The Kids in Grade One Talking Circle Finally Became Adults
... but they never did really grow up.
I saw this shite in schools ... from grade one to grade 12 (they passed around a ball or eagle feather) ... and I wondered to myself ... "what in the hell are we creating?"
Now I know ...
I saw this shite in schools ... from grade one to grade 12 (they passed around a ball or eagle feather) ... and I wondered to myself ... "what in the hell are we creating?"
Now I know ...
Bigger than France
Canada’s standing among nations has fared well in recent years. Emerging as a model of resilience amidst global economic turmoil, foreign leaders are increasingly turning to us for ideas on how to sort out their own domestic problems. We’ve done plenty of self-congratulation for this feat, and will likely do much more, but very few of us have stopped to consider what our newfound success means for this country in the long-term. Now that we’re here, it’s a question worth asking.... indeed.
Official Backers of OWS
Communist Party USA... lots more.
Sources: Communist Party USA, OWS speech, The Daily Caller
American Nazi Party
Sources: Media Matters, American Nazi Party, White Honor, Sunshine State News
Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
Sources: The Guardian, Tehran Times, CBS News
Barack Obama
Sources: ABC News, CBS News, ForexTV, NBC New York
Never ... Under Any Circumstances ...
... trust political hacks:
For the folks though, political power is sought so that ideology and philosophy can be enacted.
It is suspicious to this Republican Party observer that former Bush political adviser Karl Rove is pumping the story for all it’s worth. Given the presumption in Republican circles that Rove was responsible for the anti-Rick Perry data dump, it is not unreasonable to wonder if he is behind this latest sneak attack — all the while playing the “independent” commentator declaring Cain’s doom on various news outlets.... and your lack of trust should include the so-called "conservatives" who rule the Harper PMO. Sure, you may agree with them some of the time ... or even often; but don't hesitate to crush them under the bus if need be because political hacks, the world over, are loyal to none but themselves. The only value ideology or philosophy holds for hacks; is that it is a tool to gain power.
For the folks though, political power is sought so that ideology and philosophy can be enacted.
Liberty or equality?
It is pretty clear that the main social goal of many socialist activists, such as the Occupiers, is equality. The problem is that equality does not mean life is better. Equality is not something that intrinsically improves the well being of individuals or the prosperity of society. Equality should not be the goal, liberty should be.
I will allow Milton Friedman to explain why:
I will allow Milton Friedman to explain why:
Support raw milk food freedom fighter on hunger strike
Food freedom fighter Michael Schmidt has gone on a hunger strike after the Ontario Court of Justice reversed a lower court decision and found Mr. Schmidt guilty of crimes related to the distribution of raw milk. Mr. Schmidt had started a business where people who wanted access to raw milk could own part of a cow and thus be allowed to drink the milk directly from that cow. The government disapproved of this business and thus has taken action to shut it down.
This is an issue about individuals deciding what they can put into their own bodies of their own free will. You may not be interested in consuming raw milk (I’m not) but you should be interested in preventing the government from interfering with that decision. For that reason I ask that you participate in this Saturday’s Money Bomb and support Mr. Schmidt’s fight for food freedom.
From the Canadian Constitution Foundation's Facebook event:
This is an issue about individuals deciding what they can put into their own bodies of their own free will. You may not be interested in consuming raw milk (I’m not) but you should be interested in preventing the government from interfering with that decision. For that reason I ask that you participate in this Saturday’s Money Bomb and support Mr. Schmidt’s fight for food freedom.
From the Canadian Constitution Foundation's Facebook event:
This Saturday will mark the 30th day Michael has been fasting on his hunger strike.
Let's have a moneybomb fundraiser to support Michael and help defend him.
We have so many people in our facebook group, if most us gave only 5$, we could easily raise over 15,000$ !!
Another suggested donation is $30 for each day he's been fasting.
Use this link to donate: http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/toc.php /40
Please share this event with all your friends who care about food freedom, and publicize it too!
The Need for Imagination – the future of the monarchy in Australia
As the the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh’s latest tour of Australia has passed its halfway mark and nears its end, it is worth reflecting on the state of the monarchy, the activity of the republican movement and what is required from our side to secure the monarchy’s future.
So, where does this leave the republicans?
The politics of republicanism in Australia are now clear – there is nowhere near enough support to carry the necessary referendum to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. Australia’s baby-boomer elite have begun to realise that they will die as subjects of the Queen or her successors. This article, by Australia’s pre-eminent political commentator, the Australian’s Paul Kelly, shows how raw this is for them. Kelly (the former husband of a Labor minister from the 1980s) accepts the battle is lost but can’t bear to face the monarchy in its triumph. He is by no means alone.
