Comments on politics, the culture, economics and religion by Paul Tuns -- in short, everything about the human endeavour from a non-hyphenated conservative perspective. I am Toronto-based writer and editor, whose articles, columns and reviews have appeared in more than 35 publications. I am editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper, author of Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal and a regular contributor to the book pages of the Halifax Herald.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Significant incremental change in India
On the first anniversary of Narendra Modi’s center-right government in India Rupa Subramanya writes in Foreign Policy about the significance of the Prime Minister's seemingly modest reforms:
Modi’s meteoric rise seemed to signal an end to all that. But a year on, both supporters and critics of the Modi government contend that his approach to economic reforms — especially on land, labor, and capital — has been measured and gradual, too slow for the gung-ho supporters who imagined he’d be another Margaret Thatcher, gleefully slashing one welfare scheme after another. His government instead now projects a message of moderation. Arvind Subramanian, a former International Monetary Fund economist who is now the government’s chief economic adviser, coined the term “incrementalism” to describe the approach to economic reform.In some areas, such as reforming India’s arcane and restrictive labor laws, which make it difficult for firms to fire workers, “incrementalism” is an accurate description. Only recently has the central government initiated a process of public discussion around reforming labor laws — a process that some powerful states oppose and which promises to play out over the coming year or more.However, those who claim that Modi is fundamentally an incrementalist, have missed the real significance of a crucial — and far more radical transformation — that’s quietly underway.This transformation involves the conversion of in-kind entitlement-based welfare schemes into cash transfers , much greater fiscal devolution from the central government to state governments, and a phased replacement of welfare giveaways with social insurance that has stricter conditionalities like schemes in advanced economies such as the United States. Furthermore, there’s a shift in the central government’s own spending priorities toward infrastructure development. If successful, this package of measures will fundamentally change India’s welfare state and the relationship between the central and state governments in India’s federal set-up.It’s hard to understand just how radical this transformation is without realizing how ingrained paternalism and giveaways from the government are in the post-independence Indian psyche and political economy. Whether it’s a right to 100 days of paid employment for agricultural labor (which in the past has mostly involved unproductive activity like digging holes in the ground) or a creaky and corruption-ridden public distribution system (which entitles people to a certain amount of free grain from government-approved stores), everything has revolved around patronage flowing from the central government down to the states, to the districts and to the local communities that receive these handouts. Often, the end recipient must kowtow to a local official or pay a bribe, and much “leakage” occurs along the way.If Modi is successful, this chain of patronage will be broken and individuals in need will simply receive money directly transferred to their bank accounts.If Modi is successful, this chain of patronage will be broken and individuals in need will simply receive money directly transferred to their bank accounts. The poor will no longer need to participate in a transactional client-patron relationship with a local official.
Many western observers do not understand how far India has to come to undo its socialistic past, and how far it has moved already.
Forgot to mention this in the John Nash memorial post, from an Investor's Business Daily editorial:
He also came up with Nash bargaining — which deals with the perception of "fairness" as individuals, not central planners, see it. In a Nash bargain, each person chooses his own best interests are — such as when an employer and employee agree on what a fair wage is. This is something to consider in the current battles over the minimum wage.
Jays in bottom third of MLB
Grantland's Jonah Keri explains why:
Forty-seven games into the season, Jays starting pitchers rank 28th in the majors in park-adjusted ERA and last in park-adjusted fielding-independent pitching. The young pitchers experiment has failed miserably so far, and the team with the longest playoff drought in baseball sits in last place in the AL East.
It's hard to look at the Toronto Blue Jays and not see what is the worst team in the AL East.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
There's no idiot like a Layton
Mike Layton tweets about the Ontario government legislating an end to the teacher's strike: "We'd all like to see a resolution, but what lessons does suspending democratic rights of teachers send to students?"
2016 watch (Bernie Sanders edition)
We should all cheer on Bernie Sanders' quixotic presidential campaign. Who else is going to come out against deodorant? The Free Beacon reports:
Self-proclaimed socialist and progressive favorite Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) laments the idea that Americans can choose between “23 underarm spray deodorants” as children go hungry under President Obama’s economy.“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders told John Harwood in an interview posted Tuesday.Sanders will make his official campaign Democratic presidential announcement alongside the Ben and Jerry’s cofounders in Burlington on Tuesday.
