Even TorStar Says “Doomed”

Both sides of the gun-control debate believe the Conservatives now have enough Commons votes to give parliamentary approval in principle to a private member’s bill to kill the registry for rifles and shotguns.
The vote late Wednesday is on the second reading of the bill, which would send it to a committee for more study and possible amendment before it comes back to the Commons, and later the Senate, for a final decision.

Related
Update, via email – “House of Commons just passed the private members bill to scrap the long gun registry 164 to 137.One down, several steps to go.”
Related: A reader emails to point out the photo the Calgary Herald chose to illustrate the story;

Because weapons owned by drug traffickers make up such a large part of the registry, I presume.
In the comments – “Dear Senators, This Jan I refill the chamber. Bang. Stephen”
(Bang!)

Now Is The Time At SDA When We Juxtapose!

Chicago Tribune reviews “V”The news media swoons in admiration — one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don’t you show some respect?!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader’s origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”
Politico reviews “MSNBC”While discussing exit polls showing low numbers of younger Democrats heading to the polls in Virginia, Chris Matthews cut off Larry Sabato when talking about the high expectations some might have had for Obama’s first year in office. “They’re wrong and misinformed,” said Matthews. “The netroots people out there that think you can change the Congress overnight legally and civilly are wrong,” Matthews continued. “It takes a strong majority to bring big change. Somebody should have told them that.”
h/t Gord Tulk

Y2Kyoto: State Of Anorexia Envirosa

Accounts of western governments (from the local to the federal) kneecapping the very infrastructure upon which modern metropolitan life depends – including reliable electricity, food production, and the transport of essential goods – are so routine now, one can hardly keep track;

On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.
[…]
In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been “clean” by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as “dirty” and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama.
And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

h/t Fred
But I repeat myself.

Reader Tips

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation, here are Charles Mingus, Don Pullen, George Adams, Gerry Mulligan, Benny Bailey, and Dannie Richmond performing is the second half of Goodbye Pork Pie Hat ¤, in Montreux, in 1975 (9:30). This song is named after the passing of the great saxophonist Lester Young, who wore a pork pie hat.

Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.

Shift Key Mission Creep

Several years ago, in between periods of a hockey game, a black player was being interviewed. The host referred to him as “African-American,” and the player corrected him, saying, “I’m Canadian.” Less than a minute later, the host repeated the error, and again the player corrected him. This happened at least twice more. The look on the face of the poor interviewer was one of abject horror: He knew that he was in a PC minefield.

Takes me back to one dinoblogger’s effort to progressivize a Washington Post editorial on university enrollment by capitalizing the word “black”.

This Is Not Your Grandma’s Humane Society

Inside the Humane Society of the United States;

Last night in Los Angeles, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) president Wayne Pacelle showed why he’s been able to turn a group that sounds as if it’s all about protecting puppies and kittens into an animal-rights lobbying force with talons. He’s looking to sink those talons into people who have the audacity to eat or sell meat, wear leather, go to circuses, or enjoy hunting and fishing – in other words, 99 percent of America.
In front of a hand-picked crowd of HSUS supporters who attended last night’s “town hall meeting” at the Ebell of Los Angeles, Pacelle rallied the troops with a fight song:
“We have to create a clamor for change … You can get further with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone.”
He attributed the latter quote to notorious gangster Al Capone, who seems like an odd inspiration for a supposedly peaceful movement. But animal-rights extremists are far from peaceful. One of Pacelle’s own staffers, Josh Balk, told the HSUS-sponsored “Taking Action For Animals” that “there are very few instances that companies just refuse to move with a friendly conversation … The animals can’t wait for people to come to a revelation themselves. Sometimes it does take force.”
HSUS sounds more and more like PETA and the terrorist Animal Liberation Front every day.
It’s been well documented that HSUS spends only a tiny fraction – less than four percent – of its budget directly funding animal shelters. If you’re wondering how it spends the other roughly $100 million in its budget every year, you might consider the cost of renting out the posh Wilshire Ebell Theatre, providing the supporters-only crowd with a catered coffee service, and hiring four burly security guards to keep out the riff-raff.
Sorry, Wayne. We got in anyway.

