Musings Archive June 2004
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 AMERICANS ARE EVIL: You know, there are times you read something and you can hardly believe that it's not a parody. In the Ottawa Sun today there was an article in which Earl McRae talks to average Canadians why they didn't vote Conservative in Monday's election.
"Martin," said St. Clair, "is a good man. He came across very honest. He wanted a chance to clean up all the s--t that happened under Chretien. I just didn't trust Harper. He came across too oily."
"Exactly," said Heather. "The scariest part for me about him is that he wanted to cosy up to the Americans. Can you believe it? The bloody Americans. I hate the Americans."
What do you hate about them?
"They're warmongers," said Don. "They're out to take over the world. They remind me of the Germans in World War II."
"They're not our best friends, they're our worst enemies," said Heather. "You can't trust them. I wish we had some other country as our neighbour, not those bullies. They're ignorant. They don't know anything about any other country. They'd just love to take us over if they could."
"I don't think they're all bad, I've got American friends," said St. Clair, "but Harper would've had us kissing their ass instead of telling them to screw off like Martin will do."
But you don't think our culture and economy is willingly soaked with American goods and services from which we've benefited?
"We don't need 'em, we can make it on our own," said Don.
"Harper," said St. Clair, "wants to turn our military into one like the Americans. Armed to the teeth, kill at the drop of a hat. Our history is one of peacekeeping, not fighting."
"Our soldiers," said Heather, "go into situations to keep the peace, not to shoot people. They have all the equipment they need, they don't need American-style weapons."
"We're not a warrior nation," said St. Clair. "Canadians don't want our military over-armed."
If we're ever attacked by a powerful enemy, wouldn't we expect the Americans to defend us?
"That's another myth," said Don. "Who the hell's going to attack us? No one's ever going to attack us. Who've we ever harmed? Go anywhere in the world and Canadians are liked and respected. We're recognized as a peaceful nation."
It's hard to believe that I live in a country with people that stupid -- public education was supposed to solve that -- but there you go. So my friends in America, please remember these three clods the next time the thought passes through your mind that Canadians are your friends.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:51 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ NO PROGRESS OVER DARFUR: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is in Darfur today, scene of a genocidal campaign against the residence there and not surprisingly the Sudanese government isn't being much help resolving the situation.
Powell, on the second day of a visit to Sudan, arrived in Darfur Wednesday for a first-hand look at some of the million people displaced by marauding Arab militias in what the United Nations calls the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
He has threatened unspecified U.N. Security Council action if Khartoum does not crack down on the militias, known locally as the Janjaweed, and streamline relief work in the region.
But a senior U.S. official said that in Powell's initial talks the Sudanese did not realize the gravity of the crisis.
"They are in a state of denial. They are in a state of avoidance. They are trying to obfuscate and avoid any consequences," said the official, who asked not to be named.
They aren't just denying the genocide, they're complicit in it. The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the Sudanese government sent the military into the region to warn refugees not to complain about any of the killings that have been going on. Seems to me that it's more than a "state of avoidance."
Read on. You can also read an editorial about Darfur that I wrote earlier this month.
Posted by steve @ 03:40 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [No Comments]
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS, TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS, RIGHT HILLARY?: My American friends, you have a chance to avoid what happened in Canada last night if you remember this simple phrase:
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Hillary Clinton said that yesterday during a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco. You elect John Kerry you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:34 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 3 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ THEY'RE STILL GOING TO COST YOU: If you're the compassionate soul that I am, doubtless you're worrying about all of those defeated or resigned MPs. What are they going to do with the rest of their lives? How will they make ends meet?
Fear not, this is Canada!
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released a study today which calculated "projected pension and severance payments to be paid to 83 MPs who were either defeated in the June 28th general election or resigned prior to the vote. Canadian taxpayers will pay out $3.5 million in annual pensions to 50 retiring or defeated MPs. In addition, another $2.5-million in severance cheques will be issued to at least 39 former MPs."
Defeated or retiring MPs who are eligible for a pension but have not reached the age of 55 are also entitled to receive severance equal to one month for every year served to a maximum of six months of 2004 member indemnity. Severance payments range from a low of $11,800 and a high of $70,500.
The biggest pension winners include Liberal MP Rey Pagtakhan at $105,868, NDP Lorne Nystrom and Liberal Guy St-Julien each at $86,663, and Liberal André Harvey at $80,307. Meanwhile Liberal Susan Whelan will collect $76,577 each year, and Liberal Robert Speller will receive $72,271.
Top pensions going to retired MPs include former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Joe Clark. Mr. Chrétien will collect $154,179 a year and Mr. Clark will collect $111,030. Former Cabinet members Sheila Copps and David Collenette will each collect $119,869 whereas John Manley, Robert Nault and Lyle Vanclief will each receive $105,868. Mrs. Copps and Messrs. Manley and Nault are also each entitled to a severance cheque totalling $70,500.
It's good to be the king.
You can read the entire list here. (PDF format)
Posted by steve @ 04:09 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 1 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ WHAT'S THIS?: I couldn't sleep so I went back online to check the latest numbers and I just noticed something rather interesting. It takes 155 seats to form a majority in our current Parliament and at this moment the Liberals have 135, the Conservatives 99, the Bloc Quebecois 54, the NDP 19, and Independent at 1.
Now my premise has always been a Liberal/NDP coalition government. Do the math though: that's 154 seats. Assuming, of course, that the numbers don't change again.
Assuming that the Liberals don't want to play ball with the Bloc Quebecois, that leaves Mr. Independent -- Surrey North MP Chuck Cadman -- as a very powerful person. Though he is a conservative (who was ditched by his party), Cadman stated tonight (before all the results were in) that he would take a poll of his riding to determine who he should ally himself with. A lone MP could spell the balance of power for a Liberal minority government.
Of course, this is a simplistic way of looking at things. It's pretty easy to imagine that a bunch of Bloc Quebecois MPs will vote with the Liberals for two reasons: 1) the leftward shift that the socialist NDP will induce will cause Liberal policies to fall closer to the socialist BQ's platform, and 2) the Bloc has no reason to look forward to another quick election as they likely wouldn't repeat their impressive showing at the polls.
Either way, the next couple of days are going to be interesting.
Posted by steve @ 04:08 AM EST [Link] [Karma: -2 (+/-)] [4 comments]
~ YOU KNOW YOU'RE FREE WHEN: You have talk radio in your nation, as Prof. Glenn said earlier this evening..
Iraqi voices filled the airwaves of the nation's first independent talk radio station Monday, applauding a surprise move by the U.S.-led coalition to return sovereignty to Iraq two days early.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 12:55 AM EST [Link] [Karma: -1 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ RANDOM THOUGHT: On June 28, Iraqis finally won the right to decide their own futures courtesy of coalition arms.
On June 28, Canadians decided to reelect the same corrupt party when given a free choice.
Posted by steve @ 12:39 AM EST [Link] [Karma: 2 (+/-)] [1 Comment]
Monday, June 28, 2004 HONEY, I SWEAR IT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME: Well, once again Canada didn't disappoint. Like a battered wife who keeps coming back for more, we've once again given the Liberals the reigns. True, they'll govern in a minority government -- probably with the backing of the socialist NDP -- but nontheless Paul Martin gets to keep his nice office on Parliament Hill.
