The main character Gordon Gekko states: “The mother of all evil is speculation.” Sadly, this is the misguided attitude of the socialists because they do not understand markets.

Speculation is actually a blessing to people who want market stability. When prices are high, speculators enter the markets to sell. When prices are low, speculators enter the markets to buy with the hopes of making it up when prices rise — again — presumably again — that is the gamble speculators take. By entering markets at the extremes, speculators buffer the business cycles. The rising prices are reduced because the speculators increase supply. The falling prices are pulled up because the speculators increase demand. This is the most basic application of demand and supply theory. Maybe Stone slept through the “Demand curves go down. Supply curves go up.” part of the Economics 101 lesson.

One laudable aspect of the movie is that it points out that a lot of speculation is made from debt, fabricated equity financing and printed money. Certainly that is a bad thing because they are artificial inflationary activities in the market. However, the speculation is not the root of the problem.

If OIiver Stone wanted to create an economically sound movie, his main character would have told us: “Printing money is the mother of all evil.” Despite this, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and I highly recommend it.

Three guys at Harvard asked Zuckerberg to develop their social networking program which went on to become ConnectU. The originators of ConnectU sued him for copying. When Zuckerberg was accused of stealing the idea to create Facebook, his reflexive response was to make it known that his computer code for Facebook was completely different from the code of ConnectU. Thus, in his eyes, he did not copy nor did he steal. From his frame of reference, he is right. Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with his frame of reference.

Zuckerberg is also portrayed as a copy-cat in the software for his FaceMash program which used his friend’s algorithm to rank the attractiveness of female students. Other than being a springboard for the development of FaceBook, FaceMash never went anywhere commercially. His friend Eduardo Saverin created an algorithm to rank chess players and he wrote it on a window with wax crayon on Zuckerberg’s window. Zuckerberg felt free to copy this algorithm because Saverin essentially tossed it into the public domain by leaving it for an extended period of time on display.

I make these observations to point out that the laws we chose for handling intellectual property disputes are arbitrary.

Shawn Parker created Napster and was sued by record companies. He was ordered to pay up by the courts he chose to declare bankruptcy instead. His acquaintances in the movie said he was delusional. To demonstrate his delusion, Parker says that he beat the record companies. The other characters gently reminded him that he lost against them. In an awesome cinematic twist, the presumed delusional Parker completes their sentence by clarifying that he only lost in court. He then asks them if any of them would be willing to buy Tower Records. We all know that the record industry is collapsing due to lack of retail sales. Parker beat the record industry in their own market.

The originality in these two young people in how they view markets and rightful competitive practices is refreshing. The door is opening wider.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Waiter: And for you, prophet?

Mo: A BLT, another Spaten and a high chair for my wife.

Ba-dum.

H/T

Anderson Cooper: In South Park… they show Buddha snorting cocaine. You don’t see death threats or warnings from Buddhists.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: And you don’t see death threats from Jews when Moses is depicted in an unbecoming position. And you don’t see threats from Christians when Jesus Christ… is put in a satire position. [...]
The South Park episode of last weekend was not just funny and it wasn’t just witty, it addressed an essential piece in the times that we are living: There is one group of people, one religion [Islam, -ed.], that is claiming to be above criticism.

Indeed, and with death threats to boot for those who dare disagree.

Free people have a clear choice: Be free or bow the knee to Islam. There is no middle ground.

Comedy Central, like many artists before it, has bowed the knee. They have chosen dhimmitude over freedom and, in doing so, stand condemned.

Group-based policy

In 2011, the CRTC will hold licence-renewal hearings for the largest English-language private ownership groups. The largest groups are: CTVglobemedia Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Rogers Communications Inc.

This approach will permit the CRTC to introduce new requirements to encourage and support the creation of Canadian programs.

The CRTC will propose that the three largest ownership groups spend at least 30 per cent of their gross revenues on Canadian programming. However, they will be able to shift resources among their English-language conventional television stations and specialty services to meet this obligation.

Then they have the audacity to claim that they are introducing a market-based system:

As part of its framework, the Commission has set out a market-based solution to allow private local television stations to negotiate with cable and satellite companies. Each television station would have the option of entering into negotiations to establish a fair value for the distribution of their programs.

Yes, because nothing screams “market-based” like a government agency deciding how a company must spend their money, and which party in a commercial transaction gets to decide whether they’ll negotiate or not.

As The Globe and Mail reports:

Under the new system, the broadcasters would have the choice every three years to negotiate value for their signals. If they choose to do so, they give up regulatory protections that require cable and satellite companies to carry all the conventional networks and to place them at a preferential point on the dial (on channel 8 instead of 508, for example). That three-year option was proposed by CTV at the hearings in November.

So, basically, cable companies will be given permission to carry over-the-air signals for free, if the broadcast television companies so choose.  However, if they are granted this privilege, cable companies will have to continue to provide preferential channels to broadcast television stations.  So broadcasters get to, essentially, make the rules.  The complaint against broadcast TV has been that no one seems to have a viable business model, but now the CRTC has solved that problem.  These corporations get to choose a business model, and then force everyone else to play along!  And if that doesn’t work, in three years they can force everyone to go along with a whole new business model (yeah, I have no idea why three years are so magical, either).

