The Rants of Issachar

Michael Ignatieff - Playing politics with abortions

2010-02-04T12:48:00.008-08:00

I voted for the Conservatives in the last election. I thought Stéphane Dion and his platform were just a bad idea. But I like the idea of a revived Liberal party. I want to be faced with a choice between two excellent parties with good candidates.

But Michael Ignatieff continues to disappoint. (Don't get me started on the fact that the Liberal candidate in my riding is now the famous but utterly unqualified Ross Rebagliati.)

The catalyst for Ignatieff's idiocy was Stephen Harper's plan to focus G8 efforts on improving maternal and infant health throughout the world. This is as non-controversial as topics come, but the man who would be Prime Minister decided that it was the opportunity to bring up abortion and play politics with it.

To begin with, Mr. Ignatieff is categorically wrong when he declares that Canada has had a pro-choice consensus for years. We don't. We have a consensus that we disagree and that our disagreement crosses political lines. We know that turning it into a national war will achieve nothing for anybody. We cannot agree. This is the polar opposite of a consensus.

Discussions about abortion in Canada largely take place outside of the political arena and are focussed on changing minds than on changing laws and this is a good thing. Many Liberals are pro-life and many Conservatives are pro-choice. Most of the public falls somewhere in between. We think that laws against early abortions would be extremely difficult to justify, but we also think that actually performing abortions late in pregnancy is also very hard to justify. This isn't a "pro-choice" or a "pro-life" stance.

Into this delicate topic and without any cause to do so, Mr. Ignatieff choose to "lay down a marker".

Why?

I can only think of two possibilities. The first is that he's an extreme supporter of abortion, holds a view of it far outside the Canadian mainstream and he has an agenda that he wants to push but hasn't told us about it yet. The other and more likely possibility is that he's trying to drag up the old "Harper has a hidden agenda" plank of the Liberal platform. Although this possibility is better than the first, it's still terribly worrisome. Mr. Ignatieff seems prepared to pull the pin on the abortion grenade all by himself in search of a few extra political points.

Honestly, I keep trying to find reasons to like Mr. Ignatieff. I want the Liberals to play the long game and give me a reason to vote for them rather than merely against another party. Michael Ignatieff has got to stop pulling stupid stunts like this one.

Public health care and Danny Williams

2010-02-04T00:01:00.000-08:00

It seems that Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland went to the US for cardiac surgery. The Premier's office says that the procedure was not available in Newfoundland, but that's about all they're saying. They're pointedly not saying that the procedure wasn't available in Canada. This glaring ommission makes it rather obvious that the procedure was in fact available in Canada, but for his own reasons Mr. Williams chose to go to the United States rather than another province under Medicare.

I should begin by saying that I don't begrudge Mr. Williams' decision to forgo the Canadian option. Canadian health care is excellent, but if you've got the money for ultra-premium care it's possible to buy better or faster care in the US. That's the difference between the US and Canadian systems. The difference isn't in quality, it's the focus. Canada delivers excellent and universal coverage whereas the US delivers excellence and choice. Mr. Williams is apparently quite wealthy and if he chooses to spend his money on private health care that's up to him. I might well do the same, and I think that everyone should be allowed to choose to spend their own money on their care if they wish to. Some might choose it for convenience, some because while it might not be strictly necessary in their case, faster care would give them a peace of mind is worth more to them than a luxury car. The reasons aren't relevant.

The problem is that we can't do this. Not in Canada. In Canada it's illegal to provide any private health care for something the public system covers. So it's illegal to buy or sell "premium" health insurance and I think that's indefensible. Universal public health care is necessary due to our moral obligation to care for our fellow man, but it's no secret that if you've got millions of dollars to spend, superior care does exist. The catch is that we can't spend millions of dollars on every citizen. (Nor can an insurance company for that matter.) But making private care illegal does nothing to improve universal health care. It only denies premium health care to those who could afford it, and it does so on the indefensible premise that unless everyone can have something, everyone must be denied it.

So back to Mr. Williams. While his choices are his own, he's a provincial premier and an outspoken defender of Canada's single payer system. That's the same single-payer system that denies Canadians the legal right to buy extra insurance or care if they feel it's necessary. Mr. Williams' surgery clearly demonstrates this ban doesn't stop more fortunate Canadians from buying premium care. It only drives up the cost and unnecessarily denies it to some who could otherwise afford it.

This presents Mr. Williams with an opportunity. When he's recovered from his surgery he can tell Canadians that while he could have received excellent care in Canada, he's fortunate enough to be able to afford the private option and he choose it for his own reasons. So he's going to continue to support universal publicly funded health care as it changes to stay viable, but he will end the disgraceful ban on a parallel private system in his province and use his considerable influence to encourage other Premiers to do the same.

Excellent universal health care coverage is a moral obligation on any modern country. (As an aside, I think it's disgraceful that a country as great as the United States lacks it.) Unfortunately, Canadians fear that a parallel private health care would mean the end of universal coverage. Such a fear is small minded. The dual systems of modern democracies all over the world show this isn't true. We must stop letting the flaws in American health care stop us from improving our own.

Kindle vs. iPad - You still can't buy the book.

2010-02-03T23:04:00.005-08:00

The Globe and Mail's Report on Business reported today that shares of Amazon.com have dropped in part due to fears that the iPad represents a threat to the sales of the Kindle and ebooks.

I could write about the iPad being a lousy book reader because unlike the Kindle's screen, the iPad's performs abysmally in sunlight. I could write about the iPad having fundamental flaws like the lack of a webcam or the inability to display common web pages. I could write about the fact that Apple won't let people install any software except the stuff they approve of and are thus trying to turn computers into phones when what we really want is computers in our pockets.

But I'd rather write about the false perception that Amazon actually sells books on the Kindle and that Apple wants to sell books on the iPad. They don't sell books. They don't even sell electronic books. They sell you a license to read text displayed on a specific device and that's not the same thing.

Consider the fact that you can't buy a used e-book. It's not that it's technologically impossible. It has been deliberately made technically difficult to transfer an e-book to another person, but it's completely possible. But it's also illegal because you don't own the book. You never bought the book.