Conservatives, ignoring the fact that the popular vote for the right actually dropped this election, will tell you that the fact they gained a bunch of seats is a good thing. It is, considering the party is just a few months old. It isn't, because Ontario once again came out to vote for the Liberals and made a mockery of claims that a united right could make serious inroads in the province.
The big winner this election was the socialist Block Quebecois, a party dedicated to splitting up Canada, and the socialist NDP, which made big gains in the popular vote and now hold the balance of power. Canadians took a look at the scene and decided to punish a corrupt government by voting for political parties with economic plans created a century ago.
So what can we expect? Assuming that the Liberals include the NDP in a government, they will be pulled further to the left. I also don't expect such a government to last long -- under a year at best. See you back at the polls real soon...with a resulting majority Liberal government.
Posted by steve @ 11:32 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 1 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ I'D HAVE SKIPPED THE WHOLE THING: But Mark Steyn says if you're going to read Bill Clinton's My Life, skip the first 879 pages.
Is there anything interesting in "My Life" by Bill Clinton? Oh, yes. Page 870.
The Clintons are in New Zealand and finally get to meet "Sir Edmund Hillary, who had explored the South Pole in the 1950s, was the first man to reach the top of Mount Everest and, most important, was the man Chelsea's mother had been named for."
Hmm. Edmund Hillary reached the top of Everest in 1953. Hillary Rodham was born in 1947, when Sir Edmund was an obscure New Zealand beekeeper and an unlikely inspiration for two young parents in the Chicago suburbs. I mentioned this in Britain's Sunday Telegraph eight years ago this very week, after this little story was trotted out the first time, but like so many curious anomalies in the Clinton record, it somehow cruises on indestructibly. By the time Sir Edmund shuffles off this mortal coil, the New York Times headline will read: "Man for Whom President Rodham Named Dies; Climbed Everest in 1947."
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 05:22 PM EST [Link] [Karma: -1 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ TOO BAD: The world is abuzz with rumours that the U.S. has caught Abu Musab al-Zarqawi but the U.S. military has denied it.
"This is not true, no matter how much I want to capture or kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on this special day, sadly we have not yet caught him," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the deputy chief of operations, told Associated Press Television News.
The denial is very simple. The Bush Administration wants to announce the capture of Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi and the location of Amelia Earheart just before the election in November. I think Michael Moore told me that...
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 04:09 PM EST [Link] [Karma: -1 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ CONGRATS: It's two days earlier than announced but Iraqis are now in charge of their own destiny. At 10:26am Baghdad time, the interim Iraqi government formally took over the running of their nation.
Coalition Administrator Paul Bremer -- now the former administrator -- read his letter contained in the transfer document:
"As recognized in U.N. Security Council resolution 1546, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist on June 28th, at which point the occupation will end and the Iraqi interim government will assume and exercise full sovereign authority on behalf of the Iraqi people. I welcome Iraq's steps to take its rightful place of equality and honor among the free nations of the world. Sincerely, L. Paul Bremer, ex-administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Bremer handed the transfer document to the head of the Iraqi Supreme Court, who then gave it to President Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and the deputy prime minister also attended.
"This is a historic and happy day for us in Iraq," al-Yawar said. "It is a day that all Iraqis have been looking forward to. This is the day that we take our country back into the international community.
"We want a free and democratic Iraq, and we want a country that is a source of peace and stability for the whole world."
Welcome to the family guys.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 04:37 AM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [1 Comment]
~ CONGRATS TO SERBIA: With all the bad stuff happening in the homeland of my family in the last decade, it's nice to get some pleasant news for a change. On Sunday, Serbia-Montenegro elected Boris Tadic, a pro-Western reformer.
"From my point of view, this is a victory against the past," Tadic, 46, said in an interview with CNN International.
Tadic said he wanted to help bring his country into the European Union and work with the various parties in the Serbian parliament to develop a new new constitution for the country.
However, he admitted that his most daunting challenge was getting Serbia's economy back on track.
"We need more jobs to build new circumstances in Serbia," Tadic said.
It would be nice to see Serbia-Montenegro rejoin the European community and work to get past its recent problems. Things got so bad that Montenegro, under the direction of pro-Western/reformer politicians, has been threatening to secede from Serbia.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:43 AM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [1 Comment]
~ MUST BE ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY BUSH TO JUSTIFY THE WAR: The Financial Times reported Sunday that there is evidence that Iraq may have tried to procure yellow cake uranium from Niger several years ago.
The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.
But the US intelligence community, officials and politicians, are publicly sceptical, and the public differences between the two allies on the issue have obscured the evidence that lies behind the UK claim.
Until now, the only evidence of Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger had turned out to be a forgery. In October 2002, documents were handed to the US embassy in Rome that appeared to be correspondence between Niger and Iraqi officials.
When the US State Department later passed the documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, they were found to be fake. US officials have subsequently distanced themselves from the entire notion that Iraq was seeking buy uranium from Niger.
However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.
I guess Joseph Wilson's tea sipping trip to Niger wasn't all that useful after all, was it Mr. Ambassador?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 12:31 AM EST [Link] [Karma: -2 (+/-)] [No Comments]
Sunday, June 27, 2004 SELF-PROMO ALERT: The July 19 issue of The American Conservative will be on the newsstands on Monday. I have a piece in the issue tweaking some of my conservative pundit brethren for their excessively optimistic predictions about the war in Iraq.
Even though I don't imagine most of y'all will agree with it, I'll link to the article if it is posted online. Or you could always subscribe.
Posted by antle @ 06:10 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ CLOSING TIME/ WHOLE LOTT OF DRINKING: Jeremy Lott has announced his impending departure from the nation's capital, at least for the time being. Any ESR readers in the area are welcome to come hoist a pint at his Irish wake. As an added incentive, you will also have an opportunity to find out whether W. James Antle III really is a 75-year-old man who wears a sweater.
Posted by antle @ 05:17 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ WHY AREN'T THEY COVERING THIS?: My stablemate over at The Shotgun, Kate McMillan, has a great blog entry asking one question: Why isn't the media reporting the whole story about what's going in Iraq?
Surely there are reporters and editors who lurk on the Shotgun from time to time. I want to hear from you. You covered every anti-war demonstration. You quoted every naysaying Canadian politician. You gave a closeup to every half-wit Hollywood actor who could move their lips. You covered UN deliberations. You've dissected every hoped-for disaster, from the "massive humanitarian disaster" to the "quagmire" of the stretched supply lines, to the "failure" to catch Saddam, to the "uprising of the Arab street", to the "Vietnam" of El Sadr's militia, dancing to the rhythm of every RPG to be tossed into the Green Zone. You even reported on the ones that "caused no casualties". So, it's not like you didn't have the time and space.
Are you intentionally trying to mislead and misinform the Canadian public by reporting out a tiny window facing in a single direction?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 04:17 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 0 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ A LETTER FROM BAGHDAD: Amy Ridenour reprints a letter she received from a soldier stationed in Baghdad. I won't quote from it because you should read the whole thing yourself.
Posted by steve @ 04:57 AM EST [Link] [Karma: 4 (+/-)] [No Comments]
Saturday, June 26, 2004 BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR: It's enough to make a grown man cry. According to a poll released today, Canadians prefer a left-leaning minority government.
Voters were asked: If Canada has a minority government after the next election, would the following be acceptable or unacceptable for you: A Liberal-led minority government supported by the NDP?
More than half of those polled (56 per cent) said they'd prefer this left-leaning combination.
