Prime Minister Harper

Harper has a bit of a problem. Unfortunately, the NDP does not command enough seats to make a majority when combined with the Tories. CPC plus NDP would still be a couple of votes short. There goes Harper’s best bet for a stable minority government. The NDP will be pretty well irrelevant. This is bad news for both the NDP and the Tories.

But the fact that Martin has resigned means he can probably depend on the Liberals, at least for a while. They cannot afford an election until their leadership is settled. And they literally cannot afford an election soon in the literal, financial sense. In fact, if Harper is cunning, the thing to do is to introduce any tough legislation the Liberals are going to have a hard time supporting while their leadership race is on. They'll have a Hobson's choice.

The Liberals were down on the Tories (and on their last outing) by six points. Tories up six. It looks as if SES-CPAC was spot on. Best poll for the second election in a row.

Granted, given how bad the Liberal campaign was, there was reason to hope for a landslide. I hoped for a landslide. On the other hand, it's pretty unusual for an incumbent party to be voted out in such good economic times.

It is good news for Canada, I think, that almost all the frontbenchers for both parties are back. That will also make the Liberal leadership interesting. Landslide Annie is gone, though, and so is Pierre Pettigrew.

It irritates me how everyone in the MSM is referring to “prime minister designate” Stephen Harper. Nobody has designated him prime minister. It is up to the GG to do that in due time. One might refer to him as “prime minister presumptive,” I suppose.

Andrew Coyne:

“Ontario, outside Toronto at any rate, is joining the West. The democratic values and hardy optimism that are hallmarks of the West’s political culture have worked their way into the Ontario psyche. More and more, the West’s interests and values are also Ontario’s.”

I think that’s right, at least of Leeds-Grenville and, broadly, the Ottawa Valley area, where I laregly grew up. Folks there have a lot more in common, in their political and social views, with Alberta than with downtown Toronto.

Martin Struggles

In early returns, Paul Martin is trailing in Lasalle-Emard.

Night's First Surprise

Dogfight reported betwen BQ and Tories in Iles-de-la-Madeleine (BQ4400-CPC4200). Tories were supposed to be nowhere in that riding.

Seat Totals for Atlantic Canada

Libs - 19, CPC - 11, NDP - 3

Brison's Back

Scott Brison, Loyola Hearn, hold their seats.

Liberals lead by a coupls of points in the popular vote in Atlantic Canada.

MacKay is Back

Peter MacKay has won his seat.

Nova Scotia:

4 Libs
2 Cons
2 NDP
3 Unknown

Unknowns include Scott Brison's riding, still too close to call.

Early Election Results from Atlantic Canada

NEWFOUNDLAND

Lib 4
Con 3

NEW BRUNSWICK

Lib 5
Con 4
NDP 1

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Lib 4


popular vote:

Libs 39%
Cons 33%
NDP 25%

This puts Conservative support lower, and Liberal support higher, than the polls had suggested.

Just an Intuition

Just an intuition really: but I have a feeling, despite the fact that the poll numbers do not support it, that we will have a Tory majority. I haev a feeling their popular vote will also excel what the polls are showing. I have a feeling undecideds will break heavily away from the Liberals, to Tories and NDP, in the polling booths.

Final Final Polls

Three late polls just in:

Ipsos Reid: – 11 point spread CPC 38 L 27 NDP 19 BQ 12
SC: - 10 point spread CPC 37 L 27 NDP 19 BQ 11
SES: – 6 point spread CPC 36.4 L 30.1 NDP 17.4 BQ 10.6

Aggregate: - 9 point spread; CPC 37 L 28 NDP 18.5 BQ 11.2

Note, though, that Ipsos Reid has a much larger sample than the others. I really ought to weigh them by sample size in aggregating, but I'm too excited to bother tonight. I feel like a kid on Christmas Eve. While Canadians are voting over the next hours, because of the time difference, I'll be asleep. I will wake up to the results tomorrow morning.

Since I am not in Canada, I guess I could spill the beans on early results from Eastern Canada. But unless someone else spills the beans first, I won't know what's happening there either.

Final Polls

A composite of all final polls gives us:

CPC: 37.3
Liberal:27.9
NDP: 18
BQ: 11

Let’s see how close this is to the actual result.


The Montreal Gazette and the Vancouver Province have both endorsed the Conservatives, following the Globe & Mail, National Post, La Presse, and The Economist.

'Od's Composite Poll of Polls

A review of the polls from 2004 shows the final polls were off the actual voting by 4 to 7 points: that is, the Liberal vote was higher than predicted by that much.

The Conservatives are currently leading by 6-10 points. SES – 6.5%; Ipsos-Reid 12%; Ekos 10%; SC 9%; Leger 9%. That’s an average 9.3%.

Let’s discount the claim that the Tories are sliding; that seems to have been an artifact of a rogue SES poll, expressly denied by Ekos and Ipsos Reid. They’re holding steady, and have been for two weeks.

But let’s assume the numbers are as badly wrong this time. That suggests, at worst, that the Conservatives will probably still win.

But suppose they’re wrong in the other direction: that this time the polls are underestimating the Conservative vote? That would put the real Conservative lead at around 13-14 points. A landslide.

If they’re simply right as they stand, there’s a slightly better than 50% chance of a Tory majority. Eight percent, Andrew Coyne reports, is the usual minimum spread that, in Canada, produces a majority of seats.

Most likely explanation for what happened last time is that the undecideds broke heavily for the Liberals at the last minute, and some NDP support rushed to them to stop the Conservatives.

Layton is working hard against the latter this time. If Harper and Layton can get the last-minute focus on the consequences of reelecting the Liberals, it is probably not going to happen this time.



They’ve gotten to Kinsella, poor devil. His site has been blank all day.

Oh, thank God. He’s back. It must have been no more than a kidnapping. But he’s gone strangely quiet.



More on Martin’s Campaign:

Andrew Coyne:

…the campaign that he and his minions have waged over the last eight weeks -- by turns empty, dishonest, hysterical, vicious, crude, demagogic, shrill, incoherent, divisive, xenophobic, hypocritical, not to say staggeringly incompetent -- makes his impending departure from the scene a positive delight. I am literally counting the hours.

There has never been a campaign to match it -- not even the loathsome campaign the same team mounted in 2004.


John Crosbie:

"I was active in politics for 27 years, 10 as a provincial elected member and 17 as a federally elected member, and I've been interested and involved in it all my life. This is certainly the worst behaviour I have seen of any party leader."


Ed Broadbent:

Read his entire indictment here:

Ed lectures the freshman class.


Whatever else happens, Paul Martin is unfit to be Canadian Prime Minister. He is fit to have his name go down in Canadian history as a byword for dirty politics and a lust for power, like “McCarthy,” “Nixon,” or perhaps “Duplessis.”

What Happens if Martin Wins?

Once again, to my mind, Stephen Harper is taking exactly the right tack. I think he has by now revealed himself as, with the possible exception of Mackenzie King, the best political strategist ever to head a national party in Canada.

In response to Martin’s warnings about the supposed dangers of electing the Conservatives, he is pointing out the more substantial dangers of once again electing the Liberals.

Conceivably, Paul Martin might still win this election. Most polls suggest the race is “tightening.” It is important to quickly shift voters’ attention to this.

For Martin’s tactics are sowing a whirlwind. Win or lose, he has poisoned the tone of political discourse in this country. If he loses, he goes. If he wins, Canada would have to carry this, like a tin can tied to its tail, until the next election.

Stephen Harper:

"You have seen their campaign. [If the Liberals] are re-elected we will not have any kind of direction for this country. We will never find the money taken in the sponsorship scandal. The scandals, the cover-ups, the investigations will continue. We cannot have our country go forward like that."

Blogger M.K. Braaten:

“Paul Martin’s attempt at keeping power is despicable. … He should be labeled the worst Prime Minister Canada has ever had. He is embarrassing our Country every time he opens his mouth. He will say and do anything to stay in power. He will stop at nothing to protect his interests. He does not care about Canadians, he only feigns for power for the sake of having it – it’s quite disturbing.”

Ed Broadbent:

The Liberal campaign is "deeply offensive ... to all Canadians…”

Anonymous comment, Andrew Coyne’s blog:

“You wonder looking at him [Martin] if he indeed still has a soul ...”

Another anonymous member:

“I'm with you. I was watching him today and he's just - empty. His mouth opens, words come out that make little or no sense (either that or they are outright lies). Creepy.”

This is not a man who would be able, post-election, to bring us as Canadians back together. There would be hell to pay.

Martin would now, after a month of extravagant America-bashing, have big problems dealing with the US.

He has committed himself to a few nutty policies, like taking the notwithstanding clause out of the constitution.

Alberta will be fit to be tied, being snubbed by Central Canada once again, especially after Martin’s and his top advisors’ openly anti-Alberta comments in the rest of Canada.

So will Quebec. If the rest of Canada sticks by the Liberals, while they have been massively rejected in Quebec, the message will be that federalism itself means corruption.

So will Catholics. Martin has portrayed anyone who has the slightest reservation about either abortion or gay marriage to be a dangerous extremist. The Catholic Church is openly opposed to both; and 40% of Canadians are at least nominally Catholic. Of course, any of the rest who are Evangelical Protestants—or, indeed, devout Muslims—will be equally offended and alienated.

If Martin gets back into power now, we would be saying to all politicians, and to our young: it is okay to cheat. It is okay to abuse power. It is okay to break rules. That’s the way to win.

If Martin gets back into power now, frankly, it will be a nightmare for Canada. We will be an uglier, less kind, less gentle, more cynical country. It would be a watershed, a loss of innocence.


Andrew Coyne is my favourite pundit. He always does the math, and he stays away from empty invective. He notes that the lowest popular vote the Liberals have ever gotten is 28%. They are just about at that in the polls now.

