Rational Reasons

What Lew Rockwell said...

2009-09-15T13:39:00.002-04:00

This has been another edition of "What Lew Rockwell said..."

As an added bonus, a classic by Lew where he accurately describes the teabaggers and the core of Republican support:

Red State Fascists.

This is just to clarify that while libertarians don't like Obama's policies (and neither do I), they also don't support the idiocy of the 9-12ers or the Tea Party movement.

I am Zero Means Zero

2009-08-28T12:46:00.003-04:00

You can come and get me too.

Anyone else want to join Miss Vicky, Dawg and myself?

The Government Owns Your Body

2009-06-26T21:40:00.003-04:00

...at least according to The Supreme Court of Canada.

Most at the CBC seem quite happy with this decision - that a 14-year-old-girl's rights were not violated when she was given a forcible blood transfusion against her wishes.

Read that again.

To me, this is one of the most horrifying decisions any court has ever made. The Court has said, essentially, that this girl did not own and control her body. Not even her parents owned and controlled her body. The Manitoba Child and Family Services department did.

For the record, I abhor the idiotic, superstitious nonsense that is religion and what it does to people. But so long as no one is harmed by this choice except the person making the choice or others that consent, then, yes, one is free to believe any mythological baloney they want.

Sometimes being free means letting people make choices that are not those we would make, or even choices that are wrong, or choices that are based on idiotic beliefs.

That girl was not being beaten, not being starved or otherwise abused against her will. She made the choice knowing the probable consequences. And no one but her would pay those consequences.

Ask yourself this - would you want some fundamentalist Christian sect or Muslim sect that somehow attained power to have this same power over your children, the power to invade their physical bodies against your wishes and theirs?

"Saving lives" is the same excuse used by the Chinese government to harvest the organs of Falun Gong prisoners. After all, if it means saving a life - especially the life of a child - why shouldn't the state be able to invade your body against your will?

It is the excuse the fetus fetishists use to try to take away a woman's right to choose or control her body as well.

That is exactly what this decision says - given a good enough reason (decided by them, of course) the state has the right to violate the bodily integrity of someone against their will, or against the will of their parents or legal guardians.

That is horrifying.

Don't let our natural instinct to help a child open us to giving the state the power to control our bodies. That is far worse than one 14-year-old girl making a bad or stupid choice and dying.

Remember kids....

2009-06-18T17:05:00.003-04:00

...when there is the possibility that Google might accidentally put someone's picture on the internet, its a horrendous crime and violation of privacy that warrants CPC MP Pierre Poilievre's careful attention and action on behalf of a constituent*.

But when its the same government which Poilievre's party forms and he is a junior Minister in decides to give the police the power to spy on its own citizens without warrant and without probable cause, well that's just fine.

Or to randomly pull-over and search people, under the guise of "road-side breath tests".

'Cuz that's different, right?

The Conservative Party of Canada - police state fascists who seem to like ignoring the Charter and the law.

*Irony Alert!

Good ole Pierre, so worried about his constituent's privacy that he would berate the head of Google in a committee decides to call the constituent by name and have it published in a national newspaper. So what might have been an otherwise been an anonymous picture, now has a name and location attached to it.

Now who violated Mr. White's privacy more, the Google Truck or the smarmy Pierre Poilievre, looking again for cheap attention?

Way to go Pierre.

Of course this is provided this fantastical story is, in fact, true and that Mr. white isn't a member of the Nepean-Carleton Conservative Riding Association....

"Culture of Life" - U R doing it rong

2009-06-05T16:15:00.000-04:00

I cannot express in words the rage I am feeling right now.

Not just at the fact that Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider specializing in medically-necessary late-term abortions, was murdered today. No, I am enraged by those who whipped the hatred against this man, who did everything to encourage his murder, are suddenly pretending they had nothing to do with it.

Damn them all. All of them.

Randall Terry. SUZANNE. The Catholic Church. The Army of God.

All of them. They are the same. They purposely espouse violent rhetoric, celebrate past perpetrators of violence and murderers as 'martyrs' and try to create false moral equivalence with a medial procedure and a planned premeditated murder of a 67-year-old professional, father and grandfather.

These people purposely took a procedure that represents less that 0.02 % of abortions, and always for medical reasons, and turned it into their main argument, that somehow Dr. Tiller was killing healthy, viable 8-month-old babies en mass simply because their mother's decided they just didn't want to be pregnant any more.

Lies! Disgusting, purposeful lies by authoritarians bent on controlling everyone's body and mind.

And they have the gall to call themselves "Pro-Life" and "The Culture of Life".

Let see how these people respect human life, shall we?

Pro-choice victims of anti-abortion murder:

Dr. David Gunn
Dr. John Britton
James Barrett, clinic escort
Shannon Lowney, clinic receptionist
Lee Ann Nichols, clinic receptionist
Robert Sanderson, off-duty police officer working as a security guard
Dr. Barnett Slepian
Dr. George Tiller

Add to the list above the numerous bombings, harassment campaigns, vandalism, threats of death and other crimes in which no one was actually hurt. Add to that the actual assaults committed by "Operation Rescue" folks at clinics across the US.

Anti-choice victims of pro-choice murder:

.

The "best" the anti-choice side can come up with of pro-choice violence is the assault on Ed Snell, who was attacked by the boyfriend of a woman he was verbally harassing from the top of his car...a woman who was not seeking an abortion. Add to that, pushes and shoves in self-defense.

Who, then respects life?

People who say this? -

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, August 16, 1993.[emphasis mine]

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you’d better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue 1995.[emphasis mine]

There is no debate with these people. There is no reasoning with them. These are the people that wish to grant legal personhood to a blastocyte, but will not do anything to help already born children in poverty. These are the people that condemn women who make the choice of abortion, yet refuse to condone birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

These are the people who wish to control every woman's body, to force them to give birth to unwanted children so they can then abondon both, as a punishment for having sex and or not believing in their religious teaching.

And they are prepared to kill to make it happen.

These people are the enemies of freedom and liberty. They are pure fascists and totalitarians through and through. And they will stop at nothing to enslave us all (and make no mistake, if a person cannot control or own their own body, they are in fact, a slave).

It is time for self-defense. I am in favour of abortion doctors, clinic staff and volunteers either being armed themselves for self-protection or to hire armed security guards and personell. The government obviously can't or, as evidenced in Kansas, won't help. Sometimes it is agents of the state doing the harrassing.

Am I over reacting?

But Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and close friend of Tiller's who said he is now "the only doctor in the world" who performs very late-term abortions, said Tiller's death was predictable.

"I think it's the inevitable consequence of more than 35 years of constant anti-abortion terrorism, harassment and violence. George is the fifth American doctor to be assassinated. I get messages from these people saying, 'Don't bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we're going for a head shot.' "[emphasis mine]

No, I don't think so.

I will not let my daughter be enslaved in a world run by these thugs.

I'm pro-choice and I shoot back.

Pants pissing update (June 5 2009):

From Patrick Ross in the comments -

"And by the way, Mike, you very much can be a co-defendant in a libel suit if you really want to.

If that's what you want, I suggest you repeat the latter of these two statements again."

So there you have it. When he can't instigate me by his over the top behaviour and misrepresentation of what I said, he threatens me with legal action. Will his next comment complain tha I am trying to stiffle his free speech? Only time will tell...

Barack Obama - Liar and Fraud

2009-05-15T10:48:00.003-04:00

I always knew I would strongly disagree with Obama on economics. He is, after all, a Keynesian spender and will, like Bush before him, lead the US down to economic collapse with his nonsense ideas about "stimulus packages" and his warmed over socialism with his nonsense "bailout" plans for big auto and big banks, corporate welfare queens who should have gone out of business long ago.

At least he would stop the wars and pull the US back from despotism and restore rule of law and respect for human and US constitutional rights, right?

Nope.

Obama has decided not to release the torture photos and to continue the cover-up of the crimes of the last administration.

He is keeping US troops in Iraq until 2011, instead of the 6-9 months he stated during the campaign.

He is increasing the presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and best estimates think they will be there for at least 10 more years.

He is refusing to prosecute the war criminals in the last administration, from the actually torturers all the way up to Cheney and Bush. They all get a pass.

He has decided to continue with the Military Tribunals in Gitmo - kangaroo courts that violate nearly every rule of justice and evidence that the West and the Common law has evolved since 1215.

What has Obama delivered but more and bigger deficits than Bush and has either covered up or continued Bush's crimes around the world.

You can call that a lot of things, but it ain't even close to being "Change".

Right now, the only difference between Bush and Obama is that the latter is smarter and able to fool a lot more people while doing exactly what the former did.

Barack Obama - Bush lite.

First Principles

2009-05-04T15:17:00.002-04:00

For those who ask 'why?'

Its nice to be reminded in an elegant way why some of us are so adamant in our quest for liberty.

Yes, it really is this simple.

Dear Michael Coren

2009-04-22T15:06:00.002-04:00

My letter, sent April 21, 2009:

Mr. Coren,

You, sir, are a disgusting worm. How dare you disparage the service of Trooper Karine Blais, 12e Régiment Blindé du Canada serving with the 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment, in order to tout your misogynist nonsense.

Trooper Blais was a soldier. She died doing her job, just like any other soldier. She passed her course, just like any other soldier.

And you, sir, demoted her to mere object, mere pretty thing full of something you call 'grace' rather than acknowledge her for the brave soldier she was.

You should be ashamed. I hope your next column either profusely apologizes to the Blais family and the Vandoos or is a detailed treatise on how a to fire a C-7 rifle with a penis.

I hope you are fired over this outrage.

He won't be fired of course. He'll make light of it, or same halfhearted "sorry you were insulted" type apology and then move on to insult someone else. and will Sun Media fire him? Nope, because it seems their editorial position agrees with this.

Tune in when Can West Christaliban mouth breather and misogynist David Warren writes a column agreeing with him.

I sure hope a few compatriots of Trooper Blias get the opportunity to express their feeling to Coren in person someday.

The Obama Disappointment

2009-04-17T12:02:00.005-04:00

I know.

I know, I know, I know.

Its only been about 3 months since he took office. Give the guy a chance right? Wait for the first 100 days right? Well, unfortunately there are signs that Obama is not all that different than Bush and is prepared to continue with the many parts of the last regimes program.

The Torture Memos - while admitting there was torture (finally, a good thing) he has given the torturers the Nuremburg defense. They were just following orders. So, he coninues to deny justice for the victims and protect the guilty. He seems to want to reserve the right to torture if he feels its needed too. Just like Bush.
Bush and Cheney - while clearly both of these men committed war crimes (as the above Torture Memos indicate), Obama is not prosecuting. He is not investigating. There is nothing.
Maher Arar - still on the no fly list, despite being proven innocent. No reasons given.
Wiretapping - despite claiming it was dangerous, he voted as a Senator to keep the program going and now wishes to continue to use it.
Packing the Justice Deptartment - and packing it with RIAA lawyers. RIAA LAWYERS. What on earth is THAT?
Stimulus Spending - started by Bush and Obama is merely continuing it. Where is the change in that? Well except for those who attend teaparties now that a Democrat is doing it.
Closing Gitmo - while this is another good thing, its been put off for a year, rather than immediate. This means, of course, that he could change his mind next December. It also says nothing of the other black prisons around the world that continue to operate.
Habeas Corpus - it is still unclear, even after Gitmo being closed, whether habeas corpus still means anything in the US.
Withdraw from Iraq - except its in 3 years and meanwhile most of those guys will go to Afghanistan. So how exactly is this a withdraw from Iraq? Why haven't the permanent bases been closed?

All of these were obvious abuses and wrongs from 8 years of the Bush presidency. To my civil libertarian mind, there is no reason to go slow on any of these. My hope, despite being an anrachist who despised all government, that at least Obama would be principled enough to right these wrongs, even while I fully expected him to screw up economically. If I were still and NDP member, almost everything in that list would still disappoint me.

Well clearly I am wrong.

The only conclusion I can come to is that once he obtained the power that Bush and Cheney wrought - the power to ignore the US Constitution at will, the power to hold people without trial and the power to torture if desired. This is change?

Meet the New Boss, same as the old boss.

Update:

Its getting worse and worse.

Even the Right-Libertarians aren't fooled by faux 'Tea Parties'

2009-04-15T12:10:00.004-04:00

Over at Lew Rockwell, we see despite what some may say, libertarians aren't really very supportive of the 'Tea Party' phenomena. Anthony Gregory lambastes the Republicans and the "right" taking part in these protests for their rank hypocrisy and their blind stupidity for being willing participants in - and "useful idiots" of - a fake grassroots campaign.

"The contradiction is a wonder to behold. In one breath, they talk about the fundamental violations of natural rights and constitutional law that modern American statism represents. In the next breath, they decry the president for being insufficiently enthusiastic about American imperialism and the national security state. He is too soft on foreigners and not proud enough of the history of the US war machine – this is still a key rightwing criticism of Obama, right alongside the contradictory claim that Obama puts love of the national government ahead of individual rights."

Anthony Gregory is, by the way, a writer and organizer for The Campaign for Liberty so hardly a "socialist" or "lefty" as some I am sure will want to characterize him.

The right-libertarians aren't fooled. Nor are many of us left-libertarians. I wonder why they Republican base seems to be?

Show me the Money II

2009-04-07T14:11:00.003-04:00

Our "conservative" government has decided, in its infinite wisdom, that The Federal Government will honour the warranties for newly purchased GM and Chrysler vehicles.

Again, I have to ask, where will this money come from? Why should the taxpayers of Canada pay for the warranties of GM and Chrysler cars?

One does not need to be a libertarian to see the incredible folly of this. Why not Volkswagon or Toyota?

Does Tony Clement not understand the concept of 'moral hazard'? No, I bet he doesn't...

This is nothing more than economic fascism. It will further wreck our economy, not help it.

No. No. No.

How many of us need to say no before this government will listen? When will this nonsense stop?

Does anyone still wonder why I am a no-state, market anarchist libertarian?

Show me the Money

2009-04-02T23:06:00.003-04:00

Can someone, anyone, tell me where exactly this miraculous $1 Trillion USD will come from?

Seriously, we are in the midst of an economic crisis caused by over spending, and too much debt and credit. How will spending $1 Trillion we don't have - $1 Trillion in more credit and debt - will make the situation better and not worse, in the long run?

This is madness.

Update:

Catelli and I aren't the only ones who think this is insane. Check out Sheldon Richman at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Root Causes

2009-03-25T11:56:00.002-04:00

While some people are debating whether our current economic crisis was caused by amorphous human emotions like "greed" or "evil", I submit that at the root, the issue is something far deeper - a system that encouraged and incented the behaviour that has caused such turmoil. And all of the bailouts and purchasing of "toxic debt" will only worsen it in the long run.

The problem is with "money":

Testimony of Dr. Lawrence Parks on the MT Sound Money Bill (HB 639) from Constitutional Money on Vimeo.

(h/t to Strike the Root)

Death to America

2009-03-23T08:37:00.003-04:00

Fuck you Fox News. Fuck you in the neck.

And a big Fuck You to any Canadian Conservatives who still think these mealy mouthed, imperial cocksuckers are our 'friends'. Because apparently stating the title of this post makes me a terrorist lover, but besmirching the reputation, valour and abilities our our soldiers on the same day that 4 more give their lives so the US can continue its clusterfuck in Iraq is just fine.

I'd invite these so-called "journalists" to repeat those words to the guys on the tarmac in Kandahar. Hell, I'd invite the chicken hawk cowards to even show up there.

Not very rational and not very reasonable. I don't care. I won't support for a minute my brother giving up his life for ungrateful, ignorant and arrogant slugs like those. They are on their own and deserve everything they get.

Perspective

2009-03-13T08:39:00.004-04:00

Lets say one day, I grab a young man off the streets, take him home and lock him in my basement. This young man isn't very nice and has been hanging out with the wrong crowd, so he isn't very well liked.

Lets say that I keep him locked up in a 6' x 6' room in my basement, with a metal cot and an open toilet. I wake him at the same time everyday, tell him when he can sleep, when he can eat, when he can talk.

Lets say further, that on an unpredictable yet regular basis, I steal what little possession I allow him to keep, I beat him, I feed him second rate food and occasionally rape him.

Lets say further that I allow my friends to come over and rape him when they feel like it too - in exchange for cigarettes, booze or food.

Lets say that I do this for 10 years or so, every day, before he finally escapes.

What would you think of me?

More importantly, what would you think of what happened to this young man. Is his treatment horrible? Evil? Will he be remotely normal after he escapes?

Would you say he had it easy?

Of course not.

I'm curious then why so many people seem to think doing this exact thing to Momin Khawaja is "letting him off easy". Check out the comments over at CBC.

I make no apologies for Khawaja, nor do I remotely support what he did or his causes. In reality, he has already been in prison for 5 years and was sentenced to an additional 10 1/2 years for his actions. That means his sentence is 15 1/2 years for his crimes and he will not be eligible for parole for another 5 years, until he has served 10 years. That doesn't mean he'll get it, it means simply he'll be allowed to ask, to simply make the request.

For a guy who never actually harmed another individual or caused any damage, that seems like a pretty stiff and fair sentence.

And yet everywhere you turn, you see so-called "law and order" conservative blowhards claiming that the sentence is "too light" or demonstrates that our legal system is too lenient.

Bullshit.

Those commenters at CBC and at the Blogging Tories are the same people that wouldn't last 45 minutes in a stuck elevator, yet claim 15 1/2 years in a prison is "too light". These are the same people that wouldn't last 10 days inside the dark pits of anal rape we call Milhaven or Kingston, yet seem to think 10 years in such a place is "getting off with a slap on the wrist".

Perhaps Khawaja should have gotten more - I don't know, because like right-wing howler monkeys, I haven't read the actual decision yet. But that doesn't mean 10+ years in one of our federal pens isn't punishment. It is. It is 10 years of horror and anyone who thinks differently is an utter and complete, ignorant fool whose mean-spirited and uninformed opinions should be utterly ignored or viciously ridiculed.

Khawaja got what he deserved and trust me, he'll pay for his crimes, whether the vengeful right thinks he will or not.

Just because the bigots and authoritarians could exact their sadistic revenge, doesn't mean justice hasn't been served. It has.

On "Going Galt"

2009-03-10T07:22:00.004-04:00

From Red Tory, we discover the new rage in the right-o-sphere, especially in the US, is the idea of "Going Galt". Essentially, people on the right, of the so-called "productive class" are being encouraged to emulate John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and to go on strike, to withdraw their productive genius and capacity in order to "starve the beast." The expectation is that the governemnt and society will collapse and then people will beg them to return.

In principle, I agree with them. I think its perfectly justifiable for anyone to withdraw their consent and support of any government or institution they do not agree with or explicity consent to. It is the basis of direct action. In fact, I have called for it many times in this blog - stop paying taxes, do not obey laws or regulations you do not explicit agree with. I think it is a powerful tool the left whould use more often.

The problem is, and perhaps I'm being terribly cynical, is that I don't think they really believe it. Rather than an act liberation for all people, the right-wingers, with their half-baked understanding of Galt's passage, want to use it to punish their enemies. Curious that, while Bush also called for $750 billion in corporate welfare and bailouts, no one was screaming to "Go Galt" then. But now, with Obama in office, its is suddenly the thing to do. I wonder who they plan to put in charge after their plan suceeds?

Strangely, they really aren't "Going Galt" striclty speaking. In the novel, the "leaders and innovators in industry" remove themselves from society and flee to "Galt's Gulch" to live apart and out of the reach of the society of collectivists and parasites they feel is destroying them. But the proponents of "Going Galt" aren't proposing that. Instead, they are merely asking people to stop making money and bring their income's down to less than $250 000 USD. Or to retire early. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

And I am puzzled by whom they classify as the "productive class" and the "parasites". Seems that Dr. Helen Smith, wife of Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds is recommending that the "rich" (assuming all of the "rich" are the productive class) stop spending, stop tipping wait staff and leave them nasty notes. Because, it seems, wait staff are parasites and there is no better way to bring down the Obama administration than to ostracize most of the American working class.

Or something. I'm still trying to figure out how mouth-pieces like Smith, or Michelle Malkin (who had no problem when Dubya was in office) think they are the "productive class" while wait staff and other low-income service workers, are "parasites."

Really, it merely displays their sense of entitlement and elitism (remember when that was supposed to describe Obama?). They are so sure they are the reason for everyone's sucess, that they feel they need to punish everyone else. They follow a "fuehrer principle" or the idea that there are "great men" who are all productive and the mass of the rest of us who must be lead and ruled. And now, like petulant children, they are going to teach us a lesson by withholding that desparately needed leadership. That is the utter elitist mindset and hubris of the "Go Galt" crowd.

And in perhaps the greatest irony of all, you have conservatives-right wingers calling for a strike, based on a character and philosophy of Ayn Rand. Let that sink in a minute - Randian Collective Action.

Consider that our current finacial crisis was actually brought about by a Randian - Alan Greenspan - who used the centrally controlled and planned Federal Reserve system to increase the money supply and artificially inflate the credit bubble in the first place. Will the "productive class" leaving do anything if the Fed can simply create money out of thin air, rather than rely on tax income? Not likely.

If these guys were serious, they would ACTUALLY "Go Galt" - remove themselves from society to an enclave and refuse to pay taxes or follow regulations or laws. Indeed, they could even indulge in what Agorists call the "counter economy" - buy and sell products and services off the books. Its a way to continue living as you have, but to simply ignore the state.

Apparently though, the "Go Galt" folks merely want people to be poorer. As has been said elsewhere, this looks like a marketing slogan, rather than a grassroots movement. Can you smell the astroturf? Seem that people like Beck (Glenn Beck, not Billy Beck), Rush, Malkin and the rest are merely latching onto this in order to use it for partisan political purposes. The minute they regain power, or find that "going Galt" can also be used against a Republican administration, they'll denounce it as "un-American" and "treason" - remember after 9-11 it was your patriotic duty to keep working and spending, to keep the ecomomy going.

In short, the fascists are trying to use the ideas of liberty to gain power. Its exploitation and manipulation of the highest, most politically cynical order.

I'd also like to share with the right-o-sphere some other little tidbits of Rand they might find interesting:

On Conservatives:

The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect...The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington.

On Christianity:

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge -- he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil -- he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor -- he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire -- he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy -- all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors they they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was -- that robot, in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love -- he was not man...

Still want to "Go Galt"? Be my guest.

Why am I on the Blogging Dippers?!!? - Solved

2009-02-13T13:14:00.004-05:00

Uhm guys, I quit the NDP and the Blogging Dippers years ago - about 3 years ago to be exact.

I noticed today, as I was trying to figure out what was wrong with the Prog Blog feed not updating that I'm still listed.

Guys, please read my last few posts on the idea of stimulus - I am NOT a Dipper any more.

I did send an email to Rob and to someone else way back when, but it didn't work.

So let let me ask again:

Can someone please remove my blog from the Blogging Dipper's aggregator?

Thanks

Mike

Update:

Thank you Northern BC Dipper for removing me.

Your Tax Dollars at Work - now with Mea Culpa Update

2009-02-12T16:59:00.002-05:00

Mea Culpa Update:

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I am willing to man up and admit it. In my anger below, I called for Shaidle to be removed from the show and clearly, from what stageleft tells me at his place and in IRC, that would have been a huge mistake. La Shaidle, for all her bluster, was totally out of her league, and it showed. If I were an opponent of the Atheist Bus Campaign, I'd be writing angry letter's to TVO to complain about showing their side to be so bad by having a pitiful boob like her representing it. It wasn't close to fair.