Among decided NDP voters, a Liberal/NDP coalition seems especially palatable. Eighty-one per cent would approve of the partnership.
Seventy-one per cent of decided Liberal voters agree.
Left-leaning? The NDP are socialists. That's a little more than left-leaning. Please, someone sponsor me for American citizenship.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:54 PM EST [Link] [Karma: 3 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ SETBACK FOR NADER: Ralph Nader failed to win the endorsement of the Green Party, which instead gave the nod to David Cobb. The argument seemed to be over whether Greens would prefer a candidate who could get lots of votes (or at least approach the 2.7 percent Nader got four years ago) or one who would not jeopardize their state ballot access by refusing to technically be their nominee.
I've never really grasped why Nader didn't choose to run on the Green Party ticket for the third straight presidential election. It would have gone a long way toward solving his ballot-access problems. The only thing I can think of is that he felt a Green nomination would limit him to lefties, as opposed to a broader candidacy for everyone irritated with the two major parties. Nader clearly thought he could appeal to more than just lefties in his interview with my boss.
But to prove that concept, he needs to get himself on a lot more state ballots than the seven his endorsement from the Reform Party is likely to give him.
Posted by antle @ 06:47 PM EST [Link] [Karma: -2 (+/-)] [No Comments]
~ HE WAS A CLYMER, RIGHT DICK?: U.S. VP Dick Cheney said Friday he felt better after he cursed out Sen. Patrick Leahy.
In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Cheney said he was "forcefully" expressing his unhappiness with the conduct of the Democratic senator from Vermont -- who Cheney said had publicly questioned his integrity, and then wanted to be friendly when he saw him in person.
Sources who related the incident to CNN said the vice president had told Leahy either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."
I like him ever more now. I'd have said the same thing.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 04:24 AM EST [Link] [Karma: -2 (+/-)] [No Comments]
Friday, June 25, 2004 BEEN CAUGHT AGAIN: Earlier this week we blogged a story that demonstrated Bill Clinton lied about the timing of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and now today we have a report that Lewinsky is accusing him of lying about other bits.
In an interview with The Daily Mail, Lewinsky called the former president's account of their relationship dishonest and said he has missed an opportunity to undo some of the damage their entanglement caused her.
"He could have made it right with the book," the newspaper quoted her as saying. "But he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied."
No he hasn't Monica, it all depends on how you define the word "is".
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:57 PM EST [Link]
~ THE NYT AND SADDAM: Following on the NY Times report today on a document linking al-Qaida and Iraq's intelligence service, Andrew C. McCarthy slaps the newspaper around a bit.
A week ago, the New York Times reported, in a screaming page-one headline, that the 9/11 Commission had found "No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Today, in a remarkable story that positively oozes with consciousness of guilt, the Times confesses not only that there is documentary evidence of at least one tie but that the Times has had the document in question for several weeks. That is, the Times was well aware of this information at the very time of last week's reporting, during which, on June 17, it declaimed from its editorial perch that the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's terror network meant President Bush owed the nation an apology.
Today, the Times concedes that the Defense Intelligence Agency is in possession of a document showing that, in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service reached out to what the newspaper euphemistically calls "Mr. bin Laden's organization" (more on that below) regarding the possibility of joint efforts against the Saudi regime, which was then hosting U.S. forces. To be clear, the document records that it was Iraq which initiated the contacts, and that bin Laden finally agreed to discuss cooperation only after having spurned previous overtures because he "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative[.]"
Why again, is the Times the paper of record?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 04:14 PM EST [Link]
~ WAY TO KEEP UP ON CURRENT EVENTS: The Conservative Party of Canada, while relatively new, has been around long enough that you'd think Elections Canada would be prepared for them. Apparently not judging by this email I received from an official in British Columbia:
I am writing you to inform you of a bizarre goof by Elections Canada. I am the Deputy Returning Officer for Poll 048, Bridesville, BC. I am also a member of the Conservative Party of Canada.
This morning I opened the elections material supplied by Elections Canada for the D.R.O.'s. In the package are the sticky badges for the Candidates Representatives (scrutineers). There are badges for all the political parties and a few blank ones. There are badges for the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. There are no badges for the Conservative Party. Considering that the Alliance and PC's ceased to exist last December (in theory anyways), I find this error to be in extremely poor judgement.
Rumour has it that the D.R.O's will be getting proper badges for the Conservative Party in time for the election. Still this just shows how poorly bureaucracies function.
Posted by steve @ 03:49 PM EST [Link]
~ MORE AMERICAN INTERFERENCE IN CANADIAN ELECTION: I thought the left was opposed to interfering in another sovereign nation's election? Ralph Nader today urged Canadians not to vote Conservative in Monday's election, following the lead of Michael Moore.
June 25th, 2004
AN OPEN LETTER TO CANADIAN VOTERS FROM RALPH NADER
It is out of affection for Canada that I tender the following:
Caveat, voters, next Monday.Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have plans for crippling the commonwealth and security of the Canadian standard of living, known worldwide as just about the finest among sizable nations. Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are sympathetic with the Fraser Institute's plan for a corporatist Canada that tears away your common safety net. The Fraser Institute would choose to insidiously undermine your national health insurance system bit by bigger bit -- on the installment plan.
If you want to see the Fraser Institute and the Conservatives' plan for Canadians, come to the U.S., where health care for many Americans is based on a pay -or-die model. Forty-five million Americans -- women, men and children -- have no insurance coverage, and the number of uninsureds is increasing. The prestigious Institute of Medicine estimates 18,000 Americans die every year because they cannot afford to see a doctor or go to a hospital. In the US, most working people have lost their freedom to choose a doctor or hospital because their corporate HMO plans assign such service. Hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted annually on bureaucracy, administrative expenses, and massive computerized billing fraud and abuse (see www.citizen.org, or Harvard professor Malcolm Sparrow's book License to Steal). Furthermore, average health care expenses per capita are much higher in the US than in Canada -- and not only drug prices.
Voters beware. You are, in part, understandably reacting to the recent scandal touching the incumbent party. Do not overreact. You have a third major choice -- the NDP -- or other parties. Don't indirectly vote for the Fraser Institute and its positions of anti-law and order for corporations -- policies threatening to become your future government's policies. You'll pay: under the Conservatives, large corporations, including those from other countries, will have more say than ever -- Reagan/Bush/BushII style. Please maintain and advance your civil society.
There are many Americans who, over the decades, have looked to Canada for social justice initiatives to emulate. About ten years ago, I co-authored a book, Canada Firsts, which became a 42-week bestseller in your country. Canada Firsts described many Canadian "firsts" that found their way south to our country -- including credit unions. We need an independent, humane Canada. It is in such a spirit that I submit these views for your consideration.
Best wishes for justice,
Ralph Nader
This is very imperialistic of you Ralph.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:35 PM EST [Link]
~ MORE OF LACK OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAIDA AND IRAQ: A document found in Iraq shows that there were high level contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq going back to the mid-1990s.
American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.
The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.
Read on. (NYT, Free registration)
Posted by steve @ 03:23 AM EST [Link]
~ ESR OBTAINS SCRIPT FOR NEXT MICHAEL MOORE MOVIE: It's apparently entitled "Pig at the Trough" and it blows apart conventional thinking about the Oil for Food scandal that has conservatives salivating at the prospect of embarrassing the United Nations. According to Moore's next movie, the villain behind the scandal isn't who you think it is.