You might ask what difference the license makes if you can read the book anyway. After all, isn't that the point? The difference is that the assumptions you have about what you're allowed to do with your "ebook license" are wrong. You're thinking of books and this is licensing. You are only allowed to do things specifically allowed in the license.

Here's a brief list of the things you're legally forbidden to do. You can't sell the book when you're done. You can't give the book to someone else when you're done. You can't donate the book to the library when you're done. You can't loan the book to your friend for a month or two. (No, this isn't an unavoidable technological problem. It's a legal restriction not a technical one.) But here's the real kicker for most people; you can't transfer your so-called "books" to your new reader and use it instead. Amazon or Apple might let you transfer the license to a new version of their reader, but that's entirely up to them. Do you think they'll be inclined to let you transfer it to a competitors reader?

You never bought the book.

None of these are necessary drawbacks to an electronic device. They're deliberate decisions on the part of vendors to try to build a particular business model which has no benefits for you. I enjoy physical books, but I could easily find myself enjoying electronic books as well if anyone ever decides to sell such a thing.

Canadian Justice and the 'Faint Hope' clause

2010-01-31T09:12:00.005-08:00

The National Post's Full Comment podcast had a post back in October about the section 745.6 of the criminal code, better known as the 'Faint Hope' clause.

The clause allows prisoners who have been sentenced to life in prison and are not eligible to apply for parole for a period greater than 15 years the chance to apply for parole after only 15 years. In short, the clause exists to allow the possibility of shortening the period of parole ineligibility.

However, parole is not automatically granted simply because an offender is eligible. The function of a parole board is to determine if an offender should be granted parole. This leads me to wonder what function the faint hope clause serves other than to add another layer of bureaucracy and complexity to the parole system. The clause seems to be little more than an "except in this scenario" add-on to the law. It serves no function other than to act as an added step for parole applications after 15 years in prison.

Consider the case of a man convicted of first degree murder. It is of no value to say that he cannot apply for parole until he has served 25 years because this simply is not true. He might not be be able to apply for parole until he has served 25 years. At the time of his sentence, no one knows when he will be able to apply for parole.

The clause was added when we (correctly) abolished the death penalty. I suspect that the clause was created solely because politicians were not willing to try to convince the public that 15 year parole eligibility for murderers was a good thing.

I find it almost self-evident then that the faint hope clause should be abolished so that stated parole eligibility will accurate reflect when a prisoner may apply for parole. If parole for some prisoners makes sense after only 15 years, then the law should be changed so that they may be given sentences that permit this in the first place.

The Supreme Court and the Omar Khadr issue

2010-01-29T09:02:00.007-08:00

The Globe and Mail reports on the supreme court's recent ruling on the Omar Khadr case.

I reread my old post on Omar Khadr and while I still think as I did then, I think that there's more to say.

Firstly, I can see good points both for and against the court's intrusion into foreign policy. Foreign policy is correctly the domain of the federal government. Courts are not elected bodies and should not typically have any voice in foreign policy. At the same time however, the whole point of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to place restrictions on the power of government over citizens. And Omar Khard IS a citizen. In retrospect, it's obvious that his parents should never have been allowed to immigrate to our country, much less be made citizens, but Omar Khadr was born in Toronto and he is a citizen.

So while I appreciate that the federal government should be the sole determiner of foreign policy, the court does have a legitimate interest in this case.

But there's an elephant in the room. The federal government does not want to bring Khadr back to Canada because they believe that the Canadian justice system cannot deal with him appropriately; and I think the reason they have not been forced by public opinion to act is that many Canadians agree with them. To put it another way, the federal government thinks that the standards of a Canadian court room are not appropriate for a traitor to our country. They believe, (and they may well be right), that the court will decide that the evidence against Khadr was improperly obtained and release him entirely, even if that evidence shows that he should be convicted. As they don't believe that Canada can deal with Khadr appropriately, they choose have the Americans deal with him instead.

But even assuming that the government is correct, letting the Americans deal with him isn't a solution. It's a refusal to deal with a larger problem because it's a difficult one.

So on to the larger problem. It is likely that most of the evidence against Khadr was improperly obtained according to the standards of a Canadian court. But let us assume, (although we should never do this in any court), that he is guilty of treason and murder. Should he walk free?

Perhaps it's easier to consider that question apart from his case. What if a Canadian murders a someone in Canada, (and he really did), but the evidence that proves this was improperly obtained by the police? Should a murderer walk free because of the misdeeds of the police? I don't think he should. I think he should be punished for his crime, and the police should be punished separately for their misdeeds. (I am obviously assuming that the evidence is not false or planted, but rather was only illegally obtained as in the case of an illegal wiretap or physical evidence obtained after a cross examination where the accused was denied an attorney.) In such a case, the evidence still proves the guilt of the accused and he should not walk free to punish the police for violating the law. This would not be justice.

Whether such a scenario is likely with Mr. Khadr, there is a widespread perception that it is.

We give convicted felons "double credit" for time served awaiting trial. Why is this? If they are guilty, should they not serve their full sentence? If the crown unnecessarily lengthens the trial of a man who is proven innocent, does a reduced for sentence for a different and actually guilty man somehow reduce the harm done to the wrongly accused?

And we dismiss evidence that is tainted not by falsehood, by only by police actions not related to the truth of that evidence.

Is this justice?

Is it things like this that make much of the public largely accept or ignore the Canadian governments refusal to insist on Canadian standards of justice for a traitor? If we trusted Canadian standards of justice would we have any problem with applying them to Omar Khadr?

I think this is ultimately a larger problem than the entire Khadr family.

Trinity Western University attacked over academic freedom

2010-01-23T17:05:00.002-08:00

A friend of mine sent me a link to this article today.

It seems that the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), which I had not heard of before today, doesn't believe that Trinity Western University (TWU) has academic freedom for it's professors. Furthermore, CAUT thinks that the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) should "rethink TWU's membership". Now that's rather chilling for academic freedom isn't it?

A brief tangent before I get started, are there any S.M. Stirling fans out here who almost read that acronym as CUT? Funny that CAUT would make me think of a cult that I read about in a novel. (And I'm also surprised to learn that Stirling didn't invent it for his novels.)