Sanders could just as easily have condemned a society that produces 23 flavours of upscale ice cream while children go hungry.
The variety of deodorant -- or even any food -- is irrelevant to whether children go hungry ... unless one wants a command-style economy in which the state directs resources (inefficiently).
The Great Stagnation: no sign of abating
Tyler Cowen notes a Financial Post article that reports "Globally, the rate of growth decelerated to 2.1 per cent in 2014, compared with an annual average of 2.6 per cent between 1999 and 2006," and that output per worker is declining. Cowen says, "I am on record as predicting that the great stagnation will end, but so far it doesn’t seem like it is happening."
'Is Shawn Simoes a scapegoat?'
ProWomanProLife's Jennifer Derwey on Shawn Simoes being fired from his Hydro One job for his role in the FHRITPing of Shauna Hunt:
We’re all appeased by the outcome: Man says vulgar thing, man is punished. But men do say vulgar things, a lot in my experience, and sexual harassment takes place in nearly every workplace I’ve ever been in or heard of. This is a problem, is it not? Violence against women? Misogyny? Is firing Shawn Simoes going to fix all that? I think French theorist René Girard would argue that it simply calms us back into accepting the culture and the society the way that it is, but leaves it ultimately unchallenged and unchanged. If Simoes is a scapegoat, “scapegoat” does not mean he’s innocent, simply that he’s fulfilling the role of being punished in order for the social order to continue unchanged.
Nine global warming tipping points
Earlier this month the Daily Caller listed nine times in the past quarter-century that alarmists warned that if something wasn't done about global warming, it would be too late to stop it. Chicken Littles should be called out more often on their apocalyptic predictions.
Perhaps the best bracket ever
xkcd has what is not a traditional bracket (three-way contests, a four-way contests, a number of byes into the third round, etc...) of famous people.
The air war begins
Toronto Sun columnist David Akin notes that there are less than 150 days until the federal election and the attacks ads are already airing. He summarizes the four new ads:
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair enjoys coffee, water, has a beard and is a nice guy from a middle-class background.The Conservatives think Justin Trudeau could be prime minister one day but he’s just not ready for prime time this fall.Prime Minister Stephen Harper stays up late working hard at his desk to protect our economy and to protect us from terrorists.If you have kids, Trudeau will give you more money for them than either Harper or Mulcair.
Gerry Nicholls writes in his Hill Times column this week that the Tories should beware of going overboard attacking Junior, not because it could backfire but it could lead a stampede to the NDP, which could gain enough strength to beat the Conservatives. Nicholls says:
This is why Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s overall supreme strategic mission must be to keep the NDP and Liberals in a kind of equilibrium, maintaining a situation where the progressive vote is roughly split between two left-of-centre parties of more or less equal strength.Hence, while Harper is probably happy that his attacks against Trudeau might be working, he also realizes that if they start to work too well, it will hurt his own party.So if the Liberal polling slide continues, we might see the Conservatives recalibrate their attack strategy and direct their fire away from Trudeau and toward NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair.
Gillespie on Grayson
Nick Gillespie likes a lot of Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson's political positions, but thinks he could be a more effective politician if he were less of a jackass.
Rick McGinnis on Tomorrowland and it's green flaw
Rick McGinnis at The Megaphone:
Laurie’s speech – and the whole clanking ecogeddon conceit – sits astride the film like a colossal choking bolus, a sour, finger-pointing jeremiad that kills the hurtling action dead, and forces anyone who doesn’t worship the gospel of Green and its sackcloth truisms abruptly out of the story and into an eye-rolling frenzy.If you’re looking for some kind of internal logic, give up now. Our loss of faith in the future and the technology that was supposed to take us there is the tragic condition that Bird and Lindelof make their film’s foundation. And yet the same technology that harvests energy and improves crop yields, enables travel at once-implausible speeds and makes cities denser yet healthier places to live than they ever were is the villain that robbed us of that future.Ponder this message for a minute, and then wonder that no one who read Tomorrowland’s script ever drew a red line through Laurie’s big scene and said, “OK – right here. You’ve lost me.”There is, to be sure, a great film – still unmade – about our loss of faith in a better world we imagined so fervently in the shadow of two world wars. But a new kind of faith – the gospel of Green and all of its logic-busting assumptions – has clouded reason and, almost like collateral damage, ruined what could have been a great little film about wonder and optimism and scientific inspiration.
