Thursday, November 30, 2006

Thursday digest


- This has not been a good week for principled conservatives in my neck of the woods.

First, Prime Minister Harper tries to pull the wool over our eyes on national unity. Ever so predictably, other groups within Canadian society are beginning to ask for their piece of the pie, and now, trying to bob and weave, Lawrence Cannon says that all those who "share or understand the desire to preserve a language, a culture and a common history" can call themselves Quebecois.

Anyone familiar with francophone culture in Quebec knows how pathetic, fallacious and ultimately laughable Cannon's explanation is. In fact, I haven't seen anything as half-baked relating to la belle province since Mrs. H and I feebly attempted to cook up a tortiere a couple of weeks back.

Then, we have Ottawa's new mayor, Larry O'Brien, taking a significant pay raise of more than $32K a year for a total annual salary of $172K.

Now, I wouldn't really care if Chiarelli or Munter would have taken the cash because they didn't campaign as fiscal conservatives, unlike O'Brien, and plus, I believe our public officials deserve to be paid more because they have very difficult jobs. However, although he's fully entitled to it under the laws on the books, it's not like multimillionaire O'Brien needs the extra $1300 in before-tax pay every two weeks, though, so why would he slap us middle class taxpayers in the face just for what amounts to chump change (for him, anyways)?

Very disappointing.

He ought to donate it to charity.

- If anyone needs more evidence of the unholy alliance between the far Left and the Islamofascists, read Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's message to the American people, here.

In some parts, it sounds like a cover letter written by an naive grad student applying to be a research assistant for Noam Chomsky. Not only that, but it's full of lies and half-truths which even the most casual observer of international relations will see through.

Meanwhile, a reality check, here, and it's good to know that at least some Democrats seem to know better. And as far as these allegations about Canadians spying on Tehran?

I hope they’re true.

- Finally, I'd like to recognize one of the greatest sports highlight shows of all time, Global's Sportsline, which is going off the air. Despite providing massive amounts of Leaf propaganda, I always enjoyed the witty banter between the hosts, which included Mark Hebscher, Jim Tatti, Gene Principe, Don Martin and that old coot Bill Bird. Plus, they always showed tons of hockey fights, never censored the post-game interviews with angry coaches who used profanity to express themselves and came up with great nicknames like Alexei "Peanut Butter n'" Zhamnov.

Although I haven't tuned in for over eight years, sports fans all over Ontario have to feel like they've lost a little part of themselves today.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Album Review: "Stop the Clocks" by Oasis (2006)


Oasis, the band that gave us probably the biggest rock song of the mid-90s ("Wonderwall", bookended by Nirvana's groundbreaking "Smells Like Teen Spirit" at the front end of the decade and Green Day's dreadful "Time Of Your Life" at the back), has released a two-disc best of collection with "Stop the Clocks".

I was never the biggest fan of these guys, as I found their writing far from stellar with riffs that were brilliant at times ("Supersonic", "Aquiesce", "Morning Glory") but blasé at others, decent if unspectacular soloing, and an image that was geeky, obnoxious and nothing that we hadn't seen done better by the likes of other rowdy Brits like John Bonham and Keith Moon who came before the Gallagher brothers. However, I think the appeal of Oasis can be pretty easily explained. They came along at just the right time, as the grunge vibe was beginning to wear thin thanks to Lollapaloozers like Billy Corgan who took themselves far too seriously. In other words, there was a hunger for the return of fun, melodic, brash rock n' roll around 1995-1996, especially in England, and bands like Oasis and their contemporaries like Blur responded.

(Closer to home, proof of that argument can be provided by looking at the KISS Reunion Tour in the summer of 1996, which broke all kinds of box office records while featuring only one song in the set list recorded outside of the glorious 1974-1977 timeframe, that being Ace Frehley's "Back in the New York Groove". But I digress.)

This collection does an adequate job of featuring some of Oasis' best work, like those tunes mentioned above, but is sorely missing in other respects. Sure, there's a lot included off of their first two albums, "Definitely Maybe" and "What's the Story Morning Glory?" but "Be Here Now"'s bombastic, way over-the-top and absolutely unforgettable "D'Ya Know What I Mean?" isn't here, nor are other familiar tunes like "Don't Go Away", "Little By Little" or "All Around the World". Instead, they've put second-rate efforts like "Lyla" and "The Importance of Being Idle" on this collection. Disappointing, but that's how guitarist Noel Gallagher wanted it, I guess.

On the whole, , though, it's not bad, and for a casual or new fan, it's an adequate if not thorough addition to the CD collection.

Reasonably priced at south of twenty bucks, too.

Overall rating: 6.25/10

Wednesday digest


- You know what word I really don't like anymore? Dialogue. As soon as I hear it, the red flags shoot straight up.

- Remaining on the "with friends like that" file, Pakistan wants us to cry uncle to the Taliban.

- A modern-day hero, Irshad Manji, weighs in on the Pope's visit to Turkey. Here's a look at efforts by the usual campus suspects to silence Manji's contemporaries. Meanwhile, as the advance of Sharia law continues in Britain, VDH calls for more like her to speak up and defend the West.

- A late entry into the understatement of the year sweepstakes: Jimmy Carter says that the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian forces in Gaza was "probably a mistake". By reading the link above, we can reasonably guess what Carter thinks of the ridiculous 1,000 for 1 prisoner exchange offer that Hamas refuses to take off the table.

(I wonder what he'd call the refusal by Hamas to recgonize Israel? "Maybe not that great an idea?")

- Robert F. Kennedy: the original blue dog Democrat?

- Reading this article, I'm reminded of the two day fast-a-thon I went on in Grade 7. In between the regular anti-capitalist breast-beating that goes along with these things, the teachers threw peanuts in the shell all over my elementary school parking lot, and when it was time for breakfast in the morning, we were told to go pick 'em up, because that was it.

And damn, did that McDLT combo I ate when it was all over ever taste good.

I still remember it today - and, quite frankly, the memory is made even fonder by thinking about how at the time, my twelve-year old self didn't even realize how I was helping to create jobs, expand trade and foster wealth creation all over the world, just by dropping $3.99.

(Then again, how was I to comprehend anything other than that most powerful of emotions - guilt?)

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Tuesday digest

- Is this racism, or just prudence?

- By telling Canada how to vote on an anti-Israel UN resolution, Jimmy Carter continues to solidify his status as the worst ex-president in recent memory. Instead of blaming Israel, how about targetting suicide bombers as the reason for violence in the Middle East? If they were neutralized, Israel would be more easily able to leave the West Bank and Gaza.

I am also looking forward to Jack Layton and Bill Graham screaming in Question Period about this egregious American interference in Canadian foreign policy.

- What's this all about?

- Thomas Sowell points out that based on charitable donations, conservatives are more generous than liberals.

- Ottawa's new mayor has appointed the former head of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, Walter Robinson, as his Chief of Staff.

Thumbs up.

- Finally, a lot of folks are blaming Michael Ignatieff for igniting the latest national unity firestorm. I don't. Instead, I put the blame foursquare on the shoulders of a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, as much as I like to poke fun at Trudeaupia on this blog.

Imagine how great Canada would be today if Brian Mulroney would have left well enough alone in the 1984 campaign instead of letting Lucien Bouchard write his speeches, promising Quebecers that they'd be responded to with "honour and enthusiasm" by the federal government, despite the fact that nearly all Quebec MPs in the federal Parliament supported the 1982 constitutional deal even if the separatist government of Rene Levesque did not (and thereby validating the complaints of the malcontents in Quebec's political class)?

This latest mess has Mulroney's fingerprints all over it. He's the godfather of the idea of special status, codified in law, for Quebec, based on what essentially amounts to race. Harper even trotted out Red Tory relic Marjory LeBreton and former Bourassa cab min Lawrence Cannon to try and downplay it yesterday.