OPENING CREDITS: Pig at the Trough: The United Nations, Steve Martinovich and a conservative conspiracy by Michael Moore.
VOICEOVER: After orchestrating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States to allow the Bush administration's mad rush to war against Iraq, the next target on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's wish list was none other than the United Nations. Long a check against the imperialist dream of the right-wing, the conservatives hatched a long-term plan to undermine the world body to give them a free reign to reorganize the world according to neoconservative principles.
VOICEOVER: The man behind the plot is an obscure writer from Canada named Steven Martinovich. Although he's known as a conservative today, Martinovich was once a member of Canada's Liberal Party. Turning his back on social justice, Martinovich colluded with the American right-wing to discredit the UN. His plan ran parallel to Richard Perle's long dreamed of invasion of Iraq and was designed to create a scandal that erupt at the precise moment public opposition to the war in Iraq began to grow.
VOICEOVER: Martinovich hatched his scheme in the early 1990s when as a member of the Liberal Party he decided to run for the position of Student Director of the Ontario Young Liberals. The position gave him access to the highest reaches of power. One of those men was then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Using the same standards of evidence that I used in Fahrenheit 9/11, I've managed to trace a clear line from Martinovich to the Oil for Food scandal. I have evidence that Martinovich and Chretien met at least twice during the 1990s, including once during a dinner reception in Toronto, Ontario. One of these meetings was captured on film.
VOICEOVER: How is Martinovich linked to the Oil for Food scandal? It's quite simple. Martinovich met twice with Chretien who happens to be friends with Canadian billionaire Paul Desmarais Sr., who also just happens to hail from Martinovich's hometown of Sudbury, Ontario. Desmarais' sons André and Paul Desmarais Jr. are the current co-CEO's of Power Corporation of Canada, the majority shareholder in France's TotalFinaElf, a company linked to the Oil for Food scandal. It's clear that Martinovich used his connections to send a message to the Desmarais family to instigate a kickback scheme.
VOICEOVER: The final proof of the connection comes in the form of a March 22, 1994 letter from Chretien to Martinovich, ostensibly to congratulate him on his election to Student Director. In the letter Chretien vaguely tells Martinovich that "I am sure you are looking forward to this challenging and exciting position." In other letters from government ministers, Martinovich is told that if they can be of any assistance to not hesitate to contact them. Martinovich's access to the levers of power were absolute and subverted the Canadian government's natural hostility to the illegal regime in Washington, D.C.
Two pictures side by side, one of Martinovich pumping gas, the other of him eating a chicken and rice meal.
VOICEOVER: Martinovich managed to pull off a double coup. Not only did the impoverished and unemployed writer receive financial gain for masterminding the kickbacks, he got cheap gas as a result of the invasion and cheap food that was destined for the Iraqi people.
SCENE: MIDDLE CLASS HOME IN SUDBURY, ONTARIO, MICHAEL MOORE AND CAMERA CREW WALK UP THE DRIVE WAY
Moore: I'm here to ask Martinovich my questions directly. Knocks on door, disheveled man answers.
Martinovich: You the pizza guy?
Moore: Steve, isn't it true that you masterminded the oil for food scandal?
Martinovich, confused: I didn't want oil on my pizza. Hey, wait a minute, aren't you that fat fu...
CUT TO PICTURE OF PHOTO OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND MARTINOVICH SIDE BY SIDE
VOICEOVER: Once again, wicked rich white men worked together to attack the very pillars of civilization. Once again, I've used rigorous reporting to prove it.
END CREDITS: A message from the director: "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
Posted by steve @ 12:39 AM EST [Link]
Thursday, June 24, 2004 GOOD NEWS...BAD NEWS: A couple of interesting polls today. One on CNN showed that Bush's numbers on the economy are rising (47 per cent believed he was doing a good job on that front) while another showed that for the first time a majority of Americans believe going to Iraq was a mistake.
Over at Fox News, Bush is outpolling Kerry by about a half dozen points. Interestingly:
As has been the case since the end of the primary season, Bush’s strength of support is much higher than Kerry’s. Fully 75 percent of Bush voters say they support him "strongly" and 25 percent say "only somewhat." Among Kerry voters, just over half — 53 percent — say they support him "strongly" and 45 percent say "only somewhat."
Significantly more voters think Bush would do a better job than Kerry protecting the United States from terrorist attacks (49 percent to 28 percent). On the nation’s economy, Bush and Kerry are evenly matched with each receiving 42 percent. Bush has an 11-percentage point edge over Kerry when voters are asked which candidate is "more honest and trustworthy," although 12 percent volunteer "neither."
So we have some bad news and some good news. Placing this in the ESR-otronic 3000 Election Predictifier -- essentially a blender with a printer attached -- it seems Dubya is doing slightly better than Kerry is. The E3KEP reminds me, however, that we still have 4 1/2 months to go before the big day. Still, I consider it funny that if Kerry keeps going on about Iraq Bush can look at him and say, "It's the economy, stupid."
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:43 PM EST [Link]
~ WHAT IF?: What if John Kerry had been at the helm after 9/11 instead of Dubya. That's the question that a new ad from the Progress for America Voter Fund asks in a new $1 million ad campaign that will air in New Mexico and Nevada. If you don't live there, worry not. You can see the ad here.
Posted by steve @ 07:17 PM EST [Link]
~ I'M SURE HE DROPPED THE KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL EVERY DAY: Umm Mohammed, the wife of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, said today that there's no way her husband is the kind of guy who would kill women and children.
"He would not recommend the killings of children, women and elderly people as they're trying to portray him," she told the Arabic daily in an interview at the family's home in Zarqa, 27 kilometres northeast of the Jordanian capital Amman.
Of course, al-Zarqawi is such a family man he hasn't seen his wife or children in five years.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:01 PM EST [Link]
~ AUF WIEDERSEHEN MEIN FREUND: Well, after not updating ESR's Conservative Site of the Day since July 15, 2003 I've decided to finally close it down. The site itself will remain up as long as ESR exists but it will no longer be updated.
It seems a shame to shut something down that ran for 5 1/2 years but the reality is that I think we're very long past the whole Site of the Day thing and I just didn't feel like updating it every day. That and I got tired of all the spammed nominations that had little to do with conservatism...
Posted by steve @ 02:33 AM EST [Link]
~ ONLY ONE-FIFTH?: Interesting study released by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University on Wednesday:
While most single young men aspire to marriage, about one-fifth are deeply skeptical of the institution and their prospects of making it work, according to a new national survey which closely links men's marital outlook to their upbringing.
The survey, released Wednesday by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, found that the men with negative attitudes were far more likely than the rest to have been raised by a divorced parent in a non-churchgoing family.
I'm one of those one-fifth (though I came from a sometimes churchgoing family that didn't divorce) and I actually think the number is higher. I know a lot of guys in their early 30s who are single and have no interest in getting married. I've been trying to figure out why a large number of men aren't interested in marriage and haven't come up with any really good answers. A lot seem to be distrusting of the institution, enjoy the fact that all the money they earn is theirs to spend as they please, they don't trust women or they prefer...emmm...casual relationships.
