awe of a Grade 8 kid whose father was a Mountie. I grew up respecting and loving them. I fought for them after they burned separatists’ barns. I always got a chill when we drove by the barracks where the Musical Ride was trained in Manor Park in Ottawa. I was mister little kid Mountie.
But now, I have to wonder what happened to this police force I loved so much. Who are these people who refused to have public meetings about tasering man to death at an airport while he waited for his mother to pick him up? What happened to the commissioner, who was not a Mountie himself or even a police officer, who has become housetrained so that he is like a lapdog who acts as a political force for a Prime Minister? What the heck happened? I want my Mounties back!
John Doyle who is not given to writing well about the police was almost gloating during his television article when he stated that no one makes shows about Mounties being heroes anymore. No one would buy it. I have to agree. Paul Gross, Cst. Fraser, where are you?
How lucky can I be that I not only had a flat tire at the right pit stop on my way to Ottawa where there was a mechanic shop, but that I found one who actually said to me: “Oh, you can’t get that spare to deploy? Lemme take a blow torch to it and get it cut out.” Thank God for Jerry at Rekmans.
If you wanna make a fortune, figure out how to build a simply assembly for tires stored under vans. If I could do that, I’d be rich…
* * * * *
It is a good point that was made by a caller recently about Barack Obama. How, the caller asked, could I vote for this man to be president over me who thinks I am his oppressor? It is quite a poignant comment and very telling. Tony Snow is saying that people like Rev. Wright are “crapping” on Dr. King’s legacy every time they open their mouthes. Whatever happened to brotherhood and getting together, black or white, regardless of skin colour? What about the content of your character? Comments like Rev. Wright’s forces people into racist thoughts. Just terrible.
* * * * *
Just in case anyone thought the Liberals and the left of Canada were forgiving creatures, tolerant open-minded individuals who are ready to open themselves to the fact that sometimes people change their minds over time and should not be held to the sins of their youth, they prove that this is not so. It’s okay for young offenders who actually commit crimes to get a fair shake and another chance. But not if you’re a Conservative Member of Parliament who said severely homophobic things when you were 16, years before you were a Member of Parliament or had any responsibility at all. It’s not good enough that as an MP you have said sorry, said you’re ashamed at being caught on tape saying these things while fooling around with some friends, and do this in the most abject and public way. No, you must resign.
Frankly, I don’t believe this member’s riding is as intolerant as the press makes it out to be. He is the MP for this riding and if this is true, a lot of a people want to run him out on a rail because of something he said when he was 16. It’s more likely that two-thirds of the people in the riding said that boys say stupid things.
I wonder if a Liberal MP who was separatist when he was 16 would suffer the same calls for his resignation. Maybe not. Hell, the CBC can’t use the phrase “visible minority” because it believes it is tantamount to racism. After all, the UN Anti-Racism Committee says so. The UN also says that Dalton McGuinty is tantamount to a KKK grand master for fighting Mr. Tory’s plans to bring public funding to al religious schools regardless of denomination. The UN said that having Catholic schools as the only publicly funded religious school in Canada was a violation of the Human Rights Charter. I must say that I did say hurray as I tend to agree. It’s wrong for us to have a system. But I know a lot of other Canadians will tell the UN to butt out. This is also the same organization that allows the likes of Lybia and China to sit on its Human Rights Commission.
This is a politically correct sham taken to its worst extent. I am sick and tired of the UN judging countries like ours and those of our friends by a different standard, especially when these countries do take human rights seriously. When the UN starts acting consistently, it’ll be taken seriously in the countries that are dealing quite well, thank you, with their visible minorities. There are real criminals out there that need dealing with by the UN.
* * * *
When are governments and their participants going to understand that in a free and democratic society, when the government does something wrong, like killing a person who was simply waiting for his mother to pick him up at the airport, and was considerably irritated with tasers without any provocation while his arms are up in the universal gesture of “I surrender”. Will the governments investigating such an incident think that they should open up the discussion to the public? When the people expect that, it’s difficult to accept comments about respecting the participants’ rights. Hearings should not be held in camera. The process should be public. When you do that, people think you’re covering up and lying and protecting the wrong doers. They think you’re part of the problem. There needs to be accountability.
For instance, I would like to know what the Prime Minister’s office is telling our members on that committee about this investigation. It shouldn’t be telling them anything. This is something that should be opened up to the widest possible review but still making sure that any legal proceedings, especially criminal charges, are not affected. But there is no reason why you can’t have open investigations that the public can see and hear and read about and not still have criminal charges and investigations at the same time.
