Attawapiskat, and the intractable problem of Canada's Aboriginal people

This week Canadians awoke to a news story that arises with depressing regularity.  The native community of Attawapiskat had declared a state of emergency.  The population of around 2,000 were living in crowded, squalid conditions.  Many were reduced to sleeping in tents, and there was no functioning water system.  Winter comes early in the north and the community was in desperate need of help.

This is not an uncommon occurrence in Canada.  Many of our native Canadians living in northern communities live in similar conditions.  What is puzzling to many non-native Canadians is why this is so.  After all, the Federal government poor billions of dollars into these communities every year.  Where does the money go?  Over the past 5 years the community of Attawapiskat has received about 92 million dollars from Ottawa alone.

This problem will not be solved by providing temporary aid to Attawapiskat.  It will continually arise in other aboriginal communities and it's time we re-thought the way we "help" native Canadians.  For starters there is a reluctance in polite circles to acknowledge that for many communities the band council functions like a feudal kingdom, rewarding supporters and harming dissenters.  The band council system on  many reserves could be very accurately described as a system of kleptocracy.  If native self-government is not seriously addressed and we keep funnelling money to these dysfunctional band councils we will keep getting the same result.

Many of these northern reserves are in geographically isolated locations.  Locations that have no road access during the spring and summer months.  Some of the members of these reserves can earn a living as hunting and fishing guides, some work in mining operations (about 100 of the Attawapiskat reserve work at a local diamond mine).  Nevertheless, the reality is that there is not sufficient employment for the vast majority of northern reserve residents.  Native Canadians have the fastest rate of population growth of any group in the nation.  It is time that we recognized that maintaining a young, geographically isolated, community is simply not economically sustainable.  At some point incentives must be put in place to actively encourage aboriginal Canadians to do what people the world over have been doing for the past century - move to urban settings.  Canada's urban aboriginal population has been growing very rapidly in recent years, but so has the population in isolated reserves.  One great incentive to allow natives to move would be to allow residents of reserves private ownership of their homes and land.  As the development economist DeSoto has said, private property was the basis for the growth in prosperity in western European nations - why would deny it to native populations?

In the short term the emergency on the Attawapiskat reserve needs a response.  In the medium and longer term a complete reassessment of the relationship between the federal government and aboriginal governments needs to be rethought and when this happens everything should be on the table.  The status quo isn't working and hasn't for decades.

A parable

A reasonably comfortable family of 27 was comfortably ensconced in a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, and everyone was content.  One day the family members came running as one of their youngest members cried that her toys were on fire.  Her older siblings refused to help her put the fire out, after all, their toys were not on fire.  Mom and dad agreed that the little girl had created the problem for herself.  She simply had too many toys that she'd used the family credit card to purchase.  So the lesson was delivered and the fire was allowed to burn.

After a while, one of the older siblings yelled that the fire had spread and his toys were also on fire.  His older siblings were concerned but ultimately the toys on fire were his.  Again, mom and dad decided that this was good opportunity for the slightly older sibling to learn a lesson about acquiring too many toys using the family credit card.

Everyone was shocked when shortly thereafter one of the teenagers yelled that his Iphone, Ipad, and Notebook were also on fire.  Now there was some consternation.  There were a lot of fires and they seemed to be spreading.  Mom and Dad conferred and once again agreed that it was probably good for the kids to learn a lesson.  Although mom was a bit more worried now and was more reluctant to let the fires burn.  "Mon dieu" she was heard to mutter as the fires burned.

Mom's clothes started to smolder shortly there after, but dad stuck to his guns, it was time everyone learned the consequences of over consumption.

Eventually the fire cured the problem of over consumption.  The house burned to the ground.  Lesson delivered lesson taught.  The only thing wrong with Dad's logic was that perhaps the middle of a house fire is not a particularly good time to start teaching lessons.  Thus, the children Greeced, Sprained, Ironed, Bunga'd, and parents Burgundied and Teutoned found themselves homeless.

St. Buffett and the secret dispensation

A couple of months ago the billionaire investor Warren Buffett made headlines when he published an open letter in the NY Times inviting the President and Congress to tax the rich more heavily.  Apparently hands that were too broken to write a cheque to the US Treasuury were suitable for typing out his plea to tax billionaires more heavily.

There is a problem with the US tax system that St. Buffett identified - individuals whose income derives from investments are taxed at a far lower rate than those taxed on income.  The very rich deriving most of their income from investments pay a lower rate of tax than the ordinary working stiff (in this case Buffett used the example of his secretary and his employees).

In today's NY Times there was more news about St. Buffett, but this was not the kind of news to burnish a saintly image. Over the past year St. Buffett has built a position in IBM (his first tech investment).  This news was hidden from the public by an obscure clause in the SEC filings that allows him to buy large numbers of shares in IBM (and other companies) without publicly disclosing he is doing so.  From the Times: " Mr. Buffett's special treatment from the SEC is not new - he has long taken advantage of an obscure rule to avoid disclosing his bets to the public before he is good and ready."

Here' an idea Mr. Buffett, why don't you write a letter to the President begging him to toughen SEC regulations, close loop holes, and start making billionaire investors play by the same set of rules as main street investors.  I'll be more impressed by St. Buffett's moral probity when I see that public letter published in the NY Times.

Canadian Wheat Board and the Romance of the Family Farm

Some of you may have seen an ad recently running on TV decrying the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board by the Harper government (see the ad here http://www.youtube.com/embed/GtICYolaX38).  In it a rugged Canadian wheat farmer stands next to a steamroller and lambastes the Harper government for its plans to do away with the wheat board.  The ad cuts to a shot of a steamroller with the tag line "This is how the Harper government harvests wheat."   It's a very effective ad (made by a friend of mine who is a VP at the ad agency  that produced it).  It's effective but largely misdirected and on a purely economic level completely wrong.

The CWB in its modern incarnation was formed in 1935 with the primary purpose of putting a decent price under wheat and barley for western farmers suffering from the effects of the great depression.  It did this by forcing all wheat and barley farmers to sell to the CWB, who in turn marketed the crops.  They were able to negotiate a better price for the crops because of the size of the operation and the elimination of competition between individual farmers.

Over the years a minority of farmers have objected to being forced to sell their wheat to the CWB and would prefer to market their product privately (there are some provisions for this in the existing arrangement but it is complicated).  Large agriculture producers such as Cargill, and producers located closer to transportation and the US market have been petitioning to end the CWB for some time.  Smaller farmers and those in more geographically isolated communities are bitterly opposed to ending the CWB.  The Conservative government is about to eliminate the Board.

It's long overdue.  When I expressed this view on my friend's FB page I was assailed by the great defenders of monopoly and agricultural subsidy everywhere.  One person mentioned that ending the CWB would have the same effect as the end of supply management of hogs in Manitoba in the 1990's (many smaller producers were driven out of business unable to compete with the cost advantage enjoyed by larger operations).  Undoubtedly some small, geographically isolated, wheat farms will be driven out of business by the elimination of the wheat board and the more competitive market in grain prices.

Too bad.  I was accused of callousness by another writer.  It may seem callous to see some farmers put out of business because they are not competitive.  But for every supplier there is a consumer.  Protecting farmers at the expense of the consumer could be considered equally callous.  For example, people on fixed incomes and low incomes pay a premium to subsidize non-competitive farming operations.  Why should the interests of some farmers be put ahead of the interests of seniors, single moms, and low income households?

As Pierre Trudeau once bluntly remarked to prairie grain farmers "Why should I sell your wheat?"  Exactly. The government has no business in coercing membership in the wheat board.  While they're at it they should also consider ending supply management in dairy products.  Our current supply management system results in Canadians paying some of the highest prices in the developed world for cheese, eggs, and milk.  In today's Globe and Mail a letter to the editor pointed out that a woman flying from London to Toronto bought a piece of cheese in England for the Canadian equivalent of $1.99.  The same brand of cheese in the same quantity goes for $6.99 in our grocery stores.