Of course, as pointed in the Globe and Mail article, consumers will need their cable providers to carry these stations in order to be able to watch a lot of the most popular American TV shows, as the parent networks own the rights to these shows.  This is the ace that the networks are holding; no cable company will want to deny its viewers the pleasures of American Idol, Glee or 30 Rock.  Of course, no one should pay attention to the chutzpah displayed by these networks, who were able to bid exorbitant sums for the rights to these programs precisely because they had the increased distribution and signal quality afforded by cable.  To think that a company like CTV has the audacity to frame itself as the little guy is pretty laughable.

Now, there is a bit of a dilemma in all of this.  Broadcast television is providing a resource to cable companies from which they can profit, and they have been doing so relatively free of charge.  (Sure, the value of this resource is declining, but let’s ignore that for now.)  It seems only right that they should be rewarded for their services.  As such, I propose the following solution.  The government should allow broadcast television stations to either sell their feed or give it away for free, whichever they choose.

That’s it.  That’s all that should be done.  Cable companies can enter into negotiations or not.  There are zero obligations imposed on either party.  From there, people can choose whatever television service they prefer.

One other thing I’d like to see (aside from the disbanding of the CRTC) – I’d like to see cable companies provide for their customers a cable receiver that doubles as rabbit ears for broadcast television.  I don’t see how this would be impossible, especially with the soon to be mandated digital broadcast of television signals.  This would solve everyone’s problems.  Cable companies wouldn’t transmit broadcast signals, but cable customers would still be able to watch So You Think You Can Dance Canada.

Of course, broadcast companies would have to provide a worthwhile service, and that’s the rub.

There’s a lot more going on in the CRTC’s decision.  Can you read their press release here, and the reference document here.

I first wrote about this issue here.

It’s pure unadulterated hate poring forth from those who claim Coulter is the one who promotes hate.

Here is a sampling:

marandamoses: God don’t like ugly, Coulter. Do unto others…

twatblock: RT @sandeepgu: Guess what Ann Coulter? Mother Mary, jesus’s wife wore a ‘Jihadist scarf’!! Ha ha fucking ignorant twat!

jungho_kim: RT @ValentinaVH How is Ann Coulter still alive with all that fecal matter pouring out of her mouth? U know, the mouth above her adam’s apple

It’s kinda ironic, isn’t it?

Canadian Heritage has 45 days to complete the review launched Jan. 27, but it could be extended by another 30 days if needed.

Walid Hejazi, a professor of international business at the University of Toronto, said he believes the government is close to allowing Amazon in to Canada, a move that would be consistent with the government’s recent steps to open Canada to more foreign investment.

And doing so would provide better prices and more jobs to Canadians.

Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice-president of global public policy who has been meeting with government officials, says a Canadian distribution centre would provide a benefit to the country.

“We are pleased to be continuing to communicate with policy-makers about the benefits that we have brought to Canadian culture both within Canada and globally,” he said Wednesday.

With the Canadian government opening up the telecom and satellite industry to foreign ownership allowances, Amazon could potentially be leading the way (hopefully) for foreign corporations coming into Canada and being able to take advantage of the benefits of doing business in Canada.

But, in many ways, Canada has been a closed market to so many different competitors because of those very foreign ownership laws and how they slam up against our cultural preservation limitations.

However, if it happens, and more follow, those industry “giants” as some call them, will only add to jobs in Canada which leads to a larger tax base, both corporately and in individual spending.

And Jack Layton wants to prevent tax benefits for “big business”. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t think the current Budget will create new jobs for Canadians.

“We will vote against it, but in a way that does not provoke an election,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters, speaking in French. “I don’t see a path in this budget that gets Canadians back to work. This is the key thing.”

Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, this is how this Budget could, and I stress could get Canadians back to work and raise our GDP to levels that can accomplish what the Budget proposes.

Instead of poo-pooing the Budget just because you hate the Conservatives, try finding ways to make it work, or make it work better.

Support the Government and encourage these initiatives that are bringing investors and jobs to Canada!

Uganda.

Witch doctors in Uganda have admitted their part in human sacrifice amid concerns that the practice is spreading in the African country.

One man said he had clients who had captured children and taken their blood and body parts to his shrine, while another confessed to killing at least 70 people including his own son. [...]

“They go and capture other people’s children. They bring the heart and the blood directly here to take to the spirits,” he said. [...]

“We also have about 120 children and adults reported missing whose fate we have not traced,” he added. “From the experience of those whom we recovered, we cannot rule out that they may be victims of human sacrifice.”

Now what on earth could possibly elicit greater international outrage than blood-letting and heart extraction from children and adults?

Yes, of course. Silly me.

Besides, Christmas Vacation is on.

For an up-to-the-minute example of why blogs are superior to, for example, big newspapers, look no further than one of the least reputable of my favourite American blogs, Ace of Spades HQ: ClimateGate gets real legs – London Times reports on CRU’s thrown away raw data:

Their data ditching is actually old, high profile coverage of it and its implications, not so old.

Exactly my point. I read about the data loss weeks before the CRU email scandal broke. People relying on the London Times are only reading about this today.

Peer review cuts both ways: it is a valuable tool for weeding out inappropriately formed opinions, but in the wrong hands it can just as easily be used to keep a poorly constructed “concensus” insulated from the kind of rigorous intellectual debate that a subject of this importance deserves.