Anyway, back to the real CAUT and TWU.

It seems that the basis of CAUT's argument is that a university can't put Christian beliefs first. But by extension, this means that according to CAUT, you cannot have a Christian University because Christian beliefs ARE that Christian beliefs come first. One almost wonders if CAUT would accept the idea of a Christian academic who put his Christian beliefs first.

And of course there hasn't been a single complaint against TWU over academic freedom. This is little more than a drive-by smearing. Not that TWU isn't correct to take this very seriously. TWU is an excellent university, but attacks like this can damage an otherwise stellar reputation.

CAUT claims to support academic freedom. And yet they would use their influence to marginalize voices that they don't agree with.

Sarah Palin, Samaritan's Purse, Private Planes & Christian Charity

2009-12-08T19:13:00.006-08:00

Parts of the blog world are still obsessed with Sarah Palin in a way that I find quite annoying. If I was hoping she'd fade into obscurity after the last US election I was doomed to disappointment. So it's a bit disconcerting that my first blog post in over a year begins with Sarah Palin. Still, I found it interesting that she was apparently flown a private plane to an (apparently) much touted dinner with Billy & Franklin Graham.

Now I find the crass partisanship that pervades the "Official Christian" culture of the United States irritating on a good day and somewhat short of blasphemous on a bad day, but I'd like to leave that issue aside for now. (With thanks to Ezra Levant for giving me the idea for the term.)

The question I want to ask is this: Why does Samaritan's Purse have a private aircraft in the United States?

I sent this to the informal e-mail group I'm in and I got some interesting information back. One of the group actually looked up the Samaritan's Purse financial statements from last year and found out the entries for "Ministry and missionary aircraft" on pages 46 & 47. (Isn't the internet great? Could we have had a discussion like this 20 years ago?) Assuming that that entry includes the aircraft flying Ms. Palin to dinner one might ask"How does flying a polarizing political candidate to a dinner constitute "Ministry?".

But again, I don't want to focus on the politics, but on the question of why Samaritan's Purse owns this plane in the first place. I don't know about anyone else, but the term "ministry and missionary aircraft" conjures up images of missionaries flying into corners of faraway countries unreachable by other means. Alternately I might think about them flying into areas of countries without commercial flights available and paved runways. (You know, like you see in this picture on their website.) I certainly don't think about flying around in the middle of the United States.

So why does a Christian charity dedicated to "providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world", spend money donated to that cause on a private plane to fly around a country that just might have the best system of commercial flights in the entire world?

Not for any justifiable reason that I can think of.

There's a growing feeling among some people that Christianity is the religion of convenience for the rich and powerful and only gives hypocritical lip service to helping the poor. Of course that's absolutely ridiculous, but when organizations like Samaritan's Purse, (which do good work otherwise), spend money on flying around the US in private planes instead of flying lugguage class like most people it feeds this false perception. The false theology of the so-called "Prosperity Gospel" is growing, and much of "official Christian" culture feeds this false and thoroughly anti-Christian belief that wealth is next to godliness.

I'm sure that this isn't the image that Franklin Graham wants people to have of Samaritan's Purse, but the ease of money is more that a little corrupting. If he and other Samaritan's Purse leaders were to fly coach, they would surely spend a lot more time in airports. They could well be late to at least a few speaking engagements because someone tried to bring a bottle of water onto the plane. More worryingly, donations could even drop because the big stars of the organization might not be able to go to as many meet and greets to drive up pledges.

But they wouldn't be giving off the impression of being the people who get rich from peddling religion which I think is ultimately more dangerous to their mission to help the oppressed.

You have GOT to be kidding - Parliament opts for idiocy...

2008-11-29T10:46:00.000-08:00

Seriously... What on earth are they thinking?

I've only seen a couple of things on this, but it seems as though the mutterings from some areas of the left about defeating the Conservatives in the House and asking the Governor General to allow a progressive coalition are coming to a head. Apparently what set it off was the Conservatives ill-conceived plan to make the elimination of political subsidies a confidence issue.

Seriously? Are you kidding me? THIS is the issue you're going to risk toppling the government over and force an election on?

The very idea that that should be a confidence motion is ridiculous. The more I think about it, the more the fact that the Conservatives initially said they were going to make it a confidence motion smacks of incompetence and a ridiculous desire to play political chicken. They've reversed themselves now and are only going to introduce it later as a normal motion, but I'm still highly unimpressed.

Now that this isn't going to be a confidence motion I'm going to separate my comments about the virtue of eliminating the subsidy.

It still looks like the Liberals are fantasizing about a coalition government. I'll grant that it is entirely constitutional for them to create one if they can put together a stable coalition. But it's still a terrible idea.

If you combine the Liberal and the NDP seats, they still have 29 fewer seats than the Conservatives. That's not a small number. They absolutely need to rely on the Bloc for it's help. The Bloc wants to break up the country and cares only about the interests of Quebec separatists. And if you want their support, you're going to have to give them something. And it will have to be a big "something" because Gilles Duceppe is no fool and knows that you need him far more than he needs you.

Then there's the differences between the Liberals and the NDP. Being anti-Harper is not a platform. The differences between the Liberals and the NDP are massive and are disguised only by the fact that they both seem to loathe Stephen Harper. If the Liberals want to cede the political centre to the Conservatives and move left this is a good way to do it. There are plenty of people who vote Liberal because they are centrists, not leftists. If you move to the left, you risk losing those people to the Conservatives.

The there's the question of whether or not the coalition would be good for the Liberal party. I just can't see it. The Liberals haven't selected a new leader and Layton and Duceppe will skate circles around Dion.

If you topple the government and get a Liberal Prime Minister over this, you had better do a fantastic job. And I mean the kind of "hands-down fantastic" job that gets you a majority in the next election. If you do this, you're doing something very unusual in Canadian politics. All will be forgiven if you do a fantastic job. But if you do even a mediocre job you'll pay for it.

Cutting poltical subsidies...