Most universities don't keep stats on sex crimes on campus
Because, as Tim Worstall points out, that's the job of the police. Universities don't keep stats for thefts and murders, either.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Can't wait to see the NDP, Liberals argue against lowering GST
The National Post's John Ivison:
For a party that was elected in 2006, after promising to cut the reviled goods and services tax by two percentage points, what could possibly have more resonance than pledging to trim the GST by another point?Conservative sources suggest the measure has been discussed internally, though it’s not clear that any decision has been taken.Joe Oliver, the finance minister, has said a Conservative government would cut more taxes if re-elected. Speaking in Toronto last week, he was asked if federal taxes were now as low as they can go.“I think we could do more,” he said, pointing out that debt servicing costs will decline as a percentage of expenditures in the coming years.
Of course, Ivison's story could be incorrect. Or the Conservatives might only be discussing this. Economists generally favour consumption taxes over income taxes, but the right way for conservatives to think about taxes is that the fewer and the lower, the better.
Joe Queenan has an essay on his children leaving school and it's worth reading, especially if you are a parent. This about the teaching of history will ring true for every child who is bored to tears by the lame way in which the past is presented to students:
My kids hated cant and they hated lies. They hated the bloodless, inanimate way history was taught to them. At dinner every night, they would pump me for the real truth about history, not the dreary, politically correct twaddle they were taught in school.They wanted to hear about the Holy Innocents, about St. Lucy, about the Golden Horde, about the time a young French archer fatally wounded Richard the Lionhearted, and on his deathbed Richard the Lionhearted said, “Don’t do anything nasty to that feisty little kid,” and his generals said “OK.” And then, about five minutes after King Richard died, they flayed the kid alive.They wanted to hear about Alexander the Great, Lady Godiva, Judas Iscariot, Erwin Rommel and unexpected nuances in Apache torture methods. They didn’t want to hear that the Iroquois lived in longhouses and respected women and had a governmental structure that exerted a profound influence on Thomas Jefferson. They wanted to hear about what the Iroquois did to their French Jesuit captives.
It should be added that the Catholic Church does itself no favours by eschewing lessons on the saints, many of which went through the most unpleasant trials and tribulations to prove their faith.
Advice on where to travel
Tyler Cowen's advice: the United States, western Europe, the major Asian cities, Mexico. Some people will consider his advice useless, but you have to read Cowenese to understand what he's saying. Cowen generally favours cities over rural areas but (rightfully) says that southwest United States (Utah to Grand Canyon) is "perhaps the world’s most compelling natural beauty, plus a good look at real American culture along the way." The comments are good, including advice on priorities before work and marriage make certain types of travel more difficult, and beginning travellers should stick to the cities (there is just more there).
Glen McGregor thinks he has some gotcha against C.D. Howe Institute & Catherine Swift
Glen McGregor tweets about some perceived double standard and gets called out on it by Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. There are any number of reasons that Bill Morneau's speech at the Liberal convention (and widely seen as a potential Liberal candidate) when he was the chairman of the board of directors at the (non-partisan) C.D. Howe Institute is different than Catherine Swift, a member of the board speaking out in as an observer in a completely different capacity are very different things. Swift does not speak with the authority of the C.D. Howe Institute behind her -- in fact, the story that McGregor links to doesn't mention her affiliation with the think tank -- but rather two other organizations of which she is part: Working Canadians and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (of which she is the chair). McGregor thinks he exposed some kind of double-standard on the part of the C.D. Howe Institute, but what he really points to is a pair of completely different situations.
