Worky work! Busy bee!

I can't blog, I'm in the zone over here. Hee-ha!

The wedding is less than 48 hours away, so as you might expect, things have been pretty hectic. And then we're in Vegas for a week, so blogging will be light until May 20.

See you then, and thanks for your continued patronage.

Damian P.

Update: to the readers who were kind enough to buy us some gifts from our wedding registry: thanks so much.

Doing the math

George Will has fun with a political figure:

Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home. She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.

Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's Zip code.

Or perhaps she wins if Obama's popular vote total is, well, adjusted by counting each African American vote as only three-fifths of a vote. There is precedent, of sorts, for that arithmetic (see the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, before the 14th Amendment)...

Mark C.

Meanwhile, back at those in higher education

Why were these college students so pig-ignorant (sorry human rights commissions) about what had been all over the Internet, our television and newspapers for a year?

[...]

Stan Persky: Last fall, in a college ethics class I was teaching, I was trying to make a perhaps obscure point about how the fundamental ethical question, “What should I do?” gradually but inevitably shades over into the question, “What should we do?” My would-be lesson for the day was how individual ethics is necessarily connected to political philosophy’s “we” questions, which is basically the question of, “How should we go about living together?” Since, at that moment, Canada was in the midst of a major debate about the country’s participation in the United Nations-authorized Afghanistan mission—and there were nightly lead stories on every TV station and on the front pages of every newspaper in the land—I innocently asked my students, “Why are we in Afghanistan?”, figuring that they would all have opinions on the subject.

The politer students looked up from their computer screens or turned off their cellphones or even pulled one earphone out of their iPod-connected ears. I was then treated to a display of typical Canadian politeness, one of our major national traits. The students knew we had troops fighting out there somewhere, but they politely claimed they didn’t know much about it. They knew it was all happening in some faraway Absurdistan, but weren’t exactly sure where it precisely was, although several of them politely offered to bring their recently-purchased Global Positioning System devices into play in order to locate it. When I asked, “Should we be in Afghanistan?”, the façade of politeness gave way to another national trait: they were simply flummoxed.

I worried. My worry went like this: if our best and brightest have only the foggiest notion of what we’re doing in Afghanistan, what do you suppose the national state of mind is on this question?...

I doubt most university students would have done much better. As for the "national state of mind", I would respond "dismal". Not that our political and chattering classes themselves paid the slightest attention when our mission moved from Kabul to Kandahar in 2005/2006. Hell, there was the prospect of an election, and then the election itself, to concentrate minds wonderfully on important things. The new mission was (almost) totally ignored at the time.

Mark C.

Terrorism funding highlights

At least the media are paying attention--probably because of this angle:

The Tiger In Elections Canada?

Mark C.

Update: Holy Toronto Star! It takes on the leadership of an immigrant community:

Explain Tamil Tiger ties

Afghanistan and intelligent, moral minds

Terry Glavin, in collusion with Stan Persky, makes the case for the Canadian mission much better than our Conservative government has. Please read the whole piece and consider the end part about the Canadian left with an open, though critical, mind:

Why Are We In Afghanistan?

Or, what are two nice lefty writers like you doing in a war like this?

...we thought we should engage in a bit of dialogue as part of our obligation to provide an answer to the question, “Why is Canada in Afghanistan?” And then, we’ll go on to murkier political matters such as, “Why should the left support the Canadian mission?”, and then try to answer some really arcane questions like, “Is there still a political left in Canada and, if so, what sort of shape is it in?”

[...]

Terry Glavin...on their own, the "anti-war" complaints rarely withstand any serious scrutiny at all. Secondly, just for argument's sake, if we were to go so far as to grant all but the most lunatic "anti-war" arguments—and there is no dearth of those—they still don't add up to a case for withdrawal. They don't come close to justifying an abdication of our basic obligations of solidarity and citizenship as a member of the UN, as a member of NATO, as a member of ISAF, or as a signatory to the Afghanistan Compact.

[...]

Our soldiers are helping to hold a critical front in the global struggle against tyranny, slavery, mysogyny, illiteracy, and obscurantism. No self-respecting and well-informed person of the left can refuse to take sides in this kind of a struggle. And it should be expected that there will be armed elements of reaction, arrayed against the people in times like these—and in this case there are such armed reactionary groups, such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Hezb-e Islami. One has to be prepared to take up arms against such elements—that's what soldiers are for. We must stay and fight on.

Beyond that, things do get murky, and so I turn for guidance to our Afghan-Canadian comrades, and to our friends who have worked in Afghanistan. But none of these people ever says we should leave. The subject never even comes up.

[...]

More after the jump.

Mark C.

Update: Paul weighs in at Celestial Junk:

Jack Layton's Moral Bankruptcy

Upperdate:

The People We Believe In

Disclosure: I am a founding member of the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee.