An unscientific online poll run by the Metis National Council shows 70% support for the Conservatives. This is despite the fact that the Metis National Council itself has endorsed the Liberals.

Martin Appeals for the Out-of-Touch-with-Reality Vote

Polls seem to be tightening, including, now, Strategic Council. Most likely result is now a Tory minority government.

On the other hand, Ekos does not show the race tightening; it shows the Harper lead still growing. Ekos principal Darrell Bricker claims it is not tightening (Andrew Coyne), and Strategic Council’s result is apparently based on arbitrarily dropping a day from their survey sample (and boosting their margin of error). Odd that they would do that; they may have lost their nerve due to the disparity with other polls.

So it’s still a bit of an open question.



From David Crane in the Star:

“… how would Harper re-order Canada's priorities? Based on the Conservative platform, there is little attention to the issues of innovation and the knowledge-based economy, our biggest economic challenge, despite the fact that Canada faces a major business and jobs restructuring from intensified global competition and rapid technological change.”

This assumes that it is up to government to pick and support economic winners. And why would government be better at that than the free market? Has it ever been in the past?

Wanna buy a used Bricklin?


From Paul Martin (via Torstar):

“Citing Harper's statement that a Conservative government, even if it was a majority, would not have ‘absolute power’ because of Liberal-appointed judges and senators, Martin said the Tory leader's attitude toward power is cause for grave concern. ‘Who talks that way? Who thinks that way?’”

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson come to mind…

Is the doctrine of separation of powers now on the PC speech code forbidden list? It’s this kind of obligatory denial of obvious reality that keeps me living abroad.


Martin is campaigning today in the Toronto area. Again, this is not a good sign for him. Toronto was his safest area.


The Star again:

“Martin also raised questions about whether a Conservative government might countenance new legislation to outlaw abortion. To do so, Martin quoted a remark by Harper, who on Wednesday was asked by a Global television interviewer to confirm that under a Tory government there would never be a free vote in Parliament on abortion. ‘Never is a long time,’ Harper had replied.

Martin said his party would make an open-ended promise not to endanger ‘a woman's right to choose’ on abortion.”


I can’t see why this would be a winning issue for Martin. Most of the Canadian population wants some kind of restriction on abortion.

And of course, it is simply dishonest for a politician to make such a pledge. Never? No matter how public opinion shifts? He has pledged not to do so in the life of this parliament. That is all any reasonable, as opposed to fanatical, voter could want.

Are the majority of Canadians really, as the Liberals believe, fanatics?

I guess in a few days we’ll find out.

Liberals Support Terrorism in a Good Cause

I was shocked to hear that Peter McKay plans to list the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) as a terrorist organization if the Conservatives win the election.

Shocked, because it is scandalous they have not been so listed by the Liberal government. This is a clear case of pandering; the Tamil community having tended to vote Liberal. The Tigers are among the most active terrorist organizations in the world, and one of the chief practitioners of suicide bombing. They were suicide bombing way before 9/11. They took out Rajiv Gandhi.

Not to ban the Tamil Tigers makes a mockery of any Canadian claims to be opposed to terrorism. It makes it look as though we are opposed only to Muslim aspirations.

And, just as opposing Muslim terrorists should not mean we oppose Muslim aspirations, opposing the LTTE does not mean we oppose Tamil aspirations.



Advance polling is up 25% over last election. A big turnout is usually bad news for an incumbent.



Stephen Harper’s actions suggest his polls show the same huge lead as the Strategic Council’s. He’s campaigning now in Toronto and Montreal—the safest Liberal areas in the country. Today’s Strategic Council poll more or less confirms the last one, showing a sixteen point gap between the two big parties.

Rumor has it that an Ekos poll last week showed a twenty-point lead for the Conservatives, but it was assumed to be in error and was never released.



La Presse has followed the Globe & Mail in endorsing the Conservatives. So, unsurprisingly, has the National Post. More surprisingly, so has Lorne Calvert.

Buzz Hargrove, apparently, has endorsed the Bloc Quebecois.

Someone Interview Me!

This is exciting. Here's a Liberal lie I can personally vouch for being a lie. The Liberal website accuses "The Blogging Tories" of being a covert Conservative operation in contravention of the rules on election spending:

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11418

“They’re trying to make it look like these are individuals rather than a party effort,” Parks, one of the accusers, says.

If The Blogging Tories is a party effort, it's sure news to me, as one of the earlier Blogging Tories. I've never been approached by anyone from the Conservative Party. I am not a member of the Conservative Party. When I joined the web ring, no such questions were asked. And I can guarantee you nobody's ever given me money.

Sure makes me want to become a member of the Conservative Party, though. These Martin Liberals must be stopped.


*****

Love these new poll numbers. I wonder if they stand scrutiny. CTV and Strategic Council posted them, then withdrew them, then posted them again: Jan 14-16 CP 42% Lib 24% NDP 17% BQ 12% Greens 5%.



Warren Kinsella writes that a US reporter asked him about the wisdom of “A sitting Prime Minister personally approving an ad that defames a sitting president, with whom he would presumably need to work, after an election."

Kinsella responds, "That's a Prime Minister who is returning to the private sector. He knew it was all over when he approved those ads. They were designed to protect what few ridings he had left, not expand his base."

Say--do you suppose they're paying Kinsella?

Rumblings of a Landslide

The NDP’s current strategy of appealing to Liberal voters may or may not be working, but it seems pretty smart to me. Attack ads work best in a two-party race; because they slime the accuser as well as the target. All very well if the voters have nowhere else to go; but look what happened to Howard Dean and Richard Gephart in Iowa a couple of years ago. They blew each other away, handing it to Kerry and Edwards, who stayed out of the mud.

By appealing to disaffected Liberals, among other factors, Layton can reap the advantages of the Liberal attack ads without being blamed for them.

Negative advertising, after all, gives no reason to vote for you.


Ipsos' seat projection model suggests that if a vote were held tomorrow, the Tories would take 149-153 seats; the Liberals 64-68; the NDP 29-33; and the Bloc 57-61. Note how close the BQ is to the Liberals. If present trends continue up to voting day, they could supplant the Libs as Official Opposition.

Hill & Knowlton thinks the BQ would surpass the Liberal even now, with 61 seats to 49 (!). They also show the NDP up to 41 seats, more than doubling their caucus, and Tories with a bare majority of 156. Nothing could be better for the Tories: a majority plus a split opposition. The NDP and Liberals might even duke it out for who ends up as the more credible alternative government next time. It could be the mirror image of the Reform-Tory struggle.

But I doubt those projections are right.


Decima shows the Tories now at 28%, the Liberals down to 14%, in Quebes. Fourteen percent. That’s NDP territory.


Andrew Coyne points out this from a recent Ipsos-Reid poll: “Those who have immigrated to Canada most strongly support the Conservatives (38%) over the Liberals (35%) and the NDP (19%).” Coyne suggests a fundamental political realignment is taking place: immigrants are moving to the Conservatives

Canadian Values

In the end, perhaps Martin’s Liberals are in trouble because, despite their claims to be its defenders, they are out of step with Canadian values.

Canadians believe strongly in honesty and in following the rules: there’s the famous claim that Torontonians will wait for the lights to change before crossing the street even at 3 am. Martin and his Liberals have set a tone of corruption and deceit.

Canadians believe in politeness, fair play, and treating even opponents with respect. There are no cries to “kill the ref” at a hockey game. Martin’s hardball in winning the Liberal leadership, in fearmongering against the Conservatives, and in America-bashing, violates that tradition.

Canadians believe in community and in cooperation. They are respectful of authority to a fault. The country was founded on the concept of loyalty. Martin’s rebellion against his own leader, regardless of what we think of Chretien, does not jibe with that. Martin looks as if he has put personal ambition above loyalty to either leader or to party. That is not what Canadians do. Belinda Stronach, and Martin’s welcoming her into cabinet, has reinforced the image.

In the last few days, Harper has been concentrating on Southern Ontario, where he hopes for new seats. Martin has been concentrating on Montreal, where the Liberals have traditionally been safe. Why?

Could it be that the BQ is right? That Martin is in danger in his own seat? And it has become, or has remained, for Martin, every man for himself?


The latest Strategic Council poll shows the Conservatives now in a statistical tie with the Liberals even in Montreal and Toronto. The last remaining Liberal bastions.



“Paul Martin's campaign is worse than a disaster. It's now actually really, really sad. Let's just vote and get this over with, I say. Martin's self-immolation is getting hard to watch.”

-- Warren Kinsella.

Martin Announces His Support of Peace and Democracy

"It is impossible to be prime minister and not feel tremendous pride when travelling across the world and seeing the extent to which Canada is respected and envied by every country in the world," Paul Martin said at Concordia University today. "Whether it's in Haiti, Afghanistan or Darfur, Canada is there to promote peace and democracy."

As a Canadian living outside the country, I have to gag. Canada’s international reputation has been in freefall over the last few years. Canada is no longer a significant presence in the UN’s peacekeeping operations. Starving the military for funding has its effects. Canada is no longer a significant ally of the US, its traditional role as the world’s honest broker with the US taken over by the UK and Australia. Canada no longer counts. Canada is there no longer.

And respect for Canada seems very much in decline: Koreans and Irishmen have asked me why Canadians are so off the beam and bratty any more about the US. Americans, Koreans, and Irishmen have complained to me about Canadians being excessively chauvinistic and nationalistic, just as we accuse Americans of being. And the Liberal government is earning a fine international reputation for corruption, where the Canadian image used to be pure boy scout, pure Dudley Doright. Naïve, perhaps, but honest to the marrow.

