Old Ignatieff Has A Train, EI, EI, No

Photo: Globe and Mail

Michael Ignatieff, in his quest to find relevancy for the Liberal Party, wants to revive high-speed rail as the party’s main platform plank. As Paul Wells notes, it marks a sudden change from the urgency on Employment Insurance reform, and the Liberals would prefer if you’d just not bring that up again, thank you. So what game-changing plan do the Liberals have for breaking out of their obscurity [albeit, an obscurity that keeps them tied with the Conservatives in the polls]?

Why, high-speed rail of course. Because if there’s one thing that speaks to all Canadians, it’s trains. Er…

In seriousness, I’m sure there are a great many wonderful things about high-speed trains that could benefit Canadians. But isn’t there something about speculating about trains as a platform plank for the Liberals that just kind of screams out a Homer Simpsons-like “boooooooooring”?

And if it’s the environmental benefits that the Liberals are trying to woo voters over, you may as well bring back Green Shift 2, based on the price tag of this puppy. $18.3 billion is a lot of money for something that, let’s face it, most Canadians will shake their heads at as they read about it over a cup of Timmies. Oh certainly, they can frame the entire project around the environmental issue, but at a time when the current government is setting deficit records, I don’t think it’s going to be possible to sell this monorail to Northaverbrook.

The dithering of yet another Liberal leader is dangerously close to earning Mr.Ignatieff the nickname of his predecessor [no, not Stephane Dion, although he was a ditherer as well]. The fact remains that the Liberals haven’t managed to define who they are as a party since the big red machine collapsed under the weight of their own corruption and arrogance. They may have got a reign on the corruption, but the arrogance may still be clouding their ability to distinguish between a former powerhouse of successive majority governments, and the current version with such riveting policy suggestions as employment insurance reform and choo-choo trains.

And yet here are the Liberals, sort-of but not really but kind of threatening an election in the fall. Based on what? With you and whose army? The Liberals don’t even have a coherent and consistent message, let alone a platform going into another election. The problem with the Liberals is they can’t even capitalize on the Conservative spending records, since although they enjoy reminding people how big the deficits are getting, their promises add up to even more spending and bigger deficits than the current government. So the fiscally conservative ticket is not going to fly.

Of course, the longer the Liberals go without doing anything, the more mediocre and obscure they look. To Stephane Dion’s everlasting uselessness, he was usurped of his chance to defeat the government when Stephen Harper decided to take it down himself. If the political stability can last beyond the fall, although it would be a relief to Canadians, it would make the Liberals look weaker and weaker. Clearly they want to at least capitalize on the upward polling trend since Michael Ignatieff replaced the woeful Mr.Dion.

Eventually, however, Canadians are just going to get sick of this movie. As Brian Lilley writes, Canadian politics has become like the film Groundhog Day, except it isn’t funny.

The Difference Between The Left And The Pseudo-Left

Via Terry Glavin, Walter Benn Michaels writes in the London Review of Books:

“In the US, one of the great uses of racism was (and is) to induce poor white people to feel a crucial and entirely specious fellowship with rich white people; one of the great uses of anti-racism is to make poor black people feel a crucial and equally specious fellowship with rich black people. Furthermore, in the form of the celebration of ‘identity’ and ‘ethnic diversity’, it seeks to create a bond between poor black people and rich white ones. So the African-American woman who cleans my office is supposed to feel not so bad about the fact that I make almost ten times as much money as she does because she can be confident that I’m not racist or sexist and that I respect her culture. . .”

This succinct excerpt picked by Terry from an obscure column, is precisely the difference between the classical economic left, and the modern kind who enjoy calling themselves “progressive”.

Although I don’t personally ascribe to the “class warfare” ideology anymore, the original concept behind the umbrella leftwing movements was their belief in universal human values and economic equality. Whether one is black or white matters less than his or her social and economic standing. By identifying with race, an absurd category based on skin pigmentation, you can lump Will Smith and a homeless black person into the same category of this “specious” fellowship.

The pseudo-left, as one is forced to call them these days, is nothing more than racialists who obsess with skin pigmentation, the “diversity” of cultures based on immigration demography, and the successes of those people who don’t otherwise identify themselves as white. The varying degrees to which they establish the non-whiteness of immigrants is amazingly something that doesn’t seem to bother them one iota. Indeed, many Italians, Portuguese, and Spaniards may be interested to find out that members of the pseudo-left have placed them into these non-white categories.

