Hamilton's two largest steelmakers, Dofasco (now part of Arcelor-Mittal) and Stelco (now part of US Steel) did something a few weeks ago that I and others found totally perplexing. They submitted a joint application (rare in itself) to environmental regulators asking that they be granted a delay in implementing tough new environmental discharge standards. One of the reasons they're offering is that in the current economic downturn and the sharp demand for durable goods such as automobiles and appliances forcing the rules on them now would require them to spend millions they could use for other priorities -- in Stelco's case, to upgrade some outdated facilities so they can (ironically) actually meet the standards.
In short, they're saying, we'll comply, just not now.
Given that steel runs in my family, this isn't an easy one at first. Obviously, the business of business should be business and making a profit. As well, even before the current recession, the companies have become mere shadows of what they used to be. Both companies which used to employ in the tens of thousands are barely in the mid thousands now.
But despite the hundreds of millions they've both spent over the decades to reduce discharges, the discharges still happen both for water and in the air. It's especially tricky for Hamilton where an escarpment cuts through the city. Because of the 150 m cliff side, we're all too prone to weather inversions where parts of the city are milder than others during weather events and when there's excessive pollution the smog levels in the lower city skyrocket. (The worst is in the East End but thanks to Mike Harris we don't even know what the exact levels in that part of town are anymore at any given time -- we only get readings for downtown and the "Mountain".)
The bad air causes respiratory problems especially for children. With the high poverty levels here, people tend to migrate to where the housing is the least expensive -- which just happens to be the lower and older part of town. Generally, people up on the Escarpment tend to have higher incomes and therefore really don't care if someone "down there" gets sick unless it's one of their relatives.
Pollution control creates an opportunity to not only improve the corporate image but also to create jobs in itself which at this time is desperately needed. It also has the side effect of reducing illnesses thus reducing the strain on a heavily burdened public health care system.
There are only two options here: The first, and the preferable one, is no extension at all -- the companies must comply now. In such a case however, the federal government should give preferential tax treatment to green technologies (for these companies and others) and allow write off of new equipment that would ensure lower pollution as a carbon offset at an accelerated 100% Capital Cost Allowance rate. A 100% CCA write off should also be granted for any carbon offsets including green belting both on property as well as in other parts of town with a present dearth of trees.
The second is that they're given a one-time only extension but at a sooner date than being requested. Children and the elderly really shouldn't have to wait but if that's what it's going to come to a two year extension beyond the presently mandated date should be the maximum tolerated. Hamilton should be a natural leader in green technologies given our history, and to countenance continued excess discharges is just another slap in the face.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
When churches cross the line
There's been a lot of growing anger in California the last week at what is perceived at "religious interference" in the democratic process to ensure that Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage, passed as it did last week. Some have called for a tourism and trade boycott of Utah in retaliation.
Such animosity towards certain religious groups has long been a timed-honoured American tradition, however. Despite what some may believe, the separation between church and state has never been clear-cut. In the old days before the movie industry developed its film classification board, censorship boards existed and they were often overwhelmingly staffed by Roman Catholics who took their orders directly from a tiny cabal of Cardinals that met every so often and decided which movies were "morally objectionable." Little wonder why so many were suspicious of John F. Kennedy, and Al Smith before him.
Looking beyond the US and into other countries, we know we in Canada the historical strife between Protestants and Roman Catholics that only began to abate during the 1960s with two disconnected but concurrent events -- the Quiet Revolution and the Second Vatican Council. In the case of the former, it was a case of civil authority purging the church from government circles and creating a largely if not purely secular health and education system; in the case of the latter, a church attempting to adapt to the modern reality that its members did not live in hermetically sealed bubbles and mingled with people of other faiths out of practicality as well as necessity.
And it wasn't that long ago that restrictive covenants existed prohibiting Jews from buying homes in certain neighbourhoods and towns -- in fact many made a point of making such purchases so they didn't have to see who they perceived as their mortal enemy.
And we know about the religious wars in Europe, so let's not go there. Laws once existed which prohibited Protestants from marrying Catholics or vice versa or from either group married Jews.
Thank God, those laws have mostly bit the dust. Prejudice still exists in some quarters (some but not all evangelical televangelists have it as do those on-air personalities practising "British Israelism"), but the legal basis for it no longer does and that is a good thing.
In the California case, anger is directed at two groups in particular; namely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (whose members are referred to as Mormons) and the Church of Scientology. It's hard to imagine two such completely different philosophies agreeing on anything but they somehow managed to find common ground on this issue.
In the case of the second, Scientology, it really isn't too surprising notwithstanding their long standing claim of supporting human rights. L. Ron Hubbard in his writings was pretty clear about what rights gays and lesbians should have. And it's not pretty.
It's the case of the former that's a bit more difficult to parse. Media reports indicate head office in Salt Lake City had urged its members to campaign for the measure. If individual members made contributions to the campaign that might be one story -- people may donate to any cause they wish without interference. If the Church made a specific policy directive with no further comment, that too is acceptable. If however the Church made such a contribution from its own church funds then that raises questions about breaching the church-state line and to a further extent whether its tax-exempt status should be revoked.
We're not talking about churches being forced to have gay marriages. The state would not be stupid enough to impose that kind of a requirement on them if for no other reason than after-school programs and other activities on behalf of the state are run by churches and they just don't want to lose that kind of expertise.
Rather it's the reverse; that is that a well-financed church backed lobby is attempting to impose its will on a state either willing to comply or not. It's hard to forget it wasn't that long ago that most churches were opposed to inter-racial marriage -- in fact, the now largest Protestant denomination in America, the Southern Baptist Convention, broke away from the main Baptist church in 1845 because of the latter's opposition to slavery and most whites in the South in those days, of course, believed slavery was ordained by God.
It's one thing for a civil official to express his or her moral objections to an action -- such as performing an abortion or euthanasia, or a clerk to performing a marriage between two people of the same sex. Usually, it's a matter of finding someone who will do so, and there almost always is someone.
It's another, however, for that official to be told they can't even if they want to. In this case, a public official is told he or she can't sign a marriage license because the two people who want to enter into a contract are not of the opposite sex. What is that clerk expected to do? Conscientious objectionism cuts both ways; and in this case signing off in defiance of the law would be considered by some at least to be an honourable act of civil disobedience.
To use one example to illustrate: Some countries subscribe to official pacifism, others to compulsory conscription. But those in the former category usually still have a militia or armed force to defend the homeland for those who want to serve; while those in the latter permit those who object to the military to engage in community service for an equal period of time. During times of war, militarized countries usually offer this option as well during the drafting process.