Why do Canadians put up with this?  Worse why do they oppose changes that would lower their grocery bills?  I think the answer is partly tied to a romantic image of the rugged, flannel clad, farmer toughing it out in the field and eking a living from the frozen tundra.  The protection of Canadian dairy farmers would not be tolerated if we expanded the same policy to the auto industry.  If we applied supply management protectionism to cars we would drive the Canadian equivalent of a Lada, but pay the same price for it as a Toyota.

The Harper government will probably be successful in dismantling the CWB (law suite notwithstanding).  Hopefully this will embolden them to take on supply management in dairy.  This is a persistent source of conflict with our trading partners and is a major reason why we are not part of broader trade negotiations for the Pacific region.

When the Harper government decides to tackle dairy supply management here's an ad they can use.  An old lady goes to pay for a quart of milk.  A real Canadian dairy farmer is standing next to the cash register and reaches into her wallet and hauls out a $10.00 bill.  The tag line, "this is how Canadian dairy farmers produce milk".

China meet Japan, you have a lot in common

There was a long article in today's Globe and Mail on the slowing rate of growth in the Chinese economy. There are many in China and the west who are predicting the rise of China as the preeminent economic power sooner rather than later. I think they're wrong, because we've seen this movie before. It was called Godzilla takes Manhattan.

In the mid- to late '80's it was widely accepted that the Japanese economy was going to eclipse the US economy as the largest in the world. After all, the Japanese were the largest foreign holders of US debt. Japanese companies built everything from cars to electronics at a higher quality level and at competitive prices. Japanese companies were buying up US companies left right and center. We all knew what the future would bring and it would Japanese economic supremacy.

But then something happened. The Japanese economy went into the tank in the early 90's, in part a consequence of a bursting speculative bubble in real estate, followed by a banking crisis. The Japanese economy went into a funk and it never came out. It's debt to GDP ratio now sits at 200%, the highest in the developed world. Suddenly things that had been overlooked earlier came into focus. Japan had a rapidly aging population, a population that was shrinking. It lacked the dynamism and creativity of the US, and most importantly it had banks that were very closely tied to the ruling political party. One of the consequences of the Japanese banking crisis was that banks that were effectively broke, loans that were never going to be paid back, were never properly accounted for. 100's of billions of toxic debt was never accounted for, the government never forced illiquid banks under. Banks were afraid to loan to other banks (having no idea how much toxic shit they might be carrying on their balance sheets), banks were afraid to advance loans to businesses. The Japanese economy has not recovered.

Fast forward to China today. An economy characterized by ferocious growth, Chinese companies buying western companies, China is the largest foreign owner of US debt. Sounds familiar. And that's why we might want to reflect on the Japanese experience.

China has population problems (different from the Japanese problem but just as significant). They currently have about 30 million young men of marriageable age more than women of marriageable age. Underestimate the social dislocation produced by this imbalance at your peril. More importantly the Chinese banking system and it's close integration with the Chinese government make the Japanese look like models of probity in comparison.

This is from Mark MacKinnon's report in today's Globe and Mail: "The problem [shrinking economic growth] was unlikely to effect the wider Chinese economy, Prof. Chovanec said; the state has more than enough cash to prop up the official banking system by swallowing non-performing loans, essentially pretending they don't exist. "The magic of the Chinese financial system is it's all supported by untabulated, undisclosed, contingent liabilities. The government is the ultimate backstop for everything."

As the Japanese found out, and more recently the US, lack of transparency in banking creates nightmares for governments, but most importantly, nightmares for citizens. China meet Japan, you have a lot in common.

Organizing the Lumpenproletariat

The writings of Karl Marx spend considerable time extolling the revolutionary potential of the working class. For Marx they represented the vast majority of society, and with the right leadership could become a force for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. It didn't happen for a variety of reasons and the marxist complaint of "false consciousness" on the part of the working class is gross insult to the supposedly revolutionary workers. False consciousness is what marxists call workers who are non-revolutionary and often content with their lot. Marx also identified a class of society a rung below the poor, exploited, working class - the lumpenproletariat. The lumpen were the lowest rung of society but possessed no revolutionary potential at all. In politically incorrect terms they were the scum of the earth - ex cons, drug addicts, alcoholics, vagrants, hookers, pimps, the mentally ill, and other ne'er do wells. According to Marx they were incapable of developing a revolutionary consciousness and not of any particular use to a working class revolutionary movement. Lenin on the other hand found great use for their criminal inclinations The Occupy Wallstreet movement has recently begun to experience an influx of the lumpen into their illegal encampments and to put it mildly they are not being welcomed with open arms by the Occupiers. Nevertheless, the Occupiers should take a moment to revel in their success; they've achieved something Marx thought was impossible, they've organized the lumpen. So here's to you Occupiers, the real 1 % aren't the bankers, they're the lumpen and now they're your problem to manage.

The Greg and Mail is back

After a prolonged absence I've decide to revive the Greg & Mail. 2012 is an election year in the US, the euro is in grave danger of going the way of the dodo, and the US economy is about to take the Japanese route to stagnation, so I figured this is a pretty good climate for getting this thing going again.

A quick comment on Greece. At first I thought Prime minister Papandreou was being shrewed in calling a referendum on the EU bailout package. It would enable him to credibly print drachmas "just in case" the people of Greece decided to reject the terms of the bailout (pretty good chance of that happening). This would mean that the printing of drachmas could be printed without provoking a full on banking crisis (it would after all be plan B).

Today he announced there would be no referendum. So I'm thinking that he's not shrewed he's throwing darts at a dart board for policy inspiration.

The folly of bailing out the big three

The more I think about the auto bailout the worse I think it is. Don't bailout companies that have failed. In doing so you reward losers and create competitive hurdles for their successful competitors. Worse, you grossly interfere in the necessary reallocation of capital. Companies going bankrupt as a consequence of poor products, decision making, facing superior competition is a consequence of the efficient allocation of the productive capital of society. In short, it's what makes capitalist societies prosperous.

Governments, as everyone from Friedman to Thatcher said, know nothing about running car companies (and shouldn't be investing in them). Indeed, they don't know anything about investing, so they should not be taking equity positions in these companies.

So - what should they do? For my money if the US is going to kick in 15 billion, and Canada 5 billion, let's do what governments should do - provide income support to workers and retirees in transition. The US government should pick up the health care/pension obligations of the big three when they go tits up. In return they should be at the head of the line when the businesses are liquidated. Anybody who owns shares in these companies or bonds will just have to take a number.

In southern Ontario the collapse of the auto sector would be a tremendous blow. So spend the 5 billion on worker retraining, temporary income support etc. (A selfish side note, community colleges would be big beneficiaries in this).

By bailing the firms out you are building impediments to important structural adjustment. The point is that not only do the firms that can't survive need to go out of business, but their parts suppliers need to as well (or find new sources of business).

It is one thing to nationalize the banks to keep the whole finacial system from collapsing (and I still have some serious doubts about this course of action), but it is a very slippery slope to start bailing out every business that comes along with its hand out. And imagine how the dealership network (about to be dramatically contracted) feels. Lots of support for the line workers and parts makers, but god help you if you are a salesman, mechanic, etc. in any of these dealerships. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers through bailouts. (As a side note, one of the great dangers of government being this directly involved in the economy is the potential for governmental corruption.)

So, support the citizen not the business.

My 5 cents worth (I'm anticipating the inflation that will set in if the governments keep up the stimulous past the point of where it should be. If I thought for a second anyone, or group, was smart enough to do this, I'd still be a communist. The market knows best and if you fuck with it sufficiently, and long enough, you'll pay a ferocious price - literally.

Stephan Dion - the 98 lb weakling

So Stephan Dion finally resigned as Liberal leader today. Good riddance. This was a guy that I had some respect for in the past. He took it on the chin to take on the separatists in Quebec largely crafting and defending the Clarity act and letting the separatists know they couldn't just walk off with Quebec on their terms.

Since becoming leader of the Liberal party his deficiencies have become glaringly obvious. He can't communicate (in either of the official languages). He's tone deaf to things people really care about (hint - nobody is lining up to pay a new tax they don't understand. They're still smarting from the last new tax they didn't understand, the GST). Even those that understood the Green Shaft, did not believe it would be revenue neutral. Governments are constitutionally incapable of bringing in a genuinely neutral tax.