Politicians weren’t elected to run the country. We run the country. Politicians don’t own the government, they’re trustees of it on our behalf. We own the government. One day, we’re going to throw out governments and MPs that don’t get this.
*****
A note re Bill Clinton and his tax avoidance, offshore scheme:
If there is any example now of the hypocrisy of liberals, socialists and democrats and labour, this has to be the number 1 example. There is no better example than this.
*****
How can you argue with your political opponents, especially in Iraq or Afghanistan when they essentially argue that worse than failure would be success? My favourite thought is that Iraq’s neighbours mistrust its unseasoned Shia politicians, but they would be even more threatened by ambitious pro-Western reformers in Baghdad. Pessimism. Even to the point of being pessimistic about optimism.
It took 40 years for Korea to become a democracy. Does anyone think that the US’s involvement in the Korean War did not essentially augur that or help provide the conditions for it? I’m sure some will say it had nothing to do with the US, but I think it’s a perfectly good example. The culture in Korea was hardly democratic. There was no tradition of democracy there or in Japan or Germany of the Philippines. They have all become thriving, top industrial democracies. Why shouldn’t Iraq?
For some, the Marshall Plan was an ephemeral phenomenon. Good will and generosity came from everywhere but the US.
*****
To witness the liberal factions talk about the Bush oppression and the violation of civil liberties and unconstitutionalities, though nothing has been proven to come to that level, it’s difficult to believe that they are still considered to be the lunatic fringe of their party. But their spiritual soul brothers in Britain, New Labour, have brought in far more oppressive measures to battle a threat that is far less than, say, the Irish threat was when Thatcher was fighting it, and she received far more vitriol from the press whenever she did anything that might not be according to Hoyle fighting them. One shivers to think what the self-righteous Gordon Brown would do if the Muslin fundamentalists were as successful in the 2000’s as the Irish were in the 1980’s. But US commentators, particularly those who are liberal democrat, who have sung praise for Brown and Tony Blair certainly don’t want to point that out when they fight the comparitively limited things Pres. Bush has done in a far more difficult executive constitutional arrangement. This was after an attack on the US that was fare more devastating than the one that has occurred in Britain.
*****
Someone has to tell me why it is that ARM mortgages have been a source of foreclosure. Interest rates are plunging. Surely if you have an ARM, the rate would be adjusting down, not up. I can’t understand any ARM that would have the rate going up. Someone needs to clarify this.
*****
I was the original Mountie freak. One of the things I loved was the little costume that my mother bought me when I was four. I also loved my box of Mountie toy soldiers. I went to the Centennial show in 1973 and was so excited. I was in awe of a Grade 8 kid whose father was a Mountie. I grew up respecting and loving them. I fought for them after they burned separatists’ barns. I always got a chill when we drove by the barracks where the Musical Ride was trained in Manor Park in Ottawa. I was mister little kid Mountie.
But now, I have to wonder what happened to this police force I loved so much. Who are these people who refused to have public meetings about tasering man to death at an airport while he waited for his mother to pick him up? What happened to the commissioner, who was not a Mountie himself or even a police officer, who has become housetrained so that he is like a lapdog who acts as a political force for a Prime Minister? What the heck happened? I want my Mounties back!
John Doyle who is not given to writing well about the police was almost gloating during his television article when he stated that no one makes shows about Mounties being heroes anymore. No one would buy it. I have to agree. Paul Gross, Cst. Fraser, where are you?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Freedom
BLOG, APRIL 4, 2008
There is no doubt in my mind that the Americans could never get out of the business of making sure, or at least trying, that we come finally to the end of a long history in which most people in the world were under the boot of one thug or dictator or another. When the US gets out of the business of trying to bring that long, sorry history to an end, it’s lights out for civilization as we know it and the Dark Ages that Mr. Arcand so blandly predicts will indeed come true.
When one dictator or another has had his boot on the neck of the ordinary people, it is the US’s job, and it always should be, to get that boot off. If there is any time it falters in doing so, it’s a waste of time and space and just a matter of making money.
I say it again that there may be some times that doing that won’t be in the interests of the US, sometimes even against them, but most times being in the business of freeing humans will be in all our interests in the short and long terms.