Informed opinion

Over at The Torch, a serving army officer has laid down in writing his thoughts on problems facing the Afghan mission, and some potential solutions. He speaks for himself, not for the Government of Canada or the Department of National Defence. But he has numerous overseas operational deployments, including two tours in Afghanistan – one as a Company Commander in Kandahar in 2002, and another as Chief of Joint Operations for ISAF Regional Command South Headquarters, Kandahar in 2006. He holds three post-secondary degrees, and is an award-winning author on military affairs.
As I said in the introduction his article:

While you may or may not agree with each point he makes, I believe we need to listen more to credible people like [the author] Schreiber before forming our own opinions. He is but one example of the thousands of men and women (civilian and military alike) in this country who, each individually, have amassed more academic and hands-on knowledge and experience in Afghanistan than any dozen journalists and pundits you care to name.

I think you’ll find it worth your time to read the whole thing, but I found this particular paragraph stood out starkly for me:

If the bad news is that we need to significantly temper our expectations as to what can actually be accomplished in Afghanistan, especially in the next 1-3 years, then the good news is that we are already well on our way to “victory.” From a personal perspective, having done a military tour of duty in Kandahar in 2002, and again in 2006, I was completely buoyed by the progress that had been made during that time. In 2002, there was virtually no infrastructure to speak of – no real roads, electricity, medical facilities, agriculture, industry, and no contact with the outside world. Afghanistan lived as it had during Alexander the Great’s time, save for the addition of a few beat-up trucks, and the ubiquitous Kalashnikov. When I returned in 2006, Kandahar had advanced nearly 2 millennia – the electricity worked (sometimes), there was a real and effective highway that allowed a flourishing if nascent commerce to begin, there were cell phones (sometimes), and houses, and investment in construction and agriculture and business. And hope. If I had seen at the end of my tour in 2002 what I saw in 2006, I would have said that our mission in Afghanistan was complete: we’d taken a nation in ruins and despair, and given it a real if fledgling hope for a new future. And it is likely that this hope – the rising expectation that the immediate future will be better than the immediate past – that has been part of present consternation in Afghanistan. Hope begets hope, and rising expectations have a way of outpacing our ability to deliver on them. It should have been no surprise that Afghanistan could not maintain the pace of progress established, as the simpler development tasks were achieved largely in a vacuum. Further progress now faces both increasing complexity and entropy. If Afghanistan had advanced centuries in the few short years between 2002 and 2006, it has perhaps come but decades since, and now deals with all of the problems of an ethnically riven, economically challenged, politically fragile post colonial postmodern state – just like approximately 50 other nations in the world. That the election in Afghanistan has been tarnished by fraud should not be the headline; rather, the miracle is that there was a Western style election at all. That opium dominates the economy should not be seen as catastrophic, but rather as a potential source of income for Afghanistan. Concern that the radical Islamic Revolution spearheaded by the Taliban and their ilk is gaining momentum needs to be balanced by acknowledging and supporting the coalescing of moderate forces against this movement. One may despair over the wide swath of territory that the Taliban claims to reign over, but the fact is that it controls only the hinterlands, and can prosecute its campaign solely through the use of terror tactics, thereby creating the seeds of its own destruction. While much remains to be done in Afghanistan, one would be wise to look back at how far it has come in the last decade.

The piece is lengthy, so I’ve broken it down into two halves – Part 1 and Part 2.
And to be clear: the author’s intent with such a piece isn’t to end debate with an appeal to authority, but to kick start it with truly informed opinion. That’s the way forward.

Californicated

Why didn’t they think of this earlier?Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners — holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear. […] Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You’ll be repaid any extra withholding in April.”
William Voegeli;

America’s federal system allows, at the state level, for 50 different clubs to join. At first glance, the states seem to differ between those that bundle numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and those that offer packages of low benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over the ideal size and scope of government. Except for Oregon, John McCain carried every one of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels in the 2008 presidential election, while Barack Obama won every one of the 17 at the top of the list except for Wyoming and Alaska.
It’s not surprising, then, that an intense debate rages over which model is more satisfactory and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit, low-tax alternative succeeds not only on its own terms but also according to the criteria used by defenders of high benefits and high taxes. Whatever theoretical claims are made for imposing high taxes to provide generous government benefits, the practical reality is that these public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good: their beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves, and their quality is poor. For evidence, look to the two largest states in the nation, which are fine representatives of the liberal and conservative alternatives.

Related: Boeing Heads South For Better Business Climate: Washington State Politicians Are Surprised?”

Navigation