So, he couldn't communicate, proposed selling the family farm to back the Green Shaft, and shut out any advice that did not agree with his. And today when he resigned he knew exactly who to blame for this. The Conservative party - they created a bad image of him in their advertising.

Wow! Did it come as a surprise to Mr. Dion that the Conservatives might try and make him look bad? Why did he let them create this impression. The Conservatives could only craft his image because he couldn't craft one for himself. Dion came off looking like the 98 pound weakling on the beach. Yep, Mr. Dion that nasty Mr. Harper beat you up, and later tonight he'll be fucking your girlfriend. That's your fault not his.

Someone should buy Dion a copy of The Prince. If he'd read that the professor might have a better idea about how to corral his unruly caucus, deliver an efficient bitch slap to the PM, and have the masses shower love and praise upon him.

Instead of blaming others for creating a false image of him he should look in the mirror, embrace the weakling within and slink back to the academy where he so clearly belongs.

A parable about the economic crises

I had another one of those interesting chats with my brother yesterday. Everyday they get a report from their economics division called the Blast (boy is that well named). Yesterday one of the things they reported on was the expansion of liquidity (money) that has occured as governments move in coordinated fashion to try and pump liquidity into the frozen credit markets. He said the exansion of available capital is off the charts. At that point I expressed some concern - since the problem we are suffering started with a twenty year binge on easy money, doesn't making more of the stuff available potentially make things worse? Yes, was the response. If we don't anticipate when the market turns around it could produce ferocious inflation, and that reminded me of an event that occured at my friend David's cottage a few years ago:

One day Frank, David and Scott decided to have a fire. Not only would the fire burn off some recently cleared brush but Frank's kids could use it productively when it burned down a bit to make smores. Everyone was stoked.

The wood was stacked and ready to go. At that point Frank (Greenspan), decided that the fire could use some help getting going and he poured a bottle of bbq lighter fluid (accerlant - cheap money) on to the wood. There was no need to worry about anyone getting burned because it would soak in and burn off in an orderly fashion. No sign of irrational exuberance yet.

Some time later, Scott (China, Japan, etc.) decided the fire might start quicker with a little gasoline, so he emptied a jug of gasoline on to the wood. No need to worry that anyone would get hurt, it would be a quick infusion of accelerant and a roaring fire in no time. All this acclerant caused the fire to erupt (market melt down), and it burned higher and harder than any one expected. It was out of control.

Along came David (Bernanke, Paulson). He was going to bring the fire back under control in an orderly manner. Armed with a garden hose 20 feet too short, and with very little pressue he gamely tried to hose the beast down.

The fire was now burning so fast that it looked like it was going to consume all the wood in no time at all. That wouldn't do becuase Frank's kids wouldn't get their smores. What to do? Maybe add some big logs to the fire to keep it burning, but logs that wouldn't be consumed too quickly (the bailout).

Still the fire burned harder and faster than anyone had ever seen. At this point Frank decided the only solution might be more liquidity - he ran to the shed for more gasoline. He reassured a nervous Scott and David that this would only be used if the fire started to burn out too quickly, and just to keep the fire going.

Now they were standing around a roaring fire with cans of gas wondering when to add it to the blaze.

And that is where we are at now.

I was furiously slamming my head in the door this afternoon after hearing the fair haired mayor threatening yet another tax increase next year.

So I decided to look into the way our city has been run fiscally over the past five years (my suspicion was - not well). The results were fascinating. For anyone interested in the raw data it can be found in a City of Toronto document here http://www.toronto.ca/budget2007/pdf/2007far_stat.pdf - that's the beauty of democracy, the ugly truth is hidden in plain site.

I've crunched the numbers as percentages, something very useful for comparison purposes and something the original document does not do (for obvious reasons). There is no other way to say this except that our city is being terribly mismanaged from a financial point of view. Here are some of the highlights (low lights?):

Rate of inflation Canada 2003 - 2007 - has averaged around 2.4% a year (Stats Can).

Population increase City of Toronto - + 3.2%
# Full time City of Toronto employees - +5.2%
Total assessment increase - +24%
Increase in net long term debt - +47%
Interest charges for long term debt - + 31%
Tax revenue - +13%
Transfers from other levels of Gov. - +16%
Total government spending - + 23%
Revenue from residential and commercial property tax - +12%
Total Revenue - +15%
Salaries, wages and benefits - + 20%
Material expenditures - - 83% (yes that's a decrease of 83%)
Expenditures on contracts - +25%
Interest on long term debt - + 15%

Ok so to sum up: inflation has increased by a little over 10% in this 5 year period. The assessment base has increased by 24% (reflecting a booming real estate market), but on top of the assessment increase the government has increased property taxes by 12%. All of this while piling on long term debt to the tune of 47 %. Despite the bellyaching of mayor Miller about other levels of government not treating Toronto fairly we've seen transfers from them up 16%. The number of full time municipal employees is expanding faster than the population of the city by 2%. And it's a good time to be a municipal employee because you will have seen your wages and compensation rise by 20% at a time that inflation has only added 10% to the cost of living. Look at the increase on interest charges on long term debt + 31%.

Can anybody pretend this city is being well run or that this is sustainable. These figures only go to 2007, so we haven't seen the increase in revenue resulting from new taxes on land transfer,plate renewal, etc. And on top of this the Mayor says "More sir?". If this socialist horde can manage to screw things up this badly during economic boom times, god help us when things slow down.

Palin as sovereign

In Hobbes's great book Leviathan he managed to piss off the monarchists who had supported Charles I (and he was perceived to be a supporter of the monarchy).

Why? Because one of the central themes of Leviathan was that it didn't matter who was sovereign. To preserve order a sovereign was required, but basically any one who could keep the peace would do. Just as long as they could mobilize enough fear to get the people to obey the law and preserve the social order they were qualified to be sovereign. This enraged those who supported divine right monarchy, and a long standing tradition in political theory going back to Plato and Aristotle that there were certain characteristics necessary to be a ruler. Hobbes was setting the bar very low.

Palin's appointment as McCain's VP nominee is the fruition of Hobbes's argument. Quite frankly if she becomes VP, there is no reason her retarded son Trigg couldn't do the job at some point in the future. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln fought to create and preserve a tremendous democracy and this is what it comes to.

I can't decide if this represents an indictment of US democracy or is sign of its institutional robustness. Perhaps Hobbes was correct - no previous experience or special ability is necessary. I have no doubt after listening to her berate, chide, and mock democrats, community organizers, and pretty much anyone that disagrees with her that she will have no difficulty mobilizing the requisite amount of fear necessary to get the citizenry to toe the line.

Fortunately, it doesn't look like Ms. Palin is going to get that close to the top job for now, but it is reasonable to assume that the Republicans will find another like her to throw up the food chain four years from now. They now have an established record of appointing complete idiots to the number two or number one position (Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, G. W. Bush).

Oh fuck

Marx, markets and the bailout - all that's solid melts into air

Last week US secretary of the treasury, Hank Paulson, went cap in hand to Congress to ask for a bailout in order to rescue the US banking system. Burdened by bad debt and uncertainty about that debt the credit market has seized. The ball park figure for this bailout was 700 billion dollars.

In return for stabilizing the US banking industry the US tax payer would gain an equity stake the institutions being bailed out, and the Federal Reserve would be given greater regulatory and oversite powers.

For the dozen or so marxists still breathing this must have seemed to be a dream come true. The US government was about to effectively nationalize some of the largest private capitalists in the US, and the US taxpayer was about to become their owner. Better still the amount proposed was close to what the US government spends on the military on a yearly basis. Marxist peaceniks everywhere were about to get a two for one - nationalization of the US banking system and a redirection of financial resources from military spending to that nationalization (after all, if you're buying banks you can't be building tanks).

Astonishingly, this last minute resurrection of marxism seems to have collapsed as of today. The congress voted down the bailout. Responding to the pressure of "mainstreet", congress refused to bailout wealthy bankers. Let that be a lesson to them.

This is an example of how civic mindedness is often harnessed to pure idiocy. It seems to have escaped the attention of mainstreet that the red ink sinking the banking sector is attached to names - the name on the mortgage, the line of credit, the credit card, the car loan, etc.