With any topic of public debate, we should never trust without question opinions formed in a black box, no matter how much we otherwise trust and admire the source.

(Thanks to Instapundit, Ace of Spades, Mark Steyn and The Volokh Conspiracy)

The MTV-as-Nero, fiddling while North America burns, meme is nothing new; people have been hollering about it for quite a while.  What struck me about this commentary was not just its reasonableness, but the fact that it was written by a teenager – someone so young that she probably doesn’t even qualify as part of the MTV Generation, but has been fully immersed in their pop culture.  Her experience, and her friend’s, brings fresh insight to this old argument.

In the piece, Chantala Forgie writes:

As much as we teenagers would like to deny it, the media has an immense influence on our attitudes. Media may not be able to tell us what to think, but they do tell us what to think about. Throughout the 60’s, for instance, the idea of femininity took a sudden shift from a voluptuous Marilyn Monroe to a skeletal Twiggy. As stick-thin celebrities and models appeared with increasing frequency throughout the media, the previously unfamiliar disorder of anorexia became epidemic. A show like 16 and Pregnant risks setting off a similarly disturbing pattern.

Sometimes, I worry there is not much to be done to correct so many of the errors and extravagances of our society.  Sometimes, an unassuming freshmen will tell me that, maybe, I’m wrong.  Thanks Chantala.

Mr. Craig took considerable criticism for those decisions and for not doing more to build consensus within the administration or prepare the political ground in Congress. The prospect of closing Guantanamo in the first year of Mr. Obama’s presidency is now almost certain not to happen.

In particular, I was struck by the use of the word “prospect” in the second sentence. A synonym for prospect is “hope” (a very Obamaian word, to be sure). But wait – if I recall correctly, one of the President’s first acts upon taking office was signing the order authorizing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Aren’t we well past the prospect stage for closing Gitmo? Wasn’t that a done deal?

Apparently not, at least according to The New York Times. No, when this President takes concrete action that was always ill-conceived and now proven untenable, and he is forced to backtrack, his mistakes disappear in a puff of smoke. Back to the happy land of hope ‘n’ change that they sprang from.

In the words of Joni Mitchell, “That was just a dream some of us had.”

Via Ace of Spades

Local TV Matters is a campaign launched by local Canadian television broadcasters with a focus on the protection and preservation of local television for viewers across Canada. Members include CTV, /A\, Global, CBC, CHEK NEWS, V and NTV, with thousands of supporters across the country. The campaign encourages all Canadians to share their voice and support local television.

Their beef seems pretty straight forward.  They send their signal out for free, cable companies pick it up, bundle it with their other offerings and sell it all to us lowly consumers.  We pay the cable companies, but none of that money sees its way back to the local broadcast stations.  Seems pretty legitimate.

Ahh, if only ’twere so.

The broadcast giants are not looking to merely sell their product to cable providers; they are seeking a government agency to force cable providers to buy their product.  This isn’t about a free exchange of goods and services; this isn’t about proper remuneration for a service provided; this is about getting the government to bully your competition into giving you money.

Local TV Matters Media giants like CTV and CBC cry foul over the increase in revenues that cable providers have earned in recent years.  Understandably, they want their piece, but they seem unwilling to earn this windfall.  Cable providers have begun offering consumers greater selection of channels, more robust packages, time shifting and HD.  Broadcasters have offered consumers… umm… Little Mosque on the Prairie?

In response to the bullying, cable providers have set up their own little action committee, Stop the TV Tax.  They’re working hard to frame this issue as broadcasters asking the government to make consumers pay more for the service they are currently receiving.  Granted, this probably doesn’t equate, exactly, to a tax.  The organization should probably be called, Stop the TV Wealth Re-distribution, but their point is valid.  Broadcasters claim they are not asking for added fees to be levied against customers; they just want the government to force cable companies to give them money.  The fact that increasing the costs of cable service will exert a natural upward pressure on the price of the service seems lost on them.  Though, if they had a better grounding in issues regarding costs, revenues and profits, there’d be little need to run to the CRTC for a hand out.

Amusingly, their economic illiteracy is on full display on their web site:

Negotiation for Value (“NFV”) is a term used to describe a free market negotiation between cable and satellite companies and local television stations to establish the appropriate compensation to be paid by the cable or satellite company for the distribution of the local television station’s signal.  At present, your cable and satellite provider collects money from you each month for our service, but pays nothing to local television stations for the signals we provide.  This is not the same as “fee-for-carriage”, which is a term used to describe a regulated rate to be set by the CRTC for the distribution of local television signals.

I guess I forgot that bringing the weight of the government down on your competition is merely “free market negotiation”.  Silly me.

The whole ruse underpinning Local TV Matters is absurd:

You demand local TV, and local choice, and we want to continue to deliver it for you. It’s time to stop cable and satellite companies from charging you more for the local TV you’re already paying for.

It’s nice of broadcasters to have our best interests at heart, though it seems completely lost on them that if we really do “demand local TV”, there’d be no need to run to the regulator.  I have no doubt that the existing business model for local broadcast television is no longer viable, however, in most every other industry, companies are forced to change a failing business model lest they cease to exist.  Apparently, if you dabble in local broadcast television, you’re immune to such market realities.  It certainly takes some gall to seek out this form of corportatism and parade it about in the guise of the free market.

