Another Week

Sorry that I haven't been posting much lately but between work and wedding plans I'm pretty busy.

Since my mind is so scrambled these days I can't manage to keep on one subject for more than thirty seconds. So I figured I'ld just link up a few interesting articles I've come across the last couple of days...

Too Diverse?
A Northern Stategy
The UN and the Jews
The Man Who Would Be Khan
Say Anything
A Marine's Journal

Have a good week. And thanks to Bob for keeping the number of posts up to a reasonable level.

The Power of Faking It

[Via Best of the Web Today]

This is classic. Straight from The Journal:

"An Oxford engineering student was surprised but undaunted when he was approached to deliver a series of lectures in Beijing on global economics," reports London's Daily Telegraph. Twenty-three-year-old Matthew Richardson says he knew "next to nothing" about the subject, but decided to give it a try anyway. He checked a textbook out of the library and spent the flight to China studying it:

From it he prepared a two-hour presentation, believing he had to deliver the same lecture several times over to different groups of students over three days.

Mr Richardson, who has the same name as a New York University professor who is a leading authority on international financial markets, was met at the airport and taken straight to a conference centre where, over lunch, "the horrible truth became apparent."

He said: "It became clear to me that my audience was not students, but people from the world of commerce studying for a PhD in business studies having already gained an MBA.

"And instead of repeating the same lecture, I was required to deliver a series of different lectures to the same people over three days."

But he mostly pulled it off. "I ripped out the pages [of the textbook] and disguised each chapter as notes," he recounts. "Because I was speaking through an interpreter I had the time to glance at the pages and prepare myself for what I was going to say next. I ad libbed a bit and really got into the subject. I was learning as much as my audience."

"Several students told him, through the interpreter, how informative they were finding his lectures," he said. But alas, he ran out of material. "By mid-afternoon on the second day I was already on chapter 15 of 16 and I still had the rest of the day and the following morning to go." So he ran for it, checked out of the conference hotel, and moved to different lodgings before leaving the country.

Prof. Richardson, the homonymic NYU prof, was amused: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and it seems as if this young man will go far." Woody Allen once observed that "90% of life is just showing up." If only the young Matthew Richardson had checked out another book from the library, he might have been able to fill the other 10%.

The Moral Case For Capitalism

Micheal Novak has posted the text of a speech he gave in Sri Lanka over at NRO.

Novak deals regularly with Asian issues and this speech, Wealth & Virtue, is exactly what South Asia needs. Explaining capitalism in its moral and material terms is a message that is rarely articulated in the Third World.

A small snipit of the article is his 10 moral advantages of capitalism:

In another place, I have counted ten different moral advantages that Hume and Smith foresaw in the new system they were commending to the practical energies of humankind. Time is too short to do more than mention these moral predictions briefly; I ask you to reflect on which of them still apply in Asia:

l. The rise of capitalism would break the habit of servile dependency, and awaken the longing for personal independence and freedom.

2. It would awaken the poor from isolation and indolence, by connecting them with the whole wide world of commerce and information.

3. It would diminish warlikeness, by turning human attention away from war and towards commerce and industry. It would, as Adam Smith writes, introduce "order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency on their superiors." (The Wealth of Nations, III, iv.4).

4. It would bring the peoples of each country and of the whole world into closer, more frequent, and complex interaction, and stimulate them to learn of new goods and new methods through international exchange.

5. It would mix the social classes together, break down class barriers, stimulate upward mobility, encourage literacy and civil discourse, and promote the impulse to form voluntary associations of many sorts.

6. It would mightily augment "human capital" by inciting the emulation of new specialties, skills, and techniques. In addition, it would impart new tastes, and encourage the pursuit of new information and new ways of doing things.

7. It would teach the necessity of civility, since under the pressures of competition in free markets, dominated by civil discourse and free choice, sellers would learn the necessity of patient explanation, civil manners, a willingness to be of service, and long-term reliability.

8. It would soften manners and instruct more and more of its participants to develop the high moral art of sympathy. For a commercial society depends on voluntary consent. Citizens must learn, therefore, a virtue even higher than empathy (which remains ego-centered, as when a person imagines how he would feel in another's shoes). True sympathy depends on getting out of oneself imaginatively and seeing and feeling the world, not exactly as the other person may see it, but as an ideal observer might see it. This capacity leads to the invention of new goods and services that might well be of use to others, even though they themselves have not yet imagined them.