It's absolutely appalling to see so-called leaders "roll the dice" for the promise of electoral gain, which, as Andrew Coyne has pointed out, never ends up materializing over the long term.

Whenever Canada stands up for itself, support for sovereignty goes down. Whenever we capitulate to the demands of fairweather federalists, nationalists and soft separatists, who decide how much they want from the rest of Canada depending on the mood they're in when they get up in the morning, support for separation goes up.

Even though the motion as adopted has no legal impact, it's ambiguous enough to signal to Quebec governments that the door to the constitutional cupboard is open, if only slightly. (Why else would the Bloc have supported it?) Instead of dangerously creating such expectations, Harper should have just voted the original Bloc motion down, period, and if he lost Jean-Pierre Blackburn or whoever this mystery Quebec Cabinet minister is that Chantal Hebert keeps referring to, so be it. (Josée Verner's roots in the party are too deep to quit over this. Same goes for Cannon, and I can't see the libertarian Maxime Bernier, who also sits on the Priorities and Planning committee of Cabinet, jumping ship to sit as an Independent.)

I'm no Liberal, but I hope Stephane Dion wins on Saturday, and I predict he will on the third ballot.

ADDENDUM: Stephen Harper used the word "reconciliation" to describe the vote last night. To me, that term describes the making of amends after one party was wronged by another.

To what could the former policy chief of the Reform party, which was itself a byproduct of the Meech and Charlottetown fiascos, be referring?

Monday, November 27, 2006

Monday digest II

- Michael Chong has resigned from Cabinet because he says can't reconcile the Prime Minister's nod to Quebec's ethnic nationalism with his position as a Cabinet Minister. I watched his news conference and his position was well explained: he's 100% against any notion of hyphenated Canadianism and instead, said that he sees Canada as more than just an arrangement of convenience for those individuals who happen to live here. (I'm paraphrasing.)

I can understand his point of view and I would endorse it but for the sad fact that preachiness about the superiority of the Canadian mosaic over the American melting pot is well into its second generation, buttressed by massive bureaucracies from Ottawa on down to the public school level where taxpayers' dollars are used to reinforce the virtue of putting the true north strong and free a distant second behind whatever far-off land your parents, grandparents or other ancestors came from, whether that be France, Lebanon, Jamaica or somewhere else.

Chong's point of view is made even more poignant by the fact that he's not of British or French background, but like the great John Diefenbaker, doesn't identify with either of the "two founding nations" and advocates a policy of "one Canada" instead, but to try and deny the power of years and years of Liberal indoctrination is an intellectual exercise at best.

What about those of us who don't belong to any kind of sub-nation? Who are we in this great mosaic called Canada? Where's our place? And politically, where does Chong's stance leave the rank-and-file from Western Canada on the Conservative backbench?

I still haven't come to a firm conclusion on this, but it's becoming increasingly clear that perhaps Stephen Harper should have considered saying "no" to the Bloc motion which claimed that the Quebecois are a nation, and just voted it down unamended.

- Have you ever wondered why a bitter, acerbic, unfunny creature like Ann Coulter has been able to gain such a foothold in Western political discourse? Look up.

- My boy Kid Rock has been dumped by Pam Anderson.

Again.

Fellas, let this be a lesson to all of you: if she breaks up with you once, don't ever, EVER take her back, because it's guaranteed to happen again.

Monday digest

- Reason #4456947 why the West shouldn't count on Iran and Syria to help solve the Iraq problem: on Israel, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad recently stated that "(t)he Zionist regime is on a steep downhill towards collapse and disgrace" and, in a reference to the U.S. and U.K., "the collapse and crumbling of your devilish rule has started".

As the old saying goes, with friends like this ...

- An interesting article here makes the case that overpopulation isn't problematic as long as there are markets to go along with it. Also on the doom and gloom front, it should be noted that this was the quietest hurricane season in ten years.

- Here's a valuable contextual piece about the underhanded and sinister goings-on in Russia right now. It seems like, after reading this piece, that Putin's reach may be farther than most realize, even after the happenings of last week.

- I love the fact that even elements of the left-of-centre party in the US can call for a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets and it's not deemed as heresy. Such discussion in Canada would be completely off the table.

- As Pandora is out of the box on the "Quebec as a nation" motion, a wise Liberal word of warning, here. It needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms by the Prime Minister that this motion will have no legal impact. And as my Quebecois brother-in-law said to me, it really doesn't matter if Quebec is considered a nation or not by the federal government when the fact remains that if you can even get a family doctor in the province, you're damned lucky if you can even get an appointment when you need one. It's clear that Harper has snookered Duceppe on this, so let's just vote on the motion and be done with it so we can get on with the nuts and bolts of what really matters to people.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Live Review: Cirque du Soleil, "Delirium" - Scotiabank Place, Ottawa, ON, November 25, 2006


Last night, Mrs. H and I went out to Peterborough (er, I mean, Kanata) to check out the latest Cirque du Soleil production to hit the nation's capital. I had never seen a Cirque production before so I didn't have any expectations going in, and that was a good thing, because I think I would have been disappointed.

Thematically, "Delirium" tells the story of some guy's dream (I think), to a percussion-heavy, New Age-sounding bunch of songs that were heavy on vocal gymnastics but light on actual relevance to any narrative, as far as I could tell. Visually, the lighting and projections were very well done, but as with the music, nothing really fit into the larger whole. As for the performers, there was a guy walking around on stilts, a woman who was able to do crazy things with six hula-hoops at once, and a bunch of topless male acrobats with clean-shaven chests who appeared alongside a myriad of other characters who seemingly had nothing to do with each other.

Mildly interesting for about the first 15 or 20 minutes, but after that, "Delirium" doesn't attempt to make any sense whatsoever. At the end, you're left thinking that you just saw something but what it was, you're not quite sure - and not in a good way.

An overindulgent, bloated and bloody faux-Avant Garde mess of a thing.

Overall rating: 3/10

Sunday digest


- Respected Senator Chuck Hegel (NB-R) says it's time to pull out of Iraq and leave the likes of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Ba'athists and other interests to deal with it. I don't think that can happen right now despite the efforts of leaders like Mahmoud Abbas to calm the hostilities in the region. Syria, Iran and yes, Pakistan need to be brought to heel, and only overwhelming American pressure can do that. Meanwhile, one of the most clear-eyed observers of the Middle East, Caroline Glick, weighs in here.

- It would be a good thing if the European political class stopped gloating about the results of the US congressional elections for a moment to turn their attention eastward in Bad Vlad's direction, but I'm not holding my breath. The burden of proof lies with Moscow.

- Some statistics here which destroy the conventional wisdom that poor blacks are over-represented in the American military.

- This article by Steyn sums up his recent book "America Alone" in basically two words: we're screwed.

- An American political refugee to Canada dissects the notion that our Prime Minister is a mini-Bush, here.

- Did you know that this year's edition of "Buy Nothing Day" took place over a 24-hour period this weekend? I didn't, but remembering that I went to Walmart yesterday and picked up a $1.88 bag of Zesty Cheese Doritos alongside a new filter for my humidifier before stopping at the in-house McDonald's for lunch tickles me just pink.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Shawarma Review: Sandrella, 1721 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa, ON


I've been told by no less than three different people that this place produces the best damn shawarma in Ottawa, bar none. Since it's on my way home from my Friday after-work curling league (where my team is 9-0), I've been there three times over the last few months and I have to say that it's hit and miss (and the hit factor rises dramatically in proportion to the number of post-game beers I have).

Last night I went for the chicken after only having a pint and a half, and it was very disappointing. The lettuce wasn't a crisp, leafy green but was rather the same out-of-a-vacuum-bag stuff that is a staple around me and Mrs. H's sorry-ass kitchen, and the garlic sauce was sadly underwhelming. Also, in the eight minute timeframe it takes to get from the Sandrella parking lot to my house, the product lost a good 50% of its warmth despite being well-wrapped and transported in a paper bag.