Aye. This brings us to the central dysfunction at the very core of the entire "anti-war" discourse. It unfolds within a kind of alternative reality, with its own rigid hierarchies of virtue, its own pass codes, its own self-referential, self-confirming feedback loops, and its very own vocabulary. You can make almost anything appear completely rational in this way, so long as you don't let anything in from the outside world. It involves inverting the meanings of words, such that just talking about it requires frequent use of parentheses and the repetition of such qualifiers as "so-called", merely to avoid becoming complicit in its fictions...

...Negotiations actually could produce something we could call "peace," if we weren't too fussy about finding the proper word for it. All the soldiers could go home. And Afghan girls would be sent home from school. There would be millions of refugees wandering the world again. With the armies of nearly 40 countries in full retreat, and Afghanistan reverting to the "host for terrorist and extremist groups" that the United Nations has warned would result, we could expect new and bloody vistas opening up to emboldened Islamist reactionaries, from the Pillars of Hercules all the way to the Banda Sea.

What sort of "progressive" vision is this?

[...]

I'd go farther, and say identity politics has supplanted the politics of solidarity, and the national self-loathing associated with "cultural relativism" has wholly undermined progressive internationalism. Along the way, the counterculture left also jettisoned the old, bedrock progressive conception of human rights as universal rights. And a crude and irrational anti-Americanism—which, paradoxically, owes far more to American counterculture politics than to Canadian progressive-nationalist politics—is a big part of it, too...

It's Obama?

After North Carolina and Indiana, pretty much everyone says it's all over for Hillary. Allahpundit:

...as of this moment, even if Florida and Michigan are counted RCP gives her a popular vote lead of just 3,000+ votes — a margin of less than one-tenth of one percent. And that’s assuming that the popular vote totals from the caucuses in Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada (which weren’t reported) aren’t counted at all. If you estimate for those states, he ends up with a lead of more than 100,000. Which means she has nothing left to commend her to the supers except an electabilty argument unsupported by a single key metric or even circumstantial evidence that Pastorgate has done Obama grievous damage at the polls. Are they going to take the nomination from the first serious black candidate for president without any compelling data to hang their decision on? Not a chance. It’s over. Let’s move on.

And Sullivan:

There is no calculation that currently gives the Clintons a majority of the popular vote. There is now no mathematical possibility of them getting more delegates. Obama has won by far the most states. He has raised far more money; he has 1.5 million donors, mainly small sums. He has crushed her among new voters and young voters; and as a black politician, his support spans all races and classes. And recall: he is a freshman senator with a very funny name against the biggest brand name in American politics and a worldwide celebrity whose chief campaigner was a former two-term president of the United States.

[...]

The Clintons will have to realize some day that their time is over. I cannot pretend to know how they think or how much more damage to themselves, to their legacy and to their party they want to inflict. But I do know who has won this nomination, whether they try to steal it from him or not.

I won't count out a Clinton until she officially drops out. But it's looking very, very dim for her right now.

Damian P.

Europe have really let themselves go

Tex found it, so don't blame me.

Damian P.

Hardline young Chinese

Youth may be the hope for a nation's future --but how will they affect the rest of the world?

As human rights protesters dogged the Beijing Olympics' torch relay around the world, as supporters of Tibet condemned the violent crackdown in Lhasa, and as Darfur activists demanded change in China's Sudan policy, Chinese young people worked themselves into a different form of righteous anger. In online forums and chat rooms, they blasted Beijing's leaders for not being tougher in Tibet. They agitated for boycotts against Western businesses based in nations that object to Beijing's policies, and they directed venomous fury against anyone critical of China.

The anger has even spread to American college campuses. In April, Chinese students at USC blasted a visiting Tibetan monk with angry questions about Tibet's alleged history of slavery and other controversial topics. When the monk tried to respond, the students chanted, "Stop lying! Stop lying!"

At the University of Washington, hundreds protested outside during a speech by the Dalai Lama, chanting, "Dalai, your smiles charm, your actions harm." When one Chinese student at Duke University tried to mediate between pro-China and pro-Tibet protesters, her photo, labeled "traitor," was posted on the Internet, and her contact information and her parents' address in China were listed for all to see.

The explosion of nationalist sentiment, especially among young people, might seem shocking, but it's been simmering for a long time. In fact, Beijing's leadership, for all its problems, may be less hard-line than China's youth, the country's future. If China ever were to become a truly free political system, it might actually become more, not less, aggressive

[...]

Hardly uneducated know-nothings, young nationalists tend to be middle-class urbanites. Far more than rural Chinese, who remain mired in poverty, these urbanites have benefited enormously from the country's three decades of economic growth. They also have begun traveling and working abroad. They can see that Shanghai and Beijing are catching up to Western cities, that Chinese multinationals can compete with the West, and they've lost their awe of Western power.

Many middle-aged Chinese intellectuals are astounded by the differences between them and their younger peers. Academics I know, members of the Tiananmen generation, are shocked by some students' disdain for foreigners and, often, disinterest in liberal concepts such as democratization. University students now tend to prefer business-oriented majors to liberal arts-oriented subjects such as political science. The young Chinese interviewed for a story last fall in Time magazine on the country's "Me Generation" barely discussed democracy or political change in their daily lives.