We should think in the long time, like the Chinese do, but we should never give up on the impulse of democracy because the US has managed to become the most powerful, richest, most progressive country in the world. I don’t see evidence from history, either recent or otherwise, to suggest that the US’s greatest strength won’t continue to be freedom and trying to bring freedom to others.
No matter how much the Chinese plan in advance on how to compromise or hinder the power of the US, they won’t be able to undermine the power of ideas. These ideas are more meaningful than a free trade agreement, a division of troops, a new rocket or missile or a 50 year plan of diplomacy. As long as China insists on keeping its people in chains, it will always be at a disadvantage, not just politically but socially, culturally, economically, technologically and educationally. It is inevitable.
For instance, a simple example is the university. How will China ever catch up with the US in the matters of education when it doesn’t allow its people to think freely? What is written and said on the university campus must flow without government regulation. All the greatest scientific advancements, technological advancements and the greatest products have come from the freest countries and societies. The greatest economies have always grown from free societies. Those rules of history and culture will never be changed by China, Al-Quaeda, the EU or anyone else who vies to take over the leadership of the world.
The paradox is that these countries and formations won’t be able to take over the leadership of the world unless they adopt the basic values that the US pursues, especially in freedom, independence and liberty. Above all, they must have the rule of law.
You can’t have democracy without free markets, and vice versa, and the rule of law. They cannot work without each other.
So if we say democracy is the worst of political systems, we know it’s the best. And if we say free markets are flawed, sometimes deeply so, and hard to control, we realize they are the best of the worst economic systems. All the rest oppress and take choice away from people. The hypocrisy of those who say we can’t have free markets until all the companies are smaller, more competitive or otherwise should be ignored. It is simply prevarication and delay. Trying to change the laws of free choice we have seen proven over and over again, both in terms of human affairs and economics, is trying to stop the sunrise.
FDR said we do these things, like the New Deal, not because we try to destroy or change capitalism, but because it has not been tried as a solution. Deciding the free market it wrong because one bank collapses or shrinks or one year we have less economic output than we had the year before is like saying democracy isn’t working in Zimbabwe so we should get rid of it everywhere.
Fear and hysteria should not overcome our senses and force us back to the fallacies we used in the past and that cause trillions of dollars of loss and millions of deaths and billions of slaves. We should find out how to continue to prefect and improve the system of liberty, free markets and the rule of law that have served the most successful societies so well in the past.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Americans could never get out of the business of making sure, or at least trying, that we come finally to the end of a long history in which most people in the world were under the boot of one thug or dictator or another. When the US gets out of the business of trying to bring that long, sorry history to an end, it’s lights out for civilization as we know it and the Dark Ages that Mr. Arcand so blandly predicts will indeed come true.
When one dictator or another has had his boot on the neck of the ordinary people, it is the US’s job, and it always should be, to get that boot off. If there is any time it falters in doing so, it’s a waste of time and space and just a matter of making money.
I say it again that there may be some times that doing that won’t be in the interests of the US, sometimes even against them, but most times being in the business of freeing humans will be in all our interests in the short and long terms.
We should think in the long time, like the Chinese do, but we should never give up on the impulse of democracy because the US has managed to become the most powerful, richest, most progressive country in the world. I don’t see evidence from history, either recent or otherwise, to suggest that the US’s greatest strength won’t continue to be freedom and trying to bring freedom to others.
No matter how much the Chinese plan in advance on how to compromise or hinder the power of the US, they won’t be able to undermine the power of ideas. These ideas are more meaningful than a free trade agreement, a division of troops, a new rocket or missile or a 50 year plan of diplomacy. As long as China insists on keeping its people in chains, it will always be at a disadvantage, not just politically but socially, culturally, economically, technologically and educationally. It is inevitable.
For instance, a simple example is the university. How will China ever catch up with the US in the matters of education when it doesn’t allow its people to think freely? What is written and said on the university campus must flow without government regulation. All the greatest scientific advancements, technological advancements and the greatest products have come from the freest countries and societies. The greatest economies have always grown from free societies. Those rules of history and culture will never be changed by China, Al-Quaeda, the EU or anyone else who vies to take over the leadership of the world.
The paradox is that these countries and formations won’t be able to take over the leadership of the world unless they adopt the basic values that the US pursues, especially in freedom, independence and liberty. Above all, they must have the rule of law.
You can’t have democracy without free markets, and vice versa, and the rule of law. They cannot work without each other.