As a Canadian living abroad, I can’t say what a relief the thought of a new government is. It will mean being able to be proud once again to admit I’m Canadian. I can’t say how happy I will be to have Stephen Harper as the face of Canada abroad, instead of Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

He even looks like a Mountie.



The Globe & Mail has just endorsed the Conservatives.

Andrew Coyne theorizes that the Conservatives are winning this election largely because they have won over the media. And they have won over the media by feeding them good copy over the first few weeks of the campaign, with their policy-announcement-a-day approach.


Ipsos Reid shows the Conservatives leading now even in the Maritimes and NL. According to them, Liberals have dropped _16 points_ in less than a week in that region. The NDP is also surging there. I suspect a polling error; we’ll see if this is confirmed by others. Atlantic Canada does not tend to shift ground that fast. IR is the only poll still showing the Liberals leading the Tories in Quebec, as well.

SES now also shows a Conservative lead in Atlantic Canada, though slight.

One cynical thought: Atlantic Canada may want to elect members on the winning side, for the sake of keeping patronage flowing. Patronage, sadly, is big in Atlantic Canada.


Layton and the NDP, following their own strategy, are turning their guns on the Liberals. Their priority, no doubt, is to discourage followers from voting Liberal instead of NDP to block the Conservatives. And the strategy makes good sense. But, aside from helping the NDP, this will help the Conservatives.

Drumbeats of Doom

“... rigor mortis is setting in for the disastrous Ditheral campaign” - Warren Kinsella.

Stephen Harper should, by the way, if he gets a majority government, quickly appoint Kinsella to the Senate, or better yet, to a diplomatic post, perhaps in Burkina Faso. He is a very dangerous guy to have working for the other side.


Andrew Coyne is featuring a photo of the Hindenburg going up in flames.


Bourque is using a picture of the Titanic.


Harper is now more trusted in Quebec than either Martin or Duceppe.


Michael Wilson, founder of the GST, has publicly endorsed Harper’s plan to cut it.


Herb Dhaliwal has said publicly Martin will have to resign as leader if the Conservatives win.


Rumour says advance polls claim a higher then usual turnout. This is usually bad news for an incumbent party.


Mind, Conservative support is not growing over the past day or two as quickly as it had been. SES’s polling suggests this may be due to a move of NDP support to the Liberals. The other possibility is that the Liberal attack ads, even though they flopped with the press, are having some effect on the public.

If the latter, though, I expect a bounce-back once the press reaction sinks in; and this should still be well before voting day.

Liberal Vital Signs Ebb

Stephen Harper did absolutely the right thing in dropping Tory candidate Derek Zeisman, and dropping him fast. In the midst of Liberal corruption, the Conservatives must set an example.


Mario Dumont has now endorsed the Conservatives. This is significant. He and ADQ are their natural ideological partners and they have an organization on the ground in Quebec.


From a Reuters story:
Senior Liberals privately admit the party stands virtually no chance of beating the Conservatives of Stephen Harper….
"We're done," confided a prominent Liberal legislator. "It's all over," said one well-placed official. Some fret they could be out of power for up to a decade.
"…. Defeat on January 23 is pretty much taken for granted," said one person with access to the top ranks of the party.
…"The campaign is in a bizarre state ... There's no policy they won't change overnight if a focus group says it's not popular," said one senior Liberal. "This has been a lousy government and frankly they deserve to lose."

It’s getting to be scandal du jour for the Liberals, now that the press has the scent. Cabinet Minister Tony Valeri flipped a house to a prominent Liberal supporter for more than double the price after three months. That smells pretty funny.


There is just no way the Liberals are coming back from this one by January 23.

Liberal Death Watch

Looks like the Liberals have already lost their chance at stirring up a fear campaign against the Conservatives. Thtat was heir last chance, by me, barring a miracle. Thanks to that leaked commercial about Harper stationing soldiers in cities, and their already shaky credibility, their mudslinging ads look like they are fast becoming a laughingstock.

That’s the death rattle. When they start laughing at you, you know it’s over.

As noted, the tipping point came when the Conservatives surpassed the Liberals in the Quebec polls. At this point, both Liberal and BQ votes should start flocking to the Tories in Quebec, as most Quebecers oppose both separatism and corruption. This will make Ontarians a whole lot more comfortable with the Tories as well, knowing voting Tory will not alienate Quebec.

This is exactly the dynamic that gave Diefenbaker and Mulroney their landslides.

Downfall. No, Not Martin's. Hitler's.

Saw “Downfall,” the German movie about Hitler’s last days in the bunker at the end of WWII. Controversial because considered by some too sympathetic to Hitler.

Certainly made me think. Told from the perspective of Hitler’s secretary, who was in the bunker, it naturally made you sympathetic to the people in that difficult spot. You had to remind yourself that they deserved everything they got. The film, rather clumsily, did its bit with a postscript interview that spoke of the fate of the Jews.

Hitler also came off as admirable for his personal courage, and for his intellectual consistency. His basic views did not seem to waver in defeat, nor when they seemed to go against his own interests. He believed in survival of the fittest. He and Germany had lost the war. Very well, then he and Germany deserved death, and he was not going to quibble about it now. The point is made that he could have escaped death at least temporarily, by fleeing Berlin for his prepared fortress in the Bavarian Alps. But he refused. As captain, he insisted on going down with the ship. “He must be on stage for the final curtain,” as Speer put it.

One of my Arab students pointed this out as a contrast between Saddam and Hitler, to Saddam’s detriment. His end was, by comparison, without dignity. Having demanded that many die for him, he was not sanguine about facing death himself. He cut and ran. So did Mussolini. Hitler stood his ground and would not retreat, just as he demanded of others.

Other Nazis were also shown as heroic: Eva Braun, the Goebbelses, some SS officers, the general running the defense of Berlin, Albert Speer, and some Hitler youth.

This should not surprise us, and surely was genuine. It is only fair to show it. If it did not represent some apparent good, how could Nazism have earned the allegiance of so many for so long? All evil is only a relative absence of good; only the putting of a lesser good above a greater. Fortitude above compassion, for example. Only moral relativism finds this confusing.

Late Thoughts on the English Debate

Reviews of the English-language debate are beginning to come in, and to suggest it too involved a self-inflicted TKO on Paul Martin. The reaction to the idea of amending the constitution to remove the "notwithstanding clause" for the federal government does not look good so far. Sounds reckless, a constitutional "roll of the dice," of the sort that so damaged Brian Mulroney.

I missed this first time around. But I can see how it may not look good to many to reopen the whole constitutional can-o'-worms again.

Martin may have handed Harper the national unity card yet again.

The other thing that seems to be resonating is Harper's closing comment about not being good on passion or spin. People seem to have liked that. May have closed the deal on Harper being prime ministerial.

Conservative Majority in Sight

Chances for Martin and the Liberals are dimming. Their best chance to stop the Conservative momentum came and went with the final English-language debate. They needed a knockout there, and they didn't get it. Their next best chance--and a real one--was the French-language debate. If they could stop Harper's momentum in Quebec, they could stop it in Ontario too. It is hard to judge without seeing it, here in the Middle East, but I gather the knockout, if knockout there was, landed instead on Paul Martin. He seems at one point to confuse Stephen Harper with Jack Layton. That makes him seem old and tired, and boosts the
"time for a change" argument. Both Layton and Harper also accused him, plausibly, of falsifying their platforms. This may hurt him on credibility and honesty, which is the main issue in Quebec.

The last Liberal chance is a full-blown smear campaign in their late TV ads. That has now begun. Harper is criticized, among other odd things, for his supposed links to a so-called "secret, ultra right-wing American think-tank." Shades of the Trilateral Commission. Shades of the old "hidden agenda."

I think there is a real chance that, like their promises of new spending, these attacks will backfire on the Liberals. First, being a rerun of what they did last campaign, it looks old and tired. Second, given their growing record of scandal, people are probably now less disposed to believe them. And third, any exaggeration reminds the voters that the Liberal word is not reliable, reinforcing their problems with perceived lack of integrity. All the Conservatives need is to land one good strong refutation to any one of the charges, in the national press. If the press will cooperate.

The latest Toronto Star/Ekos poll, out yesterday, shows the Tories moving into majority territory, and ahead of the Liberals in Quebec.

I think we now have the possibility of a landslide.

With the Tories clearly ahead of the Liberals in Quebec, they become the federalist alternative. That will drain a lot of votes from the Liberals there. And a lot of votes from the BQ--people who were against corruption, not for separatism.

Ontario, where the Tories are now leading, should swing further in that direction, confident now that electing the Conservatives will not alienate Quebec. Ontario usually votes for a different party federally and provincially: it appeals to the province's innate caution.

I now expect a Conservative majority government.

Scott Reid and Trudeau's Totalitarianism

Having been in Sri Lanka at the time, I missed my chance to comment on Scott Reid’s famous observation that rebates direct to parents to pay for daycare would just be “25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn.”

Martin’s Director of Communications has apologized and withdrawn the remark. So perhaps it is unfair to harp on it. But I do think it pulls back a curtain on left-wing thinking generally.

Those on the left are essentially undemocratic in their sentiments. They do not believe in human equality. They believe they are themselves superior sorts, and should be controlling the rest of us as much as possible. For our own good, of course—and I believe most of them are perfectly sincere in thinking it would be for our own good. Making sure we wear seatbelts, teach our children all the correct thoughts, and spend our money wisely.

This is, in a word, conservatism; the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been more or less reversed in modern Canadian usage. It is fundamentally the belief in class, and in the right and duty of the upper classes to manage the affairs of the lower.

Pierre Trudeau used to claim his political model was not Marx or Smith, but Plato’s Republic.

He was being sincere. Unfortunately, few have actually read Plato’s Republic. It does not advocate democracy. It calls for rule by a specialty groomed elite. It also calls for serious restrictions on free speech--welcome to the Hate Laws--and for the right of the government to lie to the people. It also calls for the abolition of the family.