[...]

In the long run, this explosive nationalism calls into question what kind of democracy China could be. Many Chinese academics, for example, believe that, at least in the early going, a freer China might become a more dangerous China. Able to truly express their opinions, young Chinese would be able to put intense pressure on a freer government to adopt a hard line against the West -- even, perhaps, to invade Taiwan. By contrast, the current Chinese regime has launched broad informal contacts with Taiwan's new rulers, including an April meeting between Chinese President Hu Jintao and incoming Taiwanese Vice President Vincent Siew -- contacts denounced by many bloggers. One day, Hu may find even he can't defend himself before a mob of angry Chinese students.

Kind of reminds me of Wilhelmine Germany.

Mark C.

"1 YEAR: 1,400 BUCKS"

Terence Corcoran of the National Post writes about, amongst other things, the Globe and Mail headline you didn't see.

Media income gap

And here's a Post news headline you'll never see in the Globe:

Poor got richer in 2006: StatsCan

But Linda McQuaig, in the Toronto Star, remains resolute in her views:

Rich wage class war, not StatsCan

More on Ms McQuaig's views.

Mark C.

Hey, remember that debate we wanted?

Well, we're, um, washing our hair tonight. Yeah, that's it.

There's really no way these "complainants" can possibly look any more ridiculous, is there?

Damian P.

McCain and Hagee

Now it's John McCain's turn to face awkward questions about a lunatic pastor (link features NSFW pics):

Hagee also called Hurricane Katrina "the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." because the city was planning a gay pride parade. Do serious people actually believe s**t like that? I thought saying things like that got you in a straightjacket and not presidential politics.

When presented with Hagee's quotes, McCain distanced himself from them. However, just two weeks ago, McCain said to George Stephanopolous that he was "glad to have his endorsement." After the Obama / Wright conflageration, that isn't going to fly for very long. The press knows that and I think McCain does, too.

Look, I think John McCain is the first decent human being to run for president since Bob Dole 12 years ago and he doesn't want to attack Barack Obama's faith, particularly when the media and Hillary Clinton are doing it for him. I think, like the first President Bush, that he would like to avoid a presidential election becoming a stupid debate about an invisible man who lives in the sky.

Idiot bloggers are screaming for McCain's head because he won't jump on the Jeremiah Wright gravy train of glory. That's why I call them idiot bloggers. John McCain has been in politics for a very long time and is savvy enough to know that the second he attacks Wright, he opens himself up to questions about his relationship with Hagee and the ghost of Jerry Falwell returns to haunt him.

The stupid pricks in the GOP's evangelical base hate McCain and he isn't real fond of them either. But, while I disagree with his assessment, he feels he needs those jackals and doesn't need the hassle of throwing an evil crank like Hagee under the bus.

I'm not sure that's true. If any Republican can win without evangelicals, it's John McCain. Furthermore, it isn't like those a**holes are going to vote for Obama. The worst thing that can happen is that they stay home. McCain is already on the record calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance" and Obama wrote a book about how wonderful Wright is. If it the argument stays at that level, McCain wins.

But McCain was almost killed by his little pantomine of kissing Falwell's ring at Liberty University last year and I'm not sure that the Lazarus act works twice. If Hagee becomes an issue - and the New York Times started the ball rolling this morning - he can't do any less than Obama did in denouncing him personally without getting killed.

Damian P.

Hold the phone! The Deutsche Telekom Cup?

OK, maybe T-Mobile. What will NASCAR Nation think?

Why Deutsche Telekom Wants Sprint Nextel

First the Japanese, now the Germans--I mean, who won the war anyway?

I just like the globalization. And let's just hope for no doping scandals:

German telecommunications company T-Mobile said they have withdrawn their one-million-euro ($1.3 million) sponsorship from German TV coverage of the Tour de France and will invest instead in drug testing.

T-Mobile, the mobile phone division of Deutsche Telekom, paid to have their name appear on the public TV channels ARD and ZDF during the race, but the company now says it wants to use the money to strengthen Germany's national anti-doping agency...

T-Mobile is the leg of Deutsche Telekom that would be directly linked to Sprint.

Mark C.

Catastrophe in Burma

Over 15,000 dead, according to some reports:

More than 15,000 people have died in Myanmar after a cyclone hit the country at the weekend, including 10,000 people in a single town, a state newspaper said Tuesday in the latest update on casualties.

The official New Light of Myanmar newspaper said that the town of Bogalay, located in the heart of the Irrawaddy river delta where the storm swept ashore, had suffered 10,000 deaths.

The cyclone pounded the delta and then tore through Myanmar's main city of Yangon, leaving a total of 15,000 dead across the country, the paper said.

The latest toll marked a 50 percent jump from the estimate given on state television late Monday by Foreign Minister Nyan Win, who said 10,000 people had been killed nationwide.

In dictatorships like Myanmar/Burma, the state media usually downplays the death toll from disasters like this, so who knows how many people really lost their lives. World Vision is accepting donations for much-needed assistance. (American residents can donate here.)

