The budget was, as any reasonable person was expecting, a solid one to stave off or be carried into an election. Very smart political budget with specific targetting of the "Tim Horton's/Canadian Tire" crowd, with all eyes on rural Quebec and suburban Ontario. Terrible economic budget, of course, but it's a minority parliament, what were ideologues expecting? It wasn't a budget of ideology, but politics, the PM was allowed to get away with an ideological budget in 2006 because it was immediately after an election. Just because this wasn't as fiscally conservative as the first doesn't mean it's the new fiscal direction of this government. It's pure politics, nothing more, trying to make the CPC seem more "compassionate," and trying to get Canada used to the idea of a CPC majority. Do I like all the spending? Of course not, but any idiot could see the political uses of this budget, and how it could be relevant towards building a sustainable Conservative coalition. Think long-term.
I wasn't expecting an election from the budget, as I correctly assumed that at least one of the opposition leaders would put their political career ahead of partisan opposition to a Conservative budget that was intentionally made so hard to oppose. No parties wanted an election, and Duceppe gave the other two opposition parties a great rhetorical advantage by giving them this chance to oppose the CPC with no serious repercussions. As an aside, I'm assuming that the PMO was saving universal Income Splitting for a possible campaign, as a prime platform pillar, as it's a slam-dunk one.
The most interesting repercussions here are for Quebec, and its elections. They are, of course, going to be pivotal to the political health of federal Canada. If Boisclair wins, then Dion insantly gains 10x more credibility, and it will be seen as a repudiation of the PM's soft federalism. If the best possible solution, a Charest minority with Dumont opposition, comes about, this reverberates back to Ottawa as well. It's a huge blow to the morale of the PQ/BQ campaign machine, and a sign that there are federal seats to be had for the CPC in ADQ country. Things are only going to get more interesting.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
On Israel
The defining moment that drew me to the Conservative Party was last summer, in the midst of the Israel/Hezbollah war. The PM's firm support of Israel was brilliant, gutsy, and a politically wise move. One in a series of moves devoted to splitting the LPC caucus and driving them further to the left, thus exacerbating the fatal divide in the left. One of a series of moves that, though perhaps only 40% (a somewhat random number, mind you, but pertinent) of Canadians support it, it's that 40% that'll elect you a majority in a FPTP system. More importantly, it was the morally correct move. Israel is seven million surrounded by hundreds of millions that are pledged and devoted to driving those seven million into the sea, not just an independant Palestine, but pure annihilation of both a Jewish state and the Jewish race, and the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy stretching across all the Middle East.
Israel is a bulwark of democratic rights in the name of this theocratic plague. Is it perfect? Of course not, Israel has its human rights problems and should be held accountable for them, but is Israel a helluva lot better than the alternative? Of course. The PM firmly standing for Israel was absolutely the correct move.
Especially at the micro-level of the Israel/Hezbollah war. Compare these two sides:
One which was founded on the mandate of ending an Israeli occupation, succeeded at this task, but still existing with a sub-state independant military force which commits terrorist actions. One that started the conflict by invading Israeli sovereignty and attacking their army, one that ignores UN resolutions, and one that fires missiles indiscriminantly into Israeli urban areas, hitting schools or houses, either is fine because Jews aren't people, right? Finally, one side that is primarily funded by one of the worst and most abusive theocratic regimes in the world.
On the other side, though nowhere near shining and perfect, you have a side that was retaliating to initial attacks. One that left Lebanon and listened to UN mandates. One who mainly struck infrastructure targets and structures where prior missiles had been launched from into Israel. One who left goddamn pamphlets laying around saying "Next up, we're invading this region. It's most likely in your best interest to leave the area." It was the most humane military campaign fought in years, due to media attention, which partially contributed to how ineffective it was. Did they commit atrocities and human rights violations? Of course, and those actions are reprehensible, but find me a conflict, throughout history, that has NEVER had violations of basic human rights. It's a sad fact about the nature of war, but it's the reality you face with human conflict. So it comes down to a matter of which side is more morally correct in the conflict and tries to be more humane? Which side supports basic Enlightment ideals? Which side listens to intergovernmental organizations? The answer is, of course, Israel.
Best move you've made yet, PM Harper.
Israel is a bulwark of democratic rights in the name of this theocratic plague. Is it perfect? Of course not, Israel has its human rights problems and should be held accountable for them, but is Israel a helluva lot better than the alternative? Of course. The PM firmly standing for Israel was absolutely the correct move.
Especially at the micro-level of the Israel/Hezbollah war. Compare these two sides:
One which was founded on the mandate of ending an Israeli occupation, succeeded at this task, but still existing with a sub-state independant military force which commits terrorist actions. One that started the conflict by invading Israeli sovereignty and attacking their army, one that ignores UN resolutions, and one that fires missiles indiscriminantly into Israeli urban areas, hitting schools or houses, either is fine because Jews aren't people, right? Finally, one side that is primarily funded by one of the worst and most abusive theocratic regimes in the world.
On the other side, though nowhere near shining and perfect, you have a side that was retaliating to initial attacks. One that left Lebanon and listened to UN mandates. One who mainly struck infrastructure targets and structures where prior missiles had been launched from into Israel. One who left goddamn pamphlets laying around saying "Next up, we're invading this region. It's most likely in your best interest to leave the area." It was the most humane military campaign fought in years, due to media attention, which partially contributed to how ineffective it was. Did they commit atrocities and human rights violations? Of course, and those actions are reprehensible, but find me a conflict, throughout history, that has NEVER had violations of basic human rights. It's a sad fact about the nature of war, but it's the reality you face with human conflict. So it comes down to a matter of which side is more morally correct in the conflict and tries to be more humane? Which side supports basic Enlightment ideals? Which side listens to intergovernmental organizations? The answer is, of course, Israel.
Best move you've made yet, PM Harper.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
American Stylings
Now we have Elizabeth May running in Central Nova- Mackay country. To quote myself:
"This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. The Greens don't need more publicity, the environment is the flavour of the month, by far. The Greens need to prove that their support isn't a paper-tiger- that they can get 10% if the popular vote, win a seat, and prove they're a legitimate party- instead of being a "protest" vote for people to stick their polling numbers in, where all that support will melt away to real parties in an election. May choosing this ridiculous strategy does nothing to move the Green party forward.
This isn't good for the CPC either. A strong Green party splits the left, steals votes from the LPC and NDP, and could help the CPC slip in and win a few close ridings. The PMO needs to do everything possible to empower the Greens, while May is just shooting herself in the foot here."
Now, to American politics! It's roughly a year and three-quarters to the election, and the better part of a year before primaries are starting, so predictions seem to be fairly useless. It'll be interesting to watch, though, assuming we don't all get sick of the drama. Now, my intelligent picks right now are Gore/Obama vs Romney/Guiliani, not because I like them the best, but because I think it's more likely to end up like that. Ask me a few months ago for the GOP ticket and I'd have said McCain/Huckabee, but I've changed my mind. Let's go over a few things and then to the seperate parties:
-I've always supported Governors for President. Being El Presidente is an administrative job, not a legislative one, and you can have all the positions in the world and be an amazing Senate leader, but that doesn't guarentee you'll run an effective government. Governors (and generals) have the prior administrative experience to do this. History proves this all, as well, as Governors historically beat the hell out of Senators both in terms of winning elections, and in effectively governing, especially towards foreign policy. There's abberations to this, of course, but it's a good general rule of thumb to go with.
-This is the weakest GOP crop in years. If Jeb Bush's last name wasn't Bush, he'd be a slam-dunk candidate, but that's not the case, so it's a moot point. The primaries are going to be very interesting in terms of the Republican soul. It's going to be a brutal and dirty fight between the social conservative wing and the old-style Goldwater Republicans, and the former are going to win out, because they have the clout and the machinery to succeed. That's why the big three (Romney, Guiliani, and McCain) are going to be desperately pandering to the social conservatives, the old flip-flop, and it's going to be sickening. The winner in the primaries will be the one that's the most convincing at pandering to the religious right, however, more on that later.
The Democrats:
-Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell. She inherited all of her husbands's fame, money, and political machinery, which guarentees her the old college try, and she wouldn't make a bad president, either, she's smart and rather competent. However, there's a lot of smart and competent people within the Beltway and that doesn't make them good presidential candidates. She has no charisma, everything she says is entirely focus-grouped, she rubs people the wrong way, and when it gets down and dirty versus charismatic Obama and Edwards, she'll be exposed. That, and another Clinton or Bush in the White House would make me puke. The Clinton political machine won't win this one.
-Obama's a perfect VP candidate. He has the charisma of JFK, and he'll make waves. However, he's a senator, which is a major strike against him, and he has no experience. My main problem with him is that, in the Illinois legislature, he abstained on every major issue. This is smart politics, as it allows him to define himself on his own choosing when the time comes, but it's dirty and rather manipulative. Personally, he's just not a man I want running the West Wing, because he has no foreign policy experience, and there's no guarentees he'll run a well-oiled White House like a Governor can. Give him VP and let him spend four years charming people's pants off and gaining executive experience. As well, he could be key in winning the Industrial Northeast and its electoral college dominance.
-Edwards is charismatic, but that won't get him far with Obama in the running, and he didn't carry the South as his VP nomination was intended to do. He has no use if he can't bring in Democratic votes in the South, and I just don't see him getting very far against the big names.
-Richardson is my favourite candidate from both sides. The man has cabinet experience (in Energy, a relevant position for sure), UN experience, tonnes of foreign policy experience, and the administrative experience from being a Governor. He'd make the best president out of all of them, and is the perfect darkhorse. I can only see his support build as more attention is placed on finding a competent president and less on personal charisma (a reactionary movement after eight years of folksy bumbling) . He'd carry the Hispanic vote, too.
-Gore is my pick for the candidacy. He'll let Clinton and Obama beat the hell out of each other for a few months, wasting money and political capital, and he'll swoop in as the avenging environmentalist angel. There'll be a hot, dry summer, the environmental hysteria will get worse and worse, the cult will build, and Gore will take it. He has the experience that Obama doesn't, both in terms of winning presidential elections and in being part of the executive wing, he has the charisma that Clinton doesn't, and he has hordes of environmentalists that'd fight to the death for him. Put money on it.
-I like Vilsack and Dodd because they spend time on the Daily Show. Vilsack/Obama in '12!
The Republicans:
-Romney will take it. It comes down to which of the big names can pander most effectively to the socon base, and he'll do it. If the Mormonism comes up, he can do what JFK did in West Virginia with Catholicism, make it an issue of bigotry. Paint people who vote against him as bigots, voting against his personal religious beliefs, and demonize them. That, and he's still on his first wife...He was a good governor, and has the charisma and presidential "aura."
-Awww, I still feel bad for McCain. He won my love in 2000 and still hasn't lost most of it. But he just looks tired, he's lost the drive and appeal that carried him in 2000, and his pandering just isn't convincing. He's running on name right now and it won't last. The support of the Iraq war will cost him, and I just don't think he has the energy to beat out a driven Romney. I'm sure he'll be savaged in the primaries by the socon attack machine, as well, history simply repeating itself.
-Speaking of being savaged in the primaries....You can bet good money that Guiliani will never recover from South Carolina. The videos of him saying abortions should be subsidized, of him in drag being kissed by Donald Trump...he's not going to be able to "trump" this all with his tough on crime/security message. GOP politics are just too dirty for an urban New Yorker with a socially liberal past to get through, no matter how hard on terror or crime he may be. Which is a pity, he'd have great influence in carrying parts of the Industrial Northeast.
-Gingrich will be making a run for it. Won't get anywhere, but why the hell else would he randomly tell everyone about his infidelities? So that it doesn't become a possible election issue...
I'd personally like to see Richardson/Obama vs McCain/Guiliani. But it won't happen, and Al Gore is going to be the next president of the United States.
"This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. The Greens don't need more publicity, the environment is the flavour of the month, by far. The Greens need to prove that their support isn't a paper-tiger- that they can get 10% if the popular vote, win a seat, and prove they're a legitimate party- instead of being a "protest" vote for people to stick their polling numbers in, where all that support will melt away to real parties in an election. May choosing this ridiculous strategy does nothing to move the Green party forward.
This isn't good for the CPC either. A strong Green party splits the left, steals votes from the LPC and NDP, and could help the CPC slip in and win a few close ridings. The PMO needs to do everything possible to empower the Greens, while May is just shooting herself in the foot here."
Now, to American politics! It's roughly a year and three-quarters to the election, and the better part of a year before primaries are starting, so predictions seem to be fairly useless. It'll be interesting to watch, though, assuming we don't all get sick of the drama. Now, my intelligent picks right now are Gore/Obama vs Romney/Guiliani, not because I like them the best, but because I think it's more likely to end up like that. Ask me a few months ago for the GOP ticket and I'd have said McCain/Huckabee, but I've changed my mind. Let's go over a few things and then to the seperate parties:
-I've always supported Governors for President. Being El Presidente is an administrative job, not a legislative one, and you can have all the positions in the world and be an amazing Senate leader, but that doesn't guarentee you'll run an effective government. Governors (and generals) have the prior administrative experience to do this. History proves this all, as well, as Governors historically beat the hell out of Senators both in terms of winning elections, and in effectively governing, especially towards foreign policy. There's abberations to this, of course, but it's a good general rule of thumb to go with.
-This is the weakest GOP crop in years. If Jeb Bush's last name wasn't Bush, he'd be a slam-dunk candidate, but that's not the case, so it's a moot point. The primaries are going to be very interesting in terms of the Republican soul. It's going to be a brutal and dirty fight between the social conservative wing and the old-style Goldwater Republicans, and the former are going to win out, because they have the clout and the machinery to succeed. That's why the big three (Romney, Guiliani, and McCain) are going to be desperately pandering to the social conservatives, the old flip-flop, and it's going to be sickening. The winner in the primaries will be the one that's the most convincing at pandering to the religious right, however, more on that later.
The Democrats:
-Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell. She inherited all of her husbands's fame, money, and political machinery, which guarentees her the old college try, and she wouldn't make a bad president, either, she's smart and rather competent. However, there's a lot of smart and competent people within the Beltway and that doesn't make them good presidential candidates. She has no charisma, everything she says is entirely focus-grouped, she rubs people the wrong way, and when it gets down and dirty versus charismatic Obama and Edwards, she'll be exposed. That, and another Clinton or Bush in the White House would make me puke. The Clinton political machine won't win this one.
-Obama's a perfect VP candidate. He has the charisma of JFK, and he'll make waves. However, he's a senator, which is a major strike against him, and he has no experience. My main problem with him is that, in the Illinois legislature, he abstained on every major issue. This is smart politics, as it allows him to define himself on his own choosing when the time comes, but it's dirty and rather manipulative. Personally, he's just not a man I want running the West Wing, because he has no foreign policy experience, and there's no guarentees he'll run a well-oiled White House like a Governor can. Give him VP and let him spend four years charming people's pants off and gaining executive experience. As well, he could be key in winning the Industrial Northeast and its electoral college dominance.
-Edwards is charismatic, but that won't get him far with Obama in the running, and he didn't carry the South as his VP nomination was intended to do. He has no use if he can't bring in Democratic votes in the South, and I just don't see him getting very far against the big names.
-Richardson is my favourite candidate from both sides. The man has cabinet experience (in Energy, a relevant position for sure), UN experience, tonnes of foreign policy experience, and the administrative experience from being a Governor. He'd make the best president out of all of them, and is the perfect darkhorse. I can only see his support build as more attention is placed on finding a competent president and less on personal charisma (a reactionary movement after eight years of folksy bumbling) . He'd carry the Hispanic vote, too.
-Gore is my pick for the candidacy. He'll let Clinton and Obama beat the hell out of each other for a few months, wasting money and political capital, and he'll swoop in as the avenging environmentalist angel. There'll be a hot, dry summer, the environmental hysteria will get worse and worse, the cult will build, and Gore will take it. He has the experience that Obama doesn't, both in terms of winning presidential elections and in being part of the executive wing, he has the charisma that Clinton doesn't, and he has hordes of environmentalists that'd fight to the death for him. Put money on it.
-I like Vilsack and Dodd because they spend time on the Daily Show. Vilsack/Obama in '12!
The Republicans:
-Romney will take it. It comes down to which of the big names can pander most effectively to the socon base, and he'll do it. If the Mormonism comes up, he can do what JFK did in West Virginia with Catholicism, make it an issue of bigotry. Paint people who vote against him as bigots, voting against his personal religious beliefs, and demonize them. That, and he's still on his first wife...He was a good governor, and has the charisma and presidential "aura."
-Awww, I still feel bad for McCain. He won my love in 2000 and still hasn't lost most of it. But he just looks tired, he's lost the drive and appeal that carried him in 2000, and his pandering just isn't convincing. He's running on name right now and it won't last. The support of the Iraq war will cost him, and I just don't think he has the energy to beat out a driven Romney. I'm sure he'll be savaged in the primaries by the socon attack machine, as well, history simply repeating itself.
-Speaking of being savaged in the primaries....You can bet good money that Guiliani will never recover from South Carolina. The videos of him saying abortions should be subsidized, of him in drag being kissed by Donald Trump...he's not going to be able to "trump" this all with his tough on crime/security message. GOP politics are just too dirty for an urban New Yorker with a socially liberal past to get through, no matter how hard on terror or crime he may be. Which is a pity, he'd have great influence in carrying parts of the Industrial Northeast.