My fear was that, once again as has happened in the past, she would get all of the cachet, all of the respectability, all of the credibility one gets from being on such a show, without having to defend or reveal the vile opinions she is known for while hiding behind the seemingly inocous label of "religious writer". That is, she would reap the benefits of exposure in TVO without any of the risks of exposure.

Well, apparently Steve Paiken and the other guests proved me wrong.

I'm still a little upset at TVO for the poor vetting job they did. And I think the email and phone calls from earlier today served to alert everyone at TVO what to expect - I think it would have been a very different show had we not wrote or called.

That being said, I should not have called for her to be taken off the program. That was wrong. Simply informing TVO of her stances and requesting they call her on it and challenge her beliefs should have been enough.

I won't make that mistake again, because clearly, and ironically for Shaidle, free speech and freedom of the press works. Better than any ban, better than having her forced off the show.

Irony is not dead.

=================================================================

Via Scott Tribe and Warren Kinsella, we discover that, perhaps as part some effort to stimulate the economy n Toronto, Kathy Shaidle of "Five Feet of Fury" (formerly Relapsed Catholic) is scheduled to be a guest on TVO's "The Agenda" discussing the Atheist Bus Ads coming to Canada.

Of course, as they have done in the past, TVO will likely (mis) label La Shaidle as a "Religious Columnist" or "Catholic Writer". And, they likely won't challenge her on her beliefs, such as these:

· On Islam: "...your religion is fucking retarded...ungrateful beligerent foreign savages...These are people who love watching beheading videos on the internet...A sick, sick religion. Basically Scientology with bombs. Pathetic whiny losers."
· On Muslim and Pakistani immigrants: "Muslims...most of them can't even read...What we really need to do is stop immigration from Pakistan and other crazy Muslim countries filled with illiterate, violent tribal peasants..."
· On Muslim children: they are “parasites.”
· On a group of Muslim students who object to some statements by Mark Steyn: they are “motherfucking parasites.”
· On Muslims: "Muslims always have to be on top, in reverse proportion to their ability to do anything with competence or creativity."
· On Indians: they are “parasites” who “extorted tax dollars [for] booze, smokes and junk food. Not to mention free everything else, including university educations they don't bother getting.”
· On blacks: “…there is nothing ‘compelling’ about a black man impregnating a white woman. In more than one Toronto neighbourhood, that's what they call Saturday night.”
· On the only people who can get excited about Barack Obama: “black, stupid or both.”
· On Jamaicans: “Just think of how much Jamaican immigrants contribute to our culture and economy: monotonous, illiterate music that all sounds the same, filthy hairstyles, those little tricoloured Rasta doohickies.”
· On the blacks of New Orleans: they are “pathetic losers” who cannot have their IQs raised “a single point.”
· On the poor: they are poor because they are “too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on.…I don’t care about the poor. They’re no more real than Bigfoot.”
· On AIDS: “From the beginning, AIDS activism has been more about mainstreaming the gay "lifestyle" than saving lives.”
· On Sikhs: "Backward foreigners [who] shit on hand that feeds them...Unable to invent their own iconic product due to too much time spent worshipping monkeys and cows, setting women on fire and obsessing over imperceptible differences in each other's skin colour..."
· On blind people: "Giving blind people real jobs...is not working out."
· On Chinese: "[They are] spitting and shooting snot on the sidewalk...throwing broken crates of rotten bock choy all over Spadina Avenue [and] eating dubious, illegal foodstuffs" [and cause SARS.]

Shaidle is as much a "Religious Writer" as Joseph Gobbels is a "Marketing Expert" or David Duke is a "Race Relations Guru". Having her represent, obviously, the Christian side of this debate should be an insult to Christians - as wrong as I think they are, I'm quite certain this bile spewing little hateful creature certainly does not nor should not speak for any Christians.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of my hard earmed money being stolen from me then used to give legitimacy to scum like Shaidle without challenging her preposterous beliefs.

There are many more reasonable people out there who can represent whatever point of view she represents. Shaidle should not be given ANY legitimacy for ANY view. Especially not by a publicly funded station.

To that end, I am asking people to contact TVO - write here or directly at askTVO@tvo.org or call them at 1.800.INFO.TVO or 416.484.2665 - and demand that

Kathy Shaidle be removed from the show and replaced with another guest, due to her hate filled view points; or
Steve Paikin challenge her disgusting views and that she be properly labelled as the far-right bigot she is.

I'm going to both call and write.

Kathy Shaidle can say whatever uniformed hate-filled nonsense she wants. She just can't do it with my tax money and she can't hide behind the pleasant sounding "Religious Writer" moniker to do it.

Update:

La Shaidle is getting scared and trying to strike back. Here's my response from Scott's comments, unabridged:

LOL, what a toad.

Clearly she is feeling the heat, so she's trying to stir more support form the mouth breathers at SDA.

Well as a former Torontonian that loved spending time on Spadina, allow me to respond:

"Countless Chinese people in Toronto DO hoark on the sidewalk — which is a known spreader of disease."

Well, as do many white folks in the subway. At least the Chinese immagrants are courteous enough to wear surgical masks when they are actually sick, no matter what it looks like.

"They DO leave broken crates of bok choy on Spadina"

Well, they leave lettuce in Kennsington Market, and dead fish in St. Lawrence market. So what?

"And they DO eat what are, in my humble opinion, dubious, possibly illegal foodstuffs."

Well they do eat food that is also quite delicious. No one really gives a flying fuck what your spit-flecked opinion is. Its not like you are known for your culinary expertise anyway.

If anyone want's great Szechuan, to to Kom Jug Yuen on Spadina just south of Grossman's (where lots of white guys spit on the floor). The food is fantastic, and I don't care what it is.

"Ever eaten street food in Beijing? Ever left your house, let alone the country?"

Not Beijing, but in Boroda, Mumbai and Cartegena many times. Quite good if you go to the right place. Meanwhile, the worst food poisoning I ever got was from a Red Lobster in Ottawa. In short, Kathy, yes, so piss off.

"Try harder. The truth is often unpleasant."

No the truth is merely true. Your twisted vision is what is unpleasant.

"Frankly, I wish TVO WOULD cancel me tonight. I’d rather stay home and watch Falling Down again."

No, you want them to cancel because you are afraid you'll actually have to answer for your crap now, instead of spewing it in a hermetically sealed echo chamber like SDA or on a commentless blog like your own without being held to account. You're afraid people will finally see you for what you are and your little cyber pan-handling will end when the rubes who have been giving you money see you for what you really are.

You know, I've almost changed my mind. I hope you go on and Paikin takes you to town.

Enjoy your session tonight. I expect it will be your last invite to TVO.

Typical cowardly behaviour. When you are about to be held to account, scream and yell and try to divert attention away from yourself.

Pitiful.

Upperdate:

So, who thinks Chet is right? Anyone? Yeah, I thought so too....

Anti-Stimulus Trifecta

2009-02-07T18:56:00.004-05:00

Its no secret that I think that all of the various economic stimulus plans are simply a bad idea. None will work, and in my opinion will make any recession or depression longer and deeper, not shorter.

Over at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), they have 3 excellent pieces that do an excellent job at refuting the "Stimulus Madness!" that has gripped governments not only on both sides of the border, but around the world:

1. My friend Sheldon Richman's The Goal is Freedom: Smoot and Hawley Return shows how the infamous "Buy American" portion of the package is merely a repeat of Herbert Hoover's ill-fated Smoot-Hawley Tariff, widely accepted as one of the causes of the speed and depth of the great depression.

"When laws prohibit or limit the purchase imports, foreigners have fewer dollars and therefore fewer opportunities to buy American exports or to invest. The Americans who would have benefitted from those transactions lose out. So while protectionism is defended as a way to help the American economy (at the expense of foreigners), in fact it is special-interest legislation that helps only a small well-defined interest group at the expense of many other Americans. If people generally understood this, they would not fall for protectionist appeals."

Its odd that for all the daily comparisons to the depression we are seeing, no one seems to have noticed that the US Congress and President Obama are acting more like Hoover than FDR (not that acting like FDR would be much better).

2. William Anderson questions the very idea of government spending - especially bailing out failing companies and industries - to create jobs in his Not So Fast!: The Fallacy of Production for its Own Sake:

"...jobs simply are a means to the end of consumption; they are not ends in themselves. People become confused because they fail to recognize the connection between production and consumption. Yes, jobs produce income for individuals, but they can provide real income only if the job contributes to the production of goods people are willing to purchase."

So simple an idea, yet something that few people get.

3. And to shore it all up, FEE links to an article first published in 1957 (warning: PDF), an excerpt from economist Frederic Bastiat's classic 1850 Pamphlet That which is seen and that which is not seen.

"From all the benefits attributed to public spending we must deduct all the harm caused by preventing private spending—at least if we are not to go so far as to say that James Goodfellow would have done nothing with the five-franc pieces he had fairly earned and that the tax took away from him; an absurd assertion, for if he went to the trouble of earning them, it was because he hoped to have the satisfaction of using them. He would have had his garden fenced and can no longer do so; this is what is not seen. He would have had his field marled and can no longer do so: this is what is not seen. He would have added to his tools and can no longer do so: this is what is not seen. He would be better fed, better clothed; he would have had his sons better educated; he would have increased the dowry of his daughter, and he can no longer do so: this is what is not seen. He would have joined a mutual-aid society and can no longer do so: this is what is not seen. On the one hand, the satisfactions that have been taken away from him and the means of action that have been destroyed in his hands; on the other hand, the work of the ditchdigger, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the tailor, and the schoolmaster of his village which he would have encouraged and which is now nonexistent: this is still what is not seen."

I'm quite sure my stance will not make me popular with my progressive friends, but I cannot support an orgy of spending, a return to long, deep deficits - no matter how well intentioned - when the effect will be the opposite of what is wanted. Sometimes, perhaps, we should rely on sound economics rather than wishful thinking to help people.

Right now, the road to economic hell is being paved with gold by the very governments trying not to.

There's a bailout comin' but it not for you.

2009-02-05T09:50:00.004-05:00

Neil Young - Fork In The Road

Update: I've removed the embedded video from MySpace because it plays automatically when loaded and that if friggin' annoying a hell. Please follow the link above....friggin' MySpace...

What Neil said:

"There's a bailout coming but it's not for me
It's for all those creeps watching tickers on TV...
There's a bailout coming but it's not for you
It's for all those creeps hiding what they do"

Amen.

Back in the real world...

2009-01-28T12:49:00.001-05:00

Excuse me, I think I have something in my eye...

Who knew?

2009-01-27T20:12:00.004-05:00

It seems that Bob Rae has been right all these years:

"The NDP took power in the midst of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. Though they campaigned predominantly on the promise of a public auto insurance system, they backtracked on this policy, causing a split between Premier Rae and his more left-wing ministers. Initially, they increased spending in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. However, due to the unforeseen severity of the recession, it angered the business community while not doing enough to provide for public relief."[emphasis mine]

After all, it looks like ole Deficit Jim Flaherty agrees:

"Canada will have to weather large deficits to “do what it takes to keep our economy moving,” including cutting taxes while boosting infrastructure and worker training, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in tabling the federal budget Tuesday.
Flaherty promises billions of dollars in new spending — ranging from money for infrastructure projects to aid for worker training, and cash for enhanced employment insurance (EI) benefits — to help the country ride out the global economic downturn."[emphasis mine]

It was only a few months ago the Conservatives were telling we didn't need this, that everything was fine and that Bob Rae was unelectable because of the baggage from his days as NDP Premier of Ontario.

Funny eh?

Personally, I think the last thing we need is a "stimulus" package of any kind, certainly not one that willy-nilly cuts revenue (in the form of broad tax cuts) combined with huge, undirected increases in spending.

I would rather the government do nothing, except keep the books balanced. We could do that either the traditional Liberal way - no tax cuts, but cuts to spending - or the old Bill Davis, Red Tory fiscal conservative way - cut taxes, but also cut spending to keep pace.

I could live with either of those. It would hurt worse now, but in less than 5 years, we would be back probably better.

Instead we have a record deficit that will wreck our economy in the long run, that even this honesty challenged government thinks will run at least 5 years or longer. Our children and grand children will still be paying for this long after we are dead.

Andrew Coyne is, I hope, right - the only good side to this whole mess is it may mean the end of Conservatism in Canada.

Only about 3 years too late.

Update:

In case anyone wonders what I think of government spending to "stimulate" the economy, I think it is a terrible idea. I'll let Henry Hazlitt explain. And Peter Schiff.

Cynics R Us

2009-01-20T15:42:00.002-05:00

What Sheldon Richman said.

I think the Progressives blogsphere needs some intelligent dissent from the fawning today. Not some drooling, backhanded, knee-jerk crap from moron's like Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin (Google it, they will get no links from me), but a more nuanced dissent.

FWIW, Richman preferred Obama.

A Quiet Month?

2009-01-19T22:58:00.004-05:00

Not a lot of postings out of me lately. Yes, I am the master of the obvious.

I've been experiencing a bit of blog burnout lately. Oh, as some know, I still visit and comment, but the fire that once roared in me, that caused me to write at great length, to pontificate about my favourite subjects and to attack my regular whipping boys just does not burn as hot as it once did.

Ottawa bus strike? Feh, I can work from home just as easily as go to the office. Nothing is really going to change if they solve it or not.

President Obama? Well, better than Bush, but then it doesn't take much to do that. I'm hopeful he'll shut Gitmo and get some justice for Khadr, but I don't think he'll be able to do anything about the economy. And I think a lot of lefties, liberals and progressives will be sorely disappointed by that. We lefties tend to eat our own, even if it ends up hurting us in the long run. Just ask Bob Rae and Mike Harris. Obama may be ok, but he may also be a great disappointment.

The return of Parliament? Yawn. More lies from the Conservatives, more waffling from the Liberals. More bellowing from the NDP and the Bloc. And all of them will continue to take my money and use it for things I do not support. We will have more of the same, especially since Iggy has pretty much kyboshed the coalition.

Gaza? Israel is wrong and in my opinion has committed war crimes. In doing so they have actually strengthened Hamas, rather than weakened it and in the end what was gained except for the needless deaths of 1300+ people, almost 1/3 of which were innocent children. For what? To stop meaningless rocket attacks that have killed 4 people in 8 years and can't even damage a road? To show how tough the IDF is? To help Livini get elected? I guess just saying that makes me antisemitic. So be it. It jsut so happnes to also be the truth.

Yet again, we have people who pretend to be intellegent trying to have debates about taking away the right of bodily integrity of other people, a right they themselves would not have to give up. Somehow that's supposed to make you nuanced. Or something. Of course, it rather fits in to yet a new round of fetus fetishist dogmatic hysteria about donuts and secret parliamentary caucuses, while the spread the same old debunked lies and horse shit.

What else is there?

So far the new year has been pretty dull and merely marked by "more of the same" - I make a few comments and get called antisemitic, or looked down upon for daring to suggest that perhaps the government is NOT to be trusted with a monopoly on urban public transit. The constant battle with partisans who refuse to listen, the rehashing of old debates and battles, the yawning chasm of ignorance has really turned me off lately.

I've got other things on the go - a little writing, a little reading, some iPhone and Android development and coaching my son's hockey team. All of that is worlds more important than trying to convince someone for the millionth time that enslaving the bodies of half the population isn;t a good idea, that evolution is a fact, that government is often the problem not the solution and that Israel has no right to act exactly like those that have victimized its people in the past. I can't really talk to the walls out there any more.

So, if I get inspired, I'll be back, but for now, I may comment every now and again on some of my regular haunts. Call it a break, a hiatus - things will be very quiet from here on out.

Later.

My resume, as it were

2008-12-23T08:48:00.002-05:00

Well, it appears I have been tagged by balbulican. Well in the spirit of the season of light emerging from darkness, I'll play along.

The meme is pretty simple: List all the jobs you ever have had, in order. Omit anything that may incriminate you.

So here goes:

Lawn and yard maintenance worker
Farm hand (picking stones)
Farm hand (haying)
Farm hand (hauling wood)
Farm hand (collecting eggs, feeding the chickens)
Sales Person and Manager of Production, Sarnia Cheesboards (Junior Achievement)
Grocery Stock and Bag boy
Farm hand (cleaning rotten silage)
Farm hand (harrogatting the soy beans)
Farm hand (incorporating the spray)
Stable Boy at a horse farm and riding academy
Janitor at local post office
Assembly line worker at Holmes Foundry (making engine blocks for Chrylser - Cummings Diesel)
Bouncer, Fenn Lounge - included roadie duties before and after shows
Assembly line worker at Holmes Foundry (and CAW member)
Bouncer, Fenn Lounge and Brees Inn
Reporter and Photographer, Haliburton County Echo and Minden Recorder
Sales Person - Eastview Photo
Retails sales - Blue notes, Pantorama, Balloon store on Bank street.
Bouncer, Grand Central
Loss Prevention Officer, independent
Loss Prevention, The Bay
Male Exotic Dancer (one night only - two months free rent out of the deal...wink, wink)
Canada Customs, Bluewater Bridge
Retail, Pantorama again.
Salvation Army Halfway House worker, adult offenders from Burrits Rapids
Residential Youth Worker, 12-18 year-old-boys
Children's Mental Health Worker, 6-12 year olds
Software Developer
Software Arhcitect
Development Manager
Independent Software Consutlant
Senior Software Developer and Security Consultant.

That's a pretty wide variety, and I'm sure I missed a few (I'm certain I wasa paid nude art model at one point too). During my university years at Carleton, I was working about 20 hours per week part-time in order to afford school and my roomates often joked about "Mike's Job of the Week" I changed so often. So again, I've probably forgotten a few.

And depsite the passage of years, its amazing how much of this stuff stays with you and becomes automatic. I'm still a pretty good photographer and I think my writting reflects well on my time in J-school and at the Echo. To this day I cannot actually shop at the Bay. When I walk in, I get the "thousand yard stare" and immediately go into seeking shoplifters. I helped my old co workers make at least two arrests months and years after I was no longer a Loss Prevention Officer. And yesterday, I spotted a "booster" at Rona, and informed the staff.

Luckily, my dancing skills aren't what they once were.

;)

So, to play along, I tag the following:

Olaf at the Prairie Wrangler
Red Tory
James Bow
JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie
John at Dymaxions World

Have at 'er.

A time for Celebration

2008-12-19T12:15:00.002-05:00

The UN gets one right and one of the architects of the Rwandan Genocide is jailed for life.

This is the one of the men Lt Gen Romeo Dallaire was talking about when he said he shook hands with the devil.

Let this be a warning to ALL politicos who think somehow they can operate above the law and commit crimes against the innocent, destroying freedom as the go. Justice will be served one way or another.

Yes, Dick Cheney, I'm looking at you.

Now, if the UN can get Radko Mladic, the man responsible for Srebrenica, the world will be a little better place.

Snowmaggedon...

2008-12-17T12:35:00.002-05:00

Awe crap....

This years Christmas dinner may turn out to be "Uruguayan rugby players"...

Happy holidays everyone.

19 years ago...

2008-12-06T18:59:00.003-05:00

On the evening of Wednesday, December 6, 1989, I was sitting in front of the TV, studying for my upcoming Christmas exams. I was in my apartment in Ottawa, directly across the street from the Perley Hospital and a stone's throw from Landsdowne Park. I was there with my 3 house mates, all in Engineering and their girlfriends.

An alert came on CBC. Knowlton Nash broke into regular programming to tell us that there had been a shooting at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal - and there were deaths. It was unclear, where it was and initial reports said the library.

Six of us turned in unison and looked at Donna, one of my housemate's girlfriends.

"Donna, I think you should call Kathy," I remember saying quietly.

Kathy was a highschool friend of Donna's from Toronto we had hung out with the previous summer. She was a student at Ecole Polytechnique. Donna tried for the next five hours, but could not get through - the phone lines were jammed.

We waited for updates throughout the evening. We stopped studying and tried to figure out what happened.

It was a long night.

In the end, Kathy had been at the library. She was safe and couldn't get to the phone because of the MUC Police lock down. In the end we found out what happened and why.

It touched me in a number of ways. For the first time, my typcially conservative engineering roomates were drawn together with the lefty, liberal housemate and their girlfriends on a political issue. The 14 died because they were women and they were something of a rarity in 1989 - women in an Engineering Faculty.

We all attended the candlelight vigil the next evening.

I was angered more deeply because I am a survivor of violence against women - my mother was battered by my biological father when I was a child. He was a police officer at the time. And he used to get my brother and I up to watch him beat the shit out of my mother.

To hear the words of hatred in that suicide note, to learn why he separated out the men and let them go but kept the women, brought that all back.

I have worn a white ribbon every year for 19 years. Some years, it was a white scarf.

I am now a father of a daughter and I have vowed that she will never grow up in a society that allows what happened to me to be common or to create the killer of December 6. I will make her strong so that no one will abuse her.

And I will never mention the killer of December 6. He deserves not notoriety, nor mess dinners in his honour. He deserves to have his name forgotten, to be removed from our lexicon and from our history. Not his deeds or his self-profressed reason for doing them, but him.

Rather than him, we should be remembering these women:

Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student.
Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student.
Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student.
Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student.
Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department.
Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student.
Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student.
Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student.
Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student.
Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student.
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student.

Never let this happen again.

Are we done screaming yet?

2008-12-04T13:27:00.003-05:00

It has been a wild week of recriminations, lies and hyperbole. Passions are running hot on all sides.

And as of this morning, we'll have 7 more weeks of the same. Governor General Michaelle Jean prorogued Parliament this morning. I don't blame her of course and I agree with John at Dymaxion World - she did what most people thought she would do, though it clearly took a few hours of convincing from Stephen Harper. Its not her fault, as some in the Progressive Blogsphere are suggesting. Its squarely on Stephen Harper. It was Stephen Harper who decided to first delay the confidence motion by a week then to ask to prorogue Parliament, because he was did not want his government to fall.

Now that is democracy in action. Or not in action, as the case may be.

In order to calm a few folks here is my non-partisan, free advice to all the parties involved and worth every penny:

Conservatives:

You may think you have won, but you haven't. You have a delay, a chance to really get the propoganda wurlitzer running and the fake grass-roots campaign going, but all you have done is delay the innevitable. Here is a rundown of things you should remember

Stephen Harper, in violation of his own fixed election date law, called an unneeded and unwanted election in Sepetember.
The Conservative Party campaigned without a platform for most of the election period, relying on sweater vests and attack ads.
After winning an increased Minority, Stephen Harper spoke about dropping ideology for pragmatism in order to address the economic situation.
A week after saying that, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty delivered a fiscal update based on data that no one else can seem to reproduce, including the parliamentary budget officer.
During that update, Stephen Harper choose to make cuts designed to destroy the finacning of the opposition, using the economic crisis as an excuse. There were cuts and policies never discussed during the election campaign (I agree in principle with no public financing of political parties, but that was a baltant attempt to destroy your enemies by means other than the ballot box, and don't try to deny it. THAT is undemocratic).
In the ensuing furor, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives decided to lie about the nature of parliamentary democracy and our traditions in order to fan the fires of our regional cleavages. All in order to cling to power. Stephen Harper created a unity crisis and essentially wrote off Quebec voters in order to save his job.
When that looked like it wasn't going to work, Stephen Harper decided that the best way to deal with the econmic crisis was to take 7 weeks off and fill the air with propoganda.

Conservatives, its time to back down. I think its true what some of you have been saying, privately and not so privately - "What was he thinking?" Indeed. Your biggest problem right now is Stepehn Harper. He is toxic. He is divisive. You have 7 weeks before it really starts again. You can either spend it further trying to divide and alienate the country or you can do something else.

