Sunday, December 31, 2006
2006: A year in review
Well, here we are, folks: the last hours of 2006. It's been a pretty good year, all around - for me personally and for two of the three nations I call my own. Partly in response to some wacko whose name I forget's editorial in the Calgary Sun today, which was titled "Heroes and Zeros" and placed both George W Bush and Tony Blair in the latter category, I've decided I should write a little piece about the events of the last 365 days. The aim of today's post is to rate the year's effect on each of the places I call home.
Canada & Alberta
Well, the biggest news here is obvious: our first Conservative prime minister in 13 years was elected with a minority government in January, and against all expectations, has not only remained in office but has managed to maneuver around and through the system expertly to follow through on several of his campaign promises, and has already made huge strides toward the establishment of true democracy in Canada. Though he has proven himself a "red Tory" on a few issues - healthcare being a noteable one - Stephen Harper has almost single-handedly pulled Canada out of the tailspin it had developed under Chretien and Martin.
In provincial politics, Ted Morton became a beacon of hope for all those who believe in standing up to our federal government, but although he performed admirably and surprisingly well in the first round of voting, he did not in the end garner enough support to become our next premier. His supporters' second-choice votes thankfully put Ed Stelmach ahead of Jim Dinning, which at least meant that Alberta wound up with a premier who somewhat understands Albertans and has a few real ideas. Stelmach immediately shocked everyone with his decision to fill the provincial cabinet with ruralites, a courageous and positive course to take.
For Canada and Alberta, the year 2006 was a good one; I'd say our best in living memory (that's my living memory, mind you). I think it deserves four out of five stars.
The good: Stephen Harper; Ted Morton; Ed Stelmach (probationary); the child care debate; the GST reduction; the beginnings of Senate reform.
The bad: the healthcare debate; Jim Dinning; continuing federal support for Kyoto; the fact that Belinda Stronach is still alive.
The ugly: Stephane Dion, Dalton McGuinty, and as always, Jack Layton.
The United Kingdom
The British have continued to show their collective stiff upper lip, perhaps their greatest characteristic. The UK's House of Commons has arrived at something resembling a consensus that, whether it was right to go into Iraq in the first place or not, they should finish what they've started. This attitude is the precise opposite of what we've seen in the United States, and Americans, I think, could learn a thing or two from their friends across the Pond.
Legal action against London's police force for racial discrimination against whites, filed early this year, was a milestone in fighting the "affirmative action" lunacy that has gripped North America and shows that the British still have their traditional common sense, as well.
And how could I forget the biggest coup de grace of the year: the interdiction of a terrorist plot to destroy ten aircraft bound for the US from Britain? Good on ya, Bobbies.
On the downside, Gordon Brown continues to take more and more power in the UK, and not only is he Labour Party, he's Old Labour; years ago, he wrote a book that essentially accused Margaret Thatcher, one of Britain's greatest leaders, of running the country into the ground (when, in fact, it was Thatcher who kept it out of the ground). Brown will be prime minister soon, and will not face an election for some time afterward; there's no telling how much damage he'll do in the interim.
The British upper lip did show some sign of softening in the past two years; added security measures in and around the transit system, which include the removal of all rubbish bins from train and Underground stations, show a dangerous willingness to allow terrorists to change the average Brit's lifestyle.
The British, and Londoners specifically, also continue to do nothing about the incredible transgressions against their rights that come in the form of London's ever-expanding CCTV network. The average commuter in London is seen on video cameras 300 times a day, and the prevailing attitude remains "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be bothered by it". Whatever happened to vigilance?
For the UK, 2006 also gets four stars. The events of the year were mostly positive, but show bad signs for the future.
The good: Tony Blair; David Cameron; the current British position on Iraq; the aforementioned coup de grace.
The bad: The CCTV question; the response to 7/7.
The ugly: Gordon Brown.