So if we say democracy is the worst of political systems, we know it’s the best. And if we say free markets are flawed, sometimes deeply so, and hard to control, we realize they are the best of the worst economic systems. All the rest oppress and take choice away from people. The hypocrisy of those who say we can’t have free markets until all the companies are smaller, more competitive or otherwise should be ignored. It is simply prevarication and delay. Trying to change the laws of free choice we have seen proven over and over again, both in terms of human affairs and economics, is trying to stop the sunrise.
FDR said we do these things, like the New Deal, not because we try to destroy or change capitalism, but because it has not been tried as a solution. Deciding the free market it wrong because one bank collapses or shrinks or one year we have less economic output than we had the year before is like saying democracy isn’t working in Zimbabwe so we should get rid of it everywhere.
Fear and hysteria should not overcome our senses and force us back to the fallacies we used in the past and that cause trillions of dollars of loss and millions of deaths and billions of slaves. We should find out how to continue to prefect and improve the system of liberty, free markets and the rule of law that have served the most successful societies so well in the past.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Thugs in Hockey
Why don’t we just admit that Patrick Roy’s son, Jonathan Roy, is a spoiled brat, and his father is a thug. I say that without taking anything away from Mr. Roy Sr.’s brilliance as a goaltender in the NHL. Apparently Mr. Roy Jr. has amazing budding abilities as a goaltender in the QHL. However, just as I could not stand the Denver Bronco player, whose name I cannot remember, who actually creamed his fellow player so badly in training camp that he crippled him and almost certainly was involved in drug trafficking, I can still call him a thug despite the fact he was a Pro Bowl player.
Unlike what the National Post thinks, the occurrence of that individual in the NFL was such a rarity, that I can only think of his case in that league. I can’t think if a single other case of such thuggery. The NFL doesn’t even allow plyaing with popcorn or a videocamera or the wearing of a jacket that looks like a Hall of Fame jacket. That would incur penalties. Let alone doing anything to hurt another player after the play is over. Heck, in the NFL you get fines and penalties even if you deliver clean blows if they were found to have been brutal and gratuitous.
That’s the difference between the NFL and the NHL and nearly every other hockey league I can think of.
People like the fans and the National Post really do think that fighting is part of the game. Even my son thinks that. I had to convince him that we didn’t have to have it like that. Look at football, I said. Do you see any of them fighting after they’ve beaten each other up for an entire play? Of course not. There’s hitting in hockey during the play. Why does there need to be some after? It is ridiculous and no less dangerous in hockey as they are just as well equipped or padded as football players are.
Fighting in hockey has to stop or Americans will continue to refer to hockey the way they used to refer to football in the bad old days as really nothing better than pro wrestling.
The problem for hockey is that unlike what the National Post says, this behaviour is not rare and unexpected. It may be in the sense that goaltenders are, by the very nature of their position, less likely to be involved in this behaviour, but it is not just the goaltenders. It is players of every position. It’s kids of all ages now. It’s their parents. It’s even officials. It’s got to stop and frankly while I am always reluctant to involve the government in any sport, the League should understand that if it doesn’t put an end to this scandal, then one day some government might do it. Might there be an opportunity for the Government of Ontario, for instance, to do something useful for once? No. Leave it alone, let hockey sort it out. But sort it out it must. It needs to be done as soon as possible.
When will the constabulary of Quebec City arrest Jonathan Roy for what was almost certainly a pre-meditated assault on another individual without any justification in sport? The assaulted party offered no resistance and signalled clearly he had no intention of fighting. This was all captured on video for us. When will the police lay charges against Patrick Roy for abetting his behaviour, for inciting him to attack this person?
*****
Amongst the various ludicrous observations at this so-called milestone of 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq, the comment of Saeed Rafai, the LA Times reporter in Iraq are foolish. He says the average civilian casualty figure is 150,000 and therefore the American losses are not significant to the civilian losses to native Iraqis.
It does, however, certainly far exceeds the number of Iraqi soldiers who have died defending the US.
*****
Is Canada going to let the Olympic torch go through? I hope not. It’s the least we could do to register our displeasure about the Tibet question.
*****
If there is one problem with Mr. Friedman’s flat earth book, and God knows that some people will point to problems already because of the economic issues in China, it is his tendency to attempt to be a creative writer. My favourite: "It wasn’t only Americans and Europeans who joined the people of the Soviet Empire in celebrating the fall of the Wall and claiming credit for it. Someone else was raising a glass, not of champagne but of thick, Turkish coffee. His name was Osama bin Laden and he had a different narrative."