You would not be in the trouble your are now if not for Stephen Harper and you know it.

Ask yourself what you would have done if Paul Martin had prorogued Parliament back in May of 2005 or November of 2005? Ask yourself what you would have done if he tried to destroy your funding back then.

The actions of the Conservative Party this week have nearly torn the country apart again, solely so Stephen Harper can remain Prime Minister. That's hardly standing up for Canada.

Liberals:

Funny time to fine the cahones. About 2 months too late. While I applaud your sudden willingness to work with other parties, perhaps you could have done something a bit sooner.

I would also expect that if you really are doing this for alturistic reasons, they you should really have an alternative budget already to go, right?

If I were your, I'd take advantage of the 7 weeks to fund raise like ther is no tomorrow, because if your party mess this up, there won't be. This started because you became too dependant on the pusre whose strings were controlled by your enemies. Enemies with questionable ethics. That you didn't seem to notice until it was almost too late reveals something about your judgement.

So priority number 1, fundraising so that Harper can't try to stick you with a shiv in the yard again (and you know he's going to try).

Priority number 2, how about firing your, ahem, "communications team" and hiring someone who knows how to work a camera and maybe iMovie. Its 2008 and you had over 24 hours notice of Harper's speech. That sorry kerfuffle last night tells me perhaps you aren't ready to lead, no matter how may MPs you have. And that can't be put on Dion, no matter how goofy he is - a good team can make him look good. In the marketing department when running agianst the Conservatives, you brought a pencil to a gun fight.

Priority number 3, Dion has to step down as leader of the Coalition. For the same reason he is stepping down as leader of the Liberals. Put Ralph Goodale in charge. Or change your leadership convention to a one emember one vote phone vote and have it done by Christmas.

The coalition is fragile and it will collapse if Dion remains leader, no matter how much people hate Harper. Its just that simple.

NDP:

The heart is in the right place, but for god sake, read an economic text over the break. Pouring millions into auto plants to keep union workers making cars no one want to buy is going to be worse than laying them off. Try thinking long term.

BQ:

Congratulations. You have both won and lost.

You've won because thanks to Stephen Harper's out right attacks on you, you are now seen as the defender so Quebec against the anti-French rednecks. The Conservatives have clearly given up on Quebec and written off the seats there. They are yours for the taking.

You've lost, for the same reason. Any chance you had of influencing the government is pretty much gone, since Harper doesn't even want to talk to you.

I'd like you to remember how many non-Quebec Canadians supported you in this crisis next time you contemplate separation.

I am stuck with no one now. I have said before I don't really care who wins because I cannot support either - I don't care for the lying, proto-fascist bullies in the Conservative Party nor the bumbling idiotic big-government socialists in the coalition.

I am going to be sujected to this now for 7 weeks. I offer advice for the parties to clean up their act so that I don't have to face this again and so that the angry passions we are seeing exploited today do not take us down a road we cannot return from.

Personally, I'd love to see the govenment just shut down, period.

I get mail....

2008-12-02T14:50:00.003-05:00

Received today, from my ever eager Conservative MP for Nepean-Carleton, Pierre Poilievre:

Stand up for Canada - Let the people speak

Two months ago, Canadians elected the Prime Minister with a strengthened mandate to address the global economic crisis.

Now, a Socialist-Separatist-driven coalition is attempting to overturn the results of the last election and impose a Prime Minister that Canadians rejected.

The Socialist-Separatist-driven coalition is:

An attack on Canada
Separatist participation and a Separatist veto on national decisions
An attack on Canada’s democracy
Canadians resoundingly rejected Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister
An attack on Canada’s economy
The Liberals themselves called the NDP “economically-damaging”.

Canada’s Government will use every legal means possible to:

Protect Canada
No Separatist Participation and No Separatist Veto
Protect Canada’s democracy
No imposition of a radical new Government without the people’s consent
Protect Canada’s economy
No economically-damaging agenda for the country

During a global economic crisis, Canada needs leadership. Canadian leadership. There can be no Socialist-Separatist-driven coalition without the people’s consent.

It’s time to Stand up for Canada.

It’s time to Let the people speak.

Contact Info for the leaders of this Coalition:

Stephane Dion

Phone:-613-996-5789

Fax: 613-996-6562

Jack Layton

Phone: 613-995-7224

Fax: 613-995-4565

Contact Info for the Governor General:

Phone: 613-993-8200

Email: smcook@gg.ca

Isn't that swell?

Here's my response:

Dear Pierre,

Shut the hell up.

There is nothing illegal or extra constitutional about the Liberals NDP and Bloc forming a coalition. Two months ago, the people of Canada elected their MPs to Parliament. We don't elect the Prime Minister, Parliament does. The Prime Minister is the person who can maintain the confidence of the House. Under normal circumstances that is the leader of the Party with the most seats, by convention. During a minority, it requires that the person acting as Prime Minister works with the other parties to ensure maintaining that confidence. If he loses that confidence, the government falls and we either have an election OR someone else in Parliament can try to for the government.

Well, Stephen Harper thought it better to take advantage of an economic crisis for crass,partisan political opportunism to try and destroy his political enemies by means outside of the ballot box. THAT is undemocratic.

Harper took a gamble and he lost. In a gl;obal economic crisis Canada does indeed need leadership - too bad Stephen Harper choose not to be that leader, but a petty bully with no vision or plan.

I'd like to point out that the proposed coalition represents more than 50% of the population and commands 163 seats in the House of Commons. It represents the 63% of Canadians that specifically didn't vote for Stephen Harper. It is by definition, legal, constuitutional and representing the will of Canadians.

If you don't understand how our system works, why are you an MP? If you don't like this system, propose a meanful systemic change or leave. Just stop the lying and fear-mongering. It merely shows how desparate and child-like you are.

Your points specifically:

"Socialist-Separatist-driven coalition"

Yawn. This kind of belicose language might play in the US or, but not in most of this country. Every party to the coalition is a legitmate federal party with seats in Parliament.

An attack on Canada
Separatist participation and a Separatist veto on national decisions

No, the Bloc has laid out its conditions and signed an accord that states very clearly what it will do. It says nothing about vetoing national decisions. I might point out that the Bloc represents more than just "separatists"...many non-separatist Quebecers vote Bloc because they provide good representation.

An attack on Canada’s democracy
Canadians resoundingly rejected Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister

No, that is a bald faced lie. This move is totally within the rules of our Parliamentary democracy and actually has precident, both federally and provincially, in Canadian history. "Canadians" did not reject Stephane Dion as PM because Canadians didn't vote for Stephane Dion - they only voted for their MP. STop confusing our system with the American Presidential system. Or stop purposely doing this to confuse people who may not know better. No Canadian voted for Stephen Harper either, except those people in Calgary-Southwest. He is the Prime Minister because under our rules of Parliamentary democracy, he currently has the confidence of the House. The same reason why Stephane Dion will be Prime Minister next Tuesday morning.

Stop lying and misleading.

An attack on Canada’s economy
The Liberals themselves called the NDP “economically-damaging”.

Sure, whatever. Propoganda. I do not like the NDP much either, but they will not be holding any key economic cabinet positions. I'd also like to point out that the NDP has a long record of balanced budgets when in power provincially (though not always).

Red baiting is so 1960's. Grow up.

"Canada needs leadership. Canadian leadership."

So the members of the Coalition are not Canadian? Or just the Bloc members from Quebec? Nice littel dog whistle to the anti-Quebec and anti-French base. Well done.

"There can be no Socialist-Separatist-driven coalition without the people’s consent."

Earth to Pierre, the coalition is made up of duly elected Canadian Citizens, elected fairly to the House of Commons 6 weeks ago and together the represent the majority or the electorate and the majority of the seats in the House.

The people have spoken, you just don't like what they have to say.

So really Pierre, this is pitiful. Outright lying, hyperbole and exaggeration, 60's style red baiting and baseless fear mongering. All so you can maintain your grasp on power.

How very Paul Martin Liberal of you.

What can we expect next, Pierre? Dark, forboding TV ads:

"Socialist. Spearatists. In our streets. I'm not making this up"

You really want to Stand up for Canada? Sit down, shut up and take your lumps like a man. In the game of politics, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives lost. Maybe you ought to be question the judgement of your leader in instigating this, instead of wasting your breathe lying and trying to scare people into supporting you.

BTW, good luck with that RCMP investigation into the illegal recording of the NDP caucus meeting. Since you were a party to the distribution, I'm sure they'll want to talk to you. Law and order, remember.

Enjoying your misery thoroughly

I despise liars and opportunists. I really don't care if the Coalition or the Conservative are in power. I dislike them both, on principle, but I especially dislike parties that emulate the tatics and divisive thuggery of fascists. In this case the Conservatives are the guilty ones.

Make no mistake, if and when the Coalition is the government, I'll be going oafter them for their bone-headed wastes of money in bailing out the auto-sector. Or cheap make-work projects. Or the continuation of low interest rates that are at the basis of the current market problems.

I loathe dishonesty and pandering and I don't care where it comes from.

Instead of the Coalition or the Conservatives, can we pick none of the above and just fire the whole figgin' lot of them?

Update:

In case any frothing Conservative boobs like Pierre or members of his staff are reading this after a google alert, I'll let James Laxer school you on our system of government. Now stop lying.

No dog in the fight, but...

2008-12-01T10:15:00.003-05:00

I am an unabashed libertarian and Market Anarchist. That means I don't want any "government" that isn't explicitly voluntary - if I don't agree explicitly to follow the rules and pay the taxes, I don't. I don't think we need coercive government of any kind to have a just and fair society. I firmly believe, based on evolution and studies in behavioural economics, that people will cooperate rather than compete most of the time, even in a true "free market" economy.

That means on principle I have no dog in the current fight between the newly minted Coalition and the Conservatives. I could care less who runs the circus in Ottawa because in the end, I will ignore any laws and rules I do not agree with, no matter who passed them.

The battle over the last 4 days has been highly entertaining and great spectator sport. It has even revived some of my imaginative juices, as can be seen in my previous post.

Now all of that being said, I am not totally neutral. On principle I agree with the Conservative policy of ending direct subsidies to political parties - no $1.90 per vote. But I want to end all subsidies and that includes the tax credit for political donations - the very tax credit used by the CPC to subsidize 75% of their coffers from the government. I think any individual or any organization should be allowed to donate any amount they deem fit to any and all political parties they wish. Any of these individuals and parties ought to be able to advertise on behalf of their chosen champion. This stand is not popular amongst my progressive friends. Neither is it popular among the right either - they know that doing away with the tax credit will cripple the Conservatives.

So, in the end, this particular move by Harper turns out to be abusing the power of government to attack his opponents, in order to, one can only assume, move to a state dominated by the CPC.

I don't care for the CPC social conservative bent and I don't care for the Liberal and NDP interference in the market for short term gain. On social issues I am squarely with the the extremes of the left and with economics I am a full blown laissez-faire libertarian.

What I cannot stand is lying and outright dishonesty, no matter who uses it. Until yesterday, I saw this whole thing as entertainment, but not any more. The Conservatives have stooped to dirty tricks, violating privacy (and probably a section or too of the criminal code) and are proud of it.

Well, that kind of authoritarian hubris, along with their mean-spirited anti-democratic behaviour now has me rooting for the Coalition. The brain trust in the CPC needs to be removed, because right now, they are a far greater threat to my liberty than any misguided NDP or Liberal economic policy, any Taliban militant or Quebec separatist combined.

So, for the Conservatives who are whining and screaming about "treason" and "coup d'etat" let me remind you:

Nothing the NDP, BQ or Liberals is doing is remotely illegal (unlike say, taping a private conversation without the express consent of those involved and distributing it). Talking strategy in a minority parliament is prudent, not sinister. Under our parliamentary system, the government is formed by the party or parties that can gain the confidence of the majority of the House. Usually that happens to be the party with the most seats, but not always - see Ontario in 1985.

If you call this a coup, you are lying. If you call this undemocratic, you are lying. If you call this against the will of the Canadian electorate, you are not just lying, you can't add.

This is the way our system works and has worked since 1867. Yes, its broken. Yes, its archaic. Yes, its terribly unfair.

So, dear Conservatives, rather than whine and whip outrageous hyperbole, perhaps you ought to look at changing the system. In the interim, perhaps try learning about it.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean I like or dislike the dogs equally. The Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper in particular deserve to be destroyed for their mean-spirited, authoritarian and divisive rule over the last 3 years. Their latest Nixonian moves have only served to show how proto-fascist they really are and how the people of Canada should utterly distrust them - if they did this with a Minority, what on earth would they have done with an unquestioned, 5-year Majority? I truly shudder at the prospect. As bad as the Liberals and NDP are going to be, they would not be nearly as horrific as a Conservative Majority.

I'm rooting for the Coalition.

Worst Case Scenario

2008-11-28T21:30:00.003-05:00

We live in interesting times.

The last few days have been unprecedented in Canadian history. A minority government talks about conciliation and pragmatism, then fails to win the confidence of the house with its fiscal update and its bully tactics. A seeming lame-duck opposition leader suddenly cobbles together a coalition and strives to become Prime Minister and form the government, even after he has announced his resignation as the leader of his party. The coalition is supported by a regional separatist party.

As of now, there is a non-Confidence motion before the house, delayed until December 8th, that would replace the recently re-elected Conservative minority with a Liberal-NDP coalition government, supported by the Bloc. All perfectly legal under out parliamentary system.

As others have noted (like Paul Wells), delaying the vote for a week will give the Conservative 7 days in which to pull out all the stops to paint this as some kind of "coup d'etat", as an undemocratic take over and a partisan move to ensure the Liberals have $7 million in taxpayer funds. They will pull out all the stops, spare no smear in order to stay in power. Indeed, have a read of any of the Blogging Tories for a taste.

On the other side, supporters of the Liberals and NDP, as well as other progressives, will be salivating at the certain defeat of the Harper government. They will be fighting back tooth and nail, excited to finally get power back from the Conservatives.

All of this is to be expected after the last 5 years of highly polarized, partisan politics this country has been indulging in (mostly at the instigation of the Conservative machine).

So I need to temper my progressive friends excitement and anticipation - we are in very dangerous territory. Imagine this:

***

The Conservative machine whips its base into a frenzy calling the Opposition a "junta" call their actions a "coup d'etat", claiming their actions are a power grab for nefarious reasons. After one solid week of question period and press scrums, accusations and debates, the country is even more polarized. A few provincial leaders have entered the fray, either pledging to work with the impending coalition or flat out stating they will refuse to recognize it.

During this week, the market plunges, the Canadian dollar sinks and investment in general dries up due to instability. The economic crisis deepens even more quickly.

On December 8th, as expected, the motion passes. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion announces his cabinet, and calls on the Governor General to allow him to form a government with the confidence of the house. Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to resign and implores the GG to ignore the result. The Conservative Party goes to the Federal Court of Canada asking for an injunction to prevent the Coalition from taking office and a ruling on the legality of the vote.

The Federal Court refuses to rule.

On December 12th, the GG grants Dion's request and asks the coalition to form a government.

Many Conservatives, including Harper, refuse to leave their offices and refuse to recognize the new government as legitimate. Alberta and Saskatchewan refuse to recognize the coalition and refuse to cooperate in any way. Newfoundland, Ontario and Quebec pledge any support the new government needs.

There are demonstrations in Edmonton, Calgary and Saskatoon in support of the Conservatives hold up in Parliament Hill. The Coalition government has the former Conservative government physically removed from the hill, sparking more protests across the country, mostly in the West. There are counter protest in support in Toronto and on the lawn of the Hill.

On December 16th, Linda Duncan, the lone NDP MP in Alberta, is shot outside her constituency office in Edmonton. The next morning, the offices of Pierre Poilievre, John Baird and Gordon O'Connor are fire bombed. One office worker is killed and two others seriously burned. Baird is beaten unconscious by unknown assailants a few hours later.

That afternoon, a protest on Parliament Hill turns into a full blown riot. The RCMP refuses to intervene when ordered to by the Justice Minster and the Ottawa Police step in. The RCMP Commissioner is fired.

On December 19th, Harper announces that the Conservative government is the legitimate government and will operate from Calgary. Police across the country report a surge in politically motivated violence and vandalism.

The Bush Administration refuses to recognize the new Coalition government and deals with Harper in Calgary. Obama refuses to support either, stating it is the internal affair of Canada and he is not yet President. Britain and the EU recognize the Coalition.

On December 23, portions of the RCR from Petawawa, acting on orders from the Harper government, launch and attack on Parliament Hill to capture and arrest Dion and the coalition cabinet. The Governor General Foot Guard, a few Mounties, and hundreds of civilians line up to defend the Coalition and fight back. Spontaneous skirmishes flare up in Toronto and Halifax as Coalition supporters storm local armouries to get weapons and ensure the local militias are not loyal to Harper.

From that point we have civil war...

***

Outrageous, right? Far-fetched?

Perhaps, but given how polarized we are now, and how far the Conservatives will go in the coming weeks to stop the vote, it is possible. If you look at each of the steps I outlined, they aren't so far fetched nor unprecedented in Canadian history. We are in a situation once seen by people in Yugoslavia or in Spain.

This scenario - the worst case scenario - is still possible. Or something similar. Or perhaps only some of this. The seeds of this kind of thing - the partisanship, the polarization and the demonization of ones political enemies - have been planted and are growing in our political culture.

This scenario is more likely than I think people want to admit.

Are we prepared for this? Have you picked a side?

And the point is?

2008-11-18T08:22:00.004-05:00

Meaghan at Somena Media points out that the much ballyhooed and delayed Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission has some serious problems.

In consequence of these limitations, the commission can not expose wrongdoings of the government. This is not only an expensive fraud upon the public but a cruel imposition upon the victims, who are encouraged to air their innermost suffering in the mistaken belief that it will lead to closure. The commission itself recognizes its task is only, “to document the truth of survivors, their families, communities and anyone who has been personally affected by the Indian Residential Schools (IRS) legacy.” The commission will look at symptoms but neither the cause nor the liability of the causer. It can not and will not investigate crimes by the government.

So, why exactly are we paying for this, if it cannot and will not assign blame?

Bread and Circuses, to placate victims and make the government look like it is doing something, even while it does nothing and gets away with its crimes.

This is what happens when you let the criminals investigate their own crimes.

Thank You

2008-11-11T07:00:00.000-05:00

Maj. Charles F. Rothera, 97th Algonquin Rifles - WWI (in the middle)

LCpl William A. Rothera, Royal Canadian Signal Corps - WWII

Warrant Officer Tim Park, 1st Hussars - actively serving.

The Kids are Alright...

2008-11-04T23:35:00.004-05:00

By the age of 7, in 1974, I had used the word "nigger" in casual conversation. I knew it as a synonym for "blacks", though it would be a few more years before I would come to realize it was more than just another word. Such was the advancement of my generation, that we didn't really know the word was bad.

Earlier yesterday evening, I told my own 7-year-old that tonight, in the US, they might elect the first black man as President. He stared at me, wrinkled his nose and said

"So? I don't care."

I couldn't help but smile.

He didn't care because for him, its inconceivable that a black person couldn't be President of the US. The history of the moment was lost on him because, to him and his friends, the idea of "black" or "white" that my generation has, is lost. In fact, my two oldest kids, aged 7 and 9, don't even use the term "black" - they describe their friends as "Jenna with the dark skin" or "Sanjana with the light brown skin" or "Katie with the light skin and freckles". Its not race, is pure visual, pure description.

What to me and my generation is an earth-shattering event of enormous historical importance, is merely a normal day for my kids.

And that is just fine by me.

I have no illusions that President Barack Obama will be anything other than just another man in charge of the state. He won't perform miracles and he won't be a savior. Indeed, I expect him to pass some pretty bad policies and legislation, most of which I will not agree with or even oppose vehemently.

But I know history when I see it and for me this is history. His election is symbolic that maybe, just maybe, the scourge of racism is dying and that in another generation or two, it will be a thing of the past.

My son is living proof that it is happening.

In December I'll be 41 years old. In my life I have seen Apollo 11 landing on the moon, the end of the Viet Nam War, the 72 Series, the resignation of a US President in disgrace, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Challenger Disaster, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the release of Nelson Mandela, the end of Apartheid, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tienanmen Square, Oklahoma City, 9-11, both Iraq Wars, the start of the 2nd Great Depression and the first African American elected President of the USA.

I wonder what the next 41 years will bring. Whatever they bring, I know that the next generation is already an improvement over mine.

That is the real cause for hope today.

Good Morning America

2008-11-04T23:09:00.002-05:00

I was havin' me a burger, in a little greasy spoon cafe...

2008-10-31T13:00:00.002-04:00

Love 'em or hate 'em, a little part of Canadiana is gone today....

It isn't close to over yet

2008-10-29T14:50:00.004-04:00

Stock up on food, buy ammo and gold.

Peter Schiff, author and economist, lays it out pretty plainly on Bloomberg today:

Part 1

Part 2

Now, what do you think our government's are going to do after that big meeting on November 10?

(h/t to LewRockwell.com)

Update:

For those who doubt Schiff's acumen, he predicted the current crash over 2 years ago:

Free Market Anti-Capitalism

2008-10-21T10:38:00.001-04:00

Libertarianism, it seems, has taken a beating lately. Of course, that is only if you take terms like 'libertarianism' and 'free market' to means something they don't - in this case the presently exiting state capitalist plutocracy.

Some folks are genuinely confused when they find out I am not just an anarchist, but a 'free market' anarchist.

If you really want to understand the left-libertarian, free market anti-capitalist mindset, I cannot think of two better examples than these two posts by Auburn Professor Roderick T Long at Art of the Possible.

Highlights:

From Regulation: The Cause, Not the Cure, of the Financial Crisis :

"The bailout is just diverting resources from the productive poor and middle-class to the failed rich, which doesn’t seem like a very good idea one either ethical or economic grounds. The only good effect such a bailout could possibly have (at least if you prefer costly boondoggles without piles of dead bodies to costly boondoggles with them) is if it convinced the warmongers that they just can’t afford a global war on terror right now"

From History of an Idea :

But what if friendly politicians rig the game so that favoured companies can reap the benefits associated with economies of scale while socialising the costs associated with diseconomies of scale? Then we might just possibly end up with an economy dominated by those bloated, bureaucratic, hierarchical corporate behemoths we all know and love.

....

All too many libertarians still rush to defend giant corporations like Microsoft and Wal-Mart (two firms whose whole business model in fact depends heavily on government intervention – via, e.g., IP protectionism for Microsoft, eminent domain plus socialised transportation costs for Wal-Mart, and general suppression of competition from the less affluent for both) as though such a defense were part and parcel of a commitment to markets. As libertarians we can hardly complain when we’re accused of being apologists for corporate plutocracy, so long as we’re actually contributing to that perception ourselves by allowing ourselves to lose track of the basic facts about the price system that we of all people should remember.

Check out the links in both pieces and the links to Roderick, Brad Spangler and Kevin Carson in my sidebar.

Anyone that says they are libertarian and supports the bailout or government intervention of any kind is a liar.

The words 'free market' are not dirty words and libertarians are not Ayn Rand-loving apologists for the rich and powerful. Those are the 'vulgar libertarians' and are not libertarians at all.

Update:

Stefan Molyneux cuts through the guff and lays it out, plain as day. Please try to tell me after watching this insightful explanation that the current economic problems are caused by the 'free market' rather than regulations and government action. Think about it.

Obligatory Election Post

2008-10-17T08:06:00.005-04:00

As a market anarchist, libertarian and free market advocate (and the real free market, not the crony capitalism and state capitalism most people today try to pass off as the free market) I found little except mild entertainment in this election.