The other thing to remember is that it's just not the two churches in question. Many churches expressed objections (in various forms) to gay marriage. As well, while the Democratic Party was extremely successful in peeling off the "church vote" (which many once assumed was entirely Republican), they seemed to forget that those Democratic church goers tend to have the same views on moral stances as their Republican brethren. How did people expect the vote to go? People really shouldn't have been surprised that the Yes vote won not only in California but also in Arizona and Florida. This was an economic election, not a so-called "moral" one as 2004 was.
As I wrote last week, I believe the courts will have little choice to see this as an equality issue. They will have to go beyond their state constitutions and declare that a) the equal protection of the laws under Amendment XIV permit homosexual couples to marry; and b) that Article IV of the Constitution requires all states to recognize such unions no matter in which state they were contracted. This would make it a federal question with which the Supreme Court would have no choice but to make a definitive ruling; which I believe would affirm the above principles. In which case, the churches' opinion will amount to nothing; as it should when it comes to civilly contracted marriages or same sex-unions or whatever one wishes to call them.
As for financing the campaigns -- well as I said that's a different story. Church and state are separated for a specific reason. While one's faith may guide voting choices it should never be compelled by them and if they are then the church either needs to have a political arm separated from the church by a so-called "firewall" or else it should forgo its tax-exempt status all together.
For that matter, a constitution is no place to put such a broad statement of prohibition. Constitutions are supposed to stick to the basics and list some basic negative rights -- things government can't do. They're no place to put negative duties, things people are prevented from doing. That's a matter for the legislature to pass and for courts to interpret whether they've violated the negative rights in the first place.
UPDATE (5:11 pm EST, 2211 GMT): Slight punctuation edits.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Such animosity towards certain religious groups has long been a timed-honoured American tradition, however. Despite what some may believe, the separation between church and state has never been clear-cut. In the old days before the movie industry developed its film classification board, censorship boards existed and they were often overwhelmingly staffed by Roman Catholics who took their orders directly from a tiny cabal of Cardinals that met every so often and decided which movies were "morally objectionable." Little wonder why so many were suspicious of John F. Kennedy, and Al Smith before him.
Looking beyond the US and into other countries, we know we in Canada the historical strife between Protestants and Roman Catholics that only began to abate during the 1960s with two disconnected but concurrent events -- the Quiet Revolution and the Second Vatican Council. In the case of the former, it was a case of civil authority purging the church from government circles and creating a largely if not purely secular health and education system; in the case of the latter, a church attempting to adapt to the modern reality that its members did not live in hermetically sealed bubbles and mingled with people of other faiths out of practicality as well as necessity.
And it wasn't that long ago that restrictive covenants existed prohibiting Jews from buying homes in certain neighbourhoods and towns -- in fact many made a point of making such purchases so they didn't have to see who they perceived as their mortal enemy.
And we know about the religious wars in Europe, so let's not go there. Laws once existed which prohibited Protestants from marrying Catholics or vice versa or from either group married Jews.
Thank God, those laws have mostly bit the dust. Prejudice still exists in some quarters (some but not all evangelical televangelists have it as do those on-air personalities practising "British Israelism"), but the legal basis for it no longer does and that is a good thing.
In the California case, anger is directed at two groups in particular; namely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (whose members are referred to as Mormons) and the Church of Scientology. It's hard to imagine two such completely different philosophies agreeing on anything but they somehow managed to find common ground on this issue.
In the case of the second, Scientology, it really isn't too surprising notwithstanding their long standing claim of supporting human rights. L. Ron Hubbard in his writings was pretty clear about what rights gays and lesbians should have. And it's not pretty.
It's the case of the former that's a bit more difficult to parse. Media reports indicate head office in Salt Lake City had urged its members to campaign for the measure. If individual members made contributions to the campaign that might be one story -- people may donate to any cause they wish without interference. If the Church made a specific policy directive with no further comment, that too is acceptable. If however the Church made such a contribution from its own church funds then that raises questions about breaching the church-state line and to a further extent whether its tax-exempt status should be revoked.
We're not talking about churches being forced to have gay marriages. The state would not be stupid enough to impose that kind of a requirement on them if for no other reason than after-school programs and other activities on behalf of the state are run by churches and they just don't want to lose that kind of expertise.
Rather it's the reverse; that is that a well-financed church backed lobby is attempting to impose its will on a state either willing to comply or not. It's hard to forget it wasn't that long ago that most churches were opposed to inter-racial marriage -- in fact, the now largest Protestant denomination in America, the Southern Baptist Convention, broke away from the main Baptist church in 1845 because of the latter's opposition to slavery and most whites in the South in those days, of course, believed slavery was ordained by God.
It's one thing for a civil official to express his or her moral objections to an action -- such as performing an abortion or euthanasia, or a clerk to performing a marriage between two people of the same sex. Usually, it's a matter of finding someone who will do so, and there almost always is someone.
It's another, however, for that official to be told they can't even if they want to. In this case, a public official is told he or she can't sign a marriage license because the two people who want to enter into a contract are not of the opposite sex. What is that clerk expected to do? Conscientious objectionism cuts both ways; and in this case signing off in defiance of the law would be considered by some at least to be an honourable act of civil disobedience.
To use one example to illustrate: Some countries subscribe to official pacifism, others to compulsory conscription. But those in the former category usually still have a militia or armed force to defend the homeland for those who want to serve; while those in the latter permit those who object to the military to engage in community service for an equal period of time. During times of war, militarized countries usually offer this option as well during the drafting process.
The other thing to remember is that it's just not the two churches in question. Many churches expressed objections (in various forms) to gay marriage. As well, while the Democratic Party was extremely successful in peeling off the "church vote" (which many once assumed was entirely Republican), they seemed to forget that those Democratic church goers tend to have the same views on moral stances as their Republican brethren. How did people expect the vote to go? People really shouldn't have been surprised that the Yes vote won not only in California but also in Arizona and Florida. This was an economic election, not a so-called "moral" one as 2004 was.
As I wrote last week, I believe the courts will have little choice to see this as an equality issue. They will have to go beyond their state constitutions and declare that a) the equal protection of the laws under Amendment XIV permit homosexual couples to marry; and b) that Article IV of the Constitution requires all states to recognize such unions no matter in which state they were contracted. This would make it a federal question with which the Supreme Court would have no choice but to make a definitive ruling; which I believe would affirm the above principles. In which case, the churches' opinion will amount to nothing; as it should when it comes to civilly contracted marriages or same sex-unions or whatever one wishes to call them.