Forget, for a moment, that all of that credit is about to get alot more expensive (where it can be had at all). Getting any credit will be more difficult for mainstreeton the street. People who run small businesses are already seeing banks shrink their lines of credit or calling them in altogether. If things continue to get worse (and they will, with a bailout or without) they'll start calling in personal lines of credit.

Suddenly the most powerful animal on earth, the US consumer, is going down for the count. While leftists, environmentalists, anti-US imperialists everywhere are giving a lusty cheer, they may want to consider the implications of a sudden and unpredictable collapse of this animal. North Korea is an economy almost devoid of consumption and consumers. I'm sure the air is cleaner, the diet lower in red meat, the per capita consumption of energy lower than anywhere else on earth. Of course those North Koreans don't really enjoy the benefit of all of that low consumption lifestyle. They're too busy gathering grass clipings to eat for dinner. Bon apetite commrade.

In an attempt to save capitalism capitalists decided it was necessary to socialize the banking sector. Deciding to kowtow to the man in the street, US legislators refused. In this scenario Marx would have been on the side of the capitalists and Aynn Rand on the side of the man on the street. How whacked is that?

The Green Party and the debates

Thanks to the complicity of Steven Harper and Jack Layton the broadcast coalition that televises leadership debates decided not to include Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. What a difference a day makes. Due to an outpouring of indignation by the Canadian public that decision has been reversed and she will be included after all.

The traditional reason for excluding the Green party hinged on the fact that they had no elected representatives in the House of Commons. After a former liberal, now independent MP, joined the Green Party they have one representative. This a back door way of gaining representation, but it is representation none the less.

The sad thing about Ms May's inclusion is that the ususally chaotic and incoherent shout fest that passes for the leadership debate in Canada will only be louder and more chaotic. If anything, the best idea would have been to leave Gilles Duceppe leader of the BQ out of the English language debate. The BQ only fields candidates in Quebec, they are a one issue party (the promotion of Quebec sovereignty).

Failing that let's hope the debate moderators are armed with stun guns to ensure that each candidate has time to answer a question and the debate is something more than shouts of indignation. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to equip Jack Layton (Jack in the box) with a ball gag.

Maverick McCain

If I'd heard John McCain described as a maverick one more time in last night's RNC convention speeches I'd have puked. If McCain was a maverick he would have gone with his gut and selected Joe Lieberman to run as his VP nominee. He didn't because Lieberman used to be a Democrat, and has rather liberal views on abortion.

A true maverick would have done the GOP a favour and chosen a running mate that would have clearly indicated that the religious right can go fuck themselves and that they have no special hold on this party. He didn't do that and that's too bad. A bunch of guns and god religious nuts have once again highjacked the party and it seems to have escaped their notice that the social conservative thing is a hard sell outside of towns with a population greater than 10,000 people.

Some maverick, some party.

Response from PM's office to the open letter posted below

Below is the response from the Prime Ministers office to the e-mail I'd sent regarding the listeriosis poisoning that has afflicted Canada this August. I'd note one thing about the response - Harper runs a government in which his MP's can't so much as scratch their nuts without his approval. But suddenly he has discovered that he has cabinet ministers, and that when things go wrong that's their responsibility. Leadership we can trust indeed.

Dear Mr. Narbey:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to thank you for your e-mail, in which you raised an issue which falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Prime Minister always appreciates receiving mail on subjects of importance to Canadians.

Please be assured that the statements you made have been carefully reviewed. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Ritz so that he too may be made aware of your comments. I am certain that the Minister will give your views every consideration. For more information on the Government's initiatives, you may wish to visit the Prime Minister's Web site, at www.pm.gc.ca.

L.A. Lavell
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction
pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre

Sarah Palin's abstinence problem

By now pretty much everyone who cares knows that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant. If the McCain campaign is to be believed this was revealed before Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. This raises eyebrows on a few counts.

Apparently the girl will be marrying the dude who knocked her up. I`ll bet she will - all those shotguns her mom and dad keep around will come in handy now. Sarah Palin is an advocate of abstinence education, instead of teaching adolesents about birth control and safe sex. I wonder how that's working for her?

If it is true that Palin knew about her daughters pregnancy and told McCain about it it raises a few questions about her judgment and his. I`m sure Mrs. Palin loves her daughter, but she`s got a funny way of showing it. It doesn`t seem responsible to subject the young woman to this type of media scrutiny, nor the father of the child. For McCain`s part he chose a very under qualified Sarah Palin over many good candidates. She was supposed to appeal to the socially conservative base of the party. I`m not sure choosing a running mate with an unmarried, pregnant teenager, is really going to appeal to this wing of the party.

However, if he really wanted to have a running mate with these family values he didn`t need to go to Alaska - he could have found plenty in just about any trailer park in Arkansas. And it would have helped him lock up the south.

2nd act for W. and New Orleans

Poor, poor, poor New Orleans. A grand city city with a dodgy location. For the second time in three years it looks to be slammed by a serious Hurricane. The city will survive the hurriane, like it did Katrina. What it can't survive is the same president being in office for both.

George the second virtually ignored the first hurricane, and when he did get around to noticing it his crony in charge of FEMA was unleashed on the reconstruction (will any of us forget "Heck of a job Bownie!"). Needless to say Brownie is long gone, and the reconstruction of levies is behind schedule.

Nevertheless, for those of us looking for signs of hope it appears George the second is capable of learning from his mistakes after all. He is scheduled to speak to the Republican nomination convention tommorow night. Looks like he's decided to can that. That's mighty presidential of him. the good news is that he's learned a lesson. The bad news is that for a second time in three years the future of New Orleans will hang in the hands of the same president.

An open letter to Prime Minister Harper

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I am writing to you regarding the deaths resulting from lysteriosis poisoning that seem to have originated in a Maple Leaf processing plant in North York Ontario. I understand that the government of Canada ceased publishing plant rankings on March 31, 2008. These rankings and reports were no longer published as a consequence of lobbying by the meat packing industry. By all accounts they were upset by the bad publicity that resulted when the press accessed these reports using freedom of information requests.

I write to you as a Conservative, and as a long time defender of free market capitalism. Since you have a background in economics I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that markets work most efficiently and to the greater good where there is information. Your government in this case has taken steps to remove information from the market. Consumers have been deprived of a critical tool for determining how they will allocate their resources (in this case what brands of food they will buy).

As a Conservative I would have expected you to understand the importance of government carrying out some functions that are either not economically viable for the market to perform, and basic activities to protect the health and safety of the citizens of the country. I am not advocating the return of the "nanny state" here. I do expect that government will have some procedure in place that prevents its citizens from being poisoned by food or water. Can you explain why the US has a more robust inspection and reporting system for meat packing than Canada does? Why should I have to go to the USDA to get information on Canadian packing plants?

I understand Canadians might be heading to the polls soon and apparently you want to run on the effectiveness of your leadership. I would think very seriously about this in the wake of this incident. As a Conservative I hope that you address this matter head on, and announce changes to the examination and reporting of Canadian meat packing plants. Anything less would be a dereliction of responsibility, and a gross absence of leadership

The terminal stupidty of Hillary Clinton and some of the Democratic party

Hillary Clinton's sad attempt to claim the Democratic nomination reached a nadir this weekend, She tried to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. While she was trying to seat these delegates she was also trying to claim that she should be the nominee because she received more of the popular vote than her competitor Obama. This is the equivalent of the black character in Blazing Saddles threatening to "blow this niggers head off", while holding a gun pointed at his own head.

Here's why. One the one hand Hillary says every elected delegate should be recognized and seated at the convention. Because Michigan and Florida moved their primary dates forward they were informed (well ahead of the primaries) that their delegates would not be seated. Subsequently neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned in those states. Obama was able to remove his name from the Michigan primary - Clinton did not.

Ok - so Clinton wants all the delegates recognized (she won both states, but did not win every vote in Michigan where she ran against "nobody" - and how are Nobody's delegates to be seated?). Fine. At least she recognizes that nominees are selected by delegates. She doesn't have enough delegates, super or elected, to win the nomination.

But then things get weird. The Clinton campaign has started to run adds claiming that she should be the nominee because she has won more of the popular vote. With Florida and Michigan included her math is a bit fuzzy, but the argument totally contradicts her desperate desire to see the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated.