The entire experience last night stood in stark contrast to the last time I was at Sandrella. The beef creation I enjoyed at that time, I would have ranked as one of the top 5 shawarmas I've ever had. Then again, I had about three and a half pints after curling that night.

All in all, it'll fill a hole, and even though you're taking your chances, Sandrella gets a half-decent rating because just like pizza and sex, even when it's shitty, a shawarma is still pretty good.

Overall rating: 6/10

DVD Review: "16 Blocks" (2006)


This Richard Donner-directed thriller, told in real time, stars Bruce Willis as a broken-down, alcoholic New York detective coming off the night shift who is charged with transporting a chirpy and annoying yet likeable criminal sixteen blocks to a 10 AM court date. However, the two soon find that things are not as they seem as corrupt members of the NYPD attempt to thwart them from making their appointment.

Formulaic, yet more believable than most cop flicks, and full of gunplay, grit and surprises.

A solid way to kill a couple of hours.

Overall rating: 8/10

Friday, November 24, 2006

Friday digest


- One of the main problems with the Middle East right now is a lack of respect for human life, as David Ignatius points out. And as Hamas is now sending Palestinian grandmothers to do their bidding, why does this former Labour MP from England feel the need to defend herself for being pro-Israel?

- Not only does Vladimir Putin murder his critics, he's now in the business of arming Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Is this truly a leader worthy of membership in the G-8?

- The final consequences of the Lennonist ethic, here.

- It's about time that we have a Finance Minister who is serious about finally paying the bill for the orgy of the 1970s under Pierre Trudeau which was only mildly slowed by the red Mulroney Tories.

And refreshingly, we have a national journalist here who admits that when it comes to fiscal policy, he hasn't the faintest.

- The loony left play of the day comes to us from my alma mater Carleton University . In one week, militant unions have chased the university's president out of his job a year-and-a-half into a six-year mandate, and now, the authoritarian socialists who take five years to do a three year degree so they can spend more time in the sandbox of student council politics have decided that any campus club applying for recognition must pledge their allegiance to a pro-abortion point of view.

What the issue of abortion has to do with the engineering club or the commerce society is beyond me. On the other hand, there are other groups who one could reasonably expect would be more likely to support restrictions on the practice. And what do they have in common? I think it's pretty obvious that the student council is trying to prevent the formation of any club whose leadership may be comprised of social conservatives, even if they never mention the word "abortion" in their club constitution or if it even comes up in the course of their activities as a group.

Regardless of whether abortion is an issue for you or not, it cannot be denied that any pretense to the free and open exchange of ideas in the interests of discovering knowledge and deepening intellectual discourse, which is what universities are supposed to do, is a complete and total farce at Carleton.

It's embarassing.

- Finally, today is a bit of a milestone because it was one year ago that I launched the Road Hammer after its predecessor, the Highwaymen, imploded due to the inability of some to refrain from personal attacks on the intelligence of others. I'd like to thank everybody who stops by here for allowing me an outlet to exercise my brain and suss out my thinking on the issues facing the world today. There have been nearly 20,000 hits on this site since it began, and although probably 15,000 of them have been from me, it's a pastime that I very much enjoy. We certainly live in interesting times and I am looking forward to more vigourous yet respectful debate here with you Hammerheads, wherever you may be.

Cheers.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Book Review: "The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World" by John O'Sullivan (2006)


John O'Sullivan, editor-at-large of National Review, has brought the intersection of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Vatican, and 10 Downing Street to life in this history of how the leadership of Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher accelerated the decline of the Soviet empire and combined to throw socialism on the "ash heap of history".

The author begins by demonstrating how each of these three individuals were thought of to be steady yet unspectacular foot soldiers in their various causes, which led to the underestimation of each of their to lead, inspire and affect change when they reached higher office. In the case of Reagan, stagflation and the national humilations of Watergate, Vietnam and the Iran hostage crisis allowed a sunny optimist to thrash the sincere yet impotent Jimmy Carter, who was facing a threat from Ted Kennedy in the 1980 primaries. Thatcher, a former Education Minister and unabashed free-marketeer who believed in a vigorous foreign policy, defeated the interventionist Red Tory Edward Heath in the mid-1970s and forced the Conservative party in England to live up to its name. And finally, John Paul II, the first non-Italian Pope, was a traditional yet bridge-building intellectual cleric from Poland who refused to accede to the lure of hard-left, almost overtly Marxist liberation theology.

O'Sullivan's book leaves one with the impression that the starting point for how each of these three undermined the Soviets began with John Paul, who insisted on preaching about freedom of religious expression in his native Poland at the turn of the decade between 1979 and 1980. As the totalitarian, socialist state crushed religious liberty and saw the citizenry as subjects in its service rather than free and dignified men and women, John Paul urged Poles to think of themselves not as a Communist country but as a Catholic one. This soon led to the emergence of Solidarity, a democratic labour movement which demanded rights for workers against the powers of Warsaw, Moscow's client, who would allow little quarter. However, in relatively short order, the power of the Catholic Solidarity movement was too strong for the state to resist and so liberal democratic freedoms for both practicing Catholics and trade unions were soon allowed as argued for by the Pope, eventually fostering a belief in the possibilities of independence for even the most average of Poles.

In the case of Thatcher, upon taking office, her reforms to the bloated, lumbering British government were brought in with rapidity which endeared her to free market conservatives in Washington and elsewhere. At the sake time, she re-established England as both a cornerstone of NATO and as a reliable ally of the US - economically, at the G-7, and on foreign policy, when it came to resisting Soviet expansionism in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere.

And Reagan. His Westminster address, the reference to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire", and his challenge to Mikhael Gorbachev, a man whose historical role was essentially one of re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, to "tear down this wall" flew in the face of conventional wisdom. The President's assertive belief in the ability of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) as an alternative to the conventional arms race was a principle he maintained all throughout his time in office, and as O'Sullivan states, he even offered to share the technology with the Russians, who at one point were spending well north of 25% of their gross national product on defense just to keep up. Gorbachev miscalculated and said no.

Pivotal to all this was the Reykjavik summit of October 1986 where the Russians tried to get Reagan to eliminate all nuclear weapons within ten years and also to stand down on SDI. For O'Sullivan, Reagan said no, despite being tempted, because he believed that the Star Wars program as it was otherwise known would allow for a halt to conventional weapons development since it would provide a deterrent against Soviet aggression like nothing ever seen before. In December 1987, Gorbachev finally capitulated, signalling something that could have ended 15 years prior had someone like Reagan been in office and willing to see it through at the time: the Soviets could not compete. On a tour of Moscow in May 1988, he was mobbed by ordinary Russians and later that year saw Gorbachev unilaterally reduce Russian forces by 500,000, its tank division by 25%, and combat aircraft by 500.

By the time Reagan left office, the dominoes in Eastern Europe had begun to fall, beginning with Poland and then spreading all throughout the Iron Curtain. Gorbachev, a socialist at heart who was viciously mugged by reality, saw the Wall crumble in November 1989. In fact, as he tried to save himself in the years after the Iron Curtain fell, he even referred to John Paul as "the highest moral authority on earth" in a feeble attempt to garner the Pope's support for his post-Communist vision of state planning, but no matter as in May 1991, the annual May Day parade in Moscow was cancelled and Gorbachev's rival Boris Yeltsin soon consolidated his hold on the post-Soviet Kremlin.

At times, O'Sullivan is a tad too theological for my tastes (and I would venture to guess that I am more familiar with the dictums of Catholicism than most). Moreover, he implies that since all three were able to survive attempts on their lives, there must have been some bigger purpose guiding the world in the 1980s. A little hokey, that, but O'Sullivan skillfully resists the temptation to descend into jingoism. His recounting of the many armed conflicts throughout the decade such as Grenada and the machinations around the Iran-Contra affair are also very clear (even if he does overstate the importance of the Falkland Islands conflict in Thatcher's prime ministership). As for behind the scenes impressions? The aforementioned American left-wing icon Ted Kennedy approached the Soviets in Reagan's first term to strategize with them as to how to outwit the President, and Gorbachev is portrayed as a well-intentioned yet proud and nationalistic man who found himself in challenging, inevitable circumstances.

