Aiport Kabuki Theatre Gets a Little More Interesting

So, what do we know? Apparently, a Nigerian man sews a complex liquid/powder explosive device into his underwear, and airport security reacts with a fresh set of restrictions.

-Only one carry-on bag.
-Nothing in your lap and no moving around in the last hour before landing
-Getting searched again before actually boarding the flight.

Also, apparently, despite the fact that he claims Al-Qaeda ties, he is just one crazy man and the "system works".

It's been a While

..But I'm momentarily back. Work keeps me busy. A quick roundup: Copenhagen fails- all shocked and appalled. Senate manages cloture on healthcare- normal americans understandably upset. Not much new on the Jihad Front, but really you should be checking Jihad Watch for that.

What to say about Copenhagen? Well, Climategate was an obvious spike to the wheel. Unsurprisingly, many environmentalists claim it means nothing. One of my own friends mentioned that he would rather err on the side of halting global climate change and find out it wasnt necessary, or even possible. Fun. You enjoy your healthy serving of tyranny in the name of "well, it might happen, and we have a minuscule change of stopping it anyway". More irritating to Ezra Levant's "severely normal" people was the hypocrisy. 1200 odd limousines flown in for the summit? Not one on California emission standards, I'll bet. And as far as I know, the most popular and inexpensive freight planes in Europe are Antonovs. So you have a diesel-devouring military cargo plane flying gas-guzzling limos to overpaid diplomats debating... reducing consumption to save the planet. But it's OK- we can do what Diane Francis wants and limit ourselves to 1 child, nevermind that replacement is 2.1. But that's more Mark Steyn's gig than mine.

On to the Senate. Cloture, as I understand it, is the finalization of a Bill so that it has to be voted on as is. One more lumbering step for the Juggernaut/Abomination that is the Healthcare bill. Even leftist groups are distancing themselves from it, as the only thing worse than bad legislation is Poorly Written Bad Legislation. I'm looking forward to the 2010 midterms.

That's enough for now, more to come once I get internet in my house. In parting, a special thanks to Monique Stuart, who keeps me in her blogroll despite my sporadic posting. I'm sure it has nothing to do with how much easier it is to leave things alone than delete them. Enjoy the snow, Monique, and do what my DC friends do; claim it's too dangerous to go to work so you can hit the pub and make drunken snowmen!

The purpose of Political Correctness

Recently, much has arisen to make me want to write. Two stand out in my mind, frankly. Firstly, our culture's mass cowardice regarding Mr. Hasan (whom I deliberately strip of rank, as befits a traitor and a murderer) and the continued folly of the Copenhagen summit. Both are cases of imprecision of language being enforced so as to prevent an informed public.

Continued Absenteeism and Musings

I can only imagine at this point that my readership must be zero. Alas. Anyway, sporadic updates will be forthcoming. When I feel like it. Life comes first, as always.

For those of you not in the know, you should head over to The Other McCain for some truly excellent reportage on the NY-23rd. It really does look to be a watershed moment in American politics. If I may, I'd like to give an outsider's perspective on it. The fact of the matter is that American politics have never officially been two-party, but in effect it has evolved as such. Canadian politics has always been a game of balance of power. While not to the coalition-building degree of other parliamentary democracies, Canadian parties require the assistance of other parties to get things done. Majority Governments, while gaining a majority of seats, almost never have a majority of the vote. Thus the continued existence, and dare I say relevance, of the NDP and more importantly the Bloc Québécois. What Doug Hoffman may be creating is a crucial Third Party in the US. The Northeastern wing of the Republican party is packed with RINOs, it really is. Understandably, conservative voters continue to vote Republican because the NRCC and NRSC keep feeding them garbage about electability and moderation.

It's crap.

Here in Canada, we had the Reform Party. They went from a marginal voice in the wilderness party, decrying the lack of true conservatism, to the driving force of the ruling party. This is not to say that Alberta Reformers drive policy. The Conservative Party of Canada still governs to the left of their hardest workers. While not ideal, they still govern firmly to the right of previous parties. Reformers, over a period of about 10 years, managed to drag the faltering Conservative movement back to the right where it belongs. This is the real opportunity Hoffman in the NY-23rd represents. The Tea-Party/Conservative movement needs to hold out. Resist the urge to be folded into the Republican party. If the Republicans keep going the way they are going, their leadership will suffer the same fate as Joe Clark. Elect your representatives. Start nibbling away at RINO seats. Steal from the Blue Dogs. I can guarantee you, if over 2 or 3 electoral cycles, Americans start seeing representatives with the tag (C-NY) and (C-AZ) and even (C-CA), the Republican party will sit up and take notice.

So Stacy, listen up- from a man who grew up with no conservative alternative to having voted for the first real Conservative in power since 1954- keep following the Hoffmans. Use your connections to encourage charismatic new conservatives to run against Republicans. It will pay off. One day, the DNC will wake up and realize that they aren't facing an elephant anymore; a tiger will be at the door.

Apologies, and Musings

Gentle readers (if you still exist), I apologize for being absent so long. Between moving, and a new course, I have been out of touch for quite a while. It would be pointless for me to try to jump right back into the scene, so instead I will do a bit of a musing roundup. There are a few issues which have caught my attention over these past few weeks, and deserve some attention even in passing.

Obama-Care: As I seem to have no access to "real media", I have no idea what propaganda the Televised President has been spouting. What I do know, however, is that the Democratic Congress has catastrophically overreached in their almost religious desire to ram a new health system down the collective American gullet. Frankly, it comes as no surprise to me that the Dems have ignored two crucial issues. The first, of course, being that the vast majority (between 60 and 80 percent, according to Rasmussen last I heard) of Americans are happy with their health care, which is why President Obama repeats that they can keep it. This is patently false, as in general it is employers that select health care providers. Employers can get more reasonable rates because they get large groups insured at the same time. Provide employers an opportunity to offload that cost to the taxpayer at large by offering a public option, and even if it isn't mandatory you can bet private insurers will get burned. Secondly, the Dems have underestimated just how furious the average American is that illegal immigrants will not be explicitly excluded from this option. The average American knows that the Hippocratic Oath means that even under the most ruthlessly capitalist plan, a Mexican migrant worker bleeding out from a lawn mower accident will get emergency care. What offends them is that this same worker can get pre- and post-natal care for his illegal children, asthma medication, and in some states even psychiatric care without paying taxes. The Dems are going to take a beating in the 2010 Congressionals.

Big Brother is Still Watching- Apparently, the Obama administration can't get enough of being invasive. First there was the "fishy" incident, then the interference with local policing. Now? Apparently the White House wants to be a Facebook/Twitter Nanny. Well, Mr Axelrod, you have my permission to Suck It. I'm Canadian, and I say your socialist President has gotten into the nasty habit of compiling lists and getting people to Name Names. Eerily familiar, no?


Apparently, Even Blacks are Racist if they Dislike Euro-style Mega-Government- Accuse the President of lying? You're a racist. Disagree with his policies because you think that government is generally a wasteful morass? Racist. Find the President's constant presence on the airwaves exactly the opposite of reassuring (shouldn't the man, I don't know, be executing his office perhaps)? Oooh, looks like you have a nasty case of racist. And if you're black? Well, you must be a self-loathing Uncle Tom. Funny that everyone is trying so desperately to protect the President from hurt feelings, while accusing Republicans of lowering the tone of the debate. You would think they would have done the same when a President with many Jewish friends and supporters was being compared to Hitler. Oh, no wait, he was white. Also, when ACORN activists were using government money to teach pimps how to run brothels and escape IRS attention, it was all in the name of a more accurate (read: pro-Dem) census.


And I haven't even started on the latest capitulations to Jihadism. I'm reading "Surrender" by Bawer right now. It makes me sad. Who will stand for freedom when America doesn't?

Dear Mr McCain

Sir,

I found your recent commentary on David Frum insightful and honest, as usual. However, your closing argument was in effect an ad hominum attack based on Frum's Canadian nationality. As a man of impeccable honour, I am sure you understand completely when I say that I take umbrage.

I remember clearly the horror and rage that swept our communities the day the towers came down. Since that day, army recruiting (previously anemic) has grown to the point that training centres are housing candidates in tents for lack of barracks. This hasnt happened since WW2. In an army with approximately 12k combat troops, we have almost 3k in theatre, another 4k supporting them domestically and another 5k training. Most canadian soldiers, in a ten year contract have hit afghanistan four to six times. our troops, chronically underfunded and underequipped, have held the back gate for you in a land that ate three british armies of a kind that would have ended your revolution, and so frightened Alexander's army that it turned back. Our best have bled and suffered for you, with the same blend of insane courage and indomitable humour that kept our nations bonded in Korea and the fields of Europe. For all the draft dodgers we housed, remember that 30k Canadians volunteered for Vietnam. Visit the Wall in DC again. You will find small Canadian flags planted at its base wherever one of our fallen is listed.

David Frum is a pretentious blowhard, deserving of ridicule and public shaming. He is as much, if not more, of a blight on Right-thinking Canadians as he is on Americans. He has no right to question the fervour of any American's response to 9/11. However, it is his personality that drives his vitriol. Canada is no more responsible for his lunacy than America is for David Brooks.

