Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation, here is the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra performing Johann Sebastian Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto 3(i), Allegro Moderato, BWV 1048 (5:33, period instruments).
Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
Consider the following statement by Professor Glenn Reynolds, also known as Instapundit: “I can think of no better reason to vote against Obama than the prospect of an administration where any criticism of the President is treated as racism”. Glenn made that statement in response to an article he linked to, from which he quoted: “The Left is very invested in both preemptively delegitimizing criticism of Obama and framing opponents as de facto bigots”.
This is a problem. Consider the case, for the sake of argument, that, say, Ms. Rice or Mr. Powell was the Republican nominee for President. Do you think that criticisms of the nominee from the Left would bring howls of racism from the Right? Mr. Obama’s problem is not that he is of mixed so-called race, it’s that he’s a socialist Democrat, and our problem is that some people are going to try to use his so-called race to deny other’s criticism of him being a socialist Democrat.
Pardon me for channeling Jackie Mason for a moment, but I have to say that I think that identity politics is a human sickness that has caused grossly more harm than good in the history of our species. We have to figure out how to break the bonds of fraudulent collectivism, racism, sexism, classism, &c, in the name of each of our own individual experiences, each of our own strengths and weaknesses, each of our own successes and failures, and each of our own volitional contractual arrangements, freely speaking, associating, and assembling with those like-minded, while also not denying others same (except in self defence, of course).
This does not mean that collectives would go away. It’s not anarchy. The key point is that those collectives that properly accomodate human spirit, faith, and hope are volitional collectives, not mandated collectives, not by genetics, not by edict, or fiat, or diktat, not by ponzi-scheme protection-racket fear-mongering shystertairat extortion. Sure it’s a tough problem. Of course, that’s the whole point of at least some of the debates here at SDA. So I now happily return to your regularly scheduled Reader Tips…
I kind of agree with hardboiled.
I’m con supporter even member.
But I cannot explain 10m to Syrian national!.
Tax on tax on gas.
Water in the mouth in HRC.
How long we have to bend to left?
By the way, hardboiled, the Conservative platform of 2004 was not the one which the electors voted them in do carry out; it was rejected. Try 2006.
I’m also curious – what do you mean with your frequent reference to ‘partisan politics’? Surely you don’t expect the entire population to be ‘of one mind’ about the ‘best mode of life’. So, since there are different perspectives or ideas about ‘the best mode’ – that means ‘partisanship’.
Since the different modes tend to reduce to a few perspectives – such as a focus on individualism, freedom, private property, capitalism etc versus a focus on the collective, rejection of individual freedoms and privacy, socialism etc…well, this transforms into political parties.
What do you have against a population having different ideas about the ‘best mode of life’?
1. The Accountability Act was watered down, not by Harper, but by the Liberals and the Liberal Senate.===> Hmm. So, those evil Libranos prevented accountability going through huh? Lame. And not true. The Cons let slide what they wanted to. If not, then they are not capable of leadership – especially on something as simple, and critical, as accountability.
2.Kindly don’t operate under an Either-Or fallacious infrastructure. The sports and transit tax reductions, goes along with the child tax credit ($2,000), along with the day care funding of $100 per month, the GST 2% reduction, the increased earnings amount before taxation, eliminating the RESP contribution limit, allowing pension income splitting, instigating a Tax Free Savings Account.====> Pension Income Splitting is solely in response to a broken promise – despite your apologies/rationalization. This only came about as a PR exercise. Why hasn’t Harper moved on income splitting for single income families to ensure equal burden among taxpayers. We are the only country in the G8 that doesn’t.
And no, despite your claim, the new savings account isn’t YEARS AWAY. It goes into effect in 2009. ====> revenue neutral to an RRSP. Another bureacracy, another empire to build.
3. You object to reducing the debt? Why? ====> Speaking of either/ors, I did not object to redcing debt. I point out that there was $57 billion in surplus (taxation in excess of what was required to service expenditures), and a metasticizing federal budget of growing bureaucracies, and narrow, small tax breaks. In other words, the Cons are swimming money, growing government, and reducing debt by $37 billion is an ‘accomplishment’? C’mon.