9. It would instruct citizens in the arts of being farsighted, objective, and future-oriented, so as to try to shape the world of the future in a way helpful to as large a public as possible. Such public-spiritedness is a virtue that is good, not merely because it is useful, but because it seeks to be in line, in however humble a way, with the future common good.

10. Finally, it is one of the main functions of a capitalist economy to defeat envy. Envy is the most destructive of social evils, more so even than hatred. Hatred is highly visible; everyone knows that hatred is destructive. But envy is invisible, like a colorless gas, and it usually masquerades under some other name, such as equality. Nonetheless, a rage for material equality is a wicked project. Human beings are each so different from every other in talent, character, desire, energy, and luck, that material equality can never be imposed on human beings except through a thorough use of force. (Even then, those who impose equality on others would be likely to live in a way "more equal than others.") Envy is the most characteristic vice of all the long centuries of zero-sum economies, in which no one can win unless others lose. A capitalist system defeats envy, and promotes in its place the personal pursuit of happiness. It does this by generating invention, discovery, and economic growth. Its ideal is win-win, a situation in which everyone wins. In a dynamic world, with open horizons for all, life itself encourages people to attend to their own self-discovery and to pursue their own personal form of happiness, rather than to live a false life envying others.

Good stuff indeed...

Andrewcoyne.com Is Down And Out

Today andrewcoyne.com was mentioned in David Frum's Diary over at NRO.

Unfortunately due to bandwidth limitations Andrew's blog is down. Stinking Rogers!

Thats got to totally suck. I guess Andrew has real talent so it probably won't bother him but my poor heart would be broken if it happened here.

Building Momentum

With John Bryden's jump off of the Liberal ship things are starting to come together for the new Conservative Party.

A wrapup of the good news for the Conservatives include:

- the ad scandal,
- John Bryden's leaving the Liberal Party,
- the latest poll numbers,
- the potential for an interesting Conservative leadership convention,
- a possible delay in what was generally expected to be a spring election,
- and conflict within the Liberal Party (ie. Copps, Martin, Chretian, ...)

So it all adds up to a pretty good couple of weeks for the new Conservative Party. The key, like everything in life, is whether the Conservative Party will use this opportunity wisely. The polls of course prove that the Conservatives are still the only alternative to the Liberals on the national stage. Polls of course can be a poor judge of the public mood but if the Conservatives can keep the poll numbers over 25% from now till the next election then this will be a key indicator of the publics acceptance of the new party.

I'm still doubtful that the Conservative Party has any chance of forming the next government but at least we will see some movement as opposed to the static politics we've had to endure for the last 10 years.

Its shaping up to be an interesting year for us political junkies...

Tax Policy

I came across this story of tax reform changes proposed by Tony Clement. Its a very interesting proposal that is basically a progressive tax system based on lifetime earning as opposed to yearly earnings. His proposed tax brackets are:

- 14 per cent for between $250,000 and $500,000
- 24 per cent for between $501,000 and $750,000
- 27 per cent for those making over $1 million over time

This seems like a very good policy especially for us younger Canadians. The story doesn't really go into details about how it would be implemented though. The transition from our current tax system to this proposal could certainly get messy.

Anyways, tax systems that are seriously discussed are:

- progressive (our current system)
- flat (everyone pays the same rate regardless of income)
- lifetime progressive (Clement's proposal)

Personally I would prefer a flax tax regime simply due to the fairness that would result from it. I guess the definition of 'fairness' in this case is debatable and so your opinion on the flat tax may differ. And quite seriously the chances of Canada implementing a flat tax are about as good as nil.

So that leaves us with the choice of the current progressive system or a lifetime progressive system.

I don't see the need to debate the pros and cons of the current system because its been beaten to death so lets just look closer at the lifetime progressive system.

The lifetime progressive system would allow people to keep more of their earnings in their early income earning years. This would allow people to start saving for retirement early and to make the big purchases early in life such as a home (student loans anyone?). And even if a person wasn't in a situation where buying a home was practical then at least they would have more of that money to invest for the future.

A couple of significant cons to this proposal are as I mentioned earlier, relate to the implementation of it. Would you prorate peoples earnings and stick them at the tax bracket they would have been in as if the system was in place years ago? This would suck if you were past the lowest lifetime earnings bracket because you wouldn't benefit from its lower rate.