Damian P.

It's not the motive, stupids

Maclean's Paul Wells isn't entirely happy with this analysis by the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson of what's wrong with Canadian political journalism. Though Mr Simpson might not perhaps be best placed to cast the first stone, I think he's generally right.

While Mr Simpson usually reflects received standard wisdom (indeed he makes it, one often thinks), every once in a while he does dare to raise awkward questions. Carefully choosing his moments, one supposes.

Mark C.

The Navy must be really ticked off

A Globe and Mail headline writer says minesweepers may be supplied to the Canadian Army in land-locked Afghanistan. Where do they find these people? In J-school?

Oh well. Real minesweepers. And our media often call this type of naval vessel "battleships", and this sort of armoured vehicle "tanks".

Mark C.

It begins...

The NFL regular season doesn't start for another four months or so, but Peter King is already preparing power rankings. (Be patient, Atlanta fans.)

In other football news, the Bears now have an excuse to end the Cedric Benson experiment. ("He sucks," evidently, was not a good enough excuse.)

Damian P.

Khazar kookiness

Spend enough time browsing conspirozoid, white-supremacist and/or "anti-Zionist" websites, and you'll undoubtedly come across the theory that modern Jews aren't really Jewish, but descendants of Turkic nomadic tribe called the Khazars. (Therefore, they have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel, get it?)

An invaluable weblog, Alex Jones Exposed, explains the origins of the theory - and the genetic evidence proving that the whole thing, not surprisingly, is complete bunk. (Is the grand poobah of conspirozoid radio hosts an anti-semite? Maybe, but he instead strikes me as the kind of guy who will believe any conspiracy theory that comes along, even if it contradicts some of the other theories he believes.)

Damian P.

The "re-Americanization" of Afghanistan?

How will Canadians react? A post at The Torch, plus one on Canadian Army and US Marine operations--and a certain Canadian newspaper's Afghan coverage.

Mark C.

Update: More "Americanization"?

The party [CDU] of German Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to unveil a new foreign policy platform this week that would have as its centerpiece the goal of creating a missile shield to protect Europe from a nuclear attack, as well as provisions for extended missions by the German military abroad.

[...]

The crux of the new policy paper, which has been seen by SPIEGEL in advance of its release, is that international terrorism represents the greatest threat to German security. The draft policy also calls for the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, to be deployed domestically in cases of disaster and for the country to at least debate the issue of whether the parliament's constitutionally anchored responsibility for approving any Bundeswehr mandate is still appropriate today, considering the new challenges faced by Germany.

...he [main author Andreas Schockenhoff--deputy chair of the party's parliamentary group] added, Germany needs to be prepared for "further deployments of the German armed forces that last longer -- from stabilizing peace to forcing peace," he wrote...

The German left are not amused. Meanwhile, here's a good German--a Green!

Former Minister: Germany Must Fight in Southern Afghanistan

Mugabe loses without losing

The "official" results from the first round of voting have been released, and Robert Mugabe couldn't even win his own rigged election. Unfortunately, he'll get another chance:

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission said challenger Morgan Tsvangirai won 47.9 percent of the vote, compared with 43.2 percent for Mugabe.

"The announcement of the results today was illegal. The MDC stands by its previous stance that the vote was stolen from the opposition by a regime that is clinging to power," said Tendai Biti, secretary-general of Tsvangirai's political party, Movement for Democratic Change.

Under Zimbabwe law, because neither candidate got 50 percent plus one vote, a runoff is needed.

But Biti said the law states that the candidate who has the most votes should be president. The MDC also contends that Tsvangirai got 50.3 percent of the vote and is the official winner.

[...]

The MDC has also maintained that it will not participate in a runoff. If it holds to that, Mugabe would retain the presidency, said the chief of the electoral commission, George Chiweshe.

Reports of violence against opposition supporters have emerged from Zimbabwe amid heightened tensions since the presidential election.

Zimbabwe's religious leaders called for international help.

"People are being abducted, tortured, humiliated by being asked to repeat slogans of the political party they are alleged not to support," according to a statement from a coalition of Christian churches in Zimbabwe released two weeks ago. "In some cases, people are murdered."

Government spokespeople have denied those reports or said they were exaggerated.

Damian P.

Maybe supporting terrorism in Canada is no big deal

There sure doesn't seem to be much real media (sensitivity to diversity?) or political (votes?) interest in these sorts of things. Both stories are from the National Post.

First the Sikhs:

On World Press Freedom Day, May 3, we usually think about journalists in far-away conflict zones under attack -- or those living under repressive totalitarian regimes struggling to practice their crafts.

But increasingly, journalists here in Canada, and the subjects we interview, are also under threat. We face death threats and hate-filled rhetoric spewed at us online, over unlicensed radio airwaves and in ethnic newspapers.