All told, the determined leadership of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II set in motion a turn of events that re-united Europe and marked, at that time, the "end of history". We know now that even though that history is written by the victors, there are many who would discount these three remarkable individuals and so it is vital that books like "The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister" receive their just due as elites in the West are quick to distance themselves from the possibilities offered by spirituality, steely resolve and a proud belief in the system of free-market, liberal democracy as the best structure by which to organize human societies.

Overall rating: 8.5/10

Thursday digest


- The chronically offended Rosie O'Donnell has once again demonstrated why she's considered one of the most irritating people in America by crying "homophobia" after Kelly Ripa (also irritating, but for different reasons) asked Clay Aiken to remove his hand from in front of her mouth on a recent "Live with Regis and Kelly" broadcast.

I'd suggest that if Rosie wasn't gay, she wouldn't even have a career anymore, but because her sexuality sets her apart and makes her a tad unconventional, she's got herself a handy little calling card in Hollywood long after her best-before date has passed.

- The loonie left play of the day today comes to us from socialist UN envoy Stephen Lewis (all pause and bow at the mention of His name), who says that Canada is in violation of international law because the Criminal Code allows for parents to spank their kids.

Father knows best, I suppose.

- Sticking with the UN, as former Canadian Supreme Court justice and UN human rights commissioner Louise Arbour points the finger at Israel exlusively for the flare-up in the Middle East (rather than the suicide bombers of Hezbollah and Hamas), there are rumblings that Jimmy Carter is going to pile on, too. Alan Dershowitz demonstrates why Carter's new book shows that he's the perfect man for the job.

A much less deluded man, VDH, scans the entire region while Michael Novak suggests that recent American reactions to difficulties in the Middle East may prove Osama bin Laden's prediction to be true: that the West is too bloated, self-absorbed and weak-kneed to see the battle through.

- A final word on the Michael Richards fiasco: some are saying that it's unfair that Richards is being made out to be a pariah while people like West Coast rapper Ice Cube get away with racism against whites all the time. My response to that is this: do you really want the behaviour of thugs like Ice Cube to be what establishes the bar for acceptable behaviour in society?

I don't.

- A great reality check, here.

- Finally, a word about this whole Quebec as a "nation" debate. As a political move, it's a smart one by the Prime Minister, who says that Quebec is indeed a "nation" but within a united Canada. He added, in English, that it doesn't mean and will never mean that Quebec is its own country and he also said that every Canadian deserves a say in the future of Canada. This is in stark contrast to the highly emotional Bloc MPs who jumped to their feet yesterday when Gilles Duceppe said yesterday that only Quebec would decide. Nice words from Harper, but I haven't had the chance to see if he said the same thing in French. (I would hope he did, but I'm doubtful.)

Some commentators have suggested that this is too dangerous a move by Harper because it allows separatists to twist his words and suggest that even the Prime Minister of Canada says that Quebec is a nation, all for the twenty federal seats that may be in play in that province. Perhaps. Although it's undoubtedly true that French-speaking Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense of the term, I would have preferred Harper to make it perfectly clear that recognizing Quebec as a nation, in Canada or not, would have no legal ramifications.

(My first vote was a proud "No" against Charlottetown in 1992.)

I also would have liked him to say that being a "nation" in the political sense implies borders, an army, and currency, to name but a few. (Anyone who has spent any time in that province knows that such possibilities are beyond laughable.) Also, it would have been nice to hear a word from Harper to imply that much-heralded Quebec social policy is due significantly to the generosity of the other provinces who continue to prop up the entire state apparatus of the place through transfer payments.

What it does remind us all that now, as forever, the status of Quebec is still the straw that stirs the Canadian drink. It also reminds us that the separatist movement, at its base, is and always will be an illiberal political project about establishing a racially pure home for Quebecois et Quebecoises, no matter how they may try to pretend differently.

You cannot tell me for one minute that if my bred-in-the-bone anglophone ass and my proud Quebecoise wife and I were to live there that I'd be considered as an equal. Much more likely is that I'd be looked at as a sort of second-class citizen, and not a "real" Quebecker. It's sort of like the old dictum that "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member", but turned on its ear.

More on this over the next few days.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Wednesday digest

- Presumably, this op-ed, which discusses some positive developments against al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia but advocates getting into bed with Iran and Syria to solve Iraq, was written before yesterday's assassination of an anti-Hezbollah leader in Lebanon, coming as it did on the eve of Lebanon's Independence Day (now cancelled). Are these the kinds of people we want to be relying on to help usher in stability in the Middle East? Staying the course would be much more preferable than relying on Assad and Ahmedinejad to play ball.

- Last night on Hannity and Colmes, in his first post-election interview, Senator Joe Lieberman (CT-I) said that he would first have to see who else was running before declaring his support for Al Gore, the man who he ran with in 2000.

If even Gore's own former running mate says that he thinks America can do better, perhaps the former Veep should just save himself the embarassment of a run in '08 and stick to the lecture circuit.

- Hey, are you a has-been, white supremacist celebrity who got into hot water because you let your guard down and stated that you prefer a return to Deliverance-era race relations? Just take a cue from the Hollywood mainstream, feebly attempt to change the subject, mention Katrina (1:39), and indirectly infer that the mess you're in is partly the White House's fault. After all, even the President doesn't care about black people, so Michael Richards must think that the advocacy of lynching shouldn't be that big a deal, right?

- In advance of tomorrow's economic update from the Canadian government, remember that when you hear the usual suspects prattle on that "it can't just be about tax cuts", remember that it also has to be about obstinate, recalcitrant, insulated-from-reality public sector unions who will only agree to annual raises if they're set at five times the rate of inflation under the guise of "education".

(It's all about the students, right?)

- Loony left play of the day comes from jolly ol' England, where the state is threatening to round up parents who can't put down their beer and popcorn long enough to learn how to sing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and "Ring Around the Rosie" the right way. (No doubt a similar proposal will appear as a resolution at a future NDP policy convention in the not-too-distant future, if it hasn't already.) I also have to wonder if they'll ban men from these classes in a sop to illiberal elements of society.

- Sticking with Europe, the numbers don't lie. As I've mentioned before, there are a number of reasons why the Continent is facing steep decline, not the least of which is their appetite for big government:

Government spending exceeds 50 percent of the GDP in France and Sweden and more than 45 percent in Germany and Italy, compared to U.S. federal, state and local spending of just under 36 percent. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes to finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn't surprise anyone. U.S. per capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40 percent higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations.

Over the last decade, the U.S. economy has grown twice as fast as European economies. In 2006, European unemployment averaged 8 percent while the U.S. average was 4.7 percent. What's more, the percentage of Americans without a job for more than 12 months was 12.7 percent while in Europe it was 42.6 percent. Since 1970, 57 million new jobs were created in the U.S., and just 4 million were created in Europe.

Dr. Mitchell cites a comparative study by Timbro, a Swedish think tank, showing that European countries rank with the poorest U.S. states in terms of living standards, roughly equal to Arkansas and Montana and only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi. Average living space in Europe is just under 1,000 square feet for the average household, while U.S. households enjoy an average of 1,875 square feet, and poor households 1,200 square feet. In terms of income levels, productivity, employment levels and R&D investment, according to Eurochambres (The Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry), it would take Europe about two decades to catch up with us, assuming we didn't grow further.