It takes even more gall to force an artificial increase to the costs your competitors must incur and then imply that they are simply being greedy for raising their prices.

Alright, so far it probably sounds like I’m advocating some form of digital free riding – that I think cable providers should just be able to take someone else’s service and re-sell it without passing along any of the revenue.  Such an analysis would be correct but for one annoying little fact: the government is forcing cable companies to offer broadcast television.  So Rogers and Shaw and Cogecco have no choice but to provide this service.  And, let’s not forgot, broadcasters have never passed along any of the increased ad revenue that they receive as a result of their increased audience to the cable providers who are responsible for the increased audience.

There is a pretty easy solution to all this.  Don’t let cable providers transmit broadcast television for free.  I’ll watch NBC, Fox, CNN, the Discovery Channel, Teletoon, the NFL Network, the History Channel, etc on cable, and then if I feel like watching CBOT, CJOH or ‘A’ Channel, I’ll pull out the ol’ rabbit ears.  Seems fair.

Maybe Charles Anthony was right.  Maybe the simplest solution is to just dissolve the CRTC.

… American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.

And there’s something distinctly undemocratic about that.

The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama’s opponents are trying to “delegitimize” the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.

In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way. . . . I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

On health care he’s been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn’t even have a plan to debate.

Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president’s agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network’s lack of objectivity?

Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it’s worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. “Objective” journalism is a 20th-century confabulation, as alien to the Founders’ vision as transporter beams and time travel.

Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.

Turning back to the interview with Conor Friedersdorf from the other thread, the following is an excerpt that raises significant questions.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of dreck that harms public discourse. I’d never want to be the arbiter drawing a definitive boundary between folks who add to the conversation and those who take away from it. That line is impossible for anyone to consistently and reliably discern. But it is possible to identify folks whose transgressions are so frequent, blatant and influential that one must either oppose them or stay silent as they corrode our polity’s primary means of testing ideas and deciding among them. I think it is important that this opposition is grounded in substantive arguments, that it avoids ad hominem attacks, that it is rigorous, and that it is intellectually honest.

As I argue in the other thread, ad hominem argument, be it rude or funny, is often the only way to check intellectual dishonesty at the door. Often it is necessary to take a swipe at people who are unwilling to face the truth. A well placed insult forces them to challenge why what you are calling them isn’t true, to make a come back, the result being that they either face the truth and the conversation continues, no doubt robustly, or they leave—good riddance. It is individuals of genuine civility who can take a hit and keep on coming; re: Juan Williams.

I’m not arguing that conservatives benefit from “echo chambers.” Hardly! I’m making the point that in any “political discourse” there are likely to be intellectual swindlers, however polite and well-intentioned, that want to narrow the choices we face into one way, THEIR way, whatever the cost. Conservatives are seeking to provide people with “A Choice, Not An Echo” and doing so will often infuriate their opponents (Many thanks, once again, to Kathy Shaidle for the link.), as we see now with the current White House attacks on Fox news.

To engage in democratic politics, it is best if one comes with some principles, broad shoulders, a quick wit, and the capacity to laugh at oneself.

At The league of Ordinary Gentlemen, Scott H. Payne has a great interview with Mr. Friedersdorf (Scott also has some good interviews with other prominent bloggers).  Here’s a tease:

In Electric Kool-Aid Conservatism, I argue a few things: a) certain conservative insights and core critiques of liberalism intrinsically resist the narrative form. b) As the right’s echo chamber grows, the ideas that reverberate weaken. Ghettoizing smart writers within rally-the-base publications is something the left can afford, given the present media landscape, while the scarcity of journalists who grasp right-of-center ideas make their isolation particularly costly. c) The right doesn’t need more activists, it needs more journalists — folks who buy into and excel at the journalistic project, rather than folks intent on trying to destroy it. Unlike the Doublethink piece, in which I am offering advice to the right, however, my criticism of talk radio hosts is grounded not in the accurate notion that they are bad for the right, but in the larger conviction that they are bad for healthy political discussion, and thus the country. Put another way, all my work is predicated on a belief that public discourse is important, that journalism properly executed improves it, and that various journalistic benefits are undervalued on the right. But I’d say that Electric Kool-Aid Conservatism and my criticism of talk radio folks are overlapping projects, not identical ones.

The entire interview is a must read for those of us on the right who participate in political discourse… actually, it’s a worthwhile read for anyone interested in honest political debate.

Legitimacy is a broad concept that folds within itself dimensions of morality, legality and divinity.

And here’s the clincher:

That Fox News enjoys popular support of such immense breadth and depth suggests that it also enjoys sociological legitimacy- something that the White House risks losing if it retains its antagonistic posture toward Fox News.

I could try to make a supporting argument, but really, y’all should just listen to Richard.

Read the whole thing.

We have to be mindful of these communication trip-ups though as they are a reminder of the real reason that Obama is currently flirting with his predecessor’s low mark in the opinion polls and, more importantly, why the reaction my the civil liberties-minded Americans these days are an over-reaction. Upon nearing the first anniversary of Obama’s election, the President has continued to impress every fair-minded individual with his talent for rhetoric; he’s no Reagan but he can certainly light up a crowd. The other emerging truth of the 44th administration is that, as a group, there hasn’t been as much potential for a PR meltdown since Jimmy Carter’s days. Put specifically, Obama (and his handlers) will undo himself before he is able to establish himself as any sort of dictator.