As for financing the campaigns -- well as I said that's a different story. Church and state are separated for a specific reason. While one's faith may guide voting choices it should never be compelled by them and if they are then the church either needs to have a political arm separated from the church by a so-called "firewall" or else it should forgo its tax-exempt status all together.
For that matter, a constitution is no place to put such a broad statement of prohibition. Constitutions are supposed to stick to the basics and list some basic negative rights -- things government can't do. They're no place to put negative duties, things people are prevented from doing. That's a matter for the legislature to pass and for courts to interpret whether they've violated the negative rights in the first place.
UPDATE (5:11 pm EST, 2211 GMT): Slight punctuation edits.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
What's the real Mellissa Fung story?
It's good to hear that Mellissa Fung, the CBC reporter, was freed after four week in captivity in Afghanistan. What bothers me however is that she was kidnapped two days prior to the election. The Harper government claims they asked the media not to say anything -- even the fact she was missing -- for her safety (an embargo which was respected), but wasn't this really just a case of the right-wing media colluding to ensure a Harper victory? And for that matter, the CBC cowing to their political masters to make sure they don't lose next year's appropriation?
An "October surprise" of this magnitude would almost certainly have resulted in a different Parliament ... perhaps even a different policy direction for that part of the world.
What do you think? Somthing about this is very suspicious.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
An "October surprise" of this magnitude would almost certainly have resulted in a different Parliament ... perhaps even a different policy direction for that part of the world.
What do you think? Somthing about this is very suspicious.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Saturday night music vault: I Can't Get Started
To end the week, something I found at random at YouTube ... maybe Sammy Davis Jr.'s last televised performance, on Letterman in 1989. An absolute genius from the start of his career to the end.
That's what differentiates the stars of the past from the jerks and jerkettes of today. The music was timeless, created with the very purpose of always sounding fresh. Today's stuff? 95%, maybe even 99.8% (six sigma) belongs in the Blecch bin.
Have a nice evening, folks.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That's what differentiates the stars of the past from the jerks and jerkettes of today. The music was timeless, created with the very purpose of always sounding fresh. Today's stuff? 95%, maybe even 99.8% (six sigma) belongs in the Blecch bin.
Have a nice evening, folks.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama gets one more electoral vote -- in Nebraska
Nebraska is one of only two states that splits its electoral college votes by Congressional district -- the other is Maine. Late tonight, officials confirmed that with absentee ballots, Obama won Nebraska 2 which includes Omaha, reducing McCain's "win" in the state to 4-1. Credit that to Obama's playing with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and deciding to open up three field offices in the city when conventional wisdom -- including Hillary Clinton's -- said that the state (along with so many others that Obama ended up winning) was a lost cause and that the sole focus should have been on Ohio, Florida and no where else.
Proof that Dean was right all along. Omaha, for heaven's sake! But I think Nebraska's on to something. If every state allocated its votes by district -- with the statewide winner getting the two bonus points representing the Senators -- it would more accurately reflect the will of the people. It probably would have ensured Gore and not Bush won eight years ago, among other things. (Probably wouldn't work in DC, though, since it's a district, county and city combined; and it's been Democrat pretty much since it got "home rule" in the 1970s.)
Meanwhile, Missouri which had been called for McCain went back into toss-up mode with ballots still being counted -- three days later (?). So that means Obama's college vote is now up to 365, McCain is down to 162 with 11 up in the air.
Another thing I noticed late yesterday is this map from the NYT that shows the vote shift between 2004 and 2008. Note that even in the states which are still "red" the number of counties where Democrats increased their vote share. Overall the donkey made gains in 78% of counties across America This shift is seismic and for the foreseeable future a long term one as well unless the GOP gets back to the grassroots and renews itself from the bottom-up as the Dems did.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Proof that Dean was right all along. Omaha, for heaven's sake! But I think Nebraska's on to something. If every state allocated its votes by district -- with the statewide winner getting the two bonus points representing the Senators -- it would more accurately reflect the will of the people. It probably would have ensured Gore and not Bush won eight years ago, among other things. (Probably wouldn't work in DC, though, since it's a district, county and city combined; and it's been Democrat pretty much since it got "home rule" in the 1970s.)
Meanwhile, Missouri which had been called for McCain went back into toss-up mode with ballots still being counted -- three days later (?). So that means Obama's college vote is now up to 365, McCain is down to 162 with 11 up in the air.
Another thing I noticed late yesterday is this map from the NYT that shows the vote shift between 2004 and 2008. Note that even in the states which are still "red" the number of counties where Democrats increased their vote share. Overall the donkey made gains in 78% of counties across America This shift is seismic and for the foreseeable future a long term one as well unless the GOP gets back to the grassroots and renews itself from the bottom-up as the Dems did.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Norm Marshall 1918-2008
It's very hard to imagine Hamilton -- or Ontario for that matter -- without the quintessential broadcasting legend named Norm Marshall. His voice, like Walter Cronkite's, was authoritative. If you heard him say it, that's the way it was. Can you say that about Global or the Conservative TeleVision Network?
Even CHCH, which is now an adjunct of Global (cum E!) is a load of crap. Marshall must have been furious at what it became after he left.
For shame.
Photo: Hamilton Spectator.
And the no-Walls come tumbling down
Randy and Paula White were quite the characters in the televangelist community. Like so many TV psychics, however, they seemed to have a common problem with soothsayers, i.e. to have had an accounting problem, even with the tons of money that come their way. As many may know, Paula divorced from Randy last year.
Now, "Without Walls Ministries" is on the verge of foreclosure, according to the Tampa Bay Tribune. Apparently the church defaulted on a $1 million loan from -- get this -- the Evangelical Christian Credit Union, which admits they rarely foreclose on anyone. The church is also in arrears for a $12 million loan used to expand its headquarters some years ago when the church was expanding by leaps and bounds. It gets worse: One of the church's financial officers resigned in anger after Randy White ordered him to pay White's bill to American Express, $24,000 even though it meant not keeping up with the staff payroll.
The church said yesterday it keeps on planning to hold services. But if you were a TV station and you knew about this, wouldn't you want cash in advance? How about this, guys -- just take them off the air, period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Now, "Without Walls Ministries" is on the verge of foreclosure, according to the Tampa Bay Tribune. Apparently the church defaulted on a $1 million loan from -- get this -- the Evangelical Christian Credit Union, which admits they rarely foreclose on anyone. The church is also in arrears for a $12 million loan used to expand its headquarters some years ago when the church was expanding by leaps and bounds. It gets worse: One of the church's financial officers resigned in anger after Randy White ordered him to pay White's bill to American Express, $24,000 even though it meant not keeping up with the staff payroll.
