Andrew Coyne on Stephen Harper's Campaign

Andrew Coyne writes:

I wouldn't take too seriously this talk of Stephen Harper stepping down, or even that he's thinking about it. I'm not sure that's what he meant to convey in a single off-the-cuff remark: it came across to me more as simple humility.

At any rate, he should certainly stay. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. I had my criticisms of Conservative campaign strategy (see previous posts), but that's because I'm in the fault-finding business (the consolation of those without any actual responsibility for anything). When I say they "threw the election away," that's because they almost had it won. And the credit for that is due almost entirely to Stephen.

English Fans Show Their Teeth

The referee who disallowed Sol Campbell's game-winning score in the Portugal-England game in the Euro 2004 tournament has gone into hiding.

The morning after England were knocked out of Euro 2004, many newspapers led attacks on Mr Meier. The Sun asked readers to "let rip" and send him emails.

The paper claimed the nation was "robbed" by a "half-wit" referee who made a "heartbreaking decision".

This was followed over the weekend by reports in the Daily Mail and the Sun, revealing that Mr Meier had left his wife, Franziska, with whom he has two children, for referee Nicole Petignat. The papers published details of where he lived and worked.

The Sun followed this up early this week by sticking a huge St George flag outside his home in northern Switzerland. By then Mr Meier had already closed his office and left his home.

The media were not the only ones to take umbrage with his decision to disallow Campbell's goal, however.

Last Friday supermarket chain Asda offered Swiss nationals a special free eye test in any one of its 68 optical stores.

"Lets face it, we were robbed," David Rutley, the director of financial services at Asda, was quoted as saying in the British media.

"Sol obviously scored. Well, it was obvious to everyone apart from the Swiss referee, who clearly needs his eyes tested."

Election Results don't match my predictions

Proving that any idiot can predict election results, but it takes a special idiot to get the flipping things right, I present my predictions against the actual results of last night's tragicomedy:

Party	Projection	Actual
Conservatives "Fascists"	118	99 (-19)
Liberals "Crooks"	99	135 (+36)
Bloc Quebecois "Traitors"	57	54 (-3)
New Democrats "Commies"	31	19 (-12)
Greens "Freaks"	3	0
Independents	0	1 (+1)

Nicknames courtesy of Andrew Coyne

Clearly, my crystal ball is pretty badly out of alignment. About the only thing I can say I was close on was the BQ sweep of Quebec.

This is the breakdown by province, which doesn't make my prognostication look particularly better. . .

Province	Seats	Prediction	Actual Outcome
Newfoundland	7 seats	4 CON 3 LIB	5 LIB 2 CON
Prince Edward Island	4 seats	2 CON 2 LIB	4 LIB
Nova Scotia	11 seats	4 CON 5 LIB 2 NDP	6 LIB 3 CON 2 NDP
New Brunswick	10 seats	4 CON 6 LIB	7 LIB 2 CON 1 NDP
Quebec	75 seats	57 BQ 17 LIB 1 NDP	54 BQ 21 LIB
Ontario	106 seats	49 CON 52 LIB 6 NDP	75 LIB 24 CON 7 NDP
Manitoba	14 seats	7 CON 2 LIB 5 NDP	7 CON 3 LIB 4 NDP
Saskatchewan	14 seats	7 CON 7 NDP	13 CON 1 LIB
Alberta	28 seats	27 CON 1 LIB	26 CON 2 LIB
British Columbia	36 seats	14 CON 3 GRN 8 LIB 11 NDP	22 CON 8 LIB 5 NDP 1 IND
Territories	3 seats	3 LIB	3 LIB

Here's a few comments from around the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy bullpen:

• Kevin Jaeger writes about what the election results mean
• Bruce Ralston welcomes our new insect overlords
• Colby Cosh ruminates on the problems with posting your predictions on the net
• Andew Coyne regrets his predictions, too
• Paul Wells shows that the big loser in last night's election was Change

Aaaaargh! Minority Liberal Governments Distress Me

I have nothing clever to type here. I'm mildly disgusted with my fellow Ontarians, but that's nothing new.

The results, as I type, show the Liberals with a minority government, in alliance with the NDP. I can think of worse things to happen, but most of them involve the return of Lucifer, rains of fire and brimstone, and cats and dogs living together.

It is instructive to observe just how easily Ontarians are provoked into voting on the basis of fear and innuendo, rather than on rational observation and thought. Clearly, Paul Martin succeeded in stampeding Ontario voters toward the edge of the cliff that someday will bear the name of "Smashed In Head Ontario Liberal Voters". Quebec at least had the cojones to vote in their own best interests. Ontario couldn't even manage that.

In the next twelve to twenty-four months, we'll be going back to the polls to cast our votes again in retrospective on just how badly the Liberal/NDP alliance has screwed us over. At least the NDP have principles: the Liberals don't even have that going for them. The very phrase "natural governing party" makes me want to vomit. I sure hope that next time we won't be watching the spectacle of the largest province in Canada showing off their lack of principle, philosophy, and courage for a second straight time (or is it the third or fourth time).

At least next time around, I hope that Ontario voters will recognize that changing the governing party is necessary and healthy for a modern country, and that electing a government from slightly more to the right is not allowing Fascism or worse to enter into the mainstream of Canadian political life.

I should probably look on the bright side: I'll be able to finish the election platform analysis before the next election writ is dropped. And much of what I've written will still be up-to-date and relevant (at least, as relevant as such trash usually is).

Platforms, Part 4: Liberal Party

The Liberal Party has been the incumbent since the early 1990's under former prime minister Jean Chretien and current prime minister Paul Martin. Paul Martin was the finance minister (effectively the #2 man in the administration) for most of Jean Chretien's terms in office.

The Liberal platform is 58 pages long. My analysis (if I may abuse that term for this occasion) will not run that long. I hope — if for no other reason that the polls open in less than 15 hours, and I'd like to have finished this little project before then.

Under the Heading "Changing the Way Government Works"

• "Restored Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision-making by implementing broad democratic reforms to give your MP a greater voice."
• "Most votes in the House of Commons are now free votes, in which MPs can represent the views of their constituents as they see fit. Since Paul Martin became Prime Minister, 72% of House votes have been free votes."
• "Parliamentarians now have the authority to review most senior government appointments, including those of heads of Crown Corporations."
• The government has committed that Parliament will play a role in reviewing Supreme Court appointments.

All three of these points seem to be attempting to directly answer the charges in the Conservative platform over the role of the elected member of parliament. If they can be taken at face value, then the Conservatives are asking for things that have already been put into place.

• "Created an independent Ethics Commissioner who reports to Parliament, not to the Prime Minister."

Again, this is another point raised by the Conservatives in their platform document. I think that it's an overdue appointment and I hope that the Liberals are being fully truthful about the independance of this officer.

• "Terminated the Sponsorship Program and comprehensively addressed the Auditor-General's criticisms of the program by:"
• "Establishing an Independent Commission of Inquiry, headed by Mr. Justice Gomery, to conduct a thorough investigation."
• "Appointing a Special Counsel to recover any misappropriated funds."
• "Charging the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament — which is chaired by a member of the Opposition — to investigate what happened. The committee held ten weeks of hearings, during which it heard testimony from key witnesses, including the Auditor-General."

All of these things, if taken at face value, can be considered to be responding to the charges outlined in the Conservative platform. The key question in the last sentence is "if taken at face value". Certainly the impression I got was that all of the right motions may have been made, but not with any speed or sense of urgency. Even if the right things are done, if they are not done in a timely fashion, a re-elected Liberal government can "sweep it under the carpet", to borrow one of Paul Martin's favourite phrases.

• "Introduced legislation to protect "whistle blowers" who come forward to report wrongdoing in government and Crown Corporations."

This would be a good thing, if implemented honestly and with full intent to perform according to the spirit of the measure. At risk of sounding like a broken record, if we can trust the Liberals to follow through on this promise.

• "Overhauled and dramatically tightened financial controls in government,"

It must be remembered that this is the same government that has been in power for the past decade. . .surely this is something that they could, and should, have done much earlier in their first mandate, perhaps?

• "Launched a permanent, ongoing Expenditure Review procedure to eliminate waste and ensure that government spending delivers maximum value to taxpayers."

Sounds good. Let's see it actually deliver.

• "Professionalized the appointments process for the Immigration and Refugee Board"

Which only raises the question "What in the hell was the appointment process like before this???"

• "Created a new agency to accelerate the process of continuous improvement in the nonpartisan public service."

Does this mean that they've added another bureaucracy to improve the existing bureaucracies? Riiiiiight.

• "Launched a new era of co-operation with other orders of government in Canada."

As exemplified by the friendly and collegial way the prime minister heckled and harrassed the premier of Alberta last week? That's new, is it?

Under the Heading "An Agenda for Governing"

• "The Liberal government has proposed a New Deal for Canada's cities and communities — a deal designed to give them a greater voice at the national table and the benefit of new funding sources. Long-term predictable funding will help accelerate infrastructure projects such as public transit, municipal roads and bridges, sewer and water treatment, among others."

I've already mentioned, in some of the earlier articles in this series, that I feel that one of the biggest problems we have with government is that it's becoming impossible to identify which level of government is actually responsible for anything. This is a good example of the federal government's over-involvement in things that constitutionally they are supposed to leave to lower levels of government. Fixing this will require a lot of pruning of existing inter-governmental entanglements and deconstruction of a lot of existing agencies, offices, and patronage jobs. I don't think most Canadians agree with me, but I still hope that some progress can be made in this area.

• "We have significantly improved access to post-secondary education — both colleges and universities — through a number of specific initiatives in the March budget."

And isn't education another provincial responsibility? Why are the feds inserting themselves even further into areas that properly belong to the provinces?

• "The government is continuing the strong record of Liberal support for research, committing $1.25 billion of new funding for innovation, with emphasis on commercialization — turning bright ideas into jobs and growth."

Yet another area that the feds are muscling in on provincial turf.

• "The March budget provided more than $1 billion to support public health, including the creation of a new Canada Public Health Agency, which will be comprised of centres of excellence located across the country. The agency will focus on the management of infectious diseases such as SARS and West Nile virus; emergency preparedness and response; and combating chronic diseases such as diabetes."

Public health is one of the few areas that the feds may be justified in having some presence, and the SARS outbreak should have been a huge wake-up call for them (and the respective provinces) in this area.

• "The government responded comprehensively to the extraordinary plight of Canada?s farmers by providing a special $1 billion assistance package to those who have been hard hit by drought and the BSE crisis. The government has also worked steadily to secure the re-opening of the U.S. and other markets to all Canadian beef. And we have worked with the BC poultry industry to help farmers and processors cope with the effects of avian influenza."

As Colby Cosh pointed out recently, one of the odd side-effects of increased testing for BSE is bound to be the discovery of more cases. This will paradoxically increase public concern by attempting to allay public concern. The only way to completely ensure that BSE is not entering the system is to test all beef before it is shipped to wholesale or retail outlets. . .the cost of which will be astronomical compared to the current allocation of funds for spot testing. Whether the cost is directly borne by farmers and meat packers (and therefore also directly by the consumer) or is covered by the government (and therefore also by not only the consumers of beef products, but also by those who choose not to consume beef), the cost must be met.

• "$4 billion over 10 years to accelerate the cleanup of contaminated sites across Canada, including the notorious tar ponds in Sydney, Nova Scotia."

I've already stated in earlier articles that I agree with the Greens that the polluter should pay for the cleanup of polluted waters, land, and air. The federal government should move to more directly tie the costs to those who caused the pollution in the first place.

• "$1 billion to be invested in environmental technologies over the next seven years, funded in part by proceeds from the intended sale of the remaining federal ownership stake in Petro Canada."

This sounds good (especially the sell-off of the remaining government holdings in Petro Canada), except that I suspect we differ in our interpretations of the word "invest"

• "The Liberal government is committed to closing the gap in social and economic conditions between aboriginal people — First Nations, Inuit and Métis " and other Canadians."