As a former NDP party hack, who worked in an election or two, I still have an appreciation for how our system works (or rather doesn't work). Here are my observations as an outsider with no horse in the race:

Conservatives:

Thank you so much for an completely unnecessary $200 million election which changed little. I'm sure glad you broke your own fixed election date law in order to call it. Such fiscal prudence. Funny how you can come up with that kind of money for a frivolous election called so you didn't have to run one during a recession, but you still can't come up with money to build a school for the kids in Atawapiskat. But I guess since you guys are already hiding a $20 billion deficit, I can somewhat understand. I mean, this is Jim Flaherty, he has a history of doing this kind of thing.

And what was your first act the day after your election? Release a "6 point plan" that is nearly identical to the Liberal's "5 point plan" that, during the election, you guys panned as an example of Dion "panicking". How very Pierre Trudeau of you all:

Trudeau later (in October 1975) instituted wage and price controls, something which he had mocked Progressive Conservative Party leader Robert Stanfield for proposing during the election campaign a year earlier.

Liberals:

If the above isn't enough to convince that Stephane Dion is this generation's Robert Stanfield - a smart, genuine leader with interesting ideas who could never get elected Prime Minister - than I don't know what will. Dion's ATV gaffe near the end of the election last week is his "Stanfield football picture", his defining moment of "image politics". Like Stanfield, it doesn't matter how many pictures there were of him catching the football, or, in Dion's case, answering the question well in other contexts, the image that remains to this day is of a frail, nerdy Stanfield NOT catching that ball. The image of Dion will, for a long time be his inability to understand the question and get a do over. Yes, I could barely understand the question, but the image is important, sadly, not the reality.

Dion never connected with his own base it seems causing life long Liberals to either not vote or vote for the Conservatives. This is what caused the lose of seats in Ontario, not the damn traitorous NDP not supporting you against Harper. Case in point (and purely anecdotal, but still revealing) my wife only voted Liberal in this election because the candidate was an old high school teacher. She told me she would have voted Conservative if he hadn't been the candidate, despite the fact she hates Pierre Poilievre, because she feels its her duty to vote and she will not vote Liberal if Dion is the leader. Her parents were similar - they actually voted for John Baird, because they feared losing their income splitting in a Liberal Green shift and similarly don't like Dion.

They all told me they would have voted Liberal if either Bob Rae or Michael Ignatief were leader. Take that for what it is worth.

Bottom line is the Liberal brand is not enough to over come Dion's poor image and inability to connect with the electorate. The Liberals will simply not form a government with Dion as the leader. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can fix it. You can fix it by replacing Dion or changing Dion's image radically - and that may require a course of steroids and him punching out Jason Kenney at a press conference (not a bad idea actually).

Or you can continue to blame the NDP and a conspiracy involving Mike Duffy and Robert Fife for your woes. Your choice.

And that's not even mentioning the poorly run, uninspiring campaign.

NDP:

A well run but entirely predictable campaign. And I found that the party of principle I once belonged to is gone. So while its understandable that you dismiss a candidate for exposing himself to teenage girls, dismissing candidates for once being part owner of a store that sold marijuana seeds when it has been the party's policy to at least decriminalize pot for years seems more than a bit hypocritical. All style and no substance.

Oh boy and when faced with economic hardship the answer is...roll back corporate tax cuts. Is there a problem in this country that can't be solved by "rolling back corporate tax cuts"? Seems to me this is merely the flip side of the Conservative "there is no problem in this country that can't be solved BY reducing corporate taxes" coin.

Maybe some fresh ideas beyond the "roll back corporate tax cuts" mantra next time, mkay?

And in this slightly changed Parliament you now hold the balance of power, something you didn't last time around. So when the Conservatives come calling, I hope you stand your ground on such things as refusing to pass legislation throwing 14-year-olds in jail for life and other draconian measures they will certainly propose.

I'm not holding my breathe.

Greens:

Lizzy May did great in the debate, but sadly was unable to get a seat, either her own or for someone else. Of course most Canadians still think of the Greens as a one issue party, so perhaps you ought to really spread the news about your other platform stands. I think your ideas around health care are interesting...try focusing on that.

But what has this really shown? That by lying, smearing and manipulating people, the party that gets 37% of the votes of the 59% of the electorate the voted can now rule us all with "legitimacy" because the broken method of "democracy" ran its course.

Me? I don't really care.

I don't care what silly laws and regulations Harper tries to pass because I will simply ignore and disobey any that I do not explicitly agree to follow. Meaning I will rip MP3, copy DVD and do whatever the hell I want with the media I have purchased. Meaning I will go out of my way to refuse to pay taxes to support a war I do not agree with. Meaning I will defend and support abortion providers, underground if necessary, no matter what.

I don't care if Dion stays or goes, because I will never vote Liberal. But if any Liberals have any intellectual honesty, they should consider their own faults and the observations I made, rather than playing the victim.

I have said it before and it bears repeating at this time as a reminder of what is possible, from Henry David Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience:

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient."

Unfree Markets

2008-10-01T19:01:00.004-04:00

With the US meltdown still going strong, and yet another tax-payer funded bailout of big banks in the offing, its interesting to watch these prophetic videos by Max Keiser from May of 2007:

Bottom line, the issues we see today in the US and world markets are not a problem with the "free market" because the market is not free - it is economic fascism where what regulations do exist are set up to benefit the rich and powerful, rather than protect others in the market.

That they claim it is "deregulation" doesn't make it so. And now they are poised to enrich themselves again, while we all suffer.

(h/t to Red Tory)

Vulgar Conservatism

2008-09-26T10:29:00.007-04:00

If you ever venture around the LeftLibertarian Yahoo Group, or read much from the left libertarian blogsphere, you'll notice a term we use quite often - "vulgar libertarianism".

Vulgar Libertarianism is a term coined by Kevin Carson and it refers to those who use libertarian words and ideas to promote or excuse definitely unlibertarian actions. The Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute are examples - they say they promote free markets and enterprise, but have no qualms with government bailouts or the enforcement of laws and regulations designed to favour certain companies or industries to the detriment of others. (Update: To be fair in this instance, the Cato Institute is against the bailout. However, they have been known to indulge in vulgar libertarian at other times, which is why they are included in this.)

For all their talk, these people aren't libertarians, but economic fascists who merely want the state to work for their enrichment and benefit, rather than removing state barriers and enhancing liberty.

With the current meltdown in the US economy affecting our election, we are witnessing the rise of what I call Vulgar Conservatism. That is, the use, by the Conservative Party and their supporters, of the myth that the CPC is a party of small government and free markets. Even some Conservatives I respect and that are normally quite intelligent, are repeating this talking point.

The most obvious example is the idea that only Harper and the CPC are fiscally conservative and responsible to ride out tough economic times. And while Harper talks that way, he and Jim Flaherty act different. As Andrew Coyne pointed out a year-and-a-half ago:

The budget maintains, notwithstanding a $25-billion increase in spending over two years, that the government is showing unwavering fiscal discipline. How? Because it has kept the growth in spending to no more than the growth in the economy, “on average.”

Now, people like me would argue the percent-of-GDP measure is misleading: it implies that, so long as spending has not grown faster than the economy, it has not grown at all. But I suppose that’s within the bounds of acceptable political chicanery.

Or would be, if in fact spending had grown slower than the economy. But, again, the budget’s own figures show that it hasn’t. Program spending was 12.8% of GDP in fiscal 2006, 13.1% in 2007, and will be 13.3% in 2008.

How, then, do the Tories maintain that spending has grown no faster than the economy, even “on average?” By including in the average fiscal 2006, a year in which nominal spending actually declined slightly (though only after a nearly 15% gain the previous year). Just one problem: the Liberals were in power in fiscal 2006, or all but the last two months of it. The Tories are claiming credit for Liberal “restraint.”

Or, as he put it a few days earlier:

"With this budget -- including another 6% increase in spending, on top of last year’s 8% blowout -- Jim Flaherty officially becomes the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada.

It’s true. The $200-billion in program spending Mr. Flaherty has budgeted for this year works out to about $5,800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Even adjusting for inflation and increases in population, that’s more than Paul Martin spent in his frantic last hours. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of out-of-control spending must now be retired. Jim Flaherty has outdone them all."[emphasis mine]

That is "vulgar conservatism". Say you are for fiscal responsibility and restraint and act completely the opposite. His assessment of the 2008 Flaherty budget wasn't much better.

This is fiscal conservatism, apparently - outspending Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau at their worst, while cutting taxes (or claiming to). I was under the impression fiscal conservatism was about reducing taxes and spending, keeping the books balanced and getting government "out of the way".

Then this same Prime Minister and Conservative Party claim that it is the opposition that will drive the country into deficit and only they can keep us afloat. Even after their actual record while in office and even after their own "orgy of pre-election spending", amounting to $8.8 billion or $94 million per day. And after years of massive surpluses under the Liberals, it was the Conservatives that sunk into deficit this spring for a few months. It is the Conservatives that cut $45 million in arts funding under the guise of fiscal prudence while maintaining $1.5 billion in subsidies to the most profitable industry on the planet, oil and gas.

Reminds me of when Jim Flaherty was the Finance Minister in Ontario under Harris and Eaves and drove us into deficit, while telling us we were in surplus. Deja vu?

This is nothing compared to the very idea that someone can be a small-government fiscal conservative on one hand, while demanding the state intervene in private matters such as marriage or abortion on the other. They wish to move the state out of the boardroom and into the bedroom.

Now that is a lot of things - populist, authoritarian, reactionary - but it is not "conservative". It is a repeat of both Reagan and Bush, where promises of small government and fiscal prudence gave way to growth in government and massive debt and deficit.

Right now, no party is fiscally conservative and no party has sensible plans to manage government finances well. But only the Conservative Party is trying to tell you that they are the "natural fiscal responsibility party" when they are not.

Ask your self this - if you suddenly found yourself in a lower paying job, with less income than last year or the year before, would you opt to spend more money or less? Seems Stephen Harper would spend more, but have you stop buying one coffee a day and call it fiscal conservatism and think that will get you through the hard times.

That is vulgar conservatism and that is what the Conservative Party is.

Reason 47,882,900 voting is for chumps...

2008-09-12T13:29:00.008-04:00

So after going to the wall and demanding that May be included in the debates as a matter of principle, along with a lot of others in blogsphere, how does the Green Party thank us?

Why by threatening legal action against a blogger for posting a less-than-flattering Youtube video of May, of course.

Isn't that nice.

Don't get me wrong. Leftdog and I are still at odds as to whether May should be in the debates, and I was pretty strong in my criticism of his position over at Red Tory's place. I stand by that criticism. In my opinion, he knee-jerked in a typical partisan fashion toeing the party line rather than examining it from principle. So eager was he to attack the Greens that, as you can see from the previous link, he mistook James Bow for James Bowie. Then, to further his partisan attack, he posted the video in question.

The video inquestion was created by Stephen Taylor, founder of the Blogging Tories and well known Conservative insider, clearly, in my opinion, as a Rovian style smear against May. The video clearly and purposefully misrepresents what May said in an effort to hurt her.

It seems clear that what Taylor and leftdog are purporting she said ("Canadians are stupid") is not, in fact, what she said - she seems to be agree with the assertion that politicians think canadians are stupid when it comes to carbon taxes. She says "they" not "I"...

So where does that leave us?

The Conservatives are scared stiff, it seems, of Elizabeth May. First they try to prevent her from taking part in the debate. When that doesn't seem to work, the resort to astro-turfing a video and audio clip that totally misrepresents what she said, again, to try to discredit her. Leftdog, in his zeal to spout the party position at the time, goes out of his way to become a "useful idiot" of this Conservative campaign.

And the Green's conveniently respond with poorly worded legal threats against an opponent. Even though I disagree with leftdog's tactics and his ultra-partisanship, use of lawsuits to quash criticism and dissent is absolutely unacceptable in a free society and in this I stand with and support leftdog against this Green Party nonsense.

And, in an irony of near biblical proportions, the Conservatives whinge about the Greens doing it as a further reason they should not be in the debates or taken seriously.

Yes, the Conservatives are upset that a political party is using lawsuits or threats for lawsuits to prevent people from hearing potentially embarrassing audio tape of their leader.

Irony is dead.

In one incident we have the display of arrogance, authoritarianism and childish churlishness from almost all of the political parties. These are the people and their supporters who wish to rule us for the next 4 to 5 years. These are the choices we have when deciding whom to entrust our decision making power for taxes and freedom.

That's the problem with choosing between these clowns - you'll get one of them.

Shorter Stephen Harper ...

2008-09-08T20:47:00.000-04:00

"Buck-buck-buck-buck-bu-GaWK!"

Update:

Shorter Layton and Duceppe:

"Gravel and Grubs, gravel and grubs!"

Is there anyone out there who really thinks that this election is about democracy and fairness, rather than a naked lust for power?

I have never been so glad I quit the NDP as I am right now.

You know, I may not spoil my ballot, I may vote Green out of spite.

And now, the lying begins.

2008-09-07T12:58:00.006-04:00

So, we are subjected to stupidity again. Harper has broken his own law in order to have an election when it is convenient for him.

Why, exactly, w0uld anyone vote for these power-hungry scum?

Oh and before any of the usual suspects accuses me of being a Liberal, rest assured I'll highlight the Liberals lies as well - and you Dion, Rae and Iggy are queuing them up. And Layton and May as well. Hell the only one likely to tell any semblance of the truth is Duceppe and only then in English Canada because he has nothing to lose.

Tally up the lies. Tally up the orgy of pre-election spending.

And then realize we don't need any of these clowns to tell us what to do or how to act.

Reality Check

2008-09-04T10:27:00.003-04:00

This week it seems that the mindlessness if flowing like water. On all sides of the political spectrum, critical thinking has given way to strange, herd-thinking and cheer-leading for "our team".

Take the US election for instance.

To a person, those on the "left" like and support Barack Obama as a fellow lefty and 'liberal'. Yet, his policy and record show that he is, from a Canadian political perspective, the equivalent to a Diefenbaker-Stansfield-Clark Progressive Conservative, not a Liberal. Ironically it should be the Conservatives who support Obama, yet they, almost to a person, stampede to the McCain camp and the Republicans who really are even further right than even the Reform party was. The same people who scream 'Adscam!" when the Liberals are in the room and "Free Speech!" when Human Rights Commissions are mentioned happily support a person - Sarah Palin - who is alleged to have abused her power as Governor to have her brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers during a messy divorce from her sister and who tried during her term in office as mayor to have books banned from the public library.

And why? Because of the perception that these people are "on your side" or "on your team" - the American right must be naturally allied with the Canadian right, right? American 'liberals' are exactly like the Liberals, no?

No.

This knee jerk, collectivist tribalism allows all kinds of cognitive disonance to take place. Liberals who support same sex-marriage have no issue with Obama, who does not support it. Conservatives who support "family values" and "abstinence only sex education" seem to have no problem singing the praises of Palin, whose 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and is having a shotgun wedding to the 18-year-old father. Or of McCain calling his wife a "cunt". Imagine the reaction if it had been "the other side" with these things happening.

(To be fair, Lore Weaver seems to be the only intellectually honest blogger on this - he is an Obama supporter and a Conservative).

And then there is our own (unofficial) election campaign.

The supposedly "fiscal conservative" Stephen Harper and the CPC promising billions in corporate welfare to Ford, even after running a deficit for a short time this spring and after cutting arts funding less than a week ago under the guise of being "fiscally responsible".

Or of Stephane Dion claiming his failed summer "Green Shift" tour was "consultation" that resulting in major changes to the program, after the multiple polls that showed how unpopular it was.

I could go on but you get the picture.

So, tell me again why its better to have a state, run by uncritical, unthinking, unprincipled, intellectually dishonest dolts who seem to want to equate "left" and "right" to their favourite hcokey team?

So to sum up for those who have trouble understanding:

Obama==Progressive Conservative
Republicans == far right of the Reform Party
Sarah Palin == authoritarian who would be ridiculed even by Conservatives if she were Canadian.
Stephen Harper == mean-spirited political whore in a blue tie
Stephane Dion == mousy political whore in a red tie.

In the end, when the smoke clears, we'll still get taxed too much, we'll still get crappy service from the government, we'll still be fighting religious fundementalism, the US will still be in Iraq and (October Surprise!) maybe Iran, and we will still be bribed with our own money by people who want power for their own good, not ours.

It really doesn't matter who "wins".

Youth Crime: Reality Refuses to Cooperate

2008-07-22T20:27:00.006-04:00

Judging from the mailer I got from my MP Pierre Poilievre, the Harper Conservatives are about to launching a slick new tough-on-crime campaign. Clearly they want people to forget about their fight with Elections Canada, the C-484 debacle, Cadscam, In-and-Out and the rest of their sordid affairs. When in doubt, drag up "law and order" or "tough on crime", the last refuge of right-wing scoundrels everywhere, when they have nothing else to run on.

The pity is, reality is refusing to cooperate - again. Canada's crime rate dropped 7% in 2007, after hitting a 25 year low in 2006. Even the youth crime rate dropped:

The youth crime rate, which has remained relatively stable over the past decade, declined 1.5% in 2007 following a 3.3% increase in 2006. The 2007 drop was due to a decrease in non-violent crimes. The youth violent crime rate remained stable in 2007 after increasing steadily over the past two decades. The 2007 rate was more than double the rate reported in the mid-1980s.[emphasis mine]

The Conservatives don't want people to pay attention to the highlighted parts, they want people to concentrate on that last sentence - "The 2007 rate was more than double the rate reported in the mid-1980s".

From the mailer, they are using phrases like "Above the Law?" and "Age is no excuse" (I'll note that the mailer is a slick production - not the usual sleazy fare for Pierre - and must be part of a coordinated national campaign. Its also being mailed to the Caucus Office at 131 Queen in Ottawa and not to Pierre's constituency office as usual).

Again, reality isn't cooperating.

Lets look at the context for that rise in youth crime. A note from the Daily in October 2007 regarding the 2006 stats is enlightening:

The rate of youth aged 12 to 17 accused of homicide was at its highest point since 1961. A total of 84 young people were accused of homicide in 2006, 12 more than in 2005. However, the number of victims killed by a youth remained virtually unchanged.[emphasis mine]

The total number of youth murders in Canada in 2006 was 84. A change of 12 extra charges (but the same number of victims - meaning more accomplices) accounted, with the other rates of violent crime, for that 3.3% increase reported above. In other words:

While the rate of youth accused reached an all-time high in 2006, 5 years ago the rate was at a 30-year low. Youth accused of homicide can vary greatly from year to year, due to the relatively small number of youth who commit homicide.[emphasis mine]

The rate of youth violent crime seems to vary widely because so few youth are involved in violent crime, even a few extra accused being arrested (but no more victims) can cause a large rise in the rate per 100 000.

It is interesting to note that in 2005, these small actual numbers in youth crime caused a 6% drop in the youth crime rate, including a 2% drop in the violent crime rate.

A similar situation occurred in adult crime in 2004. 2003 saw a 35-year-low in Canada's crime rate. In 2004, the rate was up because of a 230% rise in counterfeiting - caused by a single counterfeiter operating in Toronto. Again, our actual crime numbers are so low, even a single criminal can change the national crime rate.

That is the context and the reality of crime in Canada. Looking at the raw numbers shows that even in youth crime that is close to its highest since 1961, actual crimes are incredibly rare. Despite the fear, there are less than 80 youth murders in the entire country, out of 176 000 criminals 12 to 17.

So the question needs to be asked, where is the crime wave that requires a sudden overhaul of the youth justice system? Is a 'get tough' approach, with longer sentences and more youth in jail the best way to deal with the crime we already have?

Ironically, the Department of Justice's own website seems to counter the Conservatives belief in a get tough approach:

Myth: A "get tough" approach will reduce youth crime
Reality: Harsher criminal sanctions do not discourage youth from getting into trouble with the law.

The U.S. Surgeon General's recent study on youth violence concluded that boot camps, custodial programs with strict military-style rules, fail to make a positive difference and can actually increase the rate at which participants commit new crimes. [6] The same study found that youths transferred to adult criminal court are more likely to re-offend than young people who remain in juvenile courts.

In 2002, the federal government released a review of 111 studies on the effects of criminal justice sanctions on more than 442,000 offenders. It found that harsher punishments had no deterrent effect on repeat offences. In fact, it suggested that punishment caused a 3% increase in recidivism among all groups of offenders, including youth.[7]

Another consideration is that a significant number of youth inmates have mental health problems and require treatment, not punishment.[emphasis mine]

Further, the Conservatives are claiming in the body of Bill C-25, An Act to Amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that the sentences are declining while the rate of crime is seemingly going up. But if you read the excellent overview of Canada's youth criminal justice system at Mapleleafweb, you'll notice something the Conservatives won't mention:

In 1997, the federal Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs reported that Canada's rate of youth incarceration was more than twice that of the United States, and 10 to 15 times higher (per one thousand youth population) than New Zealand, Australia, and many European countries (Source: Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, 1997)

In short, despite our incarceration rate being 33% higher in 2002-2003 than in 1993-94, we still had one of the highest incarceration rates in the world when it comes to youth. Further, in C-25 the choice of years highlighted is interesting - 2002-2003 was the year before the Liberal's changes to the the Youth Criminal Justice Act became law. In 2004, incarceration had jumped back up and admission to probation had fallen sharply.

Once again, we have the Conservatives trying play on people's fears and misconceptions in order to gain power and push through their agenda. They have long thought that those 'damn kids need to be punished' or that they 'get away with murder' and they will find, spin and twist any kind of statistics to try to show that.

They want to foster the false impression that young thugs are running the streets committing horrible violent crimes - as the graphic picture of 3 masked youths in an alley on the mailer shows .

The reality is that youth crime is already so low that small year-to-year changes in raw numbers create large swings in the crime rate. The reality is that Canada already incarcerates its young offenders at rates higher than most Western countries, including the US. The reality is that actual studies in the US and Canada show that 'tough on crime' policies - as championed by the Conservatives - actually increase recidivism and the crime rates.

If the Conservatives were serious about doing something about youth crime, they would look at what the root causes are. They would use actual facts and studies to determine the best was to prevent and deal effectively with youth crime.

But they aren't serious about it.

They don't really care about the youth crime rate, they merely want to scare people into voting for them.

Don't get suckered in by Conservative propaganda. 'Tough on crime' for the relatively small numbers and prescribing policies that have been shown to not work to reduce crime (and may even increase it) is the wrong approach. Listen to the reality, not the Conservative spin.

WALL*E the libertarian

2008-07-05T16:01:00.005-04:00

Cross-posted from theConverted:

Since it came out, the Pixar film WALL*E has generated great kudos. On the second night it was out, I took my entire family - my wife, my 9 year-old daughter, my 7 year-old son and their 2 1/2 year-old brother - to see the film.

It is a wonderful, heart-warming and cute film, with incredible animation and a fairly good story.

Unfortunately, that has not stopped some knee-jerk, anti-environmentalist Randroids and slack-jawed conservative idiots from labeling it as "environmentalist, anticapitalist, and antitechnological propaganda" (sic).

Really?

**Spoiler Alert - do not read any further if you haven't seen the film**

Lets see, we have an planet ruined by garbage, as the result of what appears to be the monopoly of a single company - Big and Large (BNL) - because they cater to every whim. They seem to be able to dump garbage because they seem to be able to externalize the cost of doing so. Now that could be a metaphor for pure socialism, but it seems more likely to me to be a metaphor for our current state capitalism.