In the last year, myself, my colleague Terry Milewski of CBC, and several people we have interviewed condemning the glorification of violence by a tiny minority of Sikh separatists in Canada have received threats to our lives.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, a Canadian of Sikh extraction, was called a "blood traitor" who should be killed after he was interviewed in both The Vancouver Sun and in a CBC documentary about violent imagery in the 2007 Vaisakhi parade in Surrey, B.C. [They did the glorification in a tent this year - MC.]

Other critics advocated online and in a Punjabi newspaper that Dosanjh should be beaten again, just like he was in February, 1985 after he publicly warned about Sikh extremists who would be linked to the Air India bombing just a few months later.

A young North Delta high school student recently urged on a Facebook page portraying Milewski as a Nazi with "Sikh" blood dripping from his lips: "Let's find out were he lives and put hiz (sic) head on a stick."

Hostile comments on some radio stations have also been levelled regularly against Liberal MLA Dave Hayer for his tireless commentary against the same small group of extremists that he believes were behind the assassination 10 years ago of his journalist father Tara Singh Hayer...

[...]

Other threats have a much more ominous tone, and have led to complaints being filed with the RCMP, though no charges have yet been laid in any of the cases.

[...]

Dosanjh [good on him - MC] is alarmed at what he is hearing said about critics of extremism in Canada like himself. But he is more alarmed at the seeming acceptance of violent rhetoric and what it could mean to the future of freedom of expression in this country.

"If we don't pay attention, then the kind of Canada that would continue to evolve wouldn't be the kind of Canada that we had today or we had yesterday. It would be far worse, far more dangerous."

Then the Tamils:

Sri Lanka's terrorist Tamil Tigers control the Montreal-based World Tamil Movement as one of their "foreign branches," in charge of raising funds for the war effort and spreading propaganda, according to documents seized by the RCMP.

In a 184-page affidavit unsealed by the Federal Court yesterday, RCMP Corporal Shirley Davermann details how the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam give instructions to Tamil activists in Canada, and how money is collected in Canada for the Tiger cause.

"The WTM is a foreign branch of the LTTE in Canada," she said, and its members follow written directives from the Tigers' leadership.

"In 2003, the LTTE issued a document called the 'Re-organization of foreign branches of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam' in which they dictate precisely how they want their foreign branches to be structured and operated. The Quebec branch of the WTM has been structured and operates as per the above-noted document."

[...]

The WTM is a non-profit organization run by Canadians of ethnic Tamil heritage, but the group's Quebec and Ontario branches are under police investigation for allegedly raising money for Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam guerrillas. No charges have been laid...

Note the "no charges" in both stories. Tarek Fatah (good on him) wrote an revealing piece dealing with Tamils, Sikhs and the federal Liberal leadership race.

Mark C.

Pump pandering

If we really need to care, the logic of this column by the Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner is impeccable:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were a simple test that would allow us to distinguish between principled politicians and those who will say anything for a bump in the polls? Well now there is.

First step: Listen to what the politician says about climate change. Second step: Listen to what the politician says about high gas prices.

If the politician says he or she is passionately committed to the fight against climate change and he or she wants the government to do something to reduce gas prices, you can be sure that politician is a pandering jackass.

The reason why this test works is Economics 101.

High and rising gas prices encourage people to drive less, use more public transportation, and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Industry responds to these signals by enhancing research into fuel efficiency and alternatives to gasoline. Over time, fuel efficiency steadily rises. Keep it up and eventually people will be able to buy cost-competitive cars and trucks that use no gasoline at all.

[...]

Whether the price is high because of taxation or shortages or gouging or speculation does not matter, at least not for this purpose. What matters is that the price is high - because that will set in motion a series of consequences that absolutely must happen if we are to beat climate change.

For politicians, this presents a dilemma. It's popular to say you will fight climate change. But it's far more popular to say you will reduce gas prices.

For the unprincipled politician, the solution is simple. First, never acknowledge the link between climate change and gas prices. Then declare your support for the fight against climate change and for lower gas prices.

Real leaders would never do this. Gas-pump populism may win votes but it is pure nonsense. Real leaders don't pander. They lead.

Hence, my test. Let's apply it, shall we?..

Read on for the assessments of leading American and Canadian politicians; Jumpin' Jack Layton is "a pandering jackass", as is Prime Minister Harper. Sad.

Meanwhile, David Frum has his own idea of fun. Real fun:

Then there's the deuce--"stroked and bored".

Mark C.

London gets the Red out

Democracy - as defined by Vivienne Westwood - failed, and thank goodness for that. The best part? Londoners booted Red Ken on May Day.

Some not-so-good news: the BNP won a seat in the London Assembly. (Their councillor, Richard Barnbrook, has a background nothing like what you'd expect.)

Damian P.

It all depends on what the meaning of "income" is

Lies, damned lies, and Statistics Canada:

Thomas Walkom (Toronto Star):

Sorry, but the Canadian dream is under siege

...without accounting for taxes and benefits, these numbers are meaningless. When transfers from government to individuals are included in the calculations, according to Statistics Canada's own numbers the median income of the poorest 20 per cent rose over the period, from $21,100 25 years ago to nearly $25,000 today, even with the effects of inflation taken into account.