Alternatively, would everyone just start at the lowest tax bracket during its first year of implementation? If you go with this plan then overall tax revenues would drop significantly during its first few years in effect. So basically, thats a no go. I'ld love it but we all know how governments work so we can knix that idea.

If anyone has any idea how Clement plans to implement his proposal drop me a line, I'ld be interested in the details. Could it be phased in?

Another con I can see to this idea is that currently when you move from one tax bracket to the next, your overall percentage of tax paid doesn't increase all that much. This allows people to adjust to changes in their earnings gradually. Under Clement's proposal when your lifetime income crossed the $500,000 mark, your percentage of taxes paid would increase from 14% to 24% which would be quite an adjustment to make in one year.

Regardless, it seems like a rock solid proposal that has a lot of potential.

Farewell Elsie

After 10 years in Parliament Elsie Wayne is saying goodbye to national politics.

This is a big loss for the Conservative Party on par with the retirement of Deborah Grey last year. Both of these women have been strong Parliamentarians who never failed to lead their party when needed.

Elsie never failed to call a spade a spade and talked directly about issues instead of watering down her arguments. I will have fond memories of her.

I wish her all the best. And any Conservative Party leadership contendor would be wise you win her endorsement.

Clement Takes Shot At Martin

Finally one of the Conservative Party leadership contenders is going after the Martin government. Tony Clement is the first to come out strongly against Paul Martin's involvement with the sponsorship scandal:

The sponsorship scandal is "the closest Canada has come to our very own Enron — wide-scale looting of the taxpayers' coffers to benefit the friends of the Liberal Party," Mr. Clement told a joint meeting of Toronto's Empire and Canadian clubs in a banquet room salted with his supporters, including former Tory cabinet minister John Crosbie.

“Paul Martin was the chief financial officer of this terrible and crooked enterprise,” Mr. Clement said. “As CFO, he was either implicated or incompetent. Either way, he is accountable."

I haven't been paying much attention to the Conservative leadership race but Tony has perked my ears with this speech. This is exactly what I want in a party leader: someone who forcefully goes after the Liberals and their record.

Most conservative arguments against the Liberal's these last few years have amounted to generalized policy differences. When pushed by the Liberals, conservatives have rolled over. So while Paul Martin was hitting the TV and radio shows these last few weeks, conservatives have been silent, making principled statements that no-one cared to hear.

Up to this point I've been leaning towards Steven Harper as party leader. Steven is strong on policy and a reliable leader who won't make any major mistakes. The problem is of course that he is too nice and polite. Good qualities in a person of course but its not going to get you on the airwaves.

So right now my vote for party leader is up for grabs between Harper and Clement. What will they do to earn my vote? If Tony follows this speech up with more of the same then he's gonna make this a very easy decision for me.

Canada Wins The Award For ...

... most humourless country. First Don Cherry, and now this. Apparently Conon O'Brien's sock puppet got English Canadians all worked up about insulting French Canadians again. Our gracious politicians chimed in:

Mauril Belanger, the deputy government house leader, told the House of Commons that the government finds nothing amusing about O'Brien making fun of Quebeckers.

NDP MP Alexa McDonough said the sketch featuring Triumph the Insult Comic Dog was "vile and vicious" and amounted to hate-mongering and that the feds should demand their money back.

If you ever were under the impression that not much goes on at the House of Commons, you'ld be right. Quite possibly the biggest political scandel in decades has come to light and Idiot Mauril Belanger is going on about Conan. And the best part is that according to most articles, Quebecers don't give a damn due to Claude Ryan's funeral.

Anyways, I'ld like to make a few points. First, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, isn't real. For reference refer to the picture.


Since he is not a real dog don't take anything he says to be all that reliable. In addition the dog talks which should be an indication that not all is kosher with what you are watching.

As well, his name is Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Since the darned mutt has 'Insult' for a middle name I suggest some of our politicians get their priorities in order.

Second, would you politicians and professional agitators please give it up with the PC crap already? Triumph tore into Hawaii a while back, and no one south of the border thought anything of it.

Third, I'm getting to the point were I am going to start referring everything slightly offensive to the Official Languages Commissioner for an investigation.

Of course I'm going to hold out until I can get a politician from Quebec to say how humourless English Canada has become. When one of them says it, and eventually one will, I'm getting me and everyone I know to harass the hell out of the Languages Commision until we get our investigation.