2008-11-29T10:14:00.003-08:00

I decided to separate out my criticism of the Liberals and the political subsidies out from my other post on this little fiasco in parliament.

The opposition was threatening to topple the government over it's attempt to kill the political subsidies. What on earth is the opposition thinking? And by opposition I mean the Liberals.

What line precisely are you going to use to justify this as your issue to go to the wall over? Here's the few that I can think of:

We need to be paid millions out of tax revenue to make up for the fact that we can't get paid off by big business and big labour anymore.

We can't convince enough people to give us $1.95, so we need to force people to donate by taking it out taxes.

The new donation limits mean that we can't get our funding from a few rich donors, and people with normal incomes don't want to give us money, so again we need to take it out of taxes.

More likely they'll bleat on about how evil Harper is just trying to hurt them, while completely ignoring the fact that if a political party has to force people to give money, that is a problem all by itself.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Prime Minister is obviously aware that this move will seriously hurt the Liberals. But it will also save 30 million dollars every single year. That makes it a good thing. The fact is that the Liberals are against it because it will hurt the Liberal party, and not for any other reason. I won't be surprised if the opposition votes this motion down when it comes up, nor will I blame them. But I'm disgusted that they were willing to risk another election over this.

The very idea that tax revenue should be diverted from any department, (health, education, defense, the arts, you name it), to subsidize a political party's war chest is disgusting.

I'm a Christian and I would prefer an Obama Presidency

2008-10-25T13:35:00.001-07:00

My friend Caleb said he'd be interested to read a post on how I reconcile reconciling my support for Obama and your faith, so here it is.

The short answer is "fairly easily".

I assume that the real issue behind his question is how I can reconcile Obama's stance on abortion with my faith. To be sure Obama has one of the most extreme positions on abortion in US politics. (And that's saying something). As far as I can tell he has yet to support any restriction on abortion at any time for any reason. This leads me to conclude that he believes that abortion is legitimate at any time for any reason. I disagree, and I don't think many people (American or Canadian) agree with Obama on this. All other things being equal I would prefer a candidate who did not have such extreme views.

By contrast, McCain has more moderate views. (I believe he supports some restrictions on abortion, but not outlawing it entirely, someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

But will a McCain Presidency make any difference to abortion law in the US compared with an Obama one? I suspect that it would not. McCain has explicitly stated that he will not apply an abortion litmus test on Supreme court appointments. If this is the case Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned. Where Obama's Presidency might make a difference is if he were to veto a bill restricting abortion. But I don't think this should be a concern if congress actually passed a reasonable law. Obama's main stated reason for not voting for abortion laws is when they don't contain exceptions for "the health of the mother". Many point out that "health of the mother" could mean anything. That's true, but who's fault is that? A 21 year old intern could write a bill that explicitly laid out acceptable health risks for which late term abortions could be allowed or not allowed. If congress can't get it's act together enough to write a bill that lays this out clearly, then I think the fault for that lies with congress. And if a bill comes up that outlaws abortion regardless of any risks to a woman's health, then any Christian should vote against it. I think that President Obama would have difficulty vetoing a bill that had wide public support. Especially in his first term.

So as far as abortion goes, I suspect that there would be no practical difference between an Obama Presidency and a McCain one. I'm sure there would be huge rhetorical difference, but I'm not interested in that.

Caleb also sent me a link to what he described as the best objections to Obama in one place. I don't think they really related to "reconcilling my faith and my support of Obama, but here's my reaction:

Abortion
Already discussed.

Taxes
Not terribly relevant as a "faith objection to Obama". Obama's tax proposals are consistent with Christian faith.

Radical Associations.
Again, not terribly relevant, but Obama has stated that he does not agree with Jeremiah Wright's anti-white preaching. I see no reason not to believe him. I think the Bill Ayers thing says more about Palin than it does about Obama. Palin implies fairly regularly that Obama supports terrorists. Really, talking about "radical associations" is nothing more than an attempt at guilt by association. "These people are bad, Obama knows them, therefore he's bad". I expect more.

ACORN
I know very little about the ACORN thing. What I do know is that Americans have an absolutely ridiculous system of running elections. It's not that hard. Canada does it quite well. Have people register. Let them register at the polls if they can show ID that shows where they live and have photo ID or if someone who meets those requirements will vouch for them. Keep track of the registrations, and go after people who violate the voting laws using the information they provide when they vote. And for crying out loud, use paper ballots! Run your elections properly and you won't have problems like ACORN. And stop gerrymandering the districts.

As I understand it, the issue with ACORN surrounds getting voters registered and people registering non-existent voters. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if both parties hadn't both tried to make voter registration difficult in areas less likely to vote for them. Until the Republicans & Democrats clean up their acts, it's a plague on both their houses for me.

Foreign Policy
Admittedly this is one of my concerns about Obama and one reason I initially supported McCain. It's obvious by now that invading Iraq was a mistake overall, but just picking up and leaving would be a bad idea too. Two errors do not cancel each other out. Fortunately that's not Obama's position and while I'm not completely convinced that Obama has it right, I don't think McCain knows what to do either. Given how much the will of the American people to prosecute the war properly was damaged by the Abu Ghraib thing and the Guantanamo mess, McCain's flip flopping over torture is more than a little troubling. The US can win the war. It can't win it if it loses heart of the American public. Torture is immoral, and water boarding is torture. Handing people over to be tortured along with a list of questions to be asked is also immoral. The US public knows this, and I'm a tad concerned that McCain doesn't.

That pretty much covers it.

Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama

2008-10-19T13:03:00.002-07:00

Wow... That's an incredible endorsement. Colin Powell continues to impress me. He's absolutely right too.

I was initially in favour of John McCain. The questions about Obama's experience were quite legitimate. Furthermore, I was disappointed in his apparent anti free trade attitude. Free trade has overwhelmingly benefited the United States, (and Canada), and a President opposed to free trade would be bad for the US and Canada.

But for the most part I wasn't concerned about the US election. There are things I didn't like about both candidates, and either one would make an acceptable President. I'm also a Canadian, not an American.