Much is said, little is accomplished in this area. Until aboriginal Canadians are able to have the same rights and privileges as non-aboriginal Canadians, their conditions will not measurably improve. Allowing aboriginals the right to own property is the first step to giving them the necessary tools to build free lives for themselves. More funding is not helping the individuals who need help.

• "On April 27, the government released Canada?s first-ever comprehensive statement of an integrated national security policy. This statement, entitled Securing an Open Society, addresses threats to Canadians whether from international terrorism, public health emergencies (such as the SARS outbreak) or other public emergencies such as last summer?s electricity blackout in Ontario."

I was expecting something different to appear in this heading. . .something, perhaps, about national security? Perhaps I'm being naive in thinking that national defence had something to do with it.

• "To provide the intellectual and policy underpinnings to bolster Canada's influence in the world, the government launched a comprehensive review of international policy that, for the first time, integrates diplomacy, development, defence and trade."

It's a bit disturbing to think that the government has not had such a broad policy guideline in place in the past. At least there is something in place now, we're told.

• "Committed to significant and accelerated equipment upgrades for the Canadian Forces, including search and rescue aircraft and new supply ships and armored vehicles — ensuring our military will have the modern tools to do the job for Canada. The government renewed its commitment of forces in Afghanistan and is participating in the United Nations multinational force in Haiti."

These would include the helicopters to replace the ancient Sky Kings, yes? The ones that the Liberals cancelled back in 1993? At a cancellation cost of over half a billion dollars in 1993 terms? I thought so.

• "The government is determined to forge a more sophisticated relationship with Canada?s closest friend, ally and economic partner."

I suspect that the sophistication mentioned here will not be helpful to Mr. Martin if he is returned as prime minister tonight. The number of times he used the Americans as rhetorical whipping boys during this campaign will undermine any attempt to forge stronger and more reciprocal bonds of friendship between the two countries. You can only point at someone and refer to them as a bogeyman so often before they start taking you at your word.

Under the Heading "Strengthening Our Social Foundations"

• "The National Waiting Times Reduction Strategy and The 'Five in Five' Plan. A Liberal government will take direct aim at waiting times for key medical procedures."

As anyone who's been in a Canadian hospital lately will tell you, long waiting times have become the common experience, almost regardless of the procedure you're waiting for. Reducing waiting times will be a popular item with most voters. Why it's a federal plank is perhaps a bit harder to justify. 'Five in Five' — a five-year plan — is just a bit Soviet-sounding to have been well-thought-out.

• "A Liberal government will work with the provinces and territories to overcome the shortage of medical providers that exists in too many parts of Canada — in part by increasing the number of medical spaces in universities and accelerating the qualification of new immigrants with medical credentials."

The Conservatives also mention easing the recognition of qualified immigrants to Canada. Clearly the two major parties are in agreement about this one...dare we hope it'll be done?

• "In addition, the government will work with the provinces and professional associations to determine an appropriately expanded role for nurse practitioners and other health care professionals to reduce the load on doctors in frontline care."

I'd toss this one to the provinces and move on, personally.

• "A Liberal government will also continue to financially support Canada Health Infoway?s development of a national electronic health record system. The e-record is an essential element of a safer and more efficient primary health care system."

This would get the tinfoil-hat brigade's collective knickers in a twist. The good news is that it's the government doing it, so the chances of it working are minimal.

• "A Liberal government will introduce a National Home Care Program, laying the foundations for full inclusion of appropriate home care services in our public health system."

Do you think the provinces are either incapable of setting these programs up, or do not agree that they are needed?

• "Working with the provinces and health care providers, we will design the right nationwide approach to provide all Canadians with a basic level of coverage, including catastrophic protection, and to contain pharmaceutical costs."

Next verse, same as the first: "Provincial Responsibility"!

• "The Canada Health Act, the act that governs medicare, remains a symbol of shared values for Canadians. The Act has five principles — public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. A Liberal government will enforce each of them."

Except in Quebec. And maybe Alberta.

---

Apologies to all, but I've long since run out of time to complete this article, so the rest of the Liberal platform will remain unread/uncritiqued and none of the NDP platform will appear here either. Unless we have another election in the near future, in which case I'll do my best to get this project started before polling day.

Platforms, Part 3: Green Party

The Greens are still not a significant factor nationally, but their numbers are growing, and they are starting to exert an influence on the other national parties. This review will be, perforce, somewhat briefer than for the other platforms. Conveniently, they offer a brief version of their platform.

• "We will protect our children and their grandchildren from being sold out for short-term gains."

Lovely sounding rhetoric, but not particularly useful for an analysis of actual policy proposals.

• "Increase EI Parental Benefits, and make it more affordable for parents to stay at home with their children."

Didn't I just read something in the Conservative platform to encourage the same end result? Just provided through the tax system rather than through EI?

• "Create a health care system that not only treats illness, but prevents it."

Back to point one...sounds good, not specific enough to give any reason for thinking they've got a real policy.

• "We will create a just society by staying focused on the basic rights:"
• "Enact a national nutrition program to ensure everyone can afford to eat healthy food."

To the best of my knowledge, outside the inner cities, there are remarkably few Canadians suffering form malnutrition. Why put together a national program to solve a local problem?

• "Restart a national housing program and focus on cooperative housing."

Because no Canadians can afford to buy houses on the open market, right?

• "Work to make our political system "citizens only" by banning corporate, union and special interest funding."

Hey, isn't this also a plank of the Conservative platform? Either way, I like the idea.

• "We will be a voice for sustainable industries and lifestyles."

Okay, sure.

• "Implement reforms to favor organic, pesticide free, cruelty free agriculture."

Which will take away any worries we may have had about that agricultural surplus. . .

• "Take steady, well planned steps to reduce industrial pollution and toxic emissions."

If done by allowing a free market to develop for both emission trading and for rational, economically viable pollution control, I'm all for it.

• "We will avoid government expansion and top-down solutions."

Which seems to contradict the spirit, if not the letter of a few of the other points in the platform.

• "Create funding networks to fund local organizations, rather than expand government bureaucracy."

Any attempt to restrain the growth of the federal bureaucracy deserves at least some support.

• "Build our voluntary sector — empower communities and strengthen citizenship."

The Greens and the Tories actually seem to agree on the basis of this point: I think they'd both be horrified to find themselves in this position.

• "Implement a fair tax shift and a balanced budget."

Whatever is meant by "a fair tax shift", I would suspect can be freely translated to "soak the rich".

• "Increase taxes on pesticides and fossil fuels, so we can cut income taxes, and create "green collar" jobs."

This bullet point alone would be enough to forfeit the support of most western Canadians, if not all Canadians.

• "Stay focused on the long term sustainability of our health and social programs rather than stealing votes with throw-away promises."

Again, motherhood is good. Agreed.

• "We will stand up for Canada's sovereignty and our uniquely diverse culture. Stay out of "Star Wars" or any other kind of missile defense."

I can agree with protecting Canadian sovereignty, but I think my vision of protection is different from what the Green Party means. Staying out of the missile defence program is a fast way to becoming a non-aligned nation from the US point of view.

• "NAFTA must either be re-written to better protect Canadian industries, resources, and culture, or it must be scrapped."

The whole point of NAFTA, or any other trade-enhancing agreement, is to reduce the overall level of protection in the trading system. This point is really saying "Scrap NAFTA", with no other qualification needed.

• "We will form the most open and democratic government that Canada has ever seen; enact voting reform to replace the "first past the post" system and require all federal departments to open their books four times a year."

The advantage of the "first past the post" system is that it provides a relatively high number of majority governments. Minorities and coaltions are both unstable and (often) irresponsible. We can look at other systems, but we don't want to adopt a system which would result in the government falling more frequently than Canada Day!

Platforms, Part 2: Conservative Party

Picking up where we left off, the next party platform up for attention is that of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives are a new party in Canada, legally speaking, in that they are the result of the 2003 vote to merge the Canadian Alliance party and the Progressive Conservative party. Stephen Harper, former leader of the Canadian Alliance, became the first leader of the new party.

The Conservative Party Platform

The Conservative platform is significantly longer than the BQ platform: 44 pages to 6. Let's see how it breaks down.

Under the Heading "Demand Better Accountability"

• "End waste, mismanagement, and corruption in Ottawa"

As I said in the first part of this series, nobody is likely to disagree with this one unless they've had a steady diet of government sponsorship cheques, delivered by the RCMP.

• "The $1 billion HRDC and $2 billion gun registry"

Another hard-to-disagree-with entry. The gun registry has gone so far over its original budget that a good case could be made that it would have been significantly cheaper for the government to buy the guns than to register them.

• "A plan for better and cleaner government"

This one breaks out into multiple bulleted points, dealt with individually below:

• "Direct the Auditor General to audit all federal granting programs and recommend changes to reduce waste and fraud."

This is a step that has been recommended many times over the years. I hope that this parliament will implement it.

• "Create an independent Ethics Commissioner appointed by Parliament, not by the Prime Minister."

Another improvement to the current set-up. The Liberals promised the same thing in 1993, however, and didn't do it once the election campaign was over.

• "End corporate and union political donations, and end forced taxpayer subsidies of political parties."

This will particularly impact the NDP, who depend on mandatory contributions from individual union members across Canada for much of their operating budget. The Liberal party has been the darling of Bay Street firms for years, in a corporate-government exchange of money and players (retired Liberals often find employment in Bay Street firms who contributed to the party). Even if no "hanky-panky" is actually going on, the appearance gives quite the opposite impression!

A bit deeper in the description, the Conservatives are suggesting replacing the current political contribution scheme with a check-off box on the income tax form to provide support for political parties. This is certainly an improvement for labour union members who do not wish to support the NDP through their mandatory union dues, and it may provide enough support to wean all the political parties off the public teat.

• "Set federal elections on a fixed date every four years and examine other democratic reforms."

This step would have the advantage of eliminating the incumbent advantage to call an election at a convenient point in the popularity polls. Other than that, I'm not convinced that it would be an improvement: a government which loses the confidence of the house would have to go to the people for a new mandate, and then the election cycle resets to four years after that election.

• "Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races."

Okay. Whatever. Next point?

No, but seriously, when the Conservative Party platform mentions former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps by name, and argues that a change to the current laws would have been fairer to her, you've got to feel you're living in an alternate universe. . .

Another sub-point is to start "voluntary" registration of voters by party affiliation, in order to regulate party nominations and leadership contests. This, if nothing else, will drive the anti-Americans wild, just because it's more like what the American system does.

• "Hold elections to fill vacancies in the Senate."

This is a big issue west of the Manitoba-Ontario border, and of almost zero interest east of there. Most Canadians have grown accustomed to having only effectively one level of legislative and one level of meaningless debate for a government structure. Putting some real teeth into the current Senate organization will again tweak the tender sensibilities of the reflexively anti-American branch of Canadian politics. That being said, one of the effects of having the Senate as an elected body would be to make it more difficult for the government of the day to ram through unpopular legislation (as can be done in our current system). This, in my opinion, is a good argument in favour of the change.

• "Increase the power of individual Members of Parliament."

This is perhaps a more significant change than most Canadians realize: individual members of parliament are rarely allowed a free vote — almost every vote is by party affiliation and an MP risks being thrown out of their party for voting against the party line. I like the idea, and would like to see this one implemented.

• "Give Parliament, not the Courts, the final decision on issues like marriage."

Okay, I guess, although fans of gay marriage see this point (correctly, I think) as being aimed directly at the legality of homosexual marriage in Canada. I am personally in favour of gay marriage and I would prefer to leave the current muddle unresolved (I'd actually prefer to get the government completely out of the marriage racket, but that does not yet appear to be an option).

Interestingly, one of the reasons the Liberal party has been against referring the gay marriage question to parliament is that they are not confident that they can whip enough of their own members into supporting the party position. They happily point at the Conservatives as being "anti-gay", but in truth, their own party has a significant number of MPs who are very unhappy with their party's stand.

• "Improve relations with the provinces and clarify federal and provincial roles."

Another throw-away "motherhood" issue. Sure, yeah, all in favour. Passed. Next issue?