My goodness! Does he really drink Turkish coffee? If he does, maybe there’s hope. Better than Russian tea. If he drank Brazilian, it would be a real breakthrough.
If Osama bin Laden thought that he had brought down the Soviet Union by forcing the Red Army to withdraw from Afghanistan, he is not alone. So do Mike Nichols and Tom Hanks.
*****
One thing that strikes me about university tuitions and admittances in the US is how a state like California that claims it is in a fiscal crisis doesn’t just sell USC and allow itself to have a surplus. One has to wonder how the home of the brave and the land of the free still owns AMTRAK, TVA and most of the states still own their own universities. Doesn’t make much sense, not just in terms of expenses but in terms of conflict of interest. They may be forced to confront this when they really have a fiscal crisis. It would be nice for them to confront it on a philosophical level, but that’s unlikely.
Let these universities grow voluntarily or privately like some many of the best institutions that are still private have done. Certainly, one cannot understand how it would be possible for USC not to survive as a private institution without government tutelage. I have a gigantic private endowment, it is a large school with great facilities that have been publicly and privately funded over the years.
In California’s case, the politics of Sacramento have to change before that changes. At least one house has to come into Repubican control, I suspect. It also have to find a governor who actually has beliefs.
*****
It’s been pointed out by a historian in a documentary about the British empire that one great legacy of the English to the Indians when they came to India was the language. The main importance there is that now it is the only thing that unites Indians.
Unlike what the National Post thinks, the occurrence of that individual in the NFL was such a rarity, that I can only think of his case in that league. I can’t think if a single other case of such thuggery. The NFL doesn’t even allow plyaing with popcorn or a videocamera or the wearing of a jacket that looks like a Hall of Fame jacket. That would incur penalties. Let alone doing anything to hurt another player after the play is over. Heck, in the NFL you get fines and penalties even if you deliver clean blows if they were found to have been brutal and gratuitous.
That’s the difference between the NFL and the NHL and nearly every other hockey league I can think of.
People like the fans and the National Post really do think that fighting is part of the game. Even my son thinks that. I had to convince him that we didn’t have to have it like that. Look at football, I said. Do you see any of them fighting after they’ve beaten each other up for an entire play? Of course not. There’s hitting in hockey during the play. Why does there need to be some after? It is ridiculous and no less dangerous in hockey as they are just as well equipped or padded as football players are.
Fighting in hockey has to stop or Americans will continue to refer to hockey the way they used to refer to football in the bad old days as really nothing better than pro wrestling.
The problem for hockey is that unlike what the National Post says, this behaviour is not rare and unexpected. It may be in the sense that goaltenders are, by the very nature of their position, less likely to be involved in this behaviour, but it is not just the goaltenders. It is players of every position. It’s kids of all ages now. It’s their parents. It’s even officials. It’s got to stop and frankly while I am always reluctant to involve the government in any sport, the League should understand that if it doesn’t put an end to this scandal, then one day some government might do it. Might there be an opportunity for the Government of Ontario, for instance, to do something useful for once? No. Leave it alone, let hockey sort it out. But sort it out it must. It needs to be done as soon as possible.
When will the constabulary of Quebec City arrest Jonathan Roy for what was almost certainly a pre-meditated assault on another individual without any justification in sport? The assaulted party offered no resistance and signalled clearly he had no intention of fighting. This was all captured on video for us. When will the police lay charges against Patrick Roy for abetting his behaviour, for inciting him to attack this person?
*****
Amongst the various ludicrous observations at this so-called milestone of 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq, the comment of Saeed Rafai, the LA Times reporter in Iraq are foolish. He says the average civilian casualty figure is 150,000 and therefore the American losses are not significant to the civilian losses to native Iraqis.
It does, however, certainly far exceeds the number of Iraqi soldiers who have died defending the US.
*****
Is Canada going to let the Olympic torch go through? I hope not. It’s the least we could do to register our displeasure about the Tibet question.
*****
If there is one problem with Mr. Friedman’s flat earth book, and God knows that some people will point to problems already because of the economic issues in China, it is his tendency to attempt to be a creative writer. My favourite: "It wasn’t only Americans and Europeans who joined the people of the Soviet Empire in celebrating the fall of the Wall and claiming credit for it. Someone else was raising a glass, not of champagne but of thick, Turkish coffee. His name was Osama bin Laden and he had a different narrative."