Why am I single? Well, I probably fall into the camp that enjoys their independence. When I was working I rather liked the fact that if I wanted to spend my money on a stupid extravagence, I could. If I wanted to go out and 'socialize', dagnamit, I could! Football on Sunday? All day baby, all day! Still, Frank Sinatra had it right. Before he died Old Blue Eyes said that you knew the time was right when you were up at 3:00am and the thought passed your head that perhaps there was something more in life...
At any rate, there are wider societal implications to all of this. At least 20 per cent of American males aren't enamoured of an institution which is the foundation of their society. Blame it on feminism, high divorce rates, economic independence of women or screwed up guys but the fact remains that there is a large chunk of the population that may drop out of the traditional path that most lives take. That can only cause problems in the future.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:40 AM EST [Link]
~ REPUBLICANS HAVE SEX TOO: William Saletan has an interesting piece in Slate about the hypocrisy of Republicans who defend Jack Ryan (leaving aside whether wanting to have weird, kinky sex with your wife is equivalent to having weird, kinky sex with an intern while you are married and then lying under oath about it when it comes up under questioning in a sexual harrassment lawsuit).
But I think Saletan overstates the extent to which Republicans actually are defending Ryan. A major story is how Jim Edgar, Ray LaHood and other leading Illinois Republicans are dropping Mr. Sex Club like a hot potato in light of the allegations and what they claim to be his dishonesty about them. Although the GOP has not yet totally abandoned him, he is being far more widely criticized by Republicans than Clinton was by Democrats at this point in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. There are top Republicans calling for Ryan to drop out of the Senate race. Where were the leading Democrats calling on Clinton to resign the presidency?
In my homestate of Massachusetts during the 2000 election cycle, once Ted Kennedy's Republican challenger Jack E. Robinson disclosed the extent of his wide array of personal scandals and baggage the state GOP and then Gov. Paul Cellucci disavowed him. I personally did not vote for him, opting instead for Constitution Party candidate Phillip Lawler (though the Libertarian Carla Howell, who only ran 1 percentage point behind Robinson, was also an excellent choice).
Nice effort, Will. Better luck next time.
Posted by antle @ 12:21 AM EST [Link]
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 WHEN TO FOLD 'EM: The same week Bill Clinton begins his publicity blitz for his new book, repeatedly telling interviewers that he is proud to have never even considered resigning the presidency during the whole impeachment saga, Connecticut Gov. John Rowland announces that he is stepping down.
Why did Clinton survive when Rowland didn't? There are numerous differences between their situations and Rowland's legal difficulties were more complex, but there are two distinctions that I think are particularly important.
The first is that Clinton did a far better job of managing public opinion when his presidency was imperiled. Rowland responded to his legal troubles by just lying and stonewalling. Clinton lied and stonewalled too, but he also engaged in a ferocious campaign to demonize his opponents (Kenneth Starr and the Republicans in Congress) and exploited the public's sexual privacy concerns. Rowland, accused of accepting freebies from various cronies, did not have any detractors who lent themselves as well to being demonized as, say, Newt Gingrich. It is also a lot harder to argue that an inquiry into whether a sitting governor did favors for people in the state in exchange for goodies (home improvements, champagne, cigars, etc.) constitutes some sort of invasion of privacy.
Consequently, Clinton had only a third of the American people in favor of kicking him out office and less than half clamoring for his resignation, while Rowland was faced with a state where 70 percent of the voters wanted him to resign and 57 percent supported impeachment.
The second, and in my view more important, difference is that members of Rowland's own party wanted him out. Politicians can normally weather these types of crisises when their party stays unified behind them. They can usually survive if only backbenchers or squishier members of their party (liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats) break with them. But once their party's stalwarts, especially those in leadership positions, start to turn, the troubled politician is toast.
If people like Joe Lieberman and Robert Byrd had gone beyond denouncing Clinton in 1998 and instead called upon him to either resign or be removed from office, you can bet the man from Hope would have given resignation some thought. Because the Democrats largely remained united behind him, Clinton knew he would beat impeachment and therefore didn't have to consider resignation.
Posted by antle @ 07:59 PM EST [Link]
~ ADVANCE NOTICE: There won't be much blogging from me today. I have a deadline for a piece that has to go out today. Those bills have to be paid.
Posted by steve @ 02:59 PM EST [Link]
~ THERE IS GOOD NEWS: And Arthur Chrenkoff reports it even if the media doesn't. Today he posted part four of his series on the good news out of Iraq.
Overall, the news from Iraq hasn't been too bad lately, with the transition to sovereignty well under way and decrease in fighting. However, we still hear a lot more about terrorism, prisoner abuse saga, sabotage, unvafourable opinion polls, and then some more about terrorism.
Also read part one, two and three.
Posted by steve @ 02:33 PM EST [Link]
~ STEVE PICKS THE WINNER OF THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION: And it won't be the Canadian people.
The recent slide by the Conservative Party I think effectively kills any realistic shot that they had of forming a majority government, assuming you thought it was realistic to begin with. I think it's still possible that they will come out with the most seats, indeed Mike Duffy showed some stats Tuesday evening that the Conservatives could see up to about a half dozen more MPs than the Liberals, but they won't form the next government.
It all comes down to the choice of dance partners and the Conservatives are the odd man out on everyone's dance cards. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois are both socialists and I doubt that Conservative voters would be pleased with a coalition going in that direction. For the Liberals, they could enter into a coalition with either far left party. The only possible fit the Conservatives could pull off would be with the Liberals.
That's something I think we can rule out though it's the best possible result with a minority Conservative victory.
If the Conservatives are asked to form a government I see them flailing around uselessly while the Liberals and the New Democrats look into each other's eyes and realize that power turns everyone on. The Liberals want to keep it, the NDP would like to taste it on the federal level. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there's been talk behind the scenes already considering NDP leader Jack Layton's announcement pulling back from his inheritance tax promise.
And the big loser in all of this will be the Canadian people. The Liberal Party will be pulled further to the left as a concession to the NDP and we'll have the privilege of paying for it.
Posted by steve @ 01:51 AM EST [Link]
~ SELF-PROMO ALERT: If you live in Canada or can otherwise buy the National Post where you are, pick up a copy to read my latest feat of brilliance in the op-ed section. It's about Tax Freedom Day -- the day in which it has been calculated that Canadians have finished paying off all taxes and work for themselves -- which happens to fall on June 28. Ironically, it's the same day we go to the polls to vote in the federal election.
At any rate, my version had it titled "The Price of Being Canadian" but the fine folks at the Post may have changed it. I'd post a copy but they seem to be anal about exclusivity. I'll post a link if there is one.
[Update - 2:37pm] Unfortunately the essay is behind their subscribers only wall.
Posted by steve @ 01:32 AM EST [Link]
~ SIGH...SO WAS HE LYING THEN OR IS HE LYING NOW?: CNN reports that Bill Clinton's new book contradicts testimony he gave in 1998.
In his 1998 testimony, the former president said, "When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong." That timeline would have put the start of the affair after Lewinsky had completed her White House internship and had taken a staff job.
But on page 773 of his book, "My Life," Clinton said, "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."
Yeah, I'm shocked too.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:28 AM EST [Link]
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 BRYAN HENDERSON IS OUR NEW HERO: (Via Peeve Farm) Protest Warrior has a wonderful story of a California high school teen who decided to stand up for his principles and challenge the reigning leftist orthodoxy at his school. In the process, he revealed his opponents to be what they really are: intolerant fools.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:56 PM EST [Link]
~ DREZNER DISSES DOBBS: There are more than a few people who love Lou Dobbs in the blogosphere but Daniel Drezner is most certainly not one of them. In a post earlier today he declared that Dobbs was a "big fat hypocrite."