4. You object to the formal apology for residential schools, for the Chinese head tax? Why? ====> By logical extension, we should then begin apologizing for every wrong the government has ever done. Say, when do the payments and apologies stop? Or when are apologies used to grab sympathy from ethnic voting blocks?
5. I agree that the govt shouldn’t have apologized for Air India; they didn’t commit the act. BUT – the Liberal govt DID totally bungle the investigation. =====> See above. It is hard to parse where ‘wrongs’ are comitted, especially from the distant past.
6. You may ‘ad hominem’ or name-call Fortier, but he has an impeccable record in industry. Do yo object to expertise just because they happen to be Conservatives? =====> I object to the subversion of democracy by appointing a failed candidate and party bagman to control billions in government spending. Call me old fashioned.
7. I agree that Caledonia is a mess. I lay the blame on McGuinty; policing behaviour, whether committed by native or non-native, is the job of the province. McGuinty refuses to do so; defining someone as ‘native’ and therefore, as not a citizen, and outside the realm of Ontario jurisdiction is actually discriminatory! =====> Dulton is a moron, but First Nations are a Federal matter. Dodging responsibility and layering lawyers and bureacracies on top of the same is not leadership – nor equitable treatment of all Canadians under the law.
8. As for income trusts, get over it. The best economists in Canada know that the govt had no choice because too many banks and other funding systems were jumping on the bankwagon to evade taxes. Who would have had to pick up the slack? The individual. So, tell me, hardboiled, do you think that the individual taxes should go up to make up for lost revenue caused by more and more and more income trusts? Hmmm? ======> The Cons knew this before going in – they were unaware of Brison’s leak, and the policy implications. And in favor of the tax in the 1st place. I simply call them liars – I am not critical of the policy. I am critical of the GST reductions in a matter of policy though – because as the best economists in Canada know, income tax changes are the most fair, progressive, and superior to consumption based tax change.
So, hardboiled, how about getting to know what the Harper govt has really done? =====> They’ve increased spending by 20% since taking office. There have been no broad base tax reductions. Human Rights commissions operate an expanding mandate. You, I, and every other SDA reader give money to the NDP under Bill C-24. The backlog under Freedom of Information Act has grown, and the Cons have fought increased disclosure aggressively – with taxpayer funds.
There have been some improvements, but overall, not much. It is primarily the Cons inaction that I am primarily concerned with. That, and an unelected Conservative Party bagman getting his hand in the till. It does not bode well that the Red Tory faction and the Blues need to wait until the fall to broker their next legislative adgenda.
I’m also curious – what do you mean with your frequent reference to ‘partisan politics’? Surely you don’t expect the entire population to be ‘of one mind’ about the ‘best mode of life’. So, since there are different perspectives or ideas about ‘the best mode’ – that means ‘partisanship’. ======> I mean that alignment with a political party, and remaining uncritical of their actions, or rationalizing of ideals/actions contrary to that stated normative – lacks thought.
Not every thing the Libranos did was bad. Not everything the Cons do is good. To suggest that the Conservatives are great, in perpetuity, ignoring their mistakes and where applicable – inconsistencies – is simply rabid partisanship.
Some assume political parties have the best interests of the nation in mind.
They don’t. They have the best interests of the party in mind.
Partisans don’t understand this. No one single party has the single set of best policies for the nation.
And understanding that will lead to a more critical understanding of a citizen’s role within a free, and democratic nation.
6. You may ‘ad hominem’ or name-call Fortier, but he has an impeccable record in industry. =====> Actually, it’s Public Works.
Prentice blows $20 billion per year on direct and indirect subsidies to business. Yep, those welfare cases in suits. Failures, without government handouts. Your money given freely to Bombardier and others. Just because they have the best lobbyists.
Fortier on the other hand has control of 3 times that amount. Public Works is the largest single ministry (budget wise) in the government.
Hardboiled:
It does not take a whole lot of deep thought to realize that Harper is the only choice that will come anywhere near belling your particular cats.
Logic would indicate your best move would be to get a Conservative membership card and start knocking on doors for Stephen Harper. Reality can be fun.
Reality can be fun.
Posted by: summom bonum at June 10, 2008 6:08 PM
When a conservative party emerges in this country, I’ll happily knock on doors, and raise support.
We certainly don’t have that now. We have Librano light.