I remain your humble servant in the Wilderness,

Morgan

Big Brother Really Is Watching You

(H/T Brass Balls Radio Episode 61)

For those of you not in the know, President Obama has set up a new White House email server to track those spreading "disinformation" on his new healthcare plan. He asked that anyone who sees "fishy" activity report it to flag@whitehouse.gov. Nice. Aside from his obvious discrimination against fish (do I report Crustaceous activity? The dilemma!), there are some serious legal issues with this. The White House as an entity MUST keep a record of all communications in or out. However, the White House is strictly forbidden from compiling information on those who disagree with its policies. Oops. Smart move there, ol' buddy. It's ok, though. The Wise Latina got confirmed, despite a 60% rate of failure as a judge. Somehow, barring Antonin Scalia going on a murderous rampage and assuming the role of SCOTUS Highlander style, I just don't think the White House is going to get spanked for this.

More important than the mechanical aspects of this, however, is the moral. President Obama has unilaterally declared that anyone spreading opposing points of view are actually agents of disinformation. It's "fishy", just like the peaceful protests at town halls are "Angry Mobs". The whole effort to demonize opposition seems to be getting desperate, and quite frankly ludicrous. Furthermore, President Obama is in effect asking people to Name Names. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Democratic Party is using exactly the same tactics they've always accused Republicans of using? "Something must be done now or thousands will die of poor healthcare coverage"- the Politics of Fear, and false dichotomy. "My opponents are angry mobs spreading disinformation- or they are Nazis"- demonization of the opposition.

Interestingly enough, various Rasmussen polls have between 65 and 80 percent of Americans satisfied with the healthcare system as it currently stands. So in effect, we are going to punish 354 million Americans so that 46 million can have healthcare coverage. Except that at no point are these 46 million refused essential care because they can't pay. No one is lying on the sidewalk bleeding out as paramedics shake their heads and say "His credit didn't clear".

People always make the mistake of assuming that Capitalism isn't compassionate. This is patently false. Every poll administered, from the UN right on down to Gallup, has found that right wing Christian conservative Americans give on average at least twice as much of their income to charity as anyone else. Liberal Americans give next to nothing. Why? Because liberals think that charity is a government responsibility. But it is demonstrably true that dollar for dollar, government cannot give as much to charity as NGOs. Government inevitably has higher overhead, as they must create a Department of Charitable Works. Then it must be staffed, and stationery must be made. The staff will be unionized, so it has absurd sick days and wage rates. Meanwhile, a Methodist housewife donates 20 hours a week of her time on a rotating schedule with the rest of the ladies from the Parish council at the cost of...a couple of tins of instant coffee and a few boxes of cookies a month. The same thing applies to healthcare. Private sector health providers want to make money. Being efficient leads to making money. Doctors in private clinics do their own paperwork, nurses can also act as receptionists. They get paid by the hour, so they work longer. Meanwhile, at a public hospital, you have a unionized employee who does nothing but answer phones. The doctors work long hours because they are desperately understaffed, not because they want to. The janitors get paid as well if not more than the nurses.

Voluntary associations work better than government. Government healthcare is the epitome of Involuntary association. It. Doesn't. Work.

Killing mehsud not enough, but still a good start

From the field ( brewbaker's in freddy)

Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud is probably dead. News wires are already speculating as to the impact of his death, and naturally the Taliban claim no pain. The truth is that his death's impact has yet to be determined. Mehsud was young and charismatic, which is both a strength and weakness. His power came from the narrative of his life. Now that it is over, others now control the story. Will he become a martyr?

For the jihadi, faith is everything. Victory as proof it it, and defeat as proof of its absence. For the coalition to claim a win, mehsud's narrative must read that his fsith was a sham and allah guided the hand of his enemy as punishment for all the civilians he killed. Perhaps its time the coalitipn started employing theologians for psyops.

Wait... Following the Law is Illegal?

So I've been trying to follow the "coup" in Honduras. Why? Because I just love it when the democratically elected congress of Honduras, supported by both the Supreme Court and the Constitution decide to do whacky things like use the Army in its constitutionally mandated role to support the popular will and remove a threat to stability. It's all so cloak and dagger. Very Che.

Here's how it works: The Constitution in Honduras limits presidential power to a single term. The people, being wise Latinos, recognized that there is something in the Central and South American political psyche that leads to strong-man dictatorships. So, they rather cleverly decided to build in protections, like term limits and the smart choice not to allow military figures to hold power for even a single day. Then this Zelaya guy comes along, after winning by the skin of his teeth, and decides he needs more than one term to accomplish his social agenda (and presumably attend more cocktail parties at his buddy Hugo's place). The Supreme Court notifies him that it is unconstitutional. So he tries to get Congress to change the constitution. Not only does Congress refuse, but they point out the Constitution actually explicitly forbids constitutional amendments regarding term limits. So Zelaya tries to hold a plebiscite, which the Supreme Court declares an illegal action (mainly because the President doesn't have that authority, Congress does and they weren't playing ball). Now the President decides that the law doesn't really apply to him, and he (this is my favourite part) publicly tells the Supreme Court and Congress that he is going to do what he needs to in order to stay in power anyway. He also gets Hugo Chavez to give him a ringing endorsement. Green Berets worldwide perked up like dogs hearing that silent whistle, and started lacing up the old jungle boots. But, darn it all, before those big bad Americans could start another jungle civil war, the Hondurans dealt with it themselves. Congress, in an emergency session, invoked the Constitution yet again (seeing a theme here?) and used the Army to arrest the President. They then voted in an interim President, and started getting ready for an election. Here's the weird part: rather than summarily executing Zelaya, as is the usual practice, they hustle him in his PJs onto a plane for Costa Rica. I bet Isabelle Allende is pissed.

And yet, somehow, this is a coup! It's bad! The will of the people, and the Law have been broken. Why? Because Barack Obama said so. The cognitive dissonance of having to agree with a US President must be making Chavez's head explode.

So, to summarize, the legitimately elected Congress of Honduras, in accordance with the Constitution, used the Army in a limited police action to prevent de facto dictatorship. And the "Free World" is pressuring them to take Zelaya back. It's almost like an Arnie movie...

The Tyranny that is Public Healthcare

Well, dear readers, it's time for yet another reader request. This one is for you, DJ!

I'll begin with a personal anecdote. In my final year of college, 48 days to graduation for those who know what it means, I was engaged in my last fencing practice of the year. Our team had just won the OUA championships, and we were out for some final fun before we parted ways for the summer. One of my younger teammates, Oli, wanted one last match. I had already half stripped out of my gear, but you don't get to be a sabre medallist by refusing challenges. We weren't fighting that hard, just the comfortable friendly strife of old opponents, when my left kneecap dislocated. It wasn't Oli's fault; I was executing a standard dodge (the pass short) tha I had done thousands of times before. The uneven gym floor, the dust, the fact that my IT bands were overdeveloped: all these were contributing factors. Suffice to say, it's a frighteningly agonizing injury. Regardless, we called the ambulence.

For those of you not aware of how the Canadian system works, you just call an ambulence, it shows up, it takes you to the hospital, and you flash your public health insurance card. Supposedly fast and foolproof. I'm a bit of a special case, but that part doesn't change (I just notify my employer, and somewhere in Ottawa the cost of my treatment goes from one budget to another). Unfortunately, due to the inherent inefficiencies of government run ANYTHING, my simple knee dislocation happened to fall on a shift change. Due to budget shortfalls, the City of Kingston shared EMS with the Leeds and Grenville County EMS, who use smaller ambulences. And are not totally familiar with Kingston geography. Thus, my ambulence took 20 minutes to find me (even though I was literally a 20 minute walk from the hospital). When it arrived, the paramedics were exhausted and at the end of an 18 hour shift, with 2 hours to drive to get back to their home station. Their ambulence stocked painkillers from their home station, not the hospital, so when they got to me there was literally nothing left but pure morphine, which can only be administered in cases where the pain might cause someone to die. While driving me back to the hospital, they took a couple of wrong turns, so it took 15 minutes to get back. And their oxygen tank ran dry after 5. Don't get me wrong- they were competent and caring paramedics. They were just exhausted and abused by a system that doesn't work.

When I got to the hospital, it took 4 hours to be seen by a student doctor specializing in oncology, who put me in a splint that actually made my injury worse. I was x-rayed to ensure no bone damage, but there were no MRI machines available. It took 6 and a half months to get an MRI, and that was rushed because my job gets a higher priority than the average bear. And here's the kicker: all hospital MRIs were overbooked, so I went to a PRIVATE CLINIC in Halifax.

I once visited a buddy of mine in Philly, and stayed at some guest housing that happened to be in a hospital outbuilding. I discovered that there are more MRI machines in the city of Philadelphia than there are in my entire country. Population of Philadelphia? 1.5 Million. Population of Canada? 32+ Million. And you're telling me that somehow the economics of a single payer government controlled system will ensure fair healthcare for everyone? It's garbage. Canada had a comparable death rate from SARS to Namibia. The head of the Canadian Medical Association put an article in the National Post on how healthcare in Canada desperately needs reform. Health Canada itself actually put out a statement telling people that if they get sick, they should go to hospitals. Why? Because a common-sense model accounting for hospital overcrowding (and based on the SARS data) showed that if the Bird Flu became an epidemic, people should stay home and let doctors come to them, because going to the hospital increased your risk of fatal infection.

