N’O Canada?

CTV Story here. CBC Story here.

Frankly, I’m angry.

It has been declared “inappropriate” or “infringing” or “unwelcoming” in some Canadian schools to sing our National Anthem at the start of each school day.

Are you serious? And honestly, I’m amazed that it isn’t mandatory! I have no problems with someone “conscientiously objecting” to participate due to personal or religious reasons, but to completely remove our National Anthem in order to accommodate them? To be blunt? Hell no.

Can I actually say that these days? Hell? H-E-Double Hockey Sticks? Hell, after all (being a judeo-christian concept), could be declared as being religious imposition by uttering the word near someone who doesn’t happen to believe in that particular faith.

Is it a faith issue? Who cares. And no, that’s not a question. If it’s because “God” is mentioned in the words of the anthem, well tough luck. You may not like it, you may not even have to believe it, but you sure as heck need to respect it.

Why? I’ll answer that with another question. Why did you come to Canada? Why don’t you leave? I’ll bet it’s because Canada is such a wonderful place to live. But here’s an update for those who want to take the religious beachhead. Canada is fundamentally a Christian Nation. Don’t believe me? Take a look at our Constitution.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

The very first line in the very first part of our Constitution. The Supremacy of God. That’s right; Capital G.

Our Nation was founded and built upon that selfsame principle. Our Rule of Law is likewise founded and built upon that selfsame principle. Canada did not become such a wonderful country overnight. The world didn’t wake up one day and decide that Canada is AWESOME! No, we proved it through our actions and beliefs and what we stand for. Principles and values and traditions so deeply rooted in Christian philosophy.

Now as a people, we are a tolerant bunch. We value and respect other cultures, opinions and beliefs and we will defend your rights to them. However, such respect and tolerance is a two way street. As we respect the things that make us all different, so too must you when you make Canada your home.

“Political Correctness” is a fallacy that has raged out of control, as has “Reasonable Accommodation“. They’re both very noble, and our Canadian natures make us fall all over ourselves and others to make other people feel comfortable in our country. However, if we are too willing to accommodate or compromise, we risk losing the very things that made this country what it is. We ARE falling into becoming a nation of intolerance and isolationism simply by allowing ourselves to censure anything that my be offensive to someone, somewhere, somehow.

Our National Anthem is a reminder of what Canada is, what is stands for, and what it means to those who are proud to be Canadian.

If you’re not one of those people, I encourage you to leave my Home and Native Land to find one that suits you better.

American protectionist absurdity

If Americans have already made the leap of faith that governments can stimulate the economy, they should be free to waste their money as they see fit. If they want their stimulating construction to involve only American steel, so be it.

It makes no sense for Prime Minister Harper to make demands on behalf of Canadian steel producers other than to score public relations points. It is just a waste of effort.

Canadian Socialist Budget 2009 = failure for jobs

Forget about the money thrown around willy nilly. Put aside the deficit for the moment. Forget about the absurdity of pushing tax credits and how only a confused or dishonest “conservative” will see such nonsensical micro-management as being proper fiscal policy. [Hat tip to Werner Patels for "Federal Conservatives have been lying about tax cuts" as well.] Forget about all of that for the moment, if you can.

Start with the most basic in economic theory: Everything happens at the margin. Thus, if the government really wants to help Canadians maintain jobs — I am becoming more and more convinced that it does not but anyway, it is all we have for now — the government will offer policy changes for employers who operate at the margins. That translates into cutting employee and employer deductions.

Until EI, CPP and any other premiums are eliminated, the government is only paying lip service to its commitment to increase jobs and the distinction between “red” and “blue” tories is disappearing. We are now in the era of The Color-Blind Tory and it will swallow us whole.

We can find an accurately brief quote by Armine Yalnizyan of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

“Canada is facing a potentially massive wave of economic dislocation as out-of-work Canadians turn to an EI system that is not recession ready,” she said.

She is absolutely right in her description.

We are now burdened by a government whose budgetary philosophy is to provide incentives for the misallocation of resources instead of providing deserved help for the only source of job creation: employers at the margin.