Plato was a great admirer of Sparta. As Karl Popper pointed out, his “just society”—Trudeau’s tag for his political vision was direct from Plato’s Republic--was and is totalitarian, and a closed society.

Robinson Trails Fry

Reports are that Svend Robinson is trailing in his riding. This is good news for honesty in government. Leaving aside anything I think about Robinson’s politics, it is not a good idea to elect a known thief to parliament.

The downside: Svend Robinson’s loss is Hedy Fry’s gain. She’s the former minister who claimed that there were burning crosses on the lawns of Prince George.

Oh well. Elect the liar. It’s important.


***

In other news, the latest CTV/Strategic Council poll shows the Conservative lead continuing to grow: Conservatives 37%, Liberals 29%, NDP 15%.

Interesting to note, beyond the continuing Conservative momentum, is the decline in the NDP vote. As predicted: with the Tories looking like winners, the NDP vote starts to shrink. Most interesting, it is going not to the Liberals, but to the Conservatives. Also not so surprising: the Conservatives have now emerged as a realistic alternative government, and so votes are presumably moving Toryward from both BQ and NDP in order to turf out the Liberals.

Hairspray

The Economist reports the growing scientific likelihood that the globe is indeed warming (“Changing science,” The Economist, December 10, 2005). “That the climate is warming now seems certain,” the magazine concludes. This may even be due to human activity, not just to the increase in the sun’s heat output in recent years (caused by unusual sunspot activity).

But if so, environmentalists may be partly to blame. It turns out that aerosols, of the sort that were systematically banned a couple of decades ago, promote cloud formation, and could have counteracted the effects of “greenhouse gases.”

And even now, it would be one heck of a lot cheaper than Kyoto simply to lift the ban on aerosols, and let them do their thing.

It's Happening

The polls now suggest we are close to a tipping point that could lead not only to a Tory government, but a Tory majority.

Liberals and Conservatives are now running about even--Tories with a slight lead--in the country as a whole. But the big news is in Quebec. Stephen Harper's strategy of concentrating on Quebec, as I had hoped, seems to be paying dividends. Some polls now show the Conservatives tied with the Liberals in Quebec. SES shows their support growing in that province by 3 percentage points a day.

This is the tipping point. If the Tories clearly take over from the Liberals as the federalist alternative in Quebec, the Liberal vote in Quebec collapses. If the Liberal vote in Quebec collapses, the Liberal vote in Ontario collapses. There will be some movement from the NDP to the Liberals in the face of a probable Tory win, but this should be a smaller factor. Some NDP voters would actually, I believe, feel more comfortable with the Conservatives than the Liberals, and may migrate to the Tories as well.

I think it would take something like a disaster in the Tory campaign to lose the election now. Fifty percent chance of a Tory majority, by me.

It May Be Happening

The movement the Conservatives need to win this election just may have begun.

George Bush's poll numbers are up in the US: up eight points in two weeks, apparently because of the success of the Iraq election.

This is what was needed: it has been Bush's unpopularity that was the main drag on the CPC.

And, Bob's yer uncle, up the CPC poll numbers are coming already. Or rather, the Liberals are coming down. Liberals 33, Conservatives 29. Within striking range now. I think Harper is also very clever to be pushing the idea of the Conservatives as a federalist alternative in Quebec. Surely there's an opportunity right now to take over that banner from the discredited Liberals. And, perhaps, an obligation, for the sake of Canada's future. If he can close a sale on that in Quebec--something that can happen quite quickly in Quebec--it could have massive implications for Ontario as well. Ontario bases its vote in large part on who it thinks can "handle" Quebec.

Remarkably, seat projections based on the latest poll suggest Paul Martin could actually lose his own seat. Should that happen, even if the result of the vote was not otherwise decisive, he would probably have to resign. And that too would be good news for the Tories. Frankly, Paul Martin seems to me to be the best they've got.

Paul Martin Comes Out in Favour of Canada

“I will defend the Canadian position and I will defend our values and I will defend our interests against anybody." Paul Martin.

"You are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question." Paul Martin.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.

Jean Chretien was a past master at wrapping himself in the flag. But the growing tendency to do this, to dwell on supposed "Canadian values" and anti-Americanism, growing through the Chretien and now the Martin years, is a direct measure, as such nationalism and anti-Americanism is in the Third World, of the growing corruption in Canadian government and in Canada's elite.

How long are the Canadian people going to be suckered by it?

I Can't Bear to Look

Sorry, folks, I'm still too depressed to comment much on the Canadian election. Still no sign of movement in the polls.

I think the problem is that the current unpopularity of George Bush is actually hurting Canadian Conservatives. Canada follows the US politically in lock-step, with about a five to seven year delay, except, if by that point the American move is not looking like a good idea, Canada balks.

Canada is balking on swinging right.

Meantime, I'm vacationing in an undisclosed secure location in Sri Lanka, and trying to forget about it all.

Worst case scenario: this election ends almost the same as the last. Stephen Harper will probably have to step down as leader. I suspect Ralph Klein will be waiting to take over, and he could be formidable federally. There is nobody else on the Liberal side as strong as Martin. If he steps down instead of facing another minority-- doubt he will--that would be all to the good for the CPC.

Concerned Voter Writes

A recent discussion on an email list brings out some popular misconceptions:


Concerned voter:

Unless you want to be paying for health care out of pocket, tax cuts are undesirable.


Abbot:

If there were no government health plan, it is unlikely that most Canadians would be paying for health care out of their own pockets. Anyone who was employed, and their family, would probably be covered by an employer’s plan. This is the case in other developed countries that do not have government-run health care plans.

We’ll get to taxes a little further on.


Concerned voter:

People argue that government is wasteful; but if these services were performed by for-profit businesses, we would not only have to pay for the basic cost of the service, but also for the profits collected by a corporation's shareholders.


Abbot:

Sounds good in theory, perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. When, in the past, we’ve had government-owned enterprises competing directly with private concerns--Air Canada vs. CP Air, CBC vs. CTV, CN vs. CP, and so forth—the government entity has usually required big subsidies to hold its own in the marketplace. How come?

The discipline of the market forces efficiencies that more than make up for the profit margin. The profit taken by shareholders is nothing compared to what an established bureaucracy can squander in empire building and feathering its own nest.


Concerned voter:

What about the cost of running their marketting and advertising departments which, in a for-profit company, suck a good portion of the operating costs to ensure profitability?


Abbot:

Advertising is not a drag; it is a legitimate service to the public. It is educational; what you do not know about is not available to you.

As to the cost, do you really find that the cost of long distance services has gone up, and the quality declined, since Bell Canada lost its monopoly and the various providers had to start advertising and marketing?

Discipline of the market.


Concerned voter:

It is meaningless to speak of tax cuts without talking about program cuts. If you want to pay lower taxes, then look at the federal budget and decide what you would like to cut out.


Abbot:

Not so, according to the current “supply side” economic theory. (Not so according to Keynesianism, either.)

First, if the government has been running surpluses, as it has, it follows that you can cut taxes immediately without cutting services.

Second, according to the theory, if you cut taxes, you stimulate the economy. Greater economic activity means that your revenue stream does not go down—it is more likely to go up, over time. You will collect more, not less, money in taxes.

Third, by privatizing the provision of some services, thereby introducing market discipline, you can probably provide the same services at lower cost. This would be an argument for things like school vouchers, the Conservative plan to remit money for child care directly to families, or allowing more private provision of medical treatment.



Concerned voter:

We need more, not less, money in government services. Look at the long waits for medical care.


Abbot:

Simple rule of economics: when you fix prices, you get shortages. You are short-circuiting the supply and demand equation.


Concerned voter:

True, in a private hospital, you won't wait as long. Then again, unless you're well off, you won't get inside either. That's what makes them "efficient".


Abbot:

No, it isn’t. A survey in Manitoba actually showed that the wealthy are no more likely than the poor to resort to private provision of medical care. Again, it depends on what is covered in your employer’s plan.


Concerned voter:

…Promises to cut taxes are cheap. Promises to cut spending better reveal the true intentions of a candidate.


Abbot:

There’s truth in that. But to be fair and balanced, you need to remember the corollary. Promises to improve services are cheap. Promises to raise specific taxes better reveal the true intentions of the candidate.

The Canadian Election

Now is the time, no doubt, for all good men to come to the aid of the party. Yet I am still silent. My apologies. This has a lot to do with getting ready for Christmas and more to do with getting ready to go off on vacation to an undisclosed location in Sri Lanka.

But it is also that the Canadian election is just too depressing. As the polls sit, it will just be another Liberal minority about as before. The only movement I've seen so far is between the Liberals and the NDP. And the media have begun their usual full-court press against the Conservative leader and his message.

Of course, things could change after Christmas, once people begin focusing more on the election.

Hey! That could go for me as well!

But even if Harper gets a minority, it isn't enough to break through. He'd have to count on the support of the BQ for legislation, and there is very little those two parties have in common. I can see the Liberals losing the election, yet still hanging on to power by making a formal coalition with the NDP. Or another short minority like Joe Clark's.

I have already voted, by the way. Kudos to Elections Canada for making it possible. The ballot arrived from Canada by courier.

Filipinos for Harper

The Liberals may have trouble this time playing the racism card.

A recent Globe poll points out that support for the two parties among visible minorities is now just about the same as it is in the general population.

It’s about time. In terms of policies, those of the Conservatives have long been more favourable to recent immigrants than those of the Liberals. And the Conservative stance on moral issues is much closer to the views of most immigrant and visible minority families.

The Globe theorizes that the ongoing Tory-ward shift among visible minorities has a lot to do with the corruption issue. It could well be. Nobody knows better than folks who have grown up in the Third World how devastating government corruption can be.