So what is to be done?
I think the monarchy (preferably the Queen before the end of her reign) needs to reach out to them and bring them into the tent. In no other realm is the “disconnect” between the monarch and local elites so pronounced. While it’s not a tactical problem for the Crown because it will always win an insiders-vs-outsiders referendum, the strategic problem remains. I don’t just want the bomb’s fuse to be extinguished, I want to dismantle the bomb.
The Political Career of Frank Klees, RIP
McGuinty must be giddy:
“There’s no doubt it makes it more challenging for both opposition parties,” a grim-faced Hudak acknowledged, portraying his former leadership rival Klees as a turncoat who ignored an edict that no Tory would vie to succeed retiring Speaker Steve Peters.I don't quite know what Frank is thinking. This makes no strategic sense Klees. Not for his career or for his agenda.“Clearly, I’m disappointed. We all hoped Frank’s first goal would be to help us on the opposition benches in keeping this government on a short leash . . . Frank’s made a decision and Frank is Frank.”(link)
The only thing I think, is that Frank has chosen suicide. He's 60 years old. He must figure he can't wait out another PC leader for his shot. That's a bleak assessment - but I can't help but come to that conclusion.
One good crime reform
As bad as the Conservative government's crime reform agenda is and has been, there is one bright spot that I think should be noted. The Conservatives are planning on altering the criminal code to allow greater discretion for the individual to defend himself or herself against an aggressor.
As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.
As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.
No Trespassing
The Tories seem to have decided that criminals shouldn't hold the balance of power in Canadian society:
The law would permit people threatened with violence to commit a reasonable act to protect themselves or others, as well as use force to protect their property from theft, damage or trespass.(link)Protect a person's right to self-defense?
Next you'll say we gotta protect people's right to own stuff (like a gun), and they're right to say whatever the hell they want without having a zealously bigoted bureaucrat coming after them for "offending" someone... That's just crazy talk isn't it?
Death of Gadhafi does not vindicate Libyan campaign
Pundits and politicians are trumpeting the death of Gadhafi as if it is a vindication of NATO’s involvement in the Libyan civil war. Is it a shock to people that a coalition of the richest nations in the world managed to knock over the dictator of one of the poorest nations in the world? I don’t think anyone ever doubted that Gadhafi could be defeated, it is just a question of should it have been a NATO mission to defeat him.
We can dispense with any pretence that this was a mission to protect innocent civilians. Mission creep began almost the second that bombs were launched. The objective was regime change plain and simple. The NATO forces had decided who they wanted to win the Libyan civil war and so, without looking too closely at the horse they backed, they ensured the desired outcome.
It isn’t so much that I object to the Libyan campaign itself, it is just that it is part of a pattern of American and, by extension, NATO policy that is neither sustainable nor beneficial. NATO can not indefinitely operate as the arbiter in every military conflict in every region in the world. The countries that have the real military capacity (i.e. the United States) are going broke and are unable to sustain the level of military spending that will ensure victory anywhere anytime.
Furthermore, this sort of involvement tends to breed resentment especially if the interference inadvertently installs a dictator that is even nastier and more brutal than before.
The unintended consequences of this sort of resentment are already clear. Ultimately the people living in the NATO countries become increasingly drawn into conflicts that are not of their making and have little to do with their interests. Blood and treasury will be spent maintaining a dominance that just barely keeps a lid on an ever growing boiler of violence.
Killing one man does not make these concerns go away.
We can dispense with any pretence that this was a mission to protect innocent civilians. Mission creep began almost the second that bombs were launched. The objective was regime change plain and simple. The NATO forces had decided who they wanted to win the Libyan civil war and so, without looking too closely at the horse they backed, they ensured the desired outcome.
It isn’t so much that I object to the Libyan campaign itself, it is just that it is part of a pattern of American and, by extension, NATO policy that is neither sustainable nor beneficial. NATO can not indefinitely operate as the arbiter in every military conflict in every region in the world. The countries that have the real military capacity (i.e. the United States) are going broke and are unable to sustain the level of military spending that will ensure victory anywhere anytime.
Furthermore, this sort of involvement tends to breed resentment especially if the interference inadvertently installs a dictator that is even nastier and more brutal than before.