[...]

Yes, before taxes and benefits, the income of the top 20 per cent is now 13- times higher than the income of the bottom 20. But after taxes and benefits, the gap between rich and poor was 5.6-to-1 in 1996 and it was still 5.6-to-1 in 2006, the last year for which StatsCan has applicable numbers.

[...]

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Meanwhile those in the middle are treading water.

The latest evidence came yesterday from Statistics Canada. What the federal agency said was not exactly new (a report released last year by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives made the same point)...

...the report tells us something is desperately wrong in the world of work and wages...

Terence Corcoran (National Post):

StatsCan sets off its own class war

[...]

The Census number that most accurately captures the economic wellbeing of Canadians is family incomes. While the headline-grabbing portions of the StatsCan report picked up on individual earnings, what really matters to Canadians is total income at the family level...

...So I asked a StatsCan official for the numbers, and what they show is that -- to use the ideological vernacular -- the poor are getting richer...

Ladies and gentlemen, start your calculators--and your brains.

Mark C.

Update: Things relevant:

1) Sociology:

[...]

Emily Fudakowski has experienced the trend first hand.

Armed with a sociology degree from Carleton University, she found herself unable to break out of the bar business and headed to Korea to teach English for a year.

Since returning to Ottawa four months ago, the 30-year-old has been searching for meaningful, higher-paying employment.

Broke and living once again with her parents, Fudakowski laments her situation is far different from that experienced by her mother and father...

2) Popular culture and broadcast journalism:

[...]

Ms. Macpherson, about to turn 22, has just completed a film, communications and popular culture degree at Brock University, but she suspects she'll need a master's degree to get a good job, and that she'll be forced to work while trying to upgrade her education. Meanwhile, grown-up luxuries her father and grandfather had at her age don't even register on her radar.

J.J. Stiles, 34, of Toronto, a single mother of two with a university degree, a diploma in broadcast journalism and a certificate to teach English as a second language, has found herself in an administrative job paying just over $37,000...

Upperdate: The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson makes some sense:

It's time productivity came out of the closet

And, good grief, the Montreal Gazette stole my first sentence:

Lies, damn lies - and Statistics Canada

Uppestdate: Lorne Gunter takes StatsCan to the woodshed:

...without accounting for taxes and benefits, these numbers are meaningless. When transfers from government to individuals are included in the calculations, according to Statistics Canada's own numbers the median income of the poorest 20 per cent rose over the period, from $21,100 25 years ago to nearly $25,000 today, even with the effects of inflation taken into account.

And when the effects of progressive taxation are also factored in, the assertion that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor disappears, entirely.

Yes, before taxes and benefits, the income of the top 20 per cent is now 13- times higher than the income of the bottom 20. But after taxes and benefits, the gap between rich and poor was 5.6-to-1 in 1996 and it was still 5.6-to-1 in 2006, the last year for which StatsCan has applicable numbers [emphasis added - MC]...

Democracy doesn't work!

Not if Londoners didn't vote the way fashion designer Vivienne Westwood ordered them to, anyway:

"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable."

You really have to read the long, long list of comments from prominent Guardianistas horrified by the prospect of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi's pal losing his job. I cannot think of a better endorsement for Boris Johnson's campaign. (via Michael C. Moynihan)

Damian P.

The Wrights of the right

E.J. Dionne, Jr. makes a good point:

...it's worth pondering why white, right-wing preachers who make ridiculous and sometimes shameful statements usually emerge with their influence intact.

The catalogue goes back to Bailey Smith, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Speaking at a 1980 religious convention that was also addressed by Ronald Reagan, Smith declared that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

Reagan later asserted that he thought Jewish prayers were answered, but he was less than definitive. "Everyone can make his own interpretation of the Bible," the Gipper said, "and many individuals have been making differing interpretations for a long time."

Two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Jerry Falwell, appearing on Pat Robertson's "700 Club," declared: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

Robertson replied: "Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And the top people, of course, is the court system."

To their credit, many conservatives [and pretty much every conservative blogger - DP] condemned Falwell and Robertson. The ministers backed away from their words, but Falwell's retraction was, at best, partial. "When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture," Falwell insisted, "the result is not good."

What's telling is that neither preacher lost sway in Republican circles. Before Falwell's death last year, John McCain actively courted his support, and Rudy Giuliani, one of the heroes of Sept. 11, welcomed Robertson's endorsement of his own candidacy. "His advice is invaluable," Giuliani said.

And, of course, there is the endorsement of McCain by the Rev. John Hagee, founder of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore of Babylon" and "the anti-Christ."

[...]

The Rev. William Danaher, a professor at the General Theological Seminary here, argued that left-wing preachers who are black draw more fire because their critique of American society tends to be more fundamental.

"The left black preacher is challenging the social structures that everyone lives in," Danaher said. "The white preachers on the right don't challenge these structures. Instead, they talk about issues of personal morality and individual behavior."

There is a difference, as Dionne acknowledges, in that Obama was particularly close to Wright. But that doesn't mean there isn't a double standard, and I would argue that Wright and Robertson are simply two sides of the same coin.