Hillary Clinton is a bright woman. So when she entered the race for the nomination she must have known that the nominee is selected by delegates (either super or elected), not by popular vote. Her campaign made a fatal mistake - they figured they'd win big states like Texas, California, and New York. And they did. And if she were a Republican, she'd be laughing right now because they use a "first past the post" system for allocating delegates - i.e. the person with the highest vote total gets all of the delegates.

The Democrats apportion their delegates on the basis of popular vote - by state. Therefore when Obama competed well in NY, TX and CA he carved into her delegate count. Furthermore, because he then went on to win contests in North Dakota, Oregon, etc., he picked up delegates in states the Clintonistas didn't really bother to contest. Too bad, so sad.

Clinton's sorry end game has now taken a page from Al Gore's playbook (and when you take a page from Gore's playbook you're in big trouble). Gore won the popular vote in the presidential election he lost to George W. Bush. This is part of the reason why people like Michael Moore refer to the election as having been stolen. The election was not stolen. Presidents in the US are not selected by popular vote. This was a deliberate decision by the framers of the constitution to build in some form of state equality and to limit the damage that populists might inflict on a new and vulnerable mass democracy. They are selected by electoral college votes. The candidate that gets the most of those gets the presidency. Full stop. If you don't like those rules change them or don't run. But don't complain if you get the popular vote and find yourself waking up the next morning in your double wide trailer instead of the white house.

Hillary knew the rules going in. She doesn't like the outcome. Too bad. But she reminds me of someone who tries to change the rules of a board game mid-way through. This is the hallmark of sore loser and that is exactly what we have here.

Dogs, cars, garbage, and the triumph of the nanny state

In 1949 Friedrich Hayek published a work called The Road to Serfdom. It was a liberal attack on the various forms of socialism and communism. It was also a warning that the policies of the post-WW II liberal regimes were simply a kinder and gentler version of what the socialists were seeking to build. Allowing the state to regulate increasingly large elements of citizens lives would ultimately lead to the development of what Thatcher called the "nanny state". A state of soft totalitarianism in which the minutiae of daily life would be increasingly regulated.

Well the nanny state is alive and well in David Miller's Toronto. The fair haired one has championed increasing powers for a revamped Toronto municipal government. This system will emulate municipal structure like those in NYC and Chicago catagorized as strong mayor systems. Well NYC and Chicago have had strong mayors for both good and bad. Bad in 1968 when the strong mayor of Chicago (Richard Daily) allowed Chicago police to beat the shit out of political protestors and delegates attending the Democratic convention. Good when Rudy Guiliani cleaned up NYC.

Our "strong mayor" looks like he is going to use his new powers to establish 1970's style nanny state. There are 3 recent indications to suggest this:

1) Garbage and recycling. Toronto recently spent 220 million to buy the Green Lane landfill near London Ontario. It is publicly committed to diverting 80% of it's garbage within the next 5 years. In order to encourage TO residents not to use a resource they just purchased they wheeled out (literally) new giant sized recycling bins. In the inner city (picture narrow streets, row houses, semi-detached residences, coops, etc) there is nowhere to put these behemoths. The inner city is not the suburbs. Many residents don't produce a great deal of waste or recycalables. Could they continue to use the small bins or clear plastic bags - no. Were the old recyalable containers recycalable? No. Were the to be treated as garbage? No. So most residents of the inner city await a Maoist pronouncment from on high about what to do with the old bins and the Monster trucks sitting in our front yards.

2) Cars. The fair haired one hates the Gardner expressway. He has wanted it demolished for well over a decade. This is, in part because of his publicly stated dislike of cars. If David Maoller doesn't like cars the rest of us should get over them as well. He has proposed the demolition of the elevated Gardner expressway between the Don River and Jarvis St. The justification is that it will open up access to the lake. Excellent idea. Except that the old elevated expressway will be replaced by an 8 lane road level avenue. The citizens who use the existing expressway are told to suck it up - these are the changes necessary to create a great city.

3) Dogs. This summer 18 students will be fanning out accross the city to peer in windows of homes to ascertain whether the owner has either a dog or a cat. This will be compared against the licence data base and the offending pet owner will be targeted for fines. This is not, the city assures us, a tax grab. No it will be used to pay for the services of Animal Control. Right, but didn't our property taxes pay for Animal Control?

While the city and the fair haired ons have great energy for these worthy social control programs the streets are filthy, on the basis of my observation while walking my mutt in the ravines around Toronto illegal dumping is up, and you can't swing a cat for hitting a panhandler. Cities should do a couple of things - provide drinkable water, dispose of trash, and fix roads. All of these things have gone by the way side. Meanwhile mayor Maoller continues to concentrate on more inventive ways to remake the way Torontonians live and more inventive ways to turn the suffering population in a cash machine.

Death of a lightbulb

Yesterday the Liberal government of Ontario announced its intention to introduce legislation that will see the humble incandescent light bulb banned from use by 2012. This simple step (emphasis on simple) will represent the equivalent of taking 225,000 cars off the road, or the energy necessary to power 600,000 households (wouldn't it be more efficient to just blow up Ottawa in that case?). In addition the Ontario Power Authority will be sending out coupons to Ontario households worth $44.00 to help off-set the cost of more expensive Compact Florescent bulbs (CFBs).

If I thought for a second this step would prevent Greenland from becoming, well, green again, I might get behind it. But anyone who's reflected on the reports released by the International Commission on Climate Change will quickly realize it won't make a whit of difference in the struggle against global warming. The Chinese will thank us for our efforts and more than make up for our sacrifices with increased green house gas emissions.

So, what will this move accomplish? For starters our homes will be lit the same way most of our workplaces are. Think Asian noodle house and you'll get the idea. Incandescent light bulbs produce light by running a current through a wire (filament), the wire provides resistance and the filament glows - voila, light. We also get heat as the critics point out. However, living in a cold climate the ambient heat produced by these bulbs may not be such a bad thing.

Incandescent light bulbs produce a warm light (people tend to look better in it). I like it because at it's best it resembles the light that is produced by fire. A neighbour of mine recently replaced his incandescent bulbs with CFBs and the light that comes out of his house makes it looks like he's filming a movie or operating a grow op - (hmmm come to think of it...).

There is also the issue that no one seems to want to confront regarding the mercury in CFBs. These bulbs contain small amounts of mercury. When the whole province is compelled to switch over to them these small amounts of mercury are going to have a cumulative effect. Will we have monthly hazardous waste collections to pick up peoples burned out bulbs? What about bulbs broken in the house and the mercruy released as a consequence?

Let's talk about compulsion for a moment. The government has been promoting the use of these bulbs recently. Why not allow consumers the choice? They won't allow the choice because they know what the outcome would be. Most consumers would not voluntarily load their houses up with lamps and lights loaded with CFBs. So they have intervened in a market transaction. That's bad for everyone. The manufacturers of CFBs know their lights look bad and have been doing research to produce CFB's that more closely emulate the light of incandescents. If the government forces everyone to buy CFBs and bans incandescents then the competition is removed and there is no need to continue the research. If the market competition were permitted to work without interference the manufactures of CFBs would be forced to improve their bulbs and as a consequence many consumers would voluntarily move to using CFBs.

For my part, I will be laying in a supply of incandescents, a couple cases in the basement. I will not switch until CFBs are produced that provide a similar kind of light. I will take burned out incandescents and grind them up and eat them with my cereal. The nanny state can go piss up a rope and they can have my incandescent light bulbs when the pry it from my cold dead hand. Long live the incandescent bulb!

And another thing

A quick add on to yesterdays entry on the woeful state budgetary management at the City of Toronto. While inflation is running at a rate of 1.25%,the City of Toronto will pay wage increases of an average 3.25% this year to the approximately 50,000 (!!!) City of Toronto employees.

Part of the reason for these wage increases has to do with the Mayors pledge the first time he ran for office that he would not consider outsourcing unionized jobs at the city to the private sector. Then he sat down and 'negotiated' with those very same unions he had pledged to protect. They have him by the short and curlies and they know it. Until the Mayor changes his position we can look forward to future wage increases consistently outstripping the rate of inflation, with the predictable consequences for the local tax payer.

