Score One for the Good Guys

The World Trade Organization has ruled in favour of freedom and prosperity.  An arbitration panel has determined that the U.S. intervention in the cotton industry (propping up American farms, creating barriers for Brazil and other countries) is unacceptable and has issued an award to Brazil, and potentially giving them the option to retaliate against American products.  From The Wall Street Journal:

A World Trade Organization arbitration panel ruled Monday that Brazil is entitled to $295 million upfront, and nearly $150 million a year, for the U.S. failure to eliminate subsidies to the cotton industry. The annual penalties are far below the $2.5 billion Brazil had sought.

But the ruling opened an important door to retaliatory measures that, under certain circumstances, could punish American pharmaceuticals companies and other owners of so-called intellectual property.

The U.S. (and much of the West) has a horrible propensity to prop up their own agriculture industry at the expense of the rest of the world (and their own citizens).  It’s quite ridiculous; we have the FTA, NAFTA, FTAA, and the WTO.  We’re working on global trade deals.  The simple lessons of the benefits of trade should not be this difficult to learn.

In fact, the Americans learned them in 1896 when they proposed a reciprocity agreement to Wilfrid Laurier, but I guess they have since forgotten.

Though I support the decision, the notion of cross-retaliation is a little troubling; it would do none of us any good to start a tariff war.  I understand that the WTO often needs to take drastic measures, especially when trying to pry countries like the United States away from the protectionist agricultural policy.  In this situation, the WTO needed to give a giant rock to Brazil’s David in order to keep Goliath in line.

Let’s just hope it works.  If Goliath gets mad, we could all be in trouble.

I Have A Right To My Rights, Right?

So, lately I’ve been hearing a lot of people complaining about what they have a right to, or not as the case may be. And amazingly enough, I’m hearing it less from teenagers and more from adults. Rational and logical minds tell us that there are certain fundamental and universal Human Rights (Human Rights Commissions aside as we’ve seen that the words “Rational” and “Logical” have little to no association with those entities). However, what I’m hearing are frankly, bastardizations of Rights and pathetic rationalizations of convenience masquerading as rights. I think we’re getting pretty darned close to those HRCs here.

Today, society is in a rapid freefall into an atmosphere of entitlement. Just because someone wants something, or is inconvenienced by something, there is a sudden formation of some kind of pseudo-right out of this nebulous feeling of dissatisfaction. This person then becomes very self-righteous in their own defense and waxes poetic about the injustices they face or are forced to carry. The suddenly inspired Right provides them with an anchor to which they tie themselves and their complaint for security.

Never mind for the moment that it’s purely an outright fabrication, or that it’s a wholesale lie. Instead look into the mindset of such people and be afraid. They truly, and honestly believe that they are entitled to this mythical Right. By themselves, this isn’t really a concern. But when others who hold the same insecurity or the same complaint hear about it, they are almost immediately indoctrinated into this early forming cult, and as more and more people come to believe the lie, the more convincing it seems. Soon enough, someone will drag this into the HRCs in some kind of whining complaint about the atrocities committed against them. The HRCs in their neverending mission to justify their existance will seek some way to justify this person’s complaint through which they can then hold others to account. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to decieve.

Let’s step away from that for a moment and consider another mythical right. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as set out by the UN (when the UN actually meant something that is), in Article 13 it states:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Many people have bastardized this into giving them rights to specific modes of transportation (or movement). Take airlines for example. How does someone have a right to fly to their destination. Denying someone access to an airplane or to travel by one hardly violates their right to freedom of movement. No one is preventing them from reaching their destination by other means, yet airlines are continuously afflicted by Human Rights complaints. Likewise, no one has a right to a Drivers Licence either, but that doesn’t prevent them from taking a bus or a train or a boat right? And when it comes right down to it, even if they were denied use of any or all of those modes of transportation, they can always put one foot in front of the other. Afterall, mankind has enjoyed the ability to walk since even before Homo Erectus became the dominant species on the planet. But, since the hard-done-by individual is inconvenienced (or worse yet, embarrassed), suddenly their rights are being trampled.

