War Between Have-Not Ontario v. Have-Alberta: Don’t Rule it Out Yet

Prime Minister Paul Martin and other federal officials are trying their best to avoid making yesterday’s news about Ontario’s impending have-not status look like an impending fight between Alberta and the Rest of Canada. Martin and Anne McClellan made soothing sounds telling people that that making Alberta “share its wealth” would be divisive. Yeah, as if that argument’s going to convince the likes of Layton, McGuinty, and others who are eyeing Alberta’s patrimony to lube their socialistic schemes.

But notice the legerdemain offered by Ontario’s Marie Bountrogianni, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs:

“This isn’t about Ontario and Alberta,” she said. “This is about Ontario and the federal government.”

She knows this is b.s. because the “federal government” is funded by taxpayers, and when you’re talking abotu one have-province and 9 have-nots, it’s not hard to figure out where the “federal government” is getting its funds to bankroll socialism in other provinces.

Yet, her boss, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, begged to differ when he referred to the recent premiers’ meeting in Banff:

The topic, described by Mr. McGuinty as “the elephant in the room,” was not on the agenda during the premiers meeting and Ontario officials have no formal action plan to pursue it.

Meanwhile, to federal Liberal strategist David Herle is bullish on the chances for a Liberal majority in the next election:

The Liberals now occupy three of 14 seats in Manitoba, one of 14 seats in Saskatchewan and one of 28 seats in Alberta.

Mr. Herle also said there is a “paradigm shift” in British Columbia, and said, “B.C. could move to us,” according to one source.

There are 3 have-not provinces (I guess BC is now officially a “have” again? someone confirm this?) that can benefit from a move against Alberta. Don’t forget that BC Premier Campbell has mumbled something about export taxes on Alberta oil and gas to punish the US over softwood lumber. And this is what Herle expects from Ontario:

He predicted the Liberals could win between eight and 10 seats in the Prairies and make “real gains” in Ontario, said the sources.

The articles goes on to report that many Liberal MPs who attended his presentation thought it was “shallow” - it seems a lot of it was Herle’s own boastful attempts to be the next “big fish” in the Liberal war room (after David Smith). We’ll leave that up to the Liberals themselves to figure out.

Anyway, you can see how the Liberals view their strategy for the next federal election. Grab Alberta’s wealth and generate anti-Alberta hatred to lubricate the socialist plans and of the other provinces.

Meanwhile, one should note that the other “elephant in the room” at the premiers’ meeting in Banff was news that US Vice-President Dick Cheney’s visiting the Alberta oilsands in September. Memo to the Liberal cabinet, McGuinty, and others: do you think it’s prudent to target the largest supplier of oil and gas to the US? How do you think Ontario’s auto industry, BC’s softwood lumber industry, Nova Scotia’s cod industry, etc., would fare if the US got concerned over the security of its oil supply?

The question answers itself.

Crossposted to Civitatensis.

Lee Harris on Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Readers of this weblog will know my admiration of Lee Harris’s work (see here and here).

Harris has written another intelligent article, this time on the debates on Darwinism, creationism, and intelligent design. It’s a long article, but a very rewarding one and you will learn something.

Harris attempts to create a “truce” between Darwinists and their rivals, creationists and proponents of intelligent design. First, he clarifies what those terms mean. Like the Darwinists, he rejects the “science” of creationism. He argues the fundamentalists who oppose Darwinism forget that Scripture is not about physical science but about faith, and common sense as it’s formed by the narratives of a community (i.e., Scripture). Transforming Scripture into the pseudo-science of creationism is a mistake.

With that in mind, he argues that intelligent design and Darwinists have more in common than they think. In fact, not only Darwinism (or evolutionism, if you will), but the entire activity of science, depends on intelligent design. That is, it depends on the faith of the scientist that the order that he or she examines is in fact an order according to some form of design. Where that order derives from might be a matter of faith, but scientist and believer have this in common: their activity presupposes intelligent design. In other words, you just can’t believe people like Dawkins who argue that the universe is simply the result of randomness and chaos - scientific activity rejects that.