Why? Well English Canada may be humourless and dull but making such a statement would obviously be insensitive to us. We cannot tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others. We didn't choose to be humourless. Can't others see how difficult and dreary our lives must be without laughter and humour?

Palistinian Victims?

[Via little green footballs]

Here are some wonderful photos of Palistinian militants in action. The next time you hear the CBC, BBC, CNN, etc... state that Palistinian civilians were killed during Israeli attacks keep these photos in mind:





How messed up are these people anyways?

It Seems Iraq Is Coming Around

Lately is seems that Iraq is finally starting to settle down. The NYTimes reports that the Jihadi fighters are starting to have doubts:

"The problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood and appearance," the document says. "When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region."

With some exasperation, the author writes: "We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

The letter is attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who has suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

Given the sudden decrease in the number of attacks, both large scale and small, it seems that the Jihadi's may finally be having doubts as to the wisdom of taking on The Great Satan.

And as a note to Muslims out there, don't think that the Jihadi's won't sacrifice you to their cause:

"So the solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle," the writer of the document said. "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands" of Shiites.

"You noble brothers, leaders of the jihad, we do not consider ourselves people who compete against you, nor would we ever aim to achieve glory for ourselves like you did," the writer says. "So if you agree with it, and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you to work under your guidance and yield to your command."

Let's hope that letters like these help the Iraqi people realize who has their best interests at heart.

Trying Times At Guantanamo

[Via Best Of The Web Today]

Mohammad Ismail Agha who spent 14 months in U.S. captivity at Guantanamo had a lot of praise for his American captors:

In a first interview with any of the three juveniles held by the US at Guantanamo Bay base, Mohammed said: "They gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons."

...

"At first I was unhappy . . . For two or three days [after I arrived in Cuba] I was confused but later the Americans were so nice to me. They gave me good food with fruit and water for ablutions and prayer," he said yesterday in Naw Zad, a remote market town in southern Afghanistan close to his home village and 300 miles south-west of Kabul, the capital.

He said that the American soldiers taught him and his fellow child captives - aged 15 and 13 - to write and speak a little English. They supplied them with books in their native Pashto language. When the three boys left last week for Afghanistan, the soldiers looking after them gave them a send-off dinner and urged them to continue their studies.

"They even took photographs of us all together before we left," he said. Mohammed, however, said he would have to disappoint his captors by not returning to his studies. "I am too poor for that. I will have to look for work," he said.

This is somewhat in contradiction to the terrors that these 'innocents' are supposedly subjected to. The media and human rights groups have been carping on non-stop about the conditions in Guantanamo since the U.S. starting sending detainees there.

Now I am somewhat sympathetic to the arguments about keeping detainees captive without due process but lets please stop it with the endless tirades about how cruel the U.S. is to send people there. Oh the heat... the bloody heat!

Steyn On Cherry

[Via Autonomous Source]

Mark Steyn has done an great article on the latest abuses Don Cherry is taking from the CBC. A couple of quotes:

And, of course, the dozy media are happy to support her sense of priorities. If “hurtfulness” is the issue, what about, say, the Americans? Rick Mercer has his own CBC show dedicated to the mockery of Americans. Hath not an American unvisored eyes? If you prick him, does he not bleed? Apparently not. A year ago, the robust pro-US “rant” that got Don Cherry into his last round of trouble was provoked by a Montreal crowd booing “The Star-Spangled Banner” before the start of the game. Many Americans were “hurt” by that, but they don’t count. Nor would it be “hurtful” if one were to make generalizations about the English. Yanks and Brits are expected to grin and bear it. It’s the more sensitive identity groups than are in need of the metaphorical protective visors of government regulation and media disapproval. Which sort of proves Cherry's point, if not for hockey then for the wider world.

...

At the risk of earning a second much-coveted "Zero Of The Week" award, I have to say I found his remarks about my silly meandering transcendental stupidity deeply "unnecessary" and “hurtful”. Arguably, my career has never recovered from them, at least to judge from the fact that Mr Todd now has a national newspaper forum and I do not. But, even if you’re unsympathetic to me and Messrs Ecclestone and Lasorda, isn’t the very idea of a “Zero Of The Week” award “hurtful”? One day Mr Todd might forget himself and make disparaging remarks about someone who falls into a more fashionable identity group than right-wing Canucks or millionaire Brits or pasta-slurping Americans and he could find himself in a whole big mess.

...