KING5 tv (Seattle) this am showed a 5 to 6 inch snowfall last nite in the Snoqualmie Pass just east of Seattle.
They now have had 49 ft of snow this winter/summer season which is still just short of the record for the area.
Ironically the guy who wrote the book ‘Not by Fire, But by Ice’ also lives in the area.
“In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.”
…-
“Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots”
“”It’s a dead face,” Tsuneta said of the sun’s appearance.”
http://tinyurl.com/5hludu (scidaily)
Librano light? Come on.
There are certain political realities. But if you are looking for political certainty, or purity, might I suggest Cuba or North Korea?
Harpers Conservative govt is several orders of magnitude better than the Libranos. Perfection is elusive. Such comparisons gouge your credibility.
hardboiled – I certainly didn’t mean that Fortier was Minister of Industry! I meant that his expertise, as a lawyer and banker, is in industrial affairs! He’s been working in the investment field of industries for many years.
You may consider that the government ‘blows’ money; that’s your opinion.
And no, hardboiled, you can’t conclude that a minority govt, faced with a Liberal Senate and a majority leftist House, lacks ‘leadership’ when it can’t get its full accountability act through. How would leadership have accomplished overriding the Senate and the 3 opposition parties – and the NDP and Liberals watered down that act even more. Please explain what leadership would do.
Because YOU insist that income splitting is required doesn’t mean that Harper or other parties do. I find it strange that you expect the govt to do only what YOU want it to do. Did you know that there are other citizens of Canada besides yourself?
You object to a new savings account? That’s your problem. You conclude that it will require more bureaucrats? Prove it. Also prove that the federal bureaucracy is increasing. McGuinty’s provincial Liberal one is increasing.
No, it’s a logical fallacy to conclude, as you do, that one must not apologize for serious political and governmental decisions, because IF you apologize for one, THEN you must apologize for ALL errors. I think there are evaluative criteria.
I object to your name-calling. Fortier may not have been elected but he is not a failure as an expert in his area, nor is he a ‘bagman’. Do you think you could stop name-calling and be more objective? Also, kindly tell me how Fortier’s background and expertise in industry and banking renders him unsuitable to the control of Public Works.
Your comments on him are, quite frankly, disgusting and dishonourable. Kindly prove that he has his ‘hand in the till’.
Because he wasn’t elected, by the way, doesn’t mean that he and his dept aren’t accountable. Again, your comments are digusting.
First Nations are a federal matter but only as a collective and only according to treaty and the dictates of the Dept. People who are natives and who behave as criminals are a provincial responsibility.
Your view of Income Trusts is naive and to focus your attention on ‘he lied’ is juvenile. The situation changed. Any govt that saw a situation change – which would lead to serious harm to the economic viability of the country – and failed to stop those changes because of a prior promise, would be committing a serious lack of leadership.
Harper took that step. It was an unpopular step. A different politician, focused only on his popularity, wouldn’t have done what Harper did. Someone like Chretien would have done nothing..to keep himself in power..and would have left the mess..to the next government. You don’t acknowledge leadership, do you.
And no, I don’t agree that income tax cuts are the only/best way to deal with money. The lower income people need help with less consumer taxes as well. You don’t think about them, do you.
Frankly, I don’t think that you know very much about the govt accomplishments. I’m not going to list them but they are available. Take a look at crux-of-the-matter blog, for one view.
You certainly are aligned with one party; your alignment is anti-Harper, anti-Conservative Party. That’s a pretty partisan stance of yours.
I think Dion may have finally got something right. Anyone who worked outside in Alberta today will be praying for the hot days of July.This global warming thing is not working as well as I hoped.
Hey Hardboiled, if you don’t like Librano Light, then who are you going to vote for?
If you’re not going to vote, then that silence should extend to your complaining too.
“Slavery within the Islamic world – the forbidden truth (L’ esclavage en Terre d’Islam: un tabou bien gardé)”
{…]
“A review by Elie Smith, an African journalist living and working in Paris, of the latest book by Malek Chebal – L’ esclavage en Terre d’Islam: un tabou bien gardé which he translates as Slavery within the Islamic world — the forbidden truth. I have taken the review from the website African Path but it is also features on his own blog. The book itself is in French but this particular review is in English.