The church said yesterday it keeps on planning to hold services. But if you were a TV station and you knew about this, wouldn't you want cash in advance? How about this, guys -- just take them off the air, period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Photog who took LBJ oath photo dead
The night before the election, the US version of Antiques Roadshow (on PBS) had a flashback special about Presidential memorabilia on the show over the last few years. One particularly interesting set of items was a set of three photographs taken by the Kennedy's Presidential photog, Cecil Stoughton -- and presented for appraisal by Mr. Stoughton himself. One photo was of a relaxed Kennedy family, the second was the now famous photo of LBJ taking the oath of office on Air Force One after Kennedy was shot (above), and the third was Johnson autographing the second just a few days after JFK's funeral, to give the provenance that it was the original.
Seems that while the NYT gave Stoughton credit for the photo (as the White House photographer) everyone else gave attribution to the AP or UPI news wires and so he never got the credit he deserved until he showed up at an AR session in Orlando. The set -- priceless in terms of their historical value -- was appraised at $75,000 for insurance purposes, with the Air Force One photo worth $50,000 alone.
We learned today that Stoughton died on Monday, the day of the clip show broadcast -- although the clip was first aired in the original episode's context in February. It's a shame Stoughton didn't get the credit he deserved until now. It's a sad piece of American and world history, but someone had to take it. Watching the show earlier this week, I couldn't help but cross my fingers -- for obvious reasons.
We learned today that Stoughton died on Monday, the day of the clip show broadcast -- although the clip was first aired in the original episode's context in February. It's a shame Stoughton didn't get the credit he deserved until now. It's a sad piece of American and world history, but someone had to take it. Watching the show earlier this week, I couldn't help but cross my fingers -- for obvious reasons.
(Photo: Houston Chronicle)
Nader said WHAT? (Or, making Fox News look good!)
HT to Bastard Logic. I kind of figured Roger Taney, the Supreme Court Chief Justice (and incredibly a Roman Catholic) who said a free black man could never be a citizen in the infamous Dred Scott case, was spinning in his grave when Obama won on Tuesday night. But would even an absolute bigot like Taney have been prepared for Ralph Nader?
You've got to see this to believe it!
Uncle Tom. From Ralph Nader. Seriously.
Hard to believe that there was a time when he and Lee Iacocca were actually on the same side when it came to some issues of vehicle safety, especially on the Chevy Vega (the aluminum pancake engine, remember)? Whatever happened to the Nader that fought for clean air, water, product and workplace safety? The guy that proved that where appropriate, regulation is a good thing.
If this was the equal time Nader has been seeking, then even Shep Smith is right -- Captain Courageous ™ is years past his expiry date.
Who would have ever thought Shep would look good. This is one of the rare times I actually toast Fox News. If Keith Olbermann hasn't done so, I name Smith as only the second "today's best person in the world" -- the first of course was Geraldo Rivera for smacking down Bill O'Reilly on immigration.
How bad is that? Truly folks, when Nader drops a bomb like this, we are living in the last days.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
You've got to see this to believe it!
Uncle Tom. From Ralph Nader. Seriously.
Hard to believe that there was a time when he and Lee Iacocca were actually on the same side when it came to some issues of vehicle safety, especially on the Chevy Vega (the aluminum pancake engine, remember)? Whatever happened to the Nader that fought for clean air, water, product and workplace safety? The guy that proved that where appropriate, regulation is a good thing.
If this was the equal time Nader has been seeking, then even Shep Smith is right -- Captain Courageous ™ is years past his expiry date.
Who would have ever thought Shep would look good. This is one of the rare times I actually toast Fox News. If Keith Olbermann hasn't done so, I name Smith as only the second "today's best person in the world" -- the first of course was Geraldo Rivera for smacking down Bill O'Reilly on immigration.
How bad is that? Truly folks, when Nader drops a bomb like this, we are living in the last days.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
1.5% rate cut in UK
It seems a lifetime ago that we were talking about "Cool Britannia" -- the once stuffy UK finally got its groove back about a decade ago and its economy was on a tear and the envy of nearly all of its EU partners. With the current banking crisis, of course, all that has come to a crashing halt and people in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are genuinely worried about what's going to happen next.
This morning the Bank of England made a shocking 1½% interest rate cut down to 3%, the lowest in 53 years. Most of High Street was expecting a ½ to ¾% reduction so this must mean desperation on the part of the central bank there, to get money moving again.
How will this affect America? Hard to say but it can't possibly get as bad as Japan, where the interest rate there is now minus 0.3% -- you actually lose money if you loan it to the government.
At least we hope it doesn't get as bad as Japan.
UPDATE (10:46 am EST, 1546 GMT): Following on the above interest rate cut, the European Central bank cut its rate by ½% to 3¼%; while Switzerland cut its rate to 2% from 2½%. Not a good sign, folks.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This morning the Bank of England made a shocking 1½% interest rate cut down to 3%, the lowest in 53 years. Most of High Street was expecting a ½ to ¾% reduction so this must mean desperation on the part of the central bank there, to get money moving again.
How will this affect America? Hard to say but it can't possibly get as bad as Japan, where the interest rate there is now minus 0.3% -- you actually lose money if you loan it to the government.
At least we hope it doesn't get as bad as Japan.
UPDATE (10:46 am EST, 1546 GMT): Following on the above interest rate cut, the European Central bank cut its rate by ½% to 3¼%; while Switzerland cut its rate to 2% from 2½%. Not a good sign, folks.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Armchair quarterback 2008: the results
As I write these words, I'm still in a state of disbelief that it's actually happened; that Martin Luther King's dream has finally come true and a minority person has won the Presidency of the United States. Watching spontaneous celebrations on TV -- in London, Nairobi, Paris and even Sydney -- the moment the networks announced Barack Obama had gone over the top is something one can never forget. Yes, I pumped up my fist in the air with the "black power" salute and said "Yes!" when the clock hit 11 PM Eastern last night.
So how did my predictions stack up against what happened yesterday? I knew I wasn't going to be totally right, it was just a wild guess in a lot of cases. Let's see what happened:
My call on the popular vote was 53-45 and on the College 378-160. I was close on the first one: 53-46. On the second, Obama currently leads John McCain 349 - 163; with Missouri and North Carolina still too close to call. My guess on North Dakota was wrong but with a 53-45 result in that state (a near mirror image of the national numbers) it could still be called competitive especially with Obama getting 9 points up on Kerry in 2004. With the Ohio flip, the deal was sealed; there was no way McCain was going to run the board after that.