The United States
Not much good here. The first bit of bad news is, of course, the fact that the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress. The next two years, I think, are going to see the government suffering from almost total paralysis, at least on major issues, which is not exactly the best situation to be in in wartime.
The Bush administration continues to drop in opinion polls, mostly, it seems, due to the fact that people are getting tired of the war. This is where people in the US could stand to learn a lesson from the Brits: rather than feeling like we should finish what we've started, the average American, no matter what their feelings on the initial invasion of Iraq, seems to be coming around to the idea that we need to leave as soon as possible, no matter the cost or rightness of such an action. This shows a dangerously flippant attitude, and, quite frankly, a lack of moral fiber.
2006's rating for the United States: two stars.
The good: George W Bush; Condoleezza Rice.
The bad: Hilary Clinton; inaction regarding Social Security, illegal immigration, Iran, and North Korea.
The ugly: Michael Moore (and his latest book); Al Gore (and his "movie"); Bill Clinton (and his infamous tirade).
Canada & Alberta
Well, the biggest news here is obvious: our first Conservative prime minister in 13 years was elected with a minority government in January, and against all expectations, has not only remained in office but has managed to maneuver around and through the system expertly to follow through on several of his campaign promises, and has already made huge strides toward the establishment of true democracy in Canada. Though he has proven himself a "red Tory" on a few issues - healthcare being a noteable one - Stephen Harper has almost single-handedly pulled Canada out of the tailspin it had developed under Chretien and Martin.
In provincial politics, Ted Morton became a beacon of hope for all those who believe in standing up to our federal government, but although he performed admirably and surprisingly well in the first round of voting, he did not in the end garner enough support to become our next premier. His supporters' second-choice votes thankfully put Ed Stelmach ahead of Jim Dinning, which at least meant that Alberta wound up with a premier who somewhat understands Albertans and has a few real ideas. Stelmach immediately shocked everyone with his decision to fill the provincial cabinet with ruralites, a courageous and positive course to take.
For Canada and Alberta, the year 2006 was a good one; I'd say our best in living memory (that's my living memory, mind you). I think it deserves four out of five stars.
The good: Stephen Harper; Ted Morton; Ed Stelmach (probationary); the child care debate; the GST reduction; the beginnings of Senate reform.
The bad: the healthcare debate; Jim Dinning; continuing federal support for Kyoto; the fact that Belinda Stronach is still alive.
The ugly: Stephane Dion, Dalton McGuinty, and as always, Jack Layton.
The United Kingdom
The British have continued to show their collective stiff upper lip, perhaps their greatest characteristic. The UK's House of Commons has arrived at something resembling a consensus that, whether it was right to go into Iraq in the first place or not, they should finish what they've started. This attitude is the precise opposite of what we've seen in the United States, and Americans, I think, could learn a thing or two from their friends across the Pond.
Legal action against London's police force for racial discrimination against whites, filed early this year, was a milestone in fighting the "affirmative action" lunacy that has gripped North America and shows that the British still have their traditional common sense, as well.
And how could I forget the biggest coup de grace of the year: the interdiction of a terrorist plot to destroy ten aircraft bound for the US from Britain? Good on ya, Bobbies.
On the downside, Gordon Brown continues to take more and more power in the UK, and not only is he Labour Party, he's Old Labour; years ago, he wrote a book that essentially accused Margaret Thatcher, one of Britain's greatest leaders, of running the country into the ground (when, in fact, it was Thatcher who kept it out of the ground). Brown will be prime minister soon, and will not face an election for some time afterward; there's no telling how much damage he'll do in the interim.
The British upper lip did show some sign of softening in the past two years; added security measures in and around the transit system, which include the removal of all rubbish bins from train and Underground stations, show a dangerous willingness to allow terrorists to change the average Brit's lifestyle.
The British, and Londoners specifically, also continue to do nothing about the incredible transgressions against their rights that come in the form of London's ever-expanding CCTV network. The average commuter in London is seen on video cameras 300 times a day, and the prevailing attitude remains "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be bothered by it". Whatever happened to vigilance?
