Sand in the Shorts: Good Jack Will Be Missed

By James Phieffer - also published in the Intelligencer (Tuesday August 23, 2011)

"I'm going to fight cancer now so I can be back to fight for families when Parliament resumes."

That line says it all: Jack Layton was a fighter. He was also a good and caring man.

Known as someone with a pragmatic side, he was willing to work toward compromise if that would help his constituents.

It was this pragmatism that has allowed him to enjoy the success he has had as the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Layton came from a political family, from his father, Robert Layton, who served in the government of Brian Mulroney, all the way back to his Great-Grand Uncle, William Steeves, a Father of Confederation from New Brunswick, and later a Liberal Senator.

He was very active in political affairs as a youth in Quebec, and later involved himself in local politics after he moved to Toronto.

More about his biography will be printed over the coming days; what I wish to consider is the impact he had on Parliament Hill.

Jack Layton was an optimist, according to those who knew him, and that optimism was evident in how he approached his work.

This was part of how he impacted the NDP, as the party became a voice for optimism and possibilities.

He saw possibilities in a province that had only elected one NDP MP in its history, leading the party to a Quebec landslide in the 2011 general election when the NDP took 59 of 75 seats.

It was as much a victory for Jack Layton as it was the NDP. Across the province, unknown 'placeholder' candidates were elected, with the majority of votes being cast for Jack Layton. They didn't know who their candidate was, but they liked Jack.

His "Orange Crush" victory also swept aside the separatist Bloc Quebecois, something for which all Canadians should thank him.

Jack Layton was both a man of principle but also a pragmatist. There are stories about his time on Toronto City Council, where he brought together disparate points of view to form a workable, but principled, compromise.

He demonstrated his hold to his principles in matters such as his opposition to Toronto's bid for the 1996 Olympics as part of the "Bread, Not Circuses" coalition. This may have helped defeat him when he later ran for mayor of Toronto.

I was not a supporter of Jack Layton. He and I stood on different sides of a multitude of issues. But there is no question I respected him then, as I do his legacy now.

He helped build the NDP into a vital party in Ottawa, ensuring Canada has that which is essential to any democracy — a strong opposition.

He believed in standing up for those who could not stand up for themselves. He was a proud Canadian.

Maybe the best way to summarize Jack Layton is to use the words of popular Quebec television host Guy A. LePage. After having him on his show, Tout le monde en parle, he called him "un bon Jack" - good Jack.

He will be missed.

Sand in the Shorts: Potshots for August 20, 2011

By James Phieffer - also published in the Intelligencer (August 20, 2011)

There are a few matters that ought to be addressed this week, but only one column. So take cover, do-ers of dumb – I'm going to take a few potshots.

• Gerry Fraiberg, a local Liberal lapdog, was kind enough to offer his condemnation of local Progressive Conservative candidate, and former co-worker, Todd Smith's lack of moral backbone for having decided putting food on the table for his family is more important than meeting the needs of local Liberal mouthpieces. His actions are entirely within the letter and spirit of the law.
  Let's consider the amount of free (that is, on the taxpayers' dime) publicity being had by Leona Dombrowsky, and other Liberals, as she flutters about, a scarlet clad, tax-powered, tooth fairy. Here and there she leaves a few million under someone's pillow, bringing smiles to all. And what has this gained our local sugar-mama? A search of the Intelligencer shows her name coming up in 31 stories since Smith threw announced his candidacy. In the same time Smith's name comes up 9 times.
  In fact, the real advantage lays with Dombrowsky and other incumbents, who are on a taxpayer covered holiday, able to campaign 24/7 while their paycheques keep rolling in. I'm sure Smith would like to have that opportunity.
• Apparently certain members of the local left have decided that the best way to deal with issues of poverty and homelessness is to make those in that situation more comfortable. That's the idea put forth in some comments on various articles in the Intell this week. Their first criticism of bringing more development to Belleville is to focus on the need for “social development”. When it came to the Memorial Arena's fate, the suggestion was it become a homeless shelter and soup kitchen, since it's located so near to transit and entertainment, and “there are benches in the square where occupants could congregate”.
  Now I have no problem with making sure there are adequate resources available to help the poor and homeless, but I believe the best goal is the elimination of homelessness and increasing the income of the poor. This won't be accomplished by such ideas. And the idea of Market Square as a hang-out for local panhandlers should give downtown merchants a coronary.
  What downtown needs isn't a Toronto sized shelter, but new, quality, residential development. A highrise apartment or condominium on the site, possibly incorporating much of the Memorial Arena, would bring money to the city, creating quality jobs, and increasing the tax base so as to allow funds for aiding those who are down on their luck.
• Apparently the McGuinty-Dombrowsky government's Samsung deal is proving to be a hard pill to swallow for taxpayers, based on the discussion of the deal in local media across the province. In Belleville, a Samsung spokesperson took the time to write a “neutral” letter to the editor of the Intelligencer to provide us with “facts” on the most most grotesque example of politically motivated corporate welfare in provincial history.
  While the government loans to GM and Chrysler were bigger (combining federal and provincial) there was a concrete return (in the form of jobs) on that investment, not to mention the loans are currently being paid back and the balance became equity in the companies. The Samsung deal represents hoped for jobs from one manufacturer. A more sensible approach would be a reduction in business costs, such as taxes, which can be a hindrance for the creation of jobs and the growth of the small to medium sized enterprises which are the driving force behind current employment growth.
  As far as economic far-sightedness is concerned, this deal shows the Liberals possess none. The government's job isn't to pick the business' that will (hopefully) be the winners. Rather, it's job is to create a healthy business environment, which means jobs for Ontarians.

