My Valentine to Michael Ignatieff, or, In which I stop totalling ignoring the guy.

Regarding my post about Stephen Harper and the Honduran 'coup', commenter Lilknitter, who is totally 'not' my wife, writes, "[n]ever thought I'd see the day when you started saying complementary things about a Grit..."

I didn't actually mean to shower praise on Ignatieff; I just meant I'd make more of an effort to consider him and his policies. Of course, we already knew that his desires for EI are less than desirable and economically illiterate, but let's see what we can find out about his opinion of the situation in Honduras.

Well, first off, here's the only thing that comes up in a search for "Honduras" on the Liberal party site:

OTTAWA – The Honourable Bob Rae, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic, added his voice today to those strongly condemning the coup d’etat in Honduras, saying:

“The ousting and detainment of President Manuel Zelaya this weekend is a serious blow to the democratic process.

“A return to this style of military coup is a real step backwards for Honduras and the region. It is a disservice to the Honduran people to return to the days where military coups are the norm – the people of Honduras have engaged wholeheartedly in the pursuit of accountability and transparency in governance through their democratically elected government; it would be a shame to see them lose all they’ve accomplished.”

Rae also called for all parties involved to respect the democratic governance of the country and engage in dialogue that moves towards a peaceful and democratic resolution, saying:

“It is Canada’s responsibility as a member of the Organization of American States to urge Honduras to support the democratic process and the rule of law, including the Honduran Constitution, and above all else to resolve any lingering tensions peacefully and constructively.

“The Liberal Party of Canada will continue to monitor the evolving situation in Honduras and will persist in hoping for a swift and peaceful resolution.”

Granted, the statement is coming from Bob Rae, but if Ignatieff's Foreign Affairs Critic and his party's web site say this and only this about the situation, I'm inclined to attribute this stance to Iggy, as well. Nonetheless, I tried to find some more information. Unfortunately, a Google search of "Ignatieff and Honduras" brought nothing to counter the Liberal Party's stance.

I'd say the Party's statement is even less respectful than Harper's. It's somewhat disappointing.

(And, no, I don't plan to check out Jack Layton's or Elizabeth May's positions on the subject.)

I Hate to Have to Do This

Over at The Corner, Professor Stan Liebowitz writes:

The headlines say “job losses decrease” and “unemployment falls.” But these are contradictory statements since any net job losses, even if the number is smaller than the month before, imply a decrease in employment.

Well, to pick a nit, I must disagree with the Professor (noting that he is, no doubt, smarter than me, better at economics than me, and better at math than me).

Stating that "job losses decrease" does not necessarily contradict "employment falls," as neither of these statements explicitly address the creation of new jobs. If you lose 50 000 previously existing jobs, but you gain 100 000 newly created jobs, then in fact, you have both lost jobs and experienced less unemployment.

Now, Professor Liebowitz goes on to state that any net job loss is incongruous with falling unemployment (except when you consider all those poor unemployed souls who gave up looking for a job within the past month, and are, thus, no longer officially unemployed), and, in the context of the current economic climate, I'll agree (though this does not take into account retirees, but let's ignore them for now).

Still, the reason I feel that it is important to note this is that numbers and math are thrown around a lot in the news... and very often carelessly. I would prefer that the good professor not fall into that trap.

...especially when the point of his post was to decry the innumeracy of much of the media.

"You too, snitchy."

(Note: I know, I know; I'm late to the game on this one. I started working on this post last week, but life has gotten in the way.)

It looks like Obama's White House has set up a snitch@whitehouse.gov, er, flag@whitehouse.gov email address, just in case you felt like ratting out anyone who sent you an email about health care reform that contradicted the administration's talking points.

At The American Scene, Alan Jacobs has this post and this post addressing the situation. His posts and the associated comments are worth the read (well, most of the comments are). There's lots of people decrying this development, and there's lots of people saying there's no there there. Professor Jacobs identifies what is likely the most reasonable sort of response:

Well, Alan, I hardly think we’re in for another Night of the Long Knives or a re-run of the McCarthy era — that’s not what you’re suggesting, is it? — but that really wasn’t the smartest thing for the White House staff to say. They should have known that a request to report to the White House anything “fishy” was bound to get spun as the first steps towards totalitarianism.

Anyway, here's what the original White House blog post says:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The White House certainly made a mistake initiating this, but there can't really be much malice behind it. It's not as if Obama's people have made a habit of this sort of activity.