Damian P.

Well, at least they admit the Holocaust happened...

What more can I say about this?

Damian P.

Dead man scripted

A not quite absurd scenario, resurrection aside, concerning proceedings during Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons:

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

I ask the prime minister whether he intends to abolish free elections in Canada. Yes or no?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

... [Pulls out a pistol and shoots M. Dion dead.]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.)[risen]:

Je demande au premier ministre s'il a l'intention de supprimer les élections libres au Canada. Oui ou non ?...

All parties perform like that, though the BQ members appear to show more passion. Jack Layton gets the bluster (Mussolini) award. As to how genuine...

Mark C.

The end of the American news media as we know them?

1) The Economist:

American media

On the brink

2) David Frum:

The Crisis in the News

Mark C.

We're number three?

I guess the bribes worked.

(Seriously, thanks to everyone for patronizing the site.)

Damian P.

CIA director warns of Eurabia

Well, not in quite those words. And the director failed to mention the widening gulf between Canadian and American attitudes:

Swelling populations and a global tide of immigration will present new security challenges for the United States by straining resources and stoking extremism and civil unrest in distant corners of the globe, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in a speech yesterday.

The population surge could undermine the stability of some of the world's most fragile states, especially in Africa, while in the West, governments will be forced to grapple with ever larger immigrant communities and deepening divisions over ethnicity and race, Hayden said.

[...]

European countries, many of which already have large immigrant communities, will see particular growth in their Muslim populations while the number of non-Muslims will shrink as birthrates fall. "Social integration of immigrants will pose a significant challenge to many host nations -- again boosting the potential for unrest and extremism," Hayden said.

The CIA director also predicted a widening gulf between Europe and North America on how to deal with security threats, including terrorism. While U.S. and European officials agree on the urgency of the terrorism threat, there is a fundamental difference -- a "transatlantic divide" -- over the solution, he said.

While the United States sees the fight against terrorism as a global war, European nations perceive the terrorist threat as a law enforcement problem, he said.

"They tend not to view terrorism as we do, as an overwhelming international challenge. Or if they do, we often differ on what would be effective and appropriate to counter it," Hayden said. He added that he could not predict "when or if" the two sides could forge a common approach to security...

It's quite amazing how frankly US government officials speak compared to ours.

Mark C.

Doomsday scenario for Ontario

Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers just cut a deal with Ford that showed a willingness to rein in union demands in order to save jobs. But even if the CAW agrees to similar deals with GM and Chrysler, will that be enough?

[...]

Is it any wonder Mr. Hargrove was anxious to make a quick deal? Bad economy + green momentum + high gas prices = big trouble for Canadian car plants. The CAW chief looked ahead to the summer and could see things only getting worse. So the union this week reached an agreement with Ford - nearly five months before the old contract expired, and minus all the usual huffing and bluffing in front of microphones.

Not long ago, Mr. Hargrove's job was to win bigger raises and fatter pensions. Now, he's trying to try to hang on to as much as he can. He seems to have done it at Ford, but at what price? "It could be a short-run victory and a terrifying loss in three years," says auto economist Sean McAlinden. How terrifying? "A complete collapse of the 100-year-old traditional Canadian auto industry."

That may sound alarmist, and it is. But Mr. McAlinden, the chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., is not a wacko; he's considered an expert on labour and investment in the North American auto business. And while he thinks Mr. Hargrove's bargaining tactics were "brilliant," they may turn out to be too clever by half.

[...]

So Ford gave and the union gave, and the result is labour peace without higher costs. New employees will take lower wages, but only for their first three years on the job. All told, Ford will pay about $67 (Canadian) for every hour worked by an active employee - not much more than the $60 for U.S. auto workers, says Jim Stanford, the CAW's chief economist. Since Canadian plants are a little bit more productive, call it a wash, at least as long as the loonie is around par with the U.S. buck.

Not so fast, Mr. McAlinden says. "Jim is sadly wrong," he says. The CAW's math looks at the cost of active workers, not so-called legacy costs, like health care benefits for retirees, which the UAW agreed to essentially wipe from the auto makers' books. As for Canada's productivity advantage, it's largely a mirage, he says.

The real hit comes not now, but three years from now. By that point, thanks to the provisions in the UAW deal, the wage gap will have grown to $22 an hour, Mr. McAlinden calculates - which equals more than $1-billion in extra costs for the Detroit Three for producing in Canada. Who, he asks, would dare introduce a new model here? "Some of the mumbling around here is, 'You got the deal, Buzz, but that's the last dime of investment you're ever going to see.' "..

Then there's this:

From powerhouse to poor cousin

Canada's once-mighty economic engine could slip to have-not status within two years, a report predicts

Perfect economic storm? On the other hand (via Paul Wells):

Rumours of Ontario's penury are much exaggerated

But note the author.

Mark C.

"Is that God up there?"

If there ever was a case where a public execution was justified, this is it.

More here. (Yeah, it's The Sun, but still...there are no words.)