The danger in the path towards sounding the alarm against Obama isn’t that it won’t work, or that it won’t contribute to Obama’s eventual falling out with the American public; it’s that it will weaken what comes after. Civil libertarians and conservatives today serve as the defenders of the original constitutional framework in the United States; the public knows this and, for the most part, will notice whenever they pipe up as they did last year by voting for Obama in the first place. However, if this group makes a mountain out of Obama’s molehill, it will eventually weaken their argument when someone more capable at manipulating the information-driven media comes along. Again, it’s not that the attitudes of these freedom fighters is wrong, just the degree to which they are acting upon it.

Going back to the momentum idea that I brought up at the beginning here, a wiser strategy for the libertarians going forward might be to just sit back and enjoy the show. Sure, make sure that the idea that Obama is just a little too controlling for comfort stays in the public eye, but remember that at the same time, he’s not implementing 1930s Germany or even 1930s America at this point. If that point should come under his presidency, by all means, speak up! However, to take such drastic action now will only marginalize such a warning bell when a serious threat to America’s constitution comes along.

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like The Supreme Court of Canada, is now a court with the insidious pretence that its justices are not political actors, be they now the wiser appointed and benign overlords of all the realm. As the website of the court now, boldly, proclaims:

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They will sit for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions will extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their previous role as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Justices gave landmark rulings on the legality of the Hunting Act 2004 under European law, and whether or not a schoolgirl could be prevented from wearing traditional cultural dress.

Since Magna Carta, the High Court of Parliament, as it were, has been—and let us hope it remains—the final arbiter between the “citizen” and the state. Consider that a “citizen” is a “citizen” explicitly because he is the “subject” of a State. And “subjects,” being subjects of limited means in comparison to the state, can readily be subjected to the injustices, intentional or not, of that state.

What The United Kingdom has lost is far greater than any advance for federalism would have warranted. It has lost the explicit recognition—at the very top, anyway—that adjudicating the law is always part and parcel of legislating the law.

It was for this reason that John Locke held the Legislative branch of government to be supreme over all others. What we call Parliament was a necessary public conversation between the Executive and those who write the law as well as interpret the law. Take one aspect out of the mix and you will get power run amuck; so much for the balancing act that a separation of powers doctrine is meant to provide.

But, anymore, few learned men consider reading Locke a worthy endeavour. For whatever reason—maybe the American revolution and the cultural dominance of The United States—Montesquieu’s formulation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government wins wider popular recognition; those who understand the consequences of putting his formulation into practice a much smaller constituency.

It was to temper “legislating from the bench” that, for centuries, by the Law Lords sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the justice system of The United Kingdom tipped its hat toward Parliament. Being part of Parliament, the fact that the decisions of the Law Lords carried political consequence, that the adjudication of justice can, indeed, be effected by the idiosyncratic disposition and perspective of the adjudicators was lost on no one. The final court of appeal avoided even the appearance of being oracular.

New Labour seems to prefer change for the sake of change, especially when trying to win respectability for its love of big government. This is certainly not the first time it has looked across the pond and adopted the worst, the intellectually laziest, that Canada has to offer; be it the incoherent cult of “multiculturalism,” or, now, the larger, the more significant evolutions of our own constitutional history.

Tom Piatak assesses it well:

Comes news this morning that our beloved President has at last won the Nobel Peace Prize. We can all be glad that the Nobel committee overcame the stark racism that denied Obama the Nobel Prize for Literature for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. I suspect that racism has also been behind the denial of the Nobel Prizes for Economics, Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine to Obama, whose accomplishments in those fields very nearly equal what he has accomplished so far in the Presidency. We can only hope that we make contact with extraterrestrials before Obama leaves the White House, so that other worlds will be able to join ours in giving Obama the honors he so obviously deserves.

Or as John Podhoretz surmises:

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Satire to one side, Peter Schramm offers a sensible enough strategy for Obama’s way forward:

I woke up to this stunning decision (as the WaPo calls it) this morning. (We should be prepared to be surprised in politics, right? And we never are, are we?) The problem is that everyone understands that he doesn’t deserve it (and I mean no disrespect to the President Obama). One wag said on CNN this morning that the lefties in Oslo are attempting to tie Obama’s hands on foreign policy, especially regarding decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Maybe. But this does give Obama a great opportunity: Mickey Kaus suggests that he turn it down. I agree. It would be magnanimous-like act, offered by a statesman who understands that the world does move, or should move, on merit. If he accepts it, there will be a political backlash for some will start arguing that his future war decisions will be taken for the wrong reasons. He cannot afford that opinion settling in on the public. The decisions on Afghanistan, just to cite the most obvious example, are tough enough to figure out without such calculations. He should turn it down.