Of course the truth is that although class warfare is a Marxist term of little real meaning, the socioeconomic “class” of one person is a more relevant relationship to which one has with another person. A poor person of white skin pigmentation has more in common with a poor person of black skin pigmentation, than he does another white person with millions of dollars. It’s incredible that those who have co-opted the leftwing movement today don’t realize this. Or as they would say, “white skin gives a person an invisible privilege in society, even a poor white person.”

I Hear David Akin Has A Good Left Hook

I was browsing around looking for something to write about [as usual], when I clicked on an interesting link on David Akin’s website that describes the “spendapalooza” of the Conservative government. But on the left-hand side I noticed he has his Twitter feed updated automatically, so that readers can share in his insights. I used to do the same thing, until in a fit of annoyance over the ten thousandth social media user adding me to their spam list, I deleted my account.

Anyway, what caught my eye was this interesting exchange:

Passive-aggressiveness is so passé. I like this full-on aggressiveness so much better.

David Akin. He can write well, and he’s willing to step outside. That’s a nice 1-2 combination right there.

The Tax Man Finally Pays Up, But The Green Men Take Back

Well, that’ll teach me to do my own taxes. I was “assessed” for the first time this year, coincidentally the same year I decided not to give H&R Block a cut of the loot. Since my wife doesn’t work and I have dependents, I can usually count on some money back at the end of the year. Unfortunately for me, I made a few economic decisions based on the expected tax refund, which ended up being a big mistake because the government decided to ask me for all of my receipts for 2008, and just for fun, 2007 as well.

So 9 months after the fact, the tax man finally, reluctantly, but mercifully paid up just 3 days before I’m due to head off to Ontario for a wedding. They approved my claim, with a small deduction from the total amount of $100. It seemed odd, so I looked at the details. It was a confiscation of the $100 carbon tax offset that B.C. residents got in 2008 to bribe voters for the 2009 election. I sincerely doubt that without that bribe the Liberals would have done as well as they did. I was surprised I got the cheque, since I moved to B.C. in March, but only people living in B.C. on December 31, 2007, were supposed to get it. It was a nice mistake they made.

Unfortunately for me, they’ve retroactively fixed it by deducting that carbon offset. Which doesn’t really make any sense when you think about it. I was here for the July 1, 2008, introduction of the carbon cash grab when gasoline prices were sailing at $1.52 a litre. And I was here for the July 1, 2009, increase to the tax, which is due to keep increasing until 2011 when it tops off at 7 cents per litre. I’ve felt the full brunt of the carbon tax, like everybody else in B.C., but because I wasn’t living here when they arbitrarily made a residency decision, I don’t get to keep their little bribe. Fine, whatever.

What bothers me, though, is the fact that the government is really putting the screws to drivers financially, particularly the lower middle working class people, like myself. The carbon tax disincentivizes driving in theory, so by reducing the number of cars on the road, it reduces the greenhouse gas emissions in the province, which theoretically battles the global meltdown of glaciers and iced cappuccinos.

But for some people public transit isn’t really an option for everything they need to do. Ever tried to go shopping with 2 kids and 14 bags of groceries on a bus? Not a good idea. And as a trades worker, I often need to drive to different job sites throughout the Lower Mainland. It really isn’t prudent to drag all that equipment onto a crowded skytrain platform.

Even worse than the carbon tax is the “Air Care” nonsense here in Vancouver. Those who have been reading this blog for a while will know that I’m officially a hydrocarbon criminal. In October I’ll be forced to give up a perfectly good vehicle because it’s far too expensive to fix it just to pass their emissions test. Which means I have to find another car, or more likely, be forced onto public transit. I don’t mind public transit that much, but what irks me is that I’m winding up there because the government believes I’m destroying the environment.

Never mind the mileage I use, the kind of car I drive, or anything like that. All they care about is the level of hydrocarbons my car emits into the atmosphere, making trees and soft furry bunny rabbits cry. Of course, it’s all placebo politics, these “Air Care” and carbon tax policies. While the government is busy dispossessing me of my ride, it’s subsidizing oil and natural gas companies, and creating run-of-river power projects that focus solely on GHG emission reduction. But whatever. It’s all about making B.C. “green”, even if it means taking a whole lot of your green to do it.

Applying Our Laws To Protect The Enemy

When the world judged the Nazi’s in the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46, the decisions were swift, the executions and punishments equally so. The efficiency of the Germans was so precise, that every last incriminating detail of the Third Reich was documented by the defendants themselves. Every Jew executed, and every person responsible at that chain of command could be identified and found culpable. The Germans left the largest forensic evidence to a crime in the history of humanity, and so when we look back at how swiftly justice was rendered, it seems odd that we cannot here in the twenty-first century find it equally simple to bring to justice those people responsible for acts of terrorism against the innocent.