I mean, it's not like they've ever set up an online propaganda tool to try to avoid political debate... oh wait.

Okay, I know, everyone propagandizes a bit, but it's not like they've ever sent out talking points and marching orders to try to get people to bully and silence political opponents... oh wait.

Well, astroturfing isn't great, but it's not like they'd ever try to get the Department of Justice to silence political opponents... oh wait.

Granted, that one's bad, but it's not like they actually got law enforcement officers to form truth squads in order to 'dispel' misinformation... oh wait.

Let it be clear that I do not think that the United States is lurching towards 1984, or facing some new form of neo-McCarthy-ism, but it is unsettling that the "leader of the free world" seems to have insufficient regard for freedom of speech. Barack Obama's history does not afford him much benefit of the doubt (if any). A former constitutional law professor and Harvard Law Review editor should better understand why it is incredibly inappropriate for the President (or his agents) to set up this sort of snitching system. Of course, professors and "experts" often disappoint me.

Byron York at The Washington Examiner presents us with a new wrinkle to this story (H/T: Jonah Goldberg):

In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. Phillips' request suggests that whatever information the White House receives on health-care reform "disinformation" will be used to further the goal of passing a national health-care makeover, which is, of course, one of the president's main policy initiatives. Such material, and whatever the White House does with it, would qualify as presidential records. Only after more than a decade would such records be publicly available.

So, they will not only keep tabs on those spreading 'misinformation', but also those helpful souls who forward the information to flag@whitehouse.gov. I'm glad to see they've taken the Rev. Lovejoy approach to policing:

Lovejoy: I know one of you is responsible for this. So repeat after me: If I withhold the truth, may I go straight to Hell where I will eat naught but burning hot coals and drink naught but burning hot cola –
[all the kids recite in unison]
Ralph: [scared] …where fiery demons will punch me in the back,
Bart: [bored] …where my soul will be chopped into confetti and be strewn upon a parade of murderers and single mothers,
Milhouse: …where my tongue will be torn out by ravenous birds.
[a crow outside looks right at him an squawks]
Bart did it! That Bart right there!
Bart: [angry] Milhouse!
Lovejoy: Milhouse, you did the right thing. Bart, come with me for punishment. [goes back for Milhouse] You too, snitchy.

Thankfully, all this talk about keeping lists gives me a reason to post one of my favourite Saturday Night Live commercials:





In case the video doesn't work, here's the transcript:

- A Tradition of Excellence -

Narrator:
On Wall Street, Trendy investment fads have come and gone over the
years, but not at Grayson Moorhead, where we've always stuck to the
basic principles set forth by Arthur Grayson nearly 80 years ago.

Arthur Grayson:
Our clients must be our first priority.

- The Tradition Endures -

AG:
We will take our client's money and invest it. Part of the profit
we will keep for ourselves; the rest we will give to the client.

- A Tradition of Security -

We will make a list of our clients and how much money each of them
has given us to invest. We will keep this list in a safe place. If
we have time we will make a copy of the list in case something happens
to the first list.

- A Tradition of Listening -

Listen to your client. It's the only way to know what he's saying.

- A Tradition of Trust -

If a client is talking and you're not listening and he notices and
he accuses you of not listening, just say, "Sure I've been listening,
I've heard every word you've said." If he then says, "All right, tell
me what I've been talking about," just say, "You've been talking about
your investments. Which stocks to buy and so on." That way the client
will think you've been listening even though you haven't.

- A Tradition of Integrity -

AG:
We will invest only in white-owned businesses.

- Not all of Arthur Grayson's principles are followed today, but at
Grayson Moorhead we still believe in the basics. -

AG:
Don't leave the client's money lying around. Keep it in a safe place.
For example: where we keep the list.

- To Arthur Grayson, there was no substitute for knowing the market. -

AG:
Clients will rely on us for market expertise. If the day ever comes
when a client knows more about the market than we do, copy him. Do
what he does.

- Writing Brokers' Names on Slips of Paper -

AG:
Once a year, we will write each broker's name on a slip of paper and
then place the slips in a hat. Each broker will then draw a slip of
paper from the hat. He will buy a gift for the broker whose name he
his drawn. He will be that broker's Secret Santa.

- Drawing Again -

AG:
If a broker draws his own name from the hat, he will draw again.