Budget 2009 – The Great Game of Chicken

Here we are, on the eve of the much anticipated 2009 Federal Budget. Canadians are looking to the Federal Government to offer a ray of hope in this otherwise dark fiscal time.

Personally, I’m looking at tomorrow with a sense of apprehension. Going back to an earlier post of mine here in response to Charles Anthony’s post, I fear that all the work and consultation that the current Federal Government has done could very well be for naught.

What I’m afraid of is that the Opposition Parties are trying to force the Government into making the situation worse so that they end up with “egg on their face”; and that they do this knowingly. And should the Government try to prevent that kind of manipulation from happening (for the good of the country), they will be punished for it by being “defeated”.

I have concerns about the motives of the Opposition parties regarding the creation of this budget. I knew that we could never count on the BLOQ or the NDP to support the budget no matter what it was. Their sole concern was to get the Conservatives out of power, at any cost. Being that this is a widely known and accepted school of thought, I think it’s safe to say that the BLOQ and the NDP have no interest in the overall good of the country in this matter; and at least the BLOQ are up front about it. Both these parties were extended an invitation to participate in the budget, but in the meetings, they only appeared interested in taking away what the Government was suggesting in order to tear it apart in the media. This was, by and large, expected of them.

No, my main concern is the Liberal party. Michael Ignatieff has taken great pains to position himself in such a way that he can sit on his fence and gauge which direction will benefit him most, and he’s done it in such a way that he can leave it to the very last second. Cowardly, if canny politics. Should the budget be rejected by Canadians, Mr. Ignatieff can blithely lay the blame on the Conservatives by declaring this a “Conservative Budget”. If Canadians are very receptive to the budget, Mr. Ignatieff will pronounce triumph in forcing the Conservatives to the wall and try to take as much credit as he can for the outcome.

Either way, the Conservatives will lose. Having been forced into a position of spending largesse by the opposition parties who were screaming for financial assistance and stimulus, they will end up wearing this deficit around their necks and will not be credited with any of the positive things it does. This will be largely promoted by the Opposition parties who will conveniently forget that they themselves forced it, further supported by the Media who will claim to simply be reporting on the actions and outcomes of the Government. Had they chosen to stand by their initial plans and intent to act responsibly, they would certainly be defeated tomorrow by an Opposition claiming that the Conservatives don’t have the interests of Canadians at heart, and that they “don’t care” about the welfare of Canadians.

As a Conservative, I almost wish that the budget is defeated so that one of the other parties, or a “coalition” of them might be faced with the same predicament. They claim that they would be the saviours of the country, when it’s more likely that they would bring Canada to it’s knees. I truly believe that would be our fate under a Coalition Government that could be held hostage by Separatists. One only needs to look to Iceland to see the result (edit Jan 26/09 2:47pm) possible outcome of a Coalition in current times. Such a path could vindicate Conservative position, but would effectively crush the country, and NO Conservative wants that. Truly told, no true Canadian would want that.

And so, Conservatives will do what they have always done. They will take the reigns in hand that Canadians have entrusted to them in “hard times” to do the right, if unpopular things for the country; even if it means that they need to compromise some of their beliefs and suffer the negativity inherent in such a position in order to try and do the right thing.

Welcome to the undercurrent of Conservatism in Canada, a thankless and demonized philosophy held to by those who seek to be responsible and thoughtful in a country that grows more and more addicted to suckling on the teat of a Nanny State.

A “Bad Bank” is still a bad idea

There is now talk about creating a “Bad Bank” that would clear toxic assets. Finally we get the main stream media talking some level of economic sense:

The liquidity injections, the bailout programs, and the fiscal-stimulus packages try to sustain asset prices, when these prices need to fall to market levels so they can be cleared. The policy makers have just prolonged the crisis.

—SNIP—

What policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic desire is to sustain household leverage and consumption at any price, when the only exit from the credit crisis involves a return to thrift by the overleveraged. That cannot be achieved painlessly.

However, unlike David Roche, I believe that a “Bad Bank” is a bad idea because at its core, it hinges on a tax-payer subsidization of the banks. I will quote that author’s description of how it may operate:

The bad bank clears the toxic assets off the books of banking systems by buying them at market prices and forcing write downs by the banks. A good bad bank forces banks to write down their bad assets and cleanse their balance sheets with those made insolvent being recapitalized, nationalized or liquidated by the state. But it is equally possible to use a bad bank to buy the banks’ toxic waste at inflated prices so that the bank can start lending again. That’s when it becomes a bad bad bank.