And yet it isn’t odd at all. By the very clandestine nature of terrorism and guerrilla conflict, the enemy is a shadow whose motives aren’t known until the suicide bomber pulls his detonation device next to a group of women and children. The enemy does not wear uniforms to identify themselves as equals in a hostile war, which would grant them all of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The enemy does not leave forensic evidence of his misdeeds if he survives, and there are no witnesses to give testimony afterwards.

Is it, then, any surprise at all that enemies of our state languish in the detention camp of Guantanamo Bay? It should not be. We speak of due process, habeus corpus, and fundamental human rights protected by our laws that we have fought against a multitude of enemies to preserve, and ask that these protections be granted to those who would murder us all if given the opportunity. We uphold the highest principle in law: innocent until proven guilty.

But let us not be naive. Nobody is pretending that Guantanamo Bay is a prison with a good human rights record, or if they are, it is easily proven false. The fact is that the United States reacted very strongly to the attacks of 2001, an anniversary of it’s eighth year nigh upon us. And in their strong reaction, they apprehended thousands of suspects whom they believed could be enemies of the state. They interrogated them thoroughly. Tortured them. From the first few years of interrogation, they had narrowed down those people who were very likely terrorists, and those who had been mere pawns in the game.

In the black and white view of law, guilty or innocent, it would appear that the human rights of a great deal of people have been compromised in the search for that truth. Due process was denied and people are held without charge in what could easily be described as a gulag. But what choice did the United States have? When facing an enemy that plays by no rules recognized under international law, under international terms of war, what choice did any of us have?

The people we fight exploit our strengths in order to use it as a weakness. They fight from the shadows, posing as civilians and hiding behind women and children. Is it surprising that in the search for them we have made mistakes that have harmed the innocent? But what were the alternatives? The pseudo-left does not have an answer for that. He only knows that we must leave Afghanistan, and everything will be better for it. The pseudo-left even believes that perhaps supporting the Taliban might bring about the desired result of withdrawal:

“If the Taliban can kill enough of the foreign troops involved there and if that would force the governments of these troops to withdraw, then for that purpose one could support the Taliban.”

The moral bankruptcy of the pseudo-left has been well-documented in the post-9/11 world, turning economic leftists away from their views and pushing them toward unlikely allies on the right. After all, where else can one turn when the ideological foundations of socialism are twisted from one which supports universal equality and freedom, into one that advocates for rogue regimes like Iran, the Taliban, and Venezuela?

These same people want the United States to set free men whom the government has seen fit to detain for seven years. But what motives do they have for this? Is it because they believe in the fundamental western liberal principles of habeus corpus? Or is it more likely that their long-standing hatred for the foreign policy of the United States has marred their sense of right and wrong? Is it really likely that the U.S. government would detain people at a great economic cost to themselves, innocent people, simply because they want to be vindictive? Simply because it pleasures them to strip away the freedom of men from the Middle East?

Such childish naivete can be deadly. Those men who remain locked away are certainly very dangerous. Even some long-detained enemy combatants who have been set free by the United States, returned to their occupations of violence, and killed and maimed more people. Some people see Guantanamo Bay as a test of our own moral codes as applied to our laws. If we do not free men who have been charged with no crime, what kind of people are we? In a simple black and white world, it would be easy to condemn our actions. But we know that most of these people, if not all of them, cannot be convicted in a court of law. In the simplistic world of the pseudo-left, it is more important to protect the freedom of such individuals than to concern themselves about the blood of the innocent spilled from their release.

So whom do we protect? Those people accused of grave crimes, for which we have no evidence? Or those who may be the future victims of the dangerous people we release into this world? It isn’t an easy philosophical question to answer. Omar Khadr, the Canadian accused of killing an American soldier, may or may not be a future threat. But determining his guilt or innocence from an incident that occurred in smoke-filled firefight may never be possible. In time of war, we sometimes have to believe that the government will make the proper decisions on who they can safely release and who they cannot. There are no easy answers, but what is at stake could not be more important.

Worth Repeating: “What’s The Canadian Word For ‘Lousy Care’”?

Sure, it may just be some journalists opinion in the United Kingdom, but his story is so much like a million others told around Canada every single year:

Now, we are all used to a bit of a wait at the hospital. God knows, I’ve spent enough time in accident and emergency at Oxford’s John Radcliffe over the years, sitting with my sobbing children in a room full of people with swords in their eyes and their feet on back to front. But nothing can prepare you for the yawning chasm of time that passes in Canada before the healthcare system actually does any healthcare.