The unintended consequences of this sort of resentment are already clear. Ultimately the people living in the NATO countries become increasingly drawn into conflicts that are not of their making and have little to do with their interests. Blood and treasury will be spent maintaining a dominance that just barely keeps a lid on an ever growing boiler of violence.
Killing one man does not make these concerns go away.
Institute for Liberal Studies event: Monetary Policy in the 21st Century an Austrian Perspective
The Institute for Liberal Studies and the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada are hosting an event tomorrow in Toronto that discusses Austrian monetary theory. Don't worry if it isn't a topic that you know a lot about. It won't be too heavy on economic jingoism and anyone is welcome to attend. I have found talks hosted by ILS in the past to be highly informative and the people are absolutely amazing.
Here are the details:
Here are the details:
Presented by the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada and the Institute for Liberal Studies
Sponsored by Maple Leaf Metals
Registration is $20 and includes lunch. Full-time students can have the registration fee waived by registering at www.liberalstudies.ca/events.
...
As governments grapple with the daily news of doom and gloom in the wake of the great recession the question is being asked, who is to blame for the financial crisis? To answer this question, an increasing number of people are turning to the Austrian school of economic thought.
On October 22 the Ludvig von Mises Institute of Canada and the Institute for Liberal Studies will be co-hosting a seminar discussing monetary policy and free banking. Among the topics discussed will be:
- A comparison of free banking and central banking
- The ethics of central banks
- Canada’s history of free banking
- Central banking and the great depression
- How to unwind the Current system
Registration and bookstore open at 9:30 a.m., with the first session at 10:00 a.m., and the last session ending at 4:00 p.m.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada is a Registered Charity issuing tax deductible receipts for qualifying donations. (Charitable Registration number 81905 0113 RR0001)
A quick review of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing
Gross Domestic Product measures the market value of all the goods and services produced in a given territory in a certain amount of time. This measure is often used by economists, social scientists, and politicians as a proxy for a territory’s wellbeing. This is despite the fact that pretty much anyone who knows anything about GDP would readily admit that it does not adequately reflect wellbeing nor does it even capture all economic activity. So there have been attempts made from a wide range of sources to replace the GDP and find some objective measure for the wellbeing of a population.
The latest attempt comes out of the University of Waterloo by the “Canadian Index of Wellbeing Network” headed by Roy Romanow.
It is a deeply flawed index.
Fundamentally the problem is that it attempts to measure wellbeing by using indicators that are laced with the values of the authors rather than an objective measure.
For example, why is democratic engagement fundamental to wellbeing? If I am satisfied to be ignorant of the process of government, why is this harmful to my wellbeing?
Furthermore why is the indicator for global engagement the Net Official Development Assistance as a percent of gross national income? Why is this form of international cooperation more significant than say free trade or military alliances?
The education section of the Index is even rifer with the value biases of the authors. Instead of focusing on educational outcomes the authors look at additional superfluous indicators such as socialization. They also look at student to teacher ratios and how many people attend post-secondary education. This stuff may be important to education and they may not be, either way they are not objective measures of the quality of education in society (If 100% of the population graduated from a high school system that failed to teach them to read that would not be a good outcome). It is pretty clear that these indicators are included because the authors think that they are important not for any objective reasoning.
There are other problems with the Index. The standard of living section alone deserves to be ripped to absolute shreds. But I think if they have succeeded in anything it is in underlining exactly why it is so hard to come up with a true objective scientific measure of wellbeing.
Wellbeing has to be defined theoretically; it is an ideological question. It is impossible to remove completely from any such index any hint of ideological allegiance because you have to make choices about what is and is not important. So we should recognize this Index for what it is and what it is not.
It is not an objective scientific measure of the wellbeing of Canadians.
It is an interesting (or not depending on your bias) aggregation of varied data.
It is not a replacement for GDP as an accepted proxy for wellbeing.
The latest attempt comes out of the University of Waterloo by the “Canadian Index of Wellbeing Network” headed by Roy Romanow.
It is a deeply flawed index.
Fundamentally the problem is that it attempts to measure wellbeing by using indicators that are laced with the values of the authors rather than an objective measure.
For example, why is democratic engagement fundamental to wellbeing? If I am satisfied to be ignorant of the process of government, why is this harmful to my wellbeing?
Furthermore why is the indicator for global engagement the Net Official Development Assistance as a percent of gross national income? Why is this form of international cooperation more significant than say free trade or military alliances?