And so, the dangerous path continues: Want becomes expectation. Expectation becomes entitlement. Entitlement becomes a Right. Right?

Wrong. But in this environment where the HRCs are creating a type of chill when it comes to offending someone who could then (with their help) turn it into a Human Rights Violation, people are becomming more and more afriad to call a spade a spade and rightfully give the complainer a verbal slap up the side of the head about their so-called “Right” to whatever. The politically correct B.S. needs to be put into its grave once and for all so that the grown-ups can get down to business without fear of being persecuted simply for having a different opinion or saying something offensive.

Don’t Tread on Me

The United States International Trade Commission has recommended that President Barack Obama impose a 55% tariff on car tires imported from China. Obama must make a decision by September 17, and this issue might show the direction in which his administration will be heading regarding international trade.  Consequently, this is an issue that is important not just to the U.S. and China, but to Canada and the rest of the world.

As a senator and as president, Mr. Obama’s stance on trade has been erratic, at best.  Further, as his meddling in the U.S. auto industry shows, he has a propensity to put politics ahead of sound economic principles.  If Mr. Obama decides to side again with unions, all other trading partners will have been put on notice.  This administration sees free trade (and its associated wealth creation) as a secondary concern.  And you know, there’s nothing better than protectionism to lift you out of a recession.

Putting aside how worrying this should be for the rest of the world, this should be worrying for Americans, as well.  As The Wall Street Journal notes:

Rutgers University economist Thomas J. Prusa, who testified before the ITC on behalf of importers, said it is unrealistic to think tariffs lasting three years would spur domestic investment in tire manufacturing. More likely, more tires would be imported from other low-cost producers, he said.

Mr. Prusa said tariffs could cost 25,000 U.S. jobs and force consumers to spend $600 million to $700 million more a year on tires. The ITC doesn’t calculate tariffs’ economic impact when studying complaints — something the administration is sure to do.

Forcing Americans to pay more for tires will do nothing to alleviate suffering.  In fact, it will have a net negative effect on the prosperity of the U.S. populace.  Mr. Obama should know this.  I guess we’ll see if he does (or if he cares) in a few weeks.

Conservatism: The Long And Short Of It?

When the Prime Minister made the appointments to the Senate, it stirred up his critics both within and without the party. This got me thinking about a Conservative Division within the party. Obviously we expected to see the Liberal hypocracy and NDP demonizing, and much to my regret, it’s becomming obvious to expect the complaints coming from within the party.

Truth be told, I have no problems with contentious critiquing  of the party from within the party. In fact, I continue to regard it as a very healthy activity within a healthy organization. What really disappoints me (and sometimes makes me livid), is when Conservatives and conservatives (C&c’s) utterly abandon Long Term Vision in favor of Short Term Vision.

The Short Of It

This is perhaps the most destructive force within any political organization. Taking the short-sighted path, people become so concerned about the minutia of a given event/plan/decision that they completely lose sight of the greater picture.

Take the recent appointments to the Senate. Stephen Harper is being attacked by C&c’s for abandoning his principles for the sake of power. These conservatives have become so disenchanted and disenfranchised with the direction that Stephen Harper is taking the Conservative Party of Canada that they have decided to try to tear down the Leader of the Party in whatever way possible because now is more important than the future in their eyes. Either that, or they have simply lost patience. Personally, I can forgive a loss of patience; this Minority Government situation has exhausted everyone with it’s neverending threats. Conservatively, I can not forgive taking the easy road and blaming it all on one man and making him the target of all their frustrations.

Too often, the impatient hawks of the party seek immediate gratification of their wants and goals and will tolerate nothing short of direct, full-frontal pursuit of those goals with no apology and no regard for the ramifications of these actions. Their own personal frustrations have so tightened their nerves that as soon as Conservatives sit in the PMO it is NOW the time to unload all their demands upon Canada.