[...]

Seven hours after the accident, in a country widely touted to be the safest and best in the world, he applied 16 stitches that couldn’t have been less neat if he’d done them on a battlefield, with twigs. And then the anaesthetist arrived to wake the boy up. In French. This didn’t work, so she went away to sit on the doctor’s chair because he was in another cubicle bring rude and causing pain to someone else.

Of course there are sure to be people defending our ridiculous system to their, quite literally, death [probably from waiting in a waiting room], but these stories are all too common. All so very, very common:

TGH – Toronto Generally Hopeless

[...]

With barely contained anger I informed the nurse that keeping an ill, 84 year old woman in a hospital corridor for 18 hours was not the type of care that anyone should be expected to tolerate. In fact my cat receives better treatment from his vet. It worked: we were released by 1 pm. No word on whether Cardiology ever bothered to return a call.

Perhaps Canada can find out what it is that makes veterinary care in Canada so much more superior to human care.

The Drug Decriminalization Experiment In Portugal

A socially conservative point of view generally holds that decriminalization of drugs will only lead to drug tourism, greater dependency for addicts, and a gradual social decline. But the Portuguese experiment would not seem to bear out those preconceptions, as revealed in the latest issue of the Economist.

Portugal decriminalized personal use and possession of all drugs in 2001, including such harmful narcotics as heroin and cocaine. Police were ordered not to arrest anyone discovered taking any illicit narcotics. At the time the rest of Europe thought that Portugal had gone insane, deeming it “ultraliberal legislation”. Interestingly, however, if you go into the news archives from that time period, there were a lot of publications in North America praising the move.

The predicted drug tourism and hardcore abuse, however, never came to pass:

Mr.Greenwald claims that the data show that “decriminalisation has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal”, which “in numerous categories are now among the lowest in the European Union”. This came after some rises in the 1990s, before decriminalisation. The figures reveal little evidence of drug tourism: 95% of those cited for drug misdemeanours since 2001 have been Portuguese. The level of drug trafficking, measured by numbers convicted, has also declined. And the incidence of other drug-related problems, including sexually transmitted diseases and deaths from drug overdoses, has “decreased dramatically”.

There are widespread misconceptions about the Portuguese approach. “It is important not to confuse decriminalisation with depenalisation or legalisation,” comments Brendan Hughes of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is, coincidentally, based in Lisbon. “Drug use remains illegal in Portugal, and anyone in possession will be stopped by the police, have the drugs confiscated and be sent before a commission.”

The key to Portugal’s approach is in offering a balanced hand of treatment and punishment. Narcotics remain illegal, and drug treatment for repeat offenders is mandatory, but the state saves time, money, and anguish by avoiding mere punitive measures. It also encourages people who are genuinely addicted to seek treatment of their own volition, since the government has removed the fear of imprisonment.

The statistics also bear out the success of the programme. Addicts in rehab rose 400% over the past decade, while actual drug use has fallen. Perhaps the most relevant comment is here:

“We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”

One can always deny a correlation between the legislation and the benefits, but decriminalization and treatment certainly hasn’t been detrimental to Portugal. Canada may want to look more closely at the kind of laws that have been tried in Europe, and use it in an approach for tackling drug use here, particularly in British Columbia where the failed “war on drugs” is having an ever-increasing toll on the quality of life for all of us.

Further reading: Cato Institute Whitepaper on Portugal and Drug Decriminalization

John Williamson Not A Poor Choice For Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed former president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, John Williamson, as director of public communications to replace Kory Teneycke. The move seems very odd superficially, given Mr.Williamson’s long history of criticizing the government for their costly moves to the Canadian taxpayer. Just as with the U.S. white house spokesperson, the job is stressful and difficult, as the person chosen has to deal with the media and remain consistently on message with the party. This is the fourth person to fill this position since the government was elected in 2006.

The quotable quotes from Mr.Williamson are seemingly at odds with his decision to climb on board the Tory train:

“It is no contest between the Harper government’s spending and that of [former prime minister Jean] Chretien’s government; the Grits exercised greater fiscal discipline.” – National Post, July, 2008.

“Conservative partisans will insist these funding announcements were made adhering to all the proper rules and guidelines. Of course, these would be the very same oversight measures they loudly protested in opposition when the then-governing Liberals of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin spent wildly, hoping to buy votes.” – Caledon Citizen, August, 2008.