-Gingrich will be making a run for it. Won't get anywhere, but why the hell else would he randomly tell everyone about his infidelities? So that it doesn't become a possible election issue...
I'd personally like to see Richardson/Obama vs McCain/Guiliani. But it won't happen, and Al Gore is going to be the next president of the United States.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Reading is fun!
My last few weeks of reading, just finished and about to be checked back into the library:
Goldberg, Robert Alan- Barry Goldwater
Goldwater, Barry M.- With no apologies : the personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater
Gourevitch, Philip- We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families : stories from Rwanda
White, Theodore- The making of the President, 1960
Perlstein, Rick- Before the storm : Barry Goldwater and the unmaking of the American consensus
Kinsella, Warren- Kicking ass in Canadian politics
Newman, Peter C.- The secret Mulroney tapes : unguarded confessions of a prime minister
Gratton, Michel- "So, what are the boys saying?" : an inside look at Brian Mulroney in power
Flanagan, Thomas- Game theory and Canadian politics
The books I just checked out, to be devoured in the upcoming weeks:
Michel Gratton- Still the Boss
Jeffrey Simpson- The Friendly Dictatorship
Dalton Camp- Whose Country is this Anyway?
Charles Taylor- Radical Tories
Michael Oakeshott- Rationalism in Politics
Hugh Segal- No Surrender
Jeffrey Simpson- Discipline of Power
Friedrich Hayek- The Constitution of Liberty
A few of the many books that I own and really need to get around to reading:
Craig Ferguson- Between the bridge and the river
Kurt Vonnegut- Galapagos
Barry Goldwater- The Conscience of a Conservative
Truman Capote- In Cold Blood
Eddie Goldenberg- Inside Ottawa
Bernard Lewis- The Crisis of Islam
Goldberg, Robert Alan- Barry Goldwater
Goldwater, Barry M.- With no apologies : the personal and political memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater
Gourevitch, Philip- We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families : stories from Rwanda
White, Theodore- The making of the President, 1960
Perlstein, Rick- Before the storm : Barry Goldwater and the unmaking of the American consensus
Kinsella, Warren- Kicking ass in Canadian politics
Newman, Peter C.- The secret Mulroney tapes : unguarded confessions of a prime minister
Gratton, Michel- "So, what are the boys saying?" : an inside look at Brian Mulroney in power
Flanagan, Thomas- Game theory and Canadian politics
The books I just checked out, to be devoured in the upcoming weeks:
Michel Gratton- Still the Boss
Jeffrey Simpson- The Friendly Dictatorship
Dalton Camp- Whose Country is this Anyway?
Charles Taylor- Radical Tories
Michael Oakeshott- Rationalism in Politics
Hugh Segal- No Surrender
Jeffrey Simpson- Discipline of Power
Friedrich Hayek- The Constitution of Liberty
A few of the many books that I own and really need to get around to reading:
Craig Ferguson- Between the bridge and the river
Kurt Vonnegut- Galapagos
Barry Goldwater- The Conscience of a Conservative
Truman Capote- In Cold Blood
Eddie Goldenberg- Inside Ottawa
Bernard Lewis- The Crisis of Islam
An Assortment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk
a link to the 1st part of an 8 part series made by the BBC (all 8 parts are on youtube), making the case for global warming skepticism. The video's been tossed around all the Tory blogs to an extent, but I want to save it for future reference. It's the antithesis to An Inconvenient Truth, and makes just as compelling and convincing an argument as Gore did, even moreso in my opinion, because the side of skepticism is usually the one I favour. But watch it, even if you're a terribly concerned environmentalist, because the "truth" has little meaning if you're not exposed to both sides of an argument.
I'm glad to see all this attention paid to Zimbabwe. Mugabe made a big mistake when he started beating down his opposition, in a rather visible matter, rather than keeping his genocide quiet. I'm still of the opinion that it'll take Mugabe's natural death for any reforms or changes to come about(much like Castro in Cuba), but increased awareness is always swell.
5-minute social engineering for the win:
-raise the minimum wage for corporations
-slash corporate taxes
-slash the welfare system
You help the working poor out of the cycle of poverty with the min. wage, you off-set the increased wages with lower taxes, so that prices aren't increased, and you can try to attract more capital and job-creation in Canada, much like Ireland, while not hurting small business. Yea...
This whole business with General Pace, on the Joint Chiefs, talking about how homosexuality is "immoral" is another large black-eye for the White House. Not because of his views, but because he expressed them while in uniform, breaking a number of army regulations. This is one of the top officers breaking regulations that are there to ensure a secular and non-political military. So glad to see the "conservative" Republican government continue to blur the line between church and state that their founding fathers layed out.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0112roberts.html
A very interesting editorial on the myth of the wage gap, i.e. the '70 cents to a dollar!' argument that's always thrown around as proof of how the job market is inherently discriminatory and sexist. Now, I'm not saying there isn't any sexism, because I'm sure there are a number of misogynistic examples (and against men, in the Public Sector), and those are, of course, a entirely negative thing. However, this sexism isn't an institutionalized aspect of the job market. If every single job was 50/50 men and women, sure, it'd be institutionalized and there'd be a wage gap, but since most jobs are predominantly gender biased in terms of numbers, the article shows that men and women are generally paid equally for equal work, with a number of examples:
-men work 3 hours per week, on average, more than women. As well, they're twice as likely to work at least 50 hours a week.
-men gravitate towards higher-paying, if less socially "rewarding" jobs, such as engineering, tax law, and computer programming. Teaching, nursing, and social work all pay less, and are predominantly made up of female workers.
-The worst jobs are largely held by males, and they're paid more for it. Not a tonne of little girls who grow up wanting to be lumberjacks or ironworkers.
-Men represent 92% of all occupational deaths, because men largely work the most dangerous jobs (mining, construction, etc), and are paid more for it.
Interesting stuff
Now, to electoral nerdiness! Canada is, of course, fundamentally flawed. It has a dinosaur of a bi-cameral house, with an appointed senate, and a parliament where large disparities occur between the popular vote and the parliamentary representation. As well, several provinces (BC, AB, Ontario) are largely screwed in the proverbial electoral ass, as a vote in PEI is worth four times that of a vote in urban Vancouver. Urban areas and the fast growing West have votes that count for little in comparison to the Maritimes and rural areas. You can thank the nature of First-Past-The-Post for all this, as regional parties such as the Bloc have far more power in parliament than national parties such as the NDP, or the old PC. And you get ridings such as Gulf Islands-Saanich, where the riding is predominantly left-wing, but the leftist parties split the vote, allowing a Conservative minister (Gary Lunn) to sneak in, where he represents the viewpoint of a fraction of his riding's vote. That's FPTP for ya.
I've always liked Australia's government and electoral system. It has a PR Triple-E Senate, styled after the American one, and a IRV Lower House, with ridings that are close in average size. The only downside is that plain IRV tends to elect more partisan leaders, and hurts centrist candidates. A reform such as the Borda Count (ranking the candidates, and they get a numerical value (i.e. 1st gets 40, 2nd gets 20, 3rd gets 10) would make it even better, however, Borda has only been tried in Slovenia (IIRC), so there's not a lot of good examples of how practical an awesome electoral system it is. I'm also a fan of MPP, which is far better than PR or FPTP, and it's also more likely to be possibly implemented in Canada than IRV is, being a variation on our existing system. I just don't want constant minority governments and expensive elections every year, as the trend seems to be going with a resurgent CPC, because then there's no real point winning. Parties spend their time politicking, which is fine and all, but not when you're trying to run a government. IRV, like the American system, ensures at least 4 years of actual governing for the best interests of the country.
However, I'm absolutely goddamn sick of the constant Scandanavian comparisons that are brought up for Canada. The constant "why can't we be more like Sweden!" attempts to justify a welfare state/democratic socialist state. The problem is that Canada isn't Sweden. A much more viable comparison is Sweden and Ontario. Canada is much, much larger than Sweden in terms of size, population, and regional difference. Sweden doesn't have a Quebec hanging over it, messing around every election because a majority can only be bought through pandering to Quebec, it doesn't have an aboriginal problem to deal with, it doesn't have many primary industries and a commuter lifestyle. The best comparison for modelling the future of Canada is Australia (both in terms of size, scale, current problems, similarities, shared history, and other aspects), and the Aussies best us in every area. You can thank a long-standing populist Conservative PM (go go John Howard!) for all that.
Now, the fundamental problem with Canadian governing is our fucked up federalism. It clouds every aspect of governing, making everything ten times more difficult. It basically boils down to how the Premiers have far too much power, and too little responsibility. They ignore their constitutional responsibilities (health care, education, etc) because it's much easier to whine to the feds for money than raise provincial taxes to pay for things, and then use blackmail because Premiers can easily rally support in a province against the feds. This leads to the Feds having to spend tax dollars on provincial responsibilities, messing around with their Federal responsibilities, and having to concern themselves with imaginary "fiscal imbalances." Imaginary because the provinces have the same damn tax base the Feds do for their population's health care and education, it's just MUCH easier to whine to the Feds for money than raise provincial taxes to pay for provincial measures, and thus be really accountable to the population that elected them. This situation has denegrated to the extent that Albertans and Ontarians end up paying for Quebec's failing welfare state with their federal tax dollars. Then again, 25% of our population isn't even signed on to our modern, patriated constitution, so....we've got a few problems here.
The next week is like Christmas for political nerds. A budget, a possible election (still placing money against a spring election), and a Quebec election?! It's all rather magical.
a link to the 1st part of an 8 part series made by the BBC (all 8 parts are on youtube), making the case for global warming skepticism. The video's been tossed around all the Tory blogs to an extent, but I want to save it for future reference. It's the antithesis to An Inconvenient Truth, and makes just as compelling and convincing an argument as Gore did, even moreso in my opinion, because the side of skepticism is usually the one I favour. But watch it, even if you're a terribly concerned environmentalist, because the "truth" has little meaning if you're not exposed to both sides of an argument.
I'm glad to see all this attention paid to Zimbabwe. Mugabe made a big mistake when he started beating down his opposition, in a rather visible matter, rather than keeping his genocide quiet. I'm still of the opinion that it'll take Mugabe's natural death for any reforms or changes to come about(much like Castro in Cuba), but increased awareness is always swell.
5-minute social engineering for the win:
-raise the minimum wage for corporations
-slash corporate taxes
-slash the welfare system
You help the working poor out of the cycle of poverty with the min. wage, you off-set the increased wages with lower taxes, so that prices aren't increased, and you can try to attract more capital and job-creation in Canada, much like Ireland, while not hurting small business. Yea...
This whole business with General Pace, on the Joint Chiefs, talking about how homosexuality is "immoral" is another large black-eye for the White House. Not because of his views, but because he expressed them while in uniform, breaking a number of army regulations. This is one of the top officers breaking regulations that are there to ensure a secular and non-political military. So glad to see the "conservative" Republican government continue to blur the line between church and state that their founding fathers layed out.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0112roberts.html
A very interesting editorial on the myth of the wage gap, i.e. the '70 cents to a dollar!' argument that's always thrown around as proof of how the job market is inherently discriminatory and sexist. Now, I'm not saying there isn't any sexism, because I'm sure there are a number of misogynistic examples (and against men, in the Public Sector), and those are, of course, a entirely negative thing. However, this sexism isn't an institutionalized aspect of the job market. If every single job was 50/50 men and women, sure, it'd be institutionalized and there'd be a wage gap, but since most jobs are predominantly gender biased in terms of numbers, the article shows that men and women are generally paid equally for equal work, with a number of examples:
-men work 3 hours per week, on average, more than women. As well, they're twice as likely to work at least 50 hours a week.
-men gravitate towards higher-paying, if less socially "rewarding" jobs, such as engineering, tax law, and computer programming. Teaching, nursing, and social work all pay less, and are predominantly made up of female workers.
-The worst jobs are largely held by males, and they're paid more for it. Not a tonne of little girls who grow up wanting to be lumberjacks or ironworkers.
-Men represent 92% of all occupational deaths, because men largely work the most dangerous jobs (mining, construction, etc), and are paid more for it.
Interesting stuff
Now, to electoral nerdiness! Canada is, of course, fundamentally flawed. It has a dinosaur of a bi-cameral house, with an appointed senate, and a parliament where large disparities occur between the popular vote and the parliamentary representation. As well, several provinces (BC, AB, Ontario) are largely screwed in the proverbial electoral ass, as a vote in PEI is worth four times that of a vote in urban Vancouver. Urban areas and the fast growing West have votes that count for little in comparison to the Maritimes and rural areas. You can thank the nature of First-Past-The-Post for all this, as regional parties such as the Bloc have far more power in parliament than national parties such as the NDP, or the old PC. And you get ridings such as Gulf Islands-Saanich, where the riding is predominantly left-wing, but the leftist parties split the vote, allowing a Conservative minister (Gary Lunn) to sneak in, where he represents the viewpoint of a fraction of his riding's vote. That's FPTP for ya.
I've always liked Australia's government and electoral system. It has a PR Triple-E Senate, styled after the American one, and a IRV Lower House, with ridings that are close in average size. The only downside is that plain IRV tends to elect more partisan leaders, and hurts centrist candidates. A reform such as the Borda Count (ranking the candidates, and they get a numerical value (i.e. 1st gets 40, 2nd gets 20, 3rd gets 10) would make it even better, however, Borda has only been tried in Slovenia (IIRC), so there's not a lot of good examples of how practical an awesome electoral system it is. I'm also a fan of MPP, which is far better than PR or FPTP, and it's also more likely to be possibly implemented in Canada than IRV is, being a variation on our existing system. I just don't want constant minority governments and expensive elections every year, as the trend seems to be going with a resurgent CPC, because then there's no real point winning. Parties spend their time politicking, which is fine and all, but not when you're trying to run a government. IRV, like the American system, ensures at least 4 years of actual governing for the best interests of the country.
However, I'm absolutely goddamn sick of the constant Scandanavian comparisons that are brought up for Canada. The constant "why can't we be more like Sweden!" attempts to justify a welfare state/democratic socialist state. The problem is that Canada isn't Sweden. A much more viable comparison is Sweden and Ontario. Canada is much, much larger than Sweden in terms of size, population, and regional difference. Sweden doesn't have a Quebec hanging over it, messing around every election because a majority can only be bought through pandering to Quebec, it doesn't have an aboriginal problem to deal with, it doesn't have many primary industries and a commuter lifestyle. The best comparison for modelling the future of Canada is Australia (both in terms of size, scale, current problems, similarities, shared history, and other aspects), and the Aussies best us in every area. You can thank a long-standing populist Conservative PM (go go John Howard!) for all that.
Now, the fundamental problem with Canadian governing is our fucked up federalism. It clouds every aspect of governing, making everything ten times more difficult. It basically boils down to how the Premiers have far too much power, and too little responsibility. They ignore their constitutional responsibilities (health care, education, etc) because it's much easier to whine to the feds for money than raise provincial taxes to pay for things, and then use blackmail because Premiers can easily rally support in a province against the feds. This leads to the Feds having to spend tax dollars on provincial responsibilities, messing around with their Federal responsibilities, and having to concern themselves with imaginary "fiscal imbalances." Imaginary because the provinces have the same damn tax base the Feds do for their population's health care and education, it's just MUCH easier to whine to the Feds for money than raise provincial taxes to pay for provincial measures, and thus be really accountable to the population that elected them. This situation has denegrated to the extent that Albertans and Ontarians end up paying for Quebec's failing welfare state with their federal tax dollars. Then again, 25% of our population isn't even signed on to our modern, patriated constitution, so....we've got a few problems here.
The next week is like Christmas for political nerds. A budget, a possible election (still placing money against a spring election), and a Quebec election?! It's all rather magical.
Friday, March 9, 2007
The NHL and Mutually Assured Destruction
An essay for a scholarship that I wrote in two hours under examination conditions:
Q: Even though the NHL is trying to curb fighting, sportscasters have criticized the Pittsburg Penguins for not having an on-ice body guard for Sidney Crosby. As hockey organizations at different levels attempt to reduce incidents of violence, is this an unsportsmanlike and contradictory criticism?
Fighting has been an integral aspect of the NHL game since the first puck was dropped. Recently, however, as NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman tries to expand the NHL game to new markets in the United States, fighting and rough play have come under fire as a negative aspect of the game, one to be eliminated. Hockey gets few highlights shown on American television, as it isn’t a headline game, and the few highlights that are shown are usually the most spectacular of the prior night’s games. These highlights likely include fighting, as it is a thrilling exhibition, and the ESPN audience is supposedly reduced to viewing hockey as a brutal game of fisticuffs. In the hopes of drawing a new crowd, one that watches hockey for the sake of its great speed and skill, fighting has been frowned upon by the NHL head-office, as a matter of increasing positive public relations for the game. This leads to the Pittsburgh Penguins, the home of new superstar Sidney Crosby, widely seen as the best hockey player since the magnificent Wayne Gretzky. Gretzky had enforcers such as Dave Semenko, hockey players whose sole role was to make sure that nobody injured the team’s star player. They’d do this by intimidation, by being such feared fighters that no opponent would dare to touch Gretzky. Things have changed since Gretzky’s 1980s, however, as the instigator rule came about in the hopes of discouraging fighting. This rule gives out a minor penalty to the instigator of a fight, meaning that if you start a fight, you put your team down shorthanded for two minutes, making it disadvantageous to the team to fight or have enforcers. Its relevance to Sidney Crosby is that Crosby is in the same position as Gretzky was; teams go after him and try to hurt him as the best way to stop him, as he’s just too good of a player to be stopped otherwise. This then leads to the main point of having an enforcer for Sidney Crosby. In the age of cracking down and discouraging fighting, announcers are still commenting that Crosby needs an enforcer, a fighter to intimidate others and make sure Crosby stays unharmed, so that he can wreak havoc on other teams. These comments could be then seen as unsportsmanlike or contradictory to the main message that the NHL is trying to send: Don’t Fight. However, the lack of an on-ice body guard for Sidney Crosby, though perhaps a contradictory criticism, is also a very accurate and necessary criticism, because of the lack of accountability in the modern NHL, the idea of star-players as valuable financial investments to be protected, and the erroneous logic of the NHL towards discouraging fighting.