The education section of the Index is even rifer with the value biases of the authors. Instead of focusing on educational outcomes the authors look at additional superfluous indicators such as socialization. They also look at student to teacher ratios and how many people attend post-secondary education. This stuff may be important to education and they may not be, either way they are not objective measures of the quality of education in society (If 100% of the population graduated from a high school system that failed to teach them to read that would not be a good outcome). It is pretty clear that these indicators are included because the authors think that they are important not for any objective reasoning.
There are other problems with the Index. The standard of living section alone deserves to be ripped to absolute shreds. But I think if they have succeeded in anything it is in underlining exactly why it is so hard to come up with a true objective scientific measure of wellbeing.
Wellbeing has to be defined theoretically; it is an ideological question. It is impossible to remove completely from any such index any hint of ideological allegiance because you have to make choices about what is and is not important. So we should recognize this Index for what it is and what it is not.
It is not an objective scientific measure of the wellbeing of Canadians.
It is an interesting (or not depending on your bias) aggregation of varied data.
It is not a replacement for GDP as an accepted proxy for wellbeing.
Federal government can't spend money on infastructure, it has no money
As pressure continues for the federal government to introduce another round of new spending, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are adding its voice and suggesting that commuter infrastructure would be a good way to spend all that money that the federal government doesn’t have.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that even among Keynesians the usefulness of government infrastructure spending as a way to improve the short term economy is disputed. The effects on the job market are too narrow when you consider that it only employs people with specific skills, and usually it takes too long for these projects to be launched. So even if you do think that boosting aggregate demand is the thing to do (which I don’t) you have to wonder if infrastructure spending is the best way to do that.
The next thing that comes to my mind is that Toronto desperately needs a better system for commuters. I spent two weeks commuting from the Newmarket area to midtown Toronto and I vowed never to do it again. “Stimulating” the economy may just be a convenient excuse to tackle the problem. Although I would think that even if there is disagreement on what should be done and how it should be done, pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done.
The third thing that comes to my mind is something that I mentioned in the first paragraph: the federal government has no money. The Government of Canada has been in deficit since the 2009/2010 budget and the Minister of Finance was betting a return to surplus on a fast growing economy, which is a dubious prospect at best. So if the federal government has to borrow money without even having to take on new projects, you have to wonder where this new spending is going to come from. How much more money do we really want our government borrowing? Also, if you have to borrow just to pay your day to day bills, is that really the best financial moment to invest in a large capital project?
Back in 2007 the Government of Canada may have been able to afford the cost of improving commuter infrastructure, but over the last few years the gluttony of spending has made it impossible. It would be incredibly financially prohibitive to spend the billions it would require.
Fortunately there are things that governments can do to take pressure off the system, if they have the political will. But at some point governments will have to spend money to address the problem and that money has already been wasted away.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that even among Keynesians the usefulness of government infrastructure spending as a way to improve the short term economy is disputed. The effects on the job market are too narrow when you consider that it only employs people with specific skills, and usually it takes too long for these projects to be launched. So even if you do think that boosting aggregate demand is the thing to do (which I don’t) you have to wonder if infrastructure spending is the best way to do that.
The next thing that comes to my mind is that Toronto desperately needs a better system for commuters. I spent two weeks commuting from the Newmarket area to midtown Toronto and I vowed never to do it again. “Stimulating” the economy may just be a convenient excuse to tackle the problem. Although I would think that even if there is disagreement on what should be done and how it should be done, pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done.
The third thing that comes to my mind is something that I mentioned in the first paragraph: the federal government has no money. The Government of Canada has been in deficit since the 2009/2010 budget and the Minister of Finance was betting a return to surplus on a fast growing economy, which is a dubious prospect at best. So if the federal government has to borrow money without even having to take on new projects, you have to wonder where this new spending is going to come from. How much more money do we really want our government borrowing? Also, if you have to borrow just to pay your day to day bills, is that really the best financial moment to invest in a large capital project?
Back in 2007 the Government of Canada may have been able to afford the cost of improving commuter infrastructure, but over the last few years the gluttony of spending has made it impossible. It would be incredibly financially prohibitive to spend the billions it would require.
Fortunately there are things that governments can do to take pressure off the system, if they have the political will. But at some point governments will have to spend money to address the problem and that money has already been wasted away.
Should the libertarian movement engage with Occupy Toronto?
My initial gut reaction to the Occupy movement was to dismiss it with a sneer. I had spent many of my post-secondary education years witnessing incoherent, ineffective, and politically-stunted protests, and I assumed that the Occupiers were cut from the same cloth. Most of the news reports I came across (both hostile and friendly) seemed to only confirm my assumption, yet the Occupy Wall Street concept has picked up steam in a way that other such movements have not. Considering that the main message, if one can be found, of the protest is against too much corporate power, libertarians in the States seriously debated if they are missing the boat by failing to engage with this crowd.