Tasha Kheiriddin: McGuinty Liberals are sleepwalking toward victory | Full Comment | National Post

By Tasha Kheiriddin - from the National Post

The current Ontario election campaign has all the excitement of, well, small-town Ontario in August. On this, I speak from experience: I live in Whitby, which at 111,000 souls isn’t actually that small, but feels like political zombie-land despite the fact that provincial voting day looms less than two months away. None of my neighbours are talking about the election: a far hotter topic was the recent heat wave, which left several parched lawns in its wake.

Rewind just one year, and contrast this season’s listlessness to last summer’s frenetic horse race between Toronto mayoral candidates Rob Ford and George Smitherman. After two terms of mayor David Miller, Toronto voters had enough of big debt and high taxes. The race produced a blizzard of front page headlines and “Stop the gravy train” T-shirts. Everyone paid attention, even the people on my street, who weren’t eligible to cast a ballot.

Similarly, after eight years of Liberal rule, the current provincial election should be a no-brainer for the Ontario PCs. Issues? Take your pick: broken promises, higher taxes, an ever-growing nanny state, botched energy policy, long health-care wait lists, government mismanagement, a slide from “have” to “have-not” equalization status. From the economy to eHealth, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals have screwed up all over the place, producing a target-rich environment for their opponents.

But while Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives continue to outpace their rivals, there are rain clouds on the horizon. While polls published between May and July showed the Tories comfortably ahead of the Liberals, in one case by a whopping 11 points, in the last week, two new surveys reveal a shift in opinion.

The first poll, conducted by Nanos Research, show the Tories’ lead narrowing from 7.3 points in May to 4.5 points in August, in the wake of the Liberals’ new round of negative ads. Over the same period, the survey shows Liberal support rising from 34% to 37.6%, mostly at the expense of the NDP, while Conservative numbers held statistically steady at 41.3% and 42.1% respectively.

Similarly, a recent “flash sample” of 400 voters conducted by Ipsos Reid showed a narrower gap, with 38% of respondents intending to vote for the PCs, versus 36% for the Liberals. Ipsos’s more comprehensive survey of leadership and issues also revealed shifting ground. On the topic of who would make the best premier, 38% of respondents chose Mr. Hudak, while 33% picked Mr. McGuinty. A year ago, only 29% of voters favoured the Liberal Premier, while 37% preferred the PC leader. At the same time, 66% think it’s time for a change of government, while only 34% think the Liberals have done a good job and should be re-elected.

These results led Ipsos’s president John Wright to conclude, “While the Conservatives have the edge, this is going to be a tightly fought campaign…. It’s going to matter what messages and policies either the opposition or the government will take to the people.”

And there’s the rub. While the Tories have rightly seized on the theme of change, their “Changebook” doesn’t go far enough on the key issue: the pocketbook.

Read more...

Tasha Kheiriddin: McGuinty Liberals are sleepwalking toward victory | Full Comment | National Post

William Saletan: The flaws in pro-choice logic | Full Comment | National Post

By William Saletan - from the National Post & Slate.com

What’s worse than an abortion? Half an abortion.

It sounds like a bad joke. But it’s real. According to Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, demand is rising for “reduction” procedures in which a woman carrying twins keeps one and has the other aborted. Since twin pregnancies are generally safe, these abortions are largely elective.