The scheme is presented with the illusion that market forces will make a distinction between good and bad that is nonsense. The real distinction will be determined by the preparatory nationalization and state liquidation which precede anything this “Bad Bank” ever does. Without the subsidization, this hypothetical “Bad Bank” would already exist in the market — if it was profitable.

A “Bad Bank” is just a convoluted form of concealing tax-payer subsidization.

Ottawa, Ontario & The CAW. Oh my!

Something being watched very closely in my neck of the woods, is the current goings-on between the Federal Government, the Provincial Government and the CAW in regards to the Bailout Package. For the record, I was going to call it the “Financial Assistance Package” but when you get right down to the nitty-gritty of it, it is more than anything else a bailout.

Industry Minister Tony Clement came out on Sunday basically saying that any assistance given by the government will be hinged on a number of things, but specifically, that the major auto companies must become cost competitive with other industries. Which is to say, it should cost Ford, GM & Chrysler approximately the same to build a car as it does Hyundai, Honda and Toyota.

As would be expected, the CAW and other unions are screaming mad, and depending on who you talk to, for a variety of different reasons. Some members argue that to accept wage concessions and benefit concessions is a betrayal of ‘everything those who came before us fought for’. Some argue that it is simply propaganda by those who are jealous of “good” paying jobs. I personally would argue that their definition of good is probably more along the lines of astronomical to the average Canadian and that such concessions are simply an acceptance of fact and bending to the current economic times, but that’s neither here nor there. In any circumstance, Ken Lewenza and the CAW are definately making a LOT of noise; and I think it is for reasons not listed above….

The CAW is currently in a war with Government and the Public, not for equality or protection, but for their very existance. Unions are dying a slow and steady death, and they themselves are the ones slowly pushing the knife closer and closer to their own heart.

In days gone by, Organized Labour was a necessary and desireable element in the industrialized workforce. Jobs were scarce, and there was always workers willing to do the job if someone else wasn’t. Industry took advantage of that because there really wasn’t any general protection for the workforce. Through the years since, Organized Labour has forced government and the public to accept that laws and protections must be in place for a healthy and reliable workforce, and that the workforce itself is entitled to equity and reasonable security. Laws have been created and Acts put into practice to reinforce those issues, and make them standard.

The “Great Work” that Organized Labour set out to accomplish has been finished, and Organized Labour has become, to a large extent, merely an administrative advocate who acts on behalf of its members. But what does that really mean? What does that advocate actually provide aside from an administrative service that employees with a little time and research are fully capable of doing themselves?

The CAW and others right now, are making a lot of noise in order to try and stay relevant in areas where they have worked themselves out of necessity and into merely an advantage. An advantage some might argue, that is pushing them out of the economy with breakneck speed.

Evaluating the Presidency of George W. Bush

Before Tuesday’s Presidential inauguration of Barack H. Obama, it seems appropriate to look at the legacy of the 43rd man who held the office and to assess his accomplishments and failures on the eve of his final flight aboard Air Force One. I have broken down Mr. Bush’s performance into a few critical areas that the outgoing U.S. President, like all of his predecessors, needed to display peek performance in. Before getting into these areas though, it’s also important to note that Mr. Bush entered the office nearly eight years ago with a lot of his work cut out for him (or about to be cut out for him). We didn’t know during that January past, but few would’ve relished the job President Bush had to perform during both of his terms. The same applies for Mr. Obama as he assends to the office, although for different reasons. It may be somewhat counter-intuitive, but the outgoing and incoming Presidents may very well share more in common once the history books are written and analysed than either would share with their respective partisan predecessors (Bush Sr. and Clinton), who both governed in times of peace.