Americans love to quote statistics. The last one I can remember stated that 50 million people in the US have no healthcare coverage at all. That truly is tragic, and something should be done. But not by government. The ingenuity of the free individual is the solution. Corporations provide healthcare to their workers because it makes them more productive. The competitive environment ensures reasonable pricing. Everyone claims that in Canada, healthcare is free. That is also garbage. Talk to me when you start earning more than 55 thousand dollars a year in Quebec. And you end up paying 49.3% of your income in taxes, not including sales tax or gas tax. Then talk to me about how an inefficient, criminally negligent system is still better because "it's free".

As Promised, Why Fat People Piss Me Off

Believe it or not, this is actually related to culture and politics. Max, enjoy.

In our culture today, like no other time in history, we have fat people. I'm not talking jolly, rotund, pleasantly plump. I'm not talking your Italian grandparents, or your comfortable middle-aged retired factory worker. Carrying around a few extra pounds at a certain age is part of the human condition.

I'm talking people who need mechanical support to get around. I'm talking young women who walk around in spandex that is audibly weeping. You know when you bend one of those cheap forks at Harvey's, and the black plastic turns white from stress? I've seen that happen to pleather pants.

Aside from the obvious aesthetic problems, why do I hate fat people so much? It's because they are the expression of cultural weakness. The inability to master your body, or at least hold it in check, is a symptom of your inability to become an adult. Our whole society is centred on removing as much responsibility from the equation as possible. Eat too much McDonald's? It's ok, the government will regulate the size of the portions they can serve you. Heaven forbid that you should just choose to eat there less frequently, or even more unthinkably exercise more to make up for your grease intake. In our society, addiction is always someone else's fault. Whatever happened to individual willpower? I love the hashbrowns at McD's. Love them. Could spend days eating them. There is a McDonald's on my way to work. It would be easy, so easy to eat breakfast there every day. It would actually be about the same price, too, considering the price of milk and cheese and eggs (I like to cook a decent breakfast). And yet, I get up an extra half hour early, make my breakfast, put in a lunch bag, and go to work. Luckily for me, work involves a morning workout. I eat my breakfast at my desk, and indulge in some coffee.

All this to say that I made a choice. I accepted responsibility for my own body, and what goes into it. I'm not perfect, but I don't need a government agency or ad campaign to tell me that too many burgers makes Morgan a fat boy. Tragically, and contemptibly, many people do. I had an interesting conversation with an attractive older woman at the bar last night. She is a cancer survivor, and she found it unthinkable that I should be against government healthcare. I told her it's simple. I know my drinking will lead to illness or injury inevitably. If the government provides my healthcare, it also has the right to tell me when and how I can drink. I didn't agree to this; in Canada it is fait accompli. I would rather live 60 years as a free individual than 80 years as a serf. Serfdom in Canada is leisurely and not unpleasant physically, but it is still serfdom.

Fat people have embraced serfdom. It's weakness. Worse still, it is weakness being actively supported and enacted by the benevolent tyranny that is the nanny-state. And they aren't even resisting. After all, I doubt they have the endurance for even that much activity.

Sufficient Causes for Evil, Small-Scale and Large

As an addendum to the tale of hurt feelings from last week, I have yet another cultural point to make. This weekend, I was recounting my story of publicly calling out a woman for poor behaviour to another beautiful woman of my acquaintance. She was horrified. She demanded to know what gave me the right to embarrass someone in public as I had. I made some small effort to explain that once you are in public, you can be called out for poor behaviour, but my acquaintance would have none of it. She got hostile to the point that she demanded that I leave. I politely made my farewells and left, thoroughly dissappointed.

What gave me the right? First of all, we were in public. Your behaviour in public must adhere to certain standards. If you behave in an offensive manner, you should expect that someone will be offended. I was offended by the Queen Bee's callous treatment of her friend. Rather than whisper behind her back, or go to some "higher authority", as the petty grievance-mongers do, I addressed the issue head on. What gave me the right? Decisions are made by those who show up. I was present. That was right enough for me to speak my mind. I am an autonomous human being with the courage to speak my mind. Secondly, the fact that the Queen Bee was embarrassed does not make me the oppressor in this situation. If I had deliberately embarassed her out of a sense of malice by pointing out something not tied to her behaviour, then yes I would have been wrong. However, I was (in my own harsh way) pointing out that her behaviour was unacceptable. It's very simple; if you do not want to be embarrassed in public, do not behave in a manner that can lead to embarrassment. More bluntly put, if being called a bitch in public embarrasses you, don't be a bitch in public.

The larger cultural point is that we live in a society where pointing out the truth is seen as secondary to avoiding conflict. We don't mention the hypocrisy of the Muslim world (rioting over the murder of one Muslim woman in Germany, while remaining silent over the deaths of thousands of Muslims in Darfur)* because we don't want conflict. We refuse to admit that there are concrete biological differences between men and women, because we don't want to offend feminists. Criticism of a politician is deflected by accusing the critic of being bigoted toward the identity group to which the politician belongs (Sarah Palin, Barack Obama. Both sides are guilty). Society begins to decay when we become so hide-bound by unspoken rules that the truth cannot be said. Janet Napolitano's bizarre jargon regarding terrorism is case in point. Eventually, through linguistic obfuscation, the truth becomes unrecognizable. Refusing to talk about something doesn't make it go away; it aggravates the underlying problem.

In both my personal issue with the Queen Bee, and the wider cultural point, one can return to an old adage. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that a good man do nothing. A refusal to speak out is not only a permissive cause, but a sufficient cause to bad behaviour. The Queen Bee abused her male friends because no one ever called her out for it. Muslims in the Arab street continue to riot at the drop of a hat because no one has the courage to publicly denounce them for it. The absurdities of the "culture wars" raging around Sarah Palin and President Obama carry on because no one has the nerve to stand up to the shrieking masses who cry "bigot".

Civility is to be prized. Courtesy is a fine treasure. Honesty trumps both.

*Tarek Fatah, as always, earns my respect for pointing out this hypocrisy in a decent article in the National Post. Despite the fact that his honesty earns him death threats from other Muslims, one must temper the respect with the acknowledgment that as a member of a protected identity group, Fatah has an easier time speaking the truth. To date, a Human Rights Commission has never seriously investigated a member of a visible minority.

Slight Regression, but a Larger Cultural Point

I know that I promised MITW would be less scandal oriented, but I swear this story is relevant.

Last night at the bar, I was bantering with a pretty blonde, and she had what my brother likes to call an "Orbiter". This man, like an asteroid or small moon, was caught by her gravitational field. Orbiters do all the things boyfriends do but get no sex, and more importantly no respect. This young woman threw out a particularly demanding whine at the fellow, and out of reflex I responded "dude, she is not hot enough to treat you like that". Everyone around me, and I really do mean EVERYONE looked at me like I had spat on the pope. For the next hour or so, a good friend of mine who is otherwise a cool dude kept badgering me to apologize to her because, and I quote "She's a big deal man. Well connected here".

To steal a line from R.S. McCain: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!?

Seriously. Firstly, this is Fredericton. It's a small town, where everyone knows everyone. This young woman is well connected? That's really quite odd, as some of my friends are local business owners (including the owners of the club). Hell, my landlady brought the freakin' Premier of the Province to my birthday party! I know what well connected is. Whenever I hang out with well connected people, they introduce me to others of their kind. IE "Hey, Morgan you should meet XXXXX. He's the local RCMP section chief, good guy." Not once, in almost five years, have I been introduced to this young woman. She's not a person of interest in any way that matters. She is simply a beautiful woman, which segues nicely into:

Morgan's Third Law of Party: Beautiful Women Have Easy Lives. Cheerfully Correct This Whenever Possible!

That's right. I made this young woman's life just a little harder with a smile on my face. Anyone who ever got picked on in highschool can tell you that on the scale of emotional violence, my comment ranks somewhere around "Sorority Pillow Fight". So when she reacted with an almost overwhelming level of hostility, I understood what my friend was telling me. For your ease of understanding, "She's well connected" translates to "She's the queen bee; you may never get laid in this town again". Fair. The price I pay for my ideals.

I promised you a wider cultural point, so I will give it to you. Our society has adopted the Classical Greek philosophical addiction to beauty to a degree beyond all reason. Beauty earns a degree of tolerance unheard of by others. Celebrities at nightclubs (this generation's iteration of artists in Salons) get lenience directly proportionate to their beauty. Everyone's horror at my behaviour came from the cultural reaction that things that are beautiful are to be respected or obeyed.

Time to wake up, gentlemen. Despite my disdain for the Bible, I will quote it by saying now that we are men it is time to put away childish things. Respect is earned by BEHAVIOUR. I am no iron-willed stoic. I will admit that I like pretty things. I'll admit my baseline tolerance is a little higher. However, the death of masculinity is tolerance for poor behaviour. Children behave badly in public. Dogs ruin furniture. Beautiful celebrities get drunk and flash everyone. And it all gets tolerated because they're so cute/beautiful. Bite it. If you can't harden the %@$# up and discipline people who need it, don't expect to last long in a conversation with real people.

I. Will. Not. Apologize. For. Being. Right.
Pretty girls, you have been warned. I am a real man. Earn my respect by being a real woman.

Sarah Palin steps aside as Governor, Probably going to run for President

The Other McCain has far superior coverage of this than I ever could. The thing I like best about McCain is that he is a genuine, old-school reporter. I'd love to see someone photoshop an image of him as the 20s style press man, complete with fedora and press card. I am also in agreement with him regarding his disdain for young journalism grads who demand recognition by virtue of writing skills.