Now, when faced with environmental disaster, what is the answer? why a more technological and nanny state existence on a cruise ship in space. Every aspect of life, from cradle to grave, is taken care of by the State - the cruise ship - and its minions - the service robots. Indeed, the humans become so lazy and distracted by this they do not realize they are always following the carefully controlled and laid out plans of the State to the point that they don't realize the ship has a pool and that other people are more than just picture on a view screen.

It is not until the people of the ship are awakened and remember their past, fight against the agents of the state - the service robots trying to stop them from going to earth - shut off the "Autopilot" and leave the ship are they truly free.

They leave the control and comfort of the ship (state) and enter a fairly barren, despoiled land. It is not a paradise, but harsh - literally a garbage dump. But they courageously step forward, awkwardly, and start their new lives without the ship and its nanny-state society.

And if you stayed to watch the credits, the back story that unfold in the background animation, you'll see they better their world not by taking orders from the "Autopilot" but by cooperating and working together to plant food, recover from garbage and to rebuild without the over arching authority.

That certainly seems like a libertarian storyline to me?

I would also add that WALL*E indulges in a few verboten activities that libertarians would love and the MPAA and the RIAA would despise - he watches his pirated version of "Hello Dolly" on his iPod and plays the ripped version of the music on his internal tape deck. He is self reliant, gathering and using spare parts he finds to fix himself and create his home, without relying on "the mother ship" to do it for him, like the bots on the Axiom do.

All that, but some people still call it a liberal propaganda film.

As others have pointed out, if you are so humourless as to be caterwauling about a kids movie like this, without seeing that obviously there are elements of both liberal and conservative politics, than how can anyone take you seriously.

"The fundamental story of the movie is about a culture beholden to a nanny state - in this case, a literal nanny state that coddles them like babies from the cradle to the grave, a world where individual initiative is destroyed and cultural history is entirely alien to the entire human race. Basically, it’s the exact thing that conservatives have been warning us about for years, wrapped up in a movie with cute robots who rebel against it and lead humanity to a hunting-gathering-growing Earth."

Indeed.

Environmental destruction happens and sometimes, the best laid plans of a statist, technological solution are worse. Only when people are free to face adversity and make free choices, not preprogrammed one, will the world be saved.

That is the message of WALL*E. That is the message to the environmentalists who think that answer to state capitalist created pollutions and environmental destruction is more state regulation and exemption.

And it has cute robots, which will be used to market thousands of toys for the next two year.

But its anti-capitalist.

Right.

These people really need to get a sense of humour and get over themselves.

Note:

No doubt, people will not agree with my opinion that WALL*E is really a classic of libertarianism. That's ok. Like most art and literature, there is enough within the characters, story and animation to evoke the sentiments of nearly any political leaning. My point is not so much to convince people that WALL*E is about libertarianism or libertarian ideals, but rather to point out that I was able to find, rather easily, some very libertarian themes in a film that is being panned by conservatives and vulgar libertarians as "liberal propaganda". I found much more libertarian ideas than liberal ones.

It merely shows that some humourless conservatives and Randian libertarians will immediately put on their dogmatic blinders and try to find anything they can use against 'teh libruls'. they are just angry and jealous that this film is popular.

Its just a movie about cute robots. Get over it.

(h/t to John)

My Stompin' Ground

2008-07-01T13:36:00.002-04:00

Happy Canada Day, eh?

"And it doesn't matter really where your from,
You can spread the word around,
Wherever you find a heart that's kind,
Your in my Stompin' Ground"

-Stompin' Tom Connors, Skinner's Pond PEI.

Why I can't support the "Green Shift"

2008-06-25T14:02:00.007-04:00

I like the premise, I really do - make polluters and C02 emitters internalize the cost of their actions, rather than externalize that cost for the rest of us.

Prima facie, it seems like a sound idea. Stephane Dion and the Liberals are proposing using the tax system to push those external costs onto polluters while trying to remove the public cost. It is costed, planned and well thought out.

The problem is, of course, it won't work. It runs counter not only to sound economics, but counter to human economic behaviour. The plan, as with most attempts by the government to regulate and engineer the economy and society, holds within it the seeds of "unintended consequences" which will have absolutely paradoxical effects - it may cause more pollution and Co2 emissions than it stops.

The problem is the regulation and taxation may destroy the normal "moral sentiment" and give polluters the ability to merely pay for permission to pollute.

As Ronald Bailey points out at Reason in a review of the work of Samuel Bowles, it comes down to both insentive AND our inate sense of what is right. The example given is the Israeli Daycare fines case. In that case, 6 daycare centres in Haifa implemented fines for parents who picked up their kids late. But rather than encouraging parents to be more prompt, it had the exact opposite effect:

Instead, parents reacted to the fine by coming even later. Why? According to Bowles: "The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."

That is, parents felt they could just purchase the ability to be late as a comodity. Extrapolate this to the directors of heavy polluters and C02 emmiters - they can merely purchase, through taxes and fines, the ability to pollute with out having to justify or explain it in the more moral sense - to the public anxious to see something done.

The Green Shift can be seen as allowing polluters to buy the ability to pollute with impunity. Given that Bowles research is based on 41 behaviour economics experiments around the world and he comes to this conclusion:

"[I]ndividuals from the more market-oriented societies were also more fair-minded in that they made more generous offers to their experimental partners and more often chose to receive nothing rather than accept an unfair offer. A plausible explanation is that this kind of fair-mindedness is essential to the exchange process and that in market-oriented societies individuals engaging in mutually beneficial exchanges with strangers represent models of successful behavior who are then copied by others."

Or as Bailey puts it "as people gain more experience with markets, morals and material incentives pull together."

Given this research, and the research in behavioural economics previously cited in my post on Michael Shermer's "Mind of the Market", I believe that the entire scheme runs contrary to human behaviour in the market. It will not work.

There is another problem as well. I could not find where the Liberals would end the years of subsidies to the oil and gas industry, the most polluting and C02 emitting industry in Canada. As I stated nearly 18 months ago, the federal government provides about $1.4 billion in subsidies, totalling over 8 billion between 1990 and 2003. Add 5 more years to that and its up over $10 billion. Under Dion and the Liberals when they were in government, that is $2 for subsidies to pollution industries for every $1 in environmental funds.

I don't see in the Green Shift where this is fixed or addressed. Rather, we have one market distorting factor being used to try to offset another market distorting factor. That's like taking Quaaludes to counteract all the Amphetamines you just took - it would be better to lay off the pills altogether.

A better solution would be one that followed not just the climate science, but the science of economics and human behaviour. One where the public as well as the industries are forced, as CD Howe Institute President Bill Robson said, by incentive to change :

"If you seriously want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the consumer has to feel pain,"

A plan that would have worked, in my opinion, would have been one that meant less government, not more:

Get rid of all Federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry
Get rid of all subsidies to the auto industry
Force the industries to negotiate with the local people, rather than distant governments, over land use and dumping (rather than quietly telling them its ok to dump pollution into 16 lakes and streams)
Allow individuals and groups to sue polluters for damages.
Get rid of regulations that prevent alternatives from entering the market - if I could buy a Zenn car for zipping around the city, I would. Imagine how many out of work CAW members would get a new job if this car took off and needed an Ontario manufacturing plant.
End monopolies on power generation and subsidies for the industry. The biggest polluters are provincial government owned electricity utilities. How about lowering the barrier to entry so that power needs can be satisfied by multiple means and sources - wind, solar, nuclear, hydro etc, where reasonable - and decentralized.

All of this, and more, working in concert with normal, human economic behaviour, would work to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution without distorting government interference, allowing our "morals and material incentives [to] pull together."

I will give Stephane Dion credit though. He has, at least, presented a policy and a plan of action to do something rather than nothing, or actively undermining environmental efforts, as the Conservative government is doing. The Green Shift should be argued on its merits, and on its merits, I do not think it will work.

Rather than taxes and top down enforcement, bottom up, self-organizing, voluntary behaviour will be what works in the long term.

"[P]aying taxes does produce a neural reward. But we're showing that the neural reward is even higher when you have voluntary giving."

Let's base an effort to reduce C02 and pollution on that assumption, rather than running contrary to human nature.

Edit: fixed link and added power generation to the less government list.

For George

2008-06-23T11:27:00.003-04:00

Shit

Piss

Cunt

Fuck

Cocksucker

Motherfucker

Tits.

That is all.

Inundate him

2008-06-12T08:29:00.003-04:00

Conservative MP for Nepean-Carleton Pierre Polievre:

Constituency Office:

250-B Greenbank Road
Nepean ON K2H 8X4

Phone: 613-990-4300
Fax: 613-990-4333

Parliamentary Office:

433 West Block
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Phone: 613-992-2772
Fax: 613-992-1209

Email: poilip@parl.gc.ca

Fell free to tell him this.

A message for Pierre Poilievre

2008-05-20T11:52:00.004-04:00

For you, Pierre:

As a constituent, I am disgusted, but not entirely surprised by the latest shenanigans of Conservative MP for Nepean Carleton Pierre Poilievre. Now, it seems, he is on the warpath against the Ontario government's latest decision to reinstate the funding of sex reassignment surgeries under OHIP.

He says:

"Wait times are still too long and we need to ensure that every single dollar goes to medically necessary treatments," - Pierre Poilievre MP for Nepean Carleton (Con)

He seems to want to claim this is fiscally irresponsible but a close look at the facts shows it to be a little different than he is letting on. To put this into perspective:

The expected annual cost is less than $300 000. When the Mike Harris Tories removed this from OHIP in 1998, it was costing about $120 000. That works out to roughly $40 per person per year for every person in Ontario. Or about 77 cents per week, less than a small double-double.
The Center for Addictions and Mental Health deems this surgery medically necessary. One might note that OHIP covers the costs for "medically unnecessary" surgeries all the time - removal of cysts, fixing of protruding ears etc.
The procedure IS covered in most other provinces, including Alberta, Poilievre's home province (he represents an Ottawa riding only after living here for 3 months after dropping out of school...and there are questions as to whether he really lived in the riding at the time), so Ontario would only be joining the rest of the country.

So the question is, why, if this procedure is cheap, deemed medically necessary by the medical community and is covered by virtually every other province (save Quebec) is Pierre railing against Ontario? Do you suppose he is trying to pile-on with Jim Flaherty in attacking the McGuinty government for purely partisan reasons? Do you think he is trying to deflect his social conservative base away from his troubling double speak in the In and Out Scandal, including his possible invovlement? Do you think he is trying to change the channel on his own despicable treatment of Gen. Romeo Dallaire last week? Is it possible that he wants people in his riding to forget that his many announcements about getting funding for a bridge were just announcements of funds that the city had already secured, long before, without Pierre?

I'm having trouble understanding why he would make hay out of something that the CPC has traditionally argued, ad nauseum, is the sole purvue of the provinces - health care - other than to pick a fight that riles the base. I can only think that Pierre, in his typical fashion, is trying to manufacture an issue so people won't notice that his is an incompetent demagogue and an idiot.

No wonder people in this country don't like any of the parties and no longer want to vote.

PS Pierre, feel free to pass that message above on to Jason Kenney too, mkay?

Note:

As a libertarian, I do not support a state monopoly on health care, so I am not arguing for that position. I am arguing that Pierre's seeming 'fiscal conservative' concern over this is nothing of the sort. If this were not sex re-assignment surgeries for icky transsexuals, he wouldn't care. If this were not Ontario he wouldn't care (as is clear by his not caring that Alberta and the other western provinces fund this procedure). He only cares because he thinks he can use this to his political advantage, there is no principles involved.

I would prefer a truly free system where doctors aren't subject to artificial caps on their numbers and people could choose to get health coverage from both insurance companies AND from non-profit or not-for-profit organizations (like professional societies, unions, service clubs etc). Where choice is real and the market isn't slanted by state regulation in favour of corporations over cooperatives. But that is the subject of an entirely different post....

The Principles of Fundemental Justice

2008-05-16T12:23:00.003-04:00

This is a phrase that no Conservative or their supporters understands, it seems. It was based on this part of our protections under Section 7 of the Charter that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the reverse onus clause of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (formerly the YOA).

The decision states that provisions of the act requiring youths convicted of serious crimes to prove to the courts that they should not be treated as adults for sentencing, that they should, in fact, be treated as youths, is unconstitutional and violates the rights of due process of the Charter.

Its a good decision and very straightforward. It means that if the Crown wants to sentence a 14 - 17 year old to an adult sentence, they need to prove they deserve this sentence. Just as they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the teen committed the crime in question, including the mens rea (literally, 'guilty mind' or intent) of the crime. This has been a requirement of our criminal justice system since at least the Magna Carta.

But, if you read the comments section on the CBC link above, you can see conservative hand wringing, pearl clutching and ignorant anger on display:

" kids know they can get away with murder."

"The 'Supreme' Court has, once again, through their decisions declared open-season on the law-abiding citizens of this country."

"Time to bring back corporal punishment."

You get the idea - more slack-jawed yammering from ignorant troglodytes who, curiously, have no problem at all treating teens differently and NOT like adults, when it comes to say, driving a car, buying a drink or having sex with the partner of their choice. Funny that.

Nothing in the ruling says that a teen who commits a serious crime can't be tried or sentenced as an adult, it merely states that the Crown must prove that they are mature enough to be held as culpable as an adult, rather than the defendant prove they are not (since, technically, its impossible to prove a negative). Indeed, I would posit that this ruling forces the courts to treat youthful offenders in the same manner they treat adults - that is, it is up to the Crown to prove all aspects of the case, including the appropriate sentence, rather than assuming the defendant must prove they are NOT worthy of a sentence, just as they do with adults.

The logic of the law, before the Supreme Court decision today, was this:

"Teens are mature enough to make moral decisions regarding criminal acts and therefore they must prove to the court that they are NOT capable of making those decisions, so we should treat them differently in regards to charging and sentencing"

Now lets apply the very same reverse onus logic to the way we treat teens in other aspects of life and law:

"Teens are mature enough to make moral decisions regarding sexual acts and therefore they must prove to the court that they are NOT capable of making those decisions so we should treat them differently in regards to the age of consent"

"Teens are mature enough to make moral decisions regarding drinking and therefore they must prove to the court that they are NOT capable of making those decisions so we should treat them differently in regards to buying and consuming alcohol"

"Teens are mature enough to make moral decisions regarding voting and therefore they must prove to the court that they are NOT capable of making those decisions so we should treat them differently in regards to the enfranchisement"

I don't think there is a Conservative or conservative out there that would agree with any of those. It takes some kind of cognitive dissonance to think its ok to apply that logic to crime.

The ruling recognizes that we treat teens different, because they are different. They are not adults, nor are they children with no culpability. And if the Crown wants to treat them as adults, because a particular teen offender is mature enough, they ought to be forced to prove why they should, on a case by case basis, in a court (which, incidentally, was an integral part of the original YOA in 1984 and was not changed until this reverse onus was brought in - by the Liberals). Even kids are innocent until proven guilty and the sentence should fit both the crime and the offender.

Considering our crime rate is at a 30-year low, including youth crime, I'd say most of this hand-wringing by Conservatives over this is out of proportion with reality. But since when have they used reality for the basis of their dogma?

Once again, the Conservatives are wrong.

Horror and Silence

2008-04-18T09:03:00.003-04:00

Imagine for a moment being a kid again. Imagine going to school, but now imagine not coming home. Imagine having to work rather than learn, being beaten rather than cared for and being flogged to death or fried in an electric chair.

Or, if you are like me, a father with 3 children under 9 years old, imagine it happening to your kids. Imagine them being taken from you and sent away, supposedly to go to school, to learn so they could better themselves, only to come back broken. Imagine, if you dare, that they don't come back at all - they simply disappear.

Some people don't have to imagine this. For some, it has happened.

As Stageleft reported earlier this week, just when you thought the nightmare of Residential Schools was over, that the story had been told, we find out that hundreds, perhaps thousands of children - CHILDREN - were murdered by their supposed caregivers and buried in anonymous mass graves in an effort to cover up the crime. All committed with the complicity of the countries largest Christian churches and the Federal Government.

This is mass murder, of children.

This is genocide committed at the behest of our government, in our names.

And the mainstream media says ....

Nothing.

Silence.

Apparently, they are too busy with Senators hockey, RCMP raids, free speech lawsuits and the resignations of the Army Chief of Staff. It seems that the visit of a former Nazi to the White House, the babblings of an idiot Ottawa Mayor and the capture of a man wanted for (ironically) the murder of his children is far more important than uncovering crimes against humanity within our own country.

Its time to do something. Call or write your MP. Write letters to the editor of your local daily or weekly fishwrap. Phone your local TV stations and ask them why they aren't covering this. Call Indian Affairs and express your anger and shock.

And make no mistake, this is not simple anger with me. This is hard, cold, glistening rage. I purposely waited a few days after stageleft's post to see if any media would pick it up. None has. A chilling indictment of the uncaring racism that still exists in the country. We are presented with evidence of dozens of home grown versions of S-21, the infamous Khmer Rouge prison, and are silent.

We can't remain silent, we must get this message out and bring justice to the victims.

If this happened to your children, you would expect no less.

I Get Mail

2008-04-17T09:34:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, I received the following email:

Dear friend,

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, approximately 1 out of 3 women in the United States will have had an abortion by age 45. You may be surprised, as were we; but it’s fair to say that the majority of Americans have either had an abortion or know someone who has experienced an abortion.

“Abortion” – the word stopped you for a moment, didn’t it?

Typically, the reactions that surround this word impede any reasonable discussion on the topic, especially the real feelings of those who have been touched by an abortion experience.

Please keep reading.

After 35 years of polarization and judgment, Michaelene Fredenburg is looking to change this. Using the Internet to provide a confidential space and support resources, Michaelene has created a safe environment for men and women who have been touched by an abortion experience. And she can relate to what they need. She’s been there.

The outreach Michaelene created acknowledges that each person’s abortion experience is unique - some positive, some indifferent, some negative. However, a common thread weaves through every story. It is this common thread that has created the outreach’s name - Abortion Changes You. These are words echoed by the hundreds of people Michaelene has spoken with over the years whose lives have been touched by an abortion experience.

I invite you to visit AbortionChangesYou.com. I am certain you will be surprised by the experience. After visiting the website and exploring the interactive content and amazing drawings, poems and stories that have been contributed, people from different abortion perspectives have remarked that it’s a “breath of fresh air.” This is not about debate. It’s about personal experiences that people have regardless of their beliefs or political views on abortion. The link to the movie mail is as follows: www.abortionchangesyou.com/aboutus. I also encourage you to visit www.abortionchangesyouresources.com to download the movie and banner ads for use on your blog.

Michaelene has also authored a book that will be released in early May. Changed: Making Sense of Your Own or a Loved One’s Abortion Experience is as unique as the Abortion Changes You outreach. Combining a collection of very different stories from people who have had an abortion experience with creative elements such as the Healing Pathways and a journaling component, this book creates a new standard for issue-inspired literature. These stories come from both men and women and provide a rare expression of feelings and perspectives following an abortion experience.

“Abortion” – it doesn’t have to be a word we avoid. This is a real opportunity for a conversation with your audience that will inspire, encourage and equip them.

Best,

Andrew Long

Sound friendly enough, doesn't it? Well, given my clear stance on abortion and my record vehemently defending choice, I was both skeptical and curious. Just who is Michaelene Fredenburg?

Turns out, she is an anti-choice activist from San Diego who is one of the darlings of Lifesite and folks like Jill Stanek. Hardly the person to change "35 years of polarization and judgment" - she has been one of the causes of it. Check out even a small number of those sites from the Google search - she is anti-choice and fighting for an end to a woman's choice in the US.

My reply:

Mr. Long,

With all due respect, please do not try to peddle your dishonesty with me. It only took me a few minutes on Google to find out who Michaelene Fredenburg is. It did not take long for me to discover she - and you, I assume - is nothing more than an anti-choice activist trying to peddle the unfounded nonsense about abortion causing mental anguish in people like fathers who don't actually have abortions. I suppose you have to grasp at something now that the abortion-breast cancer link has been proven completely false.

In other words, stop using stealth and subterfuge to try to force your agenda and opinions on people. Stop trying to "trick" people into thinking you and your organization are something you are not. You are an anti-choice organization but you know saying that will get you (rightly) ignored.

In my books, that makes you and your organization nothing but liars and cowards.

I am proudly and fiercely pro-choice. If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one. That is your choice.

I promise you that if you or anyone else tries to tell my daughter or wife what they can or cannot do with their bodies, you will be resisted and fought by any means necessary. Freedom of choice and security of the person are not negotiable.

Please do not contact me again with your lies. Your email address is being added to my spam filter. That is the price of dishonesty. I'll ask you to kindly remove my email from any lists you may have.

Good day.

And Mr. Longs quick reply back:

You completely missed the point of the email, and the nature of the outreach. It’s not about anti-choice –- it’s about pro-choice – and about some of those pro-choice people who may need help after an abortion.

I’m sorry your own personal agenda clouds something good. I couldn’t find the will not to respond, but out of respect I will remove your email address and you will not be contacted again.

And my final reply to him:

"and about some of those pro-choice people who may need help after an abortion.
"

Right, by someone so openly anti-choice that she is the favourite of the so-called "pro-life" sites and has testified before the US House of Representatives about her anti-choice views?

You really don't know when to stop lying?

No, I didn't miss the point of the email at all.

Good day.

Yes, once again another attempt at trickery and subterfuge. Another example of dishonesty and outright lies to further their own "personal agenda". Clearly honesty and ethics is something these people know nothing about.

And Andrew Long? Who is he?

Why Mr. Long is the Production Coordinator with the Maximus Group. Who are the Maximus Group? Why they are a "specialized and full-service communications marketing agency" who sell PR marketing of "Catholic or other authentically Christian products/messages to the secular world".

It seems then, based on all of this, that this email was part of a paid PR campaign to spread and promote a specious, unfounded connection between abortion and mental health of both women AND men, via stealth and subterfuge - by seeming to be part of a supposedly non-partisan group that is, in reality, the whole cloth creation of the Catholic anti-choice movement.

So, beware. And if you receive (or have received) a similar email from Mr. Long (or one of his co-workers) , be sure to let him know we are on to them.

I'll say it again, just to be really clear:

If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one. Feel free to do all you can to make the choices other than abortion the one chosen. Just stop thinking you can tell other people what they can do with their body and stop lying about your true position and intent.

A discussion for another day

2008-04-04T01:33:00.003-04:00

That is often how my forays into discussing state often end up with my friends in the Progressive blogsphere. If I inform then that libertarianism isn't what is preached by CATO or the AEI, they thank me but almost always tell em they will get around to discussing that more in-depth another day. Given the recent issues around free speech, human rights commission and the role of the state, I thought today was finally a good day.

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson

The "state" is a social institution, merely a relationship among people, laying down rules for human interaction. In that sense, the state is morally neutral; that is, it is a tool that is neither good nor evil in and of itself, but only in how it is used.

Sounds pretty tame, right?

That tool, unfortunately, is unique in human existence in that it is not voluntary and, to paraphrase Max Weber , it "claims to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force" usually within a geographic area. That means it can do things 'legitimately' that if you did them, it would be a crime.

The state become "evil" when it is used by people to do "evil" things. The Holocaust, the Gulag, genocides in Rwanda and the Balkans are examples of evil people utilizing the state for evil purposes.

The state can also seemingly be used for "good" as well. When placed in the hand of "good" people it can by used to stop the atrocities above.

The entire struggle between ideologies, between "left" and "right" has been to wrest control of this Leviathan and to use its power - the power of the sole use of force and coercion - to do "good". That power can force people to do things against their will, can confiscate and redistribute property and wealth to solve inequities.

If only the right people can just control it....