Back in March, James Glassman pointed out in Tech Central Station that Dobbs was praising companies like Boeing and Washington Mutual as worthy stocks in his eponymous investment letter -- even though he was bashing these very same companies for offshore outsourcing on his CNN show, Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Read the whole thing, it's quite good.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:39 PM EST [Link]
~ DOES ANYONE LIKE IT?: A lot of people are buying Bill Clinton's My Life but no one seems to be enjoying it. An AP review written by Jerry Schwartz calls the book a "daily grind" that's big but "shallow."
Part of the problem is that "My Life" is relentlessly chronological, especially the second half of the book, which is devoted to his presidency. Almost every paragraph describes another meeting with a foreign leader or the signing of another bill or delivery of another speech.
The effect is mind-numbing. It's like being locked in a small room with a very gregarious man who insists on reading his entire appointment book, day by day, beginning in 1946.
If I want to read something that will put me to sleep, I have a copy of James Joyce's Ulyssess for that.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:57 PM EST [Link]
~ HITCHENS REDEEMS HIMSELF...SLIGHTLY: After savage hit pieces on Bob Hope and Ronald Reagan, Christopher Hitchens redeems himself slightly by absolutely lighting up Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Good to have you back Mr. Hitchens...if only on this issue.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:43 AM EST [Link]
Monday, June 21, 2004 HIIBEL RULING UPHELD: Hard to believe I missed this earlier today. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that people are required to identify themselves to a police officer when asked under circumstances.
People who have given the police some reason to suspect that they may be involved in a crime can be required to identify themselves unless their very name would be incriminating, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case that had raised concerns about the boundaries of personal privacy.
The 5-to-4 decision addressed a question that, surprisingly, had gone unresolved for decades. But the answer the court gave was hardly definitive, leaving for another day some of the more difficult issues of application.The case was a challenge by a Nevada rancher to a state law requiring people stopped in suspicious circumstances to identify themselves on the request of a police officer. Twenty states, including New York, have such laws on their books, as do a number of cities and towns.
The rancher, Larry D. Hiibel argued that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination were violated by the state law. Mr. Hiibel's cause was taken up by an array of groups concerned with privacy in an age when a name entered in an electronic database can provide a sometimes startling amount of personal information.
Read on. Read SCOTUS' ruling here (PDF format)
ESR has also weighed in with essays that you can find here and here.
Posted by steve @ 11:37 PM EST [Link]
~ A FULL HOUR OF HIM WAS TOO MUCH: I was going to blog about Bill Clinton's appearance on 60 Minutes last night but I had too much last minute work on ESR to get done. That and listening to Clinton actually made me tired. As I was watching it though one line popped out at me:
"I was involved in two great struggles at the same time, a great public struggle over the future of America with a Republican Congress and a private struggle with my old demons. I won the public one and lost the private one. I don't think it's much more complicated than that."
Not surprisingly many conservatives are taking Slick Willie to task for claiming ultimate victory against the Republican Party. Over at NRO, Jonah Goldberg argues that clearly wasn't the case.
Ah, yes, the glorious victory against the Republicans which cost the Democrats the House, the Senate and arguably the White House in 2000. The victory which caused the first two-term Democrat since FDR to tack right on Welfare and trade and abandon the dream of single-payer health care.
Granted, Republicans won the war over socialized health care but I wonder if they won the wider war. George W. Bush is spending in a manner that Clinton never could have contemplated and has introduced programs and endorsed legislation that tack to the left. Under Dubya's watch America has a prescription drug plan and increased federal involvement in education, hardly conservative priorities. And I'm trying to figure out why Goldberg believes protectionist trade policies are conservative in nature.
Although Clinton arguably aided the Republicans' rise to power in the mid-1990s in Congress (and indirectly got Bush elected in 2000), I wonder if history won't record that Bush wasn't too different from Clinton when it came to many, though obviously not all, domestic issues.
Posted by steve @ 03:07 PM EST [Link]
~ CONGRATULATIONS: To the crew of SpaceShipOne which achieved space flight this morning! It's not quite the same as being the first in space but I'll bet the crew enjoyed the ride nonetheless.
Posted by steve @ 02:54 PM EST [Link]
~ "IT'S NOT GOING TO GET BETTER": James Lileks has a depressing essay up today about how the enemy has achieved one of its goals: the dividing of the American public.
And it’s not going to get better. I don’t think the next attack will bring us together like 9/11. Last time a small portion of the nation went straight to blaming us for enflaming poor Mo Atta and his motley crew; the last three years have seen that poison spread and flourish, and blaming America for the ravings of medieval theocrats is now a legitimate argument in polite society. I’d almost venture to say that a third of the country would conclude that a radiological device exploded in Manhattan would be Bush’s fault, because he made the “evil doers” (roll eyes) super-extra-fancy-grade-AA mad.
For the last few weeks I’ve had this gnawing belief that bin Laden got lucky by attacking during Bush’s term. Conventional wisdom says the opposite, because Bush fought back. But he’s the enemy now. I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated. (They’re quick to insist that they’d want Kerry to get bin Laden ASAP. Although the details are sketchy.) Of course this doesn't mean they're unpatriotic, etc., obligatory disclaimers, et cetera. But let's be honest. People are coming up with websites that demonstrate ingenious technology for spraying anti-Bush slogans on the sidewalks; it would be nice if they sprayed "DEFEAT TERRORISM" or "STOP AL QAEDA" now and then. Wouldn't it?
The relevant bit starts about half way down the page.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:43 AM EST [Link]
Sunday, June 20, 2004 HEAR ME ROAR: I was just sent this a few minutes ago and I offer it to all Canadians. Copy this and email it to as many other Canucks you can:
----------------
Hello.
My name is Alan Robberstad
I am a Canadian.
One voter out of millions of Canadian voters.
Paul Martin is no friend of mine.
Liberal governments have not made my life any better.
Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years
ago. Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST
WE FORGETSince 1993:
(1) My taxes have increased.
(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.
(3) My personal expenses have increased.
(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.
(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.
(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.
(7) Government interference in my life has increased.
(8) My personal debt has increased.
(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.
(10) My savings have decreased.
(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.
(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.
(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.
(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.
(15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.
(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.
(17 )My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have
disappeared.That is my story since the Liberals came to power.
I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals.
I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on June 28, 2004.I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
Do I like the Conservatives?
Not particularly......I don't really like Politics.
I am not political by nature.
I am not passionate about politics.
I am a middle age guy (48).
I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton. I have a
wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17). I have no pets. I am a middle class man. I don't usually say too much.Until now.
Now I am going to say something!
In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:
(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec???The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is:
(1) Not a lawyer.
(2) Not a multi-millionaire.
(3) Not from Quebec.Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will:
(1) Reduce my taxes.
(2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.
(3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.That's good enough for me.
I'm going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote.But wait! Paul Martin is now saying the same thing. My mother told me
forty years ago: "Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on
me!"The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible. Remember,
Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister. Remember also, Paul
Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister These people have been
raising my taxes for thirty four years. They have been mis-spending my
tax dollars for 34 years. 34 years!And now Paul Martin says he'll stop taxing and spending. No way.
Thank you for reading my story so far!