The case for engagement is that libertarians basically agree that corporations have too much power. This, however, is not a flaw with a free market system but the result of government cronyism with certain businesses. If libertarians participate and engage, then they can focus at least part of the ire on government interventionism. Perhaps they could even convert some of the current Occupiers to libertarian thought.
I was skeptical but the argument was strong enough that I wanted to test it, or at least satisfy my curiosity by looking into the Occupy Toronto protest.
Unfortunately the crowd that took over the St. James Park last Saturday was exactly the sort of people that I knew so well in university. Between giant posters of Chairman Mao and Karl Marx, I saw signs that ranged from the bizarre to the painfully ignorant. CUPE, Mohawk Warrior, and Communist Party flags were visible throughout the park and so were drum circles chanting such classic hits as, “state democracy, is hypocrisy.”
I saw a sign that blamed Rob Ford for the holder’s student debt and a sign that blamed Stephen Harper for the income distribution over the last 30 years. There was the shocking, such as a man holding up a sign titled “Kill the Rich.” And the obscene, such as a child wearing a sign asking “what is my market value?” As Plato himself once wrote, it is just not possible to enter into a rational discussion with a crank (I paraphrase).
Still there were those there who were trying. One of the first things that I noticed when I got there was a giant Ron Paul banner. After walking around a bit to see the place for myself, I approached this group and asked them why they were there. The apparent leader of the group agreed to let me record him and you can see his answer here, which is mostly the same as the argument I described above.
I asked him how he was being received and he said that he was getting some negative responses but mostly people appeared happy to see him there. While I talked to him a smiling man walked up to us to show us his Ron Paul tattoo.
I saw one other man in the crowd who was holding a sign declaring that he was against crony capitalism and not capitalism. Also I was told that there was at one point a man dressed up as Atlas--a reference to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. So it does seem that libertarian views were present even if they were dwarfed by the unabashed communists.
Encouraged, my girlfriend, who had come with me, wanted to make a sign of our own. We found some organizers who were providing material for signs and asked only that the sign couldn’t be “against anything.” With this vague instruction in mind we settled on the whimsical and obscure words “who is John Galt?” as our sign.
After walking around with this sign for a while we were set upon by a number of Occupiers. At first they couldn’t believe that our sign was serious and they demanded to know the meaning of it. I explained that we were trying to express, obliquely, that the 1% was needed.
What followed was what I can only describe as a waste of breath. As I tried to make my case, I faced absurd claims, such as citizens of the Soviet Union being immune to the profit motive, and derisive sneers in the place of argument. Eventually one of them accused me of being racist for saying that capitalism was primarily responsible for advancing standard of living.
Of the eight people that we were talking to, only one appeared at all interested in having an honest discussion and I suspect that the ire of the others would have been worse if he hadn’t dampened them repeatedly.
So no, I don’t think libertarians should bother to engage with the Occupy Toronto crowd because they are simply not interested in listening. Even if my experience was atypical, I have to wonder what the point would have been. Much like the protests in my old university’s quad, the Toronto Occupation isn’t going anywhere. It isn’t going to accomplish anything. By showing up libertarians are only confirming that they belong among the cranks and the fringe.
The case for engagement is that libertarians basically agree that corporations have too much power. This, however, is not a flaw with a free market system but the result of government cronyism with certain businesses. If libertarians participate and engage, then they can focus at least part of the ire on government interventionism. Perhaps they could even convert some of the current Occupiers to libertarian thought.
I was skeptical but the argument was strong enough that I wanted to test it, or at least satisfy my curiosity by looking into the Occupy Toronto protest.
Unfortunately the crowd that took over the St. James Park last Saturday was exactly the sort of people that I knew so well in university. Between giant posters of Chairman Mao and Karl Marx, I saw signs that ranged from the bizarre to the painfully ignorant. CUPE, Mohawk Warrior, and Communist Party flags were visible throughout the park and so were drum circles chanting such classic hits as, “state democracy, is hypocrisy.”
I saw a sign that blamed Rob Ford for the holder’s student debt and a sign that blamed Stephen Harper for the income distribution over the last 30 years. There was the shocking, such as a man holding up a sign titled “Kill the Rich.” And the obscene, such as a child wearing a sign asking “what is my market value?” As Plato himself once wrote, it is just not possible to enter into a rational discussion with a crank (I paraphrase).