Then McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. I'd never heard of her, so I had no opinion, but the almost immediate and bizarre conspiracy theory that she'd faked her last pregnancy and that her son was really her daughter's baby struck me as unhinged. That wacko theory didn't originate in the Obama campaign, but it did make me highly suspicious of all the later criticisms of Sarah Palin. That the CBC actually ran the story days after it had been discredited also made me highly skeptical of criticisms of Palin. (Not to mention Heather Mallick's odious piece that the CBC published and later pulled from their website). (Why do news organizations pull the piece off the net rather than simply adding their repudiation of the piece to the top of the page?)

But then I watched the Biden/Palin debate. And the Republican campaign started getting really, really ugly. And then I watched the last McCain/Obama debate. (I watched both debates on YouTube well after they aired). Palin's performance in the debate showed her to be inadequate for the job of Vice President. She might make a good lieutenant for a culture war, but I can't see anything positive that she could contribute. McCain was not as drastically outclassed by Obama as Palin was by Biden, but he was outclassed nonetheless. Powell states my opinion of McCain's economic platform more eloquently than I can. Obama's comments about trade assuaged my concerns that he is as opposed to free trade as I thought he might be.

And then there's the ugliness of the Republican campaign. Elections are combative, and the pathetic attempt to make Obama appear foreign with the constant repetition of Barack Hussein Obama was bad enough. Seriously, did anyone keep repeating Ronald Wilson Reagan or James Earl Carter during their election campaigns?

But when you've got supporters at a rally shouting "terrorist" and "kill him" when Palin asks them "Who is the real Barack Obama?", there is a massive problem. One must immediately, loudly and frequently rebuke such venom. Palin did not and I was thoroughly unimpressed with McCain's whining in the last debate about Congressman John Lewis' comparison between Palin ralies and George Wallace's rallies. It's not an outrageous comparison. It's a legitimate one and the McCain campaign has utterly failed to get rid of that albatross.

John McCain might well have made a good President. But he's not the best of the two options.

The Canadian Election 2008

2008-10-12T13:00:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted anything about this election on my blog and I think I've posted very few comments about it on other people's blogs compared with previous elections. But I think I'll do at least one... Now that Raphael's not allowing comments on his blog due to an excess of nasty comments, I might actually have to go back to writing on my own blog for a change.

The election is in two days and I'll be voting for Stockwell Day, (Conservative). We've got a secret ballot, and while no one should ever feel obligated to reveal their choice of candidate, I don't have a problem with doing it myself. I also find it useful to me to write down my own thoughts, and I don't do a diary.

My reasons not to vote Conservative:

I didn't want this election to happen at all. I was quite happy with the minority parliament we had and I thought the Conservatives were running it well. There's also that minor detail about violating the spirit of the fixed election dates law.
The Conservatives plan on copyright law. It was a bad law and a disquieting sign of incompetence. One hopes they won't be so stupid as to reintroduce it.

My reasons to vote Conservative:

For the most part, (copyright law being an exception), I'm happy with the Conservatives performance in government. They've actually succeeded in getting things accomplished in a minority government despite being not particularly well liked by the opposition. Their economic record has been good and has continued the good economic performance of the previous Liberal government.
Stockwell Day is my local candidate. I was not impressed with him when he was leader of the party. I think it was a mistake when he replaced Preston Manning. But to his credit, Stockwell Day accepted a demotion from party leader and proceeded to do his job acceptably well. I think that shows a humility and a willingness to simply do his job without being top dog that is sorely lacking in most members of parliament. Certainly I can't think of another party leader who has done the same thing.
The Conservatives under Harper have become a party of incremental changes. One might actually say small-c conservative. This is in marked contrast to the so-called "conservatives" running the Republican party in the US. This article in the Atlantic drove home to me the difference between the faux conservatism of the Republican party and true Burkean conservatism. (Although I wonder if what the author would make of John McCain's more recent actions).
The Liberal party has managed to completely throw away any chance I had of voting for them. That almost merits a whole section of it's own actually. I'm not a dyed in the wool, guaranteed Conservative voter, but the Liberals have thrown away any chance of my voting for them, while the NDP and the Greens have yet to give me a single reason to vote for them.

Why I'm not voting Liberal

I think it's pathetic that they're still relying, (even to a diminished degree) on the "Harper = Bush, he's a neo-con, he's got a hidden agenda" baloney. It's demonstrably false and it's a sad statement on Canadians that a large number of them still buy it. If you want to fight an election against Bush, go back in time and run for the US Presidency. As long as you're doing this, I have a strong reason not to vote for you.
The Green Shift is a plan of massive scope and plans of massive scope. As such it's likely to contain serious problems. All plans of massive scope do. That's why you develop & implement them slowly to catch the errors, but what I've seen from Dion is that he thinks it's a good idea to start now and worry about the details later. Not that it's that good a comparison, but the last time someone decided to act immediately and worry about the details later the US invaded Iraq. I don't think that acting on climate change is a bad thing. But it IS a complicated thing.
Most of what I hear in this election from the Liberals is about how bad Stephen Harper is. I hear more about that than I do about the Green Shift by a hefty margin. But most of the reasons I hear from them about Harper being bad are a false. Leaving aside the aforementioned ridiculous Bush comparison we can look at the Harper hates the arts claim. The cuts were minor, but to hear the Liberals talking you'd think that Harper was going around burning art galleries. And then there was Margaret Atwood's ridiculous claim that "The Arts" generates $87 billion for the economy, and that this is imperiled by the Conservatives cuts. This is apparently true if by "The Arts" you mean anything to do with advertising or the people collecting your ticket when you go see the next Bond movie. Sorry, but I don't think of the people who come up with the latest Tim Horton's ads to be "artists", nor do I think that they're in any danger from the Conservative cuts. I know that the Liberal platform is not based ridiculous claims like Atwood's, but when that's most of what I'm hearing from a party and it's supporters I have no reason to vote for them.

Political Welfare...

2008-08-03T12:41:00.001-07:00

The National Post published an editorial on Saturday about the political welfare that our National parties are giving themselves. For anyone who doesn't know, as of 2003 under election law, political parties are given free money from tax revenue to fund their operations every three months. The system favours larger established parties because the cash is handed out based on votes received in the last election. New political parties? Forget it...