For the UK, 2006 also gets four stars. The events of the year were mostly positive, but show bad signs for the future.
The good: Tony Blair; David Cameron; the current British position on Iraq; the aforementioned coup de grace.
The bad: The CCTV question; the response to 7/7.
The ugly: Gordon Brown.
The United States
Not much good here. The first bit of bad news is, of course, the fact that the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress. The next two years, I think, are going to see the government suffering from almost total paralysis, at least on major issues, which is not exactly the best situation to be in in wartime.
The Bush administration continues to drop in opinion polls, mostly, it seems, due to the fact that people are getting tired of the war. This is where people in the US could stand to learn a lesson from the Brits: rather than feeling like we should finish what we've started, the average American, no matter what their feelings on the initial invasion of Iraq, seems to be coming around to the idea that we need to leave as soon as possible, no matter the cost or rightness of such an action. This shows a dangerously flippant attitude, and, quite frankly, a lack of moral fiber.
2006's rating for the United States: two stars.
The good: George W Bush; Condoleezza Rice.
The bad: Hilary Clinton; inaction regarding Social Security, illegal immigration, Iran, and North Korea.
The ugly: Michael Moore (and his latest book); Al Gore (and his "movie"); Bill Clinton (and his infamous tirade).
Monday, December 25, 2006
Happy Christmas everybody
Today, I put aside my cynicism; Christmas is a time to remember that even in the midst of terror and tragedy, people are capable of beautiful things. In that spirit, I would like to share with everyone my favorite Christmas song: Belleau Wood by Garth Brooks. It is a fictionalized version of something that really did happen on the winter fields of battle during the most senseless war of the Twentieth Century, the First World War.
Oh, the snowflakes fell in silence
Over Belleau Wood that night,
For a Christmas truce had been declared
By both sides of the fight.
As we lay there in our trenches,
The silence broke in two
By a German soldier singing
A song that we all knew.
Though I did not know the language,
The song was Silent Night,
Then I heard my buddy whisper,
"All is calm, all is bright,"
And the fear and doubt surrounded me,
'Cause I'd die if I was wrong,
But I stood up in my trench
And I began to sing along.
Then across the frozen battlefield
Another voice joined in,
Until one by one each man became
A singer of the hymn.
Then I thought I was dreaming,
For right there in my sights
Stood the German soldier
'Neath the falling flakes of white,
And he raised his hand and smiled at me
As if seemed to say,
"Here's hoping we both live to see
Us find a better way."
Then the devil's clock struck midnight
And the skies lit up again,
And the battlefield where Heaven stood
Was blown to Hell again.
But for just one fleeting moment,
The answer seemed so clear:
Heaven's not beyond the clouds,
Its just beyond the fear;
No, Heaven's not beyond the clouds,
It's for us to find here.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Paternalism strikes again
The current German government has decided that it is necessary to "bring the religious convictions of [families] into line with" the goals of the government.
Germany has outlawed homeschooling, a decision which recently led to the forced police escort of the children of one family to a public school. Apparently, this is neither discriminatory nor an infringement upon the rights of the child or family - at least according to the European Court of Human Rights. According to one government official who answered a letter from a German group supporting homeschooling,
I was homeschooled for approximately two months back in '96, and in that time I taught my mother far more about science than she managed to teach me about...whatever else we were working on. But that doesn't mean the idea of homeschooling is in any way unsound. Children have been learning from their parents for a lot longer than they've been learning in all the various institutions we have today.
Children need their parents to be, well, parents. Why don't liberals get that? We don't need government taking care of toddlers (contrary to what Paul Martin thinks), we don't need teachers to be their students' moral guides (contrary to what most education professors seem to think), and we certainly don't need the state forcibly removing children from their parents' care. It's ironic that liberals are (rightly) so disturbed by the portion of US history that saw native children removed from their homes and thrown into institutions where they could be "civilized", but they're perfectly fine with doing essentially the same thing to all our children today. Apparently, it no longer only takes a village; the parents are now to be expelled from said village. Say goodbye to your family, everyone; you no longer need them.