That brings us to the next element of this “scandal” — is it, as Susan Delacourt suggests, another sponsorship scandal? I’d be embarrassed if I was Susan tonight because both cases are very different — the beneficiaries in the Chretien government’s scheme was Liberal Party insiders who gave Canadians nothing, but took loads of our tax dollars. In the case of the action plan, the beneficiaries are the citizens who chose to use the fruits of the Harper government’s announced plans: upgraded highways won’t have a toll both to check to see if you voted Conservative in the last election; Toronto Island’s Centerville washrooms won’t include a rugged outhouse for Warren Kinsella’s kids because they’re related to the infamous Asian-food connoisseur; and the Montréal Fashion and Design Festival won’t have special reserved seating for Conservative internship alumni. Oh, and by the way, how many Tories currently hail from either of Canada’s two largest cities again? Or is Kinsella, the Star et al. now counting Senators too?

Stephen Harper’s government is open game for criticism; Harper himself makes no claim to perfection and I respect Liberal attacks on the record of the current government, even if I don’t agree. But folks, let’s be honest for a moment — this is downright silly! Unless the critics who are at pains to try to make this a huge election-defining scandal wish to call the government website a lie, this link…

http://www.plandaction.gc.ca/eng/map.asp

has an entire map’s worth of projects that got stimulus funding. True, not all cities will get exactly the same number of dollars per population but it also shows that Toronto Island (split by Olivia Chow and Jack Layton themselves), neighbourhoods like Westmount and Kahnawake (which is across the way from Paul Martin’s old Montreal riding), and the ENTIRE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR (which has no representation in the elected government) all have projects that got funding from the plan that we’re now hearing is a scandal. There’s more too…just look at the map. Of course, the Star-Liberals are once again showing that they never let facts in the way of an argument; unfortunately, now they have a little cheerleader from Markham to help too.

Wow, nothing in the riding of Markham from Stephen Harper's cold-hearted government...

It’s about as good as one might expect in The Multicultural Utopia, as Mark Steyn puts it, where the most grievous evil is to rationalize a significant problem with a particular patch or thread in the great multicultural fabric known as Canada.  Suggesting that the values of another culture have no place in Canada is worse than calling the premeditated murder of four Muslim women by their very own family for their “disgusting lifestyles” in Canada an honour killing.

As to why this is the case, we have Kingston Police Chief Stephen Tanner:

“In our Canadian society, we value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great country,” Tanner said. “These individuals (the dead women) had the freedom and rights of expression of all Canadians. Whether that was a part of a motive within the family based on one of the girls or more of the girls behaviour is open to speculation.” (Emphasis added.)

To which I offer, No, sir, Canadians do not and should not value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great nation.

Canadians categorically reject the cultural values that underpin this massacre of innocent Muslim women.  Canadians reject the principles of shari’a law.  Canadians denounce Islamic rule.  Canadians abhor misogyny.  Canadians flatly and emphatically reject shari’a's provisions for justifiable killing.  Canadians reject the cultural value of honour killing, which is prevalent in Muslim cultures because it is arguably justifiable within Islam.

Does this mean we reject all Muslims?  Certainly not.  But Muslims who insist on exercising their rights under shari’a or living by that law??–Yes, we reject you because we reject that aspect of your culture.  Shari’a is illegitimate in this land.  It has no place here.  If you want to continue on that path then kindly get out and make your home in a place where shari’a is in full swing or be prepared to face our rule of law.

To be clear, Canadians value cultural values that do not usurp our rule of law.  The values of other cultures that reflect the spirit and principle of our values and laws, we accept and are glad to include.  Those that do not, we reject.  Immigrants who make their home here have a choice: leave their anti-Canadian cultural values behind and assume our values or face the Canadian rule of law, which is based on Canadian values.  To paraphrase Charles Napier, you build your funeral pyres and we’ll build a gallows.  In this case, you kill your daughters to preserve some sort of religious honour and we’ll lock you in prison for what bleeding-heart liberals consider a lifetime.  I prefer a gallows myself but that’s beside the point.

There is no such thing as an innocuous value.  Imported cultural values are either strengthening or weakening Canadian values.  We dare not include them all. It is ours to judge, and judge we must.  We are all-inclusive (read non-judgmental, tolerant, uncritical) to our own peril.  There can be no middle ground as it relates to shari’a and honour killings or the like.

It’s time Canadians and the media start saying so.  It’s time to clearly define what is and is not Canadian.  It is time for the demarcation of a Canadian identity.

Now, granted, that first box in the top left is as close as you’re going to get to asking a fair question about negative ads and give you a true taste of what Canadians feel about them. Generally speaking, I can’t help but wonder if those folks to write into newspapers complaining about the ads tend to be hyper-partisan, even on just a philosophical level, and thus hyper-prone to complain about the ads that the other guy throws against their team.

Next, the box in the top right about politicians working together is interesting. It has nothing to do with advertising, but it’s interesting nonetheless (and yes, I’m sure its there to colour results in the final two questions!). If you take the 15% that disagree with that statement, you have pretty much the core support of the CPC with maybe a bit of NDP, BQ and Green tinge in there as well. Put another way, this question is asking those who support any given opposition party if they want their policies to be considered seriously on Parliament Hill. There’s some non-partisans in there who expect cooperation anyway to round out the rest.

Question 3 is where it gets laughable though. I would say it does harm, but the real issue is harm to who? “Stephane Dion is not a leader” certainly did harm to the hapless Liberal MP but did it hurt anyone I know personally? Nope. In fact, I’d find it hard to see how an attack ad couldn’t do harm as an ineffective ad will always hurt the party who produces it (“Soldiers. In our cities”, anyone?).