My goodness! Does he really drink Turkish coffee? If he does, maybe there’s hope. Better than Russian tea. If he drank Brazilian, it would be a real breakthrough.
If Osama bin Laden thought that he had brought down the Soviet Union by forcing the Red Army to withdraw from Afghanistan, he is not alone. So do Mike Nichols and Tom Hanks.
*****
One thing that strikes me about university tuitions and admittances in the US is how a state like California that claims it is in a fiscal crisis doesn’t just sell USC and allow itself to have a surplus. One has to wonder how the home of the brave and the land of the free still owns AMTRAK, TVA and most of the states still own their own universities. Doesn’t make much sense, not just in terms of expenses but in terms of conflict of interest. They may be forced to confront this when they really have a fiscal crisis. It would be nice for them to confront it on a philosophical level, but that’s unlikely.
Let these universities grow voluntarily or privately like some many of the best institutions that are still private have done. Certainly, one cannot understand how it would be possible for USC not to survive as a private institution without government tutelage. I have a gigantic private endowment, it is a large school with great facilities that have been publicly and privately funded over the years.
In California’s case, the politics of Sacramento have to change before that changes. At least one house has to come into Repubican control, I suspect. It also have to find a governor who actually has beliefs.
*****
It’s been pointed out by a historian in a documentary about the British empire that one great legacy of the English to the Indians when they came to India was the language. The main importance there is that now it is the only thing that unites Indians.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Rather long for an April Fool
BLOG, MARCH 28, 2008
What sort of columnist in the Financial Post uses the phrase "robber barons"? Diane Francis! She wants more regulation of banks and finances. More Sarbanes/Oxley. That has been around for six years and it didn’t stop the mess of the mortgage financing fiasco. It seems to me that more regulation and ever more regulation is not going to solve this. However, Barack Obama may have had a good idea by asking for the consolidation of regulation of finances in the US so that the 20 different agencies that do it now can be consolidated into one like England has. Except, caution Yankee, Britain had to take over a bank in their country as well, Blackrock, for the very same reason. It was overhyped mortgages and overhyped housing prices, despite the fact that they supposedly had a much better monitoring system than the Americans did.
When is there going to be a quid pro quo? When are we going to stop taxing the things that are the most productive in our ecomony, like capital, stocks, savings and investments? Why not say the trade-off for tougher regulations and standards around the world for this globalized capital finance market is that we’re going to lead a global effort to stop taxing these sorts of investments so that people will get the maximum return on then. Part of the ponzy scheme was not Wall Street or robber barons. It was governments who reaped revenues from these falsely hyped transactions. No one in government said it wouldn’t take the tax revenue from the stock or property sales because they weren’t really that valuable.
It’s time for the government to understand that in some respects it is a partner in what goes on here, not only as a regulator but as a taxer and it may be time for governments to acknowledge that regulation should be streamlined and effective as well as enforceable. There should be sanctions and penalties for the "pin-stripes", as Ms. Francis calls them, who made obscene money from these deals. But at the same time, maybe it’s also time to say we understand that the future of our economy rests on the stock markets, capital and finance. If we don’t have them, if we don’t encourage companies that need them, we’re not going to have a higher standard of living like we’ve had for the past 150 years.
*****
Here’s an idea for those who were worried about revenue neutrality for carbon taxes. I don’t know if it’s enforceable, I don’t know if it’s workable or practicable because I know very little about tax and revenue administration.
My idea would be that if it is found and the end of a government’s fiscal year that it recovered more in carbon taxes than taxes were reduced in any particular year, then a cheque would be sent to all taxpayers to represent the equivalent winfall for taxpayers. So, for every dollar in carbon taxes that was raised more than was projected, taxes for taxpayers would go down.
Theoretically, you could have carbon taxes going up so much that eventually income taxes and other forms of tax on capital and gain and interest and investment could be completely eliminated as they are replaced by carbon or consumption taxes.
One wonders how you could rate that according to different taxpayers. How could you figure out each taxpayer lost because of carbon taxes paid? I think the only fair way to go is to simply look back, see how much in carbon tax has been recovered and if that exceeded the taxes cut for people in that year, then a pro-rated rebate is then sent out to each taxpayer. This would almost certainly affect low and middle income families in the fairest possible way and the only group that would probably receive far less than they paid in carbon taxes as a rebate would be the wealthiest taxpayers because of the pro-rated or per capita system.