We don't have to rely on these statistics to make us not want to be like Europeans; just watch where the foot traffic and money flow. Some 400,000 European science and technology graduates live in the U.S. European migration to our country rose by 16 percent during the 1990s. In 1980, the Bureau of Economic Analysis put foreign direct investment in the U.S. at $127 billion. Today, it's more than $1.7 trillion. In 1980, there was $90 billion of foreign portfolio investment -- government and private securities -- in the U.S. Today, there's more than $4.6 trillion, much of it coming from Europeans who find our investment climate more attractive.


- Finally, I'd like to wish my American readers (all two of you) a happy Thanksgiving, and as is always the case, I'm sure that those who prattle on about the separation of church and state are showing up to work today instead of enjoying a Judeo-Christian-inspired day off.

Shawarma Review: Ashtar Restaurant, 169 Sparks St., Ottawa, ON


Some time ago, I mentioned that over the next few weeks, I would sample a number of Ottawa's leading Lebanese culinary establishments in order to determine where the best shawarma could be found.

Today, I ambled on up to Ashtar, which is steps away from Parliament Hill's West Block, for a beef shawarma, all dressed, with garlic and sweet sauce.

Right off the top, there are two things that separate Ashtar from its competitors: first, the overall cleanliness of the whole place, and secondly, the ingenious wrapping of the delicacy itself. The less said about the first the better as it relates to fast food, but as for the second, all you have to do is pop off the top of the wrapper and dig in. You're not expected to rip it open yourself, and the way it's rolled is not such that you're biting into your sandwich and coming away with a mouthful of paper in between your meat, onions, and condiments of choice.

I hate that.

Anyways, the beef was seasoned just perfectly and and was complimented by the two sauces which later took on a pink, turnipy hue as they combined to dribble onto my napkin. Moreover, the entire temperature of the thing, which can separate a great shawarma from a so-so affair, left little to be desired. Freshness abounded throughout, which experienced shawarma eaters know is a blessing in disguise as soon enough, the whole concoction, crumbling, fell apart with about a third remaining and I was reduced to vacuuming it all up without getting any on my shirt. I did so, fully satisfied and ready to pronounce Ashtar as the baseline for shawarmas in the blocks north of Laurier Avenue in the heart of Canada's capital.

Overall rating: 8.5/10 (but no Interac service, which is always a negative in my books).

Tuesday digest


- With Michael Richards making John Rocker look like a suitable candidate for the post of next secretary general of the UN (and that's saying a lot), his "apology" just doesn't cut it. Anybody who snaps like that and says "that's what you get for interrupting a white man" is not a believer in equality. What makes it even worse in my opinion is that he apologized to "the blacks, the Hispanics, whites" ... and to me, any time someone refers to a minority group as "the (insert group here)", you can pretty much bet that they harbor some pretty negative views towards them.

Is there a silver lining in this cloud? I think so. What it does is demonstrate what real racism is. It's not opposing racial preferences in hiring or university admissions, pointing out the problems with inner-city culture (fatherlessness, to mention one example), or suggesting that hyphenated citizenship is a bad idea. The term "racism" is thrown around by the far Left with way too much frequency and way too much ease to shut down debate on these issues, when it's plain to see that holding those perfectly legitimate opinions is not even close to being in the same league as the hatred, rage and bile that flows through the veins of people like Michael Richards.

- As CTV Newsnet runs Islamofascist apologist and British MP George Galloway, who has been travelling through Canada this week offering his opinions on our anti-Taliban foreign policy, here's a must-read article on the dynamics of media coverage of the war on terror. (Tell me that the "takin' on the man" orientation of the press isn't not largely responsible for the preference for ignorance that a too-large part of the American population has demonstrated during a war where the casualty rate is so low that it makes the last three-year war the US was involved in, Korea, look like Armageddon.) The big picture, here, while Hitch asks why we should listen to a guy who didn't finish the job when he had the chance. It's time to go big because if this is any indication, the way forward is suicide.

- I can't believe the health police prevented Daniel Craig from lighting up a stogie in the latest Bond flick. Heresy.

- Thumbs up to the NDP for leading the charge on this very worthwhile initiative.

- Finally, only the most idealistic of both prisoners' rights and mental health advocates would suggest that this is a good move.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Monday digest

- I haven't actually seen it yet, but it looks like we have yet another celeb who needs to spend some time drying out.

- Now here's a left-wing suggestion I can get behind. I also propose that on that day, they refer to it as the "piece" movement.

- An example of shoddy journalism which will no doubt go unchallenged: here we have a CanWest story that ran across Canada suggesting that Mike Harris and Preston Manning want the Tories to reduce "the size of governments in Canada over six years so that spending represents 20 to 25 per cent of the economy, rather than the current 39 per cent".

In fact, what they really say is this:

Manning and Harris point out that research shows the optimal size of government should be one that consumes 20 to 35 per cent of a nation’s economy. They suggest Canada’s governments should reduce spending until government’s share of the economy falls to 33 per cent.

Now, I would love it if the government spent $1 instead of $2 out of every $5 in Canada - it would unleash tons of economic growth and prosperity in our country - but that's not what Harris and Manning are saying. They want it down to $1 in $3 instead of $2 of every $5. It also shows you that perhaps a little skepticism is in order when it comes to believing what you read because you sure can't count on journalists for accuracy in reporting, especially when it involves numbers.

- An interesting look at France's political situation, here.

- A saddening example of how out of touch the man who created the concept of détente with Communists is, here, countered by a heartening reminder of what's been accomplished thus far here from a real leader.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Sunday digest

- I am very dismayed at the willingness of Tony Blair and others to sit down and negotiate with the terrorist leaders of Syria and Iran over nukes, Iraq, and Israel. This will only confer legitimacy on maniacs like Ahmedinejad, toadies like Assad, and further embolden those at home and abroad who want to humble the West on the way to eventual detente if not (American) defeat in the war on terror.

Instead, as I've said before, my preference would be to increase the number of troops on the ground, clean house once and for all in Iraq by eliminating the terrorists, thereby sending a message to Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda that operating from a position of strength rather than weakness, not only on Iraq but on issues like nukes and the right of Israel to exist, is the exclusive preserve of the West rather than jihadists.

- Clinton-era Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, pays tribute to Milton Friedman in today's New York Times. I wonder if his left-leaning Liberal equals in Canada even know who Friedman is, or if they do, would find it in themselves to acknowledge his influence (or would instead demonize him by simply dismissing him as nothing more than a "right-wing nut job" or some such witty put-down).

- Lastly, a word about John McCain. I have accused McCain of being a grandstanding, high-and-mighty, pissing-inside-the-tent lone wolf, and I also don't like his positions on issues like judges, campaign finance reform and climate change, but on the only issues that matter - the war on terror and the size and role of government - McCain is pretty much right on, and that's what counts. Here's a speech that he gave this week which should give comfort to all red-meat conservatives:

Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the future of our Party and our country.

The voters obviously wanted to get our attention last week. While I would have preferred a gentler reproach than the one they delivered, I'm not discouraged nor should any of us be. Democrats had a good election night. We did not. But no defeat is permanent. And parties, just like individuals, show their character in adversity. Now, is the occasion to show ours.

The election was not an affirmation of the other party's program. Try as hard as I could, I couldn't find much evidence that my Democratic friends were offering anything that resembled a coherent platform or principled leadership on the critical issues that confront us today.

Nor do I believe Americans rejected our values and governing philosophy. On the contrary, I think they rejected us because they felt we had come to value our incumbency over our principles, and partisanship, from both parties, was no longer a contest of ideas, but an ever cruder and uncivil brawl over the spoils of power.

I am convinced that a majority of Americans still consider themselves conservatives or right of center. They still prefer common sense conservatism to the alternative. They want their government to operate as their families operate, on a realistic budget, with an eye on the future that spurns self-indulgence in the short term for the sake of lasting prosperity, that respects hard work and individual initiative, and that shows no favoritism to one group of Americans over another. Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us. We must spend the next two years reacquainting the public and ourselves with the reason we came to office in the first place: to serve a cause greater than our self-interest.