- Taking Special Care -

AG:
We must take special care of the list with each client's name and the
amount of money he has invested. If we were to lose that list, we
would be ruined.

- If My Wife Calls -

AG:
If my wife calls white I'm in shagging my secretary, tell her I'm
at a board meeting. That way I'll be able to continue shagging my
secretary without my wife knowing about it.

- the tradition continues... -

AG:
If my wife were to find out about me and my secretary; that would be bad.
As bad as losing the list.

Love means never having to say you're sorry.

And Stephen Harper may need to apologize to us.

My thoughts on the Honduran 'coup' are well known (or they would be if anyone read this blog). My mild disdain for Prime Minister Harper has also been noted. However, this moment could be the breaking point for me.

The statement put out by the 'Three Amigos' read, in part:

We have thoroughly discussed the coup in Honduras and reaffirm our support for the San José Accord and the ongoing OAS effort to seek a peaceful resolution of the political crisis - a resolution which restores democratic governance and the rule of law and respects the rights of all Hondurans.

Needless to say, the San Jose Accord, was nothing to do cartwheels over. I'm not a huge fan of anything that calls for a "truth commission". It just sounds creepy.

Now, I don't put a whole lot of stock in joint statements, as they tend to mean something different to each member who signs on. So here's Stephen with ABC's Jake Tapper:

Tapper: One last question. There has been some criticism about the United States for not doing enough in Honduras to return President Zelaya. Do you have thoughts on that?

Harper: well, as I said in our press conference here, I find this quite hypocritical. I would be quite – if I were an American I would be quite annoyed by that kind of question because the United States has been accused of – so regularly in my lifetime, particularly in our hemisphere – of meddling and interfering in the affairs of others.

Now we have a problem in Honduras and we have some people jumping up and demanding the United States intervene and meddle.

I think the approach taken by the American administration is the correct one. First of all, they’ve articulated the same values that Canada, Mexico and others have articulated and that is we need to see democracy and the rule of law restored in Honduras.

As you know, there’s two sides to that issue. The democratically elected government should be restored and that government should be committed to respecting the constitutional rules of that country.

I think we all agree with that. President Arias of Costa Rica with the Organization of the American States is leading mediated efforts. Canada and Mexico are directly involved in that mediation effort. We have been highly supported by the Untied States in the mediation effort.

The United States views are not secret. It has been pushing to see the same outcomes we’re trying to see and I think this is the appropriate approach for the United States is to be very forceful and very helpful and to work with others to make sure democratic norms are upheld in our hemisphere.

David Mader at Mader Blog thinks that Harper is equivocating a bit, striking a balance (he also feels that the government's initial response was ill-considered... obviously, I agree on that point) and perhaps putting himself in a position to be an "honest broker" - someone who can put a little pressure on other leaders to keep them from imposing the undemocratic Zelaya/Chavez solution on Honduras.

Reading Harper's response, I too found that he was weaseling around a little bit, trying not to truly support Zelaya or the new (constitutional) government - in this scenario, any weaseling is considered a good thing. I hope that David's correct. I hope that Harper is playing at diplomacy but working to support the people of Honduras against this would-be dictator... and I think this might be the case (though my optimism might be a result of whatever faith/hope/optimism I left have in Stephen Harper... hopefully it's not misplaced).

I am, however, not that optimistic. It doesn't surprise me to think that people who crave power might sympathize with others who crave power, no matter how repugnant they may be.

I think it's time to start really listening to Michael Ignatieff.

Ain't He Pretty!

You can watch Richard Albert here.

I've got a proposal to work on, but I'll be sure to watch it later and pass on any comments.

I blame Alberto Tomba

Apparently Hugo Chavez has a grudge against the Romans. From Boston Review, via Anthony Dick:

The World has enough for everybody, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ. . . have taken control of the riches of the world.

Yes, I know who he was really talking about, but I'm tired of the whole blame-the-Jews thing. Do you want to know who killed Christ?

We did.

"I'm not a kidnapper; I just play one in real life."

Horrific. Absolutely Horrific. Perhaps when we storm the Bastille, the doctors should be first.

About 14 months ago, a new 'contributor' joined CG&A. She was perfect, but, nonetheless, the medical establishment was overbearing and deceitful (it's too bad Mike Harris didn't close down the Montfort when he had the chance). This story from New Jersey is frightening, and I do not plan to allow doctors and nurses to try to force themselves and their self-importance into the birth of our next child (should we be so blessed).