Across the pro-choice blogosphere, the article has provoked discomfort. RH Reality Check, a website dedicated to abortion rights, ran an item voicing qualms with one woman’s reduction decision. Jezebel, another pro-choice site, acknowledged the “complicated ethics” of reduction. Frances Kissling, a longtime reproductive rights leader, wrote a Washington Post essay asking whether women should forgo fertility treatment rather than risk a twin pregnancy they’d end up half-aborting.

In comments on these articles, pro-choice readers express similar misgivings. “Even as a woman who has terminated a pregnancy, I totally understand the author’s apprehension … something about it just doesn’t feel right,” said one. A commenter at Jezebel writes that “if I were put in the position and decided to/needed to abort a single fetus, I could. But if I knew that I was keeping the baby and it turned out to be twins, I don’t think I could have a reduction.”

To pro-lifers and hardcore pro-choicers, this queasiness seems odd. After all, a reduction is an abortion. If anything, reduction should be less problematic than ordinary abortion, since one life is deliberately being spared. Why, then, does reduction unsettle so many pro-choicers?

For some, the issue seems to be a consumer mentality in assisted reproduction. For others, it’s the deliberateness of getting pregnant, especially by IVF, without being prepared to accept the consequences. But the main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the centre of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort.

Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you’ll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help “women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down’s Syndrome.” A TV character wonders whether she’s “capable of carrying a child to term.” Nuclear radiation in Japan “may put unborn children at risk.”

Read more...

William Saletan: The flaws in pro-choice logic | Full Comment | National Post

The PJ Tatler » The Visceral Terror of a Tea Party Presidency: 10 Thoughts on the Coming Political Warfare of 2012

By David Swindle - from PajamasMedia.com

A few thoughts of reflection after considering PJM‘s coverage of Rick Perry’s announcement of his candidacy:

1. Conservatives fear leftist government because they know the policies do not work and the country will suffer as a result.

2. Leftists fear conservative government because deep down they are afraid the policies will work and the country will prosper as a result and more people will abandon the progressive faith and they will no longer be able to live with the comforting delusion that they are superior to everyone around them.

3. The Left is permanently incapable of self-reflection. It cannot reverse its centuries-long cosmic quest for the Open Society based on Social Justice; but rather only shift its tactics when necessary.

Sand in the Shorts: Time for Tim to Stop Being Dalton

By James Phieffer - also published in the August 13th, 2011 Intelligencer

Okay, Tim.

You've had your laugh. We're all LOL'ing at your wicked impression of Dalton McGuinty. It's time to quit kidding around, and start acting like a conservative again.

I was looking at the PC's “changebook”, and I at first thought I'd gone to the NDP site. Come on, really – the best you can do is a deficit in 2015-16 that is only $600 million less than the Liberal plan? How is this a truly conservative budget?

Sure, there's the planned $3 billion cut in taxes – a good start. But where are the meaningful cuts in provincial government spending that's increased over 90% since the 2003 election? Where's the plan to cut government down to a more manageable size, to stabilize healthcare spending by implementing new funding models and experimenting with the provision of some services by the private sector, with OHIP simply paying the bill, as most insurance plans do.

Where's the determination to cut spending by a certain amount – say 5-10% total - or to implement a salary freeze for government employees (subject to contracts coming up for renegotiation).

Where is the intent to break free of the failing welfare state model, and rebuild the government to meet the needs of the 21^st century? We saw the Liberal concept of this, which involved closing privately run licence bureaus in Belleville and elsewhere, replacing them with longer lines at the local Service Ontario office – combined here with a dearth of parking. How this helped anything is beyond me, but it did help increase costs and lower the level of service.

Tim, you have a chance to chart a course back to fiscal sanity and governmental competence. You can be the man who sets the agenda, forcing the Liberals to fight a battle of ideas – and that's an area where the left tends to bring knives to gunfights.

Motoring TV : You taking a picture of me?! POW!!!

From MotoringTV.com

Would you like to hear a story about a gentleman who was punched in the face by a person of the female variety wearing a full face-covering burka, the whole incident was filmed and witnessed, yet for some unknown reason, the policeman in question did not want to press charges?

One of our resident bloggers, David ‘The Menzoid’ Menzies, was enjoying a wonderful Sunday evening with his nine-year-old son at Yonge-Dundas Square taking photos of all the sites to be seen.

Not wanting to put words into his mouth, this is how the story unfolds:

Suddenly, a woman wearing a hijab ran toward me. She was part of a group that included two women wearing full face-covering burkas. She was screaming: “We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!” (Odd. I can’t find the “no photos” rule in the Qur’an.)

I informed the lady I was in a public square in a democracy. I can actually take pictures of whomever I please.