So here is my caveat. I am not a reporter, nor am I claiming journalistic integrity. This analysis comes from my training in Politics, my time as a debater, and the logical training I have received from groups that will remain unnamed (read the disclaimer at the top, you should be able to figure it out). I recognize my disagreement is precocious. I invite any who disagree to attempt to reeducate me over cocktails in DC the next time I'm down.

That being said, I am going to risk the Blog-Sensei's wrath and that of the right-wing blogosphere by saying this:

Nominating Sarah Palin is a bad idea.

Allow me to enumerate my points before I get flayed (which will probably happen anyway). Firstly, and foremost in my mind, she is indelibly tied to failure. I challenge any of my American readers to find me a recent (last 30 years) candidate who has overcome the stigma of a previously failed ticket. From what I can see, the American body politic is unforgiving of failure. Unfair as it might be, the MSM will be able with great facility to equate Sarah Palin's policy with the idiocy that was the McCain campaign. Don't get me wrong, Palin may be able to gather and synthesize some great policy, but if no one know about it, what good will it do?

Secondly, Sarah Palin is too public. What do I mean by this? Essentially, Sarah Palin is already into the rough and tumble game of sparring with the media. She's had a spat with Letterman, she's been backstabbed by McCain campaign staff, and despite its patent silliness, the whole Trig thing just won't go away. The Republican party has been brutalized in the public sphere, and Sarah Palin was there when it happened. The grassroots are saying "Varus, give me back my Legions!" and Sarah Palin can offer nothing but the tattered standard of the survivor of a massacre. It doesn't matter that her own behaviour may have been exemplary. What is needed now is for a relative unknown to step in from the wings, and offer a narrative greater and more legitimate than President Obama's. The strength of the Republican grassroots has always been the claim to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" story. Sarah Palin had that chance, but blew it on the McCain '08 campaign. Every minute she has spent in the public eye since is another opportunity for lies and spin, and another obstacle to be overcome.

Finally, I will present my most personal reason for being uncomfortable with a Palin '12 ticket. She is far too similar to the standard Democratic candidate for my liking. I apologize to any fervent Palin fans out there, but I have yet to see any proof of a high-calibre mind. By no means is she an Obama-style stuffed shirt, but I just don't see the political killer instinct. The "Sarah Barracuda" claims are interesting, and a great story, but I just don't see the proof. Unfair a stage as it was, Palin was objectively and irretrievably annihilated in the Couric interview. Yes, I know that they were unfair questions, and yes I know that Palin's responses were logical and reasonable. My point is this: logical and reasonable are reinforcement, not the lead! They are the muscle in the arm, not the blade itself. Rhetoric is the blade, and it's edge must be viciously keen. Once you've pierced the liberal armour of ignorance, logic and reason give you the strength to reach the vitals. When Palin realized that Couric was doing a snow job, where was the attitude she had during her Convention speech? When someone mugs you, you don't politely hold them off. You beat the f*** so badly that when the police come, they need a paramedic with them. Or, failing that, you run. Palin sat there and took it. No dice. Until someone can prove otherwise, Palin's Convention speech, while magnificent, cannot really be credited to her as anything other than eloquent delivery.

In the tradition of my training, I will now do something unheard of in the land of snark. I have identified a problem, so it's only right that I should offer a solution. Try this out for a template for a better candidate than Palin:

Somewhere in the Mid-West, there is a mother of 3 who is involved in low-level politcs. Some kind of voluntary association that has been given municipal authority- town council, volunteer committee, church council, whatever. The woman is a thorough professional- teacher, lawyer, anything where public speaking is common. She's a soccer mom who hangs out with her girlfriends at the gym, jogging club, etc. Her kids play football, her son being defensive tackle or something like it. She homeschools to supplement what they learn at school. Her husband is in public service, real public service- policeman, firefighter, construction. Something physical. He's the strong, silent type who stands in the back of the meeting hall with his little girl sleeping in his arms, a gentle smile on his face as his wife owns the room with fire and passion.

Most importantly, the candidate has to be reluctant, but once persuaded to run absolute hell to manage. Her campaign staff should be in despair all the time, as she rides roughshod over them and ignores how it's always been done. Some of you may notice that my template plays to identity politics; she's a mother, a woman, professional, good looks with a perfect life. Yes, yes I am playing to identity politics. But my point is that her life is a direct result of her political belief. The vast majority of gorgeous, desirable, and challenging American women I know (you know who you are) are products of a fierce desire for personal liberty and the resistance of socialism. It isn't wrong to show the American people the proof that Conservatism works.


I now stand for cross examination. Paramedics are standing by.

Justice Sotomayor gets *&%$^-Slapped, Hilarity Ensues

So, the SCotUS decided recently that race statistics alone are not good enough to determine the value of a test for hiring practices. To recap what happened: a bunch of firefighters in New Haven, CT, wrote a test to determine whether they should be eligible for promotion. White guys and latinos scored well enough for immediate promotion, whereas not a single black applicant scored any better than a "future promotion" grade. The city, for fear of being sued by blacks, threw out the test results. In a fit of poetic justice, the white and latino applicants sued. Justice Sotomayor, in a cowardly unsigned opinion, declared that the city was justified, as a lack of diversity and the threat of being sued were justification enough to drop the test. In essence, she told the white firefighters that their demographic could be oppressed at will. Naturally, the lads used their constitutional right to appeal to a higher judicially activist body. Their faith in the court system is clearly greater than mine.

Shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the white and latino firefighters were right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, we have legalistic confirmation that affirmative action is code for racism, just with a different victim. Lovely. Naturaly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a screeching dissent, decrying the precedent being set. After all, without victim identity groups, how will Democrat politics work? However, even that raging loon couldn't defend Justice Sotomayor's unsigned opinion. Ginsburg wrote something about Sotomayor not having the time in such a minor ruling to fully delineate her arguments, but I would say it's a poor workman that lets someone else blame his tools. Regardless, despite a split decision, the Supreme Court was in agreement that Justice Sotomayor's reasoning was either just plain wrong or so poorly articulated as to carry the same weight.

So where do we stand? I really think Ann Coulter says it best; "This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."

Mrrrow!

Musings, with apologies for recent absence

I'm busy on a very intense course. Not much time or energy left at the end of the day for this.

Recently, a few things have come to my attention. Firstly, the inestimable Monique Stuart points out that even Democrats are uncomfortable with the degree of haste the Obama administration is demanding on legislation. Apparently, the Health care bill is being rushed, with every attempt being made to close down debate. As I am currently reading Liberal Fascism, a disturbing thought comes to mind. The Obama administration seems to be anti-thought. Every effort is being made to stop people from taking the time to consider the repercussions of actions. The health issue needs action- now! The economy needs a bailout- now! Action is being fetishized, which is a classic symptom of overly aggressive personality cults. Furthermore, the MSM's focus on President Obama's supposed paragon of virility status is eerily reminiscent of the treatment Mussolini received in his day (for all his flaws, Mussolini was no genocidal racist, and he was popular with the ladies). The other disturbing element of this whole theatre is the intimidation of the average voter with doomsday scenarios. For a party that accuses the Republicans of banking on the politics of fear, the Democrats seem spend a lot of time darkly implying an "or else..." Both of these tactics serve to eliminate any reasonable period of deliberation. At this point, neither the House nor the Senate are really doing their jobs. Big Surprise.

The other issue I want to address is a little closer to home. The current leadership race for Ontario's Progressive Conservatives (hate the name, incidentally) is an excellent microcosm for the state of the conservative movement in the Western world. One candidate, Randy Hillier, is massively popular with the grassroots and the blogging community. He has the Ezra Levant seal of approval, because his central plank is the elimination of Ontario's Human Rights Commission. No negotiation, no attempt at reform, no half-measures. Smaller government, and a crisp smack to the gob of overreaching bureaucrats. However, the chattering classes don't like him because they fear he isn't "electable" due to his lack of polish and his unwillingness to compromise. Event the National Post chose to endorse a more moderate candidate for fear of repeating the John Tory Religious Schools incident. Therein lies the problem; conservatives are afraid. Even though we know full well that the cries of agony and laments of victimhood are patently false, we still fear being labelled as mean by liberals.

$&*@ That! Since when did electability rest on anything other than strength of policy and character? Conservatives have the Sisyphean task of repairing damage and then moving forward, every single election. Stop crying about it, and do it. People like David Frum make me crazy. Conservatism doesn't win by being less conservative to get more votes. Compromises should leave both sides bloody and exhausted. Every time a conservative makes a compromise with a liberal that doesn't leave the liberal wailing to the nearest NGO about the heartlessness of conservatism, it is a failure. John McCain was supposed to be a brilliant compromise candidate. A moderate Republican, a "maverick" who could get along with Democrats. The Dems laughed all the way to the White House. Our side picked a grumpy 72 year old because he could play nice with others. Their side picked a charismatic candidate who hangs out with unrepentant terrorists, race baits his own family, and thrives on Chicago style politics. The Republicans brought tea and crumpets to a tank battle.

Liberals do everything they can to circumscribe direct conflict, because they know they don't have the guts. They try to take your guns, because guns symbolize standing up for yourself and that takes guts. They try to take your free speech, because telling the truth means telling others that some ideas are objectively better than others and that takes guts. They try to eliminate debate in Congress, because debate means withstanding scrutiny and defending your ideals and that takes guts.

Stop playing Calvinball. Harden the &%$! up, and get the job done. Voters will respect you if you put your convictions on display. Have the courage to resist the infantilization of politics. If you don't, liberals will keep winning.

