Archive for November, 2007

It’s time to get the stink out of government

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007

The Mulroney-Schreiber-Airbus affair has been in and out of the press, and at times the courts, for almost 20 years now. In his recent column, Prime ministers and their friends, Andrew Coyne gives a recap of what the fuss is all about:

Nearly twenty years after the Airbus deal was signed, and twelve years after the first definitive reports that secret commissions were paid, in explicit violation of the contract, we still don’t know who got the rest of the money, or for what. Schreiber is known to have been paid some US$20-million — $600,000 per plane. His bank records show that about half this amount was doled out, by means of his labyrinth of bank accounts, to various “Canadian friends.” Some of these are known. Some are not.

Equally perplexing is how someone of Schreiber’s obvious odour was able to gain such access to the corridors of power. A former Justice minister, a former Solicitor General, even a former Supreme Court justice numbered amongst his friends and clients, to say nothing of his close and well documented relationship with Mulroney and his circle, dating back to the early 1980s.

In broader terms, then, the issue is not just Mulroney, or Schreiber, or Airbus. It’s the ability of this country to hold people in high places to account. Had a former president of the United States been found taking cash from a notorious bribe artist, six Congressional committees would have been convened on the spot. Years too late, a public inquiry would seem the least we could do.

(emphasis mine)

As a Conservative supporter and as a budding politician myself, I have some very real apprehensions regarding the prospects of subjecting this country to yet another political scandal enquiry. My apprehensions do not stem from any concerns for the individuals or political parties implicated, but rather for the effect this enquiry will have on the Canadian voting public. Voter cynicism and political apathy are already undermining our democracy.

Having said that, I also recognize our system only works when there is participation and trust. Call it “tough love”, but our democratic institutions need a good cleaning. Rather than staying home on election day, or holding their noses when they vote, it’s time for the people of Canada to feel good about their government again.

Do you have to “hate” someone you disagree with?

Wednesday, November 14th, 2007

I have often wondered why many on left side of the political spectrum view those on the right with such venomous contempt and outright hatred. To the left anyone who supports capitalism and speaks out against socialism is seen as “heartless”, or “without conscience”. Perhaps because I include myself in the camp of those on the right I’m particularly sensitive to these views, but what can I say, words hurt.

Another perspective I’ve observed is that, while I honestly believe most people on the left (or “progressives” as they now like to be called) are genuinely trying to make the world a better place, they will not afford those on the right the same acknowledgement. That is: if you are a right-wing capitalist your motive is to make the world a worse place. We on the right are not given at least the courtesy of having good intentions.

This mind set helps to justify the actions of people like Hugo Chavez, who stood before the United Nations and declared that George Bush was the devil:

The devil — the devil, himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday.

(APPLAUSE)

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

Hugo Chavez at UN

In today’s Wall Street Journal Peter Berkowitz writes about The Insanity of Bush Hatred:

In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims–who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance–to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

If it were only the intellectual debate that was at stake I wouldn’t mind the hatred quite so much, but hatred is a very strong emotion and it inspires irrational and often violent behaviour. If you believe your fight is against “evil” you’re able to justify almost any tactic or resistance to win that fight.

Climate change and book-burning – the new science

Monday, November 12th, 2007

The following paragraph is taken from the forward to the book Taken by Storm by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. Inviting Sir Mortimer Long-Bore to write the forward indicates not only the conviction of their thesis but also offers a bit of levity to the debate:

The authors are wrong to question any of this. Morally wrong. Nor are the authors even qualified to make commentary on this sublime topic. One is an applied mathematician who apparently works on topics in radiation and fluid dynamics. The other is an economist who studies environmental policy. What claim has either to expertise on global warming or climate change? For tutelage on issues of such importance I counsel reliance on the authority of qualified experts. You may find, as I did, the book An Inconvenient Truth to be greatly informative in this respect.

So according to Long-Bore, Al Gore is qualified to write a book on climate change, but a scientist and environmental economist are not.

He closes with this gem:

In contrast, the book you are viewing is subversive climate literature. Do not read it. I have not read it, and you should not either; indeed, I threw my copy on the fire. I only regret that burning the book was my only remedy. In a better age I would have burned the authors with it.

I’ve been concerned for some time now that the debate on climate change has less to do with science and much more to do with politics. If there is anything to fear surrounding this debate it is the troubling rhetoric and the denunciation of any form of dissenting opinion. A call for book-burning (hell, people-burning!) should be a bit of a wake-up call.

Taken by Storm

Thanks again Kate.

Update: Billy, in “Comments”, was kind enough to point out that the forward was not actually penned by Sir Mortimer Long-Bore.

Go on then, call me thick, I have it coming.

What was that argument again?

Tuesday, November 6th, 2007

One of the primary concerns raised during the faith-based school funding debate last month was that it would lead to “segregated schools”. Now the Toronto District School Board is once again floating this idea:

Admitting it is failing some students of colour, the Toronto public board could open a black-focused school as early as next fall.

Two community meetings are planned in the next week to discuss the idea of an “African-centred alternative school” from junior kindergarten to Grade 8 that would have more black teachers, black mentors, more focus on students’ heritage and more parent involvement.

Source.

So let me try to understand this: providing public funding to existing faith-based schools would be a bad thing because it would encourage segregation, but creating a new school that segregates black children from white children is just fine.

Am I missing something?

The silence is deafening

Monday, November 5th, 2007

There is a huge amount of progress being made over in Iraq, but we have heard very little about it here.

In the recent silence about Iraq (apparently no bad news is no news at all), we fail to appreciate that we are witnessing one of the most dramatic turnabouts in a war in our history, comparable to the 90 day radical change from June to September 1864.

Source.

Hat tip to Kate (again).