A recent book written by Malek Chebal has come to shed more light not only on the Arab slave trade, but also on slavery in the greater Islamic world. Mr Chebal is an anthropologist and perhaps France’s best specialist on Islam. He has written more than 20 books on different aspects and topics of Islam and the Islamic society in her diversity.”
[…]
“But the author asks these questions: did Islam as a religion, which started in the 7th century really wanted to eradicate slavery in her bastion in the Arabian peninsular? Or did it simply wanted to give slavery a humane or acceptable face?
Sub title 2 of part one is in titled: words to describe/ how slaves and slavery are identify in the Islamic world.
And here, the author tells us that, the Islamic word has a very rich vocabulary for slaves and slavery and he adds that, all those names or terminologies are stratagems employed either to hide what they are doing or to give slavery a humane or acceptable face.
But in the ancient Arabian peninsular and in ancient Iraq, the author tells us that, slaves were designated according to their colours. . .
Sub title four is in titled: Black & White. This part brings to the fore a reality within the Islamic world that is known but never officially admitted or accepted by Muslims. And the author writes that, racial divide within Islam is appalling.
But why is it not denounced? The author has an answer. He writes that, one reason why Muslims seldom denounced their internal racism is because; it would be tantamount to opening a can of worms. . . The author points out that, in Islam, black Muslims or black slaves are perpetually discriminated by Arabs. Why? Simply because, Arabs have always had a condescending regard toward blacks, a notion or practice that, the advent of the Islamic faith has not changed but perpetuated. The author concludes.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/15178
Posted by: ET at June 10, 2008 6:59 PM
Too bad you didn’t take the opportunity to respond as I did – directly to each point you raised. It keeps chats about a range of topics manageable.
At any rate, I’ll keep it brief.
“Because YOU insist that income splitting is required doesn’t mean that Harper or other parties do. I find it strange that you expect the govt to do only what YOU want it to do.” ===> I don’t expect everything I want to be enacted. I do claim that unfairness in a tax system towards single income families (as in the rest of the G8) should be remedied. It is also a natural theme that would resonate with Cons. It hasn’t happened. It is dead simple to perform.
“No, it’s a logical fallacy to conclude, as you do, that one must not apologize for serious political and governmental decisions, because IF you apologize for one, THEN you must apologize for ALL errors. I think there are evaluative criteria.” =====> My point isn’t that – my point is that anything less is arbitrary – and subject to political considerations, and the party in power. I don’t believe that is a just treatment of all citizens, by their government. Arbitrary judgments (like Stockwell Day’s occasional intervention into citizens abroad under death sentence), is not equal treatment, of all citizens. I don’t believe the power of that should be invested into politicians.
“Your view of Income Trusts is naive and to focus your attention on ‘he lied’ is juvenile. The situation changed.” =====> the situation didn’t change, the government did. The Libranos brought forward legislation to turf income trusts the year b4 they got punted. It was the amateur hour of giddy-boy Brison and the leaks that torpedoed the legislation. The Cons knew going in what was coming in terms of conversions. They simply stated the opposite as an election thing, only to do the inevitable. Res ipsa loquitor.
Fortier is a well connected Tory bagman. Period. And there is no ad hominems in there. That is fact. How is accountable to voters, since there wasn’t any?
“That’s a pretty partisan stance of yours.” ====> Yep, I am wedded to freedom of the individual, liberty, the concept of private ownership of property, and a conservative view of political affairs. I am a partisan, unaligned with a political party. And proud of it.
“And no, I don’t agree that income tax cuts are the only/best way to deal with money. The lower income people need help with less consumer taxes as well.” ====> Please look up the phrase ‘regressive taxation’ under tax policy in any OECD/G8/CRCA documentation before you make the claim that consumption taxes are not regressive versus base level income taxation. It’s about equitable treatment of ALL Canadians.
The $100k per year single person got a windfall relative to the $80k family of four. I do believe in progressive taxation – or alternately, a flat tax.
And in case you skipped the preceding: That unelected well-connected Conservative Party bagman has a handle on $50 billion in government spending, without having to face a single voter. Not ONE. Tell me ET, how would you feel if the Libranos had appointed someone in the same fashion? Would you feel the same?
hardboiled – with regard to Fortier, yes, I’d feel the same way. You see, I don’t define accountability as ONLY directly answerable to the electorate.