The most basic and common repercussion of the instigator penalty has been that the number of fights are lowering. However, a very negative consequence has arisen in that there is a complete lack of accountability in the game. Players know that they can take harmful cheap-shots at star players and not be beaten to a pulp by a Dave Semenko, because the enforcers don’t want to put their team down shorthanded. This is how the NHL wants it, as they’d prefer that punishment for harmful activity comes from the NHL front office and its disciplinary committee, headed by Colin Campbell, rather than at the end of a fist. A position such as this is seen as more professional and civil, as the NHL tries to market itself as a skills game and not one of brutality. Unfortunately, the disciplinary actions of the NHL have failed at being meaningful and harsh punishments, and are seen by players, fans, and officials as quite the joke. This means that there is no real deterrence to players going after the stars of the game; they can’t be physically beaten, as it used to be, and they won’t get an effective punishment from the NHL. The ineffectual actions of the NHL mean that, hypothetically, a player could go after Sidney Crosby, injure him for a couple weeks with a cheap-shot, and then only be suspended for a few games. With Crosby as an utterly integral part of their team, the Penguins will then go on to struggle for a few weeks, harming their chances at the playoffs, while the opposing team will miss some cheap goon for only a few games. This is why commentators are concerned about the lack of an enforcer for Sidney Crosby, as the NHL’s discipline has proved again and again that is simply not an effective deterrent. With an enforcer, the Penguins could have that intimidation factor that would keep opposing goons from injuring their star. Though these comments about needing an enforcer are perhaps contradictory to the message the NHL is trying to send, the League has dug its own hole in this matter by legislating out on-ice accountability in the form of a flurry of fists. This means that the NHL has to ask themselves, do they want to have their marketable star players injured because of the lack of accountability, or do they want to lower the brutality of the game in the hopes of attracting a market portion? In this case, the brutality of the game is absolutely necessary to keep its goons honest and accountable, and its star players such as Sidney Crosby healthy. The bottom line is that the NHL can’t market itself as a skills game if its skilled players are constantly being bullied and injured by its thuggish cheap players. If the NHL continues pressing the matter of discouraging fighting, this issue will only exacerbate itself in a cycle of unfortunate violence towards its stars, and not towards its goons. Thus, the criticism of the commentators towards Crosby’s lack of an enforcer is absolutely necessary as it sends a message to the NHL about their failed disciplinary methods.
Another reality of the modern NHL is that the players are million-dollar business investments. Though perhaps a callous view, placing dollar figures on the lives of individual human beings, it is also an actuality. How much business sense does it make for a business, the Pittsburg Penguins, to open itself up to the opportunity for its main investment, Sidney Crosby, to be damaged? Though not being paid millions of dollars now, because of rookie contract stipulations, it is sure that Crosby will be paid tens of millions over a number of years, very soon. His value is even bigger than that, as Crosby’s presence and amazing talents draw thousands of fans to watch him, bringing in more revenue for both the NHL and the Penguins in the form of selling tickets and merchandise. He has even greater value as a key advertising figure, as a ‘big-name’ player, Crosby can bring more attention to the NHL through public promotions. With all this value, Crosby still has no protection and badly needs an enforcer, despite the NHL’s campaign of pacifism. The NHL again has to ask itself, which is a more valuable marketable asset, an amazing talent, or a lack of fisticuffs? Both the Penguins and the NHL would be devastated if, hypothetically, Crosby took a cheap-shot from a goon player and his career was derailed or ended, such as what happened to Eric Lindros. Lindros was a future superstar of the League, but a long trail of hits that resulted in concussions ruined his talents. This is why the Penguins need a physical intimidator, an assurance of on-ice mutually assured destruction, and why the NHL needs to back-down from its pacifist stance. Again, the commentators who are asking about the lack of an enforcer for Crosby aren’t unsportsmanlike in the least; they are displaying an important message, both to the League, and to its fans. It is indeed sportsmanlike, not unsportsmanlike, to support the protection of the NHL’s star players. Keeping them healthy and thus driving the game forward on their skillful backs is a far more positive viewpoint than campaigning against meaningful and needed violence in the game. Sidney Crosby is far too valuable a monetary and public asset for the risk of his injury to come about, and with the current stance of the NHL and its instigator rule, the failure of NHL discipline to act as a deterrent, and the lack of an enforcer and the accountability that one brings, Crosby is in grave danger of being put at risk by an opposing team. His injury would be a much larger crisis, by far, to the NHL than a few highlights of fighting shown on EPSN.
This issue of supposedly contradictory criticism leads to an even bigger one, of whether or not the NHL’s stance on fighting is a logical one. It is, after all, because of this stance that the issue of Crosby’s safety is a significant question. The NHL’s stance on fighting, discouraging it and emphasizing the skill of the game, is decidedly flawed and based on fallacious logic. This stance is that, to market itself to a larger and supposedly more pacifist audience, the NHL needs to discourage fighting. The League wants to stop hockey being typecast as a fighting game instead of as a skill one. However, how can the NHL place an emphasis on the skill of its players if the best ones are constantly being injured by unaccountable goons? Hockey skills and fighting work side by side, in a symbiotic relationship that has created the greatest game on ice. These facts seem apparent to the base Canadian market of the NHL; however, the League seems bent on sticking its head in the sand and changing these facts for the sake of supposed marketability. However, the logic behind this marketability of a more pacifist NHL in the United States leaves something to be desired. If Americans were so turned off by violence, then the brutally violent game of football, and the even more graphically violent performance of professional wrestling, wouldn’t be popular in the United States. However, both of these activities are so massively popular that their fans reach the point of near religious fanaticism. As well, a hockey fight has the ability to thrill and to excite fans. In any hockey arena, in Canada or the United States, every single fan in the arena will be on their feet to watch a fight, and most of them will be wildly cheering. The fact that Americans enjoy violent sports, and the thrill of hockey fights, seems to contradict the basic logic of the NHL. The League also seems scared of negative publicity in the United States, however, which is worse publicity, a clip of a fight, or the incessantly replayed image of Todd Bertuzzi smashing a player into the ice with a cheap-shot? That cheap-shot from Bertuzzi was directly caused by the players’ lack of ability to take their frustrations out on the ice in the form of fighting. Instead, the tensions and anger between the players simmered, and then exploded in inglorious shame for the NHL with Bertuzzi’s punch. The basic issue isn’t that the comments about Crosby’s lack of protection are contradictory to the NHL’s message, but that they’re contradicting entirely fallacious logic. Seemingly willing to increase the risk of their biggest asset’s ruin for the sake of erroneous reasoning, the NHL is lacking in basic sense and judgment, and that is where this valuable commentary about Crosby comes in. It isn’t a matter of unsportsmanlike criticism; it’s a matter of criticizing the NHL’s lack of accountability and protection for its best players.
The act of on-ice fighting has always served an integral purpose in the NHL. Though fighting is perhaps a brutal display upon first glance, it also thrills crowds and allows valuable star players to be protected. Mutually assured destruction in the form of intimidation and fighting served the NHL well for the vast majority of its history, keeping such superstars as Wayne Gretzky safe and productive. With the advent of Sidney Crosby’s reign of dominance in the League, the NHL has created a conflict through its campaign to discourage fighting, and its methods such as the instigator penalty. With Crosby being a multi-million dollar asset, in terms of marketing, merchandising, and attracting viewers, his safety should be an integral goal of the NHL. Unfortunately, the League’s head office seems bent on chasing an imaginary boogieman, hunting down the fighters that would protect Crosby, all in the name of supposedly attracting American viewers. This becomes a problem when their logic is examined and proved entirely fallacious. The ‘unsportsmanlike and contradictory’ criticism of commentators towards Crosby’s lack of protection brings up a much greater issue in the game of hockey, an issue of faulty logic by the NHL, and of how the fighting tradition of the League has served its star players very well in the past. Though the logic behind on-ice fighting’s constructive purpose might seem brutal to some, it does serve to protect star players. When the NHL impedes this process, star players begin to get injured and lose their effectiveness. The League’s intent in replacing the on-ice discipline of the fist with off-ice disciplinary measures has miserably failed, and goons now chase after the marketable assets of the NHL with abandon. While discouraging fighting in the name of chasing an imaginary market, the NHL has created a crisis, where the costs of key injuries far outweigh the supposed benefits of curbing fighting.
Q: Even though the NHL is trying to curb fighting, sportscasters have criticized the Pittsburg Penguins for not having an on-ice body guard for Sidney Crosby. As hockey organizations at different levels attempt to reduce incidents of violence, is this an unsportsmanlike and contradictory criticism?
Fighting has been an integral aspect of the NHL game since the first puck was dropped. Recently, however, as NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman tries to expand the NHL game to new markets in the United States, fighting and rough play have come under fire as a negative aspect of the game, one to be eliminated. Hockey gets few highlights shown on American television, as it isn’t a headline game, and the few highlights that are shown are usually the most spectacular of the prior night’s games. These highlights likely include fighting, as it is a thrilling exhibition, and the ESPN audience is supposedly reduced to viewing hockey as a brutal game of fisticuffs. In the hopes of drawing a new crowd, one that watches hockey for the sake of its great speed and skill, fighting has been frowned upon by the NHL head-office, as a matter of increasing positive public relations for the game. This leads to the Pittsburgh Penguins, the home of new superstar Sidney Crosby, widely seen as the best hockey player since the magnificent Wayne Gretzky. Gretzky had enforcers such as Dave Semenko, hockey players whose sole role was to make sure that nobody injured the team’s star player. They’d do this by intimidation, by being such feared fighters that no opponent would dare to touch Gretzky. Things have changed since Gretzky’s 1980s, however, as the instigator rule came about in the hopes of discouraging fighting. This rule gives out a minor penalty to the instigator of a fight, meaning that if you start a fight, you put your team down shorthanded for two minutes, making it disadvantageous to the team to fight or have enforcers. Its relevance to Sidney Crosby is that Crosby is in the same position as Gretzky was; teams go after him and try to hurt him as the best way to stop him, as he’s just too good of a player to be stopped otherwise. This then leads to the main point of having an enforcer for Sidney Crosby. In the age of cracking down and discouraging fighting, announcers are still commenting that Crosby needs an enforcer, a fighter to intimidate others and make sure Crosby stays unharmed, so that he can wreak havoc on other teams. These comments could be then seen as unsportsmanlike or contradictory to the main message that the NHL is trying to send: Don’t Fight. However, the lack of an on-ice body guard for Sidney Crosby, though perhaps a contradictory criticism, is also a very accurate and necessary criticism, because of the lack of accountability in the modern NHL, the idea of star-players as valuable financial investments to be protected, and the erroneous logic of the NHL towards discouraging fighting.
The most basic and common repercussion of the instigator penalty has been that the number of fights are lowering. However, a very negative consequence has arisen in that there is a complete lack of accountability in the game. Players know that they can take harmful cheap-shots at star players and not be beaten to a pulp by a Dave Semenko, because the enforcers don’t want to put their team down shorthanded. This is how the NHL wants it, as they’d prefer that punishment for harmful activity comes from the NHL front office and its disciplinary committee, headed by Colin Campbell, rather than at the end of a fist. A position such as this is seen as more professional and civil, as the NHL tries to market itself as a skills game and not one of brutality. Unfortunately, the disciplinary actions of the NHL have failed at being meaningful and harsh punishments, and are seen by players, fans, and officials as quite the joke. This means that there is no real deterrence to players going after the stars of the game; they can’t be physically beaten, as it used to be, and they won’t get an effective punishment from the NHL. The ineffectual actions of the NHL mean that, hypothetically, a player could go after Sidney Crosby, injure him for a couple weeks with a cheap-shot, and then only be suspended for a few games. With Crosby as an utterly integral part of their team, the Penguins will then go on to struggle for a few weeks, harming their chances at the playoffs, while the opposing team will miss some cheap goon for only a few games. This is why commentators are concerned about the lack of an enforcer for Sidney Crosby, as the NHL’s discipline has proved again and again that is simply not an effective deterrent. With an enforcer, the Penguins could have that intimidation factor that would keep opposing goons from injuring their star. Though these comments about needing an enforcer are perhaps contradictory to the message the NHL is trying to send, the League has dug its own hole in this matter by legislating out on-ice accountability in the form of a flurry of fists. This means that the NHL has to ask themselves, do they want to have their marketable star players injured because of the lack of accountability, or do they want to lower the brutality of the game in the hopes of attracting a market portion? In this case, the brutality of the game is absolutely necessary to keep its goons honest and accountable, and its star players such as Sidney Crosby healthy. The bottom line is that the NHL can’t market itself as a skills game if its skilled players are constantly being bullied and injured by its thuggish cheap players. If the NHL continues pressing the matter of discouraging fighting, this issue will only exacerbate itself in a cycle of unfortunate violence towards its stars, and not towards its goons. Thus, the criticism of the commentators towards Crosby’s lack of an enforcer is absolutely necessary as it sends a message to the NHL about their failed disciplinary methods.
Another reality of the modern NHL is that the players are million-dollar business investments. Though perhaps a callous view, placing dollar figures on the lives of individual human beings, it is also an actuality. How much business sense does it make for a business, the Pittsburg Penguins, to open itself up to the opportunity for its main investment, Sidney Crosby, to be damaged? Though not being paid millions of dollars now, because of rookie contract stipulations, it is sure that Crosby will be paid tens of millions over a number of years, very soon. His value is even bigger than that, as Crosby’s presence and amazing talents draw thousands of fans to watch him, bringing in more revenue for both the NHL and the Penguins in the form of selling tickets and merchandise. He has even greater value as a key advertising figure, as a ‘big-name’ player, Crosby can bring more attention to the NHL through public promotions. With all this value, Crosby still has no protection and badly needs an enforcer, despite the NHL’s campaign of pacifism. The NHL again has to ask itself, which is a more valuable marketable asset, an amazing talent, or a lack of fisticuffs? Both the Penguins and the NHL would be devastated if, hypothetically, Crosby took a cheap-shot from a goon player and his career was derailed or ended, such as what happened to Eric Lindros. Lindros was a future superstar of the League, but a long trail of hits that resulted in concussions ruined his talents. This is why the Penguins need a physical intimidator, an assurance of on-ice mutually assured destruction, and why the NHL needs to back-down from its pacifist stance. Again, the commentators who are asking about the lack of an enforcer for Crosby aren’t unsportsmanlike in the least; they are displaying an important message, both to the League, and to its fans. It is indeed sportsmanlike, not unsportsmanlike, to support the protection of the NHL’s star players. Keeping them healthy and thus driving the game forward on their skillful backs is a far more positive viewpoint than campaigning against meaningful and needed violence in the game. Sidney Crosby is far too valuable a monetary and public asset for the risk of his injury to come about, and with the current stance of the NHL and its instigator rule, the failure of NHL discipline to act as a deterrent, and the lack of an enforcer and the accountability that one brings, Crosby is in grave danger of being put at risk by an opposing team. His injury would be a much larger crisis, by far, to the NHL than a few highlights of fighting shown on EPSN.
This issue of supposedly contradictory criticism leads to an even bigger one, of whether or not the NHL’s stance on fighting is a logical one. It is, after all, because of this stance that the issue of Crosby’s safety is a significant question. The NHL’s stance on fighting, discouraging it and emphasizing the skill of the game, is decidedly flawed and based on fallacious logic. This stance is that, to market itself to a larger and supposedly more pacifist audience, the NHL needs to discourage fighting. The League wants to stop hockey being typecast as a fighting game instead of as a skill one. However, how can the NHL place an emphasis on the skill of its players if the best ones are constantly being injured by unaccountable goons? Hockey skills and fighting work side by side, in a symbiotic relationship that has created the greatest game on ice. These facts seem apparent to the base Canadian market of the NHL; however, the League seems bent on sticking its head in the sand and changing these facts for the sake of supposed marketability. However, the logic behind this marketability of a more pacifist NHL in the United States leaves something to be desired. If Americans were so turned off by violence, then the brutally violent game of football, and the even more graphically violent performance of professional wrestling, wouldn’t be popular in the United States. However, both of these activities are so massively popular that their fans reach the point of near religious fanaticism. As well, a hockey fight has the ability to thrill and to excite fans. In any hockey arena, in Canada or the United States, every single fan in the arena will be on their feet to watch a fight, and most of them will be wildly cheering. The fact that Americans enjoy violent sports, and the thrill of hockey fights, seems to contradict the basic logic of the NHL. The League also seems scared of negative publicity in the United States, however, which is worse publicity, a clip of a fight, or the incessantly replayed image of Todd Bertuzzi smashing a player into the ice with a cheap-shot? That cheap-shot from Bertuzzi was directly caused by the players’ lack of ability to take their frustrations out on the ice in the form of fighting. Instead, the tensions and anger between the players simmered, and then exploded in inglorious shame for the NHL with Bertuzzi’s punch. The basic issue isn’t that the comments about Crosby’s lack of protection are contradictory to the NHL’s message, but that they’re contradicting entirely fallacious logic. Seemingly willing to increase the risk of their biggest asset’s ruin for the sake of erroneous reasoning, the NHL is lacking in basic sense and judgment, and that is where this valuable commentary about Crosby comes in. It isn’t a matter of unsportsmanlike criticism; it’s a matter of criticizing the NHL’s lack of accountability and protection for its best players.