Harris has interesting things to say about Darwin on this subject. Darwin, he argues, was brought up by Evangelicals, whose belief in a compassionate God made him skeptical that such a God could have designed a brutal world as dictated by his science. Harris writes:

A good and just God would never have designed the world in which the struggle for existence dominated and ruled all of life. It was just too brutal and bloody, and no decent God would have had anything to do with it. In short, Darwin was too tenderhearted to imagine a deity ruthless enough to have designed the world as his theory revealed it.

Darwin’s tender-heartedness is evident from his autobiography.

“I had a strong taste for angling, and would sit for any number of hours on the bank of a river or pond watching the float; when at Maer I was told that I could kill the worms with salt and water, and from that day I never spitted a living worm, though at the expense probably of some loss of success.”

Then he goes on to confess the greatest act of cruelty in his life.

“Once as a very little boy…I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl….This act lay heavily on my conscience….”

Based on these incidents, it is easy to credit Darwin’s assertion that “I can say in my own favor that I was as a boy humane,” yet Darwin is at pains to explain that he owed his humanity “entirely to the instruction and example of my sisters,” who, it so happened, were Evangelical Christians.

This degree of tenderhearted humanity is bound to effect a person’s concept of what God should be like. A man who cannot bring himself to inflict pain on a worm will have trouble worshipping a God who condemns all living things to a perpetual struggle for survival. Why adore a deity that is morally and ethically inferior to one’s own standards of conduct? Why revere in a god what we would despise in a man?

If Darwin’s sisters were responsible for his tenderheartedness, then this was ultimately due to their commitment to the theological ideas that were associated with Evangelical Christianity-a religion that had developed as a complete and total rejection of the harsh tenets and doctrines of Calvinism. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine two religions that more better exemplify the difference between the two fundamental “metaphysical temperaments” as described by the American philosopher William James in his book The Variety of Religious Experience, with Evangelical Christianity representing the religion of the tenderhearted, and orthodox Calvinism representing that of the tough-minded. Darwin was haunted through his life by having once beaten a puppy when he was a boy; Calvin, on the other hand, did not hesitate to burn at the stake a man whose only crime was to have a heretical theory about the trinity.

…

Yet Darwin’s theory of evolution had not suddenly revealed to the world the struggle for existence. On the contrary, as we learn in Darwin’s autobiography, the idea of the struggle for existence had come from his reading of Parson Malthus’ essay on population, and it had been taken up as a theme in the thought of the English sociologist Herbert Spencer, who also coined the phrase “the survival of the fittest.” So it wasn’t really Darwin’s theory that was incompatible with the Evangelical concept of God-it was the struggle for existence itself that was the source of the conflict. Evolution, if it did anything, actually made that hideous struggle appear to have some shred of purpose, namely, the production of human beings like Wilberforce and Darwin. Yet, even if we are willing to accept this as compensation for the bloody process of evolution, it still poses a challenge to those who wish to hold on to the idea that God is the intelligent designer of the world and that God is both good and just. How is it possible, given the struggle for existence that is wired into the biological world, for a good God to have designed such a pitiless process?

No wonder Darwin’s theology was a muddle. For Darwin was like the modern Christian fundamentalists of today; for him, God had to be loving and just and merciful. He had to be at least as good as the men that Darwin had known in his life; and these men were, by all historical standards, among the kindest, gentlest, and best human beings who had ever lived-the men who ended slavery on this planet. If the universe was ruled by someone who was not as good a man as Wilberforce, then wouldn’t it be better to worship Wilberforce instead-just as Christians have been taught to take the side of the crucified outcast in preference to that of brute force and despotic power.

In other words, scientists and fundamentalists today need to use Darwin’s skepticism as an example, but also his faith.

Read Harris’s article. And when you’re done. Read everything else he’s written.

Crossposted to Civitatensis.

Ontario Soon to be a Have-Not Province

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce predicts Ontario will be a have-not province within 5 years. The reasons: 1) the equalization payments they pay out and 2) high energy prices.