Lastly, the budget for running the fair haired mayor's office is going to increase by 30 % this year. Yup - that's not a misprint. Why has the office of mayor become so much more expensive? Well the mayor has more power after some changes to the way municipal council is organized (not that much more). So what does the mayor need? Well, two new meeting rooms, two new policy advisers, and the assistants required for two new policy advisers.

I'm glad he's hiring some more policy advisers, he desperately needs some good advice. Sadly, if he keeps dipping into the intellectually diminished pool of socialists he's been taking advice from we may find that these two new advisers cost us much more than their salaries.

The City of Toronto's tax woes and its foolish Mayor

Some mornings I hate to turn on the radio. This was one of them. Toronto's mayor, David Miller, was commenting on the budget for the City of Toronto. It is about 70 million dollars short. He had committed to raising taxes at the rate of inflation and he was now announcing that that would not be possible. As usual he blamed the Provincial government for this. What he said in this interview really woke me up. He stated that since gas and oil were large elements of the city budget, and they had risen above the average rate of inflation the saw "no reason to cut program spending because oil was expensive."

Really. I guess it hasn't occurred to the fair haired one that oil and gas are expensive for the people paying municipal taxes as well. By his logic, I shouldn't cut down on spending money on restaurant meals to compensate for this expense. And, if I had the power to force my neighbours to pay for these things I wouldn't. But unlike the mayor, I don't.

The financial management of the city is a disgrace. Despite claiming that he has limited tax increases to the rate of inflation he has not. According to City of Toronto figures published in the Globe and Mail today, inflation was close to 0 in 2003, and we got a 3% tax increase. in 2004 it was 1.5% and we got a 3% increase. Same for 2005. This year inflation is 1.26% and we are getting a 3.8% tax increase. Overall city spending has increased 9.3% for this year (think about that - the cost of everything went up on average 1.26% this year and the cost of running our municipal government increased almost 10% - the increase was about 5 times the rate of inflation).

The single largest budget item is police 785 million. I'm not sure we get very good value for money here. I fail to see the point of handsomely compensating a largely disinterested, and thuggish presence, that mostly live outside of the City of Toronto, to police us. The next biggest expense is Corporate and capital financing at 539 million. Sounds harmless enough, but it basically means that the second most expensive part of our budget is interest payments, and everyone should be worried about that. Next, social services come in at 296 million dollars. After that, shelters and public housing come in at 277 million dollars.

Separating social services from shelters and public housing is a bit of legerdemain. These are social services and if they were grouped together and reported this way the second largest expenditure in the city budget would be social services. The city really needs to consider this. Social services are a fine thing, but they should not be payed for with property taxes. Property taxes should be used for municipal services and infrastructure. To put it in perspective, while we spend almost 600 million dollars on social services, we spend 272 million dollars on public transit. That's insane. Public transit is a service the municipal government should support. If the City of Toronto wants the province to get serious about picking up more of the costs of our social services it should begin taking steps to sell and privatize public housing. Make housing support for the poor a provincial problem once again.

Unfortunately for the suffering tax payers of Toronto the yearly mugging will go on and on and on. The reason for this is because Miller and the majority of socialist councillors that we elect to council every year know little to nothing about economics and fiscal responsibility. And so far they can can get away with it because the electorate seems to know less.

It is said that blonds have more fun. If that's true our fair haired mayor must be having a blast. And why not the humble tax payer seems to have an inexhaustible supply of cash.

The Loud Revolution in Quebec

The province of Quebec went to the polls tonight and produced an astonishing result. As things stand the Liberals might be able to form a minority government with the support of the ADQ. The separatist PQ was reduced to third party status. It almost certainly means that the Liberals and PQ will be electing new leaders in the near future. What does this mean for Quebec, and more importantly for the federal Conservative party?

Some quick tea leaf reading. I recently finished reading the first volume of a biography on Pierre Trudeau. It covers his years from birth until 1968, including the critical years of the quiet revolution that took place in Quebec in the 1960's. At this time the Union National (the party of Duplessie), and the Crediste (a social credit party) lost influence in Quebec. They lost first to the Liberal party and in the late '70's to the separatist PQ. The PQ was able to attract voters in rural areas that had traditionally voted for the Union National by appealling to nationalist sentiment. However, the PQ was largely committed to an urban platform and socialist government policy. The Liberals were 'federalists' (which in the Quebec context means they were less committed to extortion than their PQ opponents). There was a seemingly permanent division in Quebec politics between these forces.

After reading the Trudeau bio I wondered what happened to the largely conservative rural voters who had once supported the Union National? Had they become supporters of a European style socialist party (PQ) supporting independence? Well we got the answer tonight - Non. They want more powers for Quebec, but they don't want socially liberal public policy (and like voters everywhere, they want more government services for less taxation). ADQ leader Mario Dumont shrewdly discerned and pandered to this unserved conservative constituency. He was going to protect Quebec culture (no more accomodation for ethnic - read Muslim - minorities). He was going to offer tax relief, while shaking Ottawa down for more money (the usual blackmail approach of Quebec). However, he was different from the PQ, he was not going to hold a referendum on separation.

For Quebec the implication is that they have invested the leader of a non-party (until now the ADQ has held a maximum of 4 seats in the assembly) with extraordinary power. The 'party' has been assembled quickly and the usual contingent of cranks have appeared on their voter list. It will be a challenge for the young Mr. Dumont to turn his movement of social protest into a functional political party capable of winning elections, and ultimately governing the province.

The results are a mixed bag for Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives. In the last federal election Harper made a point of playing kissy face with Dumont. However, he also poured a pile of cash into Quebec prior to (and in the middle of) the election campaign in order to show that the Liberals were as capable of extorting cash from the federal government as the separatists. He lost on the Liberal bid, but won on the ADQ bid.

So all things being equal, if the Conservatives keep polling in the 40% range for the next couple of weeks we can look forward to them engineering their own downfall, and Canadians heading to the polls before the end of the year. This is something I would not have predicted 2 weeks ago. So strange times for Quebec ahead, and as usual political events in Quebec continue to punch above their weight in the rest of Canada.

Reasonable accommodation and Islam's problem with women

On Monday Quebecer's go to the polls to elect a new government and for a change the interminable issue of separation is not one of the major issues in this election. This time leaders of the three main political parties (Liberals, PQ, and ADQ) have been trying to get ahead of the issue of 'reasonable accommodation'. Specifically, there have been a number of instances involving accommodating minority Muslim practices that have provoked a backlash amongst Quebecer's, especially those in rural areas.

These requests for accommodation are not exclusively tied to the Muslim community. In Montreal in the fall a religious school for orthodox Jews provoked a controversy when they paid the YMCA accross the street from their school to install reflective glass on the windows of the workout room so that the bodies of women exercising could not be seen by the staff and students of the school.

I will focus on several recent cases in Quebec and the rest of Canada involving Muslim requests for accommodation. In each instance I will argue that the request is both unreasonable, and ultimately the result of a view of women held by a segment of the Muslim population that cannot be reasonably accommodated in modern, secular, western democracies.

The cases are as follows: 1) Some niqhab wearing (veiled) women voters in Quebec did not want to show their faces to the poll officials when they voted in the upcoming election. The decision (since reversed) was to accommodate this request. 2) A student enrolled in the fine arts program at the University of Western Ontario wanted to be exempted from the life drawing (sketching nude models) requirements of a required course. The University said she was free to skip those assignments but she would receive a grade of 0 for those assignments. 3) At the Scarborough campus of the University of Toronto the gym has set aside several hours a week for the gym to be used only by women after a Muslim student protested that she could not exercise with men and wanted a portion of her student fees refunded because she could not use the athletic facilities. I will take each case in order.

1) In order to reduce voter fraud it is common to request some form of photo ID from voters to ensure that the person on the voters list is actually the person casting the vote. It is not reasonable to request a blanket exemption from this requirement. If I were to show up to vote at the next election wearing a mask elemental justice would require that I too be allowed to vote without the returning officer verifying my identity. Reasonable accommodation in this instance would be to offer to make a female returning officer available to verify the ID of the voter. But the voter must be identified. If this is not acceptable the individual does not have to exercise her democratic liberty (unlike Australia there is no requirement for citizens to vote in this country). In this case the individual has chosen to place their perceived religious obligations above their obligations as a citizen and it is their choice. No need for further accommodation.