Under the Heading "Demand Better Accountability"

"Significant reforms still not implemented"

This is a point to beat up the Liberals for not implementing many of the changes they proposed for federal-provincial relations back in 1996. A bit "motherhood"-ish, if you ask me.

Under the Heading "Demand a Better Economy"

• "Lower taxes, control spending, and create jobs"

They point out that personal taxation, adjusted for inflation, is more than one-third higher than it was in 1981, and that Canada has among the highest tax rates of the G7 nations.

• "Too many taxpayer dollars go to wasteful Liberal spending"

A bit of a repeat of the earlier mentions of the HRDC and Gun Registry boondoggles.

They present a bundle of suggestions here:

• "We will reduce the federal tax rate on middle-income Canadians by more than 25 percent"

I'm always in favour of reducing taxation, so this proposal gets a thumbs-up from me. However, the down side is that they will raise the tax rates for the lower and upper classes to compensate for the "loss in revenues". So much for that brief, happy thought.

• "We will introduce a $2000 per child deduction to reduce the tax burden on families with children"

This is a re-creation of the old "Baby Bonus" plan of the post-war years. A direct bribe to families.

• "We will reduce premiums to eliminate the annual surplus in the Employment Insurance account"

The EI premiums are just a tax by another name. The annual surplus disappears into general government revenues. I approve of the idea of reducing the premiums. I'd approve even more if there was some hint that allowing individuals to opt out of the system, but that's probably too much to hope for.

• "We will invest in infrastructure by transferring at least 3 cents of the gas tax to the provinces"

Another transparent sop to the voters, as the high price of gasoline is a hot-button topic right now. I'd prefer to see them reducing or eliminating the taxes on gasoline, but that's not going to happen soon.

• "We will introduce a new Registered Lifetime Savings Plan that allows Canadians to withdraw their money tax-free"

This sounds like a good idea, although most Canadians do not save enough for their retirement (partly due to being brainwashed about what the government would provide to them at the end of their working lives through pensions and income supplements). This plan could be fairly parodied by opponents as only benefitting the well-off.

• "We will control government spending and pay down the national debt"

Good. This is something I can support.

• "We will cut wasteful corporate subsidies in order to reduce taxes for all businesses"

Yes, get the junkie corporations to kick the habit of government methadone! If they can't compete without the taxpayer shovelling cash and benefits at them, they should not be in business.

• "We will invest in research and development, especially medical and scientific research"

This is another area where I don't think government has a valid role to play.

• "We will support Canada?s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers"

Is everybody cribbing from the NDP platform this time around?

Under the Heading "Demand Better Healthcare"

• "Waiting lists are unacceptably long"

Didn't Paul Martin spend almost all of his time during the English-language debate saying this? If you've had recent experience with the healthcare system, you probably cannot disagree with this statement.

• "We will work with the provinces to build on the 2003 Accord on Health Renewal"

Motherhood, ain't it grand?

• "We will provide stable long-term funding for health care"

While I'd prefer to see the feds get out of the healthcare business altogether, this at least would prevent the feds from playing the provinces like fish in a shallow pond. . .

• "We will hold the federal and provincial governments accountable for Health Accord promises"

Including Quebec?

• "We will respond more effectively to public health emergencies"

Here's one of the few areas where a federal presence is possibly justified. The risk of epidemics (SARS, for instance) goes beyond a single municipality or province. Co-ordination and co-operation among the various levels of government are critical to respond to potentially disastrous public health issues.

• "We will improve access to new drugs and natural health products"

This is a good plank for the platform. Reducing red tape and streamlining drug testing and acceptance for public trials is essential for the lives and health of Canadians who need help with ailments. Let the medical professionals do what they're trained to do and keep the bureaucrats at bay.

• "We will promote amateur sport and physical fitness"

Which is not the business of government, but why should the Tories be different from the rest of the political parties on this issue? Blah.

Under the Heading "Demand Better Communities"

• "We will work with the provinces to reduce financial barriers to post-secondary education and training"

Much nice-sounding talk, little in the way of concrete proposals in this section.

• "We will provide relief to Canadians on low and fixed incomes to help them meet rising utility, insurance, and gasoline prices"

And in this bullet point, we will proceed to attempt to bribe senior citizens and other Canadians on a fixed income.

• "We will expand tax credits for caregivers taking care of elderly, sick, or disabled relatives"

This might be a winner: as more of the baby boom generation heads into retirement, they will often be taking care of their own aged parents. This will be a bigger issue as time goes on: most of us are living longer than we plan on — or save for. Any help in this area is going to be welcomed.

• "We will improve recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience for immigrants"

This is a good thing for several reasons, not least for good common sense. And, if we really are still suffering from a "brain drain" to the US, we need to somehow replace those highly trained and experienced expatriates.

• "We will work to improve economic and social conditions for aboriginal Canadians"

Another long-overdue topic for discussion. Aboriginal Canadians still live in a legal demi-monde: not subject to the same set of laws as non-Aboriginals, but subject to other laws which restrict their freedoms (especially individual rights for Aboriginals on reservations).

• "We will become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy"

Now we're cribbing from the Green Party manifesto!

Under the Heading "Demand Better Security"

• "We will protect our communities from crime by instituting truth in sentencing, tightening parole, and holding young offenders accountable"

The Young Offenders Act needs a major overhaul. This is especially important in the eyes of city dwellers.

• "We will protect our children by eliminating legal loopholes for child pornography"

I don't know why this became such a big issue for the Tories. Their core supporters are pretty uniformly against it, but so are most Canadians. Defining is the big problem — and the problem of defining what it is is why most Canadians are uncomfortable with the current strident Tory position.

• "We will fight crime by scrapping the firearms registry and redirecting the money to law enforcement"

Absolutely. The government has enough demands on its time without devoting billions of dollars to creating a new criminal class of otherwise law-abiding Canadians.

• "We will protect our national security by clearing the backlog of individuals who have been ordered deported but not removed"

Legitimate immigrants are entitled to a fair and honest welcome to the country. Criminals and terrorists must be sent back where they originated. Too many of the people trying to work the system fall into the second category rather than the first.

• "We will build a more constructive partnership with our major allies and trading partners, and enhance the North American trade relationship"

We could hardly have a less friendly relationship with the Americans than we've had for the last ten years!

• "We will implement a Made in Canada foreign policy"

Two words. What-ever.

• "We will give our Canadian Forces the equipment they need to do the difficult and demanding work we ask of them"

This is true, and long overdue. In spite of the Liberal distortion about "aircraft carriers", the Canadian Forces are in desperate straits and need serious financial help to even maintain their current operations overseas.

Under the Heading "The Conservative Spending Plan"

This section provides numbers to back up the Tory contention that the previous Liberal government was deliberately fiddling the budget to allow plenty of end-of-fiscal-year slop to be spent in less-than-prudent ways. The tables presented here at least give some idea of the kind of budgets we could expect to see from a Harper government.

The Party Platforms and Me, Part 1

Just for laughs, I decided to pick up each of the major parties' platforms for this election and see where I agree and disagree with their stated policies. For reference, here are the online versions of the platforms:

• Bloc Quebecois platform (English translation is a downloadable PDF)
• Conservative platform
• Green platform
• Liberal platform
• New Democrat platform

I wanted to include the Libertarian Party platform, except that they don't have one online this time around. They only just got re-registered with Elections Canada on May 19, so I suspect they have too much else on their plates to put up a platform document.

First up, the Bloc Quebecois

To start with, being an Ontarian, the BQ is not directing their platform or policies to attract my vote — they're not running candidates outside the 75 seats in Quebec. Plus, as a party that was founded with the express intention of seceding from Canada, my basic inclination is to put them all up against the wall be unsympathetic to them and their causes.

Gilles Duceppe, the current party leader, has certainly done a good job of presenting himself and his party as being rational, even-tempered, democratic advocates of provincial rights. He must be given a lot of credit for this, because his profile before the election campaign was very low outside Quebec. I've even seen sneaking admissions of liking the man from staunch Western conservatives!

Under the Heading of "Democracy"

• "Continue fighting against the federal government?s interventions into the responsibilities of the National Assembly."

Expand this into a general comment for all provinces, not just Quebec, and I'd support this point.

• "Seeking a right to withdraw with full compensation for Quebec for all its areas of responsibility."

This is a non-starter, in my opinion, but not because I'm against the notion of separation — if they can get a majority of Quebec voters to vote in favour, then fine. What I'm against is the notion that they can separate and still take "full compensation" along with them. Separate yes, but taking their fair share of the national debt, sure.

• "Supporting all unanimous decisions by the National Assembly in Ottawa."

I don't know the voting record of the Quebec National Assembly, but aside from "motherhood" resolutions, most legislative bodies can't get unanimity for adjournment, never mind more contentious issues that cross party lines. That being said, sure, whatever.

• "Fighting against fiscal inequity in order to ensure adequate financing for the collective and democratic choices of all Quebec citizens."

Maybe I'm indulging in creative interpretation here, but this sure sounds like a demand to be funded for whatever they want to do, without restriction or oversight. If that's what they mean, screw 'em.

• "Monitoring the use of public funds in Ottawa and denouncing all examples of abuse and fraud."

Can we find anyone in Canada (who does not have a Liberal Party membership card in their pocket) who would object to this plank? I thought not.

Under the Heading "Sustainable development"

• "Demanding that the federal government increase transfer payments to Quebec for matters concerning education."

On the whole issue of transfer payments, I'm not particularly in tune with most Canadians: I think that, as much as possible, taxes should be raised in the communities, regions, or provinces where they will be used. And as damned few of them as possible! Transfer payments should only be used in rare cases of extreme need, not as a standard way of funding government operations.

• "Proposing the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol so that it is fair for Quebec and based on the principle of polluter-pays."

While I think that Kyoto is dead, and while still alive was a hare-brained attempt to blackmail the developed nations, there is still a good issue here that merits support: "the principle of polluter-pays". A key element that has been lacking in our environmental policies as a whole is that the costs should be borne by the polluters, not by the communities or the taxpayers as a whole. Assigning costs properly really requires enforcing property rights . . . which previous governments at all levels have been allergic to.

• "Proposing an investment plan for the wind turbine energy industry that will lead to the creation of thousands of jobs that will be environmentally friendly."

If you discount the cost ot the environment of the loss of all the birds who will be battered to death by the vanes of all those windmills, and the visual pollution of all the windmills themselves, perhaps. There are certainly some locations which could be used to generate power through windmills, but from the projections I've seen, there is no hope of wind turbines replacing much of our current power generation plant. As an aside, private owners may be encouraged to try generating some of their own power needs using turbines, but they will almost certainly face municipal opposition and neighbour disapproval: most of us don't want the guy next door putting up a huge eyesore, do we?

• "Firmly opposing the expansion of the Saint-Laurent seaway."

The St. Lawrence Seaway is a joint US-Canadian project, at the federal level. Quebec may want to take on jurisdiction of those parts of the Seaway that traverse Quebec territory, but at the moment they do not have this power. Should Quebec become sovereign, this is one of the big issues that the new Quebec government would have to negotiate with the Canadian and American governments. Blocking expansion now seems to be a bit of token noise, IMO.

• "Blocking all attempts by Ottawa to use culture for political purposes, while ensuring adequate financing."

If this means shutting off the financial taps to multicultural organizations, I'm all for it. It is not the legitimate role of the federal government to be subsidizing cultural expressions, especially cultural expressions which, by their nature, exclude other Canadians. The federal government should get out of the multicultural area and let the individuals and private groups organize, fund, and run their own cultural activities.

This, of course, is not what the BQ is demanding — they want the financial taps remaining open, but the federal agenda removed (in other words, just spend even more blindly than they currently do, while avoiding implying tht they are funding any of it).

• "Demanding a surtax on the profits of large oil companies."

In other words: soak the rich. Never mind that oil company profits are earned after all the normal taxes have been paid and after all bureaucratic regulations have been obeyed. This plank should match pretty exactly with the NDP platform.

• "Opposing the relocation of jobs and unfair business practices."