As for the merits of the case, the question Cherry was addressing was a very interesting one: does an obsession with “safety” actually make you safer? A few weeks ago, I happened to be sitting at the Canadiens/Oilers game absent-mindedly staring at the huge banner of Jean Beliveau dangling down from the roof over the ice. What a beautiful portrait – the epitome of sporting grace. One reason it’s so graceful is that the picture has a face and hair and recognizably human proportions, unlike most of the guys zipping around beneath him. Don Cherry was a coach in the era when, as Colby Cosh puts it, “helmets went from oddity to necessity. He always resisted having them made mandatory, saying they would create more injuries than they prevented by encouraging careless play and dirty stickwork.” Twenty-five years on, head injuries in the NHL are now more common than knee injuries. Don Cherry was right.

Keep your head up Don.

Starting To Use Atom

Blogger has finally implemented a syndication service called Atom. I don't know why they are using this standard as opposed to the popular RSS but heck I can't complain. At least this allows the proper formatting of titles which for the life of me I couldn't get to work right with any of the free RSS services on the web.

Anyways I've added a link to the Atom feed on the right and I suggest you use that for viewing our site. I'll keep the XML format up for a while until all the RSS readers out there begin to handle the Atom format. From what I've noticed most have already included it in a recent update so hopefully it won't be a problem.

Though I wish Blogger had just implemented RSS into their free service I'll have to settle for Atom. If anyone knows why they've chosen this standard let me know.

Hasselhoff Ended The Cold War

The BBC asks Did David Hasselhoff Really Help End The Cold War:

For that seminal concert, on New Year's Eve 1989, Hasselhoff stood atop of the partly-demolished wall and belted out a tune called Looking for Freedom.

It was during Hasselhoff's current promotional tour of Germany that the Hollywood star made headlines for a remark about this event.

Speaking to Germany's TV Spielfilm magazine, the 51-year-old carped about how his pivotal role in harmonising relations between the two sides of the divide had been overlooked.

"I find it a bit sad that there is no photo of me hanging on the walls in the Berlin Museum at Checkpoint Charlie," he told the magazine.

I'm not sure what to think of this whole thing. I must admit I'm not a big follower of Hasselhoff's career but if he's responsible for the end of the Cold War then hats off to him.

I've included the lyrics for 'Looking for Freedom', the song which he claims had such a profound effect on East Germany:

One morning in june some twenty years ago
I was born a rich man's son
I had everything that money could buy
But freedom - I had none

I've been looking for freedom
I've been looking so long
I've been looking for freedom
Still the search goes on
I've been looking for freedom
Since I left my home town
I've been looking for freedom
Still it can't be found

I headed down the track, my baggage on my back
I left the city far behind
Walkin' down the road, with my heavy load
Tryin' to find some peace of mind
Father said you'll be sorry, son,
If you leave your home this way
And when you realize the freedom money buys
You'll come running home some day

I paid a lotta dues, had plenty to lose
Travelling across the land
Worked on a farm, got some muscle in my arm
But still I'm not a self-made man
I'll be on the run for many years to come
I'll be searching door to door
But, given some time, some day I'm gonna find
The freedom I've been searchin' for

He ends the Cold War and hangs out with scantily clad women all day. Not a bad life...

The Mother Of All Enquiries

Amir Taheri has a great article about what the just announced inquiries concerning WMD in Iraq should really be discussing.

...

Our "Mother of All Enquiries" would show one thing above all else: it was a shame that the so-called international community, ignoring its own resolutions, chose to appease Saddam and, in some cases, even prop up his murderous regime for more than a decade after the first Gulf War.

The nit-picking lawyers’ approach to this complex issue will do further injustice to the victims of Saddam’s terror.

The only proposition worth debating is this: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was an act of international justice - Discuss!

Sure, let’s have an enquiry.

He's got it right...

Nothing But Links Today

Here's a collection of articles I've enjoyed lately:

Jonah Goldberg with Division Diversions:

In other words, living in an evenly divided society is an interesting challenge politically, but not a really big problem, while living in a deeply divided society is cause for stocking up on bottled water and shotgun shells.

...

Ask yourself: "If liberals believe that it's such a wonderful thing to live in a united nation, why aren't they more nostalgic for the 1950s or 1920s?" Well, we know the answer. If the American consensus isn't a liberal consensus, then, well, to hell with consensus. So, even today liberal and feminist historians mock and deride the 1950s as if the American soul were locked in a steamer trunk for the entire decade. And liberal politicians, like Dean, talk about the 1960s as a time of great unity, because in their book "unity" means liberal ascendance and nothing more.