The act of on-ice fighting has always served an integral purpose in the NHL. Though fighting is perhaps a brutal display upon first glance, it also thrills crowds and allows valuable star players to be protected. Mutually assured destruction in the form of intimidation and fighting served the NHL well for the vast majority of its history, keeping such superstars as Wayne Gretzky safe and productive. With the advent of Sidney Crosby’s reign of dominance in the League, the NHL has created a conflict through its campaign to discourage fighting, and its methods such as the instigator penalty. With Crosby being a multi-million dollar asset, in terms of marketing, merchandising, and attracting viewers, his safety should be an integral goal of the NHL. Unfortunately, the League’s head office seems bent on chasing an imaginary boogieman, hunting down the fighters that would protect Crosby, all in the name of supposedly attracting American viewers. This becomes a problem when their logic is examined and proved entirely fallacious. The ‘unsportsmanlike and contradictory’ criticism of commentators towards Crosby’s lack of protection brings up a much greater issue in the game of hockey, an issue of faulty logic by the NHL, and of how the fighting tradition of the League has served its star players very well in the past. Though the logic behind on-ice fighting’s constructive purpose might seem brutal to some, it does serve to protect star players. When the NHL impedes this process, star players begin to get injured and lose their effectiveness. The League’s intent in replacing the on-ice discipline of the fist with off-ice disciplinary measures has miserably failed, and goons now chase after the marketable assets of the NHL with abandon. While discouraging fighting in the name of chasing an imaginary market, the NHL has created a crisis, where the costs of key injuries far outweigh the supposed benefits of curbing fighting.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
On ATMs
Why the whole ATM fee hullaballoo is ridiculous.
1) the banks are providing a convenience for the customer that costs them money to upkeep, thus, you pay a fee for that service.
2) banks aren't there to help and serve their customers. Customers, to banks, are the same as a natural resource like lumber, a way to make money by providing a needed service. Banks are accountable to and serving their shareholders, so profit is good, the only reason to offer good customer service is because it makes more money for their shareholders. It's callous, but it's how banks work. Tough.
3) Join a credit union or walk to your own damn bank, lazy whiners. There would be a problem if NO options were available to consumers, but options exist.
basically, we learn that people don't like fees of any kind and they don't like it when companies they don't have stock in make a profit. Amazing insight here, Taliban Jack, really adding to the Canadian parliamentary discource. Fucking lazy, whiny socialists. I think 4 bucks for a latte at starbucks is a ridiculous prize, but do I have the right to dictate to private companies how they do their business? It's called consumer choice and a market economy, such amazing concepts, both.
Since when did it become illegal to make large profits? The banks are accountable to their shareholders, who also make a profit, not to whiny customers and half-bit socialist assholes with moustaches.
Though kudos to Flaherty for "considering" the issue, and taking away what is most likely a key populist election issue of Layton's. How do you fix the control of a few banks over the market? Perhaps, foreign competition?
1) the banks are providing a convenience for the customer that costs them money to upkeep, thus, you pay a fee for that service.
2) banks aren't there to help and serve their customers. Customers, to banks, are the same as a natural resource like lumber, a way to make money by providing a needed service. Banks are accountable to and serving their shareholders, so profit is good, the only reason to offer good customer service is because it makes more money for their shareholders. It's callous, but it's how banks work. Tough.
3) Join a credit union or walk to your own damn bank, lazy whiners. There would be a problem if NO options were available to consumers, but options exist.
basically, we learn that people don't like fees of any kind and they don't like it when companies they don't have stock in make a profit. Amazing insight here, Taliban Jack, really adding to the Canadian parliamentary discource. Fucking lazy, whiny socialists. I think 4 bucks for a latte at starbucks is a ridiculous prize, but do I have the right to dictate to private companies how they do their business? It's called consumer choice and a market economy, such amazing concepts, both.
Since when did it become illegal to make large profits? The banks are accountable to their shareholders, who also make a profit, not to whiny customers and half-bit socialist assholes with moustaches.
Though kudos to Flaherty for "considering" the issue, and taking away what is most likely a key populist election issue of Layton's. How do you fix the control of a few banks over the market? Perhaps, foreign competition?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/07/lords-reform.html
The British House of Commons passes a bill to have a House of Lords that's elected. This is significant for electoral nerds like me, and very good news. I'm pretty much the biggest proponent of a Triple-E senate, modelled after Australia, as it's the first step to then reforming the lower house, which is pretty damn undemocratic in a number of areas. A healthy bi-cameral House can only strengthen Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/08/canada-minorities.html
And the UN tells us to stop using the horribly racist term, 'visible minorities.' I'm glad that our most significant intergovernmental organization is busy with such significant matters, instead of, perhaps, STOPPING A FUCKING GENOCIDE.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/03/08/3714945-cp.html
Lastly, we have a Bloc candidate who, in his words says:
"In none of my writings have I denied that there were mass killings, some even of an ethnic character. However, I categorically reject the abusive use of the expression 'genocide,' ” Mr. Philpot wrote, for example, in a 2004 comment piece to Le Devoir.
In an interview earlier this week with La Presse, he was quoted as saying: ”One cannot say there was a genocide in Rwanda the way there was a genocide against the Jews"
Forcing Boisclair to come up with this thrilling and risque statement: "It's clear to me there was a genocide." Stunning.
So why isn't this guy being deported like Ernst Zundel?
The British House of Commons passes a bill to have a House of Lords that's elected. This is significant for electoral nerds like me, and very good news. I'm pretty much the biggest proponent of a Triple-E senate, modelled after Australia, as it's the first step to then reforming the lower house, which is pretty damn undemocratic in a number of areas. A healthy bi-cameral House can only strengthen Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/08/canada-minorities.html
And the UN tells us to stop using the horribly racist term, 'visible minorities.' I'm glad that our most significant intergovernmental organization is busy with such significant matters, instead of, perhaps, STOPPING A FUCKING GENOCIDE.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/03/08/3714945-cp.html
Lastly, we have a Bloc candidate who, in his words says:
"In none of my writings have I denied that there were mass killings, some even of an ethnic character. However, I categorically reject the abusive use of the expression 'genocide,' ” Mr. Philpot wrote, for example, in a 2004 comment piece to Le Devoir.
In an interview earlier this week with La Presse, he was quoted as saying: ”One cannot say there was a genocide in Rwanda the way there was a genocide against the Jews"
Forcing Boisclair to come up with this thrilling and risque statement: "It's clear to me there was a genocide." Stunning.
So why isn't this guy being deported like Ernst Zundel?
Kyoto and African Genocide, perhaps interrelated, perhaps not
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070305&s=kirchick030807
Genocide in Zimbabwe. Even slower than Darfur, so it gets less airtime. That, and starving Africans are just sooo played out on CNN, Anna Nicole Smith is where it's at. Compromise: Feed her body to the Zimbabweans? Zimbabwe's story is perhaps one of the most tragic in Africa. Genocide, racism, famine, the ruining of Africa's breadbasket. Massive material wealth, but one of the lowest life expectancies in the world. The worst inflation in the world. If we can't seem to do anything in Darfur, with a feckless, emasculated U.N, an immoral China and their veto, a meager but brave AU force, and a government actively supporting a genocide that's spreading to neighbouring nations, using the exact same excuses the Genocidaire used in Rwanda, what's going to happen to Zimbabwe?
Now, to Kyoto. First of all, I'm opposed to cap and trade systems in principle. It's the commoditization of resources essential to human life (the same people who decry bottled and privatized water all seem to support Kyoto, funny enough, however, I can see their use. Cap and trade systems were used in the campaign against sulphur dioxide to give lagging companies time to eventually catch up and they worked. However, a plan based solely around cap and trade, like Kyoto, is plain ridiculous and simple waste of time to spend government time thinking about. Cap and trade policies are most effective when acting as a complementary part of a larger policy.
1) It's unenforceable, 2) it favours third-world and ex-soviet bloc countries, in terms of targets, not because they're especially green, but because they don't have polluting industries, or their polluting industries had collapsed after the fall of the Berlin wall, 3) the nations it needs to affect aren’t even signed on (everyone's darling on the left, Clinton, laughed at Kyoto and didn't even consider it), 4) a cap and trade system is in its death knells in Europe, 5) I could go on...
To meet our Kyoto emission targets would cripple the economy. There's no arguing that, it'd destroy thousands of jobs and bring on a recession the scale of which hasn't been seen in decades. Did I mention how China would replace our emissions in a matter of months, making our economic collapse a futile exercise? So we move on to trading for credits, the financial punishment for not meeting our quotas. The figures bandied about have been anywhere from 10-25 billion dollars in credits we'd have to buy, most likely from a nation like Russia, which continues to build polluting industry, but nicely has credits to sell, thanks Kyoto. So we spend 20 billion dollars over a few years, and on what? The environment hasn’t physically been helped by these actions, no money has gone towards changing our industry for the environment, and we’ve simply funneled money into Putin's pocket. Which comes back to my main thesis, of how if you support Kyoto in Canada, you're against the environment. That's 20 billion dollars sent to Russia that could be used, IN CANADA, to help the environment, I repeat, IN CANADA. Now, people will say, we should spend the billions to send a message, of how we'll be a leader on the world stage in the fight against global warming, etc. That's a rather expensive message, with no rational return. If China won't let our consular officials see a Canadian citizen being held in some godforsaken prison, what makes anybody think they'll magically jump in line after we spend billions of dollars in the name of the environment? I repeat, the war for the global environment will be fought in China, India, and Brazil, not in Canada. And especially not with Kyoto.
Which moves me on to the political side of things in Canada, concerning Kyoto. My theory is that a majority of people support Kyoto because they don't know anything about it. The more that people learn about the details of meeting our Kyoto targets, the more people are turned off to the goddamn treaty. Dion's taken the treaty on as an adopted child, all his apparent plans are to make it the major issue in his platform in a potential spring campaign. Which is why he'll get annihilated. Pablo Rodriguez's private member bill required what, giving the government 60 days to make a plan to meet the targets (read: plan, not action, a plan). By my calculations, that'll place the revealing of this plan in the middle of a spring election. In the midst of an election, with Dion ranting and raving about Kyoto, the CPC can break out a campaign showing people exactly what Kyoto entails, what the plan is. Jobs lost, taxes raised, funding for favourite programs, cut, all to pay for Kyoto. More and more companies leaving Canada, less 'fiscal imbalance' money, it goes on and on...Dion's hung himself on this, he's given the PM the chance to define Kyoto in the midst of a Kyoto election, where people don't actually know a thing about Kyoto, and then bludgeon Dion to death with the plan, in all the key swing areas. The CPC feigned defeat over the private member's bill, but you know that the PM had to be doing a little joyful dance in private. People still want some massive government solution, they want to sit back in their SUVs and let the government fix everything. When the PM shows Canadians what Kyoto will actually cost them, personally, Dion's doomed.
Every poll shows that the environment is the new biggest issue among Canadians, the new health care. But since when was an election decided on health care? It's decided on issues, not policy. The PM will make Dion's leadership an issue, and it'll be a killer for him. Dion will respond with policy on the environment, while the PM's entire environmental strategy isn't to help the environment. He tried that with the CAA and was pilloried for it. His strategy is to nullify the LPC advantage on the environment, sticking an attack dog in the Cabinet chair, coming out with old liberal policies, tossing money around, it all isn't to help the environment, it's to make it look like the CPC care, to have, at least, a defendable position. And it'll work.
But hey, I still don't even think there'll be a spring election.
Genocide in Zimbabwe. Even slower than Darfur, so it gets less airtime. That, and starving Africans are just sooo played out on CNN, Anna Nicole Smith is where it's at. Compromise: Feed her body to the Zimbabweans? Zimbabwe's story is perhaps one of the most tragic in Africa. Genocide, racism, famine, the ruining of Africa's breadbasket. Massive material wealth, but one of the lowest life expectancies in the world. The worst inflation in the world. If we can't seem to do anything in Darfur, with a feckless, emasculated U.N, an immoral China and their veto, a meager but brave AU force, and a government actively supporting a genocide that's spreading to neighbouring nations, using the exact same excuses the Genocidaire used in Rwanda, what's going to happen to Zimbabwe?
Now, to Kyoto. First of all, I'm opposed to cap and trade systems in principle. It's the commoditization of resources essential to human life (the same people who decry bottled and privatized water all seem to support Kyoto, funny enough, however, I can see their use. Cap and trade systems were used in the campaign against sulphur dioxide to give lagging companies time to eventually catch up and they worked. However, a plan based solely around cap and trade, like Kyoto, is plain ridiculous and simple waste of time to spend government time thinking about. Cap and trade policies are most effective when acting as a complementary part of a larger policy.
1) It's unenforceable, 2) it favours third-world and ex-soviet bloc countries, in terms of targets, not because they're especially green, but because they don't have polluting industries, or their polluting industries had collapsed after the fall of the Berlin wall, 3) the nations it needs to affect aren’t even signed on (everyone's darling on the left, Clinton, laughed at Kyoto and didn't even consider it), 4) a cap and trade system is in its death knells in Europe, 5) I could go on...
To meet our Kyoto emission targets would cripple the economy. There's no arguing that, it'd destroy thousands of jobs and bring on a recession the scale of which hasn't been seen in decades. Did I mention how China would replace our emissions in a matter of months, making our economic collapse a futile exercise? So we move on to trading for credits, the financial punishment for not meeting our quotas. The figures bandied about have been anywhere from 10-25 billion dollars in credits we'd have to buy, most likely from a nation like Russia, which continues to build polluting industry, but nicely has credits to sell, thanks Kyoto. So we spend 20 billion dollars over a few years, and on what? The environment hasn’t physically been helped by these actions, no money has gone towards changing our industry for the environment, and we’ve simply funneled money into Putin's pocket. Which comes back to my main thesis, of how if you support Kyoto in Canada, you're against the environment. That's 20 billion dollars sent to Russia that could be used, IN CANADA, to help the environment, I repeat, IN CANADA. Now, people will say, we should spend the billions to send a message, of how we'll be a leader on the world stage in the fight against global warming, etc. That's a rather expensive message, with no rational return. If China won't let our consular officials see a Canadian citizen being held in some godforsaken prison, what makes anybody think they'll magically jump in line after we spend billions of dollars in the name of the environment? I repeat, the war for the global environment will be fought in China, India, and Brazil, not in Canada. And especially not with Kyoto.
Which moves me on to the political side of things in Canada, concerning Kyoto. My theory is that a majority of people support Kyoto because they don't know anything about it. The more that people learn about the details of meeting our Kyoto targets, the more people are turned off to the goddamn treaty. Dion's taken the treaty on as an adopted child, all his apparent plans are to make it the major issue in his platform in a potential spring campaign. Which is why he'll get annihilated. Pablo Rodriguez's private member bill required what, giving the government 60 days to make a plan to meet the targets (read: plan, not action, a plan). By my calculations, that'll place the revealing of this plan in the middle of a spring election. In the midst of an election, with Dion ranting and raving about Kyoto, the CPC can break out a campaign showing people exactly what Kyoto entails, what the plan is. Jobs lost, taxes raised, funding for favourite programs, cut, all to pay for Kyoto. More and more companies leaving Canada, less 'fiscal imbalance' money, it goes on and on...Dion's hung himself on this, he's given the PM the chance to define Kyoto in the midst of a Kyoto election, where people don't actually know a thing about Kyoto, and then bludgeon Dion to death with the plan, in all the key swing areas. The CPC feigned defeat over the private member's bill, but you know that the PM had to be doing a little joyful dance in private. People still want some massive government solution, they want to sit back in their SUVs and let the government fix everything. When the PM shows Canadians what Kyoto will actually cost them, personally, Dion's doomed.
Every poll shows that the environment is the new biggest issue among Canadians, the new health care. But since when was an election decided on health care? It's decided on issues, not policy. The PM will make Dion's leadership an issue, and it'll be a killer for him. Dion will respond with policy on the environment, while the PM's entire environmental strategy isn't to help the environment. He tried that with the CAA and was pilloried for it. His strategy is to nullify the LPC advantage on the environment, sticking an attack dog in the Cabinet chair, coming out with old liberal policies, tossing money around, it all isn't to help the environment, it's to make it look like the CPC care, to have, at least, a defendable position. And it'll work.