This, translated, means that the federal government should never move a bureaucratic job outside Quebec. And, it also means using the full powers of the federal government to prevent private companies from moving jobs outside the province. Another plank that could have been lifted straight out of the NDP platform. The government is assumed to know what is better for business than the owners and managers of those individual businesses. If you already believe in the omnipotent and omniscious state, this plank is a slam-dunk. If you know anything about economics, it's pure socialism.

• "Drafting an anti-strike breaking bill and engaging in a proper follow up if it is not adopted."

Again, the NDP and the BQ are happy to cohabit this segment of the political spectrum. The dice have been consistently loaded in favour of unions and against business owners for decades (reversing the early slant of laws which heavily discriminated against organized labour). I would ask, hypothetically, what in the heck is wrong with a level playing field in law? If a labour union and an employer can't agree about what a job is worth, why does the union have the legal right to interfere in the operation of the business? Why can they indulge in physical intimidation (and sometimes outright physical assault) to prevent other workers from accepting the offer of the company? If the company can't find replacement workers to take the jobs, then the work is worth more than they are willing to pay, and the company must either raise its offer or go out of business.

Under the Heading "Population"

• "Demanding that the federal government substantially increase its financing of the health sector without conditions."

Again, open those taps, close your eyes and think of Canada. Why is the federal government involved in healthcare anyway? Isn't that a provincial responsibility? If so, they should devolve the tax-collection for healthcare to the provinces and get out of the whole mess. My personal opinion is that the governments at all levels should be looking to privatize as much of the healthcare system as possible and allowing competition to keep prices down and service quality up. But that's just me . . . I know many Canadians feel that socialized medicine is the only thing that makes us different from Americans.

• "Demanding that the federal government transfer the savings from Quebec's low-cost day-care programs to the Quebec government"

This is another area that I feel the federal government has no business being involved in. I also think that the provinces are wrongly involved, but that's not the issue here in the federal arena.

• "Ensuring that Ottawa transfers $630 million that will allow the Quebec government to put in place a universal parental leave program."

If Quebec or any other province wants to institute such a program, they should do it with money raised in that province. I'm against it personally, and I don't think it will improve life for most Canadians, but it's again a provincial matter.

• "Proposing a tax credit that is refundable for all families that have children under the age of 18."

Hey, I've got a kid under 18 . . . send me money! A good appeal to the pockets is always gold in an election campaign. I'd prefer to see taxes lowered for everyone, but this proposal at least would lower taxes for some people.

• "Proposing that the federal government set aside 1 % of its expenses, or $2 billion per year, for the development of social housing."

Another issue that the federal government should not be involved in. If a provincial government wants to do it, do it with money raised in that province. I don't think it's a good idea, but it's not a federal responsibility.

• "Ensuring that eligible senior citizens receive guaranteed income supplements and that the government refunds the $3.2 billion in funds they should have received."

If we didn't tax 'em so heavily during their working lives, they wouldn't need the income supplements after they retired. But, for many seniors who believed that the federal government has a moral responsibility to look after them, this income top-up is very important. The feds should phase out their whole scheme of Canada Pension and supplement programs and encourage individuals to provide for their own retirement. It would be unfair to do this for those who are within 10-15 years of retiring, but for those of us who still have 20 or more years of working life, we should be allowed to direct the CPP/QPP portion of our mandatory payroll deductions to private investment vehicles.

• "Fighting with determination alongside the aboriginal population in order to encourage their achievement of self-government."

I'm astonished to see this one in the party platform. One of the big issues the last time that separatism was imminent was that many aboriginal tribes and nations did not want to be part of a separate Quebec and would have attempted to stay within Canada. The Quebec government did not see their claims as being valid ("We can separate from Canada, but they cannot separate from Quebec").

Under the Heading "Territory"

• "Proposing a re-imbursement plan for the employment insurance program designed to make it more accessible to women, youth, and seasonal employees and to establish a reserve in the case of an economic crisis."

Another plank that could have come from the NDP platform. Employment insurance is an important social policy as far as most Canadians are concerned: it's another of the differentiations with the Americans we seem so proud of. Whether it's good economic policy is much less clear. As individuals, we like to feel that, should we lose our jobs, there will still be an income stream to tide us over until we find new jobs. Because this is a government monopoly, there is no real opportunity for private alternatives to develop, and no real way of determining whether the system is properly run. Using EI as a form of regional transfer (especially for Atlantic Canada's highly seasonal labour) is a perversion of the original intent of the system. Ease the federal government out of the employment insurance field and allow private alternatives to arise.

• "Demanding that the federal government put in place a new program for repairing infrastructures under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government."

Does this seem to be a recurring demand? Spend money on our stuff, but let us control it completely. A quick one-word answer: Non.

• "Demanding that the different regions of Quebec receive their fair share of federal expenses and that the different federal programs are modified according to the realities of the different regions."

Or, alternatively, devolve the taxation for those federal programs to the provinces and let the individual provinces allocate the funds as they see fit.

• "Supporting the agricultural sector in order to better defend how it is managed all the while demanding new investments in this nerve centre so as to be able to ensure agricultural relief."

Supporting and defending the agricultural sector? How about eliminating the various federal support schemes and import/export regulations and let the agricultural sector compete in a free market? Too radical for you? I thought so.

• "Demanding that the federal government put in place a real program to assist the logging industry from now until the return of free trade that is integral to this field."

The first mention of free trade in the points so far, and one which implies a rather different economic outlook than the rest of the document. Even with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in place, very little of our economy is actually "free" from government meddling both here in Canada and with our major trading partners. NAFTA improved a lot of areas, but it's still far from being what Cobden and Bright would recognize as "free trade".

• "Demanding the federal government put in place a sustainable plan for the fishing industry."

How about allowing fishermen to have and trade fishing rights, and to enforce those rights both domestically and internationally? Ownership of property is the best way of ensuring that the property is properly taken care of. Fishing remains one of the starkest examples of the "tragedy of the commons".

Under the Heading "Quebec in the World"

• "Opposing all military intervention that contravenes international rights, like, for example, the war in Irak."

As a libertarian, I'm conflicted about the Iraq war. I'm delighted to see a sadistic mass-murderer removed from power and his citizens starting to move towards a freer lives, but I'm not comfortable with encouraging governments to militarily intervene in other nations. Anything that improves the ability of individuals to live their lives free of coercion and terror, I'm in favour of.

• "Opposing Canada's participation in the anti-missle defence shield and campaigning in favour of an international treaty forbidding the militarization of space."

The recent flight of a private spacecraft has given me hope that we can privatize space. Treaties and agreements between governments which cannot be enforced are a waste of time and energy. I strongly suspect that several governments (not just the Americans) have placed weapons in orbit. Pretending that they will not is just a pointless exercise. I'm more in favour of defensive systems (like the missile defence program), in that they are designed to protect the individual citizens of the nation.

• "Proposing maintaining peace-keeping missions as the primary role of Canadian military forces."

As pointed out in a few earlier postings, the Canadian military has no major strength left for much more than the peace-keeping missions it's already involved in. A massive spending program will be required just to prevent further erosion in their ability to protect Canadians and provide peace-keeping missions.

• "Proposing that the federal government introduce a plan to fight poverty in the world by increasing the levels of its international aid and respecting its dialogue concerning the debt reduction of the world's poorest nations."

Canada provides some assistance to poorer nations, and could probably provide more without too much effort. Whether it's right to force all Canadians to pay, through their taxes, for this aid is a question that rarely gets asked. Charity is a minor concern for most Canadians (few actually claim more than a few hundred dollars on their tax returns every year), because the government does the charitable giving on their behalf. This, again is an area that the federal government has no business being in. Reduce the size of the federal government and therefore reduce the taxes that Canadians pay, and the private donations to charities working in poor nations will massively increase.

• "Demanding that the government submit to Parliament, before ratification, all proposed agreements of the North American Free Trade Agreement."

Or, and this would be simpler, just institute free trade unilaterally and ignore the NAFTA provisions which actually work to restrict free trade.

• "Demanding that the federal government end the use of tax shelters and flags of convenience that allow businesses to avoid having to pay taxes and honouring their social and environmental responsibilities"

This is another common fallacy: that tax shelters and loopholes are illegitimate. The tax system is carefully crafted to encourage certain kinds of behaviour by taxpayers. The government puts those provisions in place to make sure that taxpayers are encouraged to jump through the hoops and fall in line with the desired behaviour. There is no way that the government is going to willingly deprive themselves of such a great tool for social engineering!

• "Supporting positive practices of globalization such as responsible investment and fair business practices."

Echoing the NDP platform again. Corporations are in one business only: making more money. Anything that improves their bottom line will get done, or the corporation will fail in it's primary task. Corporations that fail to make money will be taken over or sent into bankruptcy (except for soi-disant "national champions", who are propped up by taxpayer money and sweetheart deals. Any attempt to force corporations to act in a way that worsens their bottom line will encourage them to relocate to jurisdictions that allow them more ability to pursue their primary goal. That is why this kind of party plank will almost always be introduced at the same time as the earlier plank in the Sustainable Development section: because it can't work without the full force of government coercion.

And that's it for now . . . I've run out of time. Next up, the Conservative Party platform.

Kevin Jaeger on Harper's achievements

Kevin Jaeger writes:

However this election campaign turns out I really have to tip my hat to Stephen Harper and the new Conservative Party. Just a few months ago we were almost resigned to living in a one party state that was drifting into ever more corrupt, arrogant and even authoritarian behaviour. Now we suddenly live in a competitive multi-party democracy with an attractive big tent Conservative party welcoming the various strains of conservatism. Whatever happens on Monday life in Canada is looking up.

If Harper actually pulls off the coup de grace on Monday, and I think he will, that will be one miraculous achievement. Some people might be tossing brickbats at the imperfections in the campaign, but I say don't compare him to the almighty; compare him to any conceivable alternative. And yes, there remains much work to do to build support in Quebec. While this will still be difficult, I don't think it's impossible. The idea of Liberals winning rural seats in the West, now that's impossible. But at this point let's set aside the shortcomings and take stock of the achievements to date.

Kevin is quite correct that Harper should be congratulated on how well he and his new party have done to be competitive so soon. Win, lose, or whatever-the-heck-we-end-up-with-on-Monday-night, it was in no way the cakewalk that Martin expected (and most of the media were rooting for). I happen to like Harper personally, and I met him once (many years back), so I'm happy to see him doing well. There is no way I can pretend to agree with all of his policies, but that is true of every major party platform — I'm pretty far off the normal Canadian political spectrum.

As I said in yesterday's prediction, I'm not expecting to see a Conservative majority returned on Monday night — although that'd be lovely — at the very least, we won't be seeing a Paul Martin majority government. That is worth some cheering.

Canadian foreign expeditionary forces

Evan Kirchhoff writes:

I really had no idea — as a Canadian, I knew Canada was generally staying out of wars on ideological grounds, but I assumed there were Canadian troops somewhere doing something, even if only standing around in blue helmets watching people kill each other. Until I started clicking on "deployments" that turned out to consist of one person, or five people, I didn't realize the extent to which Canada had abandoned the idea of projecting force for any reason.

This is also a common misconception: that Canada has been and is continuing to be involved in peacekeeping operations around the world, and thus, has no troops available for more warlike activities. The latter part is, sadly, correct: we don't have any troops for warlike activities because we don't have anywhere near enough troops for what we're already committed to.

But what we're already committed to is a tiny portion of what we think we're doing. Canadian public opinion likes to think of our troops overseas helping prevent war and providing support for the victims of war. In actual fact, we don't have enough military muscle to do much of that any more. There are no more troops to send, and we desperately need to reduce our foreign operations now to ensure that we can at least maintain our involvement in some of the ongoing and future requirements.

Evan also points out that:

Canada is not being lazy or standoffish here: they're maxxed out on deployments. Also, there are apparently no overseas bases anymore, defeating my first theory about where all the troops were hiding. And there's no obvious way to change any of this. Even if it becomes politically acceptable to spend money on the Canadian military, they'd have to double or triple the budget for a decade to turn things around — currently, in military spending per GDP, Canada ranks slightly behind Belgium. This may work well enough for the foreseeable future, but my sense is that Canada's self-image hasn't quite caught up to this reality.