Question 4 is along the same lines. Does attack advertising make me distrust politicians more? I hope so; glad to know I’m aware of my environment here. Let’s put it this way: if I see a Tory attack ad done well, I distrust the Liberals less; if I see a poor Tory ad, I distrust their ability to govern competently. The same factors apply to the Liberals and, if they ever made a serious attack ad, the NDP.

In conclusion, if this is the analysis the Globe is selling its readership, let’s hope they don’t validate those rumours of a return to subscription-based content any time soon. It might just kill the paper!

In regards to Joanne’s post, I have to agree that it is imperative that Conservatives focus less on the accusations and more on the touting. However I also believe that both have their place in today’s messaging. Specifically, I think there is a balance to be had in proclaiming our accomplishments while also indicating what would have been the result if the Opposition had their way.

The “crux of the matter” is that we have to take firm control of our message and get it out there by reminding voters of our accomplishments. Voters need to know what we as Conservatives have been able to accomplish against the staggering odds we’ve faced in the House of Commons. Between parties that will blindly vote against anything we bring forward (NDP), parties who refuse to consider anything that doesn’t somehow benefit Quebec more than anything else (BLOQ), and parties who don’t stand for anything but want to pretend to be the “big dog” (Liberals), it’s a wonder that anything was able to get done.

In fact, I think we owe the Liberals a thanks for not standing for anything these past few years. But I also think that Ignatieff’s position about not wanting to present any policies out of fear that the Conservatives might “use them” has earned them a severe spanking by the Canadian people. It’s their JOB to present reasonable alternative policies, and by not doing their job they are doing a massive disservice to this country.

All that aside, Conservatives should be using this summer to remind Canadians about just how much we’ve done for the country dispite the odds. Now is the opportunity for us to take advantage of “good news” stories and show how past actions have made us a safer and more prosperous nation.

In this light, a government which has little defining policy left to bank on has to release an attack ad that goes after the opposition head on. The “Michael Ignatieff. Just Visiting.” line is a very clever bit that lives up to that of “Dalton McGuinty. Not up to the job.” from Mike Harris’ 1999 campaign, but it is sadly not enough to lift the ad to the level of professionalism and credibility that the Conservatives badly need it to be. Jerry Nicholls makes an interesting point on how the ad titled “Hypocrisy” is, well, very hypocritical in and of itself, although I think that the Conservatives have at least a decent plan in drawing attention to Iggypuff’s hiatus from our fair nation…so long as they intend to follow it up with a campaign highlighting that the Liberal leader spent those years away as an Ivory Tower academy wonk who, like too many in that world, is grossly out of touch with how the real world works. Getting right down to the voiceover work (which sounds like it was done by one of the new summer college interns), and the graphics of a sliding Iggy with a poorly timed video of the Liberal attack ads, the entire product comes across as amateur hour.

This, of course, wouldn’t be so insulting except for the fact that the political operations team in Ottawa is so obsessed with keeping their jobs that we among the Conservative base are continually being harassed to a) suck up the entire lack of substantive, truly constructive policy that has been the status quo since the last election and b)make sure the generous cheques are made out to the Conservative Fund of Canada. For all the money that the boys in poli-ops have been receiving, you’d think they’d be able to do better…much better!

Update: here is the Youtube version of the Conservative attack ad:

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government. Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”

[Via: Five Feet of Fury]

Alberta

It has it’s critics, say, here and here, but I like it.

“Freedom To Create. Spirit To Achieve” challenges a certain complacency whereby having the freedom to create wealth — not just material wealth, but the individual resource to fulfil one’s hopes and dreams — is diminished by overemphasizing our collective niceness as Canadians, specifically, the emphasis that gets placed on tolerance and equality, acceptance and understanding, or on our public welfare services as tenets of civil society. … And on that score, “Alberta Advantage” was always pretty blah, open to interpretation or any supposed advantage one might place on it; a wide swath of winners and losers.

There are people with ambition in this world, those who don’t whine when life — be it certain grievances against history or some amorphous and oppressive “ism” — deals them a rough hand, but keep going, looking for new opportunities for success despite hardship. These are the kinds of people we need to attract to Alberta, to encourage once they get here.

On the new slogan I say job well done.

And Jane ‘Giggles’ Taber let her do it! And here I thought Tom Clark claimed that this kind of behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated on his show. I sincerely hope Monte says something.

And I don’t know how many people caught it, but just before they ‘faded to black’ for commercial, Jane and Shiela were giggling together. Over what, I certainly can’t say for sure, but it certainly looked unprofessional on the part of Jane Taber. I don’t know that I actually expected professionalism from her, but in either case, I was enormously disappointed!

When they did come back, I did notice Jane looking a little spooked, as though perhaps someone read her the riot act, and she had some attempted but ultimately weak ‘good’ things to say about the Conservatives. Even if that was the case, it’s too little, too late Jane.

First, as if it weren’t enough that Quebec abhors federal intrusion into their affairs, Jack Layton goes on to petition the Prime Minister to drag himself and government spending into the mess as well.

NDP leader Jack Layton said he intends to immediately send a letter making the request to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Next week, he intends to raise the issue of advertising by government departments and crown corporations in the chain’s newspapers during question period in the House of Commons.