But the right people can never just "control it". The state is not just about relationships, its about privilege. The state is an entity which not only claims the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force, it bestows that power on those who have wrested control of it and those people use that power and privilege to their own advantage, even to the detriment of others. And the whole time, they say its for "the greater good". Witness the crimes of Robert Mugabe, crimes that would be impossible without the apparatus of the state to carry them out - central bank printing presses and armed police.

But even in our own country, the use of state power to enhance and bestow privilege is commonplace. Regardless of who is in power, the regulations serve to help one group over the others. Even regulations said to be for safety can and are used to raise the barrier to entry into a market and stifling competition (thus raising prices). Laws are put in place that often help certain corporations or groups. Anti-union legislation, called "Right to Work" has the effect of keeping wages low, while pro-Union legislation creates artificial scarcity and drives prices up. So called "free trade" agreements allow for the flow of capital (good for big multinational corporations) but not labour (bad for small business and wage labourers). The state in Canada used its power to try to wipe out Aboriginal culture and language, "for their own good."

Our state today is no different in hierarchy and privilege granting, than it was 500, 1000 or 5000 years ago, we have merely changed the name of the King or Emperor or Chieftain to President or Prime Minister. Warlords, Dukes, and Oligarchs are now CEOs and Corporate officers, gaining the same kind of benefit and privilege from "legislatures" as their predecessors did from alliances with Kings. We aren't serfs and peasants, but wage slaves an indebted servants nonetheless, always hoping the next vote will actually make it all stop.

Because we have not choice. We must obey or the state and those who run it can 'legitimately' kidnap and imprison you or steal your property or enslave you for war.

Statism and the state are then, about preserving the privilege of those elites that can gain control of it. Just as racism, sexism and homophobia are really about maintaining or regaining similar privileges by oppressing others. It is a blunt, violent dangerous instrument.

What if there were no state? What if people could freely choose whether to associate and organize themselves? What if it were recognized that except for self-defense, there is no "legitimate" use of force against others? What if people could choose between differing, competing entities for the "services" the state currently "offers"?

I view the state as a gun. A large gun that is very powerful and has unlimited bullets. And there is only one and every so often, we decide who gets to shoot the gun. No the gun could be used to prevent one group from harming another, but often at the expense of another. Or it could be used to harm those groups. The gun never runs out of bullets because, no matter who controls it, they stick the gun in our face and steal our money in order to buy the bullets.

Lefties, if such a gun existed, would you not be demanding gun control? Or abolition of the gun?

Righties, if such a gun existed, would you want it used against you, to take your property? Would you want it to be given to those you disagree with?

I would like to see a truly voluntary society, one where we negotiate with each other, associate with each other and trade with each other, freely, without forced privilege or coercion. That means not state and "government" is only that which people agree to at any given time.

It would be easy to implement - make taxes voluntary. Make them specific. If I want my tax money to go to the SWC, and Planned Parenthood clinics or non-profit public healthcare, it would. If I did not want it to fund wars or subsidize the most profitable industry in the world, it wouldn't. If I decided I could get better service elsewhere, from non-governmental agencies, I could get it. I would be in control. We would be in control.

Considering how historically the state has more often oppressed people than helped them, why would you want to give anyone that power.

I don't expect to "convert" anyone with this. I do hope that some people consider the what the state is more carefully and not assume having a state is the natural order of things. I hope people question the very existence and necessity of the state, rather than accept it "just because"...

So, the question is, why do we need an institution with the monopoly on legitimate violence? Why do we need a state?

Blogging Angry

2008-03-06T21:43:00.005-05:00

I have avoided blogging for close to a week. I try not to 'blog angry' because I have found that you often say something in the heat of anger that you regret later. I try to cool down, to let a clearer head prevail so that I can write more reasonably.

Not today.

No, I am still angry beyond words. I am disgusted by what is laughingly referred to as our political system. We live in horrific times where we are ruled by a group of clowns pretending to be acting "in our best interests."

Bullshit.

We have a government that is now openly taking measures to censor films that don't pass the muster of religious bigots like Charles McVety. We have a government that is actively attempting to take away not just a woman's right to choose or control her body and trying to call it "Protecting a womans" right to choose, in a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak. This government that ran on transparency, accountability has become the most secretive, most centralized in Canadian history. They pass an "Accountability Act" but haven't quite got around to getting the regulations in place, allowing their top aids to easily go back and forth in the Ottawa lobbying industry. They allow no-bid military contracts, spending billions on ships and planes the CF itself doesn't want. Hell, it seems while they were hammering the previous Liberal government for being corrupt, their operatives where attempting to buy the vote of a dying man for "financial considerations".

They are smug, authoritarian and undemocratic. They are natural-born liars and thieves, every one of them.

There is only one thing worse than the CPC right now and that is the Liberal Party of Canada and their spineless milquetoast leader, Stephane Dion. He has allowed the CPC to rule for as thought they have a majority, while desperately trying to tell us how bad they are.

Case in point - the vote on C-484. A clear attempt by the so-cons to try to introduce fetal personhood into Canadian law by stealth (and not very stealthy since ever fetus fetish blogger has stated that is exactly what the bill is for), a clear attempt to start the re-criminalization of abortion and the resulting enslavement of Canadian women. So what does Dion do? Does he whip his caucus to ensure this obvious piece of social conservative nonsense doesn't pass? No! Does he even show up to vote himself? No! Where was he? Holding a party for female reporters and politicos to celebrate International Woman's Day.

Are you fucking kidding me?!? He was holding a party to talk to women instead of actually doing something to protect their rights from the authoritarian fascist jerks that want to take them away. I guess he had more important priorities, eh?

Dion is not a leader. Not even close. He is a chickenshit, spineless worm.

The NDP doesn't get off either, hell no. While this is going on, they are carrying water for the Conservatives on the Cadman affair, looking to attack the Liberals when they actually do something right. No, they seem very interested in making sure there is proper packaging for candy cigarillos, so kids don't mistake them for the real thing. Or trying to help the Bloc pass legislation to allow the CRTC to regulate violence on TV (yes, I'm sure Charles McVety is pretty happy too). Thanks but as an adult and a parent, I think I can make those decisions on my own, I don't need a mindless bureaucrat or MP deciding this stuff for me. Honestly, the economic illiteracy and nanny-statism of my former party is really breathtaking sometimes.

I've really had enough, and I suspect a lot of other folks out there have too.

Well enough is enough. They say the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. I say the best way to beat a crooked game is to simply not play. It is clear that voting doesn't matter. The Conservatives in many ways, turned out to be just as dishonest and power-hungry as the Liberals. The Liberals turned out to be as socially conservative as the very so-cons they warned us about in the last election. The NDP has stopped being the conscience of Canada and become a junior version of the Trudeau Liberals of the '70s, now just as opportunistic and power thirsty as the others.

We cannot rely of slick and dishonest salesman to protect our freedoms, we can only rely on ourselves. People laughed at me a little over a year ago when I became a market anarchist. They thought my position of not participating in a corrupt electoral system was silly. Well, after a year of nonsense and the bullshit of the last week, I feel completely vindicated.

So instead of relying on these jackasses, lets just do it ourselves. Ignore whatever silly laws the pass. Don't pay their taxes (as much as you can). Refuse to participate in their fixed game.

And fuck 'em. All of them.

Honoured

2008-02-13T21:41:00.003-05:00

Thanks to the F-word blog, I've been nominated as The Support Bro. Considering the others nominated, I am really quite honoured.

Special thanks to Godamnitkitty of Hope and Onions for nominating me.

I won't beg people to go vote for me...either you will or you won't. Just, thanks again.

One Body, One Person, One Count

2008-02-10T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Conservatives are attempting deception. They are attempting to introduce via the back door a bill to grant a fetus the rights of a person. They are taking the first steps to allow the state to control your body.

This is not just about a woman's right to choose. If the so-cons and their Conservative Party of Canada allies open the door to placing the "life" of a fetus above the right of a woman to control her bodily integrity, they are setting a dangerous precedent. They can then decide anyone's life is more important than your bodily integrity and your life. The implications of this are far more horrible and horrendous than abortions - it means that your or I, men or women, could become unwilling organ donors or medical guinea pigs, so long as "the right to life" of another (more worthy) person is at stake.

This must be fought in no uncertain terms.

My friends at Birth Pangs want you to write to Stephane Dion to tell him to whip his caucus to defeat this bill on March 5. If you are so inclined please join this campaign and the blogburst starting on February 25th.

I will do that, but I will also send the message loud and clear to these people:

The gloves are off.

Bad enough that they want to punish a woman for daring to have sex, any attempt to remove the total right to personal bodily integrity in any circumstance will be fought. If this bill somehow passes into law, it will be ignored. Any other law resulting from it will be ignored.

You can try and pass all of the laws you want, but they will be ignored. You cannot control another person, you do not own anyone else. You cannot rule us.

There are thousands, if not millions, of people who will not stand by and be subjected to your pompous, moralizing, holier-than-thou authoritarianism.

I, personally, will ensure that all peaceful means of resistance to this are used - protest, tax revolts, any form of civil disobedience.

I would like to propose to all those that support security of the person and a woman's right to choose vow, as I am today, that if this bill passes on March 5th, that we stop paying taxes. If they won't listen to reason, they must be deprived of the ability to work.

This must be stopped at all costs.

Evolution and Economics

2008-02-03T20:03:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I posted the following on my other blog, theConverted:

---

Dr. Michael Shermer, of the Skeptics Society, has a fascinating article at Scientific American entitled 'Evonomics'. He postulates that evolution and economics are both part and parcel of the same phenomenon - complex adaptive systems.

In biological evolution, nature selects from the variation produced by random genetic mutations and the mixing of parental genes. Out of that process of cumulative selection emerges complexity and diversity. In economic evolution, our material economy proceeds through the production and selection of numerous permutations of countless products.

Quoting both Mises ("Socialism") and Basitat, Shermer shows that top-down government "design" of the economy is a ludicrous as "design" in evolution.

As with living organisms and ecosystems, the economy looks designed—so just as humans naturally deduce the existence of a top-down intelligent designer, humans also (understandably) infer that a top-down government designer is needed in nearly every aspect of the economy. But just as living organisms are shaped from the bottom up by natural selection, the economy is molded from the bottom up by the invisible hand. [emphasis mine]

He still thinks (sadly) some interference is necessary to ensure "free and fair trade", but he is, at least headed in the right direction.

But what this really points to is yet another example of hypocrisy that seems to plague both the 'left' and the 'right', both so-called liberals and conservatives. Each has their own cognitive dissonance here. The conservative right, staunchly defends the idea (for the most part) that the economy is molded "from the bottom up by the invisible hand" of the market, while denying the identical process that occurs in biology. Of course, the liberal left seems to have the opposite problem - while rightly defending the process of evolution and natural selection, they fail to see this exact same process in the field of economics and claim that the government is needed to manage the market.

One cannot support true free market economics and deny evolution nor can one deny the power of the true free market while vehemently supporting evolution. Interference in the market causes unexpected distortions and unintended consequences just as interfering with evolution does.

---

Since then, Dr. Shermer has appeared on Skepticality and on ReasonTV, explaining in greater detail his thesis outlined above.

In that time I have also bought and read the book The Mind of the Market. It is, of course, brilliant. Dr. Shermer also takes his thesis one step further, in explaining how a free market has an evolutionary basis, how a truly free market and truly free trade are the best ways to foster both peace and human happiness. He touches on the evolutionary basis of morality, as well as good and evil. In his chapter on it and through ongoing discussion, Dr. Shermer points to the evolution-driven biological basis for "folk economics" - why people want the egalitarian, fairness and cooperative model of society as well as the accumulation and consumer based market society; why they hate the rich but also strive to be them. And in dispelling the myth that evolution is about "survival of the fittest" and "red in tooth and claw", he not only demonstrates that cooperation and altruism are the dominant, most effective strategy for the survival of one's genes, but that this is not incompatible with a free market.

He does not, thankfully, fall into the "vulgar libertarian mode". He does not become an apologist for corporate greed. His chapter entitled "Don't be evil" dissects all that was wrong with Enron (no transperancy, destruction of team work, micromanagement, divide and conquer mentality - sound familiar CPC supporters?) and all that is right with Google (the opposite of everything that is wrong with Enron). He rightly identifies the kind of KBR-Haliburton-Enron kind of capitalism as properly corporatism and mercantilism, not true free market capitalism that Adam Smith envisioned.

All in all, he makes an excellent arguement in favour of actual freed markets and trade, based on evolution-driven human nature and behaviour. The science is solid, and Dr. Shermer provides copious endnotes to primary sources, so you can check it out for yourself.

So here is the challenge, to both those on the left and the right. Read the article, listen to the podcast, watch the video and read the book. Discuss the ideas, but keep an open mind and try to reconcile how you can believe in a bottom-up, emergent system in one area, but not in another, nearly identical area.

Consider new approaches and different solutions with these ideas in mind.

Pro-Choice IS Pro-Life

2008-01-28T07:49:00.000-05:00

We have all heard the stories. They come mostly from China, but also from India. Forced abortions because of a government law on family sizes, the harvesting of organs from Falun Gong political prisoners for sale on the black market of for use by other deemed more worthy. Poor people willingly selling their children and organs in order to survive.

This is the stuff of horror films, urban legends and all-too-real totalitarian crimes against humanity. What repulses us is the ideas that someone - anyone - could invade our body, against our will or via coercion and remove parts or treat us like we are their property. It is anethma to the idea of being human and a fundamental human right that each person has total and exclusive control over their own bodily integrity. So disgusted are we, as a society, by this that when it comes to organ donation, we have allowed the individual to decide whether to donate, even if it would clearly and most certainly save the life of another. In this context we have already concluded that the principle of personal bodily integrity and control is more important than the life of another person.

That is, it is an essential element of our humanness that we own and control our own bodies. To allow others to do so is to render us to a less-than-human life as an incubator, spare parts repository or automaton to be controlled. It is slavery and it is not life.

The anti-abortionists, while claiming to be pro-life, are on the same side as the Chinese Communists who harvest kidneys and livers from Falun Gong prisoners. They have decided that their idea of 'life' is more important than the individuals lives involved and that they should be allowed to use all the powers of the state to invade and control another person's body.

They will do so even if they must lie and mislead. They try to shock with pictures of late term abortions, even though 92% of all abortions in Canada occur before 12 weeks and 98% occur before 16 weeks and abortions past 20 weeks almost never occur - even Dr. Henry Morgantaler won't perform them. They imply women who are 9 months pregnant are having abortions, when that is not the case.

They anti-abortionists are not about 'life' but about control, like any rapist or serial killer. They want to control your body and your actions and force you to adhere to their morality and to be a slave to their ideals. They want to use and mold you rather than let you live.

Merely being born is not 'life' if one cannot control one's own body and make decisions about your bodily integrity. That is dehumanizing slavery and oppression. It is the very stuff of 'The Black Book of Communism' and the driving force of the Holocaust.

That is the real legacy of that decision in R. vs Morgantaler 20 years ago today - that a person's bodily integrity is paramount - that only that person may control their own body and no one else. It has farther reaching applications than simply abortions. It is our legal bulwark against all actions that would allow others to invade our bodies, that would have others see us as property or other things less than human.

It is our defense against the horrendous, authoritarian and totalitarian ideals that would enslave us.

Remember that. Pro-Choice then is really Pro-Life. Pro human life rather than existence.

As has been said, Pro-Choice people want to control their own bodies, anti-abortionists want to control everyone else's.

Even if I find abortion personally repugnant, I know whose side I am on.

Paging Ezra Levant...

2008-01-23T14:25:00.000-05:00

Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is under attack again. This time its not just questioning by a Human Rights Commission investigator:

"Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh, 23, was sentenced to death Tuesday by a three-judge panel in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif for distributing a report he printed off the Internet to fellow journalism students at Balkh University.
The judges said the article humiliated Islam, and members of a clerics council had pushed for Mr. Kaambakhsh to be punished."

Kaambakhsh was sentenced to death for something his brother wrote - "[Kaambakhsh] is actually being punished for reporting by his brother about abuses by northern warlords".

So can we expect a scathing indictment of the Karzai government and the Afghan judicial system over this? This is, after all, an actual example of a star chamber or kangaroo court, and one that we as Canadians are supporting, as our soldiers fight and die to protect this corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic government and state.

Do you think John Manley thought of whether we should be supporting a government and state that does this, or sentences people to death for converting the Christianity? I doubt it - it seems that he was too busy cutting and pasting.

Here is another example of actual brutal suppression of freedom by our so-called allies in the Afghan government, beyond their use of torture, which is far more serious than anything a stupid human right commission is even capable of doing. Where is the BT outrage over this?

Given all that, what possible moral reason do we have for keeping our soldiers in Afghanistan to die for dictatorship and fundamentalist Islam? Why are we even still there, let alone considering staying for 3 more years.

Don't extend them until 2011, don't wait until 2009. Bring the troops home NOW and stop supporting a government of Islamic extremists and warlords who are doing exactly what the Taliban did. We are not fighting for freedom if we support these thugs.

Bring them home now.

So, can we expect a column and some video on this, Ezra?

Its really quite simple....

2008-01-22T23:38:00.000-05:00

If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one.

If you want there to be less abortions, you can work to ensure that abortion is not the option chosen by making the other options more attractive. That might mean supporting charities and organizations that provide education, housing, and care for pregnant women during pregnancy and long after the child is born. That may mean advocating on behalf of women who choose to give birth. That may mean simply not being a judgmental ass who considers single women or teenage mothers sluts or whores.

If you want to be taken seriously in your opposition to abortion, be intellectually honest. Considering that 92% of all abortions in Canada happen before 12 weeks, before any brain activity, it is dishonest sensationalism to argue against abortion with pictures and posters of late term fetuses. It is lying. Even more so when one considers that abortion after 20 weeks is so rare that it only takes place if the mothers health is in danger. Even Henry Morgantaller won't perform them on demand.

If you want there to be less abortions, you may have to accept that people, including teenagers, have sex even when you tell them not to. You have to accept that abstinence only doesn't work and that proper sex education and access to good birth control will prevent a lot of aborted children from being mistakenly conceived in the first place. Defence in depth, as we call it in IT security. Teach your kids that they shouldn't have sex before marriage if you wish, but also teach them better safe than sorry and get them either on the pill or used to condoms, preferably both.

But you must also accept that you do not own anyone else. You cannot control their bodies. You have as much right to prevent a woman from having an abortion as you do to force a man to donate a kidney against his will - none at all. Part of being free is accepting that people are going to do things you find repugnant and abhor. So long as they don't harm you while doing it. Anything other than this is support for slavery.

It really is just that easy.

Listen Again and be Moved

2008-01-18T16:26:00.000-05:00

The time is now....let freedom ring.

Hat tip to Ronald Bailey and Reason TV.

Ezra Levant is No Hero, Even if You Agree with Him

2008-01-17T13:38:00.000-05:00

Update Below

I do not agree with Human Rights Commissions, Hate Crime laws or other such tribunals.

I think they are too easily misused to quash freedom and liberty and can be counter-productive to their stated claim. Like prohibiting anything, prohibiting or punishing certain speech or publication does not stop such speech, but drives it underground. I would rather have them out in the open, so I know who my enemies are. Any government power that can be used against "the bad guys" can easily be used against "the good guys" given the right circumstances.

And I don't trust the government.

So that means that I begrudgingly side with Ezra Levant on principle. He should have the right to publish or say anything he wants, so long as it does not cause harm to anyone else. He should not have to answer to anyone not directly involved, let alone a government commission, no matter how minor or seemingly friendly. If his words incite violence, or are untrue, he should be sued and impoverished. Those that oppose his bigoted views should take him on head on, with more speech, louder speech and ridicule him into oblivion. Boycott his work, his publications or any publication or media outlet that employs him. Hit him where it hurts, in his wallet.

Defending free speech requires more speech, not less.

Despite that, Levant is no hero for free speech. He is, in my opinion*, merely an opportunist, looking for any public platform to spout his anti-Muslim garbage. And the Alberta Human Rights And Citizenship Commission has given him such a platform.

Remember how all this came about. In the middle of Canada's conservative heartland, Alberta, Levant couldn't successfully run a conservative political magazine. In an effort to boost sales, he pulled the Mohammed cartoon stunt. The cartoons, which were easy to find on the internet, were long past being news until Levant whipped up the fury again. Even with that and nuzzling up to the government teat, Levant couldn't keep his magazine going, after some private businesses such as Chapters-Indigo chose to stop carrying his magazine, especially the issue in question.

In other words, it was a stunt to try to make Levant money. And it backfired.

But then Syed Soharwardy handed Levant a gift - he made a HRC complaint.

Now, Levant could have merely answered by sending a registered letter. He was not compelled to appear the other day, he chose to. He could have left it at that and it is very likely the AHRC would have dropped the complaint (as they do with most) because it has no merits.

But he didn't. Instead he video taped it, posted it on Youtube, all after inciting his martyrdom on his blog for days before the event. He is even begging for donations from his followers for something that has yet to cost him anything besides the time he chose to take. He is begging for donations for a case that is not likely to succeed and not likely to actually cost him money. He is promoting himself as a saviour of "free speech" but "call now with your donation, before its too late!" Benny Hinn would be proud.

In other words, it is a stunt to make Levant money.

Every conservative who is donating money and supporting this is doing nothing more than wasting their money and aiding anti-Muslim bigotry.

Of course, from my perspective, all of this was a predictable result of the very existence of the HRC. Indeed, such things were predicted in 1644 by John Milton in Areopagitica. One of the main thrusts of Milton's argument is that by persecuting free speech and freedom of the press, the state gives credibility and credence to positions that would not otherwise merit it. If the government is so worried that it needs to silence an opponent, then they must have something worth listening to. Likewise, he argued, persecutions give those being persecuted a state sanctioned platform for their views, thus causing them, again, to get more credibility than they deserve and to be spread farther then they otherwise would.

Certainly, that is the case here. Levant has used the HRC as a platform to attack Islam in general and Soharwardy in particular. Merely peruse the comments at his blog or at the Shotgun (neither of which will get a link from me - use Google if you must) to see the depths of anti-Muslim hatred he has stirred because of this. He is even getting support from some who would not associate with such opinions under normal circumstances. And of course, this failed Conservative politician and failed publisher is now in the centre of the spotlight again, his face on camera, spouting his nonsense.

Its like giving the madman on the corner a megaphone and a 3 piece suit instead of ignoring him.

Ezra Levant is a lot of things, but, in my opinion*, he is not a hero for free speech.

*Update:

It appears, if you read Mike Brock's comments in the comments section below, that I had not sufficiently clarified that thinking Ezra was an anti-Muslim bigot was my opinion (for the reasons I give in the comments, as well as those by Dr. Dawg) and not a "statement of fact". In an effort to avoid confusion for Mike and others that may read this, I have updated this post to make it clear that it is my opinion. After all, it seems Ezra, the king of free speech, is in a suing mood and I really want to keep my house.

Support the Troops

2008-01-06T22:42:00.000-05:00

You might not agree with Ron Paul in the US, but listen to this American soldier. Does our government honestly think we don't have soldiers with the same sentiments on the ground in Afghanistan?

Supporting the Troops requires listening to them, all of them and even when they say things that you don't agree with. Some soldiers don't support the mission.

Or does that make them - and me - Taliban sympathizers? Or traitors? Or 'islamofacists'?

Hat tip to Lew Rockwell.

Update:

In case some smug Conservative supporter thinks they are somehow different, they are not.

