Tuesday digest

- The incoming Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee seems to be a little underqualified. I think he could use a few briefings to learn the basics about the enemy the United States has been facing for five years.

Nice job, Nance.

- If this is any indication, Muslim reformers in Pakistan still have a ways to go. Approximately 20,000 men turned out to protest changes to a law concerning the number of witnesses necessary for a victim to accuse an attacker of sexual assault (currently four under Pakistan's interpretation of Islamic law). Under the new proposals, the judge would decide in what court the case would be heard which would then impact the number of witnesses required.

Here's hoping that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf doesn't lose his nerve.

- I love the irony when the global market economy basically foots the bill for socialist revolutionaries like Hugo Chavez.

- I'm not a big fan of dictatorships of either the right or left but it's clear that in many respects, the political orientation of authoritarians certainly matters as shown by the case of Chile as compared to Cuba, leaving aside the deafening silence from certain quarters regarding the atrocities committed by Castro as they posthumously damn Pinochet. That said, I think the usually reliable Wall St. Journal is too easy on the recently-deceased general.

- Speaking of unsavoury characters, here's the last word on Kofi Annan and his underwhelming tenure.

- Post-November, a growing number of commentators have suggested that it's perhaps time for libertarians to rethink their attachment to the Republican Party. I can't say I blame them. Personally, I wouldn't call myself a pure libertarian, not by a long shot, but nor am I a moral conservative although I think that they put forward many cogent arguments like this one on parenting.

The debate that is going to take place over the next two to four years within the GOP is going to take place largely along libertarian vs. moral conservative lines and it's going to be fascinating to see what choices that party will make as it tries to rejuvenate itself.

- Reason #47 why Canadian politics is not a matter to be taken seriously: we now have the leader of a party that ...

a) runs candidates in one province out of ten
b) at best, can only purport to represent less than one in four Canadian citizens by virtue of Quebec's population
c) has a level of support that consistently hovers around a number no higher than approximately one in ten voters across Canada and
d) by its very nature, cannot aspire to government, is also dedicated to the break-up of Canada and doesn't believe in the legitimacy of Canadian institutions

... now demonstrating more nerve than ever.

Essentially, they are threatening to take Parliament hostage by dictating the terms of engagement of the Canadian military's mission in Afghanistan and forcing a confidence vote on the matter, which may launch us into a another election.

This is a complete farce and a total outrage.

It's embarassing to me as a Canadian, quite frankly.

Is it any wonder why there's no goodwill towards the Bloc Quebecois in the rest of the country?