Yes, we actually give tax money to political parties. If you pay taxes, you give this involuntary political donation whether you like it or not.

This is wrong. End of story, full stop. The Post suggests going back to our pre-2003 rules, but we can do better than that. Eliminate the political welfare and eliminate ALL tax credits for a political donation. You want to make a donation? Fine, how you spend your money is your business, but don't expect a discount on your tax bill. That's just an indirect method of supporting political parties through the tax system. It's even more outrageous because people who donate to political parties receive a greater discount on their tax bill than people who donate to Doctors without Borders, the United Way, or any other charity. But then I guess that sends a message about who the political parties think deserve the money more...

Also, political parties should only be allowed to accept donations from individuals. No donations from organizations whatsoever. No businesses, no unions, no clubs, associations or churches.

I think it's almost self-evident that I'm correct in this. Does anyone disagree?

Stephane Dion and putting a price on carbon

2008-06-08T11:03:00.002-07:00

The National Post published an opinion piece on climate change by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion on Friday and I finally got around to reading it this morning. It was interesting to read what he had to say, but frankly I was disappointed.

He writes very well about the need to have a good plan to reduce carbon emissions and pollution in Canada. Unfortunately I am disappointed with his proposal. Mr. Dion is widely regarded as an intelligent man with a mind for the nuances of good policy. He's not said to be a politician who thinks in black and white terms, but judging from this article that public image is incomplete at best.

Mr. Dion says we need to put a clear price on carbon emissions. Once we do that, market forces will give us the means to reduce carbon emissions as producers search for ways to lower costs. So far this is a very good argument, but Mr. Dion completely ignores the elephant in the room.

Rising gasoline prices are an obvious example of a rising price on carbon and it's one we're all aware of every time we fill up at the pump, but Mr. Dion does not address this. Rising gasoline prices will affect our behaviour. At some point we will start to consume less fuel and thus emit less carbon. General Motors just announced they will be closing a plant producing trucks, vehicles that they cannot sell as consumers look for cars that use less fuel. This is exactly what carbon taxes are supposed to accomplish, but I don't hear Mr. Dion saying that.

Mr. Dion needs to have the courage of his convictions and say that pains like this are an unfortunate, but necessary part of his carbon reduction strategy, but that he plains to mitigate the pain through other action. (And then give us details on exactly how he plans to do that). Talking as though only "polluters" will have to bear the cost of carbon emission reduction and pretending that these costs won't ultimately be born by "consumers", (i.e. regular Canadians), is either a sign of incredibly naivety or an unwillingness to be honest about the costs and pains of your platform.

Charlie Angus asks some good questions on copyright

2008-05-15T18:11:00.010-07:00

Charlie Angus, (NDP), put two good questions on copyright to the Minister for Industry Jim Prentice in the House today.

The video & audio are up on Mr. Angus' site, although it would have been nice if the first part of the question hadn't been cut off. Mr. Prentice replied that the copyright bill would be introduced "in due course", but frankly I'm tired of that answer to every question the man gets asked on copyright. How difficult is it to give people a tiny bit of insight into the principle that are going into the legislatiPublish Poston.

And "balancing consumer & industry rights" is not an answer. The minister would describe any copyright bill that way. If the eventual bill does hose consumers, I suspect that Mr. Prentice will still describe it as "balanced".

I never did get any reply to the letter I sent Mr. Prentice's office or to the e-mail I sent. Not even a canned response.

The Conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot on this one. We have good reason to fear a bad copyright bill. The government is getting plenty of pressure to enact a DMCA type law to mirror the fiasco they have south of the border and they've given no indication that I'm aware of that they're not going to do that.

If Mr. Prentice isn't planning on introducing a DMCA type law to hose us with, there's an easy way to reassure us. Stand up in the house and announce that while the bill isn't being introduced yet, it will unequivocally protect our right to backup our media, time-shift media (i.e. record a TV show), and device-shift our media, (i.e. play music you bought on a CD on your iPod). Also make it clear that it will be entirely legal to circumvent technical measures put in by producers that try to limit these legal rights by technical means. If you want a complete recipe for your bill, take a look at Michael Geist's proposal, or go to Fair Copyright for Canada.

It's not that hard to say, and until Mr. Prentice does this I hope Mr. Angus keeps attacking him in the house.

Blogging Canadians

2008-05-11T20:56:00.005-07:00

I submitted my blog to Blogging Canadians. I listed myself as non-partisan. I'm sure some will disagree with that assessment, (I'm looking at you Carla!), but my post about Burke and conservative thought has got me thinking on that subject.

I'm not a member of the conservative party and I don't feel inclined to "push the party line". So I'm sticking myself in the non-partisan camp.

Kelowna Life and Arts Festival

2008-05-11T14:27:00.004-07:00

I'm a bit late in posting this, but I got out to see part of the Life and Arts Festival on Friday night.

I ended up missing most of the Friday night Latin dance because of it, but it was worth it. My buddy Dave Siebring is in a fire spinning group called Kinshira. (They've got a Facebook group and there's some photos on Flickr and SmugMug, but I don't know if they've got an official website). They had a choreographed routine and it was pretty sweet. I've seen fire poi before, but I didn't know you could actually juggle balls of fire...

I ended up the night at Doc Willoughby's listening to a "Talk Rock" performance by T.O.F.U. I'd been told it would be slam poetry and apparently they've got roots in that, but this has about as much resemblance to poetry as I know it as a Chris Rock performance has to public speaking. I didn't really know what to expect, (poetry in a bar?), but it was great. If they're going to be in your area, go see them. You won't regret it.

Posting is publishing...

2008-05-10T12:57:00.000-07:00

According to the Winnipeg Sun a teenager in Manitoba has been charged with a criminal offense for posing as a teacher on Facebook.

The article notes his age, but I think that's actually irrelevant. We have Youth Criminal Justice Act to deal with criminal offenses by teenagers and to take their age into account when sentencing. Now whether or not a crime has been committed is an entirely different question.