2) I ran into a version of this issue years ago with a student who was a Christian evangelical. He objected that a required course (Humanities) used a textbook that was "Godless", and taught ideas that ran against his faith. He wanted to be exempted from the course because it ran against his conscience (this is very similar to the Muslim woman wanting to be exempted from the life drawing portion of her course at Western). I pointed out to the student that the text was "Godless" because it was not a religious studies course. I went to the associate dean to discuss this issue with him. It troubled me. His response was that no one was forcing the student to attend our College, that the course requirement was required of all who attended and wished to graduate from the College, and that no one was required to accept the teachings in the course and text. Lastly, he pointed out that the purpose of a liberal arts component to any education is to provide breadth of experience to the ideas of others. In short, he said the student doesn't have to take the course, but he won't graduate from this institution if he doesn't. Fair enough.

3) The University of Toronto has started down a very slippery slope. If a student can request a portion of their activity fees rebated because her interpretation of her religion makes it impossible for her to use the athletic facilities look for more of these types of exemptions to be requested. For example, student fees often fund activities staged for the students by the student government - often there is alcohol served at these events. Should non-drinking students be rebated a portion of their fees? These fees also fund campus clubs. Almost every college and university campus in Canada has a Bi-Gay-Lesbian-Transgendered (etc. etc. etc.) club. Why should non-Bi-Gay-Transgendered students fund that? Especially those who are religiously opposed to this expression of sexuality? The best response U of T could have made was to say "use the services you can use according to your interpretation of your religion and avoid the services you can't use". Every other student does the same thing. My student fees as an undergrad funded the athletic centre (I think I might have accidentally wandered through it at some point). It funded gay positive clubs (never got around to attending one of those events), it funded the campus evangelicals (sorry missed those as well).

The common pattern in all of the above complaints revolves around the interaction of women and men, human sexuality, and the public participation of women in the public life of the community. Some followers of Islam have a problem with all of the above. It is rooted in their interpretation of their religion (not all Muslim's share this interpretation and have far more enlightened views). For those (including the women) who want to uphold an ancient desert code of sexual subordination and separation of women we should let it be known that they will not be accommodated in Canada.

Ulitmately these requests for accomodation are an attempt to force sexual segregation on the general populace. If reasons for this segregation can be provided in secular terms we should give them serious consideration. If they are presented in religious terms we should point to the generally secular nature of the public sphere and deny them.

This is not a case of Islamophobia. But Mulsim's may want to ask themselves why the Muslim religion is so often coming into conflict with some of the basic commitments to liberty and equality in western societies. An honest examination will reveal that their view of equality between the sexes is a major source for that conflict.

The Personal is Political...too bad

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards held a very hard press conference today. He announced that his wife, who had breast cancer, now had bone cancer (it was detected in one of her ribs). This is terminal cancer.

This announcement is sad at so many levels. Firstly because a wife/mom is going to be dead 'before her time'. Secondly, because something so profound and important becomes fodder for CNN and other news media. Lastly, because Edwards stated that he would continue his campaign for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party.

I found it significant that he made the announcement and did most of the talking at the press conference. Edwards is a second tier candidate for the Democratic nomination. It is astonishing that his political ambition is so great that he has decided to continue campaigning for the position in light of his wife's condition. She, for her part, announced that she would continue campaigning for him. What a waste.

Running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party is not a part time job. It requires all of the candidates time. If Edwards wants to mount a credible run he will not be there to support his wife as she weakens and eventually dies (although she will try to be there for him as he campaigns). Perhaps it is her life's aim to be on a constant political road show, but I doubt that.

In the 70's feminist scholars coined the phrase "the personal is political" as a way of arguing that domestic arrangements were part of a larger political system. In Edwards' case we see a reversal of this concept - the political is personal. Political considerations have overwhelmed the basic, human, considerations of obligation to family.

For my part I think his presidential ambitions are dead in the water. There are very few of his supporters who will continue to back a candidate so clearly ambitious and callous. When this story broke I was sitting at a bar eating lunch (surprise). I asked the bartender (a young woman) a hypothetical question - would you vote for a guy running for president while his wife was dying of cancer? She was shocked at the suggestion. So good luck to Mr. Edwards. Hopefully, better judgement will prevail and he will spend the time he has remaining with his wife more fruitfully.

Smilin' Jack Layton's Shakey Grasp of Economics

A minor scandal has erupted recently in southern Ontario - gas has become very expensive again. The cause of the sudden rise in the price of gas was a refinery fire in one of Imperial Oil's Ontario refineries, coupled with a CN railroad strike (making it difficult to bring in supplies by rail). Many stations have had to temporarily close because the pumps have gone dry. This has resulted in a certain amount of panic buying by consumers, and has quite predictably driven up the price of gas at the pump.

As usual the general response to this increase in price has been to blame the real bad guys - the oil companies. Oil companies are rapidly gaining on Jews as the favourite source of blame for all things wicked. It has been suggested that at a minimum they are colluding to fix prices to their advantage. More wild speculation has suggested Imperial oil may have set the fire at their refinery themselves.

In this conspiracy theory minded climate one would expect some degree of moderation and calm from our elected politicians. For the most part this has been the case. Not from the leader of the NDP - smilin' Jack Layton. Nope this unreformed socialist knows just who to blame and what should be done. According to Jack:

"The companies claim, 'Well it's supply and demand and we're short of supply, so we're going to increase the price.' In our view that's gouging."

Actually, it isn't gouging - it is just as the companies state a matter of supply and demand, and if Smilin' Jack is really looking for who is to blame he need look no farther than the customers (the same people who sensibly avoid voting for his party in droves). It's pretty simple: if there are 10 consumers who want an orange, and there are several retailers selling a total supply of 15 oranges there will be price competition and oranges will be reasonably priced. If 10 customers want oranges and there are only 4 oranges however, the competition for those 4 oranges will drive the price up. The price will only decrease if more oranges become available, or some of the 10 customers decide to purchase a different fruit. This is a concept a 10 year old can understand - but apparently not one the leader of the NDP can understand.

Poor Jack would be entirely lost if the lesson was extended to price elasticity. Layton's comments, outside of their gross ignorance raise another issue entirely - i.e. the quality of his political judgement. The NDP is going to be in a dog fight in the next election to keep NDP voters from straying to the increasingly popular Green party. He needs to convince voters that the NDP will give them everything, and more, than a Green party will. Well, he wants government to regulate the price of gas to protect consumers from the big bad oil companies. Exactly how serious is he about the environment? After all, high oil and gas prices are one of the best means for decreasing consumption of these commodities. Does the green NDP want to decrease consumption of petroleum products or not? Apparently not only does Jack know jack about economic matters, he doesn't seem to know jack about political tactics either.

This will be depressing for the dwindling supporters of the NDP, but good news for the rest of us. We need not trouble ourselves with the thought that these guys might actually form a government ever. Good thing to, because if you wanted to know what Canada would look like under an NDP government you wouldn't need to look much farther than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The slow motion crash that is the Venezuelan economy these days tells us everything we need to know about the efficacy of socialist economic policies.

David Miller's One Cent Solution

Today we hosted The Toronto Summit. A conference dedicated to addressing the multiple woe's facing the City of Toronto. Make no mistake, there are some serious problems here. We have expanded municipal debt to historically high proportions. In order to fund the public transit authority we have beggared the capital budgets for roads and transportation, public parks, libraries, etc. As the proposed budget stands our municipal government is a life support system for the TTC.

Our fair haired mayor's response has been to lead a campaign to see the city government receive 1 cent of the GST consumption tax levied by the Federal government. This is a wrong strategy on so many levels.