2008, the Year of 'teh stoopid'

2008-01-03T20:40:00.000-05:00

2008 is only 3 days old and already it is clear that the theme of this year will be unapologetic, unmitigated stupidity. Some conservatives are outright advocating on behalf of ignorance and stupidity, so how could it not happen? Others are merely demonstrating it. Over and over again (hmm, kinda looks like a BT anti-feminist blogswarm of stupidity, no?).

So, in honour of this, the Year of Stupidity, I present my 2008 Predictions (which I am certain will be more accurate than this idiot's.) for stupidity:

1. George Bush will do something stupid. I'm hoping for something Gerald-Ford-falling-down-the-stairs stupid, but more likely it will be the magnitude of nuke Iran stupid. After all, this is the man who thought it was a good idea to invade and occupy a country on the cheap, based on lies that would be obvious afterward and still give massive tax cuts. This is the guy that thinks Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terra(tm) and that Pervez Musharraf is a champion of democracy. This lame-duck moron's last year in office will likely redefine stupid and I think we will all suffer for that for a long time.

2. More of our soldiers will die needlessly in Afghanistan. That is stupid. Beyond stupid. But since our current government isn't willing to change the mission to create the winning conditions (like forgoing tax cuts and dropping $13 billion in surplus on debt relief and instead investing it in the military so there are far more than 2500 soldiers there and that they have way better equipment) or to pull out completely. So we get more of the same non-working strategy that has bogged us down in quagmire.

3. The Conservative government and their slack-jawed supporters will use #2 to try to stifle dissent and opposition to the war. If you disagree with the mission, or think it needs to be changed or want to withdraw, why you are a traitorous Taliban sympathizer who probably likes little boys too and should be locked up. Yes, they are that stupid. They will then tell you that continuing the mission as-is is actually supporting the troops, while trying to get them a chance to win or get out alive is treason. Morons, every one of them.

4. Tony Clement will speak.

5. A group of fundamentalist Christians who wish to force women to wear conservative clothing, to be baby machines subservient to men will condemn 'the Left' for wanting to leave Iraq or Afghanistan because we are there to help rescue women in those countries from their evil Muslim overlords. No, they will not get the irony at all, why do you ask? Of course, there will be others who continue to, on one hand deride ALL Muslims as the greatest evil because of the rantings and beliefs of the Islamists minority, yet on the other hand continually agree with those beliefs. Very stupid.

6. A group of fundamentalist Muslims (probably in London) will blather on about jihad on a BBC or CBC interview, giving fodder to the fools for both #1 and #2. Of course our media won't mention they are about as "mainstream" in Islam as The Church of the Creator is in Christianity, because that won't whip fear and sell papers or advertising spots. Damn Liberal media!

7. Some idiot will claim that true conservatism is about free markets and free choice when it comes to dismantling our health care system and selling it off to their corporate buddies in the medical and insurance industries, but will turn around and claim the only way to fight drug abuse (a medical problem, like alcohol abuse) is with neo-staliniod, draconian laws that interfere with a free market, criminalize victims and clear the field for organized crime to prosper and profit. They will probably own stock in some private prison venture or pharmaceutical company. The BT peanut gallery will think this is a great idea, cheer it on and deride 'teh Lieberals' for creating the rise in crime which isn't happening and hasn't for 18 years. See #4.

8. Some of us will still think using 'teh' is witty.

9. A disgruntled boob who thinks restricting Access to Information, stalling on regulations for lobbyists and trying to control the media is 'accountability' and 'transparency' will complain in the comments that this post is too anti-Conservative, and besides, what about the Liberals? He or she may or may not be an economist or a law student. They will be stupid.

Update:

10. Ah, thanks to the keen eye of JJ and via Dr. Dawg, we find that when it comes to stupidity, Kathy Shaidle (aka 'Five Feet of Cunt Snot') will never disappoint. Given the tone and quality of this post so early in the year, I predict she will regularly produce such horrendous, lying nonsense, as often as once very few day. Yet, she will still pass herself off as a "religious writer" and appear on The Agenda again, paid for, of course, by my tax dollars. And, again, no one on the show will challenge her hate-filled bigoted utterings and give her some respectability she most certainly does not deserve. One can hope that when that does happen, Dr. Robert Buckman will hold her down while Warren Kinsella beats her senseless with a leather-bound copy of the Law Society of British Columbia's decision against neo-Nazi defending lawyer Doug Christie.

Upper-date:

11. Sweet mother of Pearl, its a freakin' epidemic of stupid today. I could not possibly have imagined the 'halal=Sharia Law in Ontario run for your white lives!' stupidity, how cana I even predict anything other than Mesopotamia West will certainly top this...

Is that enough? I think not. The wave of simple 'moronicness' that is about to wash over us all will come in forms even I cannot imagine. If you have any add, please leave them in the comments. I'll add the good ones to the list above, with all due credit of course.

Now, if you don't mind, I have some books to read and some research to do. We need to stave off the stupidity any way we can.

Your 'Liberal Media'...

2007-12-09T20:50:00.000-05:00

The following is a letter I wrote to the Ottawa Citizen, which I do not expect to be published. I submit it here, for what it is worth:

I'd like to thank Margret Kopala*, CanWest columnist, for demonstrating, once again, the angry, moralizing, mean-spirited ignorance that passes for "conservatism" in this country today. Her latest diatribe against Insite was long on narrow minded ideology and emotional appeals to tragedy but short on actual facts and logical arguments.

Firstly Insite works at what it is supposed to do - reduce the harm to junkies but giving them a clean and safe place to inject. This prevents them from contracting major medical conditions like Hepatitis, HIV and other infections which they can then spread and burden our already over extended medical system with. Insite also gives them a place to have safe encounters with medical practitioners and addictions counselors, resources that are sorely lacking in the back alleys and flop houses of Vancouver's East end.

Kapala seems to be under the mistaken belief that Insite encourages drug use and abuse. What nonsense. IV drug users that use Insite are going to be shooting up anyway, either at Insite or the aforementioned alleys and flophouses. Kapala seems to think that they should not have safety or contact with addictions counselors, but must be punished and made to live miserably in order for them to be "encouraged" give up their ways. Funny, if that were true, considering the horrible conditions of life a junky currently lives and that Kapala herself described, it would have worked by now, wouldn't it?

She then goes on to praise the Conservative government's latest "War on Drugs" legislation and quotes some specious stats about marijuana usage among Canadian youth (the same demographic that scored 3,4,and 5 in the world, respectively, in Math Science and reading according to the latest OECD report). Again, "conservatism" has forgotten basic economics.

Demand drives supply, but supply rarely drives demand. When a supply of something is restricted but demand remains the same, the price goes up. Restricting supply never reduces demand. Conservatives seem to know this when talking about alcohol, cigarettes or any other commodity, but completely forget this when talking about "drugs" .

Based on these economic truisms, it is the act of prohibiting drugs that has created the very crime and socials issues Kapala and other conservatives say they want to battle. With a restricted supply and a high price, the profit incentive attracts those willing to supply and illegal commodity - street gangs, Hell's Angels, Montreal Mafia - while the smaller, more honest producers are driven from the market. Add to this the inability for business conflicts to be resolved in socially acceptable fashions such as using the police or the courts or even simple insurance, then violence and other less socially acceptable means are used.

The high price of illegal drugs that attracts the unscrupulous criminal element also means that users and addicts need more and more of their money to support their habit. they must turn to crime such as fraud, robbery, or degrading street prostitution and even drug dealing to support their habits.

That is the result of currently having drugs illegal. Getting tougher will only make it worse, not better and further drive the profits of the organized crime that runs the trade. Kopala and her ilk are the Hell's Angels best friends.

Imagine if a person with a drug habit could easily support that habit by working even a minimum wage job, because the price was so low? Imagine that the LA Crypts or the Hell's Angels aren't involved because there's no profit, because the price is so low? The addicts can merely seeks help, as an alcoholic would do today. Imagine all the money now spent to fight the "drug war" was spent to just treat addicts and do drug education to reduce demand?

If Kopala and the Harper government get their way, we will have more disease and addicts, more crime to support dug habits and more profits to the organized crime. Is that what we want? I know i don't.

I want drug abuse treated as a medical problem not a criminal one, so the police can concentrate on catching real criminals - like guys who run pig farms and murder people - rather than wasting time on hapless victims of addiction.

*Unfortunately, Kopala's screed from Saturday's Citizen is not online. Readers of the Ottawa dead tree edition will know of the half-page screed in the Editorial section I am referring to. I can only hope Dan Gardiner takes her to the woodshed next week.

The Road to Vadodara: Halfway Home

2007-11-25T06:23:00.000-05:00

Well, its been a week in India and so far (knock on wood) no "Delhi Belly." I'll try to have a post about my impression of India, the people, driving and the trip in general later. For now, enjoy a few photos of my trip from flickr.

The Road To Vadodara: Heathrow to Vadodara

2007-11-17T18:32:00.000-05:00

When I die, and there if there is a heaven, it will look like business class on the flight from London to Mumbai. I was expecting just wider seats and better food. What I got was a very comfortable seat that reclined into a bed, with a personal video unit, hot food service, noise canceling headphones and attentive service from flight crew.

The seat was so comfortable that I fell asleep almost immediately after take-off and snoozed for 3.5 hours, missing the first hot meal. The flight attendant later apologized to me for not showing me the seats bed feature sooner, but didn't want to wake me up and show me because I looked so peaceful. I told her that it didn't matter since the seats were so comfortable even in the upright position. She latter brought me an extra sandwich for a snack.

Fuck you Air Canada and the horse you rode in on.

After reading about 2\\3 of "No Country for Old Men" by Cormac McCarthy, I watched "Mr. Brooks" and a British TV show about India.

Then we landed in Mumbai. In a word, disorganization. Inefficient, disorganization. And lines, dear Gawd, lines everywhere.

Despite being told by both the Air Canada and British Airways ticket reps that our bags were going to go directly to Vadodara, we had to pick them up. I'm glad we asked or we would have just gone through without them. So after waiting to get our bags, we waited in line to pass them through an X-Ray machine at customs. This was after waiting in the line at Immigration to get out Passports stamped. We then waited in an long, slow line to go through ANOTHER identical X-Ray in order to re-check our bags and get another ticket issued for our flight to Vadodara.

That won us the privilege of standing in line to get a bus to the domestic terminal, one which lated over an hour. Of course, at the domestic terminal, we waited in line to go inside and then another line to go through security - again - and have our bags X-Rayed for the third time by an identical X-Ray machine. Another stamp on our tickets and another sticker on our bags ans we were in Mumbai's fairly new domestic departure lounge. The place was full as it seemed everyone and their cousin was going to Jaipur that day (I later found out a big cricket match with Pakistan was happening). The business lounge did not open until 1 hour before our fight so we tried to stave off jet-lag included unconsciousness with Red Bull and Pringles.

We had landed with 5 hours time difference between flights and except for stopping in lines, we no had 1.5 hours to spare.

But just when I thought my adventure was over, a little more excitement. Our flight, for some reason, was not announced by the attendant in the lounge, though the rest were. We discovered tha the flight was boarding and hurried to the gate where, expectedly, we waited in line. It was a short line but added just enough element of delay to make things exciting.

When we got through, we discovered that instead of going down a ramp to the plane itself, we were being loaded on buses to be taken to the planes. Trying to muscle my way through to the Vadodara line was difficult with the cricket fans everywhere and I got there just as the bus pulled away. With the other guy I was flying with on it.

There was about 25 minutes until the flight was to leave and I was sure I was going to be stranded in Mumbai. Gawd know where that plane was.

Finally, a bus arrived and I was able to get on, after some elderly people in wheel chairs were loaded. A touch more excitement as one of those elderly jumped out of his chair, screamed something in Hindi and hobbled angrily off the bus.

The bus ride was under a minute long. It pulled us to a plane that was about 150 meters from where we lined up. Most of that minute was taken signaling to turn.

We got on the plane and sat in very roomy and comfortable business class seats. The flight was slightly delay while the crazy old man who had jumped off the bus earlier was retrieved by his son, who was also on the flight. Once in the air, we got fresh juices and an exceptional scrambled egg breakfast and one of the best cups of tea I have ever had. The service of Jet Airways, even on the local flight, was exceptional. It reminded me of the old Ward Air or CP Empress Class.

Fuck you Air Canada and the horse you rode in on.

We landed, gathered out luggage and headed to the hotel with the driver that the company we were coming to visit had sent.

I'll do an entire post on "Driving in Vadodara" later, suffice it to say, horns are used more than breaks and "traffic lights" are used to inform the driver of breaks in the fence. The ride was as exciting as anything Canada's Wonderland could cook up.

We arrived, checked in and took a walk. Lots of stores, with lots of clerks and people there to help you. Lots of motorcycles and rickshaw carts. And poverty. Despite looking a little like Spadina Ave in Toronto, RC Dutt Road also had its share of the darker side of India. For more than a block as we walked, were followed by a woman and her three children under 4 who seemed to be begging. We did a lap and as we approached the hotel from the other side they were there again. One of the saddest things I have ever seen. I am still unaware of the subtleties of Indian society to understand this any further, but I was shocked. It was pretty clear she was homeless.

The rest of the day was supposed to be a 20 minute nap before lunch. It urned into our bodies deciding to help make the adjustments our brains were trying not to. We slept for most of the rest of the afternoon, had supper and fell asleep about 8:00 local time. I just woke up and began writing this at 5:00 am.

I'll be a little tired later, but a least I shifted into sync with the locals. Another day of exploring Vadodara until we have to work.

The Road to Vadodara - Red Eye to Heathrow

2007-11-16T04:08:00.000-05:00

I found out while lining up to board that they guy I'm going with wasn't sitting with me. Apparently he got business class and I was put in steerage. Being 6'2" and 270lbs, that presented a bit of a problem for an over night flight.

I sat near the back and as luck would have it, no one was seated with me on right side, so I had two seats to myself. Unluckily, the light didn't work. I moved to another seat to read and when I returned, both of my lovely Air Canada pillows had been absconded by other passengers, who were roving the aisles in packs of two or three, looking for places to lay down.

I managed to curl up and contort to fit on the seat and snoozed for a few moments, only to be awakened by our steward jamming his cart into my foot, which was, through positional necessity, sticking out the end of the seat into the aisle. I managed to straighten out and have an orange juice. A few minutes later my scalp regained feeling.

We hit quite a bit of turbulence, but I was able to block that out by listening to the stewards cat fight over which outfit Daniel Craig was wearing in some fashion magazine was best. Thank God, or may have actually gotten some sleep.

No one joined the "mile high club" on this flight that I am aware of, and I would have been as my seat was in front of one of the toilets. If masturbation counted, it might have happened by accident as a man tried to pee when we hit our regular bouts of turbulence. It was hard to tell - everyone was sleeping and no one seemed to be smiling when the left the loo. But you never know.

The sun came up at about 2:00 am and we landed at 2:30 to a busy London - its 7:30 here. The British Airways lounge is quite nice, lots of tea, coffee and bacon sandwiches. Next is the 10 hour Mumbai leg, in about 1 hour. I'd better get more bacon, I don't think I'll be seeing it for a while.

18 hours to go....

The Road to Vadodara - YOW

2007-11-15T18:00:00.000-05:00

I am watching "dog diving" right now.

Apparently, in some parts of the United States of America, it is now a sporting event to throw a bundled up towel into a pool and have a dog chase and jump into the pool after it. The dog who jumps the farthest wins. Right now, that's a little yellow lab named Grizzly. I suspect that the gambling community is involved with the creation of this sport. Or inbreeding. Perhaps a bit of both.

I still can't fathom why this is being televised on ESPN, but it is and I'm watching it. So are the few zombie business men at the airport bar here in Ottawa. I am on my second beer but I don't think there are many more to come, not at $9.50 a pint. For Rickards Red.

Its pretty empty here, despite the long snaking security line I just got out of. I had my 'Axe' body spray confiscated because it was in a 150 ml container and the limit was 100 ml. I guess they have a warning about Al Queda preparing to attack by driving catholic school girls and hard-bodied strippers mad with 'Axe' desire. Or something like that - its getting very hard to tell the catholic school girls apart from the strippers.

Better safe than sorry I suppose.

Another dog has jumped. Looks like a black lab.

There is a young, dark haired Winnona Ryder sitting at the end of the bar. She is slowly sipping her ginger ale and leafing through her Cosmo, pretending not to notice every guy in the room is eyeing her. Not me, of course, I'm a married man and in no way did I imagine what her face would look like while she received cunnilingus. That would be the weaselly little Brit zombie next to me.

Dirty old bastard.

I'm finishing my beer now and getting ready to go to the gate. I have another hour but Rickards just isn't $10 beer good.

Looks like the black lab has beat the yellow one, who was apparently the reining champ.

Somewhere in America, a small man in a tight fitting green checked fedora is collecting $10 from another man, who is his brother and his father.

Only 27 hours to go.

On the Road to Vadodara...

2007-11-14T21:08:00.000-05:00

Well, my posting will be more intermittent, sporadic and, perhaps, incoherent over the next few days. Despite the joy that watching the partisan battles on the blogsphere gives me (or not), I actually am a businessperson and I have to pay my bills. So, the client I currently work for is sending me, like Hope Lamour and Crosby to the right, on The Road to Vadodara, (India) to help them with their sub-contractor. I'll be heading out tomorrow (November 15th) on my 27 hour flight and I'll be returning on December 3. Luckily, India has a fairly decent internet infrastructure so I'll be able to post on occasion - perhaps a report, maybe a video or a flickr set.

But between now and perhaps Saturday (Ottawa time) I will be fighting jet lag, bad airport beer and liquor and recycled 767 air, so if I post or comment something that seems odd or even slack jawed insane, please forgive me.

View Larger Map

Vadodara is 10 1/2 hours ahead of Ottawa and the long term forecast is sunny and between 32C and 34C. So there is an upside to all this.

So keep in touch and try not to let the politicians screw the place up while I'm gone.

The Moral Relativism of the Conservative Party

2007-11-04T09:46:00.000-05:00

It is a moral certainty that no human or institution owns another human being. From that moral certainty we arrive at a second moral certainty - that no human or institution may, without the express consent of that person involved, take the life of another human.

In other words, murder is morally wrong, in all circumstances. Period. End of story.

But now, as both Chet Scoville and James Bow have so aptly pointed out, our government and the Conservative Party of Canada no longer agree with that assertion. For them now, it seems, the value of a human life is dependent on circumstances, dependent on political relations ships and on vague definitions of things like "democratic state with respect for the rule of law". They say now it is dependent on whether the process used to take the life was done correctly and fairly.

In short, the CPC now believes it is possible for another person or institution to own another human, if the circumstances are "correct". They now say that another person or, worse, the State, may now take the life of another person, against their will and without their consent, simply because of what they do, or where they do it, or if our government is friendly with the government of the state in question, or if it fits in with their own domestic policy aspirations.

All of this means that the Conservatives now consider the morality of the taking of a human life to be relative to the circumstances of their own choosing - the very moral relativism they have always stated one of the greatest failings of the left. Only they have done it with perhaps one of our most widely held moral certainties.

Many of their supporters are trying to minimize and obfuscate this position by stating it is merely the government choosing not to "defend" a self-admitted double murder who was "correctly" and with "due process" sentenced to die - Ronald Smith in Montana. They are attempting to justify this by pointing out how horrible Smith's crimes were and that he has admitted his guilt. But this only serves to further demonstrate their moral relativism. That no person or state can take is a moral absolute regardless of what the person did, where they did it or who they are. What Smith did or how fair the process by which he was sentenced to die is irrelevant to the fact that as a human no one can morally take his life. Except if you are a member of the Conservative government.

It is wrong for a state to take Smith's life without his consent, just as it was wrong for Smith to take the lives of his victims without their consent. A murder planned by friendly people, following the rules in a fair process and living in a "free" and "democratic"country is still a murder, regardless of the process.

If our government won't stand up for that principle of moral certainty and seek clemency for the most heinous, like Smith, because they accept the moral relativist position that human life can be taken if the circumstances are right, then they accept that any citizen's life can be taken if circumstance match those they decide are right. They have joined in this belief regimes such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin. They agree on fundamentals - that human life can be taken by the state if the circumstances are "right" - and differ only in degree. And that minor degree is something that allows what Hannah Arndt called "the banality of evil" - that seemingly minor policies and actions by ordinary individuals can be used to perpetrate tremendous evil that seems banal and normal.

And this morally indefensible situation and policy was thrust upon Canada without consultation, debate or input from our supposed representatives. Once again, demonstrating that authoritarian, secretive, anti-democratic and arrogant nature of the Conservative government. It is even possible that this outrageous position was announced to simultaneously appeal to their angry, revenge-seeking socially conservative base and to draw attention away from the government's problems with the In and Out Scandal, poor polling numbers and once again its anti-democratic actions against it s own party members.

Canada is ruled, it seems, by an anti-democratic, authoritarian and secretive government that now considers the value of human life to be negotiable upon political considerations. This is nothing short of creeping fascism. Imagine what they would do with an unstoppable Majority. This is no longer about things like tax policy, the amount of social programs or the level of state interference in the economy. This Conservative Party has fundamentally, arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the relationship between the citizen and the state - the citizen is now expendable.

All Canadians of principle and everyone who respects the basic human right that no other person or institution can take away a human life - whether they are "left" or "right" Liberal, principled Conservatives, NDP, Green, Bloc, FCP or any other - should fight this change in policy by the Harper government. The principled must call their MP, write their MP, send letters to the editor and demand a proper debate and a repeal of this position. Principled Conservative need to re-claim their party from these extremists.

And if the Conservative Party continues with this policy, they have lost the moral authority to govern and any law or regulation they pass should be ignored. Refuse to cooperate. Stop paying taxes, license fees or other tariffs. Do not obey them.

Do not let the moral relativism of the Conservative Party drag Canada into a terrible darkness.

Thanks for giving me my Liberal tax cut

2007-10-31T14:58:00.000-04:00

I am certainly not one to bemoan getting to keep some of my own money. Tax cuts are always welcome.

That being said, I certainly will not be calling Flaherty a hero for this anytime soon:

"In addition to cutting the GST by another percentage point, the Conservatives are proposing to cut personal income taxes retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007. The lowest marginal tax rate would fall to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent. That represents a rollback of a rate hike implemented by the Conservatives last year."[emphasis mine]

Yes, that's right. I will finally get back the tax cut I had 2 years ago under Paul Martin, now that it is politically expedient to do so. Now that Flaherty and Harper can try to say its a "Conservative" tax cut instead of a "Liberal" one.

Considering the size of the recent surplus, I would be surprised if any party - even the NDP - would not have proposed some kind of tax cuts. So really this is not exactly a surprise.

So what are the Conservatives going to do about the "In and Out Scandal", come clean and be open and accountable, or continue waffling and stalling and pretending defrauding Canadian taxpayers out of millions in Election Canada refunds is ok?

Is the federal government going to continue a corporate welfare policy of subsidizing the oil and gas industry to the tune of about $1.3 billion per year, even while oil is above $90 a barrel (the highest is has ever been) and these companies continue to make record profits?

Is the federal government going to do something about the $7.9 billion in questionable, no-bid military contracts that started under its watch?

No, they are going to bribe us with our own money and seek the support of bigots in Quebec with the "Veiled Voter" nonsense. They'll continue to pass useless and unneeded changes to the Criminal law in a quest to curry populist favour with the ignorant.

And the Liberals will let them, because they are afraid to go to the polls, because they are afraid to raise real issue and pursue them.

You have the government you deserve.

Update:

A picture is worth a thousand words. Thnaks Zorph!

The Monks' Example

2007-09-27T07:48:00.000-04:00

Right now, in Burma, Buddhist monks are demonstrating the most effective means of dealing with tyrants and oppression and government they despise:

Ignore it.