Senate: In Kentucky, McConnell beat Lunsford but only by 5% -- a win is a win but in 2002 the former won by a huge margin so it is still a bit of a repudiation; with an overall loss of GOP seats in the Senate his leadership post is in jeopardy. The race in Alaska has the convicted Stevens in the lead but with tens of thousands of absentee ballots waiting to be counted and the one in Minnesota going to recount after Coleman leads Franken by less than 800 votes. The race in Georgia just might to a runoff. As it stands, the Dems still could get to 60 but it's very unlikely -- based on what I see by the numbers, they'll finish with 57 or 58 (my guess was 59 including the two indies).
House: My guess was 256 for the Democrats -- right now they have 254 with 8 still up in the air.
On the ballot measures, my guesses were pretty much in line with reality (except one); although the income tax elimination measure in the Bay State went down even more than I thought (70-30). It's noteworthy that besides California gay marriage bans also passed in Arizona and Florida and a ban on gay couples adopting passed in Arkansas. Superimpose county results with those who voted for Obama and you notice that some areas that voted for the Illinois Senator also voted for the bans -- which is entirely what I and many others thought would happen. About 1/6 of the socon vote broke for Obama which is significant when one considers that in 2004 only about 1/20 voted for Kerry.
All of these measures will certainly be challenged and this is something the Supreme Court will have to decide on once and for all. Much as I don't approve of gay marriage, it is an issue of equality and the result is inevitable; it will get the imprimatur of the courts.
The one I got wrong was San Fran's Prop K on decriminalizing laws against sex trade workers. It was defeated 56-44 but the upward trend from previous initiatives is that eventually something like this will pass. The fact remains that as long as the oldest profession continues to exist, those who provide services need to have their rights protected as well; and not have the police automatically presume they're guilty when they make a genuine complaint of sexual assault or exploitation of any kind. This is, however, something that needs to be addressed at the legislative level and politicians need the courage to stand up for the vulnerable. Having women who die in the trade and being dismissed by cops as "unresolved murders" is simple women-bashing prejudice -- the exact kind that existed in Vancouver for years and to some extent still does in the Lion's Gate.as much as in the Golden Gate.
Hey, I'm just an armchair quarterback, but this was kind of fun. Now the hard work begins -- as Obama warned last night no one should expect miracles overnight. The decision of Russia to move missiles into Kaliningrad, the Russian outpost formerly known as East Prussia, may be Barack's first major test even before he gets a chance to measure the drapes and access the national security files to which he is now entitled to review during the transition.
UPDATE (Thursday, 7:33 am EST, 1233 GMT): Very late last night, the last two states finally called in: North Carolina (by 14,000) for Obama and Missouri (by just 6000 votes) for McCain, making the final total 364-174. The Missouri rule bellwether rule may finally have gone out the window, while the Dems' big win in the Tarheel State bodes well for the donkey throughout the South in the future -- the fact that there are now 800,000 more Democrats in just that one state than Republicans says a lot.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
So how did my predictions stack up against what happened yesterday? I knew I wasn't going to be totally right, it was just a wild guess in a lot of cases. Let's see what happened:
My call on the popular vote was 53-45 and on the College 378-160. I was close on the first one: 53-46. On the second, Obama currently leads John McCain 349 - 163; with Missouri and North Carolina still too close to call. My guess on North Dakota was wrong but with a 53-45 result in that state (a near mirror image of the national numbers) it could still be called competitive especially with Obama getting 9 points up on Kerry in 2004. With the Ohio flip, the deal was sealed; there was no way McCain was going to run the board after that.
Senate: In Kentucky, McConnell beat Lunsford but only by 5% -- a win is a win but in 2002 the former won by a huge margin so it is still a bit of a repudiation; with an overall loss of GOP seats in the Senate his leadership post is in jeopardy. The race in Alaska has the convicted Stevens in the lead but with tens of thousands of absentee ballots waiting to be counted and the one in Minnesota going to recount after Coleman leads Franken by less than 800 votes. The race in Georgia just might to a runoff. As it stands, the Dems still could get to 60 but it's very unlikely -- based on what I see by the numbers, they'll finish with 57 or 58 (my guess was 59 including the two indies).
House: My guess was 256 for the Democrats -- right now they have 254 with 8 still up in the air.
On the ballot measures, my guesses were pretty much in line with reality (except one); although the income tax elimination measure in the Bay State went down even more than I thought (70-30). It's noteworthy that besides California gay marriage bans also passed in Arizona and Florida and a ban on gay couples adopting passed in Arkansas. Superimpose county results with those who voted for Obama and you notice that some areas that voted for the Illinois Senator also voted for the bans -- which is entirely what I and many others thought would happen. About 1/6 of the socon vote broke for Obama which is significant when one considers that in 2004 only about 1/20 voted for Kerry.
All of these measures will certainly be challenged and this is something the Supreme Court will have to decide on once and for all. Much as I don't approve of gay marriage, it is an issue of equality and the result is inevitable; it will get the imprimatur of the courts.
The one I got wrong was San Fran's Prop K on decriminalizing laws against sex trade workers. It was defeated 56-44 but the upward trend from previous initiatives is that eventually something like this will pass. The fact remains that as long as the oldest profession continues to exist, those who provide services need to have their rights protected as well; and not have the police automatically presume they're guilty when they make a genuine complaint of sexual assault or exploitation of any kind. This is, however, something that needs to be addressed at the legislative level and politicians need the courage to stand up for the vulnerable. Having women who die in the trade and being dismissed by cops as "unresolved murders" is simple women-bashing prejudice -- the exact kind that existed in Vancouver for years and to some extent still does in the Lion's Gate.as much as in the Golden Gate.
Hey, I'm just an armchair quarterback, but this was kind of fun. Now the hard work begins -- as Obama warned last night no one should expect miracles overnight. The decision of Russia to move missiles into Kaliningrad, the Russian outpost formerly known as East Prussia, may be Barack's first major test even before he gets a chance to measure the drapes and access the national security files to which he is now entitled to review during the transition.
UPDATE (Thursday, 7:33 am EST, 1233 GMT): Very late last night, the last two states finally called in: North Carolina (by 14,000) for Obama and Missouri (by just 6000 votes) for McCain, making the final total 364-174. The Missouri rule bellwether rule may finally have gone out the window, while the Dems' big win in the Tarheel State bodes well for the donkey throughout the South in the future -- the fact that there are now 800,000 more Democrats in just that one state than Republicans says a lot.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Predictions for US Election 2008
It's Election Day in the US, and as this post goes up voters in two New Hampshire villages -- Dixville Notch and Hart's Location -- are already casting their ballots, as per long standing tradition.