This brings to mind the old Andy Donato cartoon for the Toronto Sun back in the 1970's, with a Canadian general talking to the NATO generals, saying "Gentlemen, you wanted our best regiment for this job, and here he is!"

Original link via Bruce Ralston's Flit.

A sober, balanced analysis of the Tory platform

This was posted on Sunday, but only came to my attention today (thanks to Debbye at "Being American in T.O.:

Now, most regular readers of LIB will know that Saturdays are the day when Heather Mallick does what she does... er, well, "best" sort of glorifies it a bit much... let's just say she does what she does, which is to power up the spleen-bursting hate-on, and let the bile spew. Of course, Heather is hardly the first person to be rewarded out of all proportion to her actual talent, so it's best not to get too worked up about it and, rather, just sit back and enjoy the show:

"... What has shocked me about this sorry election is not just that it may end in a result so disgraceful — occasional, grunty vote couplings against a brick wall in a dark alley between the woman-hating "Conservatives" and the woman-ignoring Bloc — but also that I may have to water down my contempt for U.S. Republicans so I can save some for our next Parliament."

It's nice that for one column Mallick has elected to narrow her "contempt" from all Americans to just Republicans. But to see where this is all going, you need to note the adjective in the middle of that quote: "woman-hating "Conservatives"". Woman-hating. It's a bit unclear where this is all coming from, but it's gonna get good:

"We women know that a Conservative-run Canada would be a disaster, with a politicized Supreme Court that rubber-stamps the votes of a low-rent Parliament. A Conservative-run Canada would not be woman-unfriendly. It would be a land of women slapped down."

Presumably any woman who dares to disagree with Mallick's assessment of impending "disaster" is not a "real" woman. Sort of like how, for the left, Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell aren't "really" black. Again, though, let's focus on Mallick's contention that Canada would be a "land of women slapped down". Now, to be fair, Mallick is actually doing Canadians a great service, by pointing this out. Because not a lot of people know that one of the most important elements of the Conservative plan is to replace the national anthem: out with "O Canada", and in with The Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up". True story. It's on page 14 of their platform. Okay, I made that last bit up: the new anthem will actually be Al-D's "Bitches and Hoes".

Go read the whole thing.

Election prediction #1

Andrew Coyne is polling his readership for election seat-total predictions. As of right this minute, here's how I see it all breaking down:

• Newfoundland (7 seats): 4 CON 3 LIB
• Prince Edward Island (4 seats): 2 CON 2 LIB
• Nova Scotia (11 seats): 4 CON 5 LIB 2 NDP
• New Brunswick (10 seats): 4 Con 6 LIB
• Quebec (75 seats): 57 BQ 17 LIB 1 NDP
• Ontario (106 seats): 49 CON 52 LIB 6 NDP
• Manitoba (14 seats): 7 CON 2 LIB 5 NDP
• Saskatchewan (14 seats): 7 CON 7 NDP
• Alberta (28 seats): 27 CON 1 LIB
• British Columbia (36 seats): 14 CON 3 GRN 8 LIB 11 NDP
• Yukon, NWT, Nunavut (3 seats): 3 LIB

Party	Seats
Conservatives	118
Liberals	99
Bloc Quebecois	57
New Democrats	31
Greens	3

Will no-one exorcise this ghost from the Canadian psyche?

The Globe and Mail reports:

Starting next month, the ships will scan the bottom [of Lake Ontario] for nine scale models of the Avro Arrow, the fabled Canadian jet fighter scrapped by then-prime minister John Diefenbaker in 1959, killing the idea of Canadian air superiority.

For Arrow fans, the roughly one-seventh-size models are something of a holy grail, since they are exact flying replicas of the real plane.

The models were launched over the lake in the 1950s as engineers developed the revolutionary Arrow, which featured a radical delta wing and a Canadian-made engine that pushed it past the speed of sound

I hate to sound like a killjoy, but everything I've read about the AVRO Arrow says that, while Dief was widely viewed as an idiot for destroying the 11 finished planes, it would never have been a viable military export for Canada. The plane was great, there seems to be no question about that, but it was too expensive for the RCAF to be the only purchaser, and neither the United States nor the United Kingdom was willing (at that time) to buy from "foreign" suppliers. With no market for the jet, regardless of its superior flying and combat qualities, there was little point in embarking on full production.

Also, given the degree of penetration by Soviet spies, the Canadian government took the easiest option in destroying the prototypes. That doesn't make it any less tragic if you're a fan, but it does put it into some kind of perspective, I hope.

Update: A surviving technician from the test program says that the search is being conducted in the wrong place.

Update 28 June: Another article in the Kingston Whig-Standard says:

For his first book, Zuuring spent two years virtually camped out at the National Archives in Ottawa and uncovered what historians say is the closest Canada has come to finding a smoking gun as to the cause of the Arrow?s demise.

Zuuring found declassified documents that showed top military leaders, not Diefenbaker, killed the Arrow project.

But the rest of the article concentrates on the search for the Arrow models, not his discoveries in the National Archives.

We can't joke about the "Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation" any more

The BBC wants to start an Arabic-language channel to compete with Al Jazeera.

As Jeff Jarvis asks: " The BBC is launching a competitor to Al Jazeera. How will anybody be able to tell them apart?"

Soccer trumps the EU vision

Michael Young writes:

There was doubtless more to the election results than an effort by irate Europeans to break free from the half-nelson of the Brussels bureaucracy. However, a few days after the elections, as European leaders agreed to a new EU Constitution, there was a growing sense that the document would have to be put to popular referendums even in those countries, such as France, where governments had refused to commit to such the option, for fear it may be rejected.

As Europe more formally unifies, soccer has remained a splendid bastion of differentiation, although the regulations governing the sport and its transactions are increasingly falling under the purview of Brussels. Discounting the thugs who use stadium terraces as battlegrounds, the sport has mostly thrown up a laudable wall of contrarian divisiveness against EU-induced uniformity. Why is this important? Because it helps overcome the tyranny of consensus that in many respects Europe threatens to succumb to, as its bureaucrats legislate the continent's idiosyncrasies out of existence.

So, what is actually going on at the Euro 2004? More of the ancient rivalries that the barkers of European harmony would never quite be able to explain. Ask EU functionaries to enlighten you on the true meaning of the England-France rivalry, and they will mention Jacques Chirac's dislike for Tony Blair, or some quibble over agricultural subsidies. However, they will forget Agincourt or Waterloo, or other markers of mutual antipathy, leaving you unable to truly gauge the ecstasy felt by French fans when they defeated England in the last minute of their game on June 13.

The recent upswell of dissatisfaction with all things EU in many European countries (not just the usual suspects) may have the EUrocrats very worried. Perhaps the peasants are not actually willing to let the whole European convergence thing go along uninterrupted (and, to a large degree, unexamined). This will not sit well with the entrenched bureaucracies who all seem to see a unified Europe as being a great goal with no real drawbacks.

Back online

Sorry for the temporary blackout...our ISP had made some configuration changes which apparently broke the link between MovableType and the SQL database it requires. I'm hoping that normal blogging can resume this afternoon.

Christopher Hitchens Reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Christopher Hitchens writes:

With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Ouch! And Hitchens is not a right-wing rabble-rouser. . .he's a card-carrying member of the Left! I'm no fan of Michael Moore, but this review is probably nastier than anything I'd expect to see from the conservative wing-nuts.

Link via James Lileks' Bleat.

This is just cool!

New Scientist reports that the first private space shot took place today:

Test pilot Michael Melvill rocketed into the history books on Monday, as the first person ever to become an astronaut without the help of any government-funded hardware.

The 62-year-old test pilot flew a three-seater rocket called SpaceShipOne to the fringes of space, high above the Californian desert. He reached an unofficial altitude of 100 kilometres — official confirmation is expected later on Monday, from radar surveillance at nearby Edwards Air Force Base.

Thousands of spectators crowded the small desert town of Mojave to watch the flight. Just last Thursday, Mojave won a US government license making it the first private, commercial spaceport.

It's a few decades late (I've been waiting for this sort of thing to become commonplace since I was 7!), but welcome nonetheless.

Update 28 June: This is a report from the spaceport during the flight.

Establishing Father's Day in the US

Wendy McElroy writes:

Modern Father's Day is uniquely American in its history. Together with Mother's Day, it is a public and a personal expression of the gratitude that is due to all caring parents. Why, then, has Mother's Day been a national holiday for almost a century while Father's Day received that recognition only decades ago? [. . .]

A plausible theory of why the two observances were treated differently is that members of the House of Representatives thought that granting recognition to mothers was gallant but giving the same nod to their own sex looked self-serving. A more disturbing theory is that, even then, the role of fatherhood was undervalued. Indeed, it may have been seen as a slight to mothers and, so, politically unwise to treat the two parents as equivalently important.

Debunking myths about Wal-Mart

Todd Barnett writes about the current round of attacks on retail giant Wal-Mart and its imitators:

People should have figured out by now that the real motive behind these charges is to control the spending habits of the buying public. These critics can't stand the fact that individuals choose Wal-Mart as their favorite source for quality merchandise in lieu of stores where they would want the buying public to spend their money. They can't stand the choices that consumers make for themselves. (It ought to be noted that liberal and conservative activists on both sides of the aisle often can't resist employing the name of the "people" when their true goal is to both control the "people" by restricting their choices.)

The truth of the matter is that consumers will spend their money the way they want to spend it. No central planner in the history of the world has been quite successful at coercing people to spend the way they would like their money spent. Unfortunately these critics have no clue that coercing people to spend money the way they would like their money spent can never succeed, no matter how pure and good the intentions are. The consumers have a right to invest, spend, or save their money as they like. After all, it's their business — not the business of the critics.

Todays' polls say. . .

The CPAC poll released today gives the following numbers:

Party	Province/Region	Popularity (Of decided voters)
Liberals	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	34% (-11) 30% (NC) 36% (+3) 32% (-3) 32% (-1) 27% (-4)
Conservatives	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	41% (+15) 9% (-6) 40% (-3) 32% (-10) 51% (NC) 35% (-2)
New Democrats	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	24% (-3) 5% (+5) 23% (+1) 30% (+10) 14% (NC) 25% (-1)
Green Party	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	1% (-2) 5% (+2) 2% (-1) 6% (+2) 5% (+3) 10% (+5)
Bloc Quebecois	Quebec	52% (+9)

For reference, the following seats are being contested:

Province	Number of Seats	Possible Results
Atlantic Provinces	32 seats	15 CON, 10 LIB, 7 NDP
Quebec	75 seats	41 BQ, 22 LIB, 6 CON, 3 NDP, 3 GRN
Ontario	106 seats	42 CON, 38 LIB, 24 NDP, 2 GRN
Manitoba/Saskatchewan	28 seats	9 CON, 9 LIB, 9 NDP 1 GRN
Alberta	28 Seats	16 CON, 8 LIB, 3 NDP, 1 GRN
British Columbia	36 seats	15 CON, 9 LIB, 9 NDP, 3 GRN
Territories	3 seats	3 LIB

Of course, these projected seat numbers are only based on the percentage of decided voters in the province...they don't reflect actual riding boundaries, so the numbers can't pretend to be realistic.

Today's candidate for dumbest law on the books

. . .are lawmakers in Naperville, Illinois, who have a law that (one hopes inadvertantly) encourages drunk driving. Radley Balko summarizes:

So now the only way Naperville underage drinkers can find a way home from parties where there's underage drinking . . . is to ride home with other underage drinkers.

Link courtesy of Reason Hit and Run.

A perfect example of the "Chilling Effect" on free speech

Matt Welch writes, in Reason Online:

Even though no radio station has ever lost its license over an unintentional fuck, this was a clear-cut free speech issue. When one of the West Coast's most respected media organizations cites fear of a shutdown as the reason to fire a 42-year-old mother of two who was in the midst of a five-part series on knitting, the justification is either an example of the chilling effect that government regulation has on speech or an inflammatory excuse to get rid of an unwanted employee. Either way, damage was done to the climate for free expression on the airwaves.