If it was truly pro-rated according to earning and tax burden, then even the wealthy would be equally affected or benefited and compensated. Certainly no one would be out any money and therefore the whole project would be truly revenue neutral.
A special watch dog or monitor could be set up in either the Auditor-General’s office or in the finance ministry to keep track of this along with a parliamentary committee to ensure that this was being followed up. But there is no reason why I could not be kept on this to make sure the spirit and the letter of revenue neutrality is respected (unlike in the case of the GST). I think that the time in right for this approach, especially since we are not in a deficit position.
In the GST’s case it was easier to honour revenue neutrality in the breach when it was, after all, eliminating the deficit. That’s something we Conservative should mention over and over again: the GST eliminated the deficit. It shows that tax on consumption is always the better way to go. It’s not the way we’re going lately, but we could make up for that by bringing in a comprehensive carbon tax or some other super-consumption tax if you don’t like the fact that it would feature mainly on carbon emissions and if you don’t buy into the carbon emissions theory.
*****
Lately I’ve had less cause to agree with Christopher Hitchens, the notorious conservative/liberal/atheist erudite journalist. He actually said of Mr. Obama: "You often hear it said of some politico or other opportunist that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his own interest. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed which is why I’m slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily."
Why do I say I am surprise? Obama still gets away with absolutely everything. I have to agree with Hitchens. I am particularly disappointed that Obama would not have followed up this appropriating of a relative to defend himself from a connection with someone who after all isn’t even related to him, with an apology from Rev. Wright himself. Apparently he couldn’t or didn’t want to procure this. I thought it was arrogant and calculating and unworthy and frankly I’m ever more convinced that McCain should be president if the choice is between him and Obama. Certainly, Obama is still morally and ethically preferable to Mrs. Clinton.
*****
To say that English common law or Anglo/American capitalism have alternative theories or systems that can compete is sort of like saying that there should be an alternative theory or system to compete with Newton’s Law of Gravity. If you are a secularist, atheist or agnostic or scientific layman, perhaps there is an alternative to the theory of evolution that is acceptable scientifically.
I’m not saying that free enterprise, democracy, liberty and the rule of law are scientifically the best systems as a matter of a consistent, logical formula or deduction, but I do believe the empirical analysis overwhelmingly shows that they are the best system for the most people on the most occasions in history. The others can only meaningfully compete, though they still trail, when they adopt shades or layers of those systems for themselves. For instance, the social democratic Scandinavians have done this.
Certainly the other systems in their purest and absolutist form lag far behind Anglo/American capitalism and the English common law on the principle of individualism and individual rights. It far outstrips those systems in their capacity for destructiveness politically, socially, environmentally and, most importantly of all, on a human scale. Anglo-American capitalism, common law, liberty and the freedom of the individual cannot compete with socialism, nazism, fascism and various other forms of statism that have occurred through history for their sheer capacity to murder and destroy senselessly.
What sort of columnist in the Financial Post uses the phrase "robber barons"? Diane Francis! She wants more regulation of banks and finances. More Sarbanes/Oxley. That has been around for six years and it didn’t stop the mess of the mortgage financing fiasco. It seems to me that more regulation and ever more regulation is not going to solve this. However, Barack Obama may have had a good idea by asking for the consolidation of regulation of finances in the US so that the 20 different agencies that do it now can be consolidated into one like England has. Except, caution Yankee, Britain had to take over a bank in their country as well, Blackrock, for the very same reason. It was overhyped mortgages and overhyped housing prices, despite the fact that they supposedly had a much better monitoring system than the Americans did.
When is there going to be a quid pro quo? When are we going to stop taxing the things that are the most productive in our ecomony, like capital, stocks, savings and investments? Why not say the trade-off for tougher regulations and standards around the world for this globalized capital finance market is that we’re going to lead a global effort to stop taxing these sorts of investments so that people will get the maximum return on then. Part of the ponzy scheme was not Wall Street or robber barons. It was governments who reaped revenues from these falsely hyped transactions. No one in government said it wouldn’t take the tax revenue from the stock or property sales because they weren’t really that valuable.