Sources:
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/HSBCompanyBlog/256239/Updates+from+Germany--War+on+homeschooling.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53457.
Germany has outlawed homeschooling, a decision which recently led to the forced police escort of the children of one family to a public school. Apparently, this is neither discriminatory nor an infringement upon the rights of the child or family - at least according to the European Court of Human Rights. According to one government official who answered a letter from a German group supporting homeschooling,
The European Court of Human Rights, specifically in complaint number 35504/02, has conclusively decided that through compulsory school attendance in Baden-Wuerttemburg, the affected are not inhibited in their rights from Article 2 of the Supplementary protocol affecting EMRK (right to an education)--alone as well as in conjunction with Article 14 EMRK (anti-discrimination) through the refusal of the educational authorities to make way for the possibility of homeschooling.This may be an imperfect translation, or it may simply be administrative blather intended to confuse and discourage further complaining. Whichever option is true, there can be no misinterpreting the phrase "the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement."
I was homeschooled for approximately two months back in '96, and in that time I taught my mother far more about science than she managed to teach me about...whatever else we were working on. But that doesn't mean the idea of homeschooling is in any way unsound. Children have been learning from their parents for a lot longer than they've been learning in all the various institutions we have today.
Children need their parents to be, well, parents. Why don't liberals get that? We don't need government taking care of toddlers (contrary to what Paul Martin thinks), we don't need teachers to be their students' moral guides (contrary to what most education professors seem to think), and we certainly don't need the state forcibly removing children from their parents' care. It's ironic that liberals are (rightly) so disturbed by the portion of US history that saw native children removed from their homes and thrown into institutions where they could be "civilized", but they're perfectly fine with doing essentially the same thing to all our children today. Apparently, it no longer only takes a village; the parents are now to be expelled from said village. Say goodbye to your family, everyone; you no longer need them.
Sources:
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/HSBCompanyBlog/256239/Updates+from+Germany--War+on+homeschooling.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53457.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Racial crimes reexamined
So as some of my blogging friends have been somewhat AWOL recently (you know who you are), I've been flipping through their archives a bit, looking at posts they made before I found their sites. Tonight, I found this gem on Mary Ann's site. Apparently, the most common hate crime victim is a poor, single white or hispanic person between seventeen and twenty years old.
When people talk about "hate crimes", they usually think it means a crime against blacks or gays (feminists are still trying to convince us that it's sexist for a man to believe it's always wrong to hit a woman, so they don't bother much about the "hate crime" nonsense). But in fact, whites are far more likely to be attacked by blacks than the other way around.
It did always seem a little incongruous to me, the assertion that whites cross the street to get away from black people at night because they're scared and at the same time are always attacking them willy-nilly. Make up your minds: either you're scared of us, or we're scared of you! It can't be both! And if it is, we're into the realm of individual judgements, which removes us entirely from discussions of race relations...which I happen to think is a good thing, but the NAACP seems to take issue with that.
As Mary Ann pointed out, it's interesting that we never hear anything about this from the mainstream media - interesting, but not surprising. In Laramie, Wyoming, which I've called home for nearly two years now, we had some years ago an incident in which two straight guys who were acting like drunken bastards and a gay guy who was acting like a drunken bastard got into a fight, and the gay guy ended up dead. The story as it was told to the rest of the United States became this: the gay guy was minding his own business in a bar when suddenly two straight guys grabbed him, pulled him off somewhere and killed him in a premeditated attack. This was turned into a play, and later a TV movie, which, as it happens, was shot in my hometown of Black Diamond, Alberta. My point in all this is to say that any crime against a member of a "minority" is considered a hate crime, while any crime against a member of the "majority" is not considered a hate crime. When was the last time you heard about a racially-motivated crime against a white person? The closest we get is the occasional Eminem movie. And I use the term "movie" loosely.