Polls aren't the problem. Our stories about them are. (Khadr edition)
The National Post: "Canadians can’t seem to make up their minds about Omar Khadr, and decision to grant him bail: poll." The paper reports:
A new poll by the Angus Reid Institute shows Canadians are evenly split over the recent decision to grant Omar Khadr bail while he awaits an appeal of his conviction in the United States for war crimes.And while just over half of Canadians believe Khadr still poses a potential threat, almost the same number believe he has “served his time.”It wasn’t that long ago that almost half of Canadians — 46 per cent — told the same pollster they supported the notion of indefinite imprisonment to prevent homegrown terrorism ...“They cannot find consensus … whether this is a reformed young man who means what he says around doing right and how he doesn’t harbour violent tendencies or radicalized tendencies anymore.”
The point that Canadians have or haven't made up their (collective) minds is a common trope in reporting about polls but that isn't usually correct. The fact that Canadians are divided means that a theoretical Canadian mindset has not coalesced around a single position -- not that it ever does. The idea of consensus is illusory. If even 10% of the population holds a minority view, that is still about 3 million Canadians, a not insignificant number that is about equal to the population of Toronto or combined populations of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. And we shouldn't be surprised that the country is about evenly divided on a contentious issue. As much as some people like to talk about a Canadian ethos, outside of the broadest (and meaningless) values, we are a diverse people who value and prioritize different things (tolerance, equality, liberty, security, order to name but a handful). The best proof of this in the ARI poll is the divergent opinions on Khadr when broken down on partisan lines.
The poll also finds that 40% of respondents are "unsure" if Khadr was treated fairly. That is an astonishingly high number of people without an opinion and perhaps it suggests that people do not know that much about the case, or they just don't care. It also means that about six in ten people do have an opinion (33% said Khadr was treated fairly, 28% said he wasn't), so the majority were still able to make up their mind about how the former child soldier was treated. It is also possible that fair and unfairly were insufficient options with some segment of the population thinking he was treated too leniently.
This is not to blame the reporter for framing the narrative on the poll this way; in fact, if anything the reporter is merely serving as a stenographer for the Angus Reid Institute who frames the story around the poll as one of Canadians unable to decide what they think about the case. It's sort of sloppy but all-too-common; instead of treating issues as complex matters in which there are diverse opinions, pollsters (and reporters) insist on treating Canadians as a single entity when it comes to public opinion. That's wrong.
Driverless car revolution
Samizdata's Patrick Crozier has a good, brief post on driverless cars and how they will change transportation. Crozier has a brief introduction (the recent news of four self-driving car collisions mostly ignored that human error was the cause of the accidents), followed by a series of questions. It is important to note that autonomous vehicles 1) are probably closer than we realize unless government regulation stalls or prevents their implementation, and 2) are going to change who is driving, by changing transportation and car culture. That is, self-driving cars could affect train and bus systems, as well as the notion of car ownership (maybe) and car design (for sure). Our lack of imagination leads us to believe that driverless cars will just be like our current cars but automated. That seems short-sighted and narrow-minded. As I have noted before, the unasked question is about liberty: if driverless cars are so much safer and more efficient, how will the state permit human-driven cars to continue operating.
2016 watch (SEC primary)
The Washington Post reports on the effort to make a Super Primary of southern states (broadly defined) right after Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The idea would be to help a conservative "to rack up delegates early," because "strategists say a Southern primary has the potential to buoy a more conservative candidate and be a challenge for candidates considered too moderate or too affiliated with the establishment." But are these cats going to be herded? Mississippi is likely to go March 8, a week later in order not to get lost in the massive block vote. Florida and Texas -- to employ the sports metaphor -- are powerhouses expected to hold their primaries in late March, and the Louisiana caucus is not expected to be held earlier than usual (and on a Saturday) to accommodate the SEC primary. So the SEC idea might break down before it gets off the ground. That said, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia might be enough (along with the late February South Carolina primary) to achieve its goal of assisting the non-Establishment, more conservative candidates.