Now, for a man trying to make gains off of their first MP elected in a province notorious for demanding more federal money, he is making the enormously stupid demand that the Federal Governmnet do exactly the opposite. Add to that, he is actively tampering in provincial jurisdiction; behaviour which is anathema to Quebecers and only serves as evidence for the BLOC and the PQ to use against Federalism. [insert golf clap here] Well done Jack. Well done.

Last night, Isabelle Dessureault, vice-president public affairs for Quebecor Media, responded to Layton’s plan saying he does not have all the facts.

“What the NDP is asking the government to do is take sides in a context where one of the two parties (Quebecor) exercised its rights under the actual laws in Quebec and Canada,” Dessureault said in an interview.

Dessureault noted that an inspector from the Quebec’s labour standards board recently visited the newspaper concluding no violations of the Labour Code in the current dispute.

What I personally find amusing, is that Jack Layton (the man who refuses to co-operate with the Conservatives on anything now asking for a favor?) continues to believe he has any influence with the Conservatives anymore. I dare say he has little credibility with even the Liberals these days.

That only leaves….oh yeah….

OTTAWA — The Conservatives are scouring hundreds of hours of videotape as they prepare to pummel their key rival Michael Ignatieff with attack ads leading up to the next election.

The Harper government had been uncharacteristically tame toward the Liberal leader until last week, when MPs began taking shots at Mr. Ignatieff in the House of Commons.

That was just the opening salvo.

The Tories already have anti-Ignatieff ads ready to air at a moment’s notice, and are also combing through a lifetime’s worth of musings from his career as a public intellectual.

Wow, riveting stuff – but what evidence does this reporter have?

Two government officials say they toned down the partisanship because there was little public appetite for politicians squabbling during an economic crisis where people are losing jobs.

So two anonymous government officials are his source. Yup, but to further his investigative scope Alexander digs even deeper:

“We poll better on offence,” said one government official. “That’s always sort of guided us.”

Ah, there you go, another anonymous government official dishing the dirt. But wait, Alexander isn’t finished yet – he’s no longer concerned with quoting anonymous government officials, he is speaking in more general terms now:

Tories say there will be three themes to their attacks: that Mr. Ignatieff is an out-of-touch elitist; that he flip-flops (they will cite his shifting positions on a carbon tax, on coalition with the other opposition parties, and on Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon); and that he’s a fair-weather Canadian.

They say their research keeps turning up first-person references to the United States in which Mr. Ignatieff — then a professor at Harvard University — appeared to be describing himself as an American.

Those occasional references to Americans as “we” were already an issue in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, but the Conservatives say they’ve been stockpiling plenty of unused material.

There you have it folks, a journalist who is so busy stating the obvious that he’s forgotten to include the names of his sources.

Alexander, now it’s my turn to state the obvious – political parties are partisan organizations whose job is to win elections. Political parties are successful when they effectively characterize their opponents, and their ideas, as out of touch and wrong – that’s kind of the whole point of politics, isn’t it?

I’ve heard time and time again that ‘the media is biased, and they’re no friends of ours’. So what? Does that mean we stop trying to keep our message on course? Do we just give up and leave our ‘message’ in the hands of 1) The Opposition Parties (who will spin the message as negatively as possible in order to demonize the Conservatives) or 2) the media itself (who, when given no alternative, will resort to educated guesses, but guesses none-the-less).

Obviously, we expect the Opposition Parties to work against us to their own benefit. What’s not so reliable, is that the public will see it that way too. I’ve heard from non-politically active friends that “they’d know better than me what’s what”…. Seriously, is that something we want to allow by inaction?

Understandably, if the media-types don’t have official information on something of public-interest, they will start to speculate on the “possible” meanings, or the “potential” outcomes of the issue-du-jour. This only serves to feed the Opposition Parties ammunition to use against us and will claim it’s the truth by virtue of non-denial (even if non-admittance is also part of that equation).

For far too long, we have done exactly that. And it has taken its toll.

Suddenly, the Prime Minister seems to have been enervated and is taking our message on the road. He’s getting face time all over the US, and Americans are paying attention! Not only is he looking knowledgeable, but he’s also looking convincing and competent; very Prime Ministerial! Momentum is starting to build again, albeit very slowly, based on that confident and capable image as well as what looks to be a possible resurgence of the conservative social agenda.

It’s my sincere hope that this face time is extended in Canada as well. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister, the PMO and the Cabinet Ministers all get on board and get out there! Take back control of our message! Grab the attention of conservatives again and give them something to hold onto! Let’s not waste this opportunity, and instead grow it and learn from it!

Mark Peters did a good overview of the serious subject that is covered but where the movie towers over other movies that attempt to tackle complex social issues is that is isn’t preachy but is actually entertaining as well. Sometimes such movies will avoid the former but completely fall flat with the latter but with “Taken” leaves you exiting the theatre thinking that you actually got your money’s worth for a night out while also instilling the scary realities in you that can only come from the dark world of international prostitution slave rings. Incidentally (and I say this at risk of being dragged before a thought police farce perhaps), the movie leaves a subtle but appropriate reference to who is the major driver behind the dehumanization of the poor young women who are thrust into this hell near the end of the film, referring to an otherwise minor character as “sheik”. Rock the cashbar indeed!