When people talk about "hate crimes", they usually think it means a crime against blacks or gays (feminists are still trying to convince us that it's sexist for a man to believe it's always wrong to hit a woman, so they don't bother much about the "hate crime" nonsense). But in fact, whites are far more likely to be attacked by blacks than the other way around.
It did always seem a little incongruous to me, the assertion that whites cross the street to get away from black people at night because they're scared and at the same time are always attacking them willy-nilly. Make up your minds: either you're scared of us, or we're scared of you! It can't be both! And if it is, we're into the realm of individual judgements, which removes us entirely from discussions of race relations...which I happen to think is a good thing, but the NAACP seems to take issue with that.
As Mary Ann pointed out, it's interesting that we never hear anything about this from the mainstream media - interesting, but not surprising. In Laramie, Wyoming, which I've called home for nearly two years now, we had some years ago an incident in which two straight guys who were acting like drunken bastards and a gay guy who was acting like a drunken bastard got into a fight, and the gay guy ended up dead. The story as it was told to the rest of the United States became this: the gay guy was minding his own business in a bar when suddenly two straight guys grabbed him, pulled him off somewhere and killed him in a premeditated attack. This was turned into a play, and later a TV movie, which, as it happens, was shot in my hometown of Black Diamond, Alberta. My point in all this is to say that any crime against a member of a "minority" is considered a hate crime, while any crime against a member of the "majority" is not considered a hate crime. When was the last time you heard about a racially-motivated crime against a white person? The closest we get is the occasional Eminem movie. And I use the term "movie" loosely.
Thoughts on the new Liberal leader
The recent Liberal Party convention showed us two very important things. The first is that government by oligarchy remains the Liberals' most highly vaunted principle - why else would they choose a leader by convention instead of the general vote option showcased by the Alberta PC party the very same week? It amazes me that members of the Liberal party accept this. I, for one, have serious problems with the fact that the federal Tory party - which I support more than any other federal party, but of which I am not a member - chooses its leader the same way. We have the technology today to make it logistically possible to hold a general vote.
The second thing we have learned about the federal Liberals recently is this: we can now feel totally secure in the belief that the Liberal Party has no interest in change, either within the party, in the government, or in the country as a whole. Dion is essentially another Paul Martin. He calls Kyoto "the first step" and promises to uphold the agreement (though he gives no comment about whether the Ontario-based auto industry will have its special exemptions revoked). He wants to funnel more money into social programs and improve somethig he calls "the social safety net". He had a "women's campaign", which in itself is nothing but politically correct sexism, and also belies a dangerous attitude we'll doubtless see more of in the future. He likes the ideas Phillippe Couillard - the Quebec Minister for Health - has put forward about using the private sector for diagnostic tests, but decries any other attempt to allow private enterprise in the area of healthcare. And though he was once a separatist, he firmly believes that Quebec is better off in Canada and that Canada is better off with Quebec. Maybe he thinks that without them, we'd have few bottomless pits left into which we could throw all our money. He claims not to have known anything about AdScam, in case you were wondering, though he has admitted to noticing certain irregularities. I guess he didn't feel they were worth investigating.
What does this mean for Canada? Well, the Tories have been doing well in recent months. Harper's attitude - making his goals few, simple, and almost universally acceptable and then following through with strength and speed - has won him a lot of praise. Liberals I've talked to don't seem to mind what he's done so far, and though there was some worry at first about what his future plans might be, I'd say a year in power is long enough to have convinced at least some people that he is not the boogeyman he's been portrayed as. With Dion as leader, nobody can really have any more reason to vote Liberal than before - in other words, he's not going to make anyone jump the party line in either direction. Harper's leadership, on the other hand, has displeased few die-hard conservatives and pleased many centrists and even a few liberals, and he is likely to cause some voters to jump the party line in favor of the Tories.