Take Time Today to Remember, and Draw Strength from the Courage of the Past

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.


June 6th, 1944. Approximately 130,000 Canadian soldiers of 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and 2nd Armoured Brigade land at Juno Beach. Catching the German Army completely by surprise with the scale of the landing, Canadian troops rapidly silence shore defences and push inland. By the end of the day, 574 Canadians lay dead, with 340 wounded. Compared to the other Allied Forces, casualties were light. The Canadians would pay dearly the next day, impossibly holding their lines against a massive counter-attack. For that day, however, a stunning victory had been won.

As an interesting aside, almost all footage of D-Day landings are of Juno Beach.

Why I Hate New Brunswick, part 3 of Infinity

I hate New Brunswick.

What has set me off this time? Further proof that this province embodies all that is wrong with contemporary Canadian society, of course. I went out last night with a good friend, and while we were engaged in our usual scandalous follies, we encountered something shocking. The attractive young woman working the door at the club had a Military History degree, but had never read Clausewitz.

You read that correctly. She had never read excerpts from Vom Krieg. She didn't even know why she should have. Oh, she read Jomini all right, but no Clausewitz. For those of you who aren't into the whole military theory thing, Jomini was a contemporary of Napoleon who wrote a manual essentially stating that war could be won using the strict application of principles and battlefield geometry. Clausewitz was his polar opposite, claiming that war had no set rules, and that victory was the result of a commander influencing his enemy through manoeuvre on both the moral (mental) and physical planes. Jominian thought is responsible for the bloody mess that was World War I. Studying Clausewitz is what allowed the German army to make fullest use of the tank and blitzkrieg (neither of which they invented). At this point, the only impact Jomini still has on military thought is that NATO armies have general principles of war, but they are so broad and encompassing that there is nothing mathematical or precise about them.

So why does a young woman with a BA in Military History not knowing this upset me so much? Because it tells you how modern universities, at least civilian ones, work. This young woman wasn't taught how to think; she was taught what to think. Her professor didn't even discuss the possibility that there was an opposing view. There was no open marketplace of ideas, there was only what the prof allowed the students to see. This prof, to steal an allegory from Plato, deliberately shackled students in the cave and told them the shadows on the wall were the extent of reality.

I took courses at two different military academies. At no point was I ever limited in this way. At any point in my studies, when there were two opposing views I was forced to examine both and then make up my own mind. My english courses were taught by feminists. I had history courses from both Dr. Sean Malloney (sorry if I spelled that wrong, sir) and Dr. Jane Errington. Look them up- you can't get much more variety than that. My politics courses? I got them from Dr. Alan Whitehorn (probably the only Leftist I truly respect) and Dr. Joel Sokolsky. When I went south of the border for a semester, I took courses from US Army officers who had participated in the Iraq war, and then received courses on Arab and Jihadi political thought from Dr. Assaf Moghadam, himself an Iraqi. At every turn, I was encouraged to seek out opposing views to the popular mode of thought. I got psychology courses that warned of groupthink, and every time I wrote an essay, I was subjected to ruthless academic standards. I can proudly say that when I agree with the government position, it's because I understand it and its justification, not because they paid for my education.

Is it any wonder university students voted so overwhelmingly for Obama? I'm willing to bet that if a Military History student was shielded from the most influential Western military thinker of all time, economics students are being shielded from evidence that government intervention is bad. Politics students are being shielded from analysis of Democratic Party tendencies. Law students are probably being shielded from the Constitution, though thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia that's probably an uphill battle.

Universities are becoming echo-chambers. No wonder an undergrad degree is losing its value.

In other news, I'm on Monique Stuart's Blogroll! Awesome! Go check her out, she's very intellectually stimulating, and unabashed smokers are worthy of respect.

This Week in Abject Cowardice

You heard it here first. A Canadian, one of many living under the thumb of the ultimate nanny-state, thinks the current batch of Republican senators are coward. You heard me right.

Senators, you are cowards. Your fear sickens me. Your weakness disgusts me. Step aside, you have failed.

Why such hatred? Because they aren't going to fight the Sotomayor nomination. That's right. The woman who discriminated against Connecticut firefighters because while they were talented, a bunch of ethnic minorities weren't, so the test was unfair. Oh. Well then. My mistake. I suppose army and police courses had better stop running Close Quarters Battle testing, because the vast majority of people who join SWAT teams and the Infantry are white men. The Royal Canadian Armour Corps (unofficial motto- Speed and Violence) had better start recruiting from women's studies programs, because there just aren't enough female officers. Also, any judge who doesn't have a "diverse" enough life story had better stop issuing rulings. Especially if he is a white man.

How far has their intellectual integrity fallen? If this were Roman times, and the Republican senators real Senators, then the outer Legion pickets would be dead, the watchtowers burnings, the walls breached, and the Prime Century would be rallied around the standard, shields locked and grimly waiting for death. The centurions would furiously be trying to rally the men, and the damned aristocrats standing in the square would be bickering over how flowery the language of surrender is to be.

The Democrats are just as bent on plunder as the Visigoths. A peacetime President is nationalizing banks and industry! Meanwhile, men who are supposed to represent the wisest of their party complain that Nero's fiddle is out of tune. I know I'm mixing my historical metaphors, but I am furious! This is what we can expect? Timidity, and paper tiger speeches?

Yes. Because the Republican National Senate Committee is terrified of losing the latino vote. After all, latinos are so ignorant they'll support anyone who appoints people with spanish names to high office, right? It's the soft bigotry of low expectations at work. Here's a thought. Why don't we try to win people over with dedication to policy? Reduce government. Stimulate the economy through the proven methods of lower taxes and more individual freedom. Start calling a spade a spade, rather than a human operated digging apparatus.

Triumphant Return, Courtesy of Grave Concerns

I apologize for my absence. I have recently started a new course at work, and last week I was working from 5 AM to 9PM, leaving me with little or no energy to devote to political commentary. That, and I was a bit out of the loop. Feel free to give me specific political issues of concern from the last week if you think they deserve my attention.

My focus this week is the President's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS. This, as I warned all of my left-leaning friends during the election, is the inevitable result of playing identity politics. As has been stated in pretty much every newspaper of note (with varying degrees of admiration by the usual rags), Sotomayor makes her decisions through the lens of her own personal experiences as an immigrant. To this, I can only respond that I am thankful that she is only on the 2nd Circuit. She has actually explicitly stated that she thinks a Hispanic woman is better suited to being a judge than a white man, simply by virtue of her perspective. As RS McCain says, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! The last time I checked, there was the delightful little concept of "impartiality" to protect. Are we to be held hostage now by sympathies to identity groups?

Ironically, no. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that Democrats play a particularly vile brand of identity politics. They will absorb a group into their "big tent", though I'd use the term collective, and then should this group not adhere exactly to the greater plan they will be ignored. Take for instance the black community in California; they voted overwhelmingly in favour of President Obama. However, the vast majority of the President's economic policies will have no demonstrable impact on black poverty. In fact, one could argue that his economic policies will hurt black families because the areas he is targeting with "stimulus" are predominantly the reserve of bleeding heart upper middle class white people. I fail to see how protecting the snail darter is rewarding the black community. Furthermore, gays voted overwhelmingly Democrat as well, and yet they are getting no help on the marriage issue. As HillBuzz has pointed out, it's an issue of language rather than rights. However, a continued battle on gay marriage is of interest to the Democratic party, and so gays will continue to vote for them and get nothing in exchange.

President Obama is the apotheosis of this ruthless and unethical way. He used a groundswell of feeling by identity groups like blacks and disenfranchised youth to gain power, but he's not accepting any kind of reciprocal responsibility. He promised them Hope and Change. He'll bring them death, and they will love him for it.

Rule 5 Sunday! Part 2, The Democratic Process

Hungover today. Busy all week. Not much energy for this kind of thing. I'm hoping to do some catching up next week, what with the Democratic Party in Congress trying to pass communism through environmentalism. Keep on track with Monique Stuart and RS McCain on the unusual happenings.

This week, I thought I'd open Rule 5 to the floor. Post links in the comments section, and throughout the rest of the day I'll update the main body with the images. Have fun!


UPDATE

What the hell. I love Alizée.It isn't every day you see a Corsican hottie.

Rule 5 Sunday!

The title has nothing to do with the content of the post. Go to The Other McCain to get the meaning. Also, just to keep my brother happy, this post is totally free of Ann Coulter references.

Today I'm going to muse on the political culture of my current city, and why it is moronic. Here in Fredericton, a riding that historically has gone blue (that means the same thing as going red for my American readers), I am surrounded by people who have no idea how politics actually works. It's amazing what 8 years of voting liberal can do to the cultural psyche.

First of all, people seem to assume that President GW Bush was the worst president in history. They can cite no evidence, they can offer no sane argumentation. When questioned, they look at you as if you claimed the sky is neon yellow. Forget the fact that previous Presidents have committed perjury and probably felonies (President Clinton), completely fumbled Mideast policy and allowed Americans to be held hostage for over a year (President Carter), bungled the PR campaign on what was militarily the cleanest jungle war ever (President Johnson). I could go on, but I think you get my point. Make no mistake, I do not credit President Bush with being in the top 5, but you have to give the man a reasonable analysis. He dealt admirably with the greatest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour. He concluded a successful ground campaign in a country that had repelled all previous attempts at doing so (seriously, even the Brits never had garrisons in every Afghan province). He removed on of the most intractable and wily dictators around from power, and he managed to hold his ground against two innovative insurgent campaigns at the same time, while simultaneously preventing a follow-up attack on the US. Allow me to be completely clear: Al Qaeda had plans and attempted to execute several attacks on the US post 9/11. That's how terrorist campaigns work. You open with a bang to get people's attention, and then you bleed their will to fight by demonstrating that you can hit them anywhere you want. That hasn't happened, so if you want to blame President Bush for Iraq, you had best be willing to give him credit for the lack of further attacks on US soil. Or you are a hypocrite.