Category 1: Leadership
Grade: D-

If there was one crucial area that Mr. Bush needed to get together if all the others were to come into place, it had to be leadership. On this front, President Bush often faltered. Certainly, he had moments of great eloquence and really looked the part of the most politically powerful man on Earth, but these sadly were the exceptions to the rule, wherein Mr. Bush opted to go about governing without consulting or appealing to the governed. High points that spared Mr. Bush an F in this ranking included his determined and appropriate response after the darkest day of his terms, 9-11-2001, and his his State of the Union address in February, 2003 where he put forward his most convincing and passionate address on why America needed to get rid of Saddam Husein’s murderous regime in Iraq. Ever since his re-election in 2004 though, Mr. Bush has basically been asleep on the job — going through the motions, press conferences and visits but more or less AWOL either on setting an agenda for the nation or going to the people in order to articulate a vision. Had Bush done better, not only would he now be seeing the new President (Democrat or Republican) continuing on with his objectives, but his inability to control and lead his staff to execute the War on Terror would not have led to the major setbacks the war saw recently.

Category 2: Vision
Grade: B

If there was an area that was hampered by President Bush’s lack of will to actually lead, this would be it. People with long memories might correctly point out that Mr. Bush came into office looking quite content to be a caretaker President who talked a lot, but did little. When 9/11 occurred though, that all changed and for a few years we saw his administration embark on what looked to be an impressive attempt to clean up the foreign affairs mess left behind by former US Presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Nixon, and Eurocrats during the past fifty years. Bush correctly pointed out what FDR noted during World War II — if the United States was to survive as a liberal democracy, it was going to have to harness and seed liberal democratic values around the globe. In FDR’s day, this was because of the Japanese and Germans; in Bush’s, it clearly was militant Sunni states and the old Cold War adversaries like China and Russia. Sadly, while the vision was badly in need of delivery, it was going to be a long and gruesome process if properly executed. Between Bush’s poor leadership and his administration’s bungling of the first fronts on this objective, it became clear shortly into his second term that America will either need a better advocate to sell this plan, or be destroyed for its failure to execute.

Category 3: Economic Policy
Grade: C-

Sadly, this area will be a lasting legacy of Mr. Bush’s and it will likely hurt the Republican Party for at least the next decade’s worth of elections. While Mr. Bush is not responsible for the wholesale selling out that his GOP colleagues in Congress conducted during the first six years of his term, he certainly fed the fire by shoring up spending on useless and damaging programmes such as No Child Left Behind or the sub-prime mortgage expansion. We’ve seen the results of the latter, but the former will take another generation. While liberals were rightly critical of Bush’s over-spending during his presidency, these were crocodile tears at best (as I believe the next four years will certainly show); however, this has allowed the Democratic Party to position itself as the party of fiscal prudence, a ridiculous notion to anyone who lived in the last half of the 20th century. It might be fair to point out that many of Bush’s disastrous fiscal policies were merely continuations of his predecessors or that his tax cuts earlier in the decade spared America an earlier market collapse, but when you’re the guy in the big office, it’s still your responsibility when the house comes crashing down. Bush would’ve learned well by studying the deskplate of one of his predecessors as it relates to the resting place of a dollar bill.

Category 3: Social Policy
Grade: A-

Perhaps the best area of Bush’s work, although a soon-to-be-irrelevant effort due to bungling in other areas. Bush held firm in the wars waged on the family during his term, and even scored a few victories — a few young lives exist today that wouldn’t have if Al Gore had been President. The overall culture war is a tricky area for any President to navigate though since it is becoming more and more clear that two Americas exist today and neither wants anything to do with the other. This not only puts political pressure on a President, but largely negates any point solutions they propose. As such, Bush’s successor is likely to undo any of 43′s reforms, leaving only the appointments Bush made to the bench as any sort of true legacy. On this front, it remains to be seen how his decisions will impact the nation, although the initial survey indicates that Bush had a golden opportunity that family advocates were waiting decades for and he blew it as the clock was winding down to zero. There will certainly be an influence on the courts thanks to Bush, but certain appointments suggest that things could’ve been much better than they now are.