“I would think as an economist, and as a fiscal conservative, the prime minister would recognize that if, in fact, we’re moving in to a slow-down period, this is the time to cut taxes — to lower the cost of doing business or to take some pressure off family budgets.” – CNEWS, December, 2007

So do John Williamson’s earlier statements and criticisms of the government mean that the man has had a change of heart? Or was he not sincere in his positions before? Well, it is possible to be truthful in criticism, whilst retaining an appreciation for the political party that holds closest to one’s ideals. It’s a similar position I find myself in.

Or to think of it another way, it is the critics who drive a political party forward, not backward, since they hold the movement to account of it’s purposes and principles. Die-hard partisans who follow regardless of policy may not see any inherent weaknesses in the party, but then they probably never understand why they lose elections either.

Another point in favour of John Williamson’s selection is his unique point of view from the ordinary taxpayer. If you think of his former position as that of an advocate, or a lawyer, it was Mr.Williamson’s job to find the maximum benefit or advantage for taxpayers, and point out the greatest disadvantage in Tory policies. Lawyers aren’t necessarily advocating the greatest benefit for all involved when they evaluate what their clients need. Similarly, the taxpayer’s federation makes arguments which it believes will facilitate the least burden on the individual taxpayer. That responsibility requires harsh criticism of progressive tax systems with high marginal rates, which is what Canada has.

Back in March of 2008, Tory adviser Tom Flanagan said that people like John Williamson and dissident Gerry Nicholls serve an important part of the overall Conservative strategy anyway:

Flanagan insists the last three Conservative budgets have left the Liberals cornered. And he isn’t bothered by those on the political right, like Nicholls, who criticize the prime minister for not being drastic enough.

“Part of the execution of the plan was that there would be conservatives attacking him — like John Williamson (of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation), Gerry Nicholls,” Flanagan said.

“That’s extremely useful, to have that kind of pressure there, berating the prime minister for not doing enough.”

The Story Of A Child Bride In Yemen After Her Divorce

Photo: Bryan Denton, New York Times

CNN has a disturbing story about 12-year-old Nujood Ali, the Yemeni girl who was forced into marriage with an “old and ugly” man by her parents, and managed to get a divorce that gained international attention two years ago. But her life has been far from liberated after her divorce, even with the praise she got from prominent American celebrities and the 2008 “Woman of the Year” Award for Glamour Magazine. She was 10 at the time.

But much like the brief attention showered upon the “slumdog” movie stars in Mumbai, the poverty and hopelessness has returned as the cameras faded away and life returned to normal.

“I was happy I got divorced but I’m sad about the way it turned out after I went on television,” she said adding that she feels like an outcast even among her family and friends.

Now, the girl wishes she had never spoken to the media at all, even though she’s glad she is divorced. The biggest problem is that her parents are resentful that her international fame did not bring them riches. What else can you expect from parents who would sell off their child to be a sex slave to an old man?

Nujood was pulled out of school in early 2008 and married off by her own parents to a man she says was old and ugly. And yet, as a wife, Nujood was spared nothing.

“I didn’t want to sleep with him but he forced me to, he hit me, insulted me” said Nujood. She said being married and living as a wife at such a young age was sheer torture.

Nujood described how she was beaten and raped and how, after just a few weeks of marriage, she turned to her family to try to escape the arrangement. But her parents told her they could not protect her, that she belonged to her husband now and had to accept her fate.

The brutal aspect of this story is that I’m sure that little Nujood is the tip of the iceberg of cultural child rape in that part of the world. As the CNN article suggests, many parents in Yemen strike a “social bargain” in which they marry off their girls to older men, the child no longer being a financial burden. Nujood’s parents, however, protest against the idea that they threw her to the wolves:

“But Nujood’s parents say they did not expect Nujood’s new husband to demand sex from his child bride.”

Legalized pedophilia masquerading as tradition. Even though the divorce was granted by Yemen, Shariah law demanded that her husband-rapist be compensated financially by his victim: She had to pay him $200 USD.

Friday Photography

A week has concluded at work that I can only call “hell week”. The U.S. marines have got nothing on me. Anyway, it’s mercifully over, so I have two days to heal the mental trauma of this week and start fresh next Monday. By the way, next week will be a short one for me. I’m off to Ontario on Friday for my brother’s wedding, and I won’t be back until the 13th. I’m not sure whether I’ll be blogging during my time in Ontario, but I’ll keep you updated.

Location: Castle Mountain, Alberta

Location: Canyonland National Park, Utah

Location: Machapuchare, Nepal