Still, I don't think a lot of people clue into the fact that posting something on the internet is essentially publication. (Not that personation necessarily requires publication, but this is where I'm going with it). Prior to the internet it was expensive and difficult to publish with wide circulation. The fact that it's all but free now hardly changes the law or the ethics of the situation.

Why is joking about communism "okay"?

2008-05-10T11:05:00.002-07:00

I had an interesting experience at work on Thursday. I was wearing the "Absolute Powder" T-Shirt that my sister gave me a while back and it got noticed.

The man commenting on it was from an outside company doing some maintenance work and he was an immigrant from the the Slovakia side of the former Czechoslovakia. He'd assumed the shirt was a joke, (the fake cyrilic lettering and "Fernie" being obvious clues), but we got to talking about the Soviet Union, the communist governments in the former Soviet satellite states, Che Guevara and of course the incredibly bloody history of the communist revolutions.

I asked him if he'd been offended by the shirt and he said he hadn't, but I'm still a bit bothered by the whole thing. This man was very friendly, but I was wearing a shirt that makes light of the human suffering that he knew a lot more about than the average Canadian.

Why is it considered acceptable to wear a shirt like that that makes light of the bloody consequences of the socialist revolution? Why is it not considered unbelievably bad taste? I'm guessing that a shirt with a swastika and text reading "National Socialist Republic of Fernie, BC - Join the Revolution" would be considered pretty offensive. Of course it should be offensive. The nazi's killed 11 million people. (Six million Jews, 5 million others including Poles, Gypsies & homosexuals), but the estimates of murders by the Soviets under Stalin go as high as 60 million people. Oh, but that's communism, not nazism so it's hilarious right?

My "communist party" shirt from Threadless, (thanks Caleb, I still love it), raises the same questions. Replace Lenin & his fellow travelers with Hitler & his henchman and swap the hammer & cycle with a swastika and I wouldn't be getting the same compliments for having an "awesome" shirt.

It should go without saying that I'm not about to start wearing swastika t-shirts obviously, but this is the internet after all, so I'd best be clear.

But I do think that people should be more aware of the evils of communism and stop giving it and it's leaders a pass because we in the west seem to have a soft spot for socialism. These men were murderers, (Karl Marx excepted). We shouldn't ignore that just because their ideology sounded nice and some people wish that it had worked out.

Am I a conservative?

2008-05-04T12:08:00.003-07:00

Am I a conservative? I'm talking of course about small-c conservatism, not party membership...

I went out for dinner with my parents the other night and my Dad told me about an article he'd read in Atlantic Monthly about John McCain and conservatism.

The article is really worth reading, but a quick summary is that a true conservative in the tradition of Edmund Burke favours incremental change while respecting long standing customs and institutions and also balancing individual freedom and social order.

So yes, conservative does frequently describe much of my default political sentiment. I generally don't favour rapid change. What's interesting about this definition of conservative is that it's not synonymous with right-wing. As the article suggested it's a temperament as much as anything.
(Note - whenever I use the word conservative in this post, I'm going to mean this definition of the word, it's too much of a hassle to say "Burkean conservative" all the time and I may not even be using the word Burkean correctly)

The article also pointed out that the bulk of the Republican party isn't even remotely conservative. It's as activist as the progressive left but with a different set of policies. Indeed, I'd argue that depending on your opinion as to what counts as "progress", you could simply call this mass of Republicans "progressives".

But this isn't true of the Conservative party in Canada. Of course the Conservative is the default home of the progressive right-wing as I'm going to call them in this post, but if you look at what Stephen Harper has actually done it's quite conservative in the sense of the word I described above.

This is why I find the "Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda" crowd so annoying. Initially the claim was that he'd wreck havoc on Canada with a George Bush agenda as soon as he got elected. Then when that didn't happen the claim became that he'd do it as soon as he had a majority. But the whole idea doesn't hold any water because as a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is demonstrably a conservative. His government has been marked by small & incremental change. Fundamentally, the Conservative party is not the same as the Republican party, that's just a useful political smear by opposition parties. (And you really get too angry at them for using it if the public buys into it). The US doesn't have a political party that corresponds with our Conservatives. And it's too bad for them.

I find it important to note that Burke supported the ending of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the emancipation of Catholics. To be a conservative does not mean that you automatically support the status quo. In fact you favour liberty, but you a wary of the dangers posed by rapid or revolutionary change. The best argument I can think of right now to support this view is the different reactions to the miseries of the working class created by the industrial revolution. The Marxist response ultimately led to more oppression in the form of Soviet Communism. The more gradual and non-revolutionary changes that took place in England produced a much better result.

New Music - Aradhna

2008-05-04T10:03:00.007-07:00

The music at my church last night was led by a group called Aradhna. They describe their music as blends India's Bhajan melodies with western music, but I just say I like the music.

Their music is available on iTunes.

It's definitely worth having a listen...

Update 5:02pm
I added the cover art for the album I bought. I definitely like this album.

A conservative view of unions: Part 2 - Strikes

2008-05-03T14:44:00.003-07:00

Continuing my previous comment on unions...

The power to strike is an important power that unions have. It's not their only one, but it's almost certainly their most effective, so anyone who believes that unions are necessary should believe in the right to strike.

Although just as I don't believe unions are universally positive, I don't believe in an unrestricted right to strike.

I'm going to assume that virtually everyone agrees that essential services should not have the right to strike. The police should not have the power to refuse to work and thus hold the public hostage to their demands. This breaks down on the definition of "essential service", but in principle the idea is sound.

Given that, workers always have a right to refuse to work, but at some point I believe the employer has the moral right to hire other people. Here's an extremely ridiculous example of such a situation. The union demands that the owners give the company to the employees and refuses any compromise. I only give this admittedly ludicrous scenario to illustrate that at some point an employer has a moral right to hire other employees. So we need laws to govern strikes as well as some way to impose an agreement or binding arbitration if a labour dispute gets out of hand.

But what is the purpose of a strike? This also came up in the discussion on WMTC that I referred to in my last post. I'd said that the purpose of any strike was to inflict harm on the employer as a way of convincing the employer to accede to the union's demands, (by demonstrating the monetary value of their work), and that strikes should only inflict harm on the employer. L-girl disagreed and said that strikes were supposed "to be inconvenient for as many people as possible", presumably in order to maximize pressure on the employer.