Why am I telling my story to you?
Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone. Your story may be
similar to mine. And you may also feel alone. One small voter in the
midst of millions of voters.What can you and I do together to change things?
Here is my idea:
Lets you and I join up together. Just you and I. Together. As a small
team of two.
How can you and I fight a huge political machine?You and I have two things that we can use:
(1) Our individual personal connections.
(2) The Internet.The Internet is supposed to be this global zing tool, right? Let's put
it to use.I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book.
I am sending this e-mail to each of them.I'm asking you to do two things:
(1) Forward this e-mail to every Canadian in your own address book.
(2) Vote against Paul Martin and the Liberal Party on June 28.Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.
I have probably written this e-mail too late.
As I said I am not politically adroit.
I feel like Peter Finch, in the 1976 movie "Network", when he shouted:
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Please,
forward the e-mail RIGHT NOW!!As I type these last few words the voting begins in less than 18 days.
432 hours till voting begins. I hope the Internet is as fast as some
people claim it is.This may not work.
This e-mail may "fizzle out" and go nowhere.
But you and I will have tried, won't we have?My best wishes to you.
My best wishes to Canadians everywhere.My thanks to David Stokes from Toronto
He actually wrote this just (5) days before the last federal election
in 2000. Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me!"Alan Robberstad
Edmonton, Alberta
June 10, 2004@ 3:00 p.m.Posted by steve @ 11:41 PM EST [Link]
Saturday, June 19, 2004 WHY NOT SHOW THESE PHOTOS?: By now I'm sure you've come across links to the photos showing the decapitated body of Paul Johnson. Only in the interests of journalism do I provide a link to them here. I issue the strongest possible warning before you visit them.
I think it's important to see them. Not out of some purient and morbid curiosity about how decapitated bodies look like, but so that a simple message is sent to the viewer. This is what they want for us. When Islamists shout for your blood they aren't talking about an honourable death on the battlefield, they want you dead like Johnson died. Bloody and horrifying. A message sent to the modern world that the edge of the sword can be as effective as any smart bomb. A message that the war against western values continues as long as there are people who uphold those ideals. It doesn't matter whether you're a technician who works on Apache helicopters in Saudi Arabia or a little girl playing in some anonymous Western town. They want you dead like that.
I realize that the photos are an order of magntitude more disturbing than the photos of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib were but I wish the media had shown them anyway, particularly considering the pornographic glee the media seemed to have when they showed those pictures. A lot of Americans are tiring of the war on terrorism and want to see it end. The problem is that the war on America by the terrorists hasn't ended and won't end any time soon. The Johnson photos would have not to subtly reminded Americans that there is real evil in the world and that it continues to plot their deaths.
Posted by steve @ 07:43 PM EST [Link]
~ A BIASED REPORTER?: I'm shocked. Really. Okay, I'm not. The Jerusalem Post reports that a senior BBC reporter told a Hamas meeting that "journalists and media organizations are 'waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.'"
The alleged remarks, by BBC Arabic Service correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla, were reported on the Hamas Web site, which said they were made at "an impressive and well-attended ceremony" earlier this month to honor some 140 Palestinian, Arab, Islamic, and international journalists and attended by Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
A BBC spokesman last night confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that Shimalla has been the Gaza Strip correspondent of the BBC Arabic Service for the past five years, but he said the BBC was unable to locate the Web site and could not comment further.
He noted, however, that Shimalla is "a senior and experienced journalist who knows the requirements for impartiality."
So what? Every journalist knows the requirement for impartiality. The problem with most journalists today is that they ignore it. That said, you move far from bias when you declare to members of a terrorist organization that you stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:26 PM EST [Link]
~ IT SUCKS: I was actually going to get a review copy of Bill Clinton's autobiography but decided I just didn't have the energy to read and critique it. The Clinton era seems so long ago that it's more of a bad dream to me than it is history. What's the Clinton legacy outside of cigars and interns? Beats me.
At any rate, Michiko Kakutani reviews My Life for the NYT and comes away rather unimpressed.
The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.
In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration. This memoir underscores many strengths of Mr. Clinton's eight years in the White House and his understanding that he was governing during a transitional and highly polarized period. But the very lack of focus and order that mars these pages also prevented him from summoning his energies in a sustained manner to bring his insights about the growing terror threat and an Israeli-Palestinian settlement to fruition.
Certainly it's easy enough to understand the huge advance sales for the book. Mr. Clinton would seem to have all the gifts for writing a gripping memoir: gifts of language, erudition and charm, combined with a policy wonk's perception of a complex world at a hinge moment in time, teetering on the pivot between Cold War assumptions and a new era of global interdependence. Add to that his improbable life story — a harrowing roller-coaster ride of precocious achievements, self-inflicted slip-ups and even more startling comebacks — and you have all the ingredients for a compelling book.
But while Dan Rather, who interviewed Mr. Clinton for "60 Minutes," has already compared the book to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, arguably the most richly satisfying autobiography by an American president, "My Life" has little of that classic's unsparing candor or historical perspective. Instead, it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited.
I guess I saved myself a week of reading that would have been wasted.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:19 PM EST [Link]
~ BLOGGERS TO RUN CANADA: Well, if Damian Penny is ever elected PM. He released a list today of cabinet appointments to be filled by bloggers but he did overlook one person.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:01 PM EST [Link]
~ MOORE BRINGS HIS IGNORANCE TO CANADA: It's been fairly demonstrated that Michael Moore has no idea what's going on in his own country so what's the next step for him? To opine on Canadian politics.
Canadians risk turning into pseudo-Americans if they vote Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party into office, activist American filmmaker Michael Moore said yesterday.
"So my silent plea is don't go our way!" Moore said in an interview yesterday during a hectic day-long Toronto visit to introduce his controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, at a special preview screening for 600 people at the Varsity Cinemas.
"Look, I'm on a lifelong mission to convince Americans to be more Canadian-like," he said, describing how he grew up in Flint, Mich., listening to the CBC and came to admire Canada for its independence, especially in relation to the Vietnam War.
I couldn't imagine anything more horrifying than a United States that becomes like Canada.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 04:48 PM EST [Link]
Friday, June 18, 2004 HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'VE ARRIVED?: (Via The Shotgun) When hit pieces appear! I have yet to be the target of one but Mark Steyn was hit by Dan Kennedy in the Boston Phoenix. What? Never heard of either Kennedy or the Phoenix? Ironically, Kennedy calls Steyn "the most toxic right-wing pundit you’ve never heard of."
Then there is Mark Steyn, a pungent columnist, essayist, and critic who’s not well known in the United States, but whose political screeds are published in English-speaking countries around the world. A native of Canada who divides his time among New Hampshire, Quebec, and London, Steyn is a self-described right-wing warmonger. Like a respectable conservative, he has some high-tone affiliations. Steyn writes obituaries of the famous and not-so-famous for the Atlantic Monthly. He pens theater reviews for the New Criterion, a conservative arts-and-culture journal with a vaunted reputation. And he reviews movies for the Spectator, a venerable, classy London weekly magazine owned by the Hollinger media empire, his principal benefactor.