Personally, I suspect a lot of it has to do with what was called, in the recent American election, “values.” Not just corruption, but gay marriage, abortion, and secularization.

I also think visible minorities must have become sick of being patronized by the Liberals, with their “Boys’ Book of Empire” concept of smiling brown natives dancing in colourful traditional costume that was “multiculturalism.”

The Globe story is here:

http://tinyurl.com/dsme8

The Family Compact

If anyone doesn’t believe that the Canadian political elite is a small, incestuous clique, note that Jack Layton’s Liberal opponent in Toronto Danforth in this election is Pierre Trudeau’s former mistress, Deborah Coyne. Layton’s wife, Olivia Chow, is running in nearby Trinity-Spadina. Layton is the son of former Mulroney cabinet minister Robert Layton.

I won’t get into the McKay—Stronach—Desmarais—Chretien—Mulroney crossovers.

This kind of intermarried clique is just not healthy in a democracy. It tends to the establishment of an aristocracy, and a government neither by nor for the people.

We need fresh blood. I’d say Alberta, the West, and the Tory Party is our greatest hope for that. The old Red Tories are as nepotistic and elitist as anyone; but the CA faction is pretty open to newcomers. Of the three main leaders outside Quebec, Stephen Harper is the only one whose father was not also a prominent politician. And the Tories have the most diverse caucus.

Romantic Love Lasts One Year

Romantic love is a crock. Real love comes only after marriage, and with time. The following story confirms this yet again:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3268292

The sad thing is how many marriages break up because one or the other partner has been swindled into thinking that romantic love is essential, and the real thing. Then when it fades, they think something is wrong.

Here's the kick: romantic love is a delusion based on a misreading of Medieval Christian allegories. They used romantic, or erotic, love as an allegory of the love between the soul and God. Eros was used as a metaphor for agape. Too many took the whole thing literally, and missed the referent.

Romantic love is a type of mental unbalance. They might as well have used the allegory--and did--of wine, or the dream.

Genocide League Tables

Historian R.J. Rummel has tried to put figures on the great genocides, and comes up with Mao as the greatest murderer of all time.

The tolls:

Mao: 77 million killed
USSR: 62 million killed
Hitler: 21 million killed

Hitler was a relative piker; and Mao beats not only Stalin, but all the leaders of the USSR combined--remembering that Lenin also had a good many people killed.

Most remarkable is that, although Hitler is considered the personification of evil along world-wide, Mao is nevertheless socially acceptable. Not just among leftists in North America and Europe: he is still extremely popular in China. From the Chinese view, he put the nation back on its feet, after centuries of humiliation; and it perhaps took someone utterly ruthless to do this.

Makes you wonder how everyone would now think of Hitler had he won the Second World War. It's always easier to flog a dead horse.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616

Boycott Quantas

An example of how far prejudice against men has gone: apparently Quantas and Air New Zealand will not sit an unaccompanied minor next to a man.

The logic seems to be that all men are child abusers, and no women are. Any any man is liable to molest a child in any public place, given half a chance.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200511%5CFOR20051129a.html

I Left My Heart in St. Francis

Why do we write “Vienna,” and not “Wien”; and yet we have switched “Peking” to “Beijing”?

Okay, you may not care. But I am, among other things, a professional editor.

It is a puzzlement. The proper rule is this: if a place name has an established spelling in English, that spelling is authoritative. How the people who actually live there, who speak a different language, say it in their language, is not relevant. This is the same rule followed by other languages: the French say “Londres,” not “London.”

The English name for a number of Indian cities has also changed: Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Poona to Pune, and so forth. But this is defensible: a significant number of people living in those places speak English, and their usage therefore arguably changes English usage.

But what is the argument for changing “Peking” to “Beijing”? Or, to cite other recent examples, “Burma” to “Myanmar,” “Ivory Coast” to “Cote d’Ivoire,” “Congo” to “Zaire,” “Saigon” to “Ho Chi Minh City,” or “Cambodia” to “Kampuchea”?

What do all these examples have in common? (Other than most of them having been changed back a few years later, adding to everyone’s confusion.) Hint: think left-wing dictatorships.

The chattering classes in the West are too ready to bend over, frontwards or backwards, for any leftist dictatorship in the Third World.

And have been for some while. English-language publications generally also swallowed St. Petersberg to Petrograd to Leningrad, in its day.

Enter, Pursued by Bear

People make a lot of fuss about the violence kids are exposed to these days on TV. But was it ever thus?

Innocent Victorian children’s rhymes were perhaps not that innocent after all. This one is from Edward Lear’s Book of Nonsense:

There was an old person of Tartary
Who divided his jugular artery;
But he screeched to his wife
And she said “Oh my life!
Your death will be felt by all Tartary!”

I can’t see that one getting past the average contemporary nursery school teacher.

How about this one:

There was an old man of Jamaica
Who suddenly married a Quaker;
But she cried out “Alack!
I have married a black!”
Which distressed that old man of Jamaica.

Or this:

There was a young lady of Clare
Who was sadly pursued by a bear;
When she found she was tired,
She abruptly expired,
That unfortunate lady of Clare.


The truth is, as Disney knew well, kids love being scared. And they love anything that seems a bit subversive. Rob them of this, and you are robbing them of some of the best fun of childhood. I suspect you are also stunting their souls. They need to ponder these questions.

Pleasant dreams, kids!

What Was Fascism Really All About?

Among the many falsifications of history, none is more dramatic than the way our memories of the Fascists have been falsified. For example:


* Currently, too many folks see any sort of rules and regulations, and cry “Fascist.”

Fascism was not excessive order: it was chaos. It was the elimination of all settled rules and regulations, replacing them with the personal whims of a leader.

When Hitler came to power, he abolished the German constitution and instituted personal rule. He also made no provision for a transfer of power on his incapacity or death. “He deliberately destroyed the state’s ability to function in favour of his personal omnipotence and irreplaceability,” writes biographer Sebastian Haffner.

Similarly, on the level of personal morality, Fascism rejected conventional ethics, as “sermonizing hypocrisy and Philistine stuffiness.” The German and the Japanese government supplied their elite troops with whores.

A settled government of laws is the very opposite of Fascism.


* Many folks also think that Fascism was all about an elite oppressing the vulnerable. They forget that the original idea of Fascism was that the Germans, or the Italians, were the oppressed. In this, it presents uncomfortable parallels with, for example, feminism, or Quebec nationalism. Mussolini called Italy a “proletarian nation.” Hitler called Versailles “the vilest rape that nations and human beings have ever been expected to submit to.” The Jews, conversely, were seen as an international elite—rather like men, or white men, or Anglos, today. The average Jew was indeed wealthier and better educated than the average German or Pole. In Berlin during the Weimar Republic, writes Haffner, “they even formed something like a second aristocracy.”


* Many now claim Fascism was right-wing. But Mussolini and Hitler both claimed to be socialists. Recent Hitler biographer Haffner agrees: “Hitler undoubtedly was a socialist—indeed a very effective socialist.”

Conversely, it was the conservatives, both inside and outside Germany, who presented the stiffest opposition to Hitler. Churchill was a conservative. De Gaulle was a conservative. Stalin was, until directly attacked, his ally; Mitterand collaborated; in Spain, according to George Orwell, the communists formed Franco’s boasted “Fifth Column.” In Germany, Haffner writes, “the only opponents or rivals whom Hitler had to consider seriously and whom at times he had to fight in the domestic political arena between 1930 and 1934 were the conservatives. The liberals, the Centre people, or the Social Democrats never gave him the least trouble, and neither did the communists. And this is how things remained…” It was conservatives who attempted his assassination in 1944.


* Many—like John Ralston Saul—try to make Christianity responsible somehow for the Holocaust. But Hitler was no Christian: “He was,” writes Haffner, “not only irreligious himself, but also had no perception of what religion can mean to others.” As a movement, Nazism was enthusiastic about reviving German paganism and similar “New Age” ideas. Hitler emphatically did not see Jews as a religious, but as a racial, group.

Klein for PM?

It sure looks like Ralph Klein wants the Conservative leadership. Considering his track record, it is hard to believe he has tripped Stephen Harper up twice, in two different election campaigns, inadvertently. It looks instead as though he is doing what he can to ensure Harper does not get a majority, so that the party may turn to him--Klein--as its saviour later.

Stockwell Day may, after all, have been his stalking horse, intended to keep the federal seat warm for him. Day was his lieutenant in Alberta, after all.

And what's this about doing a national tour to "promote Alberta" on the eve of a federal election campaign? Including a foray into Quebec to test the waters?

Klein has, after all, announced his intention to retire as Premier. He's done all he can provincially. And he enjoys politics too much; he is too much of a political animal, I suspect, to retire voluntarily to a quiet private life. His type of politician rarely does: populists like Diefenbaker, Chretien, Caouette.

Could he win?

I think so. We are overdue for a Conservative and for an Albertan as PM. People are afraid of the Conservatives; but Klein's folksy image is very reassuring. He is the sort of personality the Conservatives need right now; genial in the way Reagan was in the US. If he took the Conservative leadership, I would expect a Conservative sweep in the next election.

Of course, he is not bilingual, and that would hurt in Quebec. But the BQ will probably ensure that the Liberals are not too strong in Quebec either. If he can storm Ontario, that should be enough; enough even, perhaps , to get Quebec to come on board too, as they did for Diefenbaker.

It looks as though he is now consciously remolding his image to fit the national stage; just as he recreated himself in the move from mayor of Calgary to provincial premier, going from a "progressive" Liberal to a right-wing Tory. Hence the national tour. Another heavy hint: he has declared Harper "too right-wing" to win.

It's going to be interesting if Harper does not win this time.