Let’s take a hypothetical walk down that path for a moment. Say under the current circumstances (read as hestitantly granted minority government), all of the conservatives social and economic agenda items (both the extreme and not) are unleashed on Canadians in one big blast message. What would the outcome be? If you consider that honestly, we’d be in another election with the Liberals and the NDP rolling around on the floor laughing their asses off at how stupid Conservatives are and then walk away with a stunniing Liberal Majority.

Many of the hawks within the party wouldn’t be bothered by this as they’d rather die on their principles and claim they held true to their beliefs. This I personally believe leads to heart attacks and other medical complications.

The Long Of It

Many C&c’s (myself included) believe in keeping their eye on the long term or “The Big Picture” and choose to ignore (but not necessarily forget) the little frustrating details along the way. Just as these conservatives recognize that as Rome wasn’t built in a day, so too goes Conservatism in Canada. They understand that incrementalism is a necessary strategy when bringing change to Canadians. They also understand that sometimes sacrifices have to be made along the way in order to move forward. What’s the sense in taking 8 steps backward in order to take one step forward in order to hold on tightly to an otherwise minor detail?

Those who take the Long View are often criticized as having sold out their values or become corrupted by power. These same people see themselves as having the maturity experience has taught them to recognize that sometimes there has to be compromise. Sometimes you have to lose a battle in order to win a war; a philosophy akin to the Churchill/Coventry myth. This isn’t to say that these C&c’s are willing to sacrifice everything because that would, in fact, be a betrayal of conservative principles. These conservatives also recognize that battles lost in the past can be revisited in the future when there is time and mandate to correct them; the trick is getting to that time and place.

Again using the Senate appointment example. The desire is to democratize the Senate. The caveat is to get enough Senators in the Senate to allow that to happen. How do you go about achieving that goal? Well, taking the long view we have to accept that we are required to work and act within the existing system until we have the numbers and the means with which to start making significant change to how the Senate works. So, the Prime Minister must appoint sympathizers to the Senate. That only Alberta excercises a kind of electoral system to show preference in representation that the Prime Minister can use is, sadly, an unfortunate reality. Fortunately, the Prime Minister has shown that he is happy and willing to recognize that and respect that system. That being said, until other Provinces get on board with that, the Prime Minister is left with only his discretion as to who makes it into the Red Chamber.

In light of that truth, complaining about the appointments, or the fact they ARE appointments by a man who said he wouldn’t do that is entirely irrelevent.

I think that it all comes down to a simple elegant truth: Patience vs Impatience. Whoever coined the phrase “Long-term gain for short-term pain” had the right of it.

Follow the Yellow Brick Maternity Ward

In the land of Oz, there’s no place like home…

…unless you’re having a baby.

Potential legislation from Australia’s Labor Party (no irony intended, I’m sure), based on a report form the Federal Maternity Services Review, looks to implement the de facto criminalization of midwife-assisted homebirths (and, potentially, all homebirths).

From Home Birth Australia:

The Report proposes an end to women’s access to midwifery care for homebirth, except possibly within state-run services. If the Report’s recommendations are followed, homebirth midwifery could become illegal in 2010 with the introduction of National Registration of health caregivers.

The report reads:

[T]he Review Team has formed the view that the relationship between maternity health care professionals is not such as to support homebirth as a mainstream Commonwealth-funded option (at least in the short term). The Review also considers that moving prematurely to a mainstream private model of care incorporating homebirthing risks polarising the professions rather than allowing the expansion of collaborative approaches to improving choice and services for Australian women and their babies.

The Australian editorializes:

Although the number of women giving birth at home is tiny in Australia – just over 700 in 2006, or 0.26 per cent of all births – this represents a committed group. More than 50 per cent of submissions to the federal Government’s recent maternity services review came from women calling for greater support for homebirthing services, which claim up to a 10-fold greater share of births in some overseas countries such as Britain.

Since 2001, an estimated 150 midwives have provided homebirth services to women, at a typical cost of between $3000 and $5000, but without rebates from Medicare or private health funds, and without insurance cover that would give recourse to compensation should anything go wrong.