But if Steyn’s sharp, clear writing, quick mind, and wide-ranging curiosity appeal to the pretensions of the intelligentsia, there is another side to him as well. Steyn may possess more depth and range than Limbaugh or Coulter, but he shares much in common with them. To wit: a shrill, mocking tone of moral certainty that consigns those who disagree with him to the status of appeasers or even terrorists; and a willingness to distort, misrepresent, and omit facts in order to advance his argument. And if you think he couldn’t possibly be as bad as, say, Coulter, whose shtick is to pop up on television and denounce liberals as "traitors," consider this: in perhaps his sleaziest column of 2004, a condescending dismissal of triple-amputee war hero Max Cleland, Steyn’s principal source was Coulter.
Dude, you're hitting my man Mark. Not a wise move. Fortunately I don't have to do anything physical because Michelle Malkin rides to Mark's defence.
A public confession: I have long had an intellectual crush on Mark Steyn. (My husband is okay with it--just as long as he gets to rave about the gorgeous Kim Serafin without me complaining.)
Anyway, I call the attention of all fellow Steyn lovers to this flaccid, attempted hit piece on Mr. Steyn. All you need to know about the article is that the writer, Boston Phoenix media critic Dan Kennedy, 1) turned to bottom-of-the-barrel Demo-stenographer Joe Conason for comment on Steyn's writing ability ("He's kind of a glib guy"); 2) thinks any conservative commentator who isn't George Will, David Brooks, or Paul Gigot is a "right-wing carny barker;" and 3) called Steyn a "second-rate Maureen Dowd."
I can't even imagine how much mail Kennedy's already received.
Posted by steve @ 06:59 PM EST [Link]
~ THE FUTURE OF THE HOUSE OF SAUD: A pair of interesting articles up on Slate today that if you haven't seen I recommend you read them. The first is Lee Smith's The Saudi Civil War -- which looks at the players behind the troubles in Saudi Arabia -- and the second is Islamists Won't Blow Down the House of Saud by Afshin Molavi. The second argues that the House of Saud won't fall anytime soon and that's good news.
I'm not quite sure I agree but both are informed pieces that you should at least read.
Posted by steve @ 06:22 PM EST [Link]
~ THIS IS INTERESTING: According to AP, Vladimir Putin gave intelligence to the Bush administration after 9/11 which indicated that Saddam Hussein had planned attacks in the U.S.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:03 PM EST [Link]
~ HOW ABOUT WE LET THE LEFT TAKE OVER MUSINGS FOR A DAY?: I just had a rather interesting offer: As part of a promotion for his book, a liberal author is offering to blog for one day on Musings. How about it, should we let the left inflitrate the mighty ESR empire for a day?
Posted by steve @ 12:59 PM EST [Link]
Thursday, June 17, 2004 ATHLETES AND RACE: Radley Balko has a good essay up at Fox News about athletes and race and why sportswriters love to provoke stories about the two.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:32 PM EST [Link]
~ ESR IS JEW LOVERS CENTRAL!: According to some of our detractors anyway. By accident I stumbled upon a web site called "Original Dissent" which had a thread debating how Jew-loving ESR is.
Enter Stage Right has always struck me as a neocon stronghold, though undoubtedly it became more of the same after 9/11. Some of the most obnoxious Zionist neocons over at Free Republic were enamoured with it in the late 90's, which was a sure sign that ESJ was a false front a la Ayn Rand.
I like to think that FReepers are still in love with ESR but that's a debate for another day. For the record, ESR is not a front organization for anyone. It's funded by donations from the public and money out of my pocket.
Also, ESR isn't a "neocon stronghold". In the run up to the war we offered opinions from both pro and con and continue to do so. In this week's issue we're running at least one person who was opposed to the war. While I myself was (and remain) in support of the war, several regular contributors were opposed.
Finally, Sartre, you didn't part company with ESR, I stopped running your pieces. There is a difference. I don't have any problem with you or the paleo-con movement but your continued attacks on ESR -- which seems to be some sort of bête noire for many paleos -- is wrongheaded. Our common enemy is the left, not others in the right.
I think that's what bothers me the most about paleocons -- or at least many of them. If someone doesn't subscribe to "traditional conservatism", in their view it isn't a difference of opinion or that the person is wrong, that person is a moron shill who has been bought by Israel. Neocons are "kool-aid" drinkers who are too stupid to question what comes from George W. Bush. It's an arrogance which bothers me to no end. There is no room for disagreement...unless you buy their platform you're one of the sheeple.
For the record, Justin Raimondo offered to write a response to an earlier defense of neoconservatism and I gladly accepted. He ended up not writing anything so the neocons had the first and last word. I have an opens submission policy and will run almost anything as long as it is a responsible critique of an issue or group.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:53 PM EST [Link]
~ I HATE EMAIL: Especially when it doesn't work. If you send me email please note that I'm unable to respond. Both my personal and ESR email keep bouncing back replies with a "550 relaying mail to ISP is not allowed".
That doesn't make any sense to me since I'm not relying email. So until the problem is solved please be patient for a response. Remember, I can receive your email, just not respond at the moment.
Posted by steve @ 02:40 PM EST [Link]
~ KERRY'S HOUSE OF KETCHUP: Another week, another Kerry's House of Ketchup. Find it here.
Posted by steve @ 10:20 AM EST [Link]
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 THAT'S A SURPRISE: Who would have thought that a party that defines itself by being the most environmentalist is in fact not the most enviro-wacky in Canada.
In separate assessments of where the parties stand on environmental issues, both Greenpeace and the Sierra Club of Canada gave slightly higher marks to the NDP than the Greens. The Sierra Club gave the Green Party an A and the NDP an A plus. Greenpeace, which used four criteria in its assessment, gave the NDP straight A's while the Green party got two A's and two B's.
The Green party platform is admirable on philosophical principles but lacking in precision, said Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club, in an interview Thursday.
"They've got good policies, high ideals, there's nothing about them not to like. Their approach is, I guess in a word, naive. There's not a lot of nitty gritty."
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 08:51 PM EST [Link]
~ FAMILY VALUES: The family that kills together...well, okay, they tend not to stay together. The Jerusalem Post reports that two 15-year old girls were arrested earlier today in Nablus "for allegedly planning to carry out a suicide attack together with their fathers."
According to the report, the four were recruited by an Al-Aksa activist. IDF sources told the radio that the same activist recruited Husam Abdu, 16, of Nablus to carry out a suicide bombing at the Huwara checkpoint south of the West Bank city.
The two teenage girls were identified as members of the Fatah organization, Majda Kohon and Assil al-Hindi.
They were arrested in Nablus and taken into custody along with their fathers. Israel radio reported that after questioning it transpired that one of the girls had recruited the other to carry out a suicide bombing attack.
A report on the Ma'ariv quoted the mother of one of the girls as saying she believed her daughter, whom she described as disciplined and did not leave the house much, to be completely innocent.
Everyone is always completely innocent.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:19 PM EST [Link]
~ HARPER LOST: So sayeth The Meatriarchy who opines:
Paul Martin won the debate. Steven Harper lost.
Martin looked like a man who was involved in the 7th game of the Stanley Cup final and was laying everything on the line, giving 110% and playing like there is no tomorrow. He took predictable fire from all the others for the record of government mismanagement but he was aggressive and relentless in his attacks on Harper and the differences in style between the two were marked.
Martin seemed very comfortable in the spotlight. He kept his head up, his eye contact with the camera was consistent (if a little overdone) and he never seemed at a loss for words.
Harper is obviously bright and well informed on all the issues but he comes across too soft spoken and not fiery enough. I know that you can’t change a person’s personality but there are thing