Common sense conservatives believe in a short list of self-evident truths: love of country; respect for our unique influence on history; a strong defense and strong alliances based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility; steadfast opposition to threats to our security and values that matches resources to ends wisely; and confident, reliable, consistent leadership to advance human rights, democracy, peace and security.

We believe every individual has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach his or her God-given potential. We believe in increasing wealth and expanding opportunity; in low taxes; fiscal discipline, free trade and open markets. We believe in competition, rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

We believe in work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility. We believe in the integrity and values of families, neighborhoods and communities. We believe in limited government in a federal system, individual and property rights, and finding solutions to public problems closest to the people.

We believe in the rule of law and equal justice under the law, victim's rights and taxpayers' rights, and judges who interpret the Constitution and don't usurp, by legislating from the bench, the public's right to elect representatives to write our laws.

Common sense conservatives believe that the government that governs least governs best; that government should do only those things individuals cannot do for themselves, and do them efficiently. Much rides on that principle: the integrity of the government, our prosperity; and every American's self-respect, which depends, as it always has, on one's own decisions and actions, and cannot be provided as another government benefit.

Stand up for these values. Argue our principles for our country's sake and not just ours. We are the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan. Take on the big problems. Don't hide from hard challenges. Act on principle. Show Americans there are things that matter more to us than our incumbency. Do the right thing, and the politics will take care of itself.

Hypocrisy, my friends, is the most obvious of political sins. And the people will punish it. We were elected to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative. Then we lavished money, in a time of war, on thousands of projects of dubious, if any, public value. We responded to a problem facing some Americans by providing every retired American with a prescription drug benefit, and adding another trillion dollars to a bankrupt entitlement. We increased the size of government in the false hope that we could bribe the public into keeping us in office. And the people punished us. We lost our principles and our majority. And there is no way to recover our majority without recovering our principles first.

In 1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it because it had 152 earmarks. Last year, a Republican Congress passed a highway bill with 6,371 special projects costing the taxpayers twenty-four billion dollars. Those and other earmarks passed by a Republican Congress included fifty million for an indoor rainforest, $500,000 for a teapot museum; $350,000 for an Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center; and 223 million for a bridge to nowhere. I didn't see those projects in the fine print of the Contract with America, and neither did the voters.

A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt took on the special interests. Let the party of Teddy Roosevelt take the lead in cleaning up Washington today. Let's start with pork barrel spending and corporate welfare; eliminate all earmarks; pass the line item veto; employ honest budget accounting; and end emergency spending bills for non emergencies as a way around budget limits. Let's ban all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers, and keep lobbyists off the floors of the House and Senate.

We have more significant priorities ahead of us than finding new ways to spend money unwisely. When Social Security was established, forty-one workers supported a single retiree; today it's three. Health care costs add more to the cost of a new car manufactured in the U.S. than steel. By 2045, spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with interest on the national debt, will consume 84 cents out of every federal dollar.

We can leave these difficult problems to our unlucky successors, after they've grown worse, and harder to fix. Or we can bring all parties to the table, and hammer out a principled solution that makes the difficult choices necessary to support the needs of retirees, promote high quality health care at lower costs, protect the future security of workers; and restores the bonds of trust between the generations.

We can do the same on the issue of immigration. I understand the magnitude of the problem. We can do all that is possible to defend our borders from illegal immigration, and affirm the rule of law. When we have made these improvements, we must still recognize that job opportunities here and poverty elsewhere in the world will still attract immigrants desperate to improve their lives, and who will use increasingly desperate measures to do so. We can devise a rational and fair process, which protects our security and affirms America's promise as a land of opportunity.

My friends, change is coming at Americans faster today than ever before. Fifty years ago, we produced and sold almost entirely for our domestic market. Today, we compete in a global marketplace against 1.3 billion Chinese and 1.1 billion Indians.

Over the last two decades, because we have expanded free trade and open markets, the number of people living in extreme poverty dropped by more than 700 million in China and 200 million in India. As their economies grow, developing nations offer not just competition - but vast new consumer markets for American goods and services. And raising hundreds of millions of people from poverty is the best shield against the attraction of extremism.

Thanks, in part, to Republican economic policies, America still has the most productive, flexible and energetic free economy in the world.

But for many Americans - behind the positive macro-economic statistics - once reliable bedrocks like pensions, health care plans and even middle class jobs no longer feel secure. And with science and technology the key to high wage jobs, many parents fear their children won't have the same opportunities they had.

In the global economy what you learn is what you earn. But today, half of Hispanics and half of African Americans entering high school will never graduate. By the 12th grade, U.S. students in math and science score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As Bill Gates said" "This isn't an accident or flaw in the system. It is the system."

We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward superior teachers, and have a fair, but sure process to weed out incompetents.

When Ronald Reagan took office, a blackberry was something you used to make jam; today it is a vital link in a wireless communication network that spans the globe. The broadband revolution is transforming every facet of communications from the internet to entertainment to telephone service to the delivery of health care services to supply chain management. Yet over the last decade, America has dropped from 2nd in the world to 19th in broadband development and connectivity. In the real world of global competition if we don't reverse those trends, we will risk our prosperity and leave many Americans in rural areas far behind the rest of us.

"The dogmas of the quiet past," Abraham Lincoln said, "are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case is new, we must think anew. We must disenthrall ourselves." Across the generations, those words still ring true.

To keep our nation prosperous, strong and growing we have to rethink, reform and reinvent: the way we educate our children; train our workers; deliver health care services; support retirees; fuel our transportation network; stimulate research and development; and harness new technologies. Let that challenge be the new Republican calling. Let's invite a genuine contest of ideas within our party and with the other party. For conservatism, as Ronald Reagan told us "is not a narrow ideology."

When I drive home at night, I pass people waiting at a bus stop, and imagine their lives. A woman of Hispanic heritage, maybe thirty five, with three kids, is waiting for a bus on a cold street in the middle of the night so she can start her job. While you and I are home relaxing with our families over dinner, she and thousands like her are working late into the night in the offices we left, emptying waste baskets, cleaning up kitchens, scrubbing bathroom floors. She - like first generation Americans before her - is sacrificing so her children can climb the ladder of American opportunity.

When we debate simplifying the tax code - which we must do -- I want us to remember that admirable woman, and ask ourselves have we done all we can to remove obstacles for her and millions like her to climb the next rung on the ladder.

I want us to remember the worker in Michigan, in his fifties, who served a tour in Vietnam, married, four kids, two in college, who worked over thirty years at an auto parts plant, and never took a day of sick leave. Last year his plant downsized and his job was eliminated, and he felt as if a trap door had opened beneath him and he and his family had fallen through it.

America is the greatest trading nation in the world. Competition keeps us strong, and most Americans know that building a moat around America is a formula for stagnation. I am proud of our party's leadership on free trade while the Democrats embrace the siren song of protectionism. But we are not a nation of Social Darwinists, who believe only in the survival of the fittest. Work in America is more than a paycheck; it a source of pride, self-reliance and identity.

I want our party to say to that worker in Michigan, and thousands like him: when you work hard; play by the rules, serve your country and community; and the burden of change arrives suddenly on your doorstep, you and your family are not just forgotten or disposable.

Our most important obligation, of course, is to protect Americans from the threat posed by violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself. They are moral monsters, but they are also a disciplined, dedicated movement driven by an apocalyptic religious zeal, which celebrates martyrdom and murder, has access to science, technology and mass communications, and is determined to acquire and use against us and our allies weapons of mass destruction. The institutions that sustained us throughout the Cold War and the doctrine of deterrence we relied on are no longer adequate to protect us in a struggle where suicide bombers might obtain the world's most terrifying weapons.