I can just imagine that some people around here (paging Charles Anthony) will object to the idea of the government paying for midwives.  And, sure, I can see your point and, in a perfect world, agree with it.  However, in a society that has already moved to a socialized system of medicare, legislation like this is just perverse.

Labor is setting up a system that encourages women to go to hospitals for child birth.  If women are being given “free” hospital births, but must pay for midwives at homebirths, the government is distorting incentives and working against choice, freedom and responsibility.  And the idea that politicians are the best arbiters of birthing decisions is abhorrent.

Further, studies in societies that do not adhere to such a medicalized technocracy demonstrate that giving birth in a hospital increases the rate of interventions, caesareans and complications.  The Australian government is pondering enacting legislation that risks people’s lives and health, increases costs for medicare, and violates personal liberty.  That’s quite a trifecta.

Thankfully, in Canada, we are moving away from the dangerous hyper-medicalization of birth.  It is sad that Australia’s mothers and babies see no such protections.

It’s difficult to click your heels together when your feet are in stirrups.

(H/T: inFORMing birth)

Kyle Seeback: Championship Swimmer Prepares for New Kind of Race

Meet the Players

The Third in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

From an early age, Kyle Seeback has been successful–often at the very highest levels–in everything he has done.

He was a world-class swimmer on the Canadian national team. He then took his international medals to the University of Nebraska, where he was a star swimmer on one of best athletic programs in the NCAA.

Seeback later returned to Canada, entering law school, where he excelled academically while nonetheless playing and coaching for a varsity team in the CIS.

Then as a successful lawyer, Seeback served as president of the Brampton West federal riding association for almost a decade, helping candidates win local, provincial and federal elections.

Today Seeback, still an avid swimmer, is preparing for a new kind of race: running for Member of Parliament as the Conservative Party candidate in Brampton West.

Running for office is not entirely knew to him, though. He ran in the 2008 federal election against Andrew Kania, coming within a hair’s breadth–literally 232 votes–of winning the race. But now, says Seeback, the outcome will be different.

Whether or not Seeback will win is hard to say, particularly given that he is squaring off against an incumbent Liberal Member of Parliament in a riding that has been a Liberal stronghold since 1993.

But if Seeback’s record of athletic, academic and professional success has taught us anything, it is to never bet against him.

In this third installment of our continuing Meet the Players series of interviews with political strategists and candidates, Kyle Seeback takes a moment to field questions about his past, present and future.

Richard Albert (RA): You’re preparing to run for a second time in the riding of Brampton West. Last time, in the 2008 federal election, you came within fewer than 235 votes of winning the race against then-candidate, and now incumbent MP, Andrew Kania of the Liberal Party. What do you need to do differently this time in order to win?

Kyle Seeback (KS): I am sure that you don’t actually want me to tell what I will do differently. Given the size of your readership, any real plans I disclose would likely get back to Andrew Kania within minutes. What I can tell you, though, is that we will work harder than last time. The team will be bigger and more experienced. We have worked very hard at the grassroots level between the last election and now, and it will have an impact in the next election.

RA: Can you say something nice about your Liberal opponent, Andrew Kania?

KS: Andrew Kania is a dedicated and hardworking public servant. I can say that as I know Andrew personally. He is a little misguided, but so is virtually every Liberal. (I had to take a least one partisan shot in this interview, didn’t I?) Was that nice enough?

RA: Absolutely. Very gracious, just as I had expected given your reputation as an honourable person. So, moving on, the next election could be held as soon as October. What are the most pressing needs and priorities for Brampton West?

KS: There are so many pressing needs in Brampton and Brampton West that I could spend all my time dealing with this question alone. To keep things short, I think I will list three in no specific order.

First, we need a youth violence strategy. Youth violence continues to go up year after year in Brampton. We must develop a local strategy to deal with this, including more services for young people to keep them away from crime, namely programs for mentoring, drug and addiction, tutoring and educational assistance. All of these programs could be started and funded with some strong local leadership.