Mark Steyn with International Terrorism Takes A Hit:

You can find other examples of long-running local conflicts around the world from Burundi to Nepal that seem to have mysteriously wound down over the last two years.

Might be just coincidence, as the media's bien pensants assure us is the case with Colonel Gaddafi's about-face: nothing to do with Bush and his absurd war, old boy, don't you believe it. Or it might be that putting the bank transfers of certain groups on an international watch list has choked off the funding pump for a lot of terrorism.

Mark Steyn with The Alternative To War Was Simple: Defeat:

The Right should know better. If he wants, Mr Howard can have some sport with Mr Blair. But, if he aids the perception that Blair took Britain to war under false pretences, the Tories will do the country a grave disservice. One day Mr Howard might be prime minister and, chances are, in the murky world that lies ahead, he'll have to commit British forces on far less hard evidence than existed vis à vis Saddam. Conservatives shouldn't assist the Western world's self-loathing fringe in imposing a burden of proof that can never be met. The alternative to pre-emption is defeat. If you want a real "underlying issue", that's it.

Michael Segal with The Know-'Em-All:

To a typical intellectual, how much you know is far more important than knowing whom you can trust and count on. This is why Mr. Bush is so infuriating to intellectuals. He makes no pretense that he has all the answers, and he talks like a regular guy--but the team he leads is reshaping the Middle East with a brashness and vision equal to that of his Reaganite predecessors, as well as making major changes in domestic policy.

Polls show that most Americans admire Mr. Bush's personal qualities, but to intellectuals he doesn't show the personal quality they most admire. Thus to them Mr. Bush's successes seems undeserved, attributable to others. Although the president's IQ is estimated (based on SAT scores) as greater than that of 90% of Americans, he is portrayed as the puppet of smarter men.

Gary "War Nerd" Brecher with Burundi: Heightism Rears Its Ugly Head:

They signed a “peace accord” on Burundi a couple of weeks ago. I guess it makes some people feel better, writing out these treaties and getting the local gangs to sign on the dotted line for human rights and kindness to animals. I hope so, because it sure doesn’t accomplish anything else. There’s a war in Burundi, and there always will be, and no signatures on UN letterhead are going to stop it.

People know that by now. We all know these treaties don’t matter. You see a headline “Peace Treaty in Congo” or “Accord Signed on Rwanda” and you go on to the next story, because you know it doesn’t mean a thing. Even the words they use sound fake, like “accord.” It’s one of those words they only use in the papers. They could sign an accord a day in Central Africa, in fact it seems like they do, and the only difference it would make would be on some bureaucrat’s resume.

...

When you look hard at a place like Burundi, you start to realize that war is normal in most of the world. Tribes move around, try to grab the good land just over the next hill, and when they do, the locals try to push them back. Boom, you’ve got a war.

Europe used to be like that. People don’t remember that the Hungarians only got to Europe a thousand years ago. They came straight off the Steppes and cut through Eastern Europe like a smalltime Mongol horde, and when they came to a nice piece of grazing land they said, “We’re staying.” In those days, it was tribes, not land, that counted. So a king wasn’t king of any particular piece of land, he was king of his tribe of people: “King of the Franks,” or “King of the Magyar.” The big battles come when one tribe decides to make the move on another tribe. That’s what the battle of Hastings was, for one example: Normans vs. Saxons in a classic gang turf war, South Central LA with chain-mail hauberks instead of Raiders jackets.

Enjoy.

The CBC and Don Cherry

I just watched the news on the CBC and they had this idiotic segment about Don Cherry's recent comments concerning the wearing of visors. According to the CBC a controversy has arisen over his assertion that the majority of those who wear visors in the National Hockey League are Europeans and "French guys". The segment had a bunch of whiners complaining about how they were offended by the comments and it also said that some sort of government 'language commission' would be investigating his comments. What the hell is this language commission that they were talking about? Please tell me we don't have any such thing here in Canada.

Why can't the CBC leave Don alone? Sure he's controversial, that's the point. If someone goes on the CBC and calls George W. Bush - Hitler, or Jews - Nazis, no one at the CBC raises an eyebrow so why the segment on this.