And then: Ka-pow! Her fist collided with my face. Worse, she almost knocked my new camera from my hands.

My son and I were then surrounded by a mob of about 20 people, many of whom were speaking Arabic. One kept demanding I surrender my camera to him.

It was surreal. Was I in Toronto — or Riyadh?

I spotted a group of bicycle-mounted police officers. I burst through the mob with my son and made a beeline towards them. I told a Toronto Police officer what had happened and I wanted to press assault charges.

Better yet, a man and a woman came forward as eyewitnesses.

The 50-something couple, originally from Syria, told the police they had observed the entire affair and my allegations were true. The couple said they understood Arabic and knew what the mob was saying.

Alas, my Spidey Senses started to tingle when I overheard the questions being asked of the witnesses. “Was it a closed-fist punch or an open hand? Was it the front or the back of the hand?”

Huh? Physical contact had been made. Why did severity matter?

Read more, and see the news report on police incompetence...

Motoring TV : You taking a picture of me?! POW!!!

Stephens: Is Obama Smart? - WSJ.com

By Bret Stephens - from the Wall Street Journal

The aircraft was large, modern and considered among the world's safest. But that night it was flying straight into a huge thunderstorm. Turbulence was extreme, and airspeed indicators may not have been functioning properly. Worse, the pilots were incompetent. As the plane threatened to stall they panicked by pointing the nose up, losing speed when they ought to have done the opposite. It was all over in minutes.

Was this the fate of Flight 447, the Air France jet that plunged mysteriously into the Atlantic a couple of years ago? Could be. What I'm talking about here is the Obama presidency.

When it comes to piloting, Barack Obama seems to think he's the political equivalent of Charles Lindbergh, Chuck Yeager and—in a "Fly Me to the Moon" sort of way—Nat King Cole rolled into one. "I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers," he reportedly told an aide in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director."

On another occasion—at the 2004 Democratic convention—Mr. Obama explained to a Chicago Tribune reporter that "I'm LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got game."

Of course, it's tempting to be immodest when your admirers are so immodest about you. How many times have we heard it said that Mr. Obama is the smartest president ever? Even when he's criticized, his failures are usually chalked up to his supposed brilliance. Liberals say he's too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are all part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

I don't buy it. I just think the president isn't very bright.

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery "makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs." Today's White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

Much is made of the president's rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama's big speeches that didn't amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a "Triple-A country." Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Read more...

Stephens: Is Obama Smart? - WSJ.com

Remaining countries with AAA credit ratings - Business - World business - msnbc.com

By Jon C. Ogg - from MSNBC.com

The markets have been roiled about S&P's downgrade of the U.S., and the likely new recession that will come from the austerity measures. When we last covered the full list of nations that still have triple-A ratings from key credit rating agencies our point was simple: there are some strong triple-A nations and some weak triple-A nations. As of today, there are many more weak triple-A ratings than there were just six months ago.

Moody’s affirmed the U.S. government’s AAA rating, but with a negative outlook. Fitch also affirmed its AAA rating for the U.S., but warned that the rising debt profile to over 100 percent of GDP (after 2012) is not consistent with retaining the crucial AAA sovereign rating.

As a result of the weakening economy, and following the ratings agency actions, 24/7 Wall St. has decided to reassess the entire global triple-A landscape. Our previous take was that some nations already seemed to be far less deserving of the triple-A rating category than others. The key assumption here is that the U.S. is no longer a true triple-A-rated nation. This implies that other nations with similar conditions are also at risk of losing their triple-A rating, and that there are really far fewer than 16 true nations in the triple-A club now. Our review includes updated figures from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s along with revised statistics from the CIA World Factbook. We’ve sourced also from the Economist Intelligence Unit, Fitch, Egan Jones, and elsewhere.

S&P still has a triple-A rating on Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Other triple-A nations like Guernsey, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg we left out due to their small size and dependence upon other nations. Moody’s ratings were also used to make sure that the discrepancies are not overlooked.

Keep in mind that Japan lost its AAA rating in the late 1990s. It was further downgraded earlier this year. It was as recently as 2009 that S&P cut Ireland’s AAA rating. Italy and Spain were both AAA rated in the 1990s, but Spain was actually raised back to AAA before losing it again in 2009.