It’s time for the government to understand that in some respects it is a partner in what goes on here, not only as a regulator but as a taxer and it may be time for governments to acknowledge that regulation should be streamlined and effective as well as enforceable. There should be sanctions and penalties for the "pin-stripes", as Ms. Francis calls them, who made obscene money from these deals. But at the same time, maybe it’s also time to say we understand that the future of our economy rests on the stock markets, capital and finance. If we don’t have them, if we don’t encourage companies that need them, we’re not going to have a higher standard of living like we’ve had for the past 150 years.
*****
Here’s an idea for those who were worried about revenue neutrality for carbon taxes. I don’t know if it’s enforceable, I don’t know if it’s workable or practicable because I know very little about tax and revenue administration.
My idea would be that if it is found and the end of a government’s fiscal year that it recovered more in carbon taxes than taxes were reduced in any particular year, then a cheque would be sent to all taxpayers to represent the equivalent winfall for taxpayers. So, for every dollar in carbon taxes that was raised more than was projected, taxes for taxpayers would go down.
Theoretically, you could have carbon taxes going up so much that eventually income taxes and other forms of tax on capital and gain and interest and investment could be completely eliminated as they are replaced by carbon or consumption taxes.
One wonders how you could rate that according to different taxpayers. How could you figure out each taxpayer lost because of carbon taxes paid? I think the only fair way to go is to simply look back, see how much in carbon tax has been recovered and if that exceeded the taxes cut for people in that year, then a pro-rated rebate is then sent out to each taxpayer. This would almost certainly affect low and middle income families in the fairest possible way and the only group that would probably receive far less than they paid in carbon taxes as a rebate would be the wealthiest taxpayers because of the pro-rated or per capita system.
If it was truly pro-rated according to earning and tax burden, then even the wealthy would be equally affected or benefited and compensated. Certainly no one would be out any money and therefore the whole project would be truly revenue neutral.
A special watch dog or monitor could be set up in either the Auditor-General’s office or in the finance ministry to keep track of this along with a parliamentary committee to ensure that this was being followed up. But there is no reason why I could not be kept on this to make sure the spirit and the letter of revenue neutrality is respected (unlike in the case of the GST). I think that the time in right for this approach, especially since we are not in a deficit position.
In the GST’s case it was easier to honour revenue neutrality in the breach when it was, after all, eliminating the deficit. That’s something we Conservative should mention over and over again: the GST eliminated the deficit. It shows that tax on consumption is always the better way to go. It’s not the way we’re going lately, but we could make up for that by bringing in a comprehensive carbon tax or some other super-consumption tax if you don’t like the fact that it would feature mainly on carbon emissions and if you don’t buy into the carbon emissions theory.
*****
Lately I’ve had less cause to agree with Christopher Hitchens, the notorious conservative/liberal/atheist erudite journalist. He actually said of Mr. Obama: "You often hear it said of some politico or other opportunist that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his own interest. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed which is why I’m slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily."
Why do I say I am surprise? Obama still gets away with absolutely everything. I have to agree with Hitchens. I am particularly disappointed that Obama would not have followed up this appropriating of a relative to defend himself from a connection with someone who after all isn’t even related to him, with an apology from Rev. Wright himself. Apparently he couldn’t or didn’t want to procure this. I thought it was arrogant and calculating and unworthy and frankly I’m ever more convinced that McCain should be president if the choice is between him and Obama. Certainly, Obama is still morally and ethically preferable to Mrs. Clinton.
*****
To say that English common law or Anglo/American capitalism have alternative theories or systems that can compete is sort of like saying that there should be an alternative theory or system to compete with Newton’s Law of Gravity. If you are a secularist, atheist or agnostic or scientific layman, perhaps there is an alternative to the theory of evolution that is acceptable scientifically.
I’m not saying that free enterprise, democracy, liberty and the rule of law are scientifically the best systems as a matter of a consistent, logical formula or deduction, but I do believe the empirical analysis overwhelmingly shows that they are the best system for the most people on the most occasions in history. The others can only meaningfully compete, though they still trail, when they adopt shades or layers of those systems for themselves. For instance, the social democratic Scandinavians have done this.
Certainly the other systems in their purest and absolutist form lag far behind Anglo/American capitalism and the English common law on the principle of individualism and individual rights. It far outstrips those systems in their capacity for destructiveness politically, socially, environmentally and, most importantly of all, on a human scale. Anglo-American capitalism, common law, liberty and the freedom of the individual cannot compete with socialism, nazism, fascism and various other forms of statism that have occurred through history for their sheer capacity to murder and destroy senselessly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)