Disobey.

Refuse to cooperate.

Even the most heavily armed tyrant cannot fight this, not without killing everyone. Then, as Carl Watner shows, "the victor is defeated, cheated of his prize, since nobody can rule over dead people."

No need for armed revolution or civil war, for outright violence.

"When people refuse their cooperation, withhold their help, and persist in their disobedience and defiance, they are denying their opponent the basic human assistance which any government or hierarchical system requires. if they do this in sufficient numbers for long enough, that government or hierarchical system will no longer have power" - Gene Sharp.

This is the power of Civil Disobedience and can open up an avenue of change to everyone, not just professional agitators and revolutionaries. No need for arms, insurgency and guerrilla warfare. Just withhold your consent and refuse to cooperate.

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." - Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849.

Are you ready? If so, follow the example of the monks.

Disobey.

Left to Right - A perspective

2007-09-18T08:57:00.000-04:00

With the latest electoral machinations going on in Quebec, the confusion that is the "left-right" paradigm has reared its head again. Despite the efforts of the Stageleft Bunker to bring some sanity to the discussion using the "quadrant" picture of political belief, clearly some people don't get it.

While the quadrant is much better than the old left-right idea, I prefer a simpler and more historically accurate line of reasoning as presented by Karl Hess in his book Dear America:

My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes....

The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.

—Karl Hess, Dear America [emphasis mine]

Hess was a former Barry Goldwater speech writer and Republican hawk that went through a kind of conversion to anarchism in the 60's and 70's. It was through his travels across the spectrum that he came up with the above observations and I believe it is most accurate.

It is about authoritarianism and hierarchy, not who supports what program. Based on this then, out Canadian spectrum would look like this:

Libertarians------------>NDP->Liberals-->CPC-->Nazis/Communists-->Absolute Monarchs

Economically it resembles this:

Decentralized voluntary------------>Planned--Corporatist-->Planned Communist---> Feudal
Free Market----------------------------------------------------------------------->Total Control

So, as Sheldon Richman has observed, the true left are the libertarians and the anarchists, who most value freedom - both social and economic - while the right are those who wish to impose their authority - both social and economic - upon others. The imposition of authority can come directly from the state, or via crony capitalism and state intervention in the economy on behalf of the corporate elites.

In Canada then, we really only have varying degrees of authoritarianism in our mainstream parties. So, when a Conservatives says they are a libertarian, they are lying - as long as they are okay with state or corporate control and favors, they are not in favour of freedom. When a Liberal or NDP says they are concerned with your liberty, they are lying - as long as they wish to regulate and legislate your economic activity and behaviour, the are not in favour of freedom.

The only real difference between our parties are who their corporate and union friends are and who they will rule for.

Update:

As per Ron's comment below, I'd like to make it clear that I don't see much of a difference between the major parties. Sadly my ascii art capabilities are not up to the task. There are very little differences between them. The NDP would have you give up economic liberty for lots of (perceived) personal liberty and the Conservatives would have you give up personal liberty for lots of (perceived) economic liberty. The Liberals will take a bit of both, and tell you they are moderate. In the end, you are still ruled by people who will use force and coercion against you and tell you they are doing it in your best interests, when its really in their interests and that of their cronies, be they unions or corporations or both.

Ode to Geddy Lee: Against Mandatory Voting

2007-09-06T06:10:00.000-04:00

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
- Rush 'Free Will'

With that one simple line, Canadian rock group Rush has summed in total, the arguments against mandatory voting.

The belief seems to be that if we force people to choose, then government will truly be democratic and representative of the will of the people - all the people, since they vote. Further, it will prevent disenfranchisement, as the 'Jim Crow' laws of the 50's and 60's.

Brilliant, if only the root cause of 'not voting' were merely being too lazy to show up to cast a ballot or being kept away by the Klan. But such is not the case in modern Canada. During the last few elections voter turnout has dropped to the between high 50 to low 60s after traditionally being around 70%. The rates are higher the younger the person is. What this shows is not laziness on the part of the electorate, but rather disillusionment with the choices or the system in general.

If there are no real choices, is being forced to choose really free? The Soviet Union had 100% voter turnout regularly, but that did not mean their system was free. There is precious difference between being forced to choose from a field of one and being forced to choose from a field of two or three or even 4 if there is no real difference between them, or if there is no choice that represents your views.

And that gets to the heart of the matter - voter turnout is not only provided a measure of legitimacy for the government and the state, but it indicates the health and legitimacy of the system itself. Thus, in a truly free society, it is a legitimate political stance to choose not to participate in a system one feels is illegitimate or no longer represents that person's wishes and beliefs. It is Tommy Douglas' 'Mouseland" taken to its logical extreme - rather than merely being forced to vote for the white cats or black cats, or choosing other mice, some may choose to forgo the system altogether and strike out on their own.

So, if it is wrong and contrary to the ideas of freedom and liberty to, by force and coercion, prevent someone from exercising their franchise as the Jim Crow laws did, it is equally contrary to those principles to force people to exercise that franchise if the choose not to.

There are many perfectly legitimate reasons for not voting:

1. No choice - all of the running candidates either do not differ to offer real choice, or none provide a platform that matches the voter's preference. This could be for one election or all of them.

2. Choice - the person has decided that they do not wish to lend legitimacy to a system they no longer support. This could range from simply not supporting an unfair "first-past-the-post" voting system all the way to those who do not see the state, non-consensual government and non-voluntary laws as illegitimate and do not wish to enable and empower the current system (ahem...).

3. Just don't want to - for whatever reason, a person is simply not engaged and does not wish to, for whatever reason.

The result of mandatory voting will not be, then, more legitimacy, but less. As in the Soviet Union, it will create a false legitimacy, because no dissent will be accepted and people will be forced to vote for people and positions they do not truly believe in. Or worse, force legitimization from an ignorant, uninformed and disengaged electorate.

Mandatory voting and forced enfranchisement is as draconian and against the idea of freedom as race-based Jim Crow forced disenfranchisement and should fought just as hard. Mandatory voting is the moral and logical equivalent of 'freeping' an election.

To see the other side, check out this debate at The Great Canadian Debate on Mandatory Voting where I match up with Dr. Dawg.

To comment, please drop by the debate forum.

The Problem with Conservatives

2007-08-21T10:33:00.000-04:00

While I'm sure most of my Prog Blog friends won't agree with everything Sean Gangol of The Libertarian Enterprise has to say, I'm sure they will agree with his assessment of Conservatives. Read it and see if it reminds of of anyone you have encountered in the blogsphere or in real life.

The money quote:

"If you truly want to live in a free society, you must have tolerance for things you don't like. You may not like abortion, drugs or homosexuality, but these are things you have to co-exist with if you want to live free. If you are the type that want control over other people's bodies or if you want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens, then a police state is the only place you belong."

Exactly.

(Hat tip to Strike the Root)

My Philosophy

2007-08-06T11:18:00.000-04:00

A while back, I was asked "Why?" by many friends in the blogging world who were curious as to the changes I made.

This is my answer. (By Ken Schooland.)

These are the first principles from which my political stances emanate. It is neither "left" nor "right". It is about freedom and liberty - true freedom and liberty.

Any questions?

Update:

This from Catfarmer pretty much says it all too, and far more eloquently than I could.

Keep the questions coming.

Terrorism doesn't work

2007-07-07T13:21:00.000-04:00

Via Bruce Schneier, we find a convincing and well researched paper by Max Abrahms that concludes, based in empirical evidence, that terrorism does not work.

This study analyzes the political plights of twenty-eight terrorist groups -- the complete list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) as designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. The data yield two unexpected findings. First, the groups accomplished their forty-two policy objectives only 7 percent of the time. Second, although the groups achieved certain types of policy objectives more than others, the key variable for terrorist success was a tactical one: target selection. Groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumbered attacks on military targets systematically failed to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature.[emphasis mine]

Unlike people like Alan Dershowitz who think terrorism is successful, Abrahms actually studied the outcomes of many (often obscure) terrorist groups actions. His conclusions are based on empirical evidence rather than anecdotal observation. Even then, it is borne out by the observations of various documentary research into the subject, such as "The Power of Nightmares".

So why do I bring this up? The recent foiled attacks on London and the botched attack on Glasgow Airport are being touted, once again, by the fearmongers and reactionaries on the right as some kind of warning sign of culture war or proof that Islam itself is evil.

The reality is something completely different. These guys, like the "Toronto 17" or the JFK plotters, are ineffectual idiots. This so-called plot has been rightly ridiculed from many quarters, espcially by those who know security. This plot had no chance of doing anything beyond lighting cars on fire. Indeed, as Schneier points out, it actually shows that security at Glasgow worked perfectly - no one was hurt, there was no panic and the damage was contained.

It also lays bare the myth that suicide bombings are inherent to Islam, as the bombers fit the typical profile of a suicide bomber - middle class men, social isolated and politically motivated to fight against an occupation. This was the case in Japan at the end of WWII, in Sri Lanka in the 80's onward (modern suicide bombing was invented by the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist liberation movement) and Chechnya in the 90s.

In the UK case, we have two Iraqi doctors, socially isolated, quite possibly with dead or injured relatives in Iraq lashing out against a government and a people they see as the occupiers of their homeland. This does not excuse their behaviour or their intent, but merely explains it better than "teh muslims r evil" that we hear from the right-wing authoritarian set. Indeed, director of the Chicago Project on suicide terrorism and expert on suicide bombers Robert Pape (who ironically to the above, thinks terrorism is successful) points out that:

95% of suicide attacks in recent times have the same specific strategic goal: to cause an occupying state to withdraw forces from a disputed territory. Pape found the targeted countries were ones were the government was democratic and public opinion played a role in determining policy. Other characteristics Pape found were a difference in religion between the attackers.^[5] and the occupiers and grassroots support for the attacks.^[6] Characteristics thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers Pape found lacking included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;^[7] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;^[8] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers.^[9]

This is the motivation for attacks by Palestinians, Chechens and even the 9-11 hijackers - one of Bin Laden's demands prior to 9-11 was the removal of US forces from Saudi Arabia.

In other words, terrorism is ineffective, especially attacks on ciovilians, and our response to it must take that into consideration. Most of the so-called terrorists themselves since 9-11 have been politically motivated idiots, not the maniacal religious zealots that the right would have us believe. Almost to a person and a plot, these people were incapable of carrying out the plots they intended.

Suicide bombing and terrorism are not an indictment of Islam, but an indictment of military occupations.

Remember that when someone tries to tell you this is a problem with Islam, or that we need to give up more of our rights to stay safe. They are lying to you. They are being useful idiots of the terrorists themselves.

More important, though, the London bombs failed because open, Western societies are more resilient than we sometimes think they are.

Dear Christiangovernment.ca

2007-06-18T21:43:00.000-04:00

Update: Seems Dave, JJ and I have been noticed. Apparently we are "blasphemous" or some such nonsense. For those visitors who come here from Christiangovernment.ca, welcome. Please read this post and feel free to peruse the rest of my blog. For the record, I am an atheist, not a secular humanist. I am a left-libertarian and as such don't particularly like my liberty being taken away by anyone. That also means I respect your choice to live and worship as you see fit, so long as you do not try to make me live by your religion or rules. I am willing to live and let live, even if I do not agree with you. Love thy neighbour as thy self, judge not lest ye be judged, as the saying goes. Read this with an open mind and feel free to comment. But remember, I am serious about defending my liberty. How serious? Ask Dave what he was doing 25 years ago. We aren't amateurs.

Thank and enjoy!

___________________________________________________________________

After reading this over at the Galloping Beaver, I thought perhaps I need to send a friendly note to Timothy Bloedow and his supporters - people like REALwomen, Focus on the Family, Institute for Canadian Values, Canada Family Action Coalition, Marriage Canada, NARTH, and various other authoritarian, fundamentalist Christians.

Here it is:

Dear Christiangovernment.ca and supporters,

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Words to live by. As are these:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

and its corollary from libertarian thought

"No one has the right to initiate force against anyone or their property, or to delegate the initiation of force to others. One may only use force in self-defense."

Boiled down, these two sayings are the messages of every religion - the rest, as the old story goes, is commentary.

So it disturbs me greatly to see that you wish to create a Christian-based theocracy in Canada, even to the point of calling public servants "Ministers" in the real sense of the term. We've seen how well that kind of thing has turned out in both fact and fiction. Dare I say, I think you may owe Margaret Atwood some royalties after reading your site.

From what I have read, you intend force your narrow interpretation of Christianity on all Canadians, whether people subscribe to that view or not and whether people want it or not. You preach in nice tones and talk about things like "subsidiarity" and "decentralization" and how strong central government is un-christian (I suggest you let the Vatican know about that one - or the Mormons in Salt Lake or the folks in Westminster Abbey). But you also talk of "secular humanism as a threat that must be suppressed" and that "Christianity is the basis for the rule of law, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and equality before the law." In other words, you are stating that one can only have freedom if one agrees with your religious views otherwise they must be suppressed.

Sorry, but that isn't freedom or liberty. It isn't democracy. Neither Christianity, nor any other religion, should be "in the public square" in any way. You don't want freedom, but collectivist, conformist drones that all think like you, and it appears by wishing to form a government, you are prepared to use all of the coercive, violent powers of the state to do so.

Religion is a private, personal matter. It is the guide to the individual, because when it comes right down to it, you can only control yourself and not others. Not without tyranny. This is the kind of religion as practiced by the majority of Christians - learning the lessons taught by their faith, applying them in their personal lives. Living by example, not by force. This is also how the vast majority of Muslim live. And Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists - all religions.

May I suggest the following simple pieces of advice:

If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one. Or help make an environment where the choice to have one is the choice not taken.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Indeed I suggest you consider looking at it this way: so long as you or your property are not harmed or taken, what other people do or believe makes no difference to you. Live and let live.

This is the creed I try to live by. I am an atheist and, frankly, think any belief in a God or gods is ridiculous. But I have many religious friends that I get along with just fine, because their belief and practice of their religion "neither breaks my legs nor picks my pockets." I have no problems with my Sikh neighbours, my Muslim friends or my Christian wife. We live in peace and harmony, thank you, and have no need of your "Christian" government or desire to live under it.

But I suspect, deep down, this is not really about something personal like religion anyway. Its really about power and authority. Your religion is merely a vehicle to power, so you may take control of the state, in order to force upon us your religious views, to coerce us and enslave us to do your bidding. You aren't religious, you are totalitarian, authoritarian dictators in waiting, dressed in preachers clothing. You want to rule over us for your own selfish reasons, even though you will certain say "its for our own good". You are, for lack of a better term, evil.

You are the Canadian equivalent, in every way, of the Taleban - the "Christaleban". The only difference between you and them is the length of the beards and the colour of the clothes.

So let me put this as simply and straight forward as I can:

You will not win. You will never be "ON THE WINNING SIDE in the culture war that is being waged today for the soul of Canada." You are advocates of slavery, not freedom and you will be fought at every turn.

I personally promise you that you will be fought and defeated by any means necessary. I have every right and every intention of defending my family, my property and my liberty from attack. I will defend these things with every peaceable means available, but through violence if necessary. I will not sit back and let you tell my daughter she does not control her own body, or tell my wife she cannot do any job she wishes. I will never be subjugated by those who would condemn me or my friends because we choose not to believe your religious nonsense. I will not stand by while my neighbours are oppressed and forced to convert, or have their personal religions destroyed.

The only person qualified to know what "is for my own good" is me, not you. Not your church and not the 2000+ year old writings of long-dead Middle Eastern mystics.

First you will be ignored. If that does not work, you will be defied. And if that does not work, you will be fought, to the death if need be.

Is that clear enough? Do you understand?

The choice is now yours. You can choose live in peace and freely practice and believe you religion side by side with the rest of us. We will not bother you if you do not bother us. Or you can choose this route of culture war and attempt to use the power of the state to enforce your narrow views on everyone. The first is open and tolerant, the second is authoritarian and enslaving.

I am willing to live and let live, are you?

Choose wisely, and let me assure you, you will not prevail.

-------

In other unrelated news, I have reversed my stance on gun control...

The end in Afghanistan

2007-06-10T12:11:00.000-04:00

Its time to bring our forces home. Afghanistan is no longer even remotely winnable and will only serve to waste the lives of our soldiers. I support our troops and I don't think support the troops by leaving them in an un-winnable situation to be needlessly killed and maimed. So I want them home.

I have not always had this position, of course. Six months ago I was a pariah, I felt, in my own party at the time. I supported the war in Afghanistan, because I honestly thought that Canadian troops could make a real difference. We did things differently, I thought, and this would be to our benefit.

In the past 6 months, it has become clear, however, that we are not doing what we do best and are now in circumstances that prevent us - or nearly anyone else - from being able to win:

1. We are no longer do reconstruction and helping the Afghan people. $9 of every $10 we spend over there are on combat, not on reconstruction. Even then, we are alienating our allies in the Afghan police, refusing to help them, forcing untrained recruits to take the brunt of the fighting.

2. Pakistan is now making peace in the tribal regions, allowing those fighters to be "freed up" to fight against us. Without the cooperation of Pakistan (who created the Taliban in the first place), we are merely assuming the position that was assumed by the Russians and British before us.

3. We are now complicit in the torture and disappearance of detainees, despite the best efforts of our troops on the ground to prevent it. To Afghan eyes, this makes us occupiers, not helpers.

4. The war is no longer about helping the Afghans, or finding Osama bin Laden. We are making the classic mistakes the Russians made 20 years ago - sending in tanks to fight insurgents (unless you buy that the tanks are there for another reasons). Politically, things like "Red Friday's" have morphed from being non-partisan events to show the soldiers we support them, to Nuremberg-style rallies that unflinchingly support the Conservative government's policy. I now make it a point to NOT wear red on Friday for this very reason.

5. We are playing into the hands of the Taliban. "We can't have reconstruction without security and we can't have security without the kind of combat we are doing" say the Conservative Party apologists and war cheer leaders. But if the Taliban wanted to stop reconstruction and wanted to make the Canadians troops appear to be the heavy-handed bad guys, they have succeeded. They can use car bombs and other IED to cause us to focus our money and effort on combat, rather than what we had intended - Provincial Reconstruction. and since we spend 90% of our money in Afghanistan on combat, its working. So long as schools don't get built, so long as civilians get shot, so long as we are complicit in the torture of detainees, the Taliban strategy is working. And Stephen Harper, Gordon O'connor and Gen. Hillier want us to continue and do it more.

None of this should be construed as saying anything against our troops. They are doing their job well, as best they can, in the circumstances they find themselves. They are acting with courage and determination and every one of them should be personally thanked. But that they do what they do well does not mean they should be doing it in Afghanistan. This is no longer a peacekeeping, peacemaking operation. Our troops are probably in violation of the Geneva Conventions and complicit in war crimes, not because of their actions, but because of the policy of this government and the previous government.

Our troops are now in an impossible situation - fighting a war they cannot win, being forced into illegal, criminal acts by policy rather than action and are supporting a government that is more and more appearing only marginally better than the Taliban. I am at a loss to understand how keeping our soldiers in this situation to be killed and maimed, or deciding to make it worse by expanding the time commitment and role, is in any way "supporting the troops".

And now a word of warning:

First person who says I don't support our troops, or somehow support the Taliban because of this get a punch in the fucking throat. Or worse if I ever meet them in the real work.

My brother is a 16 year vet of the Canadian Forces. He is a Warrant Officer who trains a good many of the troops from the reserves that are going over. The CF is looking at him to go over now too, despite meaning they will have no one to do the armored and infantry training he does. My brother is married with a little boy.

If I am going to lose my brother, if my nephew is to lose his father, if my kids are to lose their uncle in service to Canada, then it is up to us and our government that he will not die or be horribly wounded in vain. It is up to them, and us, to ensure that when we ask our troops to go somewhere and conduct operations that may require them to give their lives, that we do so for good reasons, to help those that want and can be helped and do not place our forces into situations where they could become war criminals.

The Afghanistan mission is not that mission. It is a quagmire that will chew up our soldiers, for no other reason than to look tough in a 'war on terror'. Sorry, but that is not worth the life of my brother, or any other Canadian citizen.

I cannot support this mission, as it exists right now.

Bring the troops home.

Happy Birthday Shane!

2007-05-30T13:01:00.000-04:00

Happy Birthday Buddy! I hope you like the 2 million+ cards you got. When I first promoted this back in January, I had no idea that I would be part of something so big.

Andrew at BBG, who put me on to the story in the first place, deserves a lot of credit really being part of spreading the word. Since that initial post, I have seen "Birthday Cards for Shane" signs in Walmarts, hospital waiting rooms, malls, libraries and gas stations. My kids school had each class make cards for him (my daughter will be 8 herself soon). I have recieved e-mails for Shane on a regular basis for 4 months.

So is it a record? I sure hope so.

Happy Birthday Shane! Get well soon!

For Elgin-Alexander Fraser (2004-2007)

2007-05-22T16:18:00.000-04:00

Elgin and Mike Fisher

Get a box of tissues and read the story here.

As the father of three children very close in age to Elgin, I have but one thing to say:

Go Sens Go!

Win it for the little guy.

(h/t to Darren)

The Man Who Would be Mullah Omar...

2007-05-16T07:55:00.000-04:00

...is dead.

I am reluctant to celebrate the death of another human. After all, the man did have a family who loved him and whom he loved. In those circles, he will be missed as any of us would miss our father or brother or uncle. But the world is a much better place now that this man no longer walks the earth, but is buried in it.

Jerry Falwell's legacy is one of hatred, bigotry and devotion to authoritarianism of the highest order. He taught not that we should love our nieghbours as ourselves, but that those not like us are evil and should be persecuted. He excused the murder of 2800 people as "God's will", punishment for "secularization" and the fault of his favourite whipping boys - gays, feminists and 'liberals'. His attitude toward individual freedom was utter derision - believe as he want you to believe or you are evil.

It is no accident that Falwell, along with Jim and Tammy-Faye Bakker and Pat Robertson inspired the theocracy of Gilead in Margaret Attwood in "The Handmaid's Tale". He would have happily transformed the US into a repressive, authoritarian Christian theorcracy similar to Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban is given the chance.

Ironically, perhaps, is that Falwell's greatest legacy was to forever damage and smear Christianity, both in North America and around the world. Christianity is now seen by most non-believers as a religion bent on world domination, willing to force itself on people through coercion, extortion and outright violence. Christianity is seen as an enemy of liberty, a supporter of the authoritarian ancien regime. Because of Falwell and his bile filled pronouncements wrapped in "Christianity", the religion is no longer associated with the good works of Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, Bishop Romero or even the actual words and teachings of Jesus himself. In otherwords, he has managed to do what no atheist could ever do in a thousand years of trying- give Christianity abnd Christians a bad name.

Do not take the above as a blanket attack on Christianity or religion in general. I am an atheist, but I know and appreciate that when the supreme being myth and other fairy-tale nonsense is removed, most religions have the same message: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Help those less fortunate. Live and let live".

Falwell was more interested in forcing conformity with his narrow views than following the prinicples and teachings of his own religion. Indeed, religion was merely a vehicle for his authoritarian, fascist fantasies, rather than a way to make the world a better place.

Everyone, Christians especially, should be glad this man is no longer among us. He was indeed a "false prophet".

I don't believe in heavan and hell. Falwell is just worm food now. But if I'm wrong, I suspect that Falwell found himself in the neighbourhood of Gehena rather than Paradise this morning. And such a fate for him would be well deserved.

Good bye, Jerry Falwell, may those like you follow you soon to the gates of hell. Good riddance.