Safe AAA rating:

1. Australia

GDP per capita: $39,699.358

Australia was a solid AAA earlier this year and nothing has changed. Sure, it faces pressure from floods earlier this year, but the country is rich in natural resources that have to be used to build the world whenever the economy rises again. The low population of 21.5 million, an $882.4 billion GDP in 2010 projections, vast resource reserves, lower labor costs, and a low unemployment rate all act as a shield of global woes. Its public debt for 2010 was only projected to be 22.4 percent of GDP. The AAA rating is stable at S&P, and at Moody’s it’s AAA with a stable outlook.

2. Canada

GDP per capita: $39,057.444

Canada has a solid triple-A rating, and its deep trading ties to the U.S. does not jeopardize it, even if the U.S. has a troubled triple-A with a negative outlook. Canada has vast natural resources and its citizens mostly avoided the real estate and debt bubble that hurt the U.S. The population is under 34 million, its GDP is about $1.33 trillion, and public debt at the end of 2010 was a mere 34 percent or projected GDP. Neither Moody’s nor S&P have any issues with the triple-A ratings and stable outlook, and our take is that Canada is perhaps the safest triple-A rating of all nations in the Western Hemisphere.

Read more...

Remaining countries with AAA credit ratings - Business - World business - msnbc.com

China's Debt Problem Worse than Portugal - FoxBusiness.com

By Elizabeth MacDonald - from FoxBusiness.com

Government officials in China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, have been chastising the U.S. over Standard & Poor’s downgrade to AA+.

Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, has said the U.S. dollar is “gradually [being] discarded by the world,” and the “process will be irreversible.”

But China’s debt-to-GDP ratio is worse than the United States’ ratio. It is worse than insolvent Portugal, which is now relying heavily on the European Central Bank for help, and had to go to the International Monetary Fund to get a financial bailout.

The U.S.’s new AA+ rating from Standard & Poor’s is still higher than the one assigned to the Middle Kingdom. S&P has China’s debt rating stuck at AA-, the fourth highest level, due to its “sizable” contingent liabilities in its banking system.

China’s own system is jammed with rotten debt held in off-balance sheet state enterprises. Its countryside is littered with eerie, empty ghost towns. And Moody’s Investors Service says last month that China’s local debt was understated by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Despite that, the People's Daily said S&P’s downgrade of the U.S.'s credit rating "sounded the alarm bell for the dollar-denominated global monetary system.” China owns an estimated $1.16 trillion in U.S. debt. China prints yuan to hold down its value so as to keep its exports dirt cheap. It then uses that extra printed currency to buy U.S. debt.

Here are estimates to keep handy as this debate rolls along:

*China’s debt-to-GDP higher than Portugal’s ratio: China likes to say its debt-to-GDP ratio is 17%. Not so fast. The respected Beijing-based research firm Dragonomics says it is 89% of GDP, worse than Portugal’s 83% of GDP, and the U.S.’s 79% by 2015. Stephen Green, China economist at Standard Chartered Bank, figures China’s total debt, including contingent liabilities, is 77% of GDP. China’s balance sheet is notoriously murky.

*China's local government debt understated: It may be 3.5 trillion yuan ($540 billion), bigger than its state auditor has estimated, Moody's said last month.

Moody's said it discovered more potential loans after it found discrepancies in figures given to it by Chinese authorities. China's central bank alone holds an estimated $1.16 trillion in debt, and the government has already increased credit in the system to a reported 200% of GDP.

Read more...

China's Debt Problem Worse than Portugal - FoxBusiness.com

RealClearMarkets - The Peculiar Madness of Paul Krugman

By Robert Tracinski - from RealClearMarkets.com

The debt deal unhinged the left.

No, the Tea Parties did not win, as the left has been saying. The spending "cuts" only limit the additional growth of government, and they are too small and too distant to be worth celebrating. But the left is correct about one thing: they lost, because the debt deal established the idea that there would be no more tax increases and no big new spending programs. And the left does not exactly have a record of being gracious political losers.

As usual, no one was more unhinged than Paul Krugman. To be sure, his New York Timescolleague Joe Nocera established a new apex of civil political discourse when hedenounced Republicans as jihadist terrorists. But that's just a lot of angry venting and empty invective. By contrast, Krugman brings to this debate a peculiar kind of madness. What was really unhinged was the substance of his response, the solution that he thinks the nation needs to follow.

In a blistering column, Krugman lashed out at the Obama administration, declaring that "we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery" and that "the economic policy of the past two years" "isn't working."

Yet he was attacking Obama, not for pushing through too much "stimulus" spending, nor for printing too much money, nor for piling up too much debt--but for doing too little of these things. He argues for an even bigger stimulus, for government to "support the economy in its time of need" and to be the sole source of growth. He snarls: where else is growth going to come from? And yes, for him, that's supposed to be a rhetorical question.