2016 watch (HRC running mate watch)
Apparently Julian Castro, the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is considered the frontrunner to become Hillary Clinton's running mate. The Daily Caller reports:
Because of his age — 40 — and his Hispanic heritage, Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, is considered to be an appealing vice presidential candidate on Clinton’s 2016 ticket. Though he denied Sunday that Clinton is considering him for the ticket, earlier this week, former HUD Sec. Henry Cisneros said that Castro was an early favorite.
It doesn't hurt that Castro is publicly defending Hillary Clinton in the Benghazi email scandal.
2016 watch (Joe Biden edition)
Carl M. Cannon on why Joe Biden -- and not Hillary Clinton -- could be the Democratic candidate in 2016, and that wouldn't be the disaster (or joke) many think it could be:
Unlike other Democrats I could name, he hasn’t amassed a personal fortune. He’s a public servant committed to public service. As vice president, he’s been exceedingly valuable to Obama, on politics and policy. I’ll cite two examples.Remember when the intransigence of House Republicans and the petulance of Senate Democrats—and the president himself—threatened to take the country over a “fiscal cliff” in 2013? Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called Biden, his former and longtime colleague, with a simple question: “Does anyone down there know how to make a deal?”There was, and once Obama tasked his vice president with getting it done, a deal happened. It’s called governing, and Joe Biden knows how to do it.He’s savvy on politics, too. The prevailing wisdom holds that Bill Clinton rescued the Democrats’ 2012 humdrum nominating convention in Charlotte with a stemwinder that pumped up the delegates. But Biden is the one who may have actually saved that convention four months earlier when he blurted out his support for same-sex marriage on “Meet the Press.”“I think you may have just gotten in front of the president on gay marriage,” his communications director told him afterward. This was true, but after Education Secretary Arne Duncan did the same thing on “Morning Joe,” the president realized that the Democrats’ days of having it both ways on gay marriage were over.White House officials didn’t know it then but Biden may have saved the convention. Delegates would have raised hell over this issue in Charlotte. Some would have walked out over it. That would have been a bigger news story than Bill Clinton’s speech.
I'm not convinced that Cannon is correct. But it is an interesting take.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Psychiatry readings of the week
David Gratzer describes his "Reading of the Week" project:
Every week, Dr. Gratzer picks a reading — usually a research paper or an article — from the world of psychiatry.The Readings are distributed widely, including to all University of Toronto psychiatry residents (as an official project of the Postgraduate Education Office).This project receives no funding from the pharmaceutical industry; indeed, this project receives no funding.
It has been available to the UofT residents for a while and others in the medical community, but only recently became open to the public. I highly recommend it. Gratzer's most recent Reading of the Week is Atul Gawande's New Yorker essay "Overkill" on overtreatment, an important topic for health care professionals and under-valued issue in public policy. Gratzer highlights an important line from Gawande's piece: "Unnecessary care often crowds out necessary care, particularly when the necessary care is less remunerative."
John Nash is dead
See from Yahoo! that John Nash, the Nobel-prize winning mathematician, has died in an automobile accident in New Jersey. Nash has a measure of fame because of the movie A Beautiful Mind. That mind helped advance game theory with the Nash Equilibrium (that's what his Nobel Prize in Economics was for). Here's the Khan Academy lesson on the Nash Equilibrium, a six-minute video that is recommended for everyone. Nash just recently won the Abel Prize for mathematics. Bloomberg has a good obituary. I assume that Tyler Cowen will have something shortly.
Washington in a nutshell
George Will on Senator Tim Kaine's effort to craft a Congressional "authorization for use of military force" to limit executive power and notes:
As Obama’s war strategy collapses, he should welcome company during his stumble through the gathering darkness. As always, however, his arrogance precludes collaboration with Congress. And Congress, knowing that governing involves choosing, which always involves making someone unhappy, is happy to leave governing to him.
When some regular people (and fewer pundits) talk about governing for the common good, they miss what really motivates politicians: winning and holding power. For presidents that power comes as close to absolute in a democracy as possible so why share it. For congressmen and senators, who understand their power is extremely limited, that just means winning re-election (proximity to power or stepping stone to power) so the primary motivation for actions is blame-avoidance (a lot like the reasons baseball managers and football coaches make sub-optimal decisions).