Still there were those there who were trying. One of the first things that I noticed when I got there was a giant Ron Paul banner. After walking around a bit to see the place for myself, I approached this group and asked them why they were there. The apparent leader of the group agreed to let me record him and you can see his answer here, which is mostly the same as the argument I described above.
I asked him how he was being received and he said that he was getting some negative responses but mostly people appeared happy to see him there. While I talked to him a smiling man walked up to us to show us his Ron Paul tattoo.
I saw one other man in the crowd who was holding a sign declaring that he was against crony capitalism and not capitalism. Also I was told that there was at one point a man dressed up as Atlas--a reference to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. So it does seem that libertarian views were present even if they were dwarfed by the unabashed communists.
Encouraged, my girlfriend, who had come with me, wanted to make a sign of our own. We found some organizers who were providing material for signs and asked only that the sign couldn’t be “against anything.” With this vague instruction in mind we settled on the whimsical and obscure words “who is John Galt?” as our sign.
After walking around with this sign for a while we were set upon by a number of Occupiers. At first they couldn’t believe that our sign was serious and they demanded to know the meaning of it. I explained that we were trying to express, obliquely, that the 1% was needed.
What followed was what I can only describe as a waste of breath. As I tried to make my case, I faced absurd claims, such as citizens of the Soviet Union being immune to the profit motive, and derisive sneers in the place of argument. Eventually one of them accused me of being racist for saying that capitalism was primarily responsible for advancing standard of living.
Of the eight people that we were talking to, only one appeared at all interested in having an honest discussion and I suspect that the ire of the others would have been worse if he hadn’t dampened them repeatedly.
So no, I don’t think libertarians should bother to engage with the Occupy Toronto crowd because they are simply not interested in listening. Even if my experience was atypical, I have to wonder what the point would have been. Much like the protests in my old university’s quad, the Toronto Occupation isn’t going anywhere. It isn’t going to accomplish anything. By showing up libertarians are only confirming that they belong among the cranks and the fringe.
Obama's GE Immeltisms
It's like watching bad car salesman go...
“If Washington can agree on anything, it should be this — and it should be now,” the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness said in the report, to be presented to Obama at a meeting in Pittsburgh on Tuesday.(link)Buy this car now! Limited time offer! If you and your wife can agree on anything agree on this!
The statement just makes no logical sense. It wraps itself in the cloak of "bipartisanship" by emphasizing agreement, yet at the same time holds an ultimatum indicating that the only thing that should be agreed on is this.
That alone presumes that Washington can "agree" on anything. Which further assumes that "agreement" is actually a good thing. Agreement and uniformity of opinion only comes through force - - Anything else is a lollipop land fantasy.
“We never thought there was going to be a silver bullet to create jobs,” Immelt told Reuters in a telephone interview.Ok, this is the point where the dealer realizes he's overselling... Time to cover your butt - - "Now I'm not saying there is such a thing as the perfect car..."
Gee Immelt, with this much fine-print people may not buy for fear of a hidden "first born child clause."
“What we want to offer the president is a very broad set of ideas that can help mo[v]e the economy forward,” he said. “It’s comprehensive and it’s specific.”(Insert Laughter here). How can it be both "specific" and "broad"... But don't forget it's also "comprehensive..."
Immelt's future as a car salesman is all but assured.
Young Canadian Monarchist Defends...
A young Canadian monarchist, Tom Richards, defends the Canadian monarchy:
The Governor Returns to Government House!
To Australian readers, perhaps the closest thing to this cause has been the fight to return the Governor of New South Wales - the oldest office of public administration in Australia - to their traditional residence, Government House, a beautiful Gothic Revival home pile next to Sydney Harbour.
Well, it appears the fight has, like our Canadian friends, been won!
The present Premier of NSW has announced that Her Excellency Prof. Marie Bashir, and her husband Sir Nicholas Shehadie, will return to Government House before the end of the year - first, to the chalet next to Government House previously used as a residence for the official secretary to the Governor, and then to a wing in the main residence once repair and restoration works are finished.
It has been known widely in Sydney circles for some time that both Prof Bashir and Sir Nick were very keen to return to past practice, although of course they did not voice that publicly. At a function earlier this year at Government House, Sir Nick explained to me in some detail, and with passion, his views on the matter. I was delighted to be in full agreement!
This is great news and helps to restore the lustre and dignity of the office of Governor of New South Wales. The fact that it is happening on the watch of Prof Bashir - governor since 2001 and a widely admired community figure - is doubly satisfying.