This is not, by itself, Krugman's peculiar madness. The peculiar madness of Paul Krugman is that he presents all of this as if it were sensible and self-evidently true and requires no argument. He presents it as if the only thing preventing others from seeing the truth is blind political obstructionism (for the Republicans) or cowardice (for the Democrats).

The insanity comes from the context in which Krugman was writing. He was responding, not just to the debt deal, but to Thursday's sharp correction in the stock market. The correction capped off a week of bad economic news and was widely seen as pricing into the market the looming prospect of a double dip recession. The big conclusion everyone has been drawing from this is precisely the failure of government stimulus, both the public-works fiscal stimulus Krugman is talking about, and the money-printing monetary stimulus of "quantitative easing."

Read more...

RealClearMarkets - The Peculiar Madness of Paul Krugman

Sand in the Shorts: Talkin' 'Bout A Revolution

By James Phieffer - an edited version appears in the August 6, 2011 Intelligencer

Okay. It's time now for me to offend the numerous, or at least noisy (suggesting they may be more numerous than they are) sans-culottes who fill the local media with their screams of fury at the idea of (cover the ears of your children) DEVELOPMENT.

Yes, I've said the word, because it is a good idea. Indeed, it is a necessary idea, if the city is to progress while providing the services and quality of life which are key to what makes Belleville the great place to live it is. We have in this city a beautiful waterfront, which should be a drawing card for people who have money, and are willing to spread it about in exchange for a room with a view.

An example of how this works can be seen in Kingston, where a drive along the waterfront near their downtown reveals many new high-rise condominiums. These are, one would expect, populated by people who spend a large amount of money in Kingston's downtown, the result of which is a downtown which is alive and vibrant – a downtown which is a model of what Belleville's could, and should, be.

Now, I'm sure the local Luddites are strongly inhaling in order to begin screaming at the top of their lungs about this sacrilege I've proposed. They will possibly start with a sensible concern (protection of park space) and then move on to the progressively more insane concerns, most of which will involve the fact we haven't done this before, or that it would be “inappropriate” development for the city. And, of course, the online critics who usually hang their hats on conspiracies flowing from assorted neo-Conservative entities will be at it as always.

Now, I cannot deal with the concerns of the local enrages, as they generally relate to zoning issues within their minds, but I can deal with the one very legitimate concern – that our waterfront would cease to be an area available to be enjoyed by the entirety of our citizenry as well as those who choose to visit.

Sand in the Shorts: Turmoil for Turmel

It's a tough blow for the NDP to face a new day with their leader, the one who led them to an unexpected breakthrough in Quebec and unprecedented popularity nationally, on the sidelines fighting a deadly illness. While all Canadians, NDP or not, are focused on the health of a man fighting for his life, there are undoubtedly questions going through the minds of the members of the party he leads.

The past election was, for the NDP, a triumph of the leader over the party. Jack Layton is the face of the party, particularly in Quebec, and a record number of Canadians decided they liked that face. While veteran MP’s were key to the victories in their own ridings, outside of these victory was all about Jack. In Quebec, the complete absence of a locally known candidate generally proved irrelevant. Quebec loved Jack, and threw their votes at him, roses for the torero who slew the Bloc Quebecois.

But with that triumph of personality comes the risk that, without Layton front and centre, the support will wane. Fortunately, this isn't an immediate concern as the next election won't be until fall 2015, and hopefully Layton returns as planned THIS fall.

Regardless, with Layton trying to move the NDP closer to the political centre, Ms. Turmel's background seems rather “old school” leftist to be put in charge of the party. This is particularly true now, when a caucus made up of newly-minted MP’s needs to coalesce into a real party, capable of demonstrating to Canadians that it is a government-in-waiting, and a moderate one at that.

Ms. Turmel has spent the major part of her life involved in public sector unions, finishing as National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She is currently the Opposition critic for Public Works and Governmental Services, which already seems a little like the fox guarding the henhouse. Putting her in place as interim leader is another thing entirely. While there is no question she can, and will, oppose the government, can she do it wisely? If she turns out to be a shill for government unions, she'll win little support for the NDP in new territories.

If Layton is not able to return by the beginning of the new session in the Commons, it will leave Turmel to take the floor during Question Period. Having listened to her, she does not have the speaking, and more specifically English, skills expected of a leader. The image Canadians form of our politicians is, rightly or wrongly, based on the few minutes we see of them each night on TV – the majority of which comes from Question Period. It's not to say she can't develop these skills – look at Stephen Harper, who had to learn French in the wake of becoming Conservative Party leader – but at a point where Canadians may be open to seeing a rejuvenated NDP in a new light, time isn't necessarily on her side.