I repeat – your insulting Fortier by calling him a ‘bagman’ is juvenile. You totally ignore his expertise in his fields.
Accountability is also necessarily operative in all government; that includes all the appointed members of govt, such as the deputy ministers, the head of the military, the head of Canada Bank, the auditor general and so on. ALL of them are accountable to us, the citizen.
How they are accountable differs. In some instances, it’s via an election but this doesn’t always function well. For example, Chretien lied and manipulated the govt; yet, he was consistently re-elected. Same with other MPs. How about Rae – who almost broke Ontario – yet he was elected as an MP.
So, your view that accountability only occurs within an election is invalid. I hope that ALL the unelected ministers and govt officials are accountable.
I also disagree with you about Income Trusts. The fact is – the situation changed and Harper did what the Liberals refused to do; he made an unpopular but necessary decision. I repeat, the shortfall in taxes would have had to been made up by the individual. The Liberals, who have no ethics and think only about power, refused to make that decision. Harper did. That takes leadership – something which you deny.
I also feel that, as in the US, our govt should make more use of experts in the field, who do not want to be politicians, but whose expertise can be of great use to the nation. Being a politician, going through the facade of Getting Elected – isn’t something everyone wants. A lot of expertise exists out there, and these people have absolutely no desire to get into the political games. I think that, as in the US, we should make more use of them. You disagree.
I don’t think that you are unaligned with a political party. Your antipathy to Harper and the Conservatives in a perverse way, aligns you with them. Your alignment is simple: Oppose them.
I also disagree with you about Income Trusts. The fact is – the situation changed and Harper did what the Liberals refused to do; Posted by: ET at June 10, 2008 11:12 PM
You have no clue what you are talking about ET – or you have selective memory. Goodale’s department was investigated after it was leaked that changes to income trust taxes were imminent. You might look up ‘Scott Brison’ at this point. Selective recall seems to be a strong point for you.
And I have not opposed appointments – nowhere have I stated it. I oppose an unelected party bagman being appointed to assuage regional representation – which at it’s base – is completely political. And un-democratic. If the Cons want to change the way cabinet is selected in this country, they should have the courage to pass a bill, and change it. Not the way Libranos have cowered and back doored structural changes to the functioning of government.
I not you do not directly respond to a point by point examination of my stated concerns.
It speaks volumes about what appears to be a selective memory, and cognitive dissonance on your behalf. Speaking in absolutes (create proposition, state ‘I disagree’ – when the topic has not been brought up: direct presidential appointments) is a sign of a conditioned individual, mired in dogma, and unable to critically assess an organization that behaves in discordance with their accepted attributes.
Free your mind. Think for yourself.
Hardboiled, are you sure you’re not a Liberal provocateur. Is your name Ted. I wonder because you have an innate ability to miss the point. Your Income Trusts argument that somehow an investigation into leaking finance policy is the same as changing finance policy is, well, juvenile. What are you talking about? Explain yourself; don’t just restate your fallacious argument.
I like it when Hardboiled and Shamrock fight, its like hockey. = TG
Explain yourself; don’t just restate your fallacious argumentPosted by: Shamrock at June 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Alrighty. The Libranos HAD a bill constructed that would chnage income trust taxation. It got leaked. Markets moved. Some people made alot of money. The idea was shut down – because to go forward, would’ve meant some people got preferential treatment. The Conservatives knew policy implications, and knew the impact to the treasury.
And they promisaed not to change it anyhow, despite these facts.
Res ipsa loquitor – they lied. Just like any good politicians would.
Is that explained enough? Or will anything that challenges your beliefs ever be explained enough? Trust me, the workd ain’t flat. Honest.
I tried to buy the HNIC theme song for just these occasions – but got outbid 🙂
The Honourable Industry Minister Prentice had a press release today detailing upcoming changes to the Copyright Act. Details are still coming in, but although some progress has been made, there’s still anti-DRM provisions that are so ham-fisted that they are wiping out entire markets(for example, for custom iPhone software setups). Some people will try to tell you that this bill has to do with music/movie piracy, and to some extent it does, but the meat of the bill concerns it’s DRM provisions. The bill will make computers a hell of a lot less useful if passed. Government intervention in private property at its finest.