There are rumors beginning to surface about a possible election this spring - perhaps as early as February. If this should come to pass, I predict another Conservative minority. The Liberals have been leading in the polls for the last three weeks or so, but I doubt that will last, especially if Harper gets his Senate reform bill through before the election. The Tories may lose or gain a few seats, and it seems certain that the NDP will lose some and the Bloc will gain a few, but the general composition of the House of Commons does not seem to me to be ready to shift more than slightly.
The second thing we have learned about the federal Liberals recently is this: we can now feel totally secure in the belief that the Liberal Party has no interest in change, either within the party, in the government, or in the country as a whole. Dion is essentially another Paul Martin. He calls Kyoto "the first step" and promises to uphold the agreement (though he gives no comment about whether the Ontario-based auto industry will have its special exemptions revoked). He wants to funnel more money into social programs and improve somethig he calls "the social safety net". He had a "women's campaign", which in itself is nothing but politically correct sexism, and also belies a dangerous attitude we'll doubtless see more of in the future. He likes the ideas Phillippe Couillard - the Quebec Minister for Health - has put forward about using the private sector for diagnostic tests, but decries any other attempt to allow private enterprise in the area of healthcare. And though he was once a separatist, he firmly believes that Quebec is better off in Canada and that Canada is better off with Quebec. Maybe he thinks that without them, we'd have few bottomless pits left into which we could throw all our money. He claims not to have known anything about AdScam, in case you were wondering, though he has admitted to noticing certain irregularities. I guess he didn't feel they were worth investigating.
What does this mean for Canada? Well, the Tories have been doing well in recent months. Harper's attitude - making his goals few, simple, and almost universally acceptable and then following through with strength and speed - has won him a lot of praise. Liberals I've talked to don't seem to mind what he's done so far, and though there was some worry at first about what his future plans might be, I'd say a year in power is long enough to have convinced at least some people that he is not the boogeyman he's been portrayed as. With Dion as leader, nobody can really have any more reason to vote Liberal than before - in other words, he's not going to make anyone jump the party line in either direction. Harper's leadership, on the other hand, has displeased few die-hard conservatives and pleased many centrists and even a few liberals, and he is likely to cause some voters to jump the party line in favor of the Tories.
There are rumors beginning to surface about a possible election this spring - perhaps as early as February. If this should come to pass, I predict another Conservative minority. The Liberals have been leading in the polls for the last three weeks or so, but I doubt that will last, especially if Harper gets his Senate reform bill through before the election. The Tories may lose or gain a few seats, and it seems certain that the NDP will lose some and the Bloc will gain a few, but the general composition of the House of Commons does not seem to me to be ready to shift more than slightly.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
A family tradition in reverse
My friends, today is a great day, for today we can count a new ally amongst us. I'm proud to announce that my dear ole dad, alias "Boot" (a private joke, unless you enjoy old British comics), has just joined the ranks of the libertarian blogging community. Check out his page, Into the Light, here. He'll never tell you all this himself, so I should inform readers of just how qualified he is – he's worked with politicians most of his life, was a town councillor for three years, spent some time working for the UN, has a PhD in economics, and held various muckitymuck positions (department head, associate dean, acting dean) at the University of Alberta for longer than I think he'd care to admit. He's also met more heads of state than I've been able to keep count of, all the way up to Queen Lizzie herself, and even worked for Margaret Thatcher, way back before she was anywhere near #10. And he once threatened to shoot Jean Chretien – he's certainly not alone there, I know, but this was in person. Finally, some regulars may remember my pointing out from time to time that he was an orphan and made his way up in the world with little help, and none of it from governments – perhaps the reason he's the most sensible academic I've ever met. He's likely to be more analytical than sardonic, so I think we should compliment each other's writing nicely. Welcome aboard the Good Ship Libertariblogger, Dad!