Paul Krugman agrees with National Review

President Obama on Wednesday Night:

Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier? And here's what I'm confident about: If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works. If there's a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?

Paul Krugman (from The Conscience of a Liberal at The New York Times):

Reading various reactions from the commentariat to last night’s presser, I had a horrible insight: many of them had no idea what Obama was talking about with the red pill-blue pill thing.

Greg Pollowitz (from Media Blog at National Review Online):

And from The Matrix:

Morpheus: This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

No wonder President Obama wants us to take the blue pill.

Welcome to the dark side, Paul.

Freakonomics

I've started reading Freakonomics. As with so many recent posts, I'm a little behind the curve on this one (4 years behind, to be precise), and it is unfortunate that I'm reading it knowing that its most (in)famous claim has been contested. Nonetheless, it should be an interesting read. The idea of The Hidden Side of Everything is very alluring, and I look forward to reading about sumo wrestling and the reasons drug dealers live with their moms.

I've only just started it, but one thing is popping out to me. It's a dismal read. Economics seems boring to many people, but not to me. And economic analysis of non-economic phenomena (such as the price elasticity of demand of suicide - which I learned about in university) can be quite interesting. I've always said that economics textbooks are some of the best written, so a best-selling, accessible economics book should be great.

Unfortunately, so far (about two chapters in) the writing is horrible. Steven Levitt had such a great opportunity (and it is probably still a good book), but it seems to be a miss.

Maybe I should just read Tyler Cowen's book instead.

Of buses, speech, God and freedom

Alright, I'm a little late to the game on this, but I just felt that I had to weigh in on this. There's been a mini-controversy regarding political and religious advertising on buses throughout Canada. There was a B.C. case that is to have an impact on the buses in Halifax. I don't live in either of these places, so I'm going to take a look at it from the vantage point of the Ottawa bus system (OC Transpo).

The column I link to is titled, Supreme Court gets a free speech case right. At first blush, that seems like an accurate analysis. Whether you want to encourage people to vote, promote a specific issue for voters, or comment on the existance of God, in Canada, you are free to speak your mind.

However, this case isn't about an individual (or group) saying anything; it is about someone using someone else's property as a vehicle for spreading their message (no pun intended). Just as each person seeking advertising space has a right to speak freely, the bus companies (in Ottawa's case, OC Transpo) have the right control what is said via their buses. OC Transpo, or more specifically its management, has an equivalent claim to freedom of speech. If such a company decides they do not want certain types of messages on their buses, that is their right.

Oh, but wait, here's the twist. In Ottawa's case (and I'd venture to guess in B.C. and Halifax), the bus company is not a private entity. OC Transpo is run by the city of Ottawa... not to mention, funded by them. The city of Ottawa has no inherent right to curtail free speech. Consequently, one can legitimately argue that an entity like OC Transpo does not have the right to deny broadcasting these controversial messages.

Alright, so now we've got the municipal government stomping on the free speech of its citizens. Well, that really is a violation of western liberalism, and, more pertinently, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So we're back to the original column's point that the Supreme Court got this one right.

But now we're not really talking about free speech. OC Transpo, though they do have their own revenue streams, are, in part, funded by the government... and by that, I mean taxpayers... private individuals with the same rights as those who wish to place controversial ads on the buses. So it's not free speech; it's subsidized speech.

Just as a true private company has the right to decide what messages it broadcasts, each taxpayer has the right to decide what messages he or she broadcasts... except the Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree. They have brought us to a point where people have the right to have the public fund thier speech.

So what's the answer to this? In some ways, there is no good answer. Generally, free speech should trump just about any regulation imposed against it (perjury is a good exception). Generally, the rest of us should not be on the hook for someone else's "free" speech. I'm inclined to think that the right thing to do in such a conflict is to side with the people who are having someone else's "freedom" imposed upon them. If the government is taking your money, it'd be nice if they didn't then use it to promote an idea you find abhorrent (of course, this isn't an idea always shared by the government of Canada), but I'm not really comfortable taking the side of what seems like censorship.

So, again, what's the answer to this? Well, there is a good answer, a damn good answer: the government should not be running a bus company.