Second, health care. We need the Brampton Civic Hospital up and running at full capacity. We have one of the lowest ratios of population-to-hospital-beds in the country, and it is affecting people’s health.

Three, poverty and settlement services. We have one of the fastest growing immigrant communities in Canada and we need to make sure that new Canadians are able to access services that are going to allow them to obtain jobs and to overcome the economic hardships that many newcomers face.

RA: Despite the critical importance of local issues, federal elections often hinge on the performance and perception of party leaders. Why, in your view, is Stephen Harper a better leader for Canada than Michael Ignatieff?

KS: Stephen Harper is an average Canadian. He was raised in a middle class family like the vast majority of Canadians. He understands the issues that are important to Canadians because he has lived through the same issues that all of us face, like getting a job, raising a family and paying a mortgage.

I think that political leaders should personally understand the challenges that face average Canadians. Stephen Harper understands this perfectly insofar as he has lived through it personally.

Stephen Harper is also a person who does what he thinks is right, not necessarily what is politically popular. He governs on principle, not polls. That, to me, is a critical function of leadership.

RA: What is your biggest personal strength?

KS: Dedication and compassion. First, dediction–hard work and pursuing your goals and dreams–is the key to success in all aspects of life. Second, compassion and empathy for others are the fundamental building blocks to being able to properly represent people and their interests.  Being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is critical to understanding, and responding to, their concerns.

RA: What is your biggest weakness and how, if at all, have you tried to turn it into one of your strengths?

KS: Like many people, procrastination is my biggest weakness. Not sure how I can turn that into a strength. Do you think it is easy to make priorities? Bad joke, I know, but worth a try.

RA: If you get elected to Parliament, who is the first person whose counsel you will seek once you land in Ottawa?

KS: I would seek his counsel before I ever left for Ottawa. It would be my father. No person could ask for a better role model or person to go to for guidance.

RA: With a family–a wife and two very young children–it must be difficult spending so much time away from home in order to mount your campaign. I suspect you will be away from home for even longer stretches of time if you end up winning your race. How have you and your family dealt with that?

KS: It’s really hard. There is nothing I love more than spending time with my family. Nothing comes before my family, neither work nor politics. I am a very hands-on father and I miss my children terribly when I am away from them. I honestly don’t know how I will deal with being away from them five days a week, six months a year.

RA: Apart from working to improve the lives of your constituents in Brampton West, are there any larger or national legislative projects you would like to explore if you get elected?

KS: Health care. My mother passed away in January after a year-long battle with cancer. I saw first-hand how stretched our health care system really is. Don’t take this the wrong way, because throughout that difficult time I saw and met so many wonderful and dedicated doctors and nurses. That is not where the problem lies. What I witnessed, though, was how overworked they were and how stressed the system is. It must get fixed because healthcare is one of the things that Canadians hold dearly and are so proud of–and rightfully so.

RA: Let’s turn to some of your personal interests. While in law school at the University of Western Ontario, you coached the university waterpolo team. Were you really that bored with law school that you had to resort to waterpolo to pass the time?

KS: Yes, law school was extremely boring. How else can you describe having to read thousand of pages of legal cases day-in, day-out?!

Seriously though, I needed an outlet from law school. I had played waterpolo for a year for the University of Western Ontario during my first year of law school and it was a ton of fun. The coach retired and the university asked me if I would consider taking over. It was a great experience and, if I had stayed in London to practice law, I would have continued to do it. Mentoring and coaching young people is such a valuable and rewarding way to spend your spare time.

RA: So you’re a lawyer now. Great. I’m sure you’ve heard hundreds of lawyer jokes. Do you have a favourite one?

A man is standing in line at the bank. It is a long line and suddenly he feels his shoulders and back being massaged by the person behind him. He turns around and asks the person what he is doing. The person says, “my job is a massage therapist and I was just trying to help you out.” The lawyer says, “yeah so what, I’m a lawyer and you don’t see me trying to screw the person in front of me, do you?”