Damian P.

The CIC makes a counter-offer

Elmasry's sock puppets have offered Maclean's a slightly watered-down version of their initial demands:

The Canadian Islamic Congress Wednesday offered to withdraw human rights complaints about allegedly Islamophobic journalism in Maclean's magazine in exchange for the publication of a rebuttal within three months by a mutually agreeable author.

"If Maclean's is ready to consider an opportunity for the Muslim population to have its say, we are ready for reasonable conciliation," said Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the CIC. "One way or another it's going to be dealt with, either by agreement or by an imposed decision."

At a press conference at a plush Toronto hotel, Mr. Joseph lamented that the Rogers media empire, which publishes Maclean's, has been represented in the media as the plucky victim against the unchecked power of human rights commissions and their complainants. "Somehow David and Goliath have been interchanged," he said.

According to his proposal, the CIC's hate speech complaint before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, scheduled to be heard next month, will only be withdrawn if Maclean's publishes a "counter-view response" to a 2006 article titled The Future Belongs to Islam. That article, an excerpt from a book by conservative columnist Mark Steyn called America Alone, is the most controversial of the 22 articles the CIC has singled out as offensive.

"We're not going to say how long it's going to be, but it has to be long enough, and give the opportunity to be able to properly give a reasoned, analytical approach to the 5,000 word article [by Mr. Steyn]," Mr. Joseph said.

[...]

Mr. Joseph acknowledged that what he billed as a settlement proposal is not substantially different from what his clients unsuccessfully demanded of the magazine last year, prior to their complaints.

"To us, there isn't much difference, but to [Maclean's] it might be huge," Mr. Joseph said, explaining that they no longer want to control the art design, and do not expect "unfettered" editorial control over the rebuttal, only that it be "long enough" and "mutually agreeable." He also said the demand that Maclean's make a nominal financial contribution to a race relations charity has been dropped.

Jack Layton, not surprisingly, sides with the religious extremists. (They aren't Christers, so it's all good.) Kathy Shaidle, meanwhile, was at the press conference - and asked the question these guys should have been asked a long time ago:

"In any event," I continued, "can you explain why the man whose name actually appears on all three of these human rights complaints against Maclean's, that is, Mohammad Elmasry, isn't here today? Could it be because you'd like to distance yourselves from him, since he was captured on video declaring that all Israeli civilians were legitimate targets for Muslim terrorists?"

Their lawyer is so stupid, this was his actual answer:

"Why didn't you ask me about the other students who aren't here today because they had to write exams?"

I refrained from replying "They can write??" and said instead,

"Because I don't give a damn about them, I asked you about Elmasry."

"Will you let me answer, madam?"

"Why didn't you just answer when I asked you the first time?"

"That incident was investigated four years ago and was settled. I am representing Mohammed Elmasry here. Why don't you call him on the phone if you want to talk to him so badly!"

Yes, he really did say that. A grown frickin' man. What next? "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha"??

More here. Part of me thinks Maclean's should agree to publish a 5,000-word rebuttal - if the Canadian Islamic Congress agrees to run a 5,000-word pro-Israel essay by Mark Steyn on their website. We just want the opportunity to respond, after all...

Damian P.

Back into deficit?

We're dangerously close, according to Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun:

Tax cuts and big spending have left the federal cupboard depleted to the point where some are now raising the possibility of a budget deficit.

Jean Chretien's Liberals eliminated a $42-billion deficit 10 years ago and a balanced budget has become a part of the national psyche ever since.

Canadians have grown confident about the country's economy as year after year Ottawa has run robust surpluses.

But the mood is changing. The latest Angus Reid poll shows, among male voters, the economy has become the top electoral issue. When both genders respond, the economy is right behind health care and the environment.

The anxiety undoubtedly relates to the narrow margin of error Conservatives have taken to allowing themselves in their budgeting.

Conservatives have forecast a relatively modest surplus of $2.3 billion for 2008. That tally is predicated on a 1.7-per-cent growth target that no longer is expected to materialize (it has been downgraded to 1.4 per cent.)

The budget surplus projected for 2009 is slimmer still, at $1.3 billion.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was feeling sufficiently secure as recently as last October to dole out $60 billion worth of tax cuts over five years.

But events have conspired to present a challenging situation for a government that must face the electorate within the next 18 months.

[...]

In fact the Liberal talent for balancing budgets was strongly tied to major reductions in transfer payments to provinces as well as extremely high levels of taxation.

And, with $100 million worth of questionable and fraudulent spending associated with the Quebec sponsorship scandal, many would scoff at the party's money-managing prowess.

But both main parties understand that, after the pain Canadians endured through the 1990s in the quest to balance the budget, running a deficit would be akin to waving a cape in front of a bull. (via Kinsella)

The one thing for which we right-wing death beasts praise Chretien and Martin was their fiscal leadership. If Harper and Flaherty mess that up, they will not deserve re-election. (Lucky for them, they're up against a moribund, hapless Liberal party that doesn't deserve to win.)

Damian P.