This is actually a ridiculous controversy. We shoudn't be worried about a government-as-owner censoring bus ads. If OC Transpo were a true private actor, the Supreme Court (not to mention the municipal government) would have absolutely no business telling them what they can and cannot place on the sides of their buses (though, I'm sufficently accomodating to agree that porn could be censored - quite gracious, I know).

I imagine their would be objections to this. People do not like paying an appropriate fare for transit, nor do they like the idea of limiting bus service only to places and times when their is sufficient demand for it. I've thought about such objections, but this post is getting pretty long, so I'll address such concerns in another post.

Was I unfairly critical of Ernie Eves?

Maybe I should have called out Janet Ecker instead.

My memory is fuzzy, but I seem to recall Eves' government backing away from the supporting public education. I thought they had repealed the Equity in Education Tax Credit, but some quick googling seems to prove my memory a liar (though some reports imply that he may have halved the credit - that doesn't quite make him a champion of liberty).

I thought Eves had buckled under public opinion, but, as the link shows, it may have just been his prominent backers. At the very least, I think it can be said that the Progressive Conservatives lurched towards the progressive side during his tenure as Premier, at least as far as school choice is concerned.

Why did I pick on John Tory?

In this post, I single out John Tory as one of the people working against educational options for children. Tory is a pretty minor, forgettable figure (who might not have the career he does were it not for his last name), so some may wonder why I mention him.

Well, here's why.

Tory and the PC's got raked over the coals for their proposal to expand the current funding of religious schools. I'm not arguing that religious schools should necessarily be funded by the government. Well, I'm not directly arguing that. The point isn't religious schools anyway. The point is that Tory abandoned this very minor step towards educational freedom for Ontario's students.

Tory and the Tories were championing school choice... or, at least, that is what they should have been doing. Giving parents control over their children's education is not merely defensible, but it is also one of the few 'feel good' sort of policies that conservatives/libertarians/right wingers actually evangelize. A leader who will fight for middle- and working-class parents against unions and bureaucrats is the type of leader we need.

So, with this entirely worthwhile initiative, what does John Tory do? He makes it appear as a sop to religious voters, looks at some polls, and then abandons the idea - tacitly supporting the current oppressive system.

I didn't have a daughter when Tory's craven political ambitions superseded any honourable platform the Progressive Conservative Party might have been able to cobble together, but I have one now. It would have been nice if Tory had shown some leadership on this issue.

It would have been nice if Tory, not by act but by omission, had not worked to hinder my daughter's future.

[UPDATE: JTL has a nice little line on another reason to disdain Tory. I may disagree with JTL on what constitutes "public" education (though I'd say his idea of public education would match my idea of "public" education if that makes any sense), but, damn, I miss J.C. Watts and Skip Walker.]

But which one's Anastasia?

Richard writes about the democratic deficit of Obama's czars. I'd say he's pretty much right on, though I would disagree with his conclusion. I don't think the ideal scenario is to have Obama's czars face congressional confirmation; I'd rather he simply had fewer (or none at all). But that's a minor quibble.

Well... we all have our off days...

Richard Albert has another column up, this one at ThePolitic.com (full disclosure: I know nothing about this web site, other than the fact that they have published Richard). The column is about the Sotomayor nomination, and the fact that it would/will mean six of nine SCOTUS judges will be Roman Catholic.

(On a bit of a pedantic note, Richard's column repeatedly refers to six "Catholic" judges, but there are currently seven Catholic judges - Souter and Stevens are catholic, but they are not Roman Catholic... granted this doesn't really mean much of anything for this discussion.)

As any regular readers will know, I am a fan of Richard's writing. However, I just don't know what his point is on this one. He speaks of the fact that the R.C. make up of the court is being ignored by pundits (though it's not), and that this may be a good signal of America's progress away from anti-Roman Catholic bigotry.

However, he then goes on to write:

That said, there remain some very serious problems– like this or this–that prevent the United States from making real, for one and all, the promise of religious freedom.

But what is he saying in that sentence, and what does it have to do with Sonia Sotomayor's religion (or Clarence Thomas', or John Roberts', or Sam Alito's... or Ruth Bader Ginsburg's, for that matter)?

His first "this" leads us to a story about Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, which posted an anti-Islamic sign (reading, "Islam is of the Devil"). Well, this may be offensive; it may be distasteful; it may be abhorrent. Regardless, it is an example of religious freedom (and naturally, freedom of speech). The Dove World Outreach Centre has the freedom to believe that Islam is, in fact, "of the Devil", as well as the freedom to believe that it is their God-given duty to profess this notion*.