This whole thing is similar to his comments last year about the booing of the American national anthem at a game in Montreal. He blamed French Canadians for booing the American anthem and once again the CBC and the 'language police' were all over him. Well the game was being played in Montreal so it was a safe bet that most of the people doing the booing were French. What he said was pretty obvious.

Basically Canadians have become a bunch of over sensitive whiners. To think we are the same country that fought so bravely in WWI and WWII. Is this what we've become?

Proportional Representation in Canada

A independent legal commission is recommending that Canada implement proportional representation into Parliament:

An independent legal commission will recommend to the House of Commons that Canada abolish the first-past-the-post method of electing members of Parliament, moving instead to a form of proportional representation.

"We're going to recommend that an element of proportionality be added to the system," Nathalie Des Rosiers, president of the Law Commission of Canada, confirmed yesterday in an interview.

The recommendation will be to have 207 members of Pariament elected directly while the remaining 101 will be selected proportionally based on the proportion of votes received in the election.

I don't think I'm particularly for or against such a proposal but there can be no doubt that this will have a significant effect on Canadian politics. As in other countries that have implemented some degree of proportional representation it certainly leads to a broadening of the political spectrum. I guess each of us would have to determine whether this would be a good or a bad developement for Canada.

The question I would like answered is: Why now? The commission says:

Change is needed, Ms. Des Rosiers said. It is necessary because the country's existing electoral system "no longer responds well to a society that wants more consultation, that wants to participate more in decisions, that is not as interested in an authoritarian form of government as much as seeing Parliament express the diversity of ideas in Canada."

Well isn't that sweet. Anyone who isn't in control of government is going to complain about it but none of that comment amounts to a reason to change the way Canada governs itself.

And all of this is all fair and good but why not allow binding referendums? Referendums would allow Canadians to raise issues of concern to them and bind the federal government to implementing the result. I'ld be curious to know if the panel considered referendums as an alternative to proportional representation and if so why they reached the conclusions they did.

Now I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist on this but the idea of proportional representation is being promoted by people of what I'ld call left of center. Check out Fairvote Canada for a list of people supporting the proposal. Does it seem like a coincidence that referendums are mocked and laughed at by the left and media while proportional representation is not?

As well you might want to check out John Ibbitson's latest column on proportional representation. I happen to agree with John that implementing proportional representation presents us with to many risks with no clear, or at best marginal, benefits. As it is now, Canada has 4 (two months ago we had 5) large political parties represented in Parliament. Why would increasing that number to 6 or 8 make Canada any better?

Predictions for 2004 Canadian Elections

Every couple of weeks I will be posting what I expect to be the results for the 2004 federal election. Be warned that none of this is scientific so don't go out and plan your financial and tax strategies based on my predictions. This is only for my own amusement and to hopefully provide a means of stimulating discussion.

Every week or two, or whenever I deem it appropriate, I will provide an update on my predictions for the election. If I make any changes I will also provide an explanation of why the change was made.

So here goes this weeks predictions...


These numbers are based on the results from the 2000 federal election with the following adjustments:

1) An increase in NDP support due to Paul Martin's perceived move to the right on fiscal matters.
2) A slight decrease in support for the Bloc Quebecois but not as much as many would expect.
3) I combined the totals of the 2000 election for the old Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties. I factored in a slight decrease to this combined total since the leadership convention for the merged party has the potential to turn into a circus if Conservative members aren't careful.
4) The Liberals got whatever was left over.

Any thoughts out there?

Are you a Neocon?

Try out the Neocon Quiz at The Christian Science Monitor.

According to the quiz I am a realist:

Realists…

1) Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
2) Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
3) Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
4) Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
5) Weigh the political costs of foreign action
6) Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Sounds about right to me.

Only in Canada

Here is a classic from PEI:

Man to collect EI while serving time for EI fraud
WebPosted Jan 30 2004 01:18 PM AST

CHARLOTTETOWN — A man from Cardigan will see jail time for employment insurance fraud, but will serve his sentence on weekends.

In the meantime, he's going to keep collecting EI.

The case came up Thursday in Georgetown. The 35-year-old Blair Hennessey pleaded guilty to 10 counts of filing false EI claims.

The court was told that he's bilked the system for more than $20,000 dollars over the past 10 years.

The judge wanted to know whether his benefits could be cut off. The lawyers advised that it can't be done, but his benefits are being garnisheed in an attempt to get the money back.

Sometimes things don't make any sense around here...