But hey, I still don't even think there'll be a spring election.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Environment pt.1, and Steady Eddie
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070307.waltathrone0307/BNStory/National/home
So if Stelmach is coming out with intensity-based greenhouse gas reduction targets, and so is the federal government, what happens and which targets do the companies shoot for?
Now, on to the environment!
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1601http://www.torontosun.ca/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/02/18/3642612-sun.html
and from the Globe:
"Economists have calculated that countries begin to clamp down on sulphur dioxide when per capita GDP reaches $9,000 a year, on particulate pollution when per capita GDP reaches $15,000 a year — a variation on the “Kuznets Curve,” which holds that you have to get dirty before you get rich, and you have to get rich before you get clean. China will get much dirtier. Its per capita GDP reached $1,000 last year. The producer of 18 per cent of the world's GHG emissions, China is gaining fast on Europe (22 per cent) and the United States (21 per cent). The International Energy Agency says China will expand GHG emissions by 120 per cent in the next 20 years, averaging 6 per cent a year, far surpassing Europe and the U.S. For a small-population country such as Canada, with 2 per cent of global emissions, one might ask: Why bother with Kyoto? What difference will it make? Canada produces 160 million tonnes a year of the world's eight billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. Were Canada to eliminate all of its GHG emissions, China's increases would replace them — every last ounce — in 18 months. Were Canada to eliminate 10 per cent of its emissions, China's increases would replace them all in 60 days. As noble as self-sacrifice can occasionally be, it must have — somewhere — a rational purpose."
Let's talk global warming. First of all, I believe it exists, but I also believe that it's part of a larger, global trend that's a long-term historical one, and that I believe humans are exacerbating it, not causing it. Secondly, the environmentalist religion scares the fuck out of me. They've thrown all moderation aside, politicized the issue to the point of demonizing all those with a contrary opinion, and turned it into one of mass paranoia and partisanship. Moderation and conservative steps have to be taken, and we can't denounce and discount a single scientific opinion, however contrary, in this mess of partisanship. As John Stuart Mill told us all:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind"
Anyways, back to global warming and climate change. Thirdly, I also happen to be utterly pessimistic about the whole situation. From the blind climate partisanship to the hypocrites with "go green!" bumper stickers on their SUVs, but especially towards China. From my perspective, I just find it hard to get in arms about climate change, considering that China would replace ALL of Canada's emissions in 18 months. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better, there's no stopping it. There's not much we can do in Canada but adapt, work on bettering environmental issues we can affect, such as pollution in our cities. Beyond that, I can only see the environmental through politico eyes, how each party can best campaign with it, etc. Perhaps I'm some horrid, pessimistic political nerd with a hard-on for pretentious latin, so sue me, I'm also quite right on the issue. The war for global climate change isn't going to be fought in Canada, it's going to be fought in China, India, and Brazil, so the most we can do is sit back and adapt to live with it. The futility over ruining our economy and standard of living for NO gains in the "war" on emissions in the long-term, global scale, is utterly obvious.
Our major focus in Canada must be on adaptation (it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better) and on local issues, aka the original Climate Change act. The air in the cities is ridiculous and it's harming kids, who are the ones growing up with new cases of asthma. Going from small-town Nova Scotia back to Calgary, and the air quality amazes me, it's terrible on the lungs there, I don't even want to imagine how bad it is in the GTA.
We also all need to realize that the environment today has NEVER been better. We can yearn for the good old days, but of what, the London Fog and acid rain? As well, who the hell are we, rich, spoiled Westerners, to tell Chinese or Indian people that they arn't allowed to get rich and prosperous like us. To industrialize and splurge and consume. We got their first, we managed to ruin the environment first, or so they say, so you're not allowed to share in the privileges of the modern age. How callous and pompous can we be? What makes anyone think that they'll take our environmental cults seriously?
Kyoto will be talked about soon. Otherwise, let's all laugh at Al Gore's massive emitting mansion, and his zero-sum emission credit game, credits bought from a company that he owns. Practice what you preach?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/a_whig_or_a_tor.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/a_political_kat.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/faggots.html
A serious of rather excellent, and right on target, posts by Andrew Sullivan. He’s been on fire in the last few days.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2007/03/07/mcguire-retires.html
Another veteran Liberal won’t be running again. Milliken’s joining the ranks of the retired as well. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Wappel doesn't run again either. After all the ruckus about how Dion was going to whip his caucus for the security provision vote, and how Wappel opposed him, I imagine his "private" punishment will be the end of his incumbency. All these retiring can only be good news for the CPC, as it puts the Grit's balls to the fire in terms of finding new candidates, which they already seem to be having trouble doing. As well, funny story, remember Dion’s sexist campaign where he announced that he’s only allowing women to run in some ridings, to even it up and all? Well, there are females contesting for the Liberal candidacy in both Papineau and Toronto Center. Standing up for women everywhere, the Grits are parachuting in Trudeau and Rae into those two ridings, who both seem to have a penis (well, at least in Rae’s case). Oh, and remember that story about how Dion tried to court some NDP women, like Dawn Black, and they rejected and mocked him in the media? Yea, he seems to be a real lady’s man.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070307.wcheckages0307/BNStory/Technology/
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=99036982-acd3-4af5-9ff0-55948e2a22fb&k=0
BC is banning the advertisement of cigarettes, and and smokes won't be able to be on display in stores, you have to ask the cashier specifically for them. Connecticut, on the other hand, is requiring minors to have parental consent and legal ID before making a profile on a social-networking site. Hooray for the nanny state. What ever happened to responsible parenting and consumer choice?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Real Republicanism, and Dion
.....and Dion's magic mystery tour is nowhere in the news because of the PM's big Ontario announcement. Not that I really enjoy the Federal government tossing around 1.5 billion here and there like candy, but damn, they know how to play politics. Amazing to see a Prime Minister act instead of just talk. Yet, the best that Goodale and Ignatieff (who seem to be running things) can come up with "Stephen Harper's mean!" Which....really worked well in 2006.
Life's a bitch for you, Monsieur, as it is for LOs. Still, the least you could do is learn reasonable English. As well, learn from the PM's latest electoral experiences. Instead of saying "I like social justice!" as if there's a lot of folk opposed to social justice, tell us what you're going to do, specifically, to combat social injustice in this nation. This is basic political stuff that any damn 18 year old news junkie could figure out. Complain all you want about lack of money and time, but your party gave the exact, I mean exact, treatment to the PM before 2004. They're not good excuses if you're serious at stopping a CPC majority. But, I'd be perfectly happy if you continued dithering around, so keep at it, eh? What has befallen the famed Big Red Machine?
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
Two amazing speeches. First is Ronald Reagan's 1964 A Time for Choosing and second is Barry Goldwater's 1964 Acceptance Speech.
Foreign Affairs
One of the Prime Minister's greatest strengths is his ability to control and define an issue. It's how he won the 2006 election, by defining a concise Tory platform, and controlling the news cycle. And it's how, most recently, he's hammered Dion, by defining him before Dion could define himself. Warren Kinsella is absolutely correct when he says that definition is everything in politics. Which moves on to foreign affairs, specifically Afghanistan, and how one of the Prime Minister's greatest weaknesses is his lack of definition on Afghanistan. Right now, to the general public, nobody know's what the hell is happening there. That's partly due to a senile Defence Minister, a Foreign Minister that most people consider a misogynistic joke, and the old lie of Canada being a neutral, "peacekeeping" nation. So one of the most pressing tasks for the PMO is to succinctly define Afghanistan in their terms, before the opposition does, and to define the foreign affairs position of the government. Ideally, I'd like to see a position based around these three elements:
-Accountable and empowering foreign aid. I believe foreign aid is a positive thing when used correctly. There's a large difference between funneling money into a kleptocrat's bank account, and using money to train administrators and bureaucrats in a democratic, growing nation. The main position for foreign aid has to the old adage, "teach a man to fish." Empower the nation's ability to govern itself, don't just throw money at things in an attempt at a band-aid soltuion.
-Standing up for human rights and equality everywhere. Note the more neutral terms used, instead of "freedom, liberty, democracy, etc," the more American terms that don't play well in Canada. Mainly because our national psyche consists of a massive inferiority complex to the States. This includes wielding a bigger influence in Darfur, through empowering the AU, standing up for human rights everywhere (even in opposition to China and the United States), standing up for democracies (here's looking at you, Israel), and generally what the PMO has already been doing. So he's got that one down.
-Arctic sovereignty. The most relevant Canadian problem. The Arctic contains most of the Earth's unexplored energy reserves and as it melts, it opens up these resources, and increased trans-Arctic trade with nations such as Russia. The PMO has been placing a focus on this since he was elected, as well, which is excellent. Canada needs to take a prominent role in our sovereign control over polar territory, for the betterment of the nation's future.
Along with two smaller and more concise, but still important, priorities: Improving relations with the rest of NAFTA, and expanding free trade zones around the globe.
Which moves me on to the problem of Afghanistan. My personal position is that great works are being done, you can't rebuild and aid Afghanis without security, and by definition, that security will result in violence and casualties. By playing such a prominent role within the NATO operation, it also increases Canada's influence and reputation among nations, as a strong country that can be relied on to do its share. However, the mission will fail if more money and troops arn't committed. As well, the open Pakistani border allows Taliban forces to rebuild year after year, making it a drawn out war. We also must not be afraid of violence, if it's in the name of doing great good. So, tactically, we must focus on:
-Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. This means, buy their opium, don't destroy their crops. Build schools, bring medicine, train soldiers and police, bring electricity and modern amenities. Make life under the Kabul government and NATO better than life under the Taliban, and you undercut their support.
-Closing the Pakistani border. Cut off the logistical heart of the Taliban operation and you cripple their ability to wage a conflict. The territory's some of the worst in the world, though, so it's not easily done. This needs to be the major focus of increased operations.
-Increased money, troops, and support. From the American and British aspects of NATO, we're seeing more troops being sent, which is long overdue. However, the mission WILL fail if we don't support it enough. The only comparable situation we have is Bosnia, and we had far more money, more soldiers, and a smaller country, and it took more than a decade to do good works their.
Now, the PR battle over Afghanistan in Canada itself, the defining that the PMO MUST do. He has to take over the issue, because you can be damn sure the opposing parties will be doing their best to bring it down, and the media will be throwing a ridiculous shitstorm after Canadian soldiers, in combat, are hurt or killed. It sounds callous, and perhaps it is, but it's also reality. Soldiers get hurt in combat, if you don't like it, don't join the forces and take that risk. The MSM isn't helping things either by refusing to run types of stories such as "Eight new schools built in rural Afghanistan for boys and girls." But you can't help the media. So, to define Afghanistan, the PMO needs to:
-create an exit strategy. This already exists with the 2009/11 deadlines for re-upping the mission, however, with the clusterfuck in Iraq not helping anything, more needs to be done. A definitive "when x amount of territory is under Afghani security, when x amount of schools are built, when x amount of homes have access to basic medicine, electricity, food, water, etc, then we'll leave" plan needs to come about. Then there's something concrete to work towards, and increase support towards.
-Make it Canadian issue, not an American one. Don't use "war on terror, soft on terror, fight them their instead of here, etc." Stay away from Americanisms, and comparisons to Iraq, and make it an issue of Canadian pride. Hammer in the point that Canadians are doing great works, that they're making a difference, and that Afghanis DON'T want Taliban rule. Hammer in the point that we are fighting thugs, that feed off of poverty, ignorance, and dependancy on opium crops. Hammer in the point that Afghanis want Karzai and NATO, not an organization that enjoys stoning women, honour-killing women raped women, and beheading teachers that dare teach to girls. Hammer in the point that a Taliban government is a safe haven for people that want to blow up Parliament and behead the PM. Then hammer in the points that rebuilding and aid can't happen without security, and that our opposition wants to negotiate with these thugs. Be straightforward, concise, and strong, but also compassionate with a focus on women's rights.
Basically, you've got to redefine the silly Canadian consensus on 'peace-keeping.' Define the mission as one of rebuilding, but one that can't happen without security against those that would brutally halt the rebuilding.
Edit: As an addendum, I'd like to add to the strategies for Afghanistan a focus on borrowing tactics from the Northern Alliance mujahedeen, the masters of the Taliban-style bush war.
as well, a continuing definition of Canada's work in Afghanistan with a focus on rebuilding: Rebuilding Afghanistan as a safe and equitable nation, a haven for prosperity, respect, and human rights, and not one for drug-peddling, misogynistic thugs that train those that would harm us. You've gotta hammer home the drug-peddling, to play to the crime and safety base the CPC has, and the universal women's rights issue. Don't get dragged down with talking about terrorism. Basically, the PM needs to define Afghanistan ASAP, on his terms and on ones that resonate with Canadians and creates pride. Perhaps ads with soldiers talking about how it's a worthwhile endeavor, how women can vote and children ask for pencils so they can learn, instead of candy. When "we should negotiate or leave" comes up, hit the whiners hard and fast with the Taliban, ask them, "why do you support the return to power of a group that denies women their rights? Why do you support making our brave soldier's ultimate sacrifices end in vain?" etc
-Accountable and empowering foreign aid. I believe foreign aid is a positive thing when used correctly. There's a large difference between funneling money into a kleptocrat's bank account, and using money to train administrators and bureaucrats in a democratic, growing nation. The main position for foreign aid has to the old adage, "teach a man to fish." Empower the nation's ability to govern itself, don't just throw money at things in an attempt at a band-aid soltuion.
-Standing up for human rights and equality everywhere. Note the more neutral terms used, instead of "freedom, liberty, democracy, etc," the more American terms that don't play well in Canada. Mainly because our national psyche consists of a massive inferiority complex to the States. This includes wielding a bigger influence in Darfur, through empowering the AU, standing up for human rights everywhere (even in opposition to China and the United States), standing up for democracies (here's looking at you, Israel), and generally what the PMO has already been doing. So he's got that one down.
-Arctic sovereignty. The most relevant Canadian problem. The Arctic contains most of the Earth's unexplored energy reserves and as it melts, it opens up these resources, and increased trans-Arctic trade with nations such as Russia. The PMO has been placing a focus on this since he was elected, as well, which is excellent. Canada needs to take a prominent role in our sovereign control over polar territory, for the betterment of the nation's future.
Along with two smaller and more concise, but still important, priorities: Improving relations with the rest of NAFTA, and expanding free trade zones around the globe.
Which moves me on to the problem of Afghanistan. My personal position is that great works are being done, you can't rebuild and aid Afghanis without security, and by definition, that security will result in violence and casualties. By playing such a prominent role within the NATO operation, it also increases Canada's influence and reputation among nations, as a strong country that can be relied on to do its share. However, the mission will fail if more money and troops arn't committed. As well, the open Pakistani border allows Taliban forces to rebuild year after year, making it a drawn out war. We also must not be afraid of violence, if it's in the name of doing great good. So, tactically, we must focus on:
-Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. This means, buy their opium, don't destroy their crops. Build schools, bring medicine, train soldiers and police, bring electricity and modern amenities. Make life under the Kabul government and NATO better than life under the Taliban, and you undercut their support.
-Closing the Pakistani border. Cut off the logistical heart of the Taliban operation and you cripple their ability to wage a conflict. The territory's some of the worst in the world, though, so it's not easily done. This needs to be the major focus of increased operations.
-Increased money, troops, and support. From the American and British aspects of NATO, we're seeing more troops being sent, which is long overdue. However, the mission WILL fail if we don't support it enough. The only comparable situation we have is Bosnia, and we had far more money, more soldiers, and a smaller country, and it took more than a decade to do good works their.
Now, the PR battle over Afghanistan in Canada itself, the defining that the PMO MUST do. He has to take over the issue, because you can be damn sure the opposing parties will be doing their best to bring it down, and the media will be throwing a ridiculous shitstorm after Canadian soldiers, in combat, are hurt or killed. It sounds callous, and perhaps it is, but it's also reality. Soldiers get hurt in combat, if you don't like it, don't join the forces and take that risk. The MSM isn't helping things either by refusing to run types of stories such as "Eight new schools built in rural Afghanistan for boys and girls." But you can't help the media. So, to define Afghanistan, the PMO needs to:
-create an exit strategy. This already exists with the 2009/11 deadlines for re-upping the mission, however, with the clusterfuck in Iraq not helping anything, more needs to be done. A definitive "when x amount of territory is under Afghani security, when x amount of schools are built, when x amount of homes have access to basic medicine, electricity, food, water, etc, then we'll leave" plan needs to come about. Then there's something concrete to work towards, and increase support towards.
-Make it Canadian issue, not an American one. Don't use "war on terror, soft on terror, fight them their instead of here, etc." Stay away from Americanisms, and comparisons to Iraq, and make it an issue of Canadian pride. Hammer in the point that Canadians are doing great works, that they're making a difference, and that Afghanis DON'T want Taliban rule. Hammer in the point that we are fighting thugs, that feed off of poverty, ignorance, and dependancy on opium crops. Hammer in the point that Afghanis want Karzai and NATO, not an organization that enjoys stoning women, honour-killing women raped women, and beheading teachers that dare teach to girls. Hammer in the point that a Taliban government is a safe haven for people that want to blow up Parliament and behead the PM. Then hammer in the points that rebuilding and aid can't happen without security, and that our opposition wants to negotiate with these thugs. Be straightforward, concise, and strong, but also compassionate with a focus on women's rights.