He then moves on to discuss the complicity of the press with the greater restrictions on public speech and freedom of expression:

One is a bureaucracy that values its own political existence higher than the Constitution — a virtual guarantee. The second, much less remarked upon, is a compliant press. When I was getting started in journalism during Ronald Reagan's second term, the ethics and constitutionality of drug testing was a hot topic in the country and especially in newspapers. Now you almost never see it mentioned outside the sports pages, where more urine testing is always better. Not uncoincidentally, most major newspapers now submit new employees to mandatory drug tests. The journalists rolled over, moved on, and quickly grew weary of the topic.

Since reporters probe the First Amendment's boundaries every day, checking their pulses on issues regarding the climate for free speech can be a good preliminary indicator of the patient's overall health. If that's true, then we have reason to be worried — while the Bush Administration erects wall after wall between the truth and the American people, and adopts policies specifically designed to limit Americans' freedom of expression, some journalists are responding not with howls of outrage, but requests for more.

Journalistic "Stockholm Syndrome", anyone?

Lileks makes me laugh

I don't point to James Lileks' weblog/webdiary very often (although it's in the links), but this paragraph just broke me up:

The long, long day, the slow steady march into the maw of hell. By which I mean Chuck E. Cheese's. Interesting crowd, as usual. The kids aren't interesting, but the parents always are. A knot of Somali women in full burqas. Big American dads with Big American Bellies. Thin well-groomed suburban women. One couple mystified me — early 20s, slackerish guy with one of those women who makes you bite right through the knuckle on your index finger. Spray-on clothes, metronome saunter. The effect on men was like watching a bottle of Absolut tied to a string and dragged through an AA meeting. No way it was his kid. No way it was hers. You could tell just by the way they acted; the kid had been fobbed off on them for a while. He didn't mind because it meant he could spend time with her. She didn't mind because it put a measure of distance between her and the guy, who appeared to be a place-keeper, a guy to occupy the Guy Spot until something better came along.

Misleading the pollsters?

At lunch today, I stopped in at a Lick's burger place. Every election, they run a totally non-scientific poll of how their customers would vote in the election and post a daily tally of the votes (the chain-wide totals are here). What is interesting is that this particular restaurant's customers were "voting" Conservative over Liberal by nearly a 3:2 margin, and this is not located in a Tory stronghold.

My lunch companion suggested that, if the burger poll is accurate, that people might not be providing fully truthful answers to the poll-takers. This might well be true, as for most Canadians, supporting or voting for a right-wing party is something they think to be shameful or worse. During Brian Mulroney's terms in office, I rarely could find anyone who was willing to admit that they'd voted Conservative (somebody must have . . . but I didn't vote for him!).

If the Lick's Burger Poll is as accurate as it has been in the past, Stephen Harper's Conservatives will have a huge haul of seats from the Ontario ridings.

Abu Ghraib's Long History of Torture

This article in the New York Post describes even more disgusting and horrible atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib prison, including much worse than what we've already seen in the media:

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

No surprise, since no newscast would air the videos of Nick Berg and Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl getting decapitated, or of U.S. contractors in Fallujah getting torn limb from limb by al Qaeda operatives.

But every TV network has endlessly shown photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib. Why?

"Because most [journalists] want Bush to lose," says AEI scholar Michael Ledeen, who helped host the screening of the Saddam video.

It's not just journalists. The Pentagon has lots of Saddam atrocity footage — but is loathe to release it, possibly for fear it would be taken as a crude attempt to blunt criticism of Abu Ghraib.

Link via Instapundit.

This is just too damn sad

The new Juno Beach museum finally opened last year in Normandy, just inland of where Canadian troops landed in the early morning of June 6, 1944. This National Post article by Chris Wattie quotes J.L. Granatstein:

"It seems to me that getting things right is a basic part of a museum's job," said Prof. Granatstein, who toured the centre this month during ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day. "Especially when you're representing your country abroad."

He said the most glaring mistake was a display that incorrectly stated that Canada lost 39,995 during the war. The actual figure is 42,042. "On something as basic as that, I don't know how they couldn't get it right."

Professor Granatstein's own article also appears:

Historians tell me that today's museum is better than the one that opened a year ago. I hope so, but there is still great room for improvement. From the very first panel, the complicated story of how Canada went to war on Sept. 10, 1939, is garbled. Many visitors will not care much about dull facts. But in a museum supported by the Canadian government, one designed to tell the nation's story and to be the face of Canada's war in France, facts matter.

So too does interpretation. The view of Canada is so bleak that visitors must wonder why men enlisted to defend such a nation. The museum takes us back to 1919 (but why not to the Great War, which shaped the country's reaction to the war that followed?) and immediately generates a cacophony of distortion. Women demand the vote and there is agitation against child labour, we are told. Except that women relatives of soldiers received the vote federally in 1917 and the rest immediately after the Great War, while child labour was largely legislated out of existence before that conflict.

Matters worsen when we get to the Depression. A map shows the drop in personal income but inexplicably omits Ontario, while the text says that two of three Canadians were on some form of direct relief. Times were tough, but not that tough. The text on immigration, meanwhile, paints a land awash in discrimination — ignoring the far worse fates of those not lucky enough to get in.

It sounds to me as though the information was provided by someone who actually didn't know the history and had to try and crib something together at the last moment, using dubious sources.

Link courtesy of Canadian Forces College Spotlight on Military News

The Leaders' Debate in English

First, I'd like to thank Damian Penny for putting together his notes on the debate on a practically minute-by-minute basis. I didn't follow it that closely, but his key points have been very useful in pulling together my own "analysis" which follows.

To start with, I missed a good fifteen minutes at the beginning of the debate, so I didn't hear the opening statements of any of the participants. As I got home, Jack Layton was hammering Stephen Harper's statement about allowing free votes in Parliament for abortion and gay marriage as being part of Harper's "hidden agenda" to take away civil rights granted by the Supreme Court (he'd return to this theme later over the "notwithstanding" clause). A problem for Duceppe, Martin, and especially Harper was trying to get a word in edgewise against the torrent of words coming from Layton. Damian mentions that Layton has a "cult-like smile", and I have to agree . . . it was kinda creepy after more than a couple of minutes.

Aside from the fact that free votes in Parliament are much more "democratic" than the traditional votes along party lines (enforced by the party whips), it's interesting that Layton feels that he has to keep pushing the "hidden agenda" meme. From anyone else, it'd be pure tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff, but from him, it sounds natural. Martin may be as concerned about these free votes Harper is proposing, as his caucus is far from unified over both contentious issues.

Martin looked rattled by some of the questions, and, as Damian notes, appears on camera more as the aggressive opposition leader than as the dignified and confident prime minister (Harper did that quite well). Duceppe actually came across much better in English than I'd expected . . . he's not as polished as Layton, but he's got a much more authentic air of sincerity than Jack does. He got off the best line in the whole debate on US-Canadian relations, though: "being their best friend doesn't mean kneeling down in front of them." Jack Layton smarms like nobody else on the podium . . . he really needs to stop that crazy man smile of his: I think it's going to turn off more people than his policies do!

I'm still not certain that Stephen Harper managed to get many of his points across, but many blog commentators feel that he clearly won the home audience's confidence.

Harper and Martin squared off on national defence, with Martin again trying to push the "aircraft carriers" as being for the wrong decade, while Harper tried to point out that the ships he's in favour of are not what Martin is claiming. I don't think that most of the audience could figure out the difference, unless they were better informed on military matters than I think they are. Martin probably won that exchange on that basis. But, IMO, Harper was correct. Martin failed to score much over the Iraq War, as Harper skewered him over the hypocrisy of actually having Canadian soldiers involved, but refusing to formally support the US or join the alliance forces.

Once the debate shifted to health care, Layton and Martin clearly felt that they could wipe the floor with Harper, but they spent less time doing that than attacking one another and their respective policies, so that Harper actually had to fight to get his points into the discussion. From the point of view of most Canadians, this is the key difference between the Tories and the rest: universality of healthcare and the exclusion of the private sector. Just mentioning the idea gives many Canadians great distress . . . and Layton nearly scored a big hit on Martin by pointing out how much of the healthcare system is being moved into the private sector, regardless of the pro-public rhetoric of the Liberals. Martin managed to shift the debate around so that Layton's punch went astray (one of the few moments when Martin appeared to be in charge of the agenda).

From health care, the next big issue was public daycare, which is another Tory weak spot from the left's viewpoint. Everyone went out of their way to praise the Quebec system, but Duceppe managed to lose some ground by whining on about "losing" money from the federal government because they had a more "efficient" system. As described in the debate, the feds were quite correct, but most politicians love to lambaste their opponents and this was too good an opportunity for Duceppe to show Quebec voters that he's their champion.

The closing remarks were fascinating, as they appeared to be from four different debates. Harper talked about what "his government" will do after the election. Layton did his level best to persuade wavering NDP voters not to switch to the Liberals. Duceppe tore into Martin over the sponsorship scandal, and Martin looked like he'd just gone a few rounds with Muhammed Ali, stammering and sweating and looking all-but-done-in.

Several people have commented that Harper demonstrated the perfect imitation of a Canadian: quiet, polite, reserved until you get to know him, dignified. If this is the common perception of the debates, then Harper has won overwhelmingly, despite the snarkiness displayed by the CBC and Toronto Star talking heads at the end of the debate (who all declared Martin the winner). To quote "Billy" commenting on Andrew Coyne's website: "In parts, he looked and acted like a guy that knew he was just about to get whacked in those godfather-mafia type movies."

Jacob Sullum Debunks the "TV Advertising Makes Our Kids Fat" Meme

Jacob Sullum writes:

So let's set aside for a moment the question of whether parents have a right not to be nagged. Let's ask instead whether there's good reason to believe advertising plays an important role in obesity among children, who are more than twice as likely to be overweight as they were two decades ago.

Todd Zywicki, director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning, noted a problem with drawing a link between fat kids and fat ad budgets: If anything, children are less exposed to food commercials than they were when they were thinner. The frequency of food ads has not increased, while kids are spending less time watching broadcast television and more time playing video games, using computers, or watching cable TV, DVDs, or videotapes — media with fewer or no food ads.

Another inconvenient fact: Places where advertising food to children is illegal, such as Sweden and Quebec, do not have noticeably lower obesity rates than otherwise similar places with different policies.

Andrew Coyne on the Ford Heist

Andrew Coyne writes:

This is just incredible. A billion dollars in pork, right in the middle of the election campaign. A billion dollars in corporate welfare aimed straight at Ontario, including $100 million for Ford, which made how many billions of dollars last year? And why are they getting this money (other than the obvious reason)? Read this morning's Star: because the Tories might win.

Does this really surprise anybody? The timing is just a trifle surprising, in that even the Liberals are usually a bit more deft at pretending that corporate welfare of this scale has nothing to do with elections. It certainly supports Coyne's contention that it's purely anti-Conservative abuse of both government power and taxpayers.

Ugly. Petty. Corrupt. Vindictive. Other epithets as they come to mind. . .

Ethical Musings

Okay, so you find something really juicy that you want to share with your readers, fine. You hit the New Entry button on the left-hand side of the MovableType menu and start a new entry (just as I did a hundred keystrokes ago). But the link you followed is from Site A, which points to Site B, which eventually links you to Site C. Do you link directly to Site C and credit Site A for the tip? Do you Link to Site B and similarly credit Site A? Or do you pretend to be "Kibo™ of the Web" and link directly to Site C and ignore the path you actually followed to get there? Or, and I include this merely for completeness, are you actually "Kibo™ of the Web" and therefore the question is completely moot?

I ask, not in hopes of any philosophical clarity, but to boast about my almost unblemished record of doing what I think to be the right thing (the first policy — link to C, give credit to A). Does it matter? Does anyone care?

I think it does, and in a couple of cases already, I've been the first blogger to find something link-worthy (of my immediate circle of blogularity, er, blob of blogularity?), so I link directly to "my" discovery. It's been nice to see the same link be picked up by others (but none, as yet, through this blog, alas) a few hours or a day later.