1) The problem Canada's largest cities confront is grounded in our constitutional history. Canada was created in 1867 when the majority of Canadians lived in rural communities. Rural communities are over represented electorally. The largest Canadian cities essentially fund economic basket cases such as Nunavut, and large portions of the east coast and rural Canada. Cities are creatures of Provincial jurisdiction and exist exclusively at their whim. Cities powers of taxation are a gift from the provinces. The political status of Canada's largest cities is essentially that of a beggar. This is perverse given that the largest cities are begging for a portion of the wealth they generate from higher levels of government that distribute that wealth to parts of the country that are not economically self-sustaining. Ultimately the solution to properly funded cities will have to be found in constitutional change.

2) There is a bad disconnect between revenue generation and spending in the existing arrangement. In short, the city of Toronto relies on transfers from higher levels of government for some of it's revenue and the highly regressive property tax for the majority of it. If we were to get 1 cent of the GST as the mayor wishes we would get about 420 million from the federal government. But this revenue and the way it will be spent are grossly disconnected. A portion of a consumption tax, levied by a higher level of government, eventually trickles down to a lower level of government. This is like a child receiving an allowance. Don't be surprised when the lower government acts like a child and spends irresponsibly and comes back for more money. The best way to make governments fiscally accountable is to give them the responsibility to raise and allocate revenue.

3) There is a problem with spending at the municipal level of government in Toronto. There has been no serious discussion about whether it is appropriate to use property taxes to fund an extensive system of public housing, transportation, and other social welfare measures while the physical infrastructure of the city is allowed to deteriorate. Municipal governments have some basic responsibilities - roads, garbage, parks, water, public health - after which everything else is bonus. If we don't have access to the tax revenue to provide more extensive services we should up-load to the Province and Federal government and refuse to fund and pay for services they are responsible for. We should sell off the public housing that was transferred to us by the provincial government, close down the immigrant settlement programs the city funds with little support from the federal government (settlement is their responsibility), close down the adult education component of the Toronto Board of Education.

4) I make these modest proposals as a way of getting everyone to think about the change that really needs to occur. The city of Toronto and the other large municipal governments need to be given the taxing authority to tax income. This was given to New York in the 1970's after that city's near brush with bankruptcy. This is a serious, and generally fair, form of taxation. Most importantly it would force municipalities to become serious about their spending. They would be responsible for generating the revenue necessary for funding the services they provide and if they came up short they would have no one else to blame but themselves. Additionally, it might force them to stop funding Cadillac services on a Sunfire budget. Lastly, people understand income tax and the relation between the pay check and the tax in a way few people will ever understand the arcana of property tax and mill rates. Taxation works best when it is most transparent. Politicians levying income taxes are held to account to a much higher degree that politicians levying property taxes are not.

So with all due respect to the fair haired one - he has good intentions, but his proposed solution will be a failure all round if he is successful (and he won't be).

An Incovenient Wind

The newest secular Saint flew into Toronto yesterday and Torontonians responded like the provincial hicks we are and turned out in droves to hear the sermon. Of course I'm referring to Saint Al of Gore. He was here trotting out the same dog and pony show that promise to turn him into an Oscar award winner, and in all likelihood, the next President of the United States.

If saint Al really cared about global warming the biggest contribution he could make to reducing it would be to shut up. The lemmings who turned out for the privilege of being able to stand outside the lecture hall at U of T actually said some things that make sense. They said stuff like: "From my perspective, it is a form of religion...", and "You can't hear that message enough...", and, "It was not our intention to have a religious approach but it was our understanding that it was that kind of movement that people were craving; that kind of spiritual connection in their gut". (All quotes from Eco-Pilgrims gather to 'heed the Goracle', by Anthony Reinhart, Globe and Mail Feb. 22)

Yes global warming and our response to it is very much like a new religion. I can't say that I'm terribly surprised. Religion is something like mould, it flourishes in the dark, dank, recesses of the human mind. In the absence of rationality, dispassion, and context, the ability to believe almost anything thrives. Thus the millenia of global warming and cooling that have been going on long before humans made an appearance on the scene is almost entirely overlooked. Heck those patterns have continued after we made our appearance on the scene. There's a reason a why the frozen hunk of rock and glacier in the Atlantic was once called Greenland by it's human inhabitants.

Still, the scientific consensus is that human activity is having an impact on this long history of global warming and cooling (as one would expect). It's just that the horde tend to over-exaggerate that impact. For example, in a quick test designed by Roger Pielke Jr., Director of the Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado the majority of viewers of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, failed a 5 question quiz on the scientifically agreed upon impacts of global warming. Not surprisingly, they also overestimated the worst case scenario. (For the quiz itself see Margaret Wente's column in Feb. 22, Globe and Mail). Dr. Pielke is not a crank, he thinks global warming will have a negative environmental impact, he just thinks that we should be putting more energy and investment in adaptation. Not a bad idea. If the environment is like a large ship (slow moving and hard to redirect) turning off the engines won't prevent it from continuing to move.

The issue that has everyone up in arms is what should be done about it. Well, there's not much that can be done about it. People tend to overlook that the wealthiest capitalist nations on earth have been creating cleaner and more energy efficient cars, appliances, homes, etc. since they first industrialized. Neil Reynolds in his Globe and Mail column of Feb. 21, pointed out that if Canada were to reduce its GHG emissions to zero, China would pick up the slack in a mere 18 months. I'm sure there are bootleg copies of An Inconvenient Truth floating about in China but I'll bet it's not a real big seller. Let's let the Goracle take his slide show on the road to Shanghai and see how his message goes down there.

Everyone wants a cleaner environment. Nobody likes to breath in shit and see their city submerged by rising oceans. Businesses don't like to waste energy because energy costs. The greatest contribution to curbing GHG's would be to encourage both China and India to shrug off their communist and socialist political systems, develop a genuinely functioning capitalist economy (not the cowboy copies of it they currently operate) and let the market develop cleaner and more energy efficient societies as we are doing in most of the capitalist west.

In the meantime, Al Gore will continue to jet about the US preaching the new gospel of global warming and wait for Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton to beat each other into a bag of shit. And then, with great humility, the guru will step forward and accept the nomination of the Democratic party and commit himself to healing their wounds. Don't be surprised if Al also walks on water, and raises a dead person or two, in the next year or so.

For my part I'm looking forward to the point where Al gets nailed to a cross - an environmentally sensitive cross (one made from recycled toilet paper and phone books). Because human beings need their religion but they have a nasty tendency to kill their idols.

Trudeau the Legislator

I've been reading the first volume of a very fine biography of Pierre Trudeau by John English. It's good timing because it's the 25th anniversary of the repatriation of the Constitution, with the addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bio is called Citizen of the World, and I'll skip the obvious jokes about the author's last name. This bio covers Trudeau from birth until 1968. English has had access to all of Trudeau's archives. This is a formidable archive. Unlike Freud, Trudeau did not destroy correspondence - even correspondence that would shed a negative light on his legacy. It includes report cards from grade school, high school essays, and all correspondence.

We discover that Trudeau as a young man was a Quebec nationalist, proto-sovereigntist, conservative catholic, and sympathetic to fascism. Furthermore, the biography confirms what earlier bio's have made clear - Trudeau was a deeply committed Catholic all his life.

As someone who fell in with politically extremist elements when I was the same age as Trudeau (my folly was Trotskyist) I know that the thought of the adult cannot be judged by the standards of the youth. Youthful extremism often gives way to more nuanced views, and this was certainly the case with Trudeau.

I would argue that Trudeau's adult obsession (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was a direct consequence of his youthful political development. Understanding the motivations behind the extreme, illiberal, views he held as a youth he knew better than most the importance of repatriating a constitution that included explicit protection of individual liberties. Reason triumphed over passion. Ultimately, 25 years on, the constitution has made the Canadian government far more accountable to the freedoms of individual citizens.

Trudeau is often compared to Plato's philosopher king. Indeed he quoted Plato when announcing his intention to run for the leadership of the Liberal party in 1968. Trudeau has greater kinship with Rousseau's Legislator (for better and worse). The Legislator plays a pivotal role in Rousseau's work The Social Contract.

In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and, working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would take gods to give men laws.

The Charter is flawed in many ways, and Trudeau was similar to, but not, the Legislator. Just as well, because the Legislator in in the Social Contract ultimately has to remake human nature. Trudeau did not set out to remake human nature. His gift, as a legislator, was to remake the relationship between the people and their government, and he did just fine.