Basically, you've got to redefine the silly Canadian consensus on 'peace-keeping.' Define the mission as one of rebuilding, but one that can't happen without security against those that would brutally halt the rebuilding.
Edit: As an addendum, I'd like to add to the strategies for Afghanistan a focus on borrowing tactics from the Northern Alliance mujahedeen, the masters of the Taliban-style bush war.
as well, a continuing definition of Canada's work in Afghanistan with a focus on rebuilding: Rebuilding Afghanistan as a safe and equitable nation, a haven for prosperity, respect, and human rights, and not one for drug-peddling, misogynistic thugs that train those that would harm us. You've gotta hammer home the drug-peddling, to play to the crime and safety base the CPC has, and the universal women's rights issue. Don't get dragged down with talking about terrorism. Basically, the PM needs to define Afghanistan ASAP, on his terms and on ones that resonate with Canadians and creates pride. Perhaps ads with soldiers talking about how it's a worthwhile endeavor, how women can vote and children ask for pencils so they can learn, instead of candy. When "we should negotiate or leave" comes up, hit the whiners hard and fast with the Taliban, ask them, "why do you support the return to power of a group that denies women their rights? Why do you support making our brave soldier's ultimate sacrifices end in vain?" etc
Monday, March 5, 2007
Religion and all
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html
A link to a brilliant debate about the meaning of religion in the modern world. It's between two of my favourite authors: Sam Harris, a modern day Thomas Paine, in my horribly biased and militantly agnostic opinion, and Andrew Sullivan, everyone's favourite gay catholic Republican, and one of my favourite bloggers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
another very interesting debate around religion, and why humans believe in it.
Last is a terrible (in my anally perfectionist opinion) 1st-year sociology essay on religion. It was a group essay that had a powerpoint presentation as well, however, I volunteered to do the entire essay myself. Worked for everyone. Because it's a bird course, there wasn't any sources, the writing is low-quality (written drunk haha, and only edited twice), has bad structure, and is, worst of all, almost entirely neutral. But, my quest to stick all my essays on this blog can't be denied.
Religion has acted as an integral social structure throughout history, providing society with order, and individuals with communal and spiritual opportunities. In Canada, religion continues to remain extremely significant. Canadian society has several main concepts relevant to religion, including a secular humanist government and clause 2.a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion. Though Canadians value a separation of church and state as much as any other Western nation, they also have distinctive Canadian values that make their experiences with this unique. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms starts out with the line “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law,” an acknowledgement that the country was founded upon traditional Christian values. Canada continues to have policies of very open immigration, largely from areas of Asia where different religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are prevalent. As well, Canadians have a core belief in multiculturalism, which is a policy that endorses the principle of cultural diversity and supports the right of different cultural and ethnic groups to retain distinctive cultural identities. This Canadian value is in opposition to the more American style of assimilation, where people of different backgrounds come to see themselves as part of a larger national family, with a core of similar values. And for the most part, these policies are working fine, with millions of secular or moderately religious Canadians getting along without conflict. Recently, however, conflicts between largely fundamentalist religious individuals and the secular Canadian public have come about. This creates the idea of reasonable accommodations, or, how far must irreligious Canadians go to accommodate the beliefs of religious Canadians? Examples abound, largely in Quebec, and usually with male Hasidic Jews, who can’t interact with women outside of their families, or female Muslims who, at their most fundamental, can’t be viewed by men outside of their family or show any part of their body to unfamiliar men. Obviously this creates conflict, as a secular society isn’t divided vertically among gender lines, as some religions are. Other examples of conflict include the wearing of unconventional religious objects in the public sector (which is associated with the secular government), such as Kirpan daggers in public schools, Sikh turbans as part of an RCMP uniform, and most recently, a hijab (head-scarf) on a soccer field. All these examples have to do with conflict created from Canada’s tolerant views on personal religious belief, and the belief in a secular and irreligious public sector. How much are people with no or different personal religious beliefs willing to compromise in the name of freedom of conscience and religion? Reasonable accommodations are a defining social issue in Canada and an important consequence of its multicultural beliefs and open immigration policies.
A more liberal view on reasonable accommodations is that the personal religious beliefs of an individual trump the established norms, that the onus is on an institution to change and suit individual beliefs, and not on the individual to change to suit the norm. An excellent example of this is the recent controversy in Quebec on the soccer field. A young girl from Ontario, who wears a Muslim hijab while playing, which is allowed under Ontario policy, went to play soccer at a tournament in Quebec. Quebec policy follows that of FIFA, including FIFA Law Four, which states that something such as the hijab, not part of the conventional soccer uniform, isn’t to be worn on the field. It also states that it is up to the referee’s discretion on whether or not to force the hijab-wearing player to remove the adornment. The girl played two games wearing the hijab because the referee allowed it, however, another referee told her to remove it or she couldn’t play. Her team then willfully forfeited the rest of their games in protest. FIFA later upheld their rules and the ruling, after discussion, and stood behind the Quebec Soccer Federation. A liberal viewpoint on reasonable accommodations would be that FIFA should change their established rules and accommodate the girl’s beliefs, because that’s the inclusive option and the one respecting the personal religious beliefs of a citizen. This has further repercussions to other reasonable accommodation conflicts in Canada, such as in Montreal, where an orthodox Jewish school petitioned a local gym. The gym had wide-open windows, so you could see men and, specifically, women in tight and revealing exercise clothing from the outside, and the religious school students had such a view. Stating that the view was harming their conservative religious practices that frown on revealing clothing, the school asked the gym’s administration to tint their windows, which they did, angering members of the gym. This is a classic reasonable accommodations conflict, which boils down to a conflict of basic rights. Does the right to religious beliefs, and the respect that Canadians are to have for these religious practices thanks to multiculturalism, trump that of the individual? In other words, does the right to believe in not seeing women at a gym trump that of being able to be a woman at a gym with large windows? Members later complained that the tinted windows made it harder to practice activities such as yoga. This example is one where conflict created a situation of a religious group asking others to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of that religious group. A compromise was reached where the situation of the non-religious group was changed to suit the beliefs of the religious group, a very liberal solution to this particular reasonable accommodations conflict.
With such a liberal decision, however, there are a few problems. A dangerous precedent would have been set that gives minority religious beliefs rein over non-believers and their beliefs. For example, what’s to stop a person from wanting to play soccer in the nude, if their personal beliefs are of nudity, amid a field of non-nudists in regular soccer uniforms? By allowing the girl to break FIFA rules and wear a hijab because of personal beliefs, religious or not, you create a dangerous precedent of people being able to force their personal beliefs upon others, justifying it with “it’s my religion.” This idea bites to the core of Canadian multiculturalism, which was born from cultural relativism, or the belief that all cultural values are arbitrary, and therefore the values of one culture should not be used as a set of standards to assess the activities or principles of people from outside that culture. This is central to the belief that individuals should be free to believe in whichever set of cultural values they want to, however, when conflict is created between these values and the values of others, which side is to be triumphant? A conservative view towards reasonable accommodations is the rejection of cultural relativism, a view that that not all beliefs are created equally. That a belief that is based from faith, such as religion, is not the equal of a belief based from rational empiricism, and thus, it is not due the equal credibility and respect. A conservative view towards reasonable accommodations would be, though people are still free to believe what they will, they can’t justify changing the behaviors of other’s, or the rules of an institution, based on their own beliefs. This view is becoming increasingly relevant, as religion, at its core being a set of faith-based beliefs, comes into conflict with secular public institutions. Taking the side opposing personal religious beliefs can be a double-edged sword, though, with unintended negative consequences. For example, in the case of changing the RCMP uniform to add religious adornments such as a turban, a secular, public institution is intruded upon by people’s personal religious beliefs. However, by opposing the allowance of wearing a turban, the RCMP shuts itself off from a whole market of young persons who could potentially fill its organization with competent police officers, but ones that are also unwilling to change their religious behaviors to suit the norm. By allowing the wearing of turbans, the RCMP pandered to religious beliefs, but it also, more pragmatically, expanded its recruiting base and strengthened the entire institution. Liberal compromises such as this are often the practical solution, sacrificing principle to find a necessary middle-ground between the conflicting beliefs of peoples.
Conflicts of reasonable accommodations aren’t going away in Canada. They are becoming increasingly frequent, as the population rises and a larger variety of cultural and religious beliefs are exposed to, and come into contact with, secular institutions and beliefs. A liberal view of the situation would be the acceptance of their cultural beliefs over the traditional norms of a culture, over the rules of a soccer federation or police department, and that the onus for transformation is on the established culture. The opposing view is that Canada has secular public institutions and beliefs, born out of the Enlightenment, which place the empirical belief over that of the religious faith-based one. The question is, when people have the freedom to believe what they choose, must everybody then share those beliefs, or at least respect them? Canada, with its policies of multiculturalism and the ensuing increased social tension, is in a unique position to face these conflicts and find a reasonable compromise to accommodate the beliefs of all.
A link to a brilliant debate about the meaning of religion in the modern world. It's between two of my favourite authors: Sam Harris, a modern day Thomas Paine, in my horribly biased and militantly agnostic opinion, and Andrew Sullivan, everyone's favourite gay catholic Republican, and one of my favourite bloggers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
another very interesting debate around religion, and why humans believe in it.
Last is a terrible (in my anally perfectionist opinion) 1st-year sociology essay on religion. It was a group essay that had a powerpoint presentation as well, however, I volunteered to do the entire essay myself. Worked for everyone. Because it's a bird course, there wasn't any sources, the writing is low-quality (written drunk haha, and only edited twice), has bad structure, and is, worst of all, almost entirely neutral. But, my quest to stick all my essays on this blog can't be denied.
Religion has acted as an integral social structure throughout history, providing society with order, and individuals with communal and spiritual opportunities. In Canada, religion continues to remain extremely significant. Canadian society has several main concepts relevant to religion, including a secular humanist government and clause 2.a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion. Though Canadians value a separation of church and state as much as any other Western nation, they also have distinctive Canadian values that make their experiences with this unique. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms starts out with the line “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law,” an acknowledgement that the country was founded upon traditional Christian values. Canada continues to have policies of very open immigration, largely from areas of Asia where different religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are prevalent. As well, Canadians have a core belief in multiculturalism, which is a policy that endorses the principle of cultural diversity and supports the right of different cultural and ethnic groups to retain distinctive cultural identities. This Canadian value is in opposition to the more American style of assimilation, where people of different backgrounds come to see themselves as part of a larger national family, with a core of similar values. And for the most part, these policies are working fine, with millions of secular or moderately religious Canadians getting along without conflict. Recently, however, conflicts between largely fundamentalist religious individuals and the secular Canadian public have come about. This creates the idea of reasonable accommodations, or, how far must irreligious Canadians go to accommodate the beliefs of religious Canadians? Examples abound, largely in Quebec, and usually with male Hasidic Jews, who can’t interact with women outside of their families, or female Muslims who, at their most fundamental, can’t be viewed by men outside of their family or show any part of their body to unfamiliar men. Obviously this creates conflict, as a secular society isn’t divided vertically among gender lines, as some religions are. Other examples of conflict include the wearing of unconventional religious objects in the public sector (which is associated with the secular government), such as Kirpan daggers in public schools, Sikh turbans as part of an RCMP uniform, and most recently, a hijab (head-scarf) on a soccer field. All these examples have to do with conflict created from Canada’s tolerant views on personal religious belief, and the belief in a secular and irreligious public sector. How much are people with no or different personal religious beliefs willing to compromise in the name of freedom of conscience and religion? Reasonable accommodations are a defining social issue in Canada and an important consequence of its multicultural beliefs and open immigration policies.
A more liberal view on reasonable accommodations is that the personal religious beliefs of an individual trump the established norms, that the onus is on an institution to change and suit individual beliefs, and not on the individual to change to suit the norm. An excellent example of this is the recent controversy in Quebec on the soccer field. A young girl from Ontario, who wears a Muslim hijab while playing, which is allowed under Ontario policy, went to play soccer at a tournament in Quebec. Quebec policy follows that of FIFA, including FIFA Law Four, which states that something such as the hijab, not part of the conventional soccer uniform, isn’t to be worn on the field. It also states that it is up to the referee’s discretion on whether or not to force the hijab-wearing player to remove the adornment. The girl played two games wearing the hijab because the referee allowed it, however, another referee told her to remove it or she couldn’t play. Her team then willfully forfeited the rest of their games in protest. FIFA later upheld their rules and the ruling, after discussion, and stood behind the Quebec Soccer Federation. A liberal viewpoint on reasonable accommodations would be that FIFA should change their established rules and accommodate the girl’s beliefs, because that’s the inclusive option and the one respecting the personal religious beliefs of a citizen. This has further repercussions to other reasonable accommodation conflicts in Canada, such as in Montreal, where an orthodox Jewish school petitioned a local gym. The gym had wide-open windows, so you could see men and, specifically, women in tight and revealing exercise clothing from the outside, and the religious school students had such a view. Stating that the view was harming their conservative religious practices that frown on revealing clothing, the school asked the gym’s administration to tint their windows, which they did, angering members of the gym. This is a classic reasonable accommodations conflict, which boils down to a conflict of basic rights. Does the right to religious beliefs, and the respect that Canadians are to have for these religious practices thanks to multiculturalism, trump that of the individual? In other words, does the right to believe in not seeing women at a gym trump that of being able to be a woman at a gym with large windows? Members later complained that the tinted windows made it harder to practice activities such as yoga. This example is one where conflict created a situation of a religious group asking others to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of that religious group. A compromise was reached where the situation of the non-religious group was changed to suit the beliefs of the religious group, a very liberal solution to this particular reasonable accommodations conflict.
With such a liberal decision, however, there are a few problems. A dangerous precedent would have been set that gives minority religious beliefs rein over non-believers and their beliefs. For example, what’s to stop a person from wanting to play soccer in the nude, if their personal beliefs are of nudity, amid a field of non-nudists in regular soccer uniforms? By allowing the girl to break FIFA rules and wear a hijab because of personal beliefs, religious or not, you create a dangerous precedent of people being able to force their personal beliefs upon others, justifying it with “it’s my religion.” This idea bites to the core of Canadian multiculturalism, which was born from cultural relativism, or the belief that all cultural values are arbitrary, and therefore the values of one culture should not be used as a set of standards to assess the activities or principles of people from outside that culture. This is central to the belief that individuals should be free to believe in whichever set of cultural values they want to, however, when conflict is created between these values and the values of others, which side is to be triumphant? A conservative view towards reasonable accommodations is the rejection of cultural relativism, a view that that not all beliefs are created equally. That a belief that is based from faith, such as religion, is not the equal of a belief based from rational empiricism, and thus, it is not due the equal credibility and respect. A conservative view towards reasonable accommodations would be, though people are still free to believe what they will, they can’t justify changing the behaviors of other’s, or the rules of an institution, based on their own beliefs. This view is becoming increasingly relevant, as religion, at its core being a set of faith-based beliefs, comes into conflict with secular public institutions. Taking the side opposing personal religious beliefs can be a double-edged sword, though, with unintended negative consequences. For example, in the case of changing the RCMP uniform to add religious adornments such as a turban, a secular, public institution is intruded upon by people’s personal religious beliefs. However, by opposing the allowance of wearing a turban, the RCMP shuts itself off from a whole market of young persons who could potentially fill its organization with competent police officers, but ones that are also unwilling to change their religious behaviors to suit the norm. By allowing the wearing of turbans, the RCMP pandered to religious beliefs, but it also, more pragmatically, expanded its recruiting base and strengthened the entire institution. Liberal compromises such as this are often the practical solution, sacrificing principle to find a necessary middle-ground between the conflicting beliefs of peoples.
Conflicts of reasonable accommodations aren’t going away in Canada. They are becoming increasingly frequent, as the population rises and a larger variety of cultural and religious beliefs are exposed to, and come into contact with, secular institutions and beliefs. A liberal view of the situation would be the acceptance of their cultural beliefs over the traditional norms of a culture, over the rules of a soccer federation or police department, and that the onus for transformation is on the established culture. The opposing view is that Canada has secular public institutions and beliefs, born out of the Enlightenment, which place the empirical belief over that of the religious faith-based one. The question is, when people have the freedom to believe what they choose, must everybody then share those beliefs, or at least respect them? Canada, with its policies of multiculturalism and the ensuing increased social tension, is in a unique position to face these conflicts and find a reasonable compromise to accommodate the beliefs of all.
Education!
First off, fixing Post-Secondary Education! The first assumption we make is that PSE is not a right, but a priviledge. I'd argue that basic Grade school education, so that you can generally function in society at all levels, is a right. However, not going to University doesn't doom you to eternal damnation, options such as Community Colleges, Trade Schools, and Art Schools exist. So we knock out universal PSE with that, as it demeans the entire point of getting a university degree. A degree is an investment for the future, made with the assumption that you will make more money later on with it than without it. As well, tuition has to be enough so that the university can support itself and provide a quality education without relying too heavily on government subsidies, which creates an increased tax burden.