Reputation being as important as it currently is in the blogosphere, the quality of the link often matters much more than it would for a DeadTreeWorld link, and this is one of the ways that bloggers establish and maintain the reputation that encourages readers to keep coming back to their respective sites.

Someone has a dream. . .

. . .to grow legal cannabis in the United States. This is what he wrote after waking up, I suspect.

Black Cab or Gamay? Both please!

Last night's dinner party featured a couple of local wines going if not head-to-head, at least sequentially. EastDell Estates' 2001 VQA Black Cab, a Baco Noir/Cabernet Franc blend was the dinner wine (to accompany barbecued burgers, salmon, prawns, and Portobello mushrooms). It was preceded by a Henry of Pelham 2003 Gamay, which was a good selection to move the guests away from the Gewürztraminer and towards the dinner wine.

The Gamay had a lively, almost effervescent mouth-feel, with lots of black pepper and berry flavour. I was sorry I'd started with a Pinot Grigio rather than the Gamay, personally! Unlike some of your insipid, bland, almost flavourless Gamays, this one had lots of character. It has sufficient body to be a good accompaniment to meals (perhaps a picnic-style meal with meat, cheese, and crusty bread) or to be drunk by itself.

The Black Cab was a perfect match to BBQ foods: it had lots of smoke and pepper on the nose, with an almost gritty texture — almost as if the wine had been on the grill! This sounds unpleasant, and it probably would be a bad match to less robust food, but with the barbecue selection we had, it was an ideal match. The wine was big, burly, and mouth-filling, with plenty of green pepper and smokiness on the palate. This is not a wine to drink by itself, unless you like extra smokiness and lots of tannins by themselves!

Did someone misread the numbers?

On Friday, as I tried to find the most recent poll numbers, I found a couple of interesting assertions on a few news outlet websites, along the lines of "Harper's numbers fall" and "Tory support tumbles". None of the assertions were linked to the numbers, so I couldn't find what had caused the sudden exultation among the reporting classes. Since then, there's been no significant change in the polling numbers that I've seen, so I'm assuming that something happened "behind the scenes" with perhaps polling numbers swapped between the Conservative and Liberal columns in a preliminary report on the newswires, which was then later corrected.

Given that the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail are both pretty strongly partisan in favour of the Liberal party, I expect they'd both put on a full-court press if the Tory poll numbers looked in any way weaker (to both emphasize the loss and to try to pump up any feelings of doubt among the as-yet-undecided voting public).

Or maybe I forgot to take off my tin-foil beanie this morning. . .

Poll Time for June 11th, Courtesy of CPAC

The CPAC-SES overnight poll released yesterday gives the following numbers:

Party	Popularity (Of decided voters)
Liberals	33% (-8)
Conservatives	34% (+6)
New Democrats	18% (0)
Green Party	5% (+2)
Bloc Quebecois (Quebec only)	11% (0)

In this table, the parenthetic change number is from the start of the election campaign, not overnight change.

Steve H. Rips Wonkette a New One

Steve H., who in spite of being a lawyer is a really funny writer, takes Wonkette to task:

I never read Wonkette's "blog" until today, except for one entry on briefly famous, average-looking whore Jessica Cutler. I just took a look, and I see she has spent this week making fun of the Reagan funeral. People thought I was criticizing her earlier, although I was actually criticizing her pal the brainless slut. Well, now I'm criticizing Wonkette.

Corporate sponsors can buy you interns, bandwidth, and designers to put together your pretend blog, but there is one thing they can't buy you: class. Which is too bad, because Wonkette could really use a dose. [. . .]

While I'm at it, let me ask: why do people call her site a blog? She's the farthest thing from a blogger. A blogger does not have interns. A blogger isn't paid to blog. A blogger earns traffic; he doesn't let someone buy it for him. If she's a blogger, then Google and Amazon must be blogs, too.

I'll say this. She's certainly tasteless enough to be an amateur.

I've never understood what the attraction of the Wonkette site was supposed to be . . . the few times I visited the site, it was boring, D.C.-centric, and very in-group oriented. I don't live there, know nobody who does, so nothing of this was in any way interesting. But perhaps that says more about me than it does about her. . . I don't consider myself to be a prude, but I found the whole "Ho-blog" episode to be pathetic and mildly embarrassing. I'm glad to see that I was far from being alone on that one.

"Duuuude, like, your head is so, like, hairless. That's soooo coool!"

This item from the Sun just, like, mellowed my harshness. I'm, like, at one with the universe, y'know?

ENGLAND fans will be allowed to smoke dope before Sunday's crunch clash with France — to keep them calm.

Cops in Lisbon plan to crack down on drunk supporters while turning a blind eye to those spotted puffing on a spliff.

Pot-smoking fans have been assured they will not be arrested, cautioned — or even have their drugs confiscated. [. . .]

Dutch police used a similar policy in Euro 2000 and England's hooligan element were too stoned to fight.

A Lisbon police spokeswoman said: "If people cause a problem through drugs and become a menace then police will take action. But when this doesn?t happen why should the police be the ones making the fuss?"

Why indeed? This is lateral thinking of a noteworthy level.

Link courtesy of Reason's Hit and Run.

I spoke too soon

I am refuted by retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie, no less. In this posting, I wrote:

I hate to say it, given the dismal record of white papers in previous decades, but a white paper on the whole defence of the realm is called for here, before any more money is promised to the Department of National Defence. We have to decide what roles are absolutely essential, which are desirable, and which are unattainable. This means no new main battle tank for the army, no new aircraft carrier for the navy, and no new fighters for the air force...until the new government (whoever that turns out to be) has fully assessed the future calls on Canadian military resources and how best to address those demands.

My reference to an "aircraft carrier" was clearly at variance with what was actually under discussion. The fact that the prime minister and his party are making the same mistake does not in any way excuse my sloppiness. Here, courtesy of Mr. MacKenzie, is the correct way to refer to these ships:

You can imagine our disappointment when the Prime Minister recently denounced the Conservative plan to purchase "aircraft carriers" — an erroneous charge suggesting a Cold War-type military spending spree that threatens support for social programs. A hybrid carrier is about as similar to an aircraft carrier as my Honda scooter is to a Kenmore 18-wheeler, and the cost relationship is also about the same.

Aircraft carriers have as their primary role the delivery of combat air power to anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end. Hybrid carriers carry soldiers and their kit, including their vehicles, medical, logistic support, command and control facilities — in other words, everything that we now dispatch in an untimely and unreliable manner in chartered merchant ships and rented Ukrainian strategic lift aircraft. They are several storeys high. And yes, like Mr. Martin's imaginary aircraft carriers, they do have a flat roof that can accommodate and launch helicopters (and if we had them, jump jets). However, their primary role is to get our troops to where they are needed, support them while they are there and bring them home.

Forget the word "carrier." Let's call them battle group support ships and move at least one of them to the top of the military's equipment priority list. They are invaluable for the type of missions Canada will likely be called on to participate in during the coming years. (The recent announcement of the future purchase of three joint supply ships is good news, as they are much needed by our navy for resupply at sea; however they cannot accommodate the soldiers and all the equipment of an 800-1,000 strong battle group.) The usual 10-year period for acquiring such large assets should be dispensed with. We could lease one within the year.

Link courtesy of Canadian Forces College Spotlight on Military News

Non-lethal weapons update

This Sacramento Bee report discusses a new beam weapon that may soon be deployed by the US for riot control.

When the beam hits an individual, it penetrates 1/64th of an inch beneath the skin and heats water molecules to 130 degrees in less than a second.

"It tricks the pain sensors into thinking they're on fire," said Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, N.M.

Garcia knows firsthand. He was among hundreds of test volunteers, standing in a doorway with his back facing the device.

"They did a full body back shot," he said. "It hit in the small of my back first. For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire."

Link via Virginia Postrel's Dynamist Blog.

Why did Al Gore invent the Internet?

To provide links like this one! Okay, so I managed a 183 out of 200, but there were 18 I had to take a wild guess on. Which proves to me that I'd be a certifiable genius, unless there were math word problems, in which case I'd quickly drop down to the sub-normal level!

For the record, I got 12 (guess), 19, 39 (guess), 52 (guess), 66, 84, 103, 104 (guess), 115, 121 (guess), 134 (guess), 136, 146 (guess), 153, 169, 184, and 186 wrong.

Cable Monopolists Need Love Too!

Wired interviews Time Warner Cable chair and CEO Glenn Britt:

Cable and satellite are in cutthroat mode. Couldn't à la carte be an opportunity for you to differentiate Time Warner Cable from its competitors?
If that's what people wanted, yes. But the assumption is wrong. Every time we've tried to offer more packages with fewer channels — more toward à la carte — consumers always went for the big packages. People actually like this service, which is why 90 percent of the homes in the country buy it.

Of course, the consumers might not have liked the particular packages offered, or — here's a thought — perhaps the pricing for the smaller packages was so outrageous that the suckerscustomers rationally decided that it was no bargain at all, as presented. Call me "conspiracy boy", but I sure suspect that this had a lot more to do with the consumer rejection that Britt refers to here. . .

Link by way of Reason Hit n'Run.

P.J. O'Rourke

Do I need to say more?

Oh, okay, here:

Last year, on a long car trip, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh shout. I usually agree with Rush Limbaugh; therefore I usually don't listen to him. I listen to NPR: "World to end — poor and minorities hardest hit." I like to argue with the radio. Of course, if I had kept listening to Limbaugh, whose OxyContin addiction was about to be revealed, I could have argued with him about drugs. I don't think drugs are bad. I used to be a hippie. I think drugs are fun. Now I'm a conservative. I think fun is bad. I would agree all the more with Limbaugh if, after he returned from rehab, he'd shouted (as most Americans ought to), "I'm sorry I had fun! I promise not to have any more!"

Yet another poll: CPAC numbers for 30 May-6 June

The CPAC poll released yesterday gives the following numbers:

Party	Province/Region	Popularity (Of decided voters)
Liberals	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	45% (+4) 30% (NC) 33% (-6) 35% (-6) 33% (+2) 31% (-3)
Conservatives	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	26% (-4) 15% (+2) 43% (+11) 42% (+7) 51% (-2) 37% (+8)
New Democrats	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	27% (+1) 10% (+5) 22% (-3) 20% (-3) 14% (+3) 26% (-3)
Green Party	Atlantic Quebec Ontario MB/SK Alberta BC	3% (+1) 3% (NC) 3% (NC) 4% (+3) 2% (-3) 5% (-3)
Bloc Quebecois	Quebec	43% (-6)

For reference, the following seats are being contested:

Province	Number of Seats	Possible Results
Atlantic Provinces	32 seats	16 LIB, 8 CON, 8 NDP
Quebec	75 seats	33 BQ, 22 LIB, 11 CON, 7 NDP, 2 GRN
Ontario	106 seats	45 CON, 35 LIB, 23 NDP, 3 GRN
Manitoba/Saskatchewan	28 seats	13 CON, 9 LIB, 5 NDP 1 GRN
Alberta	28 Seats	14 CON, 7 LIB, 7 NDP
British Columbia	36 seats	15 CON, 10 LIB, 8 NDP, 3 GRN
Territories	3 seats	3 LIB

Of course, these projected seat numbers are only based on the percentage of decided voters in the province...they don't reflect actual riding boundaries, so the numbers can't pretend to be realistic.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The Transplanted Texan finds a Mark Twain essay for today:

Is it Spain's respect that we are going to lose? Is she sitting sadly conning her great history and contrasting it with our meddling, cruel, perfidious one — our shameful history of foreign robberies, humanitarian shams, and annihilations of weak and unoffending nations? Is she remembering with pride how she sent Columbus home in chains; how she sent half of the harmless West Indians into slavery and the rest to the grave, leaving not one alive; how she robbed and slaughtered the Inca's gentle race, then beguiled the Inca into her power with fair promises and burned him at the stake; how she drenched the New World in blood, and earned and got the name of The Nation With The Bloody Footprint; how she drove all the Jews out of Spain in a day, allowing them to sell their property, but forbidding them to carry any money out of the country; how she roasted heretics by the thousands and thousands in her public squares, generation after generation, her kings and her priests looking on as at a holiday show; how her Holy Inquisition imported hell into the earth; how she was the first to institute it and the last to give it up

Link via Instapundit.