Happy Fall Feast

PBS has apparently rechristened--sorry; redubbed--Thanksgiving "Fall Feast." I guess giving thanks might imply a higher being. And the spirit of thankfulness has been replaced with the more communal-minded "spirit of sharing."

No kidding:

http://pbskids.org/clifford/caregivers/activities/act_p119a.html

Sgt. Preston Rides Again

Preston Manning's new right-wing think tank now has a web page:

http://www.manningcentre.ca/

Christianity Resurrected in Britain

A recent BBC poll shows a sudden increase in the percentage of people in Britain identifying themselves as Christian—almost a doubling in the past year. The figures now stand at 59% of men and 75% of women; 67% overall. It seems the winds of revival, so evident in the US, may be beginning to blow in Europe as well.

This might be a reaction against militant Islam. But perhaps not: even fifty percent of British Muslims, in the survey, endorsed the notion that Britain should base itself on Christian values. It looks more like a revival inspired by Islam than a revival provoked by Islam.

More likely, it merely springs from the same original source: an awareness, deep down, that secular humanism is off the rails; and a rebellion against what has become its suppression of religion.

Larry Summers in Winter

A report on the Larry Summers affair appears in the latest newsletter from the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship.

You may recall, Larry Summers, former US Secretary of Commerce and current President of Harvard, got into hot water by suggesting factors other than discrimination may account for the shortage or female professors in the hard sciences.

According to the report, from one who heard the speech, Summers discussed two possible reasons, other than sex discrimination, for the disproportion here:

First, that women may more often avoid “high-powered” jobs that require long hours and total dedication to career.

Which of course they do.

Second, that there are more men than women who are extremely adept at math, physics, or chemistry.

This is empirically so; at more than 3.5 or 4 standard deviations above the mean, in standard tests on these subjects, men outnumber women 5 to 1. It should follow, on this factor alone, that men should outnumber women 5 to 1 on science faculties, if there is no discrimination at that level.

Feminists, of course, are now the first to insist there are real differences between men and women. Women are more “nurturing,” and so forth. But even if this were not so, even if this were all caused by social expectations or discrimination against younger women, it is still impossible to correct it at the level of university faculty hiring. You necessarily have a much smaller pool of highly-qualified female candidates from which to choose.

But, of course, all hell broke loose. Summers was obliged to apologize repeatedly, reputedly almost lost his job, and was obliged to announce $50 million in new funding to get more women into such jobs.

“The good academic value,” Summers said, “of challenging and provoking thought just went where it should not have gone.”

I guess that says it all.

Some things we are not allowed to even think.

Les Canadiens Errant

According to CP, the Canadian government is planning a new drive to convince “highly-skilled” Canadians living and working abroad to return home.

Unfortunately, the plan seems to simply involve ads run in the media worldwide.

The Liberal government has a fondness, after all, for ad companies.

But is it likely to work?

Highly skilled probably means well-educated. What is an ad going to tell them about the advantages of Canadian life that they do not already know?

According to government figures, seven percent of Canada’s most educated now work abroad: 500,000 Canadians. Among developed countries, only Sweden and France have more high-end expatriates.

As a result, we are forced to bring in more immigrants to make up the loss.

But why are so many Canadians eager to get out?

One obvious answer: we are overtaxed. That would explain Sweden as well.

Another, as I have noted in this blog, is the repressive Canadian political climate.

Another, no doubt, is winter.

Another is the boredom and loneliness of Canada’s vast distances.

Is a newspaper ad going to change any of this?

Canada: It Was Fun While It Lasted

According to this blog

http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-canada.html

several Canadian provinces are already more economically integrated with the US than with the rest of Canada, and the integration with the US is growing.

The pocketbook is not the only issue, but the pocketbook will argue increasingly in coming years for preferring full membership in the United States to the continued separate existence of Canada. Moreover, separation of Quebec (or Alberta) would matter far less economically to the rest of Canada now than it might have a few years ago.

Mission Abort?

Something strange is going on. According to this site

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111502.html

64% of Canadian women support some kind of restriction on abortion. And yet, of four major federal parties, not one calls for anything like this.

As has been apparent at least since the days of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord, there is a significant disconnect between the actual opinions of Canadians and what is on offer to them from their political leaders.

Only recently, the Conservatives backed down from any kind of change to Canada's current policy of free abortion on demand. Why? On the face of it, it looks as though this, along with the gay marriage issue, should be a sure winner for Stephen Harper.

I expect the problem is with the media. The mainstream liberal media will savage the Conservatives if they run on this, and they will have no chance to get their message out. A gifted orator like Diefenbaker or a genial personality like Reagan might be able to get the message through this screen; but it's a big gamble.

Is it worth trying anyway? Perhaps, as in the US, the new factor of the blogosphere might make it impossible to suppress the Conservative message this time. Along with relatively new presences on the media scene like the National Post.

Unfortunately, I don't think Stephen Harper, a man I greatly admire, has the right image and public persona to pull it off.

Jes' Plain Folks

The point of folk music, as the name implies, is that it is the music of the common people. Yet the great irony is that it is not; not any more. The common people listen to pop music or country music. It is hard to find others interested, as I am, in folk. Mostly they congregate around college campuses. Hardly the common folk.

What we call folk music is therefore not folk music; but what is it? It’s a kind of romanticism; a rich educated person’s fantasy of what it might mean to be poor and unlettered.

Like romanticism generally, it misses all the gritty bits; the mosquitoes and the foul smells of country life, the grime of the fields and mines.

Take that old folk standby “Goodnight, Irene.” I have an original recording by Leadbelly. Some of his verses are never heard any more:


I love Irene, Lord knows I do;
Love her till the seas run dry.
If Irene turns her back on me
Gonna take morphine and die.

I asked her mother about Irene
She told me she was too young
I wish I’d never seen her face
I’m sorry she ever was born.


Funny, that, eh?

And the original chorus wasn't quite as we've remembered it. I'm used to singing "I'll see you in my dreams," as the Weavers did. But Leadbelly actually sang "I'll get you in my dreams."

And that familiar children’s song, “The Cat Came Back?” In its original, as a turn of the century pop song, the lyrics were rather different than we now remember:

De cat it were a terror and dey say it wer be best
To gib it to a nigger who was going out West.
De train going 'round de curve struck a broken rail,
Not a blessed soul aboard de train wer left to tell de tale.

Little boy took de cat away, he got a dollar note.
Took it down to de ribber in a little open boat.
Tied a brick around its neck an' stone about a pound;
Now dey're grappling in de ribber for a little boy that's drowned.


Kind of sounds more like Eminem and less like Sharon, Lois, and Bram.

Adam's Spare Ribs

Living in the Middle East—especially in a bedouin area—is an eye-opener in understanding the Bible. Semitic culture is Semitic culture, and much in the Bible becomes clearer in light of Arab customs.

For example, the riddle of wives for Adam and Eve’s sons. How did Cain or Seth find wives if there were no other people before their parents? Yet there would be no mystery here to a bedouin, and so I presume to an ancient Hebrew audience.

Today, as I generally do at least one a year, I had my Arab students drawing family trees, for practice in English words for relatives. Nobody has ever included a female relative in these charts. Not, by the way, out of discrimination against women, in my opinion. Because to speak of one’s female relatives is ungallant.

So there is no mystery that no daughters of Adam and Eve are mentioned in the Bible’s begats.

Nor would there be much surprise or horror at the thought that brothers might have married sisters. My class was surprised when, in showing family photos, I explained that I could not marry my first cousin. That is not just a common, but a preferred match in the Middle East. Keeps the bloodlines and the clan loyalties clear. Among Egyptian pharaohs, brothers usually married sisters.

To an Arab, and perhaps to an ancient Hebrew, the whole thing would go without saying.

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

On a Catholic email list recently, a wise comment: scientists are really just one more special interest group.

We need to remember that.

When the alarm is raised over global warming, or environmental degradation, or species at risk, or the obesity epidemic, or bird flu, or skin cancer, or the ozone layer, or smoking, or SARS, or wife abuse, or discrimination against women, or spreading illiteracy, or a comet striking the earth, we need to, and we do not, take it with more than a grain of salt.

Ulterior motives are at work. Causing a big stir about some impending public danger scores the jackpot in research funding. It makes careers and personal fortunes. It makes you famous. “You're fixed for life, qualified to appear on NPR and PBS [and CBC, and BBC] philosophizing on politics, economics, and social issues, because you are now a ‘respected authority.’” It gives you power: as the authority, you can dictate to the public and even governments on the issue. You can get an area cordoned as your exclusive preserve, figuratively or even literally. It’s too dangerous for others to trifle with. If, for example, the mountain gorilla is found endangered, first thing is the creation of a preserve, with the rabble excluded, and the scientific experts in charge. A lot better than a cottage by the lake. Declare a drug dangerous, similarly, and you have a monopoly on dispensing it.

The press are willing accomplices. It makes easy news, just a matter of rewriting press releases. It also makes easy “in depth” features, all the data spoon-fed to you by the scientific authorities. The public, sadly, eats it up. It’s almost a kind of blackmail: “you are going to die if you don’t…”

The politicians too love it, because it convinces the public to hand more power to them. For politicians or civil servants, as for scientists, a good public scare can make careers and personal fortunes. It is the stuff bureaucratic empires are built of. It gives them power over others; and they are usually in it for power.

Woe unto you, ye scribes and Pharisees.

For the rest of us, try to believe every now and then that the sky is not really falling.

The Rectification of Terms

As many, from Plato to Confucius to Orwell, have pointed out, in politics words are commonly used to deceive. It is important, therefore, to keep checking terms against their ordinary meanings.

“Progressive” I take to mean wanting change, believing change is generally an improvement. Merriam-Webster: “making use of or interested in new ideas, inventions, or opportunities.”