Category 5: Legal Policy
Grade: C

While this category can encompass both domestic and foreign policies, I’ve said my peace about the latter in previous categories. Bush the domestic President was a curious study. The lasting laws he passed included moving daylight savings time in include more of the calendar year, or tinkering with internet laws. His administration was rightly taken to task for restricting the freedoms of U.S. citizens after 9/11, although it would be difficult to see how any other President would’ve acted differently had they been in his shoes. The whole design of the War on Terrorism justice system will likely be debated for decades to come, although Bush was a trendsetter in that he started to build on just how the U.S. government will deal with foreign nationals which commits crimes against its citizens and territory. Perhaps this category, because it is the actual implementation of everything else Bush represented for the last eight years, is the most telling since it was muddled, contradictory at times and downright mediocre on the whole.

On that note, perhaps, when people look back at the Bush presidency, they will see a few shining moments, surrounded by an agenda of confusion and with a world of turmoil and darkness. However, before history judges George Bush too harshly, it’s equally important to remember the alternative: between Al Gore and John Kerry, it is difficult to see how America would’ve avoided the financial meltdown of 2008 or faced the dangers of a world that won’t be satisfied until America is, like Bush, is just another page of history.

Overall Grade: C

Adjusting the Definition of Civilian and Combatant

Watching the “civilian” casualty rates being reported by the news media in various war zones in the world (Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan), I’m reminded of an excellent posting by Ed Morrissey titled, “Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death” over at Hotair.com.

If we want to dismantle the networks that support and create terrorism, then we have to adjust our definitions of civilian and combatant accordingly. That change has been forced on us by the terrorists, which is one of the reasons we cannot abide their presence: they want real non-combatants to die in droves in order to undermine our morale, precisely because we want to remain in a World War II mentality.

Does that mean we should reject rationalism and our humanity and kill everything in sight? Of course not. I don’t want my son to think that we have to wipe out all Muslims any more than I want Muslims to think that they have to wipe out all Christians and Jews. We do have to understand, however, that strikes on terrorists who bury themselves among civilians will create the collateral damage terrorists fully intend as a demoralizing influence on our will to resist them.

In short, we need to understand this war as something other than Hitler rolling into Poland or Japan bombing a naval base in Pearl Harbor. We face a network of radical theological nihilists who want to destroy civilization by using our civilized impulses against us. We have to maintain those impulses but not shy away from doing the necessary work of ridding the globe of this new and dangerous cancer, militarily, politically, and financially. That will require the West to understand that the collateral deaths are the fault of the terrorists, whether that is in Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, or anywhere else where terrorists launch attacks in the midst of civilians.

The CBC is in Love with Obama – Get a Room Already…

Seriously – have the CBC executives lost their minds? They want Canadians to create a mix-tape for Obama? This idea is so stupid even the CBC morning crew from the Calgary Eyeopener commented on how this “contest” really brings into question the CBC’s objectivity.

Beginning Monday, January 5, CBC Radio 2 invites Canadians to help select the top “49 songs from north of the 49th parallel” that would best define our country to the incoming U.S. President Barack Obama.

His playlist could definitely benefit from some Canadian content, especially given the depth of our musical offerings – spanning a wide variety of genres and representing our culture from coast to coast.

“One of the best way to know Canada is through the depth and breadth of our artistic expression,” says Denise Donlon, Executive Director, CBC Radio. “We’re excited about the new President and we want him to be excited about us, so we’re asking our audience to help compile the list of our most definitive Canadian songs!”

It’s hard to imagine the CBC getting this “excited” if John McCain had won.

Everything we ignore about Free Trade

The theory behind the benefits of Free Trade is simple, straight forward and indisputable. I have no interest in teaching anybody the law of comparative advantage since it has been clearly laid out ages ago. I want to speak to people who understand the basics of economics.

The law of comparative advantage is true. However, the “conservative” often naively applies this principle to make unjustifiable conclusions about the benefits of trade in the real world. For instance:

• foreign subsidies hurt us
• the best way to help poor people is to trade with them
• we should still buy sweatshop-imports to support jobs in third world countries
• even though sweatshops are horrible working conditions, it is the best those workers can get or it is their path to freedom

The above conclusions are commonly touted in defense of free trade. However, I will dispel them by demonstrating that the conditions of the theory do not hold in the real world. In short, the conclusions fail because we do not have free trade.