The election is a bit marred with the news that Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died just one day before today's historic milestone. To their credit, the McCains and Palins have offered their condolences to Obama's family which after the nastiest election in 76 years is actually almost completely unexpected.
Okay, predictions:
America will finally get rid of its ghosts, stand up to the religious right and wanabee rednecks (like Limbaugh) that make real rednecks (Joe and Jane Factory and/or Office workers) look like fools -- and elect Obama as the country's first black President. He will do this by picking up Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Virginia. Georgia will go John McCain but just slightly; same with West Virginia, and in a huge shock, McCain will just barely hang on to Arizona and Montana.
There will be no blue-to-red switches -- the Democrats will hold on to all their territory from 2004.
One thing to watch for are the returns from Kansas and Oklahoma, two reliably Republican states if there are any. Any Democrat would consider himself lucky to get 30% in any year. If Obama can break 40% in both, McCain is in for a long night because it will mean the heart of the Bible Belt has decided the GOP has betrayed them.
I think the so-called "Bradley Effect" will be diminished due to the huge numbers of people who have already voted absentee or at advance polls. Still, the number of people voting for McCain simply because Obama is black will be there, I'd say 1 or 2% -- not the 6 to 8% so many fear.
But it won't be enough, since about 60% of the advance votes have already gone Obama's way.
Final result:
Popular vote: Obama 53, McCain 45, Others 2.
Electoral College: Obama 378, McCain 160.
Senate: As of this morning, there's about a 50-50 shot the Democrats will get the 60 seats they need to have a filibuster-proof majority which could prove a boon for Obama (since most of his agenda will sail through) or a bust for McCain if the latter pulls off an upset (since the Dems would effectively form a firewall). Ted Stevens of Alaska will be out thanks to his corruption conviction last week, giving the seat to Mark Begich. Good riddance.
Also gone will be Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina for her libelous ad accusing Kay Hagan of being an atheist (she's actually an elder in the Presbyterian Church). For a distinguished woman like Dole, who served at Transportation under Reagan and Labour under Bush 41 -- and later as the extremely competent President of the American Red Cross -- this is a terrible ending to her career.
I further predict the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will lose, just barely, to Bruce Lunsford. McConnell will lose not for his long time opposition to smaller cars and fuel efficiency standards (which would have helped out during the current economic crisis) but because he's married to current Labour Secretary Elaine Chao, the only remaining original member of the Bush Administration besides Dubya and Dick Cheney. Even Bluegrassers, I think, have had enough of the crap from Washington and they want to send one final message to Bush 43 to go screw himself.
But in the end, the Democrats won't get the 60 seats they so desperately want. It all comes down to Minnesota, where Norm Coleman is facing a tough challenge from comedian Al Franken. Much as I'd like to see a truly smart and thoughtful guy like Franken win, he'll be stopped thanks to a strong third-party campaign by Dean Barkley who has been polling about 15% on average. Coleman will take it by a narrow margin.
Final Result: Democrats 57, Republicans 41, Independents 2 -- just one short. Which means Joe Lieberman will keep his committee chair for at least another two years.
House: I don't know too much about specific races, but if the tone of the advertising three districts in southeast Florida are any indication, this is going to be one nasty night overall for the Republicans. But not quite a wipe-out where say the Dems wind up with 270 or more. I predict a +21 net shift for the Democrats (they will lose a couple of seats each in Florida and Pennsylvania), leaving the total at 256 to 179.
Finally as for ballot initiatives, there are several key ones to watch:
California: 1A, to fund a high speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco cutting the land travel time to 2½ hours; with future links to other major cities. Given the state's pro-environment culture I think it will pass but narrowly, say 51-49.
Proposition 5, would attempt to divert more people away from the prison system crippled by "three strikes and you're out." With all five living Governors against, both GOP and donkeys, it's hard to see this one passing. It will lose, 53-47.
Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriages. With Ahnold now coming out against (one of the few things he and Maria Shriver have ever agreed on politically), it will go down to defeat but still not by that much -- I'll say 53-47. Again, watch to see how many Obama supporters vote "yes."
In San Francisco, two initiatives of note. Proposition "K" would effectively legalize prostitution in the city. To be fair, exploitation of sex workers alarms me but what's even worse is a situation that allows pimps to go free while street walkers are the ones who are charged with criminality. This does nothing more than level the playing field as should be the case and make sure the police give victims of crime equal treatment. I predict yes, 52-48. Meanwhile, Proposition "R" would rename the sewage treatment plant in the city after George W. Bush. (Seriously.) Liberal as it may be, Frisco also has too much class to smear someone like that and it'll be defeated bigtime, say a 2-1 margin.
Massachusetts: Initiate 1, which would outlaw the state income tax. With a potential $12 billion shortfall and the burden shifted to property taxes (which would kill an already battered real estate market), this has potential of revolt written all over it. "Taxachusetts" actually has a fairly low flat income tax (about 5½%), dating from Revolution days, and an overall tax burden somewhere near the median (in 28th place to be exact) and people are more upset with the unaccountable Massachusetts Turnpike Commission and tolls going for nowhere meaningful, than their bi-weekly withholdings. It will be defeated easily, 60-40. (Last time out, however, the yes got about 45% so it might have been even closer this time but for the current economic meltdown.)
Washington State: Initiative 1000 which would provide for "death with dignity," similar to a law in Oregon (Measure 16). The last time the state voted on the issue in 1991 it was voted down by a large margin. Despite the many safeguards in the law, many will still see it as "assisted suicide" and so it will face a tough fight. It also raises the question about the Hippocratic Oath and if a physician will be forced to write a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs. Many progressives oppose the proposed law and with justification. I'll say it passes but by squeaker, less than 1%. (It'll be an urban-rural split, as is usually the case on social issues in so many places across the US.)
UPDATE (6:36 AM EST, 1136 GMT): Dixville Notch went for Obama 15-6, Hart's Location went 17-10 with 2 write-ins for renegade Republican Ron Paul. True neither has ever been a reliable bellwether of what comes later in the day -- but it's kind of fun being first, and the fact Dixville has picked a Democrat for the first time in 40 years does say something.
Interestingly, Ralph Nader, who is on the ballot in New Hampshire and a handful of other states, got zero -- and this part of the state, near the Canadian border, has long had a libertarian and pro-environment streak that plays into Nader's hands quite nicely. Maybe people have finally realized he's still stuck in the 1960s -- and the movement then is not the same as the revolution of now.