Friday, December 15, 2006
Stelmach names cabinet, this blogger eats crow
Unlike Ted Morton, Ed Stelmach can't yet take my vote away from the Separation Party - but he's getting closer. Stelmach named his cabinet today, and I caught a bit of the coverage on Global this evening. First of all, I just have to say, it was the most biased reporting I've seen since the last time I picked up the New York Times. Not a single interview with anyone who wasn't from Calgary, not a single quote that wasn't from a member of the opposition. Amazing.
What's got everyone in such a state is the fact that Stelmach's eighteen cabinet ministers include only four urbanites - three from Calgary and one from Edmonton. People are saying that 61% of the province's population should merit more than 22% of its cabinet positions. What they of course fail to mention is that that same 22% of the cabinet comes from only 2% of the province's area.
All this is beside the point, though. People, this is the cabinet. They're not representatives; so much as we have representation under the Canadian system of government, it is provided by our MLAs. Cabinet ministers are supposed to be chosen because they have knowledge, attitudes, or skills that will be helpful to actually running the government (note that I said "supposed to"...it's an imperfect world, of course).
I, personally, am happy about the new cabinet - particularly about Morton's appointment as Minister for Sustainable Resources. This is one of the three major areas important to the firewall alternative (the other two being policing and taxation), and Morton will be the perfect minister to level the occasional "stuff you" at the federal government when it becomes necessary.
And so, I admit that I was perhaps wrong about Stelmach. He's not what we need, but maybe he's a step in the right direction.
What's got everyone in such a state is the fact that Stelmach's eighteen cabinet ministers include only four urbanites - three from Calgary and one from Edmonton. People are saying that 61% of the province's population should merit more than 22% of its cabinet positions. What they of course fail to mention is that that same 22% of the cabinet comes from only 2% of the province's area.
All this is beside the point, though. People, this is the cabinet. They're not representatives; so much as we have representation under the Canadian system of government, it is provided by our MLAs. Cabinet ministers are supposed to be chosen because they have knowledge, attitudes, or skills that will be helpful to actually running the government (note that I said "supposed to"...it's an imperfect world, of course).
I, personally, am happy about the new cabinet - particularly about Morton's appointment as Minister for Sustainable Resources. This is one of the three major areas important to the firewall alternative (the other two being policing and taxation), and Morton will be the perfect minister to level the occasional "stuff you" at the federal government when it becomes necessary.
And so, I admit that I was perhaps wrong about Stelmach. He's not what we need, but maybe he's a step in the right direction.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Poetic justice
Ageism has long been the forgotten form of discrimination, particularly that against young people. People under 18 lack many basic legal rights, the right to own property chief among them. They are always thought of as completely inept. In the United States, people cannot even drink alcohol for three years following their eighteenth birthday, which is utterly ludicrous - I can die for my country overseas but I can't have a beer? I left home at sixteen to go to an Ivy League university and I could not be issued a credit card in my own name because I was not considered a responsible adult. A thirty-year-old crack addict who lives in his parents' basement and is barely holding down a job at the local 7-11 can get a Visa card.
Recently, technology has created a new breed of weapon in the war against our young citizens: a high-frequency buzzer which is inaudible to most adults, but drives teenagers crazy. It's being marketed in the UK as a way to keep teens from loitering around shops, and it's called a Mosquito, or more colloquially, a "yob-buster". I'll probably be able to hear these things for decades to come, as my hearing is pretty acute, but that's beside the point; even if I was totally deaf, I'd be morally opposed to the idea of a device designed to force crowds of teenagers to disperse. If they're breaking laws, call the police. If they're not, what the bloody hell gives people the right to use a weapon on them? If anyone tried it on me, I'd sue for assault! But then again, teenagers can't sue people.
There is a bright side, though: certain ingenious teens have turned this new technology against their elders by creating a cellphone ringtone inaudible to adults. What an appropriate turnabout.