“Conservative” I take to mean wanting to preserve, believing change is generally not desirable. Merriam-Webster: “advocates preservation of the established order and views proposals for change critically and usually with distrust.”

Neither have anything to do with big or small government: government can be either an agent of change or an agent of preservation.

However, almost by definition, over the longer term, those who are out of power are those who will want change. And, almost necessarily, those who are out of power want less government (there are other sources of power than government, but government is the prime locus of power). Therefore, most often, progressivism means wanting small government.

“Liberal” can mean spending a lot (and “conservative” can mean spending little), but this is trivial. I think it more literally, especially when used of politics, means a commitment to civil liberties: “liberal” as in “liberty”; from the Latin. Merriam-Webster, describing the British Liberal Party as normative: “…with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and administrative reforms…”

This associates liberalism too with smaller government: powers given to government are, in principle, powers taken from individuals.

By this definition, Mike Harris is to the liberal and progressive side, as was Reform and are the current federal Conservatives. John Tory is more conservative; as was Joe Clark. Broadly, the current Canadian Conservative Party is liberal and progressive, and the current federal Liberal Party is conservative; although they do trade places on a few social issues. The old Ontario Tory party, of Bill Davis, John Robarts, and George Drew, was conservative.

Remembrance Day

A BC teacher has written an article for The Tyee explaining why he refuses to wear a poppy for Remembrance Day.

View the article at

http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/11/09/DontWearPoppy

Whether or not The Tyee prints it, here, FWIW, is my response.


Why I Wear a Poppy

Clay McLeod’s premise (“Why I Don’t Wear a Poppy”, Nov. 9) is that the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers in World War I and II and in Korea are not worthy of remembrance because “wars are never completely black-and-white.” This is an extravagant example of what is currently called “moral equivalence,” of failing to see any distinction between degrees of right and wrong. This is a critical failure, because in the real world, moral choices are always between degrees of right and wrong. Real life is never black and white.

But to equate the actions of Hitler with the internment of Japanese Canadians, and the wearing of a poppy with the wearing of a swastika, is to smash one’s moral compass and hide all the pieces.

McLeod claims “Unarguably, WWI was ‘for king and country,’ not freedom and democracy; its causes were rooted in European imperialism and nationalism.”

I’m afraid that view, although currently fashionable, is in fact quite arguable. It is perfectly reasonable to claim they did, as they believed they did, fight for democracy and that small nations might be free.

In World War I, it remains true that all the great democracies were aligned on one side, and the other side was solidly autocratic. Had the autocrats cleanly won, they would presumably have imposed autocratic governments; their loss, conversely, produced democracy, for a time, in Germany and the former Austrian Empire. So how was it not a fight for freedom and democracy? It also remains true that the war was started by the autocrats, by invading Serbia, and it was also the autocrats who invaded Belgium without a casus belli. Had they won, it would have been a severe blow to the freedom of small nations.

McLeod then denies that even WWII had any preponderance of morality on either side: “WWII was a complex conflict based in the context of the resolution of WWI. Although that context gave fertile soil to the most notorious example of evil known to history - Hitler and the Nazis - the resulting conflict was more a continuation of imperialist rivalries and nationalistic competition than it was a legitimate battle between good and evil…”

This is double talk. If the most notorious example of evil known to history is on the one side, supporting the other side is, necessarily, a moral issue.

Nor did Britain, France, the US, or Russia go to war in order to expand their empires or to crush Germany as a nation. Without looking at each case, the claim is absurd on the historical facts.

McLeod considers the Korean conflict his coup de grace: “The fact that we recognize the efforts of our soldiers in the Korean War … conclusively demonstrates that we are not just recognizing the efforts of soldiers to protect freedom and democracy.”

Freedom and democracy were not at stake in Korea? This is possible to believe only in hindsight. Whatever his later crimes, Syngman Rhee was then a democratic leader, democratically elected. Kim Il Sung refused to hold scheduled UN elections in North Korea, and instead invaded to seize the South.

And perhaps not even in hindsight. Compare the situation, in terms of either personal freedom or democracy, in North and South Korea today. Can McLeod believe a different result to the Korean War would not have mattered, for either?

Finally, McLeod argues that, in any event, war per se is evil: in confronting evil, we should instead use tactics of passive resistance.

To be consistent, though, he should advocate the same approach for the criminal justice system. Faced, for example, with a rapist and slasher plying his trade in our stairwell, the proper response is not to call the cops, but to get out there and bare our breast to him to shame him into better behaviour. To a child molester, in turn, we should offer our own children so that he comes to see the error of his ways.

That ought to work.

But even if all this were not so, it would still be beside the point. McLeod is labouring under the false premise that Remembrance Day is a day for celebrating the victory by force of “freedom and democracy.”

“Remembrance Day uses the veneer of virtues like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to glorify military solutions to the world's problems.” It is not, and nobody I know understands the poppy in this way. The point of the poppy is that they grew amid the graves of the fallen.

Certainly, if I were going to make the case for war as a glorious and a good thing, I would not take the vast death toll of WWI trench warfare as my symbol.

It is a day, rather, for remembering the sacrifice of soldiers who suffered and died in war.

McLeod believes it would be apt to commemorate the sufferings of those killed in the concentration camps. They manifestly did not die for “freedom and democracy.” Yet he refuses to honour the sufferings of soldiers who fought and died in war, because, in his opinion (not theirs) they did not die for “freedom and democracy.” Is this not inconsistent?

Indeed, even if McLeod is right about the real causes of this or that war, it is surely relevant that the average soldier believed that he was fighting and perhaps dying in a noble cause. Isn’t it both illogical and cruel to claim that, because they were mistaken or misled, their sacrifice is to be discounted?

And what of the special virtues of the soldier? Courage, loyalty, forbearance and persistence in the face of adversity, self-abnegation. Greater love hath no man, after all, than one who will lay down his life for his fellow man. What is the justice in ignoring such things? If war is wrong, it is wrong to blame the soldier.

“Regardless of whether I'm right or if I'm deluded myself,” McLeod concludes, “the fact is that violence is a never ending cycle.”

Unfortunately, this too is McLeod’s delusion. Violence does not, in fact, self-perpetuate. Germany and Japan, for example, have not returned to war as a result of the violence used against them in WWII. Uganda has not gone to war again because of the violence used to unseat Idi Amin. Arresting and imprisoning criminals does not visibly cause them to reoffend.

As some wag once observed, “violence never solved anything—okay, except maybe Fascism, slavery, American independence, the survival of the Jewish race…”

Wear the damned poppy, McLeod. Your morals are showing.

All Hallows Eve

It is common knowledge these days that Hallowe’en is a pagan festival.

No doubt it does have elements taken over from paganism; as do Christmas and Easter.

But it is also perfectly legitimate as a Christian holiday.

Hallowe’en is the evening of All Saint’s Day—“All Hallows.” It makes as much sense to mark it as a prelude to the day itself as to celebrate Christmas Eve, New Year’s Eve, Good Friday, or Mardi Gras.

It has, it is true, overshadowed the day itself. This too is not so odd: the same is true of New Year’s Eve.

It is a pity that in Canada we do not properly celebrate All Saint’s Day, though. This is when we remember the souls in heaven, which is to say, the good people who have gone before us. In the Philippines, for example, a thoroughly Catholic country, the day is spent at the local cemetery, at the graves of ancestors. It is especially associated with family members who have died in infancy. If they have died after baptism and before the age of reason, they are known to be in heaven. Other saints are officially declared by the church; these are honoured on their own special days. On this day, we can make our own private assumptions about those we knew when alive, and knew to be good people.

This day, we commune with them—honour them, remember their lives, and ask for their intercession.

The next day, November 2, is All Souls’ Day. On this day, traditionally also spent at the cemetery, you pray for all, especially relatives, who are assumed to be still in purgatory. Those not so good; the general run of folk.

It is sad to me that in Canada departed relatives tend to be forgotten and their graves left unvisited.

But so far, we have accounted for only two possible fates for souls after death: heaven and purgatory. As every Catholic knows, there are really three. That’s where Hallowe’en comes in. Souls in hell do not belong, of course, on All Saints’; and there is no point in praying for them on All Souls, as they are already lost.

If Hallowe’en is not clearly identified as this, as All Damned Day, it is because the reality is too unpleasant to face so squarely. It is the sort of thing we prefer to cloak with a euphemism. In any case, it is appropriate to mark not the day, but the evening: day means good, and night means evil.

Why should we mark such a sorry thing? The damned are beyond helping or being helped.

Because, like Medieval murals showing the Dance of Death, it is a useful caution for the living.

Why the pagan elements? Because pagans, presumably, from the Christian perspective, are on the road to hell. The word “hell” itself is taken from a pagan word for the afterlife.

The event, like most such things, has been sanitized over time: just a bunch of little kids trying their hand at deceit and gluttony. Back in Irish Gananoque, where I grew up, Hallowe’en night still involved more. Older kids—teenagers—soaped up windows and performed other acts of mischief. The forces of chaos had been unleashed.

Why is Hallowe’en celebrated on the last day of October? The conventional explanation is that it is the old Celtic New Year; but that, if so, is incidental. There is a fairly narrow window in which a day of hell can fit into the liturgical calendar. Advent in November through to Pentecost in June or so is sacred time. And it must be soon before this, instead of soon after it, to convey salvation history.

October 31 falls close to the midpoint between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice. It can be seen, therefore, as the first night of winter, given the same logic that makes June 21, the summer solstice, “Midsummer Night”; and Groundhog Day the first day of spring.

Winter is the season of cold; but, more important in celestial, which is to say, metaphorically, heavenly, terms, it is the season of darkness. Hence, October 31 roughly marks the moment when darkness becomes triumphant over creation. Christmas is the rebirth of light, at the winter solstice; Easter, at the vernal equinox, marks light’s ascendancy.