His second "this" leads us to a story about James von Brunn (the guy who shot up the Holocaust museum). Yes, this may be an example of how the U.S. is not "making real...the promise of religious freedom." Fair enough.

...but what does that have to do with the religious make up of the court?

The citizenry might be worried about how the religion of a judge might affect the decisions the judge (though it certainly wouldn't explain Kennedy's decision in Casey), but (a) I would be more concerned with the judicial/political/philosophical record of the prospective justice; and (b) Richard doesn't make this argument.

I've re-read Richard's column a number of times, assuming that I have missed something, but I just can't see what. In the opening paragraph, the R.C. dynamic of the court is said to be incredibly important, but the rest of the column just doesn't follow through on it.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that I'm missing something here. I'm also willing to believe that Richard is right to express concern, but that it wasn't properly articulated in the column. I would really like to hear Richard expand on this topic, because, as it stands, I have to say that this column is a bit of a miss.


*The final word of this paragraph was altered as the meaning was not clear in its original form.

Won't Someone Please Think of the Children!

I used to be a high school administrator. Such an occupation is an easy way to become completely disillusioned with the government school system. Further, as you may have guessed, I have never been a huge fan of government schools.

Thankfully, through the course of my marriage, the wife's political leanings have drifted to the right - or at least, they have drifted in a libertarian direction (the two dimensional political spectrum can be quite annoying). So, she no longer feels a civic obligation to stuff our child into a government school.

Unfortunately, we do not make enough money right now to consider private school (and certainly not for 14 years of education per child). As such, we have thought a lot about homeschooling. So, stumbling upon this post at The American Scene was interesting and encouraging.

A lot of emotion was spilled in the comments, and it's really not surprising. People have so much invested in the way they bring up their children (and the way their parents brought them up), that an intelligent discussion can be difficult. Further, regardless of whatever is best on aggregate, that says nothing as to what is best for your child.

My daughter is only 14 months old (in about 12 hours or so, to be almost precise), but, still, this weighs on me. It may be the default to send your kids to public school, but I have no plan to ever raise my child by default. I need to make thoughtful choices, and such choices might lead me away from government schools. I'd like to think I have the right to make choices regarding my child's education. Others agree with me.

Sadly, people like Ernie Eeves, John Tory and Dalton McGuinty don't seem to care one bit. They prefer to feed our children to the leviathan.

A Coup is in the Eye of the Beholder

Richard has a new (well, it's kind of old now) column on the Honduran coup, er, defence of their constitution.

When I devised this bolg, the intent (what little of it there was) to have a libertarian-leaning/fusionist blog. I wasn't planning to comment on all things political; I wanted to have a narrow focus. Nonetheless, I'll shoot my mouth (keyboard) on this one.

Richard is right. This wasn't a coup. Or if it was, it was an attempted coup by Zelaya. Zelaya was acting in a treasonous way. Seemingly, he broke the constitution and broke the law. The rest of the structure of Honduran democracy stood up against him. The military did the right thing (there are a lot of links I could find to back this up, but I'm feeling lazy).

This report is quite sad. It's sad because there is still an international presence pushing for Zelaya's re-instatement.

It's sad because the recent defenders of democracy (Canada, America, Britain, France, Holland, etc.) have not been supporting this nascent democracy. They've actually been part of the seige.

It's sad that they still use the word coup. Actually, it's insulting that they still use the word coup.

Thankfully, the "coup leaders" are following the path of a number of other "coup leaders", General Brock, Winston Churchill, the French Resistance - to name a few. I pray for their strength and perseverance, while the rest of the world catches up.

How the h*ll did this happen?

I'd like to say "howdy" to everyone reading this blog. I checked my Stat Counter yesterday, and there were 7 page loads and 5 unique visitors (none of whom seemed to be returning visitors... depending how much you can trust cookies). I don't think there had been more than 5 unique visitors previously in the history of this blog (and I checked, none of those 5 were my wife). So, thank you for turning this blog into such a howling success.

Of course, now I feel obligated to put more effort into blogging (and since our internet was finally hooked up this morning, I will have more opportunity). So, please feel free to drop by any time. I will add fresh content semi-regularly.