For the NDP, they have Quebec, and need to win over voters elsewhere. In that mission, Jack Layton is crucial – and Ms. Turmel is in over her head

Pajamas Media » The 5 Biggest Lies Told about Oslo Shooter Anders Breivik

By Phyllis Chesler - from Pajamas Media

5. We Can Blame Breivik’s Violence on Being Abandoned by His Father.

Many male children survive being abandoned by their fathers very well. Some do not. Norway’s Anders Breivik shares a startling similarity to Australia’s Julian Assange. The two men possess a paranoid worldview and the capacity to exact vengeance. They both have “problems with authority,” to put it mildly.

But there is something else they share. When both men were one-year-olds, their biological fathers left. InAssange’s case, he had a stepfather until he was eight years old, followed by a second stepfather. When he was eleven years old, Assange and his half-brother began living in hiding and on the run with their biological mother. This lasted for five years as part of a custody battle.

In Breivik’s case, his father, Jens Breivik, an elite Norwegian diplomat (!!!), left when he was one year old. He rarely saw Anders, and when Anders thereafter tried to meet with him, his biological father rebuffed him.

One really cannot diagnose from afar and yet some (not all) father-wounded sons, which is something I wrote about in my book About Men, scapegoat women because they are angry at the fathers who have abandoned them. Assange has been accused of being sexually violent towards women. Some father-wounded sons are close to their mothers (as Breivik clearly may be), but inside they are at war with themselves. They struggle with repressed homosexual desire which is really a desire to be close to a loving and protective father and to be a “man.” Some father-wounded sons may also super-identify with concepts of collective male strength, e.g., with Knights Templar, etc. precisely because they have no strong identification with their own fathers.

Read more...

Pajamas Media » The 5 Biggest Lies Told about Oslo Shooter Anders Breivik

Sand in the Shorts: Duncan's Dough Nuts

By James Phieffer - this appeared on July 22, 2011 Intelligencer

I want to thank Ontario Liberal Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan. This week he set Ontarians straight by educating us on the provinces prosperity and growth under the Liberals.

“I mean we are the head to most large Canadian corporations, we have the largest labour force, we have the fastest growing economy. So it is completely dishonest to use that term ‘have-not’. It’s intellectually dishonest and factually dishonest.” Thus spoke Duncan.

I'm appreciative of Mr. Duncan's information. Truly it was enlightening for a member of the unwashed masses such as myself, who due to a lack of such knowledge might be inclined to see the $2.2 billion being given to Ontario through transfer payments as a sign of economic illness. Because of what he said, I can rest easy, knowing that the fact that Ontario stands 7^th or worse in per capita gross domestic product (GDP - 7^th as of 2008 according to Stats Can) is evidently a sign of economic strength.

Mr Duncan is right. Comparing Ontario's GDP per capita ($45,194) to that of Newfoundland and Labrador ($62,566) is irrelevant. It would be like comparing China's economy to that of Canada – the Chinese is immensely larger. The fact the individual Chinese citizen is much poorer is of no importance. It's size that matters.

And Ontario has size. The economy of Ontario makes up 37.86% of the Canadian economy as a whole. That just lends more credence to Mr. Duncan's statement. Besides, how significant can it be that while the population of Ontario grew it's share of GDP dropped.

Ontario is in good hands. Just ask the Liberals. Ontarians pay less in taxes than they did in 2003, since the Liberals dropped the lowest tax rate by a fraction of a percentage point. After all, the $800 per person healthcare fee isn't a tax, really. And you can't count the HST – even though where other provinces ended up with a lower combined rate, Ontario kept the additional funds generated by extending the provincial sales tax to previously non-taxable services.

Don't forget that Mr. Duncan has a plan to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. All he has to do is hold down spending growth to 1% annually and promoting “principled and sustainable federal-provincial fiscal arrangements”.

I'm sure the 1% growth in spending target is easily attainable. After all, it's not like the Liberals just gave pay increases of 2% a year or greater to a number of unions, some secretly, some not, over the next three or four years. And the federal government is sure to want to enter into “principled and sustainable federal-provincial fiscal arrangements” that basically give the Ontario government more taxpayers money.

So sit back and relax, citizens of Ontario. Ignore the Conservatives, with their complaints and suggestions of economic incompetence. After all, it's not like Ontario was Canada's economic powerhouse when they were in government...

Who are the real fundamentalists?