Recently, technology has created a new breed of weapon in the war against our young citizens: a high-frequency buzzer which is inaudible to most adults, but drives teenagers crazy. It's being marketed in the UK as a way to keep teens from loitering around shops, and it's called a Mosquito, or more colloquially, a "yob-buster". I'll probably be able to hear these things for decades to come, as my hearing is pretty acute, but that's beside the point; even if I was totally deaf, I'd be morally opposed to the idea of a device designed to force crowds of teenagers to disperse. If they're breaking laws, call the police. If they're not, what the bloody hell gives people the right to use a weapon on them? If anyone tried it on me, I'd sue for assault! But then again, teenagers can't sue people.
There is a bright side, though: certain ingenious teens have turned this new technology against their elders by creating a cellphone ringtone inaudible to adults. What an appropriate turnabout.
Ain't it the truth
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
A few short points
One again, it is upon us: the most stressful two-week stretch of the entire year. Between the last round of Christmas shopping, final exams, driving home from college in snowstorms, and electrocution incidents (okay, that one's just me...long story), it's a wonder anyone ever makes it through December. I'll write a real post about the outcomes of the recent Alberta PC (blah) and federal Liberal (BLECH) leadership races next week, but for now, a few snippets of news meant to inflame and entertain:
New York City has succeeded in banning trans fat amounts of more than 1/2 a gram per meal. An interviewee I heard on the radio asked why it was any of the government's business - "I like a little fat in my diet," he said. I heartily agree. ("Heartily", get it? Haha...okay, really, too much stress.)
The IRS, in the last tax season, paid out $2 million in fraudulent and erroneous returns. The reason? They turned their old computer system off before the new one was working. Put bureaucrats and computers together, and what do you get? "Snafus R Us".
Stelmach said he would press for Alberta to get any special treaments Quebec is granted, and be declared a "nation within a nation" just like Quebec is. I'll offer a dubious "yay".
Morton told the world how happy he is that the second-choice votes his supporters cast pushed Stelmach past Dinning. I guess he's right....
Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson commented that he'd asked Dinning repeatedly to give him "five straight single-sentence priorities in the Stephen Harper style", which, of course, Dim Jim never did. I find it interesting that that's almost exactly the same question I asked the mayoral candidates in my hometown three years ago. I guess I knew what I was talking about more than I thought! The intriguing thing is, only one of those mayoral candidates ever answered the question. And that one was my dad. I guess politicians really are the same wherever you go.
Cindy Sheehan is on trial for trespassing at the US Mission to the United Nations. She and three others are facing charges that could land them a year in jail. Anyone else up for a rousing round of the Hallelujah chorus?
New York City has succeeded in banning trans fat amounts of more than 1/2 a gram per meal. An interviewee I heard on the radio asked why it was any of the government's business - "I like a little fat in my diet," he said. I heartily agree. ("Heartily", get it? Haha...okay, really, too much stress.)
The IRS, in the last tax season, paid out $2 million in fraudulent and erroneous returns. The reason? They turned their old computer system off before the new one was working. Put bureaucrats and computers together, and what do you get? "Snafus R Us".
Stelmach said he would press for Alberta to get any special treaments Quebec is granted, and be declared a "nation within a nation" just like Quebec is. I'll offer a dubious "yay".
Morton told the world how happy he is that the second-choice votes his supporters cast pushed Stelmach past Dinning. I guess he's right....
Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson commented that he'd asked Dinning repeatedly to give him "five straight single-sentence priorities in the Stephen Harper style", which, of course, Dim Jim never did. I find it interesting that that's almost exactly the same question I asked the mayoral candidates in my hometown three years ago. I guess I knew what I was talking about more than I thought! The intriguing thing is, only one of those mayoral candidates ever answered the question. And that one was my dad. I guess politicians really are the same wherever you go.
Cindy Sheehan is on trial for trespassing at the US Mission to the United Nations. She and three others are facing charges that could land them a year in jail. Anyone else up for a rousing round of the Hallelujah chorus?
subscribe