Now, if only she could be "Dame Marie"...
Reason and bleeding-heart libertarians
I'm sympathetic to the idea of "bleeding-heart libertarians" although I am cautious about what specific values you want to include under the umbrella of "social justice." Social justice is too often used as a slogan for values that are inherently antagonistic to a free market system, such as economic equality.
Yet if by social justice you are talking about environment, fairness, and prosperity, then yes libertarians have the solution for these issues.
Yet if by social justice you are talking about environment, fairness, and prosperity, then yes libertarians have the solution for these issues.
Paul McKeever of the Freedom Party responds to my post
This post, that I published yesterday explaining why I was voting for the Libertarian Party and not the Freedom Party, was picked up by the National Post’s Full Comment page this morning. Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever responded in the comment section with this:
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.
Hello Hugh:
Just one correction. Freedom Party does welcome you and does want your vote.
For all of the reasons you cite, voting FP is the best choice for anyone who wants the sorts of changes we are proposing (see here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/... ). As always, everyone who supports Freedom Party's planks is welcomed by FP. Our candidates, supporters, members, and voters include a wide variety of people, having a wide variety of different beliefs or philosophies. Whether you live your life according to one philosophy or another is of no importance to me, or to Freedom Party. If you support Freedom Party's planks, you are a Freedom Party person, and that support is all that matters.
There are many people who genuinely want more individual freedom. One convenient/common handle often used by such a person is "libertarian". However, the reality is that a great number of people who label themselves "libertarian" are not advocates of "libertarianISM". Libertarianism is a word that refers to a failed, irrational, and morally subjective anti-government electoral strategy and movement. Libertarianism is, in fact, the strategy of the Libertarian party.
For those interested in why I condemn libertarianism (not those who merely, out of convenience, refer to themselves as "libertarian"), and for all who want to understand - properly - what "libertarianism" truly means and entails - I would encourage the National Post's readers to read/watch the following:
From my personal blog: "If you want freedom…" Q&A: Libertarianism - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/pa...
Video: "Damned to Repeat It" - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/20...
Regards,
Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting the Freedom Party is objectivist, rather than libertarian, Mr. McKeever is basically saying that you have to not just agree with his policies, but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist, because I agree with his political goals.
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.
Ontario Election prediction 2011
I predict that the Liberals and PC Party will be within 10 seats of each other with the plurality going either way. The Liberals will form a government with some sort of arrangement with the NDP. Most likely it will be the guarantee of no election for one year in the exchange for one or two key policies (hopefully not Buy Ontario).
To see how brilliant I am, check out my federal election prediction.
To see how brilliant I am, check out my federal election prediction.
Should I vote Freedom or Libertarian?
Voting tomorrow in the Ontario election will be difficult for me. I have never had as much difficulty making up my mind on how I would vote for an election as I have for this one. For the first time I have been given the opportunity to vote for one of two political parties that both have important things to say and are both offering platforms that will bring about true prosperity to the province of Ontario. I have had to take a serious look at both political parties and decide who it is that truly deserves my vote more. I speak of course of the Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party.
I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.
Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.
So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.
I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).
Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.
The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.
Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.
Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.
“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”
The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.
This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.
So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.
I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.
Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.
So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.
I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).
Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.
The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.
Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.
Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.
“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”
The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.
This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.
So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.
National Post endorsement shows what is wrong with Tim Hudak's campaign
The National Post’s endorsement of PC Party leader Tim Hudak in a weird way shows exactly what is wrong with his campaign. And make no mistake, win or lose on Thursday, something has gone terribly wrong with the PC Party campaign.
The endorsement begins with a long description of exactly how and why Dalton McGuinty has been a bad premier for Ontario. It seems obvious that such a bad government, for it has been a bad government, needs to be replaced. The National Post says that the NDP leader may be a swell person but socialism isn’t the thing and so there can only be one choice: Tim Hudak.
It has been pretty obvious throughout the election that this has been exactly the attitude of the PC Party. Ontarians don’t really have an option. Voters don’t like McGuinty and so Tim Hudak is the default choice. The campaign as a result has been pretty lackluster. They repeatedly say they are about change but they offer little of substance and most of their attacks have been extremely lazy and vague. Basically they didn’t think they would have to fight for it, and so they aren’t fighting for it.
The National Post tries to jazz up Tim Hudak by pointing out that he is proposing to change the government’s relationship with the public sector unions. Taking on the unions is something that is needed but that alone won’t fix the problems that Mr. McGuinty has caused. None of the other proposals that have come out of the PC platform would fix the fiscal mess either.