The war against terrorism is part of a larger struggle around the globe between the forces of integration and disintegration, between builders and destroyers, between modernizers and those who would shackle humanity, especially women, in a feudal theocracy. The question facing us is not whether America will play a large and shaping role in that struggle, but whether we will play it well or badly. We cannot afford to take a holiday from history.

To defend ourselves we must do everything better and smarter than we did before. We must rethink, renew and rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the purposes of our alliances, the reach and scope of our diplomacy, and the capacities of all branches of government to defend us against the peril we now face. We need to marshal all elements of American power: our military, economy, investment, trade and technology. We need to strengthen our alliances, and build support in other nations, which must, whether they believe it or not, confront the same threat to their way of life that we do. And we must marshal the power of our ideals.

Some on both the Left and Right argue that our advocacy of democratic values in Iraq and elsewhere is reckless and vain; that freedom only works for wealthy nations and Western cultures. But a world where our political and economic values had a realistic chance at becoming a global creed was the principal object of our foreign policy in the last century. We conservatives were its most effective advocates, and it must remain our principal object today. We understood that our security interests and the global advance of our ideals are inextricably linked, and we surely didn't accept the notion that freedom was the product of our power and wealth. Our wealth and power are the product of our freedom.

We must appreciate the security implications of every policy debate. When we debate energy legislation, for instance, we must recognize that the oil tankers stretching from the Persian Gulf to our ports also channel petrodollars to oil dictatorships -- dollars used to buy centrifuges to enrich uranium and build ballistic missiles; to finance Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda; and to fund the madrassas that train the next generation of terrorists.

We should lead our allies in an international effort to reduce our mutual dependence on oil, employing the services of the brightest, most creative and accomplished scientists, business leaders, military and government officials, could do as much to defeat the terrorists as any other policy decision we make, and would make American businesses and workers the leaders in developing new technologies. And, obviously, increased and accelerated development of nuclear energy is an important part of the solution.

We must also prepare, across all levels of government, far better than we have done, to respond quickly and effectively to another terrorist attack or natural calamity. I am not an advocate of big government, and the private sector has an important role to play in homeland security. But when Americans confront a catastrophe, either natural or man-made, their government, across jurisdictions, should be organized and ready to deliver bottled drinking water to dehydrated babies and rescue the aged and infirm trapped in a hospital with no electricity.

Now, I would like to speak briefly about the issue that is uppermost on the minds of Americans. I'll make another trip to Iraq in the coming weeks, and will speak more extensively on the subject when I return. But, let me make a few observations here.

Good and patriotic Americans disagree about the wisdom of the original decision to remove Saddam Hussein. I supported it and still do. And clearly the country is divided on the question of how we proceed from here. But I believe all Americans agree on this: to treat this war as a partisan issue for the advantage of either party would dishonor the sacrifices of the young men and women who have fought in it so bravely.

We have made a great many mistakes in this war, and history will hold us to account for them just as the voters did last week. The situation in Iraq is dire. But I believe victory is still attainable. And I am certain that our defeat there would be a catastrophe, and not only for the United States. But we will not succeed if we no longer have the will to win.

Americans are tired of Iraq because they are not convinced we can still win there without an intolerable loss of additional lives and resources. I understand that. But in no other time are we more morally obliged to speak the truth to our country, as we best see it, than in a time of war. So, let me say this, without additional combat forces we will not win this war. We can, perhaps, attempt to mitigate somewhat the terrible consequences of our defeat, but even that is an uncertain prospect. We don't have adequate forces in Iraq to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to train the Iraqi Army, and to embed American personnel in weak, and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed.

They will not be easy to find. The day after 9/11, we should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do. But if we intend to win, then we must.

It is not fair or easy to look a soldier in the eye and tell him he must shoulder a rifle again and risk his life in a third tour in Iraq. Many of them will not want to. They feel have already suffered far more than the rest of us to win this war. Their families will be even more upset. And they will be right. It is a hard thing to ask of them. But ask it we must - if, and I emphasize if, we have the will to win. As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us, and he will fight his hardest there for his country to prevail. Of that, I have no doubt. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.

What I cannot do is ask him to return to Iraq, to risk life and limb, so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year. That is more to ask than patriotism requires. It would not be in the interest of the country, and it surely would be an intolerable sacrifice for so poor an accomplishment. It would be immoral, and I could not do it.

My friends, before I leave, let me again say that though we suffered a tough defeat last week, we will recover if we learn our lesson well and once again offer Americans enlightened, effective and principled leadership. In 1977, after Republicans lost the presidency and Democrats held large majorities in Congress, Ronald Reagan offered precisely that kind of leadership, and led us to victory in just three years time. We can do it again if we lead and inspire as he did.

That was not my first experience with President Reagan's wisdom. When I was their involuntary guest, the North Vietnamese went to great lengths to restrict news from home to the statements and activities of prominent opponents of the war. They wanted us to believe that our country had forgotten us. They never mentioned Ronald Reagan to us, or played his speeches over the camp loudspeakers. No matter. We knew about him. New additions to our ranks told us how Governor and Mrs. Reagan were committed to our liberation and our cause. They were among the few prominent Americans who did not subscribe to the then fashionable notion that America and the West had entered our inevitable decline.

We came home to a country that had lost a war and the best sense of itself; a country beset by serious social and economic problems. Assassinations, riots, scandals, contempt for political, religious and educational institutions, gave the appearance that we had become a dysfunctional society. Patriotism was sneered at. The military scorned. And the world anticipated the collapse of our global influence. The great, robust democracy that had given its name to the century appeared exhausted.

Ronald Reagan believed differently. He possessed an unshakeable faith in America's spirit that proved more durable than the prevailing political sentiments of the time, and he became President to prove it. His confidence was a tonic to men who had come home eager to put the war behind us and for our country to do likewise. His was a faith that shouted to tyrants, "tear down this wall." When walls were all I had for a world, his faith in our country gave me hope in a desolate place.

It was the faith he shared with my friend, Mike Christian.

Fellow Americans, we can achieve whatever task we set for our country, and whatever task we set for our party, as long as we remember why we came to Washington in the first place. We came to honor Ronald Reagan's and Mike Christian's faith in America, the greatest nation and greatest force for good on earth. If we remember that then all will be well for our party and our country.

Thank you and God bless you.

Album Review: "15" by Buckcherry (2006)


Sleaze rockers Buckcherry offer up 42 minutes of tattooed, beer-swilling Southern glam on "15", which, much like Chinese food, tastes good on the lips but an hour later, makes you wonder if there was anything to it. Tunes like "Crazy Bitch", "Out of Line" and "Brooklyn" will certainly tide over fans anxiously awaiting the next Poison album.

Rumour is that "15"'s title comes from the number of days it took to record the album, but I suspect that it's really the age of the target audience. And I'm not the least bit ashamed to say that Buckcherry brings me right back to the nostalgia of my zit-faced, braces-wearing, hormones-flying-in-all-directions, burger-flipping, Skid Row-loving Grade 9 self.

Take it for what it is.

Overall rating: 7/10

Album Review: "Switzerland" by Electric Six (2006)


Dedicated to Roger Federer, this third album by Detroit garage-disco band Electric Six shows more musical growth but gives up the fun factor. The tunes are more complex but sound somehwat belaboured, which is not what we want to hear from lead singer Dick Valentine and friends, who brought us the unforgettable "Gay Bar" back in 2003, a standard to which only "Slices of You", "I Buy The Drugs" and the Sandler-esque "Chocolate Pope" live up to on the new disc.

I have a sinking feeling that the Six's 15 minutes of fame is at about the 14:30 mark (and counting), but it was damn fun while it lasted.

Overall rating: 5/10

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Saturday digest


- You know what separates Tony Blair from most other European leaders?

He blames terrorists for terrorism.

- The Dutch government has banned the Muslim burqa. While I can understand the thinking behind this move - integration, assimilation, equality of the sexes - it also trumps the value of freedom of religion and may backfire as Muslims may feel it's a heavy-handed response to the issue of self-segregation, potentially driving even more into the extremist camp.