With respect, I think strikes with such a purpose are unethical. How can a union justify inflicting harm on a third party that is not inflicting harm on the union members? The employer has the power to agree to union demands. Third parties and the public do not, and inflicting harm on someone who lacks the power to give you what you're asking in the hope that they'll put pressure on someone who does have that power is just plain wrong.

The implication of my stance is that strikes or at the very least full strikes should not be conducted on monopolies. To quote my earlier comment:

If Burger King workers go on strike and someone wants a burger they go to Wendy's or White Spot and while Burger King suffers the public is only slightly inconvenienced. If Ford workers go on strike for a better contract, car buyers can go with Honda.

In the case of a monopoly, it is impossible to strike without harming third parties, so I don't think strikes should be allowed, but as the National Post pointed out when they argued in their masthead editorial against declaring the Toronto Transit Commission an essential service , the solution is to avoid having monopolies in the first place.

Update: 2:48pm
Of course a strike isn't the only tool a union has at it's disposal. A few years ago, the toll collectors on the Coquihalla highway were negotiating for better pay and rather than strike or shutdown the highway they simply stopped collecting tolls and waved drivers through. Drivers weren't harmed in any way, but the lost revenue was a strong argument for the union.

A conservative view of unions...

2008-05-03T12:50:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting discussion last weekend on a new blog I found.

The initial post was on the TTC strike in Toronto which led to a general discussion on unions. After my comment, L-girl who describes herself as a progressive said that she found it "refreshing" that a conservative would say that unions are necessary. The implication being that it's unusual for conservatives to think this.

So that's the starting point of this post. It may be a rambling one, but it's my blog. :)

My original statement was this:

Unions are necessary if only for the threat that workers could unionize. If unions went the way of the dodo, employees in Canada for be fine only very, very briefly. Their are definitely employers who would treat employees with respect even without the threat of strikes or unions. But they'd be driven out of business by the less ethical who would be able to undercut them. (And guess who everyone would have to work for then?)

That's still a good summary of what I think. Unions are necessary.

This is not to say that unions are universally good or that I like everything about BC labour laws. I think that in some respects our labour laws are far too pro-union.

For example, the rules governing how a company can become unionized. It should be very simple. If most employees vote for a union then unionize, if most employees don't, then don't unionize. (And the criteria for employees getting rid of their union should be the same). And obviously it has to be a secret ballot.

But that isn't what the law says in BC.

Businesses can be unionized simply by getting a majority of employees to sign a card supporting the union. Think about this for a moment. You "win the election" simply by getting the majority to sign a card. The possibilities for abuse are obvious. Firstly, to vote against the union you need to do so by telling the union promoter that you don't want a union. Secondly, one can easily see a worker signing a card just to make the organizer go away. Would that be a fair way to elect a government? No secret ballot there either. Turn it around for a moment. Would it be a good idea if management could get rid of a union by approaching employees one at a time and asking them to sign an "anti-union card"?

The purpose of these union cards should simply be to act as a petition. If you get enough signatures, then you have a secret ballot vote on unionization. (The names on the "petition" stay between the labour board and the union of course, the employer has no need to know).

But again, that's not what the law in BC says, but if you say that we need to change this law, thus making it harder for unions to sign up new businesses you are portrayed as anti-union.

There are also unjust restrictions on how an employer can argue against a union. An employer can't say to their employees that a union is not in their interest and then explain why. That qualifies as "creating a hostile environment", and if the employer is deemed to have created such a thing, the labour board can impose a union without having any vote by the employees at all. Again, how fair is that for the employees? They can only be told the advantages of unionization. Their employer can't tell them the disadvantages.

The other problem I have with unions is forced membership. Once a business is unionized, no employee can refuse to join the union without losing their job. Again, how fair is that? I remember something my great-Aunt Helen said about unions. She was a teacher and she believed that it was ethically wrong to strike. (I don't agree, but it's a legitimate stance). I'm not sure how she felt about joining a union, but unions have pretty severe penalties for members who refuse to join a strike. Ultimately such people can lose their jobs. She now has a school named in her honour, but today's labour laws would require her to choose between her ethics and her job. That's just not right.

Now on a practical level I can see why the labour enforces membership on all employees at a unionized business. The dirty tricks an unethical employer could employ without such a law are rather obvious. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the labour code enforces an injustice, even if it is necessary to do so.

I haven't got to what I think of strikes yet, but it's after noon and I want to go outside. I'll get around to posting that part later...

Bad move Russian Orthodox Church...

2008-04-27T16:43:00.004-07:00

The New York Times has a piece on the cozy relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian government and on the hostility both have towards non-Orthodox faiths.

The article pays particular attention the hostility displayed towards Protestant denominations. It's an interesting read.

My first thought is "that is one dumb move you Russian Orthodox leaders, be sure to let us know how getting into bed with the state works out for you". Actually, getting cozy with the state and having it use it's coercive power to suppress competing Christian denominations might work out fine for individual church leaders, but I don't think it's a healthy move for any Christian church to make. The Church is the body of Christ. It's not the state, nor should it be answerable to the state in any way. (And eventually everyone has to pay the piper).

And of course it won't work anyway. Protestants were smuggling Bibles into Russia when it was behind the iron curtain. They're not going to be deterred by what is only minor harassment when compared to what the communists were doing.

Of course I'm most interested in what my Russian Orthodox friends think. (Edward, Dave & Dan I really would like to hear your thoughts). (I'm not sure if Dan even reads blogs, and I don't think he's ever been to mine). I'm not about to ask you to defend every single little thing an Orthodox priest does in Russia, because that would hardly be fair, but I'd love to hear your perspective.

Bill Cosby - Black Conservatism

2008-04-12T11:40:00.003-07:00

I've found Bill Cosby's comments on the problems in the black community interesting ever since his famous Pound Cake Speech in 2004.

The Atlantic has an interesting article on Cosby and his version of black conservatism.