Creative success leads to unethical behaviour. Or perhaps better reasoning.
Pacific Standard reports:
Refining earlier research, a newly published study finds innovative people are indeed more likely than most to cross ethical boundaries—but only after they have been engaged in creative work. According to a research team led by Ke Michael Mai, a creative frame of mind enables one to come up with compelling justifications for bad behavior.
Here's a counter-intuitive thought: perhaps what many of us consider unethical is not really wrong and creative people, once they begin to see outside-the-box, can understand that seemingly unethical behaviours can, in fact, be justified.
I'm not saying that's true. But let's challenge the conventional wisdom.
Class and race
David Frum tweets: "Key sentence in R Putnam 'Our Kids': 'The racial gap within classes has narrowed, while the class gap within races has widened'." American pundits talk incessantly about race and largely ignore class, which Rick McGinnis argued a few months ago in The Interim is an important way of looking at society and that this can be done in non-Marxist terms.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Why do people think this is a good line of attack on Harper?
Author and NDP candidate in Toronto Centre Linda McQuaig tweets: "First he hides in closet when Parliament under attack, now #PMHarper to hide from 10 million Cdns who want to see him debate. What a coward." Protecting the prime minister during a terrorist attack on Parliament is wise, not cowardly. Would be true regardless of who the prime minister was.
Also, as Brian Lilley notes, Thomas Mulcair has agree to five debates (plus more if possible), Stephen Harper four, and Trudeau just two. Who is the coward hiding from debates? (Hint: it's the gaffe-prone one who can't debate.)
(HT: Small Dead Animals)
France wants supermarkets to give expired food to charities for the poor
That would be the honest Guardian headline: "France To Force Big Supermarkets To Give Unsold Food To Charities."
(HT: Blazing Cat Fur)
Conservatives are not immune to being infatuated with celebrities
Matt K. Lewis has a good short piece at the Daily Caller about the Josh Dugger scandal (really, is it a scandal?) and what it says about the Right and its infatuation with celebrity. Lewis says:
What I am going to do is zero in on what struck me as an especially interesting, if largely unrelated, sentence in the Washington Post’s coverage of the story: “Duggar was running a used-car lot before he became the new face of the Family Research Council.”How does this happen? I’m not suggesting that someone who runs a used car lot in Arkansas can’t eventually become the executive director of a group like FRC Action. But is that where you start? Shouldn’t you maybe, I don’t know, work for a social conservative outfit before being promoted to essentially running one?
It is understandable that in a celebrity-obsessed culture, the Right looks for the occasional hero from the entertainment world. Like their shows, be thankful they highlight some of our issues, but don't put them on pedestals.
Nicholls on Justin Trudeau's debate prep
Gerry Nicholls imagines what debate preparation with Junior must be like:
CONSULTANT: Justin let’s begin our debate rehearsal, I’ll play the part of the moderator, and ask you some practice questions OK?TRUDEAU: OK, but who am I playing? When I was teaching drama class, I always made it a point to emphasize the importance of knowing your character.CONSULTANT: You’re playing you Justin. Remember this is a rehearsal for the leadership debates. It’s very important.TRUDEAU: Got it. So what’s my motivation in this scene? Actually, never mind, I’ll just wing it improv-style. Go ahead and ask away.
There's no such thing as a perfect electoral system
The CBC reports: "Canada's former chief electoral officer sees a new pre-campaigning style emerging thanks to Canada's first fixed-date election this fall, with recent conflict over leaders' debates just one consequence of the new system." Politicians, who create the system in which they operate, will always game it. Always.
Friday, May 22, 2015
'Civil asset forfeiture: The reform issue that’s sweeping the nation'
I hope so. Logan Albright at Watchdog.org:
However, because of the political capital held by sheriffs’ offices in many states, local reforms have proven difficult. Moreover, a process called “equitable sharing” allows states to circumvent their own laws by bringing in federal agents and splitting the proceeds from seized assets. Fortunately, federal lawmakers have not been blind to the problem, and Sen. Rand Paul has introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act to curb asset forfeiture abuses nationwide.It’s rare that an issue can bridge party lines and unite people across the country, but civil asset forfeiture is so obviously dangerous to liberty, so easily abused, and the stories of its victims so relatable to the average person, that we can all imagine ourselves targeted unjustly.