I am going to say that again because it’s important:
Nothing that Tim Hudak is promising to do will fix Ontario’s fiscal crisis any faster or any better than anything that Dalton McGuinty is promising to do.
Even the National Post in the midst of endorsing Tim Hudak expresses frustration that he has pledged to protect 2/3 of the budget while somehow ending the deficit at the same time. The National Post tries to get around this by saying that politicians are probably all liars anyway, but that is part of Mr. Hudak’s problem. He can’t credibly say that Dalton McGuinty lacks credibility on fiscal issues because he too lacks credibility of fiscal issues.
Ultimately the National Post is supporting Tim Hudak because he isn’t Dalton McGuinty and a lot of people will vote PC for the same reason.
But the PC party has yet to give anyone a good reason to vote FOR them. And if they lose that is why they will lose.
The endorsement begins with a long description of exactly how and why Dalton McGuinty has been a bad premier for Ontario. It seems obvious that such a bad government, for it has been a bad government, needs to be replaced. The National Post says that the NDP leader may be a swell person but socialism isn’t the thing and so there can only be one choice: Tim Hudak.
It has been pretty obvious throughout the election that this has been exactly the attitude of the PC Party. Ontarians don’t really have an option. Voters don’t like McGuinty and so Tim Hudak is the default choice. The campaign as a result has been pretty lackluster. They repeatedly say they are about change but they offer little of substance and most of their attacks have been extremely lazy and vague. Basically they didn’t think they would have to fight for it, and so they aren’t fighting for it.
The National Post tries to jazz up Tim Hudak by pointing out that he is proposing to change the government’s relationship with the public sector unions. Taking on the unions is something that is needed but that alone won’t fix the problems that Mr. McGuinty has caused. None of the other proposals that have come out of the PC platform would fix the fiscal mess either.
I am going to say that again because it’s important:
Nothing that Tim Hudak is promising to do will fix Ontario’s fiscal crisis any faster or any better than anything that Dalton McGuinty is promising to do.
Even the National Post in the midst of endorsing Tim Hudak expresses frustration that he has pledged to protect 2/3 of the budget while somehow ending the deficit at the same time. The National Post tries to get around this by saying that politicians are probably all liars anyway, but that is part of Mr. Hudak’s problem. He can’t credibly say that Dalton McGuinty lacks credibility on fiscal issues because he too lacks credibility of fiscal issues.
Ultimately the National Post is supporting Tim Hudak because he isn’t Dalton McGuinty and a lot of people will vote PC for the same reason.
But the PC party has yet to give anyone a good reason to vote FOR them. And if they lose that is why they will lose.
Vote Closed - What's Next
The end of September has come and with it the end to voting in the 2011 Blogger's Choice Awards. Here comes the fun (and/or scary) part; counting the votes. With upwards of a 1000 votes cast in the past couple weeks, spread over the 10 categories, I have a bit of work on my hands. If only I made it simple and excluded the points system this would be no sweat but, with the 3 tiered system in place, the nominees are going to have to hang tight while I get this done. What's a voting session without some tension as we wait right? :) Hang in there folks, the winners will be unveiled next week!
In other news, the Blog of the Week initiative will launch again later this month after a several month hiatus. Be sure to stay tuned every Sunday when we do launch, as a new blog each week (of the over 300 listed) will be featured.
Also, to those who have requested to be added to the BlogRoll in the past few weeks, thanks for being patient. You'll all be added not long after the winners of these awards are counted and unveiled. Hang tight!
In other news, the Blog of the Week initiative will launch again later this month after a several month hiatus. Be sure to stay tuned every Sunday when we do launch, as a new blog each week (of the over 300 listed) will be featured.
Also, to those who have requested to be added to the BlogRoll in the past few weeks, thanks for being patient. You'll all be added not long after the winners of these awards are counted and unveiled. Hang tight!
Can't Drink This
OTTAWA — Energy drinks such as Red Bull, Rockstar and Monster should be renamed “stimulant drug containing drinks” and only be sold under the direct supervision of a pharmacist, an expert panel for Health Canada has concluded.(link)Can't drink this. Can't eat that. Can't turn right. Can't move forward. Can't move back. Can't speak. Can't turn left. Can't jump. Can't drive. Can't own. Can't risk. Can't run. Can't walk. Can't crawl...
They might as well just tell us what WE CAN do. It would save a ton of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)