As an afterthought, the computer models I've read show there's still a slim chance that McCain (about 3%) could still win the electoral college; but he'd have to run the board and I just don't see how he can do it if Obama wins even one of the battlegrounds. Given a possible record turnout, I'm going to take back what I said before that we'll know within a couple of hours. It will be another "Long Day's Journey into Night" -- just like in the UK where the results are called all night and well into the next day's afternoon.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The election is a bit marred with the news that Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died just one day before today's historic milestone. To their credit, the McCains and Palins have offered their condolences to Obama's family which after the nastiest election in 76 years is actually almost completely unexpected.
Okay, predictions:
America will finally get rid of its ghosts, stand up to the religious right and wanabee rednecks (like Limbaugh) that make real rednecks (Joe and Jane Factory and/or Office workers) look like fools -- and elect Obama as the country's first black President. He will do this by picking up Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Virginia. Georgia will go John McCain but just slightly; same with West Virginia, and in a huge shock, McCain will just barely hang on to Arizona and Montana.
There will be no blue-to-red switches -- the Democrats will hold on to all their territory from 2004.
One thing to watch for are the returns from Kansas and Oklahoma, two reliably Republican states if there are any. Any Democrat would consider himself lucky to get 30% in any year. If Obama can break 40% in both, McCain is in for a long night because it will mean the heart of the Bible Belt has decided the GOP has betrayed them.
I think the so-called "Bradley Effect" will be diminished due to the huge numbers of people who have already voted absentee or at advance polls. Still, the number of people voting for McCain simply because Obama is black will be there, I'd say 1 or 2% -- not the 6 to 8% so many fear.
But it won't be enough, since about 60% of the advance votes have already gone Obama's way.
Final result:
Popular vote: Obama 53, McCain 45, Others 2.
Electoral College: Obama 378, McCain 160.
Senate: As of this morning, there's about a 50-50 shot the Democrats will get the 60 seats they need to have a filibuster-proof majority which could prove a boon for Obama (since most of his agenda will sail through) or a bust for McCain if the latter pulls off an upset (since the Dems would effectively form a firewall). Ted Stevens of Alaska will be out thanks to his corruption conviction last week, giving the seat to Mark Begich. Good riddance.
Also gone will be Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina for her libelous ad accusing Kay Hagan of being an atheist (she's actually an elder in the Presbyterian Church). For a distinguished woman like Dole, who served at Transportation under Reagan and Labour under Bush 41 -- and later as the extremely competent President of the American Red Cross -- this is a terrible ending to her career.
I further predict the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will lose, just barely, to Bruce Lunsford. McConnell will lose not for his long time opposition to smaller cars and fuel efficiency standards (which would have helped out during the current economic crisis) but because he's married to current Labour Secretary Elaine Chao, the only remaining original member of the Bush Administration besides Dubya and Dick Cheney. Even Bluegrassers, I think, have had enough of the crap from Washington and they want to send one final message to Bush 43 to go screw himself.
But in the end, the Democrats won't get the 60 seats they so desperately want. It all comes down to Minnesota, where Norm Coleman is facing a tough challenge from comedian Al Franken. Much as I'd like to see a truly smart and thoughtful guy like Franken win, he'll be stopped thanks to a strong third-party campaign by Dean Barkley who has been polling about 15% on average. Coleman will take it by a narrow margin.
Final Result: Democrats 57, Republicans 41, Independents 2 -- just one short. Which means Joe Lieberman will keep his committee chair for at least another two years.
House: I don't know too much about specific races, but if the tone of the advertising three districts in southeast Florida are any indication, this is going to be one nasty night overall for the Republicans. But not quite a wipe-out where say the Dems wind up with 270 or more. I predict a +21 net shift for the Democrats (they will lose a couple of seats each in Florida and Pennsylvania), leaving the total at 256 to 179.
Finally as for ballot initiatives, there are several key ones to watch:
California: 1A, to fund a high speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco cutting the land travel time to 2½ hours; with future links to other major cities. Given the state's pro-environment culture I think it will pass but narrowly, say 51-49.
Proposition 5, would attempt to divert more people away from the prison system crippled by "three strikes and you're out." With all five living Governors against, both GOP and donkeys, it's hard to see this one passing. It will lose, 53-47.
Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriages. With Ahnold now coming out against (one of the few things he and Maria Shriver have ever agreed on politically), it will go down to defeat but still not by that much -- I'll say 53-47. Again, watch to see how many Obama supporters vote "yes."
In San Francisco, two initiatives of note. Proposition "K" would effectively legalize prostitution in the city. To be fair, exploitation of sex workers alarms me but what's even worse is a situation that allows pimps to go free while street walkers are the ones who are charged with criminality. This does nothing more than level the playing field as should be the case and make sure the police give victims of crime equal treatment. I predict yes, 52-48. Meanwhile, Proposition "R" would rename the sewage treatment plant in the city after George W. Bush. (Seriously.) Liberal as it may be, Frisco also has too much class to smear someone like that and it'll be defeated bigtime, say a 2-1 margin.
Massachusetts: Initiate 1, which would outlaw the state income tax. With a potential $12 billion shortfall and the burden shifted to property taxes (which would kill an already battered real estate market), this has potential of revolt written all over it. "Taxachusetts" actually has a fairly low flat income tax (about 5½%), dating from Revolution days, and an overall tax burden somewhere near the median (in 28th place to be exact) and people are more upset with the unaccountable Massachusetts Turnpike Commission and tolls going for nowhere meaningful, than their bi-weekly withholdings. It will be defeated easily, 60-40. (Last time out, however, the yes got about 45% so it might have been even closer this time but for the current economic meltdown.)
Washington State: Initiative 1000 which would provide for "death with dignity," similar to a law in Oregon (Measure 16). The last time the state voted on the issue in 1991 it was voted down by a large margin. Despite the many safeguards in the law, many will still see it as "assisted suicide" and so it will face a tough fight. It also raises the question about the Hippocratic Oath and if a physician will be forced to write a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs. Many progressives oppose the proposed law and with justification. I'll say it passes but by squeaker, less than 1%. (It'll be an urban-rural split, as is usually the case on social issues in so many places across the US.)
UPDATE (6:36 AM EST, 1136 GMT): Dixville Notch went for Obama 15-6, Hart's Location went 17-10 with 2 write-ins for renegade Republican Ron Paul. True neither has ever been a reliable bellwether of what comes later in the day -- but it's kind of fun being first, and the fact Dixville has picked a Democrat for the first time in 40 years does say something.
Interestingly, Ralph Nader, who is on the ballot in New Hampshire and a handful of other states, got zero -- and this part of the state, near the Canadian border, has long had a libertarian and pro-environment streak that plays into Nader's hands quite nicely. Maybe people have finally realized he's still stuck in the 1960s -- and the movement then is not the same as the revolution of now.