I want to examine the mythology of international trade by starting with the fact that “countries” do not trade with other “countries” at all. Anybody who wants to appreciate economics in any honorable manner must get that straight. They have to stop thinking of “countries” as economic agents. The only valid economic analysis is based on the simple fact that individuals trade with other individuals.

The reason why we use the word “free” in Free Trade arises from the concept of freedom. Unless the individuals are trading under their own free will, the concept of Free Trade does not strictly apply. Nevertheless, it does not negate the ability to analyze the trade as market transactions.

When I buy an import, I am not buying it from a foreign “country” but rather I am buying it from a middleman. I buy it from a local retailer. Since my purchase is made of my own accord, the first reasonable conclusion that I can make is that this trade benefits myself. Second, if we assume that the local retailer is in business out of his own volition, I could also conclude that the theory of comparative advantage applies: we both benefit from trading. However, I do not know how my local retailer got his stock. The middleman could have stolen it from a neighboring retailer. As such, it is foolish to wave a theory around and say that everybody is better off as a result of trade. If you can understand this last principle, you have completely grasped the mythology behind free trade.

Now, let us examine the real world of trade.

The consumer has no idea how the coffee, sugar, bananas or oil got off the ground and into the market. The reality in many third world countries is that poor people are often forced off their land to make way for commercial enterprise. Some people are deceived. We can not say that poor people would be worse off without sweatshops. We know their ancestors survived for several generations without industry. These poor people may actually prefer a sustenance level of existence without industrialization. Their preference will never be known to us. The only intelligent conclusion that can be made is that trade makes myself better off because I am buying out of my own volition.

Most of what I consume (and I bet everybody reading this blog consumes) is an import. If we had to consume only domestically produced coffee, sugar, bananas and oil, practically none of us could afford them. [Nota Bene: That may not be a bad thing.] The prices would be astronomic however, it would technically be possible to produce them. Enter subsidies.

I believe subsidies in trade create a huge rift in “conservative” logic and morality. Many people will complain about foreign imports being unfair when foreign producers receive subsidies or tax breaks. This is the thrust behind anti-dumping laws.

The question must be asked: What constitutes a subsidy? The truth is that the definition of a subsidy is arbitrary. Anything can objectively be considered a subsidy. In principle, whether you get a grant to build a factory or your employees get subsidized housing, your costs of production are partly assumed by state subsidization. Furthermore, if your heating costs are lowered by geography, you are receiving a subsidy too — from Mother Nature.

If a foreign producer receives a grant to produce coffee, sugar, bananas or oil, that would be a subsidy. However, most employees need food, clothing and shelter to survive and without which they can not go to work. Most employers must train their employees to make them more productive. Therefore, if a foreign government provides public education, the public education is a subsidy to anything that population produces. In Canada, we get subsidized education, health care, law and security — among other things — which are services that are either absent or certainly different in third world countries. As long as the government exists and acts, there is no intelligent distinction between a government subsidy and any other government activity.

It should be apparent that a foreign government can conceal subsidies any way it wants. A foreign producer could also have a superior technological advantage. From an outsider’s perspective, the two are indistinguishable.

Complaining about foreign subsidies is nonsense. First of all, with foreign subsidies, the domestic consumer pays lower prices and is better off. However, the domestic producer can not compete as before. Thus, the domestic producer is worse off. How do you balance the competing interests? The answer is simple: you do not. It is impossible to compare welfare between individuals. [You can make foolish comparisons of how much money they make or lose due to a policy but those are all nonsense estimations of transactions that do not occur -- sort of like the young athlete who complains about the lost professional football career because he broke his leg when he was 13 years old.] The best you can do is liberate the market and let people choose as freely as possible.

Some people advocate boycotting trade as a method to combat human rights violations.

Advocating trade boycotts is difficult. It may turn out that the laborer’s goal is to seek freedom by pursuing the demise of his employer. Boycotting the industry may help. However, the laborer may also want to make the best out of a bad situation by staying employed. Boycotts would hurt him further. As an outsider, you can never really assume what a poor laborer wants. Economic policies which hinge on such assumptions are nothing but deception.

One thing that is often omitted from discussions of free trade is the free mobility of people across borders. I would like to address that in the future in a separate discussion on immigration.

from a multi-part series entitled “The Subconscious of a Conservative“

Next Page »