Virginia Postrel on Reagan's Legacy

Virginia Postrel writes:

Whatever impressions nostalgic TV shows may leave with those too young to remember the real decade, the late 1960s and 1970s were a scary time to grow up. The world just kept getting worse and worse, and nobody seemed to know why.

The Soviets were expanding, and the Cold War seemed destined to end in defeat or destruction. When the joke issue of my college paper announced the Soviet invasion of Iran, lots of students believed it.

The Saudis could — and did — cut off the oil whenever they got mad. People in the northeast froze from lack of natural gas; my father turned our thermostats down to 65, as though it would help. (Deregulation, Reagan's first act on becoming president, helped more.)

Unreasonable search and seizure becomes more common

Mike Alissi writes in Reason Online:

Last month, Boston transit cops announced plans to check "suspicious" passengers for ID.

Now, they want to randomly search any passengers

As I mention in a comment on that article, it's not as though this is really anything new. In some ways I'm surprised that it's even being reported as news. . .the right to privacy and the right to security of the person have been eroded to the point that they're no longer really "rights" in the sense that the US Constitution recognized them.

Today, Boston. Tomorrow, pretty much anywhere in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Welcome to the real world, Neo.

This week's polls

Belatedly, I post the numbers from last Friday's poll by Ipsos-Reid:

Party	Popularity	Seats in Parliament
Liberals	32% (-2%)	115-119 seats
Conservatives	31% (+1%)	110-114 seats
New Democrats	17% (+1%)	17-21 seats
Green Party	6% (NC)	2 seats
Bloc Quebecois (Quebec only)	45% (+1%)	57-61 seats
Liberals (Quebec only)	28% (-1%)

How bad is the Amerikkkan Diktatorship? Read this!

This puts it into perspective.

I believe that women and men should be treated equally in society and under the law, believe that someone's sexual preferences are their personal business, that the government doesn't belong in religion, or bedrooms, or looking over the shoulder of a physician. I reject discrimination in any form. I love freedom, maybe a part of this is because my Dad (the Curmudge) is the first guy in a long line of people not to have been born under tyranny. Ditto for my maternal Grandparents. No one chased the Curmudge into a jail, or worse, just because he's a Jew. That can't be said of his father. No one came to my door when I was 18 and marched me into the army at gun- and swordpoint or killed my sister and mother because they were Jews in the wrong place at the wrong time. That can't be said of two of my great-uncles.

I believe in lots of liberal ideas, and I can give a good goddam whether or not you agree with me. I'm not going to force my beliefs on you, and trust me: don't try yours on me.

And yet I'm told by some I live under tyranny. I'm told that the worst thing to happen to freedom is George Bush. I'm told that I am not free in America anymore. I'm told that Bush is a Nazi; a fascist; a tyrannical despot; a dictator. My response: Oh really, numbnuts? Why should I believe that nonsense? Because it makes you feel better if I drink that Kool Aid with you??

Link courtesy of Damian Penny.

Ronald Reagan dies, aged 93

Former US President Ronald Reagan died yesterday. Reason Magazine provides a look back before he was elected, at his two terms in office and a review of books published about his presidency, and a wry look at his legacy.

Update: James Lileks writes:

It's 1983; I'm working at the Minnesota Daily, in the editorial department. Smart friends, common purpose, and by God a paper to put out! It gets no better when you're in your 20s.

We didn't hate Reagan; we viewed him with indulgent contempt, since he was so obviously out of his depth. I mean, please: an actor? As president? (This from a generation that got its politics from "All The President's Men." This from a generation that would later embrace Martin Sheen as the ne plus ultra of all things presidential.) He was in a movie with a talking monkey, for heaven's sake. That was all you really needed to know. "Bedtime for Bonzo," you'd say with a smirk or a conspicuous rolling of the eyes, and everyone would nod. Idiot. Empty-headed grinning high-haired uberdad. Of course he was popular among the groundlings. It would be laughable if it weren't so typical — he was just the sort of fool the voters could be trusted to elect.

Paul Johnson on the lessons of the Normandy Invasion

Paul Johnson writes:

[. . .] such an approach involved penalties. It allowed the Germans to keep their line, to regroup and reinforce, and to maintain morale. Not until the very last weeks of the war did their front collapse, and individual units begin to surrender freely. Moreover, the political consequences were enormous. Instead of the war ending in autumn or early winter 1944, it lasted until the end of April 1945. Instead of the U.S. and Britain occupying Berlin and most of central Europe, it left these spoils to the Russians. The broad-front policy set the stage for 40 years of Cold War. Indeed, had it not been for the firmness of President Truman in reversing Roosevelt's policy of appeasing Stalin, it is quite possible that Western Europe too might have fallen victim to communism, and that the frontiers of Stalin's empire would only have ended at the English Channel.

Link from Instapundit

Vote Selector for the Federal Election

This is rather amusing, if you like playing with quizzes.

I found the selection of issues to be, um, interesting.

Blogging will be very light today

As work and other demands on my time unfairly crowd out the fun activity of blogging. Hopefully more later today or tomorrow.

Cartoon of the day

Tom Toles provides his viewpoint on colour-coded alerts.

Peter Worthington on the state of the Canadian Armed Forces

Peter Worthington writes:

Although the politician's basic solution to any problem is to throw more money at it, this is rarely wise. More money isn't the greatest need in our military. A whole new defence policy needs to be determined — and a lot of old concepts put to rest.

Figuring out Canada's defence spending is an exercise in complexity. [. . .]

Of our 62,000-member military, 51% are officers or non-commissioned officers (23% officers, 28% NCOs) — a grotesquely rank-heavy military. There are 77 generals — one for every 805 soldiers. (The top-heavy U.S. military has one general per 1,500 troops).

That last paragraph outlines one of the key problems in a nutshell: way too many chiefs. The Canadian Armed Forces appear to be the most over-officered, over-bureaucrated "military" in NATO. Increasing spending without defining appropriate roles (and therefore also appropriate organization and equipment) is a recipie for further waste.

I hate to say it, given the dismal record of white papers in previous decades, but a white paper on the whole defence of the realm is called for here, before any more money is promised to the Department of National Defence. We have to decide what roles are absolutely essential, which are desirable, and which are unattainable. This means no new main battle tank for the army, no new aircraft carrier for the navy, and no new fighters for the air force...until the new government (whoever that turns out to be) has fully assessed the future calls on Canadian military resources and how best to address those demands.

Or we just continue to watch what was once a great Canadian institution dissolve into something that our allies won't even bother to hide their amusement over...

Interview with Irshad Manji

Irshad Manji, author of the controversial book The Trouble with Islam — a Wake-Up Call For Honesty and Change is interviewed in Australia's The Age.

Link courtesy of Tim Blair.

Another cautionary tale about letting kids on to the internet

Reason Hit'n'Run links to an article originally posted at the Australian website. Read the comments appended by the Reason Online readers, too.

John Keegan on the lessons of history

John Keegan, one of the best military historians alive, writes:

History boys can explain easily — and convincingly — why some wars, as that against Germany in 1945, end in unopposed occupation of enemy territory and why others, as in Iraq in 1920 and 2004, do not. In the first case, the defeated nation has exhausted itself in the struggle and is dependent on the victor both for necessities and for protection against further disaster — social revolution or aggression by another enemy. In the second case, the war has not done much harm but has broken the power of the state and encouraged the dispossessed and the irresponsible to grab what they can before order is fully restored.

What monopolises the headlines and prime time television at the moment is news from Iraq on the activity of small, localised minorities struggling to entrench themselves before full peace is imposed and an effective state structure is restored. The news is, in fact, very repetitive: disorder in Najaf and Fallujah, misbehaviour by a tiny handful of US Army reservists — not properly trained regular soldiers — in one prison. There is nothing from Iraq's other 8,000 towns and villages, nothing from Kurdistan, where complete peace prevails, very little from Basra, where British forces are on good terms with the residents.

Quote of the Day

The inimitable Colby Cosh writes:

In the mass, the Liberal [candidates are an] undifferentiated gang of teachers, lawyers, "activists," "consultants," and ethnic "community leaders," seasoned with a few jumped-up backwoods mayors and former Liberal staffers eager to play boss. Even the ones who have some sort of business background normally bear the oddball stamps of Liberality. The ideal Liberal candidate would be someone who learned the stern truths of private business (by running his uncle's confectionery in Moosonee for six months) before earning a doctorate in International Meddlesomeness Studies and chairing a Multicultural Friendship Planning Commission on Environmental Sensitivity.

Poll watch

Today's poll on CTV News reports:

Party	Popularity	Seats in Parliament
Liberals	34%	122-126 seats
Conservatives	30%	107-111 seats
New Democrats	16%	15-19 seats
Bloc Quebecois (Quebec only)	44%	56-60 seats
Liberals (Quebec only)	29%

Chris Myrick dissects the Saudis

Chris Myrick writes:

The terrorists on Saturday were reportedly dressed in Saudi Army fatigues. They "escaped" from a well-sealed compound despite having been "surrounded" by security forces.

This prompted a tin-foil hat moment on my part. Excuse me while I indulge it.

Go read. I'll go and polish my own tin-foil hat, just in case. . .

Damian Penny on the gag law

Damian Penny, that notorious blogger of the leading right-wing Canadian online pit-stop, discusses the recent Supreme Court mind job decision on the gag law. He links to a Colby Cosh article with the memorable image:

But when asked to apply the Charter to the issue of election spending limits in the case of Harper v. Canada, the Court discovered a contradiction between a certain concept of "electoral fairness," found nowhere in the Constitution, and the individual free-expression rights clearly described as "fundamental" in section 2 of the Charter.

So what happened when the fundamental rights collided with this idea of "fairness?" They crumpled like a Chevette hit by a freight train.

Go read both articles!

And how do we reconcile the supposed conflict between your right as a citizen to publicize your opinion during an election campaign and the "right" of politicians not to be criticized by anyone other than fellow politicians? Your fundamental rights are only fundamental in the sense of being sat upon. The Supreme Court feels that the risk of allowing advocates of certain policies to express their views outweighs any theoretical rights you may think you have.

Just those notorious "Canadian Values" at work again. . .

Mark Steyn weighs in on the Obesity debate

Mark Steyn writes:

Just for a change in the old columnar diet, I thought I'd weigh in on Britain's obesity epidemic. But, on closer inspection, the war on blubber seems to be the war on terror by other means. In the Guardian, for example, Polly Toynbee had no hesitation in deciding on the root cause: "America has by far the most unequal society and by far the fattest," she wrote. "Britain and Australia come next. Europe is better and the Scandinavian countries best of all. No doubt there are also social policy reasons for this: the best social democracies pick up family problems earliest... But the narrower the status and income gap between high and low, the narrower the waistbands." [ . . .]

Also, when it comes to Ms Toynbee's "income gap", the United States is 41st in the world, the United Kingdom 63rd and Australia 74th. But OK, by Fleet Street standards of pundit accuracy, that's close enough. Oh, and the Greeks have less income inequality than the British, but are much fatter. And the country with the highest obesity mortality rate in the world is apparently Denmark. Don't ask me why. I saw a report at the weekend detailing the remarkable rise in Danish breast size over the past two decades, so maybe it's sweaty Danish fat guys keeling over at the sight of all that fabulous Jutland cleavage.

Linked from Tim Blair.

Wendy McElroy's "Death by Theory"

Wendy McElroy writes about the recent case of Bruce (later Brenda and finally David) Reimer, who was the unwilling subject of a sex-reassignment experiment:

The little boy Bruce Reimer was never had a chance. As an adult, he chose suicide on May 4th rather than live in unbearable torment. Underlying his death is a theory that still impacts little boys across North America: namely, that sexual identity comes from nurture not nature and, so, can be entirely determined by proper social conditioning.

In 1966, Reimer's mother took her 8-month-old identical twins to a local doctor in Winnipeg, Canada for circumcision. The procedure went badly for Bruce, leaving him without a sex organ.

Link from The Libertarian Enterprise.