Which brings me to my next point. Hypocrisy is rampant in this part of the country. It really irritates me, especially as a libertarian. People in this city just love to tell me how the Canadian military should be deployed to Darfur, but that the current Afghan mission is a war for oil. They love to tell me that the government should intervene and force Evangelicals to be nicer to gays, but that their "right" to smoke weed shouldn't be infringed. Well? Which is it? Do you want an interventionist nanny-state that regulates everything right down to how you feel about the asshole next door who plays country music at 4 AM? Or do you want the government to treat you like an individual citizen and stakeholder, with the rights and responsibilities that entails?

Nevermind, you're probably too baked to understand half of those words. Go back to parroting Jon Stewart and thinking you're brilliant.

And now for something completely different! Rule 5 WOOO! (Click for full size, I'm still learning how this stuff works)

War is Peace, and we Have Always been at War With Eastasia

A quick aside for those of you who think I actually MEAN "East Asia". It's a truncated quotation from 1984. "Eastasia" is one of the 3 megalithic political blocs.

Go read Five Feet of Fury. Right now. I mean it, do not come back until you have checked that link. Scroll down until you can read "Today's Hate Crime".

I cannot even begin to describe the degree to which I am incensed. According to Canada's draconian counter-protest legislation, if you wish to stage a demonstration against another demonstration, you must allow yourself to be segregated into a tiny box and surrounded by police. This is not to protect you, it is to protect the larger protest from you. I have seen this lunacy before. During the latest round of Pro-Gaza, Pro-HAMAS protests, pro-Israel protesters were often dispersed by police for "disturbing the peace". Apparently, waving HAMAS flags and chanting "death to [insert group here, including Jewish children]" is just fine though. Now we see it again.

Only this time, it could be much worse. Canadian hate-crime legislation under the Criminal Code is already pretty damn sweeping. Luckily for these protesters, it really only kicks in once it has been proven that you committed a crime. It's a way of ratcheting up your sentence because you were thinking naughty thoughts. Some Mens are more Rea than others. However, if the Toronto Police have launched a hate crimes investigation, regardless of outcome, we can be sure of two things. 1: Canadian politicians, local and federal, are afraid of losing Tamil votes and so are already in appeasement mode. 2: Barbara Hall, of the Dreaded Ontario Human Rights Commission, is going to start talking again. I think we can all agree that a woman so pretentious that she believes she is better qualified than a judge to determine whether or not a woman wearing a veil while testifying violates a defendent's rights to face his accuser shouldn't really be given a microphone. I can tell you right now, she will recommend that the Tamil protesters lodge a complaint to the HRC, at which point these poor counter-protesters will be persecuted at her whim.

And for what? Stating something that was confirmed in an Act of Freakin' Parliament! "Protect Canada, Fight the Tamil Tigers". The Canadian Government has a stated position of forceful opposition to and non-negotiation with terrorist groups. The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group. Therefore the Canadian Government will forcefully oppose and refuse to negotiate with the Tamil Tigers. Simple syllogism, right? I guess not.

Sometimes I just Can't Help Myself. I have to Smack Morons

Alright, alright, I know I'm risking the wrath of my brother here, but I must comment once again, in a roundabout way, on Ann Coulter. I promise not to gush. Well, not excessively anyway.

The latest "it-girl" on the blogosphere (and now I go to wash with fire after using that phrase) is Meghan McCain, the daughter John wishes he never had. Seriously, this girl is frighteningly stupid. Now, I know that a lot of American conservatives are pointing out that John McCain finished badly at the Academy. Frankly, that doesn't have much to do with anything. John McCain was too busy dating strippers and Jumping the Wall to care about his ranking. Having experienced a US service academy, I can't say I blame him. Still, there is no excuse for the idiocy that is his daughter.

Take a gander at her blog. It is beyond comical that she gets tagged as having expertese in anything, let alone politics. Media? Well, maybe. Being addicted to publicity might qualify. I mean, like, really? She's upset that Arlen Specter left the party? All snarkiness aside, she really is a travesty being forced into the public sphere. You would think the daughter of two prominent public figures would be able to speak without sounding like a socialite from southern California.

Don't even get me started on her desire to morph the Republican Party into the Other Democratic Party. Oops, too late. Every one of her "arguments", assuming she bothers to make a point, is substantiated only by personal conjecture. Her assertions don't meet any aspect of the standard Parliamentary Debating test for veracity. None of her assertions are "commonly recognized fact". None of them are "easily demonstrable by basic research". They certainly aren't "conclusions based on rational premise". You can tell she hasn't a leg to stand on because she hasn't, that I am aware of, ever used the phrase "I think". It's always "I feel". Congratulations, you would be executed in the world of Equilibrium.

Apparently, this little tart had two tickets to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and tried to get an extra guest in Paris Hilton Style. Also, for greater amusement value, she apparently thinks that she can oust Ann Coulter as the resident Republican Hottie.

That paragraph break was to give me time to recover from a near-terminal fit of laughter. Ann Coulter's physical appearance is convenient, but not necessary to her popularity. People don't flock to Rush Limbaugh for his looks; they do it because he is provocative and entertaining. Ann Coulter is popular because people agree with her. She's popular because she knows how to start a fight, and how to end it. She's popular because she writes with wit, humour, and a shocking degree of substantive evidence.

Humourously enough, Ann Coulter describes in excruciating detail how people like Meghan McCain become popular. The MSM just loves someone who claims to be Republican but has no idea what it actually means. Christopher Buckley's political views were of no interest until he endorsed President Obama. Now that he regrets his decision, he has receded into political obscurity. One can only hope the same will happen to Ms. McCain.

The Coming Disaster

This week in both the National Post and the Globe and Mail, allusions were made to the possibility that economic recovery has already begun, or will begin shortly. Naturally, the current batch of politicians are already burnishing their economic credentials, preparing to take credit for the "miraculous recovery".

Frankly, this is horseshit.

First of all, there is no possible way that the "stimulus" packages could be credited with a potential recovery. Why? Because the vast majority of that money hasn't been spent yet. Essentially, the governments of the West are expecting us to believe that merely the ephemeral promise of governmental largesse has produced a counter-cyclical effect! Consumer confidence restored, the great toxic assets purified by the Name of Mighty Keynes. Right, and if that's true then swine flu is really avian flu because the pigs are darkening the skies over a newly risen Atlantis.

Part of a particular process taught to all military officers involves asking yourself, repeatedly, "Has the situation changed? If so, how does this affect me?" Well, the situation hasn't changed. Americans and Canadians, and probably everyone else, are losing their jobs at a steady rate. Toxic assets are still toxic, and people are still defaulting on mortgages. Banks are still skittish about lending to each other, as no one's asset sheets are believable. Worst of all, the government is refusing to allow banks to pay back the TARP funds so as to be free of congressional interference. Oh, and GM and Chrysler still have moronic business practices.

Economists are predicting minor growth, and soon. Bully for them. I consider this to be the eye of the storm, because as RS McCain states "The Fundamentals Still Suck". Not to mention the government is aggravating the situation with needless interference and an increase in taxes for, well, just about all Americans. Mark Steyn is looking more and more prescient in his warnings that the dreaded Rich in America might soon include more people than expected.

So what do we have now? Perhaps, and I consider this very likely, we will have a happily ignorant plebeian class more than ready to return to somnambulism, encouraged by a class of elites with no understanding of economics but a burning desire to rearrange the world into some Utopian order. My brother, a legal alien in Oklahoma City, commented that the latest rash of get rich quick ads go something like "Big Business is getting bailout money! Now it's your turn!"

The American Dream is slowly being eroded by an addiction to government largesse. The only Justice that comes from Socialism is that people dumb enough to buy into it will get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be collateral damage.

Why "Diversity" is simply another name for Appeasement

Hat tip to Kathy Shaidle over at Five Feet of Fury on reminding me of my favourite ex-Muslim.
(Some related reading, not directly about today's post)

If you were not aware, on Mother's Day, the Tamil minority in Toronto demanded attention by blockading the Gardiner's Expressway (a major artery) en masse. To visibly demonstrate the justice of their cause, they used women and children as blockades to prevent the police from forcibly removing them. Well, at least they didn't use the standard Tiger tactic and strap bombs to them.

That's right. I am making an unequivocal statement on the nature of the protest. Every person in that crowd should have been forcibly dispersed for openly agitating on behalf of a known terrorist group. It's in the Globe and Mail. It's in the National Post. It's on every blog that concerns itself with Canadian affairs. These "peaceful protesters" wave Tiger flags and literally chant "Tamil Tigers! Freedom Fighters!"

Funny how HRCs will persecute an Alberta pastor for vehemently preaching one of the tenets of his faith, and yet don't do a damn thing when an entire mob is shouting its support for an organization that Parliament has labelled terrorist. Let's be clear on this. I don't care about Sri Lanka. I don't care that Tamils are being oppressed, I don't care that Tamils are doing atrocious things to Sinhalese Sri Lankans. It isn't my country, and I have no stake in this. I do care if our democratically elected government has declared it illegal to materially support a specific group with international ties, and a select group of citizens deliberately and noisily chooses to ignore that.