The next assumption is that tuition should be fair and affordable, not too expensive so as to cripple students in the next life with loans, but not cheap enough to demean the entire point of investing in PSE. Two principles for tuition, then: 1) it should be less than 50% of your entire costs (next to food and housing primarily), and 2) it should be able to be paid off, or close to being paid off, with full-time minimum wage summer jobs, and with the assistance of part-time minimum wage jobs throughout the year, the assitance of meritocratic scholarships, and the occasional small loan, if need be. A balance needs to be struck between giving away degrees, and crippling students with debt. I know, taking out a loan is a personal choice and all, and we are all accountable for our choices, but the point of a degree is to open up future opportunities for monetary gain not available to those that didn't make the initial PSE investment. I'm not sure how tens of thousands of dollars of debt helps towards this. Tuition is higher than it used to be, however, the average financial returns later on in life with a PSE degree is also higher. Basically, tuition can't be too high (as it is in Nova Scotia), but it also can't be too low (like in Quebec).
Lets assume that a student lives at home (paying no R & B) works in the summer for 7 $/h, 40 hours a week, for 16 weeks. That gives us 280 a week for 4480 total from the summer job. A pretty average situation, assuming a stable job market. The student then works for 7 $/h, 10 hours a week, as a part-time job while back at university. Eight months of this work results in 2240, giving us a total income for the year from working at 6720. Now, this proposal is all dependant on a stable job market and a robust scholarship system, both private and public. Being a spoiled Alberta brat, the gang up in Edmonton gives out up to 2500$ for your average grades being above 80 in grades 10, 11, and 12 (the Alexander Rutherford Scholarship). Assuming four years spent on an undergraduate degree, that's 625 per year, giving us a total of 7345 per year. This is all ignoring private scholarships, which are plentiful, and there's no excuses for not trying for them, and parental funding, which a lucky few (including me) have. So let's throw out a fair tuition number, how about around 3500-4500? Seems to work in the average situation. It might require more government subsidizing of the PSE system, but not to the extent of Quebec.
Calculating things on the computer's calculator and then typing about them is how I like to spent my nights. Yeah.
The next assumption is that tuition should be fair and affordable, not too expensive so as to cripple students in the next life with loans, but not cheap enough to demean the entire point of investing in PSE. Two principles for tuition, then: 1) it should be less than 50% of your entire costs (next to food and housing primarily), and 2) it should be able to be paid off, or close to being paid off, with full-time minimum wage summer jobs, and with the assistance of part-time minimum wage jobs throughout the year, the assitance of meritocratic scholarships, and the occasional small loan, if need be. A balance needs to be struck between giving away degrees, and crippling students with debt. I know, taking out a loan is a personal choice and all, and we are all accountable for our choices, but the point of a degree is to open up future opportunities for monetary gain not available to those that didn't make the initial PSE investment. I'm not sure how tens of thousands of dollars of debt helps towards this. Tuition is higher than it used to be, however, the average financial returns later on in life with a PSE degree is also higher. Basically, tuition can't be too high (as it is in Nova Scotia), but it also can't be too low (like in Quebec).
Lets assume that a student lives at home (paying no R & B) works in the summer for 7 $/h, 40 hours a week, for 16 weeks. That gives us 280 a week for 4480 total from the summer job. A pretty average situation, assuming a stable job market. The student then works for 7 $/h, 10 hours a week, as a part-time job while back at university. Eight months of this work results in 2240, giving us a total income for the year from working at 6720. Now, this proposal is all dependant on a stable job market and a robust scholarship system, both private and public. Being a spoiled Alberta brat, the gang up in Edmonton gives out up to 2500$ for your average grades being above 80 in grades 10, 11, and 12 (the Alexander Rutherford Scholarship). Assuming four years spent on an undergraduate degree, that's 625 per year, giving us a total of 7345 per year. This is all ignoring private scholarships, which are plentiful, and there's no excuses for not trying for them, and parental funding, which a lucky few (including me) have. So let's throw out a fair tuition number, how about around 3500-4500? Seems to work in the average situation. It might require more government subsidizing of the PSE system, but not to the extent of Quebec.
Calculating things on the computer's calculator and then typing about them is how I like to spent my nights. Yeah.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Common Sense actually prevails, for once
http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070303.wspt-sco-scarf-03/GSStory/GlobeSportsSoccer/home
FIFA upholds the ruling that ban hijabs from being worn. It wasn't an issue of religion, or reasonable accomodations, it was simply a matter of rules. FIFA rules ban a hijab, just as they would ban a christian cross necklace, or any other jewelry, and the referee was simply following the rules. Go play soccer somewhere that doesn't follow FIFA rules if you're that deadset on wearing extraneous items.
FIFA upholds the ruling that ban hijabs from being worn. It wasn't an issue of religion, or reasonable accomodations, it was simply a matter of rules. FIFA rules ban a hijab, just as they would ban a christian cross necklace, or any other jewelry, and the referee was simply following the rules. Go play soccer somewhere that doesn't follow FIFA rules if you're that deadset on wearing extraneous items.
Another essay- suicide terrorism
Question: Does suicide terrorism help Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda achieve their goals?
-Topic from: Bin Laden, Osama. “Declaration of Jihad Against Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.” In The Human Record: Volume II, ed. Alfred J. Andrea and James H. Overfield, 517-522, 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005.
Source: Pape, Robert A. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” American Political Science Review 97, no. 3 (August 2003).
The Rationality of Irrationality: Analyzing Suicide Terrorism
Robert A. Pape’s The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism is a groundbreaking article in the field of political science, and one with massive implications to the fractured and violent international stage. Using statistical analysis of suicide terrorist actions from 1980 to 2001, he discovers an important new reality (15-18). Suicide terrorism is utterly logical, while traditional knowledge views suicide as a completely illogical action (2). Identifying sixteen separate suicide terrorist campaigns in those twenty-one years, Pape proves that the goal of organizations using suicide terrorism is for territorial concessions from a strong institution to a weak one, usually in the name of self-determination, and that it is much more effective than plain terrorism (1, 6).
The relevant campaign towards my question, however, is campaign #12: al Qaeda against the United States of America. Al Qaeda’s major goal is the removal of the American presence from the Saudi peninsula, a revered Muslim holy land (4, 7). This campaign was just starting when Osama Bin Laden gave the aforementioned speech in 1996, and al Qaeda actions intensified in the next five years, including the bombings of the USS Cole, American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and most infamously, the horrors of September 11th (17). Al Qaeda have continued on their campaign since 2001, culminating in the 7/7 bombings of London’s Subway system.
Pape covers several intriguing and relevant statistics in his report. In the twenty-one year period used, Pape finds that suicide bombings kill an average of thirteen people each (not counting September 11th), while normal terrorist actions kill an average of 0.78 people (4, 5). As well, again excluding 9/11, suicide terrorism made up forty-eight percent of total terrorism deaths, while only amounting to three percent of total terrorist actions (5). These numbers prove the effectiveness of suicide terrorism, shown in the rampant escalation of suicide actions in those twenty-one years, while normal terrorist actions are on a downward trend (1). Of the sixteen suicide campaigns, eleven have concluded, with six of these ending up with territorial gains or political concessions from the stronger group to the weaker, a fifty-five percent success rate (9). Pape contrasts this to information of how ‘normal’ international actions towards coercion, through military or economic means, succeed less than one-third of the time (9). The example of Hamas’ suicide campaign against Israel in the mid-90s, which resulted in significant concessions from Israel, is used by Pape as an integral case study to prove his thesis on suicide terrorism (1). Terrorist organizations have learned from their past actions that suicide bombing is far more effective than normal action, as Pape displays, in terms of violent conclusions, sending a message, and ultimately forcing territorial concessions (4, 5, 8).
Starting with a broad conversation of defining suicide terrorism, Pape shows how suicide terrorism has rapidly escalated since the ‘success’ of the 1983 bombing of a US embassy in Beirut (1). Arguing against the conventional knowledge that suicide terrorism is an act of fanatical madmen, he then goes on to prove that “suicide terrorism follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions (1).” Pape continues to make a point of how irrational individuals have their place in a suicide bombing. They are the street-level side of the operation, who are then overseen by logical organizations and strategic masterminds (5). These latter figures use religion as a justification to pull the strings of those that would commit suicide in the name of a goal or a God (5). The argument that Pape creates is boiled down to how suicide terrorism is simply the most effective way of compelling concessions and enforcing political change. Though initially a last-ditch strategy of the underdog, suicide terrorism has become a logical method of coercion because of its tremendous effectiveness (9).
The core aspects of Pape’s article are his lists containing various features of suicide terrorism. The five principles of suicide terrorism, for example, are: 1) suicide terrorism is strategic, 2) the strategic logic of suicide terrorism is specifically designed to coerce modern democracies to make significant concessions to national self-determination, 3) suicide terrorism has been steadily rising because terrorists have learned of its effectiveness, 4) moderate suicide terrorism leads to moderate concessions, and the more ambitious suicide campaigns are not likely to achieve still greater gains and may well fail completely, and 5) the most promising way to contain suicide terrorism is to reduce terrorists’ confidence in their abilities to carry out such attacks (2). Pape fleshes out these points in great detail throughout his work, and it is the latter points 4 and 5 that are most relevant to the discussion of al Qaeda, and the ones that prove the veracity of Pape’s arguments. We have seen the most ambitious attacks of all from al-Qaeda, on military ships, embassies, subway systems, and most significantly, the World Trade Center. Yet al-Qaeda’s goal of a strictly Wahhabist Arabian peninsula, autonomous of American influence, has not come to fruition. Indeed, the Saudi monarchy has increasingly been seen working both with the American government, and multinational American corporation. This is a far cry from the days of suicide bombings forcing the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The more ambitious suicide campaign of al-Qaeda can be seen as strengthening the resolve of its enemies and targets, the opposite affect of the sought after consequences, and a prime example that proves Pape’s 4th point.
The article concludes with Pape’s 5th point, an attempt to offer the greatest possible solution to the plague of suicide terrorism. He shows that the best way to foil those that would spread terror and fear is through increased homeland security, by frustrating the ways and means of terror (14). This is best seen in the summer of 2006, where increased security led to the prevention of potentially devastating airplane bombings. Pape’s article and its conclusions are extremely relevant, to both the modern socioeconomic situation of the world, and to the topic of al-Qaeda’s continuing campaign against America.
-Topic from: Bin Laden, Osama. “Declaration of Jihad Against Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.” In The Human Record: Volume II, ed. Alfred J. Andrea and James H. Overfield, 517-522, 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005.
Source: Pape, Robert A. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” American Political Science Review 97, no. 3 (August 2003).
The Rationality of Irrationality: Analyzing Suicide Terrorism
Robert A. Pape’s The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism is a groundbreaking article in the field of political science, and one with massive implications to the fractured and violent international stage. Using statistical analysis of suicide terrorist actions from 1980 to 2001, he discovers an important new reality (15-18). Suicide terrorism is utterly logical, while traditional knowledge views suicide as a completely illogical action (2). Identifying sixteen separate suicide terrorist campaigns in those twenty-one years, Pape proves that the goal of organizations using suicide terrorism is for territorial concessions from a strong institution to a weak one, usually in the name of self-determination, and that it is much more effective than plain terrorism (1, 6).
The relevant campaign towards my question, however, is campaign #12: al Qaeda against the United States of America. Al Qaeda’s major goal is the removal of the American presence from the Saudi peninsula, a revered Muslim holy land (4, 7). This campaign was just starting when Osama Bin Laden gave the aforementioned speech in 1996, and al Qaeda actions intensified in the next five years, including the bombings of the USS Cole, American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and most infamously, the horrors of September 11th (17). Al Qaeda have continued on their campaign since 2001, culminating in the 7/7 bombings of London’s Subway system.
Pape covers several intriguing and relevant statistics in his report. In the twenty-one year period used, Pape finds that suicide bombings kill an average of thirteen people each (not counting September 11th), while normal terrorist actions kill an average of 0.78 people (4, 5). As well, again excluding 9/11, suicide terrorism made up forty-eight percent of total terrorism deaths, while only amounting to three percent of total terrorist actions (5). These numbers prove the effectiveness of suicide terrorism, shown in the rampant escalation of suicide actions in those twenty-one years, while normal terrorist actions are on a downward trend (1). Of the sixteen suicide campaigns, eleven have concluded, with six of these ending up with territorial gains or political concessions from the stronger group to the weaker, a fifty-five percent success rate (9). Pape contrasts this to information of how ‘normal’ international actions towards coercion, through military or economic means, succeed less than one-third of the time (9). The example of Hamas’ suicide campaign against Israel in the mid-90s, which resulted in significant concessions from Israel, is used by Pape as an integral case study to prove his thesis on suicide terrorism (1). Terrorist organizations have learned from their past actions that suicide bombing is far more effective than normal action, as Pape displays, in terms of violent conclusions, sending a message, and ultimately forcing territorial concessions (4, 5, 8).
Starting with a broad conversation of defining suicide terrorism, Pape shows how suicide terrorism has rapidly escalated since the ‘success’ of the 1983 bombing of a US embassy in Beirut (1). Arguing against the conventional knowledge that suicide terrorism is an act of fanatical madmen, he then goes on to prove that “suicide terrorism follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions (1).” Pape continues to make a point of how irrational individuals have their place in a suicide bombing. They are the street-level side of the operation, who are then overseen by logical organizations and strategic masterminds (5). These latter figures use religion as a justification to pull the strings of those that would commit suicide in the name of a goal or a God (5). The argument that Pape creates is boiled down to how suicide terrorism is simply the most effective way of compelling concessions and enforcing political change. Though initially a last-ditch strategy of the underdog, suicide terrorism has become a logical method of coercion because of its tremendous effectiveness (9).
The core aspects of Pape’s article are his lists containing various features of suicide terrorism. The five principles of suicide terrorism, for example, are: 1) suicide terrorism is strategic, 2) the strategic logic of suicide terrorism is specifically designed to coerce modern democracies to make significant concessions to national self-determination, 3) suicide terrorism has been steadily rising because terrorists have learned of its effectiveness, 4) moderate suicide terrorism leads to moderate concessions, and the more ambitious suicide campaigns are not likely to achieve still greater gains and may well fail completely, and 5) the most promising way to contain suicide terrorism is to reduce terrorists’ confidence in their abilities to carry out such attacks (2). Pape fleshes out these points in great detail throughout his work, and it is the latter points 4 and 5 that are most relevant to the discussion of al Qaeda, and the ones that prove the veracity of Pape’s arguments. We have seen the most ambitious attacks of all from al-Qaeda, on military ships, embassies, subway systems, and most significantly, the World Trade Center. Yet al-Qaeda’s goal of a strictly Wahhabist Arabian peninsula, autonomous of American influence, has not come to fruition. Indeed, the Saudi monarchy has increasingly been seen working both with the American government, and multinational American corporation. This is a far cry from the days of suicide bombings forcing the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The more ambitious suicide campaign of al-Qaeda can be seen as strengthening the resolve of its enemies and targets, the opposite affect of the sought after consequences, and a prime example that proves Pape’s 4th point.
The article concludes with Pape’s 5th point, an attempt to offer the greatest possible solution to the plague of suicide terrorism. He shows that the best way to foil those that would spread terror and fear is through increased homeland security, by frustrating the ways and means of terror (14). This is best seen in the summer of 2006, where increased security led to the prevention of potentially devastating airplane bombings. Pape’s article and its conclusions are extremely relevant, to both the modern socioeconomic situation of the world, and to the topic of al-Qaeda’s continuing campaign against America.
Friday, March 2, 2007
http://www.signandsight.com/features/1167.html
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070227_100426_7612
Two excellent debates on multiculturalism and reasonable accommodations, two topics that are well on their way to becoming the defining social issues of our time. Already, we see multiculturalism at its worst in Europe, in the ethnic cloisters where economic conditions and standard of living continue to slip because of cultural segregation. The key issue in this debate, to me, is the rejection of cultural relativism. The rejection, essentially, that all beliefs are created equally. You have a belief of pure faith, and a belief based off of rational empiricism, and according to our Canadian multicultural model, you are to be asked to respect and tolerate both beliefs equally. But what then, when these beliefs conflict in the public sphere? Nobody is denying the right of citizens to believe what they will, Muhammad or Spaghetti Monster, it's their right to personally have utterly inane beliefs. However, we must reject the idea that an idea of faith is equal to an idea of rationality, of the Enlightenment, of science and observation. That a fundamentalist Islamic culture is to be automatically deemed the equal respect as that given a culture of equality and liberty, simply because it exists. Respect is earned, and I find it hard to place any respect for thuggish, misogynistic theocrats, in the guise of religion or otherwise. If fervently believing in Enlightenment ideals, in the equality of mankind, that freedom and liberty are the most essential characteristics of a standard of living, makes me intolerant, then I'll happily be intolerant.
Why is this all relevant? Because recently in Canada, for example, we have conflicts between the public sphere and the personal religious beliefs of citizens. Female police officers being recommended to leave the interaction with male Hasidic Jews to male police officers, men being banned from swimming pools where there are Muslim women in the pool, etc. It boils down to the basic rejection of cultural relativism and the equality of beliefs. In a secular and plural society, as Canada professes to be, the rational, empirical belief will always triumph in conflict with the religious, faith-based belief. Not because of intolerance, but because of the acknowledgement of Enlightenment ideal's superiority. The superiority of reason, observation, rational discourse and analysis, and of basic equal rights for all, over the those beliefs of superstition and blind faith.