The Canoe article reports on the Ontario government’s complaints about unfair equalization payments that Ontario pays out. However, I predict that high energy prices - i.e., evil Alberta - will be their main target. The reason is that Ontario needs a coalition of other provinces, including Newfoundland and Nova Scotia who negotiated “side deals” with Ottawa earlier this year, to put pressure on the feds to change the equalization formula.

Attacking Alberta is easier because Alberta’s a minority of one in the federation.

Meanwhile, the attacks on Alberta have begun, as evidence by this silly letter in today’s National Post:

I was not surprised that there was little interest shown in these classes being offered by the United Church in Alberta. However, rather than lack of interest being the cause, I would guess it had rather more to do with self-preservation, as Alberta isn’t exactly known for its welcoming attitude to gays and lesbians.

In fact, the United Church should be congratulated for even daring to offer the courses in the first place. In the province that gave us such political heavyweights as Dar Heatherington and Ralph Klein, one can’t be too hopeful for the peaceful inclusion of gays and lesbians into mainstream Albertan society.

That’s right: David Peterson, Bob Rae, Michael Harris (who tried to copy the Klein Revolution), Ernie Eves, Jack Layton, Ed Broadbent, etc. are stellar leaders. Ontario should be proud.

UPDATE: The Globe and Mail’s coverage of the report focuses on Alberta. Meanwhile, some lefty prof from Quebec wants to nationalize the oil and gas industries. When asked how Albertans would respond:

“I don’t give a damn about what Albertans think.”

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney’s visiting Alberta.

Crossposted to Civitatensis.ca

Martin: 30 Days After Gomery, We’ll Go to the Polls

Martin has recently reaffirmed his commitment to call an election 30 days after Gomery rules on the Sponsorship Scandal. Sounds pretty convincing, right?

Wrong, we’re currently in the middle of a minority government, and Martin could, if he wanted to, manufacture his own defeat in the House. He could then turn around and say that he was committed to the original timetable, but it was the selfish, opportunistic Conservatives and separatists that brought down the government and forced an early election. In fact, this fall session could easily turn into a game of electoral chicken between the Conservatives and the Liberals, except neither one will want to take the credit for forcing an election both of them may want.

How to Draw President George W. Bush

For those of you who enjoy the odd political cartoon, here’s a great article from Daryl Cagle.

Small Class Sizes Don’t Make Smarter Children

In what will undoubtedly ruin most teachers and their labour unions arguments for additional funding for more teachers (and more union members), the C.D. Howe Institute had released a report that shows there is no solid evidence to suggest smaller class sizes boost academic student achievement.

“Because reducing class size is enormously expensive, it is very likely that the money being spent there could be better spent on other educational policies, such as continuous teacher training, which, unlike class-size reduction, have been shown to improve student performance,” the report by the Toronto-based think-tank says.

Of course, you can imagine the response to this report from the teacher unions isn’t what you’d call positive,

“These guys need to use some common sense when they’re looking at education,” she said. “We’re not talking about widgets here, we’re talking about kids. We’re not on the factory line, we’re working with parents to make [the children] good citizens.”

And there you have it, the number one line used by teachers when confronted with any suggestion that they should work harder, or that they should work under adverse conditions, or that their calls for additional teachers are unfounded.

we’re working with parents to make [the children] good citizens.

I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the idea that teachers would take it upon themselves to “make good citizens” or to “nourish” our youth. I would hazard to guess, no where in their job descriptions does it mention the need to be a second / third parent in the classroom. And for those teachers who choose, for whatever reason, to adopt this role - I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t expect any additional compensation, or use it as some bargaining chip when negotiating higher wages or more teachers.

Liberals to Tackle Western Alienation

“The coming Liberal caucus retreat in Regina will be a “helpful step” toward quelling alienation in Western Canada, says federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale.”

Oh gosh. Gee whiz. You’re having your caucus meeting two provinces away, I’m touched. Really.

Seriously though, isn’t it amazing that western alienation is given a death warning on every occasion that the Liberal caucus happens to meet west of the Manitoba-Ontario border? Geez, they actually come and visit once every few years. What more could we possibly want?