As an afterthought, the computer models I've read show there's still a slim chance that McCain (about 3%) could still win the electoral college; but he'd have to run the board and I just don't see how he can do it if Obama wins even one of the battlegrounds. Given a possible record turnout, I'm going to take back what I said before that we'll know within a couple of hours. It will be another "Long Day's Journey into Night" -- just like in the UK where the results are called all night and well into the next day's afternoon.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Taking a break
It's not easy coming up with one or more posts every single day ... and even I need to take a break. So unless something calamitous happens between now and Tuesday, I'm going to take a breather. Tuesday morning, I'll make my prediction about where I think the electoral college and the US Congressionals will wind up -- then we'll see how it measures up against the actual results.
Standing up for Margaret Wente
The other day, Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente wrote a piece about some of what she calls the "mythology" about Aboriginal Canadians. She called Dick Pound's comments about the First Nations whom he called "savages", "stupid," then went on to try to debunk some of the commonly accepted wisdom about our First Nations in part by relying on an upcoming book by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard slamming current policy towards and about the First Nations. (I'll let you read Wente's column and decide for yourself.)
I don't necessarily agree with much of what she said, in particular about there being no link between the founding documents of the Iroquois Confederacy and the Declaration of Independence (although the latter does use the now non-P.C. term "savages" to refer to North American Indians). But is Wente's column racist as some are claiming? After reading it, I conclude it is not. It is wrong in a number of key respects but Wente is entitled to vent.
No doubt this is going to result in yet another investigation by a provincial or federal human rights tribunal (where due process rights go out the window), at great expense to Wente and her employer. That's not the place to have such a discussion. It's in the marketplace of ideas. Free speech is not the exclusive province of one side or of the other.
If the opinions of Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle or Margaret Wente, are not safe -- then can progressive claim to be safe as well?
Remember that when Oprah Winfrey was sued by Texas farmers under the "veggie libel law" in that state (although the issue was about ground beef) even Jerry Springer -- who Winfrey likely despises more than any other talk show host --- openly stood up for her; knowing his bottom scraping show was in danger as well if she lost. The general principles of free speech in America should also apply here, in my opinion. If someone's opinion is wrong it should be contested by other people -- in print, on television, in new media like the Internet. Not before human rights tribunals as seems to be so à propos nowadays.
The only exceptions I can think of to free speech in general are libel and child pornography. Beyond that I generally take an open minded approach. Determining whether one is promoting hate is a matter of criminal law, not quasi-judicial tribunals. In the absence of actual proof, Wente deserves better than to be called a "hate-monger" simply because she asks people to consider whether we need to dispense with conventional wisdom and find solutions that actually help rather than hinder Aboriginal people.
As for Dick Pound: As a tax lawyer, indeed one of the leading experts on both the Canada and US Tax Codes, he should know better than to use such a despicable term and I hope the Barreau du Québec gives him a stern warning.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I don't necessarily agree with much of what she said, in particular about there being no link between the founding documents of the Iroquois Confederacy and the Declaration of Independence (although the latter does use the now non-P.C. term "savages" to refer to North American Indians). But is Wente's column racist as some are claiming? After reading it, I conclude it is not. It is wrong in a number of key respects but Wente is entitled to vent.
No doubt this is going to result in yet another investigation by a provincial or federal human rights tribunal (where due process rights go out the window), at great expense to Wente and her employer. That's not the place to have such a discussion. It's in the marketplace of ideas. Free speech is not the exclusive province of one side or of the other.
If the opinions of Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle or Margaret Wente, are not safe -- then can progressive claim to be safe as well?
Remember that when Oprah Winfrey was sued by Texas farmers under the "veggie libel law" in that state (although the issue was about ground beef) even Jerry Springer -- who Winfrey likely despises more than any other talk show host --- openly stood up for her; knowing his bottom scraping show was in danger as well if she lost. The general principles of free speech in America should also apply here, in my opinion. If someone's opinion is wrong it should be contested by other people -- in print, on television, in new media like the Internet. Not before human rights tribunals as seems to be so à propos nowadays.
The only exceptions I can think of to free speech in general are libel and child pornography. Beyond that I generally take an open minded approach. Determining whether one is promoting hate is a matter of criminal law, not quasi-judicial tribunals. In the absence of actual proof, Wente deserves better than to be called a "hate-monger" simply because she asks people to consider whether we need to dispense with conventional wisdom and find solutions that actually help rather than hinder Aboriginal people.
As for Dick Pound: As a tax lawyer, indeed one of the leading experts on both the Canada and US Tax Codes, he should know better than to use such a despicable term and I hope the Barreau du Québec gives him a stern warning.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Khawaja convicted, but no terror plot proven
When the Toronto Eighteen was captured just over two years ago, it was seen as a huge coup for the Harper Conservatives although the investigation actually began well before under the Liberals. Since then, things have been falling off the wheels of that case with at least seven of the alleged conspirators having charges against them dropped or stayed.
Today, in an unrelated case dating two years earlier in 2004, an Ottawa man named Mohmammad Momin Khawaja was convicted on seven violations of Canada's anti-terror laws. It was the first test of the zero tolerance statute passed after 9/11.
But in a huge loss for the Crown, the judge ruled that while Khawaja was aware of the activities of the group he was involved with, he did not know the exact use of the device called the "Hi-Fi Digimonster." Since no specific plot link could be determined, or even if it was meant for terrorism, Khawaja qualifies for a less stringent sentence -- which is still a maximum of life but with far less time for parole; and given he's already served four in custody he just might get time served.
Whatever sentence Khawaja gets from a Canadian court is well deserved. But the fact no conspiracy could be proven demonstrates that the system is not serious about actually making the connection to genuine, real terror plots. They had better do so, before it is too late.
That principle applies no matter which party is in power.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Today, in an unrelated case dating two years earlier in 2004, an Ottawa man named Mohmammad Momin Khawaja was convicted on seven violations of Canada's anti-terror laws. It was the first test of the zero tolerance statute passed after 9/11.
But in a huge loss for the Crown, the judge ruled that while Khawaja was aware of the activities of the group he was involved with, he did not know the exact use of the device called the "Hi-Fi Digimonster." Since no specific plot link could be determined, or even if it was meant for terrorism, Khawaja qualifies for a less stringent sentence -- which is still a maximum of life but with far less time for parole; and given he's already served four in custody he just might get time served.
Whatever sentence Khawaja gets from a Canadian court is well deserved. But the fact no conspiracy could be proven demonstrates that the system is not serious about actually making the connection to genuine, real terror plots. They had better do so, before it is too late.
That principle applies no matter which party is in power.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)