Hallowe’en is therefore the anti-Easter; directly across the year from, six months before, Easter’s salvation.

You have to give the devil his due.

Toronto vs. Dubai as Multicultural Mecca

I sometimes wonder who Toronto slept with to get designated by some UN body “the world’s most multicultural city.”

There is a lot of ethnic variety in Toronto, it is true. But for my money, Dubai seems at least as multicultural. Toronto may be over fifty percent foreign born now. Dubai is well over eighty percent.

I was up in Dubai with my four-year-old on the weekend. We went to the “Global Village,” a sort of permanent outdoor cross between Toronto’s Caravan and CNE. Unlike Caravan, which seems to have been a passing enthusiasm, it is growing bigger every year.

In a real sense, Global Village is how Dubai defines itself. It and its region, the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, has always been, and always considered itself, a crossroads. It was for millennia, since the days of Sumer and Mohenjo-daro, a crucial link in the trade routes between Europe, the Middle East, India, and China. And Africa: until quite recent years, neighbouring Oman and Zanzibar were one kingdom. Many Omanis and Emiratis look African today. For Toronto, by comparison, the enthusiasm for the international is only a generation deep, and may be gone tomorrow.

In the “Global Village,” each nation has its own permanent pavilion: traditional shopping, traditional food, traditional performances. This year, it is open for six months. Starting next year, it will be open all year round. Dubai is the world in miniature, and the Global Village is Dubai in miniature.

But not the only one. It is a motif repeated again and again. After the Global Village, we also visited the new Ibn Battuta Mall: divided into six sections, each recreating the traditional architecture and décor of a different civilization. China, India, Persia, Egypt, Tunisia, Spain. Again the same metaphor: Dubai is the world in miniature. Again, appearing slowly on the Dubai waterfront is something simply called “The World,” a series of artificial islands that together form a world map. Cottagers can own their own country. Rod Stewart has already bought England.

Toronto’s Chinatown is big? Dubai has Chinamexmart, a shopping mall 1.3 kilometers long in the shape of a dragon, the largest outlet for Chinese products outside China. It is the centre of a Chinese high-rise residential community in what is called “International City.” Similar malls and settlements at similar scale from other regions are projected. “Vancouver” is currently, I hear, under construction.

Another project on the drawing board is “Falcon City,” which is to feature reproductions of great world landmarks: the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and so forth. Not miniature scale models, mind: more or less full size or, in the case of the Taj Mahal, larger.

The big local newspapers too balance their news sections by region of the globe: the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, the Far East, Europe, the Americas, each get two pages each day.

My wife, who is Filipina, can generally actually do her shopping in her native language. You can’t do that in Toronto, although you could probably manage it in Chinese or Italian. She also gets the full range of Filipino foods here, and Filipino restaurants; that’s not easy to find in Toronto. I can get whatever I crave from Canada. I can also get any ingredient I might want for South Asian cooking, the full range of cuisines north and south; all the array of Middle Eastern foods, of course; plus things from Europe I never see in Canada.

Toronto might have the edge in terms of the range of countries represented: last time I was back, it seemed to have even newly sprouted a Burmese neighbourhood. But for my money, to be multicultural to one’s soul really requires being a major seaport, and being more or less disconnected from any large hinterland with a solid majority culture. Dubai and Singapore fit that bill. Hong Kong used to. Beirut could. Montreal once did. Toronto does not.

Toronto has enthusiasms, and goes on moral crusades. Right now it is multiculturalism, and Toronto has grown very intolerant of anyone who is not tolerant. Next year it may be colonic irrigation or something else.

But I have a feeling Dubai will stay the course.

The Oppression of Muslim Women

An insight into the oppression of women in Muslim countries: the Gulf News reports that currently, twice as many Emirati women as men hold college and university degrees (“UAE women prove their mettle,” Gulf News, November 4, 2005).

Meanwhile, Reuters, in what is represented as a straight news story, cautions against putting too much faith in the “big brothers” who are trying to stop the violence in the Muslim areas of France. After all, Reuters explains, “the term ‘big brother’ also evokes a brother who guards the family honour by terrorizing his sisters to wear modest clothes and keep away from boys.” (“’Big brothers’ try to calm Paris tensions,” Gulf News, November 4, 2005).

God forbid.

It is hard not to sympathize with Muslims over this sort of comment.

Everybody Knows There Were No WMDs in Iraq

What most people believe is usually the opposite of the truth. Robert Fulford taught me this: “If everybody knows something,” he said, “it is sure to be wrong.”

This article argues that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And that this is actually public knowledge:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9594

Human Rights Watch: This Just In

Didn't I say the situation was worse in Canada?

In Manitoba, a woman can get a restraining order against any man by just picking up the phone. Any man--not only her husband.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/04/protectionorders-051104.html

Human Rights Watch

If you care about human rights, you have to read this.

Executive summary version:

"Jim Crow Days for Men"

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9408

Full version:

"Time to Defund Feminist Pork"

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-20.html

And remember, bad as it all sounds, this is the US version of feminism. It is much worse in Canada.

A Letter from Anonymous

Dear Abbot:

I would like to add to this post to the best of my working class ability, or at least present the working class perspective.

Our government is run by rich capitalists.

Many government workers up ‘til the recent deregulation of utilities are working class.

I have noticed that most employers in similar industries pay close to the same wage, and sell their product for similar price. There is not competition when the choices are pre-agreed upon by the "Competitors"

Slight differences is wages are not worth the effort when you may have to move your family or spend most of you time away on the road.

Most people I know who spend their careers on the road are divorced or in dismal relationships.Management does have the opportunity to underpay labour when it can make labourers compete with each other for the work.

I may work for 20 dollars, but what do I do when the next guy will work for 16?

The rich capitalist will never lose. Even when "let go" from a job their compensation, share options and salary earned while in the job is enough for anyone to live on for several lifetimes. What incentive is there to pay the workers well when the result would be a loss in your own chunk or the cash?

Anonymous


Dear Anonymous:

First, thanks very much for writing. It is great to hear different views.

You blame the plight of the working class on “rich capitalists.” To begin with, “rich capitalists” in the Marxist sense are a bogeyman. It is too much to say they do not exist—Theresa Heinz Kerry is certainly one, and you might have a case that “our government is run by rich capitalists,” in the person of Paul Martin—but they are rare, and much less influential than you seem to think. Blaming everything on a conspiracy of “rich capitalists” is the class equivalent of blaming everything on the Jews.

A capitalist is supposed to be someone who makes his living on the investment of capital, instead of working for a living. I guess that describes the average retiree, but not a separate class. It is contradictory to speak of a “rich capitalist” being “let go” from a job. Such a person is by definition an employee, not a capitalist.

I guess technically he’s a member of the working class… but to put it so makes essentially everyone in Canada “working class.”

When you look at this sort of thing, the thing that becomes obvious is that Marx’s ideas and Marx’s analysis of society has been proved completely wrong over time. But you are apparently still basing your world view on it.

It is more useful to talk of the “blue collar” and “white collar” distinction. Blue collar workers work largely with their muscles; white collar workers work largely with their brains. Our government is indeed run by white collar workers, and by a party whose support comes from white collar workers. The blue collars favour the Conservatives; white collars vote Liberal and NDP.

On this basis, it is fair to say that “many” government workers used to be blue collar: the postmen and the cops on the beat, the linesmen at hydro, the street sweepers. But surely they have been a minority of government workers for a long time. You cite utilities in particular. I used to work for Ontario Hydro. Two giant office buildings in downtown Toronto, full of people working at computers and pushing papers. No doubt there were linesmen out there somewhere in the field, but we never heard saw them, heard of them, or thought of them. Similarly, for every cop on the beat, how many desk jockeys are there in a provincial police force? I wonder.

You say, of the private sector, “There is not competition when the choices are pre-agreed upon by the ‘Competitors,’” and that similar products are always offered at about the same price.

Note that, if you could prove that competitors are agreeing in advance on products or prices, you would have a case against them in law: this is illegal restraint of trade. But even if it were not illegal, they could not get away with it over time, because a new competitor could enter the field and destroy them with a cheaper or a better product. When there is restraint on new products—and there is—this is necessarily something imposed by government. This is why we should be suspicious of government regulation and government interference in the marketplace. Big government tends to protect vested interests.

I think you are factually wrong to say that similar products always have the same price. Do you do the shopping in your family? I find wide variety in the prices of quite similar products: toilet paper, say, can vary in price 100% depending on brand. The one place where price does not seem to vary is, again, where government has fixed prices: for eggs or cheese or milk.

You object to having labourers compete with each other for work, and ask, what can you do if you want $20 an hour, but the next guy will do the work for $16?

While businesses may not collude to fix prices, labourers are already completely free to collude to fix wages. That’s called a union. Unfortunately, though legal, it still does not work. Any company that sees its wages forced up to the point that it is no longer competitive is out of business. Any government that intervenes to prevent this—as most have—just loses an industry. Because they cannot impose their wages on foreign workers.

But there is an alternative. In a free market, one’s wages really can vary, based on your market value as an employee. If you can make five widgets an hour, while the next guy makes only three, you can expect to get $20 an hour, while he gets only $16.

One way to do this, of course, is to work harder. Another way is to increase your productivity by developing better work skills. Another way, indeed, is to move to a new market where there is a labour shortage. You are free, of course, to decide that the boost in wages is not enough to make you want to move; or the increase in wages is not enough to make you want to work harder, or to improve your skills by, say, taking a night course. That’s your choice.

And this, in turn, is the incentive to pay workers well: because it gets and keeps more productive workers. This increases their profit, or their market share.

Good luck.

Abbot