Dr. Fabrikant’s Solution

Yesterday, Bourque linked to a story about killer Valery Fabrikant’s USENET ramblings, apparently smuggled out of prison by a fawning former graduate student and posted online. I thought it was interesting and went digging for more info on Fabrikant. This is what I came up: A detailed, well-written account of the events that led up to the killings.

It is quite simply fascinating, and by far the most interesting read I have encountered in a while. The article covers a topic that will be obscure to most people: the internal politics of universities, both within the administration and the individual departments. The author, Morris Wolfe, paints a compelling portrait of Fabrikant not by solely emphasizing Fabrikant’s pathologies but by placing him within the wider structures of an incompetant university administration, dishonest department officials, and a corrosive academic ethos that values publications above all else. Fabrikant’s treatment is insightful; Morris speculates that Fabrikant became aware that “truly unsocialized behaviour has the rest of us and most of our institutions at a disadvantage.” But the most interesting passages focus on the characters who surrounded Fabricant.

Give it a read.

Debunking Smears against Poilievre

The left has apparently decided to engage in its own little smear campaigns in retribution for what it percieves to be a smear campaign against Madame Jean. Exhibit A: Rational Reasons, yet another in the seemingly and mercilessly unending stream of faceless Progressive Bloggers, has seen fit to call Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre a hypocrite over his criticism of Jean’s separatist past. Hypocritical because Poilievre was himself, according to RR, an Alberta separatist! A shocking revelation, to say the least. Check it out. Definitely an issue in which RR’s Liberal sanctimony is given the opportunity to come out in full force (Progressive Blogger sanctimony, that unfortunately ubiquitous characteristic of the Canadian Blogosphere).

Here’s the “story”: Working from an anonymous allegation from an internet message board, RR repeats the claim that:

“As a Young PC, I saw Pierre and his antics while he was a card-carrying member of the Alberta Separatist Party. I challenge Pierre to prove me otherwise. He knows its true.”

RR is relentless. He provides a link to the Separation Party of Canada that Poilievre was allegedly a card-carrying member of. And he’s written the Ottawa Citizen asking them to investigate the allegation. Anything to root out rampant hypocrisy among conservatives.

But there’s just one problem. The Separation Party of Alberta, which RR alleges Poilievre was a member of prior to being elected as an MP, is a relatively new party. In fact, it was only incorporated as a political party in May 2004. Hmmmmm. Which is interesting, because the federal election in which Poilievre won a seat in Ontario was held on June 28, 2004. If you follow RR’s logic you come to the conclusion that Poilievre took out a membership in the Separation Pary of Alberta either immediately before or during his campaign to win a federal seat in Ontario. And this is dependent upon Poilievre taking time out of his schedule in Ontario to fly back to Alberta and take out a membership the instant that memberships became available. Sound feasible? Not to me either.

Here’s the funny party: It took me about 45 seconds to determine that the allegations levelled against Poilievre by RR were nonsensical. Couldn’t he have done the same thing? Of course not, because he really was interested in smearing someone because a) he’s a Conservative, b) he once lived in Alberta, and c) he’s had the temerity to actually call into question the wisdom of appointing a separatist to the position of Governor General.

Unanswered Questions about Jean

• How can she explain her association with known terrorists, as depicted in that video? Did she and her husband know that the person hired to build them a bookcase (apparently with secret compartments for guns) was convicted for his role in FLQ terrorist activities? Wouldn’t her husband have met this ex-con through his other contacts with FLQ cronies? As Norman Spector writes today in the Vancouver Sun, even Rene Levesque left the room whenever he discovered that FLQ sympathizers or members were around.
• As the admin of this site points out, Jean still hasn’t explained the following statement captured on video: “And Quebec’s white niggers also have their black niggers more and more.” We’ve heard some context on this, but nothing from Jean herself. If someone is using the word “nigger” in private conversation, one would think that that would require some explanation. And yet Liberals seem content to let it slide. Why hasn’t Jean put this quote into context? And imagine if an Albertan had said those words, instead of a CBC host from Quebec.

Needless to say, none of these questions were answered by Jean’s little exercise in phony patriotism issued yesterday.

« Previous Page — Next Page »