Besides, why use the power of the state to force people who don't want to be part of broader society to participate in it?

Instead of targetting burqas, I think the Netherlands should dedicate the resources to investigating militant preachers, teachers and other such instigators of hatred.

- Meanwhile, as the Syrian-Canadian Club of Ottawa invites Islamofascism apologist George Galloway to speak at Carleton University in talk titled "War and Resistance", here's an interview with Syrian secular ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan from February of this year which aired on al-Jazeera.

I know which speaker I think is more credible on the subject of the West's relationship with Islam, and it's not the invited guest of the Syrian-Canadian Club.

- Seems like everyone from class warrior John Edwards all the way down to downton Toronto 17-year olds auditioning for a starring role alongside Svend Robinson at the next G-8 conference have an extra $600 laying around for the latest must-have Christmas toy.

- Finally, how about a little applause for O'Reilly for taking on his boss, Rupert Murdoch, over this despicable OJ affair?

Friday, November 17, 2006

Friday digest


- One of the intellectual giants of the 20th century and the godfather of economic libertarianism, Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman, has passed away.

I first discovered Friedman in 1994 when, as a political science undergraduate, I did a presentation on his landmark work "Capitalism and Freedom" for a US politics class. As some readers know, there is nothing scientific about political science programs in Canadian universities, so Friedman's way of thinking - largely rooted in mathematics, empirical data and plain old logic - was pretty new to me. (I have long thought that the phrase "political science" should be outlawed and renamed "political activism", because that's about 90% of what you're taught by so-called "scholars", but I digress.) What Friedman illustrates in "Capitalism and Freedom" is that big government harms more than helps people who are in most need of assistance because it serves its own purposes rather than attending to the needs of those it ostensibly tries to.

These ideas were later solidified for me when, during the late 90's, I took a summer away from my Master's program, again in political science, and interned at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, a free-market economic think-tank unaffectionately referred to by its detractors as the intellectual wing of the Ku Kulx Klan. Here, I was exposed to Friedman's ideas in more depth and spent time amongst academics who had actually read and considered the man's work rather than dismissing him outright as simply a political opponent, that is, if they even knew who he was.

During many hand-wringing, hysterical debates over "globalization" (the cause celebre of the day during the Clintonian "holiday from history" which preceded 9/11) - when I cited the work of Friedman, the reaction of many of my left-leaning political science grad student colleagues at the time, was "who?" followed by a far-away look in their eyes as they tried to bring the discussion back to a soliloqy on the benefits of central government planning 10 years after the Berlin Wall came down by inserting fancy yet ultimately meaningless phrases like "post-modernism" and "import substitution industrial strategy" to the conversation. Progressive, indeed.

I hope that Friedman's passing will inspire a renaissance of interest in his work. Even if one's political point of view is inclined towards regulation, bureaucratic control, labour market inflexibility and punitive taxation, it would behoove you to include "Capitalism and Freedom" and also "Free to Choose" on your bookshelf to keep your collection well-rounded. Agree with it or not, knowing Friedman is essential for anyone who would like to describe themselves as a serious thinker as it concerns public policy.

An excellent summary of Friedman's arguments comes here from the Financial Post's Terence Corcoran, who nervously concludes that we may not see another like Friedman for some time. No matter, I say, because as the Iron Lady herself famously said, "the facts of life are conservative" - and that's what will keep capitalism and liberty surviving and thriving long into the future.

- Looks like someone went to the Michael Moore school of ethics in film-making. (By the way, Moore comments on the recent US congressional election, here. Seems the only thing that liberals AREN'T going to do for America now is check the kid's Halloween candy to make sure it's safe.)

- On the political correctness front, a Montreal community health centre has excluded men from Lamaze classes so that women of non-Judeo Christian backgrounds won't be offended.

Time to draw up another contract for the diversity consultants so they can enlighten those with objections to the health centre's decision about tolerance, respect and intercultural dialogue.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Album Review: "High and Mighty" by Government Mule (2006)


Allman Brothers Band guitarist Warren Haynes' side project, Government Mule, has released an excellent collection here, co-produced by Big Sugar's Gordie Johnson. There are hints of Marley, Sabbath, Purple and Neil Young all throughout this disc with some of the most soulful singing I've heard in quite some time. Never derivative or tedious, this is one for those who believe that blues-based riffage can indeed be described as art.

The best-kept secret in all of rock n' roll.

Overall rating: 8.5/10

Book Review: "The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw (1998)


NBC anchor Tom Brokaw decided to write this book as he heard stories from American WWII vets from all walks of life during the run-up to the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion in 1994. The values of hard work, self-reliance, personal responsibility, family, faith, patriotism, hope, sacrifice, humility and courage are demonstrated in spades throughout Brokaw's profiles of post-Depression, pre-baby boom American men and women that pulled together to liberate Europe from the grip of the National Socalist German Workers party under Hitler (along with us Canucks, of course). After fighting the war, these soldiers returned home battered and psychologically damaged but carried those values forward by raising families, participating in the civic life of their communities, and taking risks to build a new life for themselves by launching small businesses or obtaining a university degree even if they had young children to support at home. The tenor of the times were such that all of this took place without complaint, without expectation, and without any sense of entitlement.

This is an easy, inspiring reminder of a culture that at times seems to have long since passed.

Overall rating: 7/10

Thursday digest


- Democratic National Committee chair and "C minus general" Howard Dean, pictured above, has been tapped to deliver the keynote address at the Liberal leadership convention in a couple of weeks' time.

You'd think that a Canadian political party inviting a former US presidential candidate to address its leadership convention would be something CBC would be all over.

However, despite this story being around for a couple of weeks, I haven't heard a peep out of them.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why.

Certainly this leaves the door open for the Conservatives to invite Newt Gingrich or some such Republican figure to appear at a future party gathering without worrying about negative coverage from the state broadcaster, right?!?

- Check out the new words in this article: "bloggorhea", "celebutard" and "celebutante vaginalist", all yours to shamelessly steal.

- Isn't it good of OJ Simpson to take time away from his relentless search for the real killers to tell us how he would have committed the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Wednesday digest


- As Michigan voters sensibly rejected racial preferences in university admissions via a referendum last week, black writer Shelby Steele comments on misguided efforts by do-gooder whites to alleviate inequities here in an interview with John Stossel.

- I've said a lot of negative things about him before, but I have to say that it's time for people who are hopeful for victory instead of defeat in Iraq to close ranks behind John McCain, who has been right on the money in calling for more troops to be deployed there to quell the terrorist insurgency. Far better that than to either withdraw prematurely or get into bed with Iran and Syria, as Tony Blair has foolishly suggested. On the contrary, it's time to bear down and refocus. Not doing so would be an egregious abdication of leadership and a betrayal of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" itself.

- It's quiz time again. To whom was a German lawyer referring to recently when he said, "(w)e want to show that there will be no safe haven anywhere in the world for him"?

A) Osama bin Laden
B) Saddam Hussein
C) WW II war criminal Wiener von Schnitzel
D) Donald Rumsfeld

Answer here.

- Stop the presses! Breaking news brought to you by the CBC: men who maintain a healthy weight live longer.

Don't believe me? See here.

Who knew?

- Canada's Environment Minister recently pulled a classless Dixie Chicks-type move and began mouthing off about Canadian domestic politics while at an international climate change conference in Kenya. Politics should always stop at the water's edge. Rona was representing Canada, not her party, and this reflects very poorly on her and the Conservatives. It's this kind of pettiness, along with the Garth Turner fiasco, that is going to be a contributing factor to keeping the Tories from capturing a majority next spring.

- Finally, I was home sick today. Just in case you didn't know, John O'Hurley, better know as Jay Peterman, is the new host of the Family Feud. And I must say, personally, I cannot think of a more worthy successor to the legacy of the great Richard Dawson, God rest his soul.