I will give Tamil-Canadians two pieces of advice. Firstly, choose a nationality. For the sake of political behaviour, you are either Tamil or you are Canadian. I have family in Italy, but I have no intention of harassing the Canadian government regarding Berlusconi's policy. Secondly, I will give you the same advice I give to girls lamenting that life is unfair:

You are not a beautiful snowflake, unique in all the world.
You are a cog in a great and wondrous machine.
Cogs that begin to grind, or slip, or otherwise fail get replaced.
The world keeps turning.

The Depths to Which We Have Sunk

And Lo, President Obama was elected, expiating American original sin and heralding a dawn of Hope and Change.

Well, we got change alright. Hat tip to RS McCain (the other McCain to whom I link) for pointing out that since his election, the media has tied absolutely everything to President Obama. People losing jobs? Oh No! How will this affect the President's polling data? New Star Trek movie! Great, Sci-Fi voters will compare Obama to Spock (patently ludicrous). The President chose Dijon mustard for his photo-op burger? DEAR GOD! EDIT IT OUT! FASTER, BEFORE THEY CALL HIM FRENCH! Meanwhile, in Texas, millions of Americans who voted against Obama enjoy mustard on a burger and the world continues to turn.

Seriously folks, the love affair the US media has with Obama is starting to actually nauseate me. He is not the first charismatic president. Reagan's speeches still resonate, and I haven't seen any footage of TV interviewers (even amateurs like Chris Matthews) gushing like schoolgirls. He speaks reasonably well (and I'm being generous, see previous posts). Get over it.

Secondly, if Democrats are so terrified that their urbane and cultured president could alienate voters based on which condiment he uses on a freakin' burger then perhaps it is time that they concede he is in fact a stuffed shirt, and since mustard is so devilishly hard to get out of cotton they just can't have it anywhere near him. At some point, Democrats are going to have to wake up and realize that in the next election, they are going to have to campaign on what the President actually accomplished, rather than the sparkle and dazzle campaign to which we were subjected last time. Unfortunately for them, President Obama has already demonstrated that he is to the left of the vast majority of American voters, and he is haemorraging independents faster than Christopher Buckley can remove "Obamacon" from his Facebook profile.

Quick, someone edit out a live report of the President saying he doesn't like Mexican food! That ought to save us from genuine scrutiny for at least 3 news cycles!

Because not Everything Can Be About Politics

So, I must give in to my nerditude, although it is tangentially related to my hatred of our current generation.

I went and saw the new Star Trek today, and it was brilliant. As was my wont, I watched a few reviews to make sure I wouldn't be caught with my pants down regarding idiotic plot twists. Instead, I was caught with my pants down regarding idiot reviewers. There are no major spoilers here, so feel free to read on.

In the opening sequence, time traveling baddies are revealed. This of course presents the old logical conundrum that altering the past of a necessity alters the future. This is where the movie gets brilliant. Read this next line carefully.

No effort is made to refute the fact that interference from the future dramatically alters the course of history.

That's right folks. This movie, rather ambitiously, has thrown out the canon. Everything that happened in Star Trek TV shows and movies (other than Enterprise, though accept it as canon at your own risk) has not happened and most likely will not happen. The entire Star Trek universe is being reinvented, just as James Bond was reinvented in Casino Royale. Characters have the same names, the theme is the same, but the setting has been fundamentally altered (I won't spoil the movie as to how, but it's pretty freaking cataclysmic).

The movie was witty and very well executed, with clever nods at each iteration of Star Trek. I particularly enjoyed Kirk's womanizing (Yes there is in fact a Green Alien Woman, he does make out with her, and she is Gloriously Hot) and the fact that the infamous Cheating on the Final Test incident gets dramatized. Bones is suitably cranky, Scotty is very scottish and hilarious in his own right, and Uhura remains the token hot chick on the bridge. Life is good. Spock is a much more central character than you'd expect, and frequently steals the scene.

So why do I hate the whining nerds? Because they are symptomatic of a society totally bent on instant gratification. Those who bitch and moan that it "doesn't feel like Star Trek" are missing the point. You don't bitch about Shakespeare because it doesn't feel like Virgil. The intent of this movie was to take a successful setting, the future, and reinvigorate it for the new generation. I'm sure people bitched that Patrick Stewart was no Shatner, and that simply proves the cyclic nature of idiocy. The directors of this film have taken the franchise in a new direction. Pull yourself out of the primordial goo that is obsessive fandom and actually analyse the movie. Coherent plot? Check (baddie out for revenge). Sympathetic and interesting characters? Check. Gunplay, fast cars/ships, and attractive women/men? Check, Check, and oh dear god more of the Green Hottie next time Check.

It was fantastic. Stop whining, and enjoy the latest iteration of the series. After all, as the movie itself states, it's an alternate Star Trek timeline. If you really miss Shatner's Kirk so badly, buy the damn DVDs.

The Virtue of Pursuing National Self Interest

I am constantly frustrated by bleeding hearts who insist that this or that cause must be pursued, as it is just and good. These folk often complain bitterly when the military is engaged in a cause that doesn't exactly mesh with the current cause célebre. The most recent example is obvious; twenty years ago the plight of women in Afghanistan was constantly decried. Now? Well, unfortunately for the women of Afghanistan, their interests happen to align with those of the US Government. Oops. Bad call on your part, Afghan women. Now those same hippies who were screaming Something Must Be Done are wailing about yet another War For Oil.

It's as if there is some unwritten rule that reads That which is good for the goose and also good for the US Government causes hysteria and incoherence in the gander.

How many years did we listen to people wail about starving Iraqi children under the failed Oil for Food program? Removing the primary cause of this travesty, namely the dictator who refused to abide by the simplest regulation, is now casually referred to as the greatest war crime of the decade. After all, Bush Lied, right? Well, sort of. You see, precursor chemicals for WMDs don't come in barrels labeled "Precursor Chemical!" Furthermore, Iraq has a lot of open desert where such barrels could be dumped. But again we are spiralling into irrelevance. Is it not enough that we got rid of a very bad man who was starving children? Apparently not. Under our current system, Revolutionary Americans would have had to suffer 20 years of newspaper headlines something like "Washington Violates Internation Law by Crossing Delaware" or "Yorktown Tragedy leaves 3 civilians Murdered".

No one cares about Darfur. Why? Because there is no imminent threat from Darfur. Even the jihadis are too busy killing "inferior" races to bother with the Great Satan. Limited resources imply some kind of rationality in how they are employed, and the only fair way to judge who gets rescued and who doesn't is by asking "What do I get?"

Sure, Being Frighteningly Narcissistic is Change...

I've had enough of the revoltingly torrid love affair the Mainstream Media (MSM) has with the current US President. Seriously, from the infamous Chris Matthews Tingle to the Colbert Speech Comparison Computer, this President is being celebrated for being inept, rude, and just plain embarrassing.

Before I get to the most offensive episode of his Hundred Days, I will give a brief and unattributed overview of the things that irritate me about the ceaseless gushing over President Obama. Firstly: he is not a magnificent orator. He has presentational skill, of a sort, but regardless of what material he is addressing it is the same solemn and yet energetic tone. Every statement he makes is declamatory, as if his mode of speech was permanently locked on "Gravitas". This is not the mark of a great orator. This is the mark of a great presenter, and this leads me to my second proof of his oratorical inadequacy: the teleprompter. Has anyone else noticed that in the absence of a teleprompter to read, or an opportunity to plagiarize great lines (yeah, Audacity of Hope isn't original...at least he left out the God Damn America part) The Great Orator tends to floss with his shoelaces. Bitterly clinging to God and guns? Bowling like the Special Olympics? Quick, stop the presses! Cicero is reborn! I'm sure I'm not the first commenter (See Steyn, Coulter, et al) to have noticed that the current President sounds more than a little like the Hallmark Special Memories line of greeting cards. Real orators are ALWAYS on. A real orator can walk into a room with a cue card bearing only a single word, and speak for an hour. A real orator can scribble his thoughts on a page while traveling to the site of a speech, and leave us in awe for decades. This President's inaugural was a historic moment, and the address didn't even come close to meeting the occasion.

Secondly, his inexperience and frankly boorish behaviour is not excusable as "a new way of doing things". Prime Minister Brown gave President Obama a penholder carved from wood taken from the sister ship to the Resolute (of Presidential Desk fame). Two anti-slaving ships, reunited as necessary implements of policy-making for America's first Black President. Brilliant, touching, totally appropriate. A 25 DVD set, given to a man blind in one eye, in the wrong format for UK DVD players? Well played. Don't forget the official White House plastic pen. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of hip hop and your own speeches is not a cool new way of doing politics, it's a new kid trying to show off. Also? YOU DO NOT TOUCH THE QUEEN WITHOUT PERMISSION! This isn't some quaint custom, it is law! The Queen is the head of state for more than one country, and is also the Head of a major Christian Sect. Your wife, similar to Jackie O as the press might label her, is not permitted to casually wrap her arm around the Queen.