Civil asset forfeiture would only be allowed to stand if the stereotypes of the two major American political parties were true: the Republicans as mindlessly tough-on-crime thugs and the Democrats as knee-jerk government-loving statists. I assume that civil asset forfeiture will remain a major problem for the foreseeable future because those stereotypes are correct, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
I'm for getting rid of the tampon tax
The Conservative government has endorsed the NDP idea of getting rid of the "tampon tax" which is actually just the fact that the GST/HST applies to feminine products. Left-wing politicians, egged on by identity feminists, have taken up this cause as discriminatory and they have brilliantly marketed their cause as targeting a product that most women can't avoid using. Whatever. Let's get to root causes and eliminate the root of the tampon tax: let's get rid of the GST/HST, and cut spending accordingly.
Reason enough to vote Tory
The Globe and Mail: "Conservatives would likely cut more taxes if re-elected, Oliver says." The Globe reports:
“I think we could do more,” Mr. Oliver replied. He noted that Canada’s debt in relation to the economy is low by international standards and will shrink from about a third of GDP to one quarter by the end of the decade. Mr. Oliver did not comment on the potential impact of rising interest rates on federal finances.“So, as the debt declines and as debt payments decline as a proportion of expenditures, there’s more opportunity to provide tax relief and to provide other benefits to businesses and to Canadian families and to the Canadian middle class,” he said.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Martyrs for their art. But they're not dead. And as art it's questionable.
Karen Finley was considered a martyr for free expression in the arts back in the '80s. And like most martyrs for this sort of thing she has the distinction of still being alive. Which makes you a funny sort of martyr, don't you think?She might not be so famous today, but back in the '80s Karen Finley was known for all intents and purposes as the Lady Who Stuffs Canned Yams Up Her Ass.
That's some division of labour specialization.
McGinnis describes the photo-shoot:
I had Finley lean into the wall and slowly rotate her face in the tiny pool of light while giving a few directions - "Look up." "Put your cheek against the wall." "Look at me."Later my editor, Nancy, told me that Finley had described it all to her like a parody of a high fashion magazine shoot, with the photographer - me - making effusive, even campy, pleas and commands: "Beautiful, darling!" "Give me more!" "Work with me, baby!" Which scandalized me more than her show, to be honest; my working method has always been low key, almost wordless, and I didn't understand why Finley felt a need to tell such a fib, except perhaps she needed a better story to tell.
The essay is worth reading 1) because it includes some sensible observations about censorship and public funding (and a great line about the Draw Muhammad event) and 2) despite the post containing a photograph of Finley plying her art.
2016 watch (HRC or 19 edition)
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger: "The GOP free-for-all is better politics than the Democrats’ Clinton coronation."
Henninger has one of the best lines in American punditry in a long time: "If the NBA were run like the Democratic Party, Charles Barkley would still be starting for the Houston Rockets and James Harden would be on the bench." Ouch.
Interesting idea regarding Canadian political leaders' debates
We couldn't agree more that the federal election debates need a refresher. So last week HuffPost Canada and Twitter Canada, along with Samara Canada, submitted a proposal that invites federal parties to a debate worthy of a connected and social age.Canadians are busy, make no mistake. But we're also more connected to information and to each other. We don't make appointments with our televisions -- the news comes to us while we are on the move and from friends.
Great idea in theory. In practice, not sure if the Conservatives want to get involved with a flaky outfit like Samara which has romantic and unrealistic ideas about democracy and elected officials. And not sure if a direct Q&A with regular voters on social media is the best way to advance thoughtful discussion of issues. But at a time when the political class is seriously talking about moving beyond the outdated model of letting a broadcast cartel dictate the terms of a singular national debate in each official language, such innovative thinking and partnerships could move the political debates into the 21st century.