By Gudrun Kugler - from MercatorNet.com

Critics of religion often warn against the danger of fundamentalism. Without doubt, many philosophical convictions and worldviews carry a risk of exaggeration and narrow-mindedness that may result in political extremism. But that is equally true of secularist movements – perhaps even more than for religious ones. It is therefore regrettable to observe how the term “fundamentalism” is being turned into an instrument of demagoguery by certain secularist movements, which themselves are much more extremist than any of the religious groups they are targeting with such critique.

With such labels extreme secularists seek to discredit the very idea that religious believers should have the right to manifest their belief through practical observance. In that sense, they term as “fundamentalist” any genuine religious belief (that is, any belief that has practical consequences) and attempt to subvert the right of all citizens to act according to their conscience.

An example of this tactic came to the attention of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe recently, in the form of an unsolicited submission from a group calling itself the European Humanist Federation (EHF) to the European Commission research project, RELIGARE. The purpose of RELIGARE is to explore adequate policy responses to religious and cultural diversity as a social reality in Europe. The purpose of the EHF, however, seems to be evict religion from the public square and seriously curtail the freedom of citizens to act according to their religion and their conscience.

There are two important points that seem to escape the “humanists” attention: firstly, that decisions of conscience (such as “conscientious objection” against abortion and euthanasia) are usually based on well-founded reasoning rather than on religious belief, and, secondly, that, even if the conscientious objection were religiously based, there would still be the “right to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. This is explicitly recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This is not to discount the risks of (religious and secularist) of fundamentalism. But there is a need for all participants in this debate to understand what fundamentalism is, and what it is not. The term has its origin within the Protestant community of the United States in the early 20th century, where those who disputed certain irreducible theological beliefs (the “fundamentals”) were considered to stand outside the Christian community.

Today, the term “fundamentalism” describes a blind and uncritical observance and a disregard of facts in favour of one’s faith or ideology.

This reproach does not hold true with regard to mainstream Christianity. The basis of Christianity -- as, for example, laid out in the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church -- is generally not an interpretation of Scripture in which every word must be taken literally, but a living tradition which integrates divine revelation, classical philosophy and modern science.

Read more...

Who are the real fundamentalists?

Irish priests say they will not reveal confession secrets | Irish News | IrishCentral

By James O'Brien - from IrishCentral.com

Irish Catholic priests have said that they will not reveal secrets given in confession even though new legislation by the Irish government will call for it.

The new legislation will be introduced after another child abuse scandal in Cloyne, a Cork diocese came to light. As late as 2008, clerics accused of child abuse were being protected by the diocese the Murphy Inquiry found.

The Irish government has now stated that a zero tolerance law will come into effect. However, the group that represents Ireland's Catholic priests says the secrecy of the confession box must be retained.

This directly contradicts new Irish government legislation which will state that the confessional is not beyond the law.

"The point is, if there is a law in the land, it has to be followed by everybody. There are no exceptions, there are no exemptions," said Irish Children's Minister Frances Fitzgerald.

Father P.J. Madden, spokesman for the Association of Catholic Priests, however, insisted that the sacramental seal of confession is "above and beyond all else."

"If I'm breaking the law then somebody has to find a way to address that for me ... but in my own right as a priest what I understand is the seal of confession is above and beyond all else," he said.

"The seal of confession is a very sacred seal for lots of different reasons way beyond this one single issue, however serious this one single issue is," Father Madden insisted.

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said on July 14 that canon law can not supersede state law.

Minister Fitzgerald said the government was firm on this point.

"This is about the law of the land. It's about child protection. Are we saying ... if a child is at risk of child sexual abuse that should not be reported? We cannot say that. The law of the land is clear and unambiguous," she said.

Bishop John McAreavey of Dromore told the Catholic News Service that the it was "unreal to suggest that the seal of confession has prevented the reporting of the abuse of children."

David Quinn, director of the think-tank the Iona Institute, said the government proposal was "unprecedented."

"This would make us the one and only country in the Western world to have such a law. Even revolutionary France in the days of its worst violence against the church did not pass a law requiring the breaking of the seal of confession," Quinn told the Catholic News Service.

He said the government "is clearly missing something that every other government can see, which is that, at a minimum, such a law is very unlikely to lead to a single conviction and, at a maximum, will be counterproductive and will make society less safe, rather than more safe."

"No child abuser will go to a priest in confession knowing the priest is required to inform the police. But cutting off the avenue of confession to a child abuser makes it less likely that he will talk to someone who can persuade him to take the next step," he stated.

Irish priests say they will not reveal confession secrets | Irish News | IrishCentral