My point is this: President GW Bush was given flak at every possible opportunity for the smallest nuance of his behaviour. Sometimes he even deserved it. Why isn't the same standard being held to this President? It's like we're reliving the Clinton days! Some things are just not okay regardless of how cool and popular the MSM tells us you are. Being stylish and relatively young and potentially handsome is all well and good, but these things do not a leader make. Get a grip, Mr. President. You aren't organizing a community anymore. In this game, unrepentant terrorists actually kill people, rather than just bore college students to death.

Surrendering, and Calling it Victory

One of the most irritating habits of the Right Wing in politics is to abjectly surrender, and then call it victory. Ann Coulter (yes, she is probably my favourite) comments extensively on the habit of those who believe in God, guns, and a literal interpretation of the US Constitution to apologize shamefacedly as a preface to their arguments. Furthermore, Conservatives often call it a day and job well done when some commentator briefly accepts that both conservatives and liberals have committed some fault. Well! In that case, we had all just better pack it up in any conflict. After all, both sides have lost people. Mission accomplished!

A couple of issues have brought this irritating tendency of Western conservatives to mind. Firstly, Kathy Shaidle's latest article on the double standard enjoyed by Muslims has me in an atheist fury. My position is simple. If you choose to worship some sky-god, earth mother, or tree spirit, DO NOT EXPECT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER OTHER WORSHIPERS. I consider most organized religions amusingly ludicrous in their obsessive narcissism (why would the creator of the universe care if one human eats pork?). However, of late, Muslims seem to unabashedly demand preferential treatment. Worse still, they claim the status of victimhood if we hold them to the same status as say, Hindus. "But our god is the true god!" Not to me buddy. And frankly, if your proof that your religion is peaceful includes burning embassies over the publication of cartoons then my proof of tolerance includes a Marine Expeditionary Force all up in yo' grill.

The second issue that brought this to mind was a rather eloquent and long post by RS McCain on his blog. He was responding to allegations by fellow bloggers that his tone is inappropriate while dealing with the subject of feminine beauty (I agree with McCain; fake breasts lack a certain panache). During his posting, he pointed out that conservatives often accept as "Reaganesque" anything that simply appears Reaganesque. Put on a monochrome two-button, call yourself conservative, and the GOP will literally bury you in cash. This is of course patently ludicrous. You could cover yourself in tattoos and piercings, and as long as you maintained a dedication to the capitalist system, a total devotion to personal responsibility, and an agressive foreign policy viewpoint, you would be more Reaganesque than at least five Republican senators I can think of. Just because Ronald Reagan was a handsome Irishman in a suit does not mean that anyone attempting to be handsome in a suit is conservative.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of the abject terror struck into the hearts of public conservatives every time they get cornered by a reporter. It's complete garbage that a man is not allowed to have a position on abortion. The First Amendment is not the Anti-Criticism Amendment. Logical analysis of Presidential behaviour (more on this in a future post) should not be suspended because he is the first Black President.

Living in today's society is like playing a giant game of Calvinball. When your opponent is willing to say anything, and contradict himself on an almost daily basis so as to try to shut you up, your only defence is to firmly, and repetitively, reassert the facts.

I must not Fear - Criticizing President Obama is not racism
Fear is the Mind-Killer - All cultures are not of equal value
Fear is the Little Death that brings total obliteration - Religion is not a valid excuse for violence
I will face my Fear - Being conservative does not make you a bigot or a moron
I will permit it to pass over and through me - A loud liberal is still wrong
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path
A liberal's outrage is inversely proportional to the veracity of the evidence supporting him
When the Fear has gone there will be nothing - Being right is more important than courtesy
Only I will remain.

Thoughts on Ann Coulter's "Guilty"

I consider Ann Coulter to be a guilty pleasure. Like admitting that you listen to Rush Limbaugh, reading Ms. Coulter is viewed as a potentially communicable disease in certain circles. After all, she's a Right-Wing-Jesus-Freak-Lunatic, right? Well, sort of. As a libertarian and an atheist, I find her constant references to God (yes, she differentiates between God and god) occasionally and by turns amusing and grating. Her obvious disdain for her own gender is an issue of much confusion for me (she has on occassion been quoted as wishing women couldn't vote), and her attribution of feminine traits to male politicians is humourous only in a throwaway line kind of way. She isn't shy about accusing people of Godlessness, and considers (with a surprising amount of statistical support) single motherhood the greatest societal scourge since Communism. Her fixation on President Obama's middle name (she refers to him as B. Hussein Obama) wears somewhat thin after a while.

All that being said, I can unabashedly call myself a Coulter fan. She is a polemicist; a term modern society doesn't seem to understand. She is deliberately mean, as that is what polemicists do. She is a Republican who refuses to follow the standard procedure of apologizing for her views in advance. She is undeniably witty, and I find myself frequently laughing out loud at some turn of phrase.

"Guilty" is truly a pleasure to read. With just enough humour to prevent the righteous indignation from becoming crushing, she points out in great detail the hypocrisy of the American left. She makes no effort to be balanced; like Thatcher, she is convinced that the facts of life are conservative. As a thought exercise, I deliberately fact-checked every assertion she made that I instinctively agreed to, beginning with her own endnotes. I stopped trying to find inconsistencies after the first forty minutes. I suspect that her iron-clad arguments are a result of her past as a lawyer. Her ruthless exploitation of LexisNexis can be compared to the Canadian Army's ruthless exploitation of artillery in World War I: it is an awesome thing to behold. I'm glad she doesn't know me personally, as my atheism would probably earn me at least five minutes of "fire for effect".

As for her content, Ms. Coulter aims for the controversial. She deliberately chooses issues that cause Canadians to squirm uncomfortably. Abortion, single motherhood, homosexuality, affirmative action, adultery and premarital sex all feature prominently in "Guilty". It's salacious enough, in an Old Testament kind of way. Ms. Coulter goes for the jugular and the junk simultaneously, and she claims the moral high ground through gutter-fighting. It's wildly entertaining. One of her key assertions is that when a Republican quotes or cites the facts in a political dispute, the Democrats claim it is typical Karl Rove style Attack Machine behaviour. In a stunningly logical move, Coulter decides that if she is going to be convicted of being part of an attack machine, she might as well act like it. On almost every page is a reference to Senatory Ted Kennedy and his love for liquor, and driving women off of bridges (her style is contagious).

Read it. It's good stuff. It's brazen, unapologetically partisan, and surprisingly academically rigourous. I suppose it only makes sense; she'd get her leather dress sued off if she didn't get it exactly right.

Living in the Shadow of Government Interventionism

We are living in curious times. Headlines across the globe are assuming the end of capitalism is come, and we are on the verge of some glorious revolution in human affairs. I am deeply sceptical, as anytime someone predicts a "glorious revolution", we get "the Great Leap Forward". I will be the first to admit that my economic credentials are far from impeccable, but what I do lay claim to is a deep understanding of logical causality and a love for truth. Let us examine our current financial crisis.

The Prime Mover in this case appears to be the collapse of the housing market, brought on by toxic mortgages. Without getting too mired in detail, it is an incontrovertible fact that mortgage corporations were lending money to people who couldn't possibly pay their debts, or at least debts of that magnitude. How is this capitalism? Capitalism is many things, which socialists frequently decry, but it isn't illogical. Money is lent with the expectation that profit will be made. You don't "lend" five dollars to a panhandler; you "give" it to him. Mortgage corporations are not registered charities, so how did these people get loans? President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, that's how. Before anyone accuses me of oversimplifying, I am in fact aware that the crisis is more complex than that. Follow my logical train all the way to the station if you can before judging.

Capitalism is frequently accused of being too hard on "the poor". Poor people cannot afford mortgages on homes, and the middle class can only afford modest domiciles. Capitalism is often seen as discriminatory in the USA, because large numbers of visible minorities are poor. This is false causality. Minority groups are not poor in the USA because capitalism breeds discrimination. Discrimination is anti-capitalist: the skin colour of a job applicant is irrelevant when considering his capacity to generate wealth or perform labour. Discrimination is a social issue. If ethnicity is the sole greatest cause of poverty in the developed world, how do you explain the grinding poverty of Northern New York?

The CRA was President Carter's effort to "level the playing field" and "make up for past injustice". Here's the problem: correcting past injustices by punishing those who were not alive to commit an offence, or rewarding those who were not alive to be offended, only creates more injustice. So the CRA forces banks to make favourable lending practices to minorities who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford mortgages. While it is a lovely gesture, this does not alter the reality that these people couldn't afford mortgages! And when one group gets special consideration, everyone wants in. Low income groups get mortgages they can't afford, so middle income groups start getting mortgages that are more expensive than they can afford. Suddenly, you see corner-store clerks in 150 thousand dollar homes, and mill-workers in 750 thousand dollar homes. What do the banks do? They invent complex financial vehicles to try to make profit off of fundamentally unprofitable ventures. The chickens come home to roost in 2008.

Capitalism is a fundamentally fair system: work is performed, and wealth is created. Capitalism, like true Justice is blind. I am proof of this. My grandfather was a low income Italian immigrant. My father joined the military, got his degree and served honourably for 26 years. He's in the top tax bracket. Canada, and the USA, is filled with people with stories like mine. It boggles the mind that people can still doubt the capacity for human flourishing created under capitalism.

Things go off the rails when government intervenes too heavily. From President Carter to President G.W. Bush, and from Prime Minister Pearson to Prime Minister Harper, people have assumed that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Strange how Great Britain didn't experience a revival until Thatcher mercilessly reduced government.

You can't say capitalism has failed when you live in a society that can't resist the urge to try to force Smith's invisible hand.