RA: Before jumping into politics, you were a scholarship swimmer at the University of Nebraska, a star member of the Canadian national swimming team, and ranked among the top 16 swimmers in the world. Wow. What have you learned from competitive swimming, if anything, that will help you win your riding and become a good public servant?

KS: Swimming was all about hard work. It is one of a few sports that is all about working hard day-in, day-out for hours and hours every day. Swimming taught me that the only way to be successful is to work harder than the other person. I think that my work ethic will be enormously beneficial to my constituents if I am privileged enough to get elected.

RA: Now for my favourite question: Which three departed Canadians would you most like to host for dinner at Aggie Martin, one of Brampton’s finest restaurants? Why?

KS:

1. Sir John A. MacDonald. What can I say? He was the best prime minister in Canadian history and a conservative to boot!

2. Alexander Graham Bell. Inventor of the telephone. Would love to give him my Blackberry and see what he thinks.

3. Billy Bishop. First World War fighter ace. The stories he could tell would be amazing.

RA. Parlez-vous français?

KS: Un petit peu.

RA: Ok, Kyle. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

KS: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

KS: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

KS: PC.

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

KS: Tastes great, of course. What’s the point of counting calories when drinking beer?

RA: Boxers or briefs?

KS: Boxer briefs, actually.

RA: Favourite band?

KS: Tough one, the Beatles when I was younger but now I don’t really have a favourite. I listen to all kinds of music now: Green Day, Black Eyed Peas, Third Eye Blind, Van Morrison, Eminem, Shania Twain. You name it, I like it.

RA: Sid the Kid or Super Mario?

KS: Neither. Gretzky all the way. 92 goals in one season, 215 points in one season. These days 50 goals is rare, and 100 points is a big deal.

RA: Who was the better Ontario Premier: Bill Davis or Mike Harris?

KS: Are you kidding? I live in Brampton just up the street from Premier Davis. Granted, he’s 80 years old. But don’t let that fool you. If I had chosen otherwise, he could still walk up the street and kick my… .

RA: Greatest Canadian?

KS: Without a doubt, Sir John A. MacDonald. Without him, there would be no Canada or certainly not the one we have today.

RA: Final Question, Kyle. Greatest politician never to become prime minister?

KS: Preston Manning. What a great person with such a great mind. He had it all.

RA: Kyle, thanks so much. I hope you had as much fun answering these question as I had interviewing you. A tough race awaits, so I won’t keep you any longer. Go hit that pavement. Very best of luck.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009

Let Omar Khadr come home to Canada

I am getting more annoyed by the federal government’s handling of Omar Khadr’s incarceration in Guantanamo Bay and his failed return to Canada. This is completely stupid.

I can not believe the Conservative government is wasting time and money fighting in the Supreme Court. Forget about any compassion for the moment: wasting any more money on legal fees alone is abhorrent.

Not only is this completely stupid but it is neurotically heartless. This anti-terrorist hysteria feeds their Big Bad Evil Conservative image quite nicely and rightly so, in my opinion. If this continues, some opportunistic politician — say, somebody naive like Justin Trudeau, for instance — will capitalize on this nonsense and go down to the States (the way Bill Clinton went to Korea) to plead for Khadr’s release. An election will be called and enough Canadians will turf the Conservatives from power. Heck, that is the strategy I would adopt if I was a Liberal. This would be better than playing with EI reform which is all the Liberals have right now.

The Conservatives are setting themselves up for failure on this file. I wonder who benefits.

Boycott Legal Aid in Ontario

I think this is a good thing. More lawyers should refuse legal aid. That way, the courts will have to throw out more cases and prosecutors — with the never-ending pocket-book of the tax-payer at their disposal — will no longer be able to bully poor people.

Dissolve The CRTC

Dissolve the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The sooner, the better.

President Obama, Machiavelli, and Health Care Reform

In my latest op-ed, published today in the Boston Herald, I argue that President Obama should be more Machiavellian in the American health care debate. Thoughts, criticisms, praise–all welcome, both in the comments below and offline by email.

Next Page »