Louise ARBOUR's Failed UN Term?

Full Disclosure: I am not a fan of Mme. ARBOUR (see this piece).

I feel this strong denunciation by a Toronto lawyer Mr. Glenn COHEN - is unfair.

1) COHEN acknowledges the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is overrun with countries run by repressive, non-democratic regimes1. Further, it is widely acknowledged that the High Commissioner (HC) does not necessarily play a role in the Council - yet COHEN tags the numerous Council resolutions critical of Israel on Mme. ARBOUR (Mr. COHEN states that 46% of UNHRC statements in 2006 were critical of Israel. Unfortunately UN Watch's review did not include 2006). While possible that Mme. ARBOUR had some role in drafting, introducing or influencing resolutions that came