And to think, the only reason I started this blog was because I thought it'd be funny to have a site called Canned Goods and Ammunition.

[UPDATE: I just checked Stat Counter, and there have been no visitors today. I guess my 15 minutes of fame are over.]

OK, I may have a strong dislike for the "Patriot" Party of Canada, but...

...this is f-ing crazy.

And if I ever have to explain why it's crazy, I will probably cry.

Richard read my blog!, or, In which our hero is unfairly assailed.

Here I comment on Richard Albert's article about senate reform. I sent Richard a note about my response to his article, and he, in turn, sent me a note saying he appreciated the critique (which was only a partial critique) and that he bookmarked this blog (which puts the pressure on to post more).

I was checking The Mark to see if Richard had written anything more, and I noticed a comment on Richard's column that began thusly,

I'm not normally a fan of the current federal government, but to characterise senate terms as an opportunity for pork barrel politics apparently ignores the fact that the current government has twice before introduced legislation to elect senators...

and ended,

I think your commentary is quite off the mark on this one.

OK, first, no where does Richard write about pork barrel politics.

Now, I obviously had a few quibbles with Richard's article, and I think the commenter ("Steven Hurdle") has some useful points to add to the debate. However, to begin a posted comment with "I'm not normally a fan of..." and then present some Conservative Party talking points, seems disingenuous. Make no mistake, that doesn't invalidate the bulk of his comments, but it does colour my reaction as the reader (though I should note that Steven is respectful in his response).

Further, Richard is most definitely not "quite off the mark on this one."

From what I've read, Richard has one of the best minds for democracy of my generation. I do not know Richard's political leanings or affiliations (though I have some guesses), but his writings all come from the viewpoint of defending democracy, not any particular partisan position. In my response, I noted that Richard, perhaps, needed to differentiate between the value of the particular policy proscription and the realpolitik implications of the policy. I kind of find it funny that Richard has been criticized in a seemingly partisan way for a potentially realpolitik sort of argument. Saying that the Conservative government has been better on Senate reform than any other party or administration (which I think they have been) does not refute the notion that this particular policy proscription will have detrimental effects.

Sure, in this situation, the perfect might well be the enemy of the good (which was kind of my point), but I think Richard could easily argue that "the mediocre can also be the enemy of the good."

By the way, if you're interested in reading more from Richard, here's a column about democracy and India. Indian democracy is certainly beyond my area of "expertise", so all I'll say is, he better not be slagging Jeb Bush.

Palin's Departure

So, less than a year ago, I was (on a different blog) quite pleased with John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Obviously that didn't work out too well (though I also noted that if she bombed all she might cost us was a McCain presidency, and despite the fact that I have no love for the Obama administration, I have no delusions that a McCain administration would have been so much better).

As time wore on, I became a little tired of Palin's populism. I don't like populism, and I tend not to support populism. Still, I thought Palin had potential, and I still think she does. There may be a lot of work for her to do if she is to salvage her political career, or to become the politician I hoped she'd become. However, if she's done, well the 'Repubs' still have people like Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty to turn to. I can't get too upset about 'losing' a politician... and if I were, it'd probably be the 'loss' of former Rough Rider quarterback J.C. Watts. So close to a Grey Cup championship, but I digress...

What I find sad about it all is the way it went down. There was an unfounded and incredible vitriolic response to her. The dislike for her policies seemed to spread to a hatred of the person. Sadly, she, her 'people' or her handlers (or all three) never seemed able to properly handle any of this. The back and forth deification and demonization grew quite tiring.

All that being said, the poorly formulated (or maliciously formulated) rape and hooker jokes about her young daughter were too much. No matter what the situation, the children of politicians should never be treated that way, regardless of their parent's policy decisions or whether or not they or their teenage sibling got pregnant out of wedlock.

(Hell, if Letterman ever made such jokes about my daughter, I'd probably accept the invitation to go on his show and then beat the sh*t out of him; Everette v. Rome would be an episode of Firing Line in comparison.)

Hopefully, the Sarah Palin phenomenon (both positive and negative) will die down. Assuming she actually tries to leave the spotlight for a while, I hope that everyone will just let her. I hope that her life can get back to normal, or atleast to some other state where her kids aren't mocked and she can be happy. If she re-enters politics, hopefully we can all just address her policies and judge her fitness to serve on those grounds.