Being rather agnostic, it seems like this to me: when I buy a chocolate bar worth 1.99, I try to pay with only with a quarter. Why? Because I read this book somewhere and somebody told me about something, and thus, I fervently believe that the chocolate bar is worth 25 cents. Don't try to dissuade me, because my personal beliefs tell me it is worth 25 cents and thus it is worth 25 cents. Whether or not the chocolate bar is really worth 1.99 or not is irrelevant, the market has deemed it worth that much, and society has deemed to accept monetary values based on the Canadian dollar. That is the way we find ourselves with an orderly and peaceful society, by accepting basic rational facts and concepts. When personal faith, beliefs based solely on faith, come into play in conflict with these secular, humanist beliefs, then the latter will always triumph. At least, in my ideal Canada, it would. Because that is the only way that human rights, equality, and personal liberties will be upheld.
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070227_100426_7612
Two excellent debates on multiculturalism and reasonable accommodations, two topics that are well on their way to becoming the defining social issues of our time. Already, we see multiculturalism at its worst in Europe, in the ethnic cloisters where economic conditions and standard of living continue to slip because of cultural segregation. The key issue in this debate, to me, is the rejection of cultural relativism. The rejection, essentially, that all beliefs are created equally. You have a belief of pure faith, and a belief based off of rational empiricism, and according to our Canadian multicultural model, you are to be asked to respect and tolerate both beliefs equally. But what then, when these beliefs conflict in the public sphere? Nobody is denying the right of citizens to believe what they will, Muhammad or Spaghetti Monster, it's their right to personally have utterly inane beliefs. However, we must reject the idea that an idea of faith is equal to an idea of rationality, of the Enlightenment, of science and observation. That a fundamentalist Islamic culture is to be automatically deemed the equal respect as that given a culture of equality and liberty, simply because it exists. Respect is earned, and I find it hard to place any respect for thuggish, misogynistic theocrats, in the guise of religion or otherwise. If fervently believing in Enlightenment ideals, in the equality of mankind, that freedom and liberty are the most essential characteristics of a standard of living, makes me intolerant, then I'll happily be intolerant.
Why is this all relevant? Because recently in Canada, for example, we have conflicts between the public sphere and the personal religious beliefs of citizens. Female police officers being recommended to leave the interaction with male Hasidic Jews to male police officers, men being banned from swimming pools where there are Muslim women in the pool, etc. It boils down to the basic rejection of cultural relativism and the equality of beliefs. In a secular and plural society, as Canada professes to be, the rational, empirical belief will always triumph in conflict with the religious, faith-based belief. Not because of intolerance, but because of the acknowledgement of Enlightenment ideal's superiority. The superiority of reason, observation, rational discourse and analysis, and of basic equal rights for all, over the those beliefs of superstition and blind faith.
Being rather agnostic, it seems like this to me: when I buy a chocolate bar worth 1.99, I try to pay with only with a quarter. Why? Because I read this book somewhere and somebody told me about something, and thus, I fervently believe that the chocolate bar is worth 25 cents. Don't try to dissuade me, because my personal beliefs tell me it is worth 25 cents and thus it is worth 25 cents. Whether or not the chocolate bar is really worth 1.99 or not is irrelevant, the market has deemed it worth that much, and society has deemed to accept monetary values based on the Canadian dollar. That is the way we find ourselves with an orderly and peaceful society, by accepting basic rational facts and concepts. When personal faith, beliefs based solely on faith, come into play in conflict with these secular, humanist beliefs, then the latter will always triumph. At least, in my ideal Canada, it would. Because that is the only way that human rights, equality, and personal liberties will be upheld.
Three Essays I Had to Write
Essay #1: Who is the political figure you admire most and why?
The most underrated politician of the last century, and the one that I admire most, is Republican stalwart Barry Goldwater. His attitudes of responsibility, opportunity, and hard work led to his long tenure as an Arizona Senator. As the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, he eventually lost in a disastrous landslide to Lyndon Johnston. However, Goldwater continued on as a redoubtable figure in the Senate, staunchly defending his values as laid out in his seminal work The Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater’s courage in the face of great opposition, and his refusal to compromise and pander for political gain, led to his status as an influential figure in the conservative revival of the late 20th Century. Goldwater’s values are relevant and still have a measurable impact.
Goldwater stood for individual freedom and saw the government’s major role as ensuring the liberty of its citizens, which included the lowering or elimination of taxes and stripping of any extraneous responsibilities. As well, Goldwater was an avid anti-Communist, leading the radical right in the United States against socialist influences, and calling for drastic measures against the encroachment of the Soviet Union upon the world. Goldwater influenced the direction of conservatism by uniting radical anti-socialists, a renewed conservative youth wing, businessmen, and disillusioned Republicans. Big government still held great popularity in the 1960s, riding the wave of the New Deal, and centrist Republicans such as Eisenhower who increased the role of government by both expanding government programs and raising taxes. Goldwater acted as the conscience of the reactionary movement against massive, powerful unions, and an intrusive federal government. He spoke for those that valued the powers, freedoms, and responsibilities of the individual above all, and of self-determination away from a meddling central government. As he inspired those sick of a burgeoning welfare state, Goldwater rose swiftly to become a charismatic and popular foil to John F. Kennedy.
Unfortunately, his strong and uncompromising message, as well as the vocal radically conservative wing that followed him, polarized Goldwater’s opposition. The 1964 election ended with the victory of the Democrats, who brilliantly used negative campaigning to paint Goldwater as a maniacal war-hawk and enemy of the welfare state. Republicans were decimated in 1964, but the seeds had been planted. His inspiring works created a legion of motivated followers that became the conservatives who elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and took back Congress in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. In the 1980s, Goldwater was not afraid of conflict with Republicans either, as he battled the rise of the religious right during this decade, correctly interpreting their views as ones that would strip away personal liberties. In contrast to past governments run rampant in the form of the Canadian welfare state, the relevance that Goldwater holds today is to the continuing struggle to ensure freedom through reducing the sweeping and insidious influence of the Federal government. Barry Goldwater dedicated his life to this admirable toil, with staunch courage and clarity in the face of all opposition.
Essay #2: Please name a book or piece of writing that has influenced or challenged your political ideology and describe how it shaped your views.
Abraham Lincoln chose to be called conservative- one who would conserve and protect the best of the past and apply the wisdom of the ages to the problems of the future.
-Barry Goldwater
George Orwell’s 1984 is a novel that has shaped my life and views, and it still holds great relevance to the present conservative movement. As both a student of history and a proud conservative, 1984 acts as an adhesive that binds these ideological institutions together. 1984 raises several main themes including: the integral importance of analyzing and learning from history, the threat of government control, and how history and conservatism can be used to ensure freedom.
Orwell’s work illustrates the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of personal freedoms to a healthy society. As he most eloquently wrote:
“Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.”
Using this quotation and the aforementioned one from Goldwater, we see how history, conservatism, and 1984 are intertwined. History proves that the progressive views of defending the liberty and self-determination of a person are the way for a healthy society to flourish. True conservatism, as we learn from history, defines the role of government as defense of its citizen’s freedoms. The “progressive” liberals of the world see the role of the government as taking on greater responsibilities and increasing the tax burden of its citizens. These ill-considered socialist measures, stripping away the independence of a person, are simply the first step towards reaching the level of dreadful totalitarianism and government control that Orwell displays. The basis of the true conservative movement is tied to historical analysis and modern rationality, not to the 19th century thinking that conservatives are archaic churchmen bent on withholding and oppressing. Thus, the role of the true conservative is to learn from history, and defend liberty at all costs.
We understand from history, by studying past societies, that the best change for the future is gradual, using common sense and rational discourse. History itself is a means to an end, a sweeping tale of humanity to analyze, and from which we learn important lessons. Orwell’s chilling and harrowing tale of government run amok shows the peril of not acting conservatively, of thrusting forward without using the lessons of the past and analyzing every context of a decision. True conservatism, for example, is recognizing from a rational analysis of history that a healthy balance between social order and personal liberty is key to a healthy society. The shoddy theocrats of North America that pass themselves off as conservatives attempt to justify the control of people’s lives with religion, all in the name of order. However, those that would impugn conservatism use these latter “conservatives” as examples to slander the real roots of conservatism. These roots maintain that taxes and government programs are a means to strip away liberty. Orwell reinforces the true conservative spirit, and the message of straying away from the gradual path of totalitarianism.
Essay #3: What one policy would you like to see a Conservative government implement?
Though a dry topic, and somewhat played out after the battlegrounds of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, senate reform is still a relevant and important issue for the political health of Canada. A Triple-E Senate (equal, elected, and effective), modeled after the Australian or American Senates, would have numerous positive consequences for Canada. This Triple-E Senate would have equal representation from each province (including lesser representation from the Territories and Native Reserves), a meaningful voice in the passing of bills, and elected senators with term limits. This is in contrast to the current Canadian Senate, a traditional institution based on the British House of Lords. Our Senate has unequal regional representation and Senate tradition frowns on proposing bills. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and though a bill has to be passed through the Senate, it’s very rare for the Senate to not follow the House of Common’s leash. Thus, the Canadian Senate is an archaic and powerless institution, and in reality, its sole purpose is for patronage appointments, rather than to act as a check on the powers of the lower house and the PMO. A Triple-E Senate would strengthen the Federal government and the bills it passes, help end the plague of patronage, allow for an equal and effective voice for all provinces, and lead the way for further democratic reform in the House of Commons.
Tradition is never an effective justification for any action or decision, and just because something is ‘traditional’ does not mean it is the rational choice. We move on from these infantile arguments that support the current Senate to the many positives of a Triple-E Senate. In a Parliament where there are two separate and elected houses, each with an effective voice in law-making, it means that a bill is looked at from the viewpoint of a supposed representation of the people (the lower house), and a representation of the regions (the upper house). This strengthens the perspective of law-makers and allows for more effective bills, and a stronger check on weak legislation.
Patronage has been ever-present in Canadian politics since the beginning, with a Senate seat as a prime appointment for loyal party workers. By allowing a portion of our legislature to be degraded in such a manner, by disregarding all meritocratic principles in the Senate, we do a great disservice to the Canadian people. Elected senators put an end to Senatorial patronage. As well, the First-Past-the-Post system of the lower house ends up with great discrepancies between the popular vote, the will of the people, and the people’s representation in the House, or how they are represented in law-making. A Senate where every province has an equal voice allows for further reform to the House towards proportional representation, and true democracy. Only by a transition to a Triple-E senate can we ensure the democratic future of this great country, where the Federal government is both strong and accountable to the people.
The most underrated politician of the last century, and the one that I admire most, is Republican stalwart Barry Goldwater. His attitudes of responsibility, opportunity, and hard work led to his long tenure as an Arizona Senator. As the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, he eventually lost in a disastrous landslide to Lyndon Johnston. However, Goldwater continued on as a redoubtable figure in the Senate, staunchly defending his values as laid out in his seminal work The Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater’s courage in the face of great opposition, and his refusal to compromise and pander for political gain, led to his status as an influential figure in the conservative revival of the late 20th Century. Goldwater’s values are relevant and still have a measurable impact.
Goldwater stood for individual freedom and saw the government’s major role as ensuring the liberty of its citizens, which included the lowering or elimination of taxes and stripping of any extraneous responsibilities. As well, Goldwater was an avid anti-Communist, leading the radical right in the United States against socialist influences, and calling for drastic measures against the encroachment of the Soviet Union upon the world. Goldwater influenced the direction of conservatism by uniting radical anti-socialists, a renewed conservative youth wing, businessmen, and disillusioned Republicans. Big government still held great popularity in the 1960s, riding the wave of the New Deal, and centrist Republicans such as Eisenhower who increased the role of government by both expanding government programs and raising taxes. Goldwater acted as the conscience of the reactionary movement against massive, powerful unions, and an intrusive federal government. He spoke for those that valued the powers, freedoms, and responsibilities of the individual above all, and of self-determination away from a meddling central government. As he inspired those sick of a burgeoning welfare state, Goldwater rose swiftly to become a charismatic and popular foil to John F. Kennedy.
Unfortunately, his strong and uncompromising message, as well as the vocal radically conservative wing that followed him, polarized Goldwater’s opposition. The 1964 election ended with the victory of the Democrats, who brilliantly used negative campaigning to paint Goldwater as a maniacal war-hawk and enemy of the welfare state. Republicans were decimated in 1964, but the seeds had been planted. His inspiring works created a legion of motivated followers that became the conservatives who elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and took back Congress in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. In the 1980s, Goldwater was not afraid of conflict with Republicans either, as he battled the rise of the religious right during this decade, correctly interpreting their views as ones that would strip away personal liberties. In contrast to past governments run rampant in the form of the Canadian welfare state, the relevance that Goldwater holds today is to the continuing struggle to ensure freedom through reducing the sweeping and insidious influence of the Federal government. Barry Goldwater dedicated his life to this admirable toil, with staunch courage and clarity in the face of all opposition.
Essay #2: Please name a book or piece of writing that has influenced or challenged your political ideology and describe how it shaped your views.
Abraham Lincoln chose to be called conservative- one who would conserve and protect the best of the past and apply the wisdom of the ages to the problems of the future.
-Barry Goldwater
George Orwell’s 1984 is a novel that has shaped my life and views, and it still holds great relevance to the present conservative movement. As both a student of history and a proud conservative, 1984 acts as an adhesive that binds these ideological institutions together. 1984 raises several main themes including: the integral importance of analyzing and learning from history, the threat of government control, and how history and conservatism can be used to ensure freedom.
Orwell’s work illustrates the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of personal freedoms to a healthy society. As he most eloquently wrote:
“Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.”
Using this quotation and the aforementioned one from Goldwater, we see how history, conservatism, and 1984 are intertwined. History proves that the progressive views of defending the liberty and self-determination of a person are the way for a healthy society to flourish. True conservatism, as we learn from history, defines the role of government as defense of its citizen’s freedoms. The “progressive” liberals of the world see the role of the government as taking on greater responsibilities and increasing the tax burden of its citizens. These ill-considered socialist measures, stripping away the independence of a person, are simply the first step towards reaching the level of dreadful totalitarianism and government control that Orwell displays. The basis of the true conservative movement is tied to historical analysis and modern rationality, not to the 19th century thinking that conservatives are archaic churchmen bent on withholding and oppressing. Thus, the role of the true conservative is to learn from history, and defend liberty at all costs.
We understand from history, by studying past societies, that the best change for the future is gradual, using common sense and rational discourse. History itself is a means to an end, a sweeping tale of humanity to analyze, and from which we learn important lessons. Orwell’s chilling and harrowing tale of government run amok shows the peril of not acting conservatively, of thrusting forward without using the lessons of the past and analyzing every context of a decision. True conservatism, for example, is recognizing from a rational analysis of history that a healthy balance between social order and personal liberty is key to a healthy society. The shoddy theocrats of North America that pass themselves off as conservatives attempt to justify the control of people’s lives with religion, all in the name of order. However, those that would impugn conservatism use these latter “conservatives” as examples to slander the real roots of conservatism. These roots maintain that taxes and government programs are a means to strip away liberty. Orwell reinforces the true conservative spirit, and the message of straying away from the gradual path of totalitarianism.
Essay #3: What one policy would you like to see a Conservative government implement?
Though a dry topic, and somewhat played out after the battlegrounds of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, senate reform is still a relevant and important issue for the political health of Canada. A Triple-E Senate (equal, elected, and effective), modeled after the Australian or American Senates, would have numerous positive consequences for Canada. This Triple-E Senate would have equal representation from each province (including lesser representation from the Territories and Native Reserves), a meaningful voice in the passing of bills, and elected senators with term limits. This is in contrast to the current Canadian Senate, a traditional institution based on the British House of Lords. Our Senate has unequal regional representation and Senate tradition frowns on proposing bills. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and though a bill has to be passed through the Senate, it’s very rare for the Senate to not follow the House of Common’s leash. Thus, the Canadian Senate is an archaic and powerless institution, and in reality, its sole purpose is for patronage appointments, rather than to act as a check on the powers of the lower house and the PMO. A Triple-E Senate would strengthen the Federal government and the bills it passes, help end the plague of patronage, allow for an equal and effective voice for all provinces, and lead the way for further democratic reform in the House of Commons.
Tradition is never an effective justification for any action or decision, and just because something is ‘traditional’ does not mean it is the rational choice. We move on from these infantile arguments that support the current Senate to the many positives of a Triple-E Senate. In a Parliament where there are two separate and elected houses, each with an effective voice in law-making, it means that a bill is looked at from the viewpoint of a supposed representation of the people (the lower house), and a representation of the regions (the upper house). This strengthens the perspective of law-makers and allows for more effective bills, and a stronger check on weak legislation.
Patronage has been ever-present in Canadian politics since the beginning, with a Senate seat as a prime appointment for loyal party workers. By allowing a portion of our legislature to be degraded in such a manner, by disregarding all meritocratic principles in the Senate, we do a great disservice to the Canadian people. Elected senators put an end to Senatorial patronage. As well, the First-Past-the-Post system of the lower house ends up with great discrepancies between the popular vote, the will of the people, and the people’s representation in the House, or how they are represented in law-making. A Senate where every province has an equal voice allows for further reform to the House towards proportional representation, and true democracy. Only by a transition to a Triple-E senate can we ensure the democratic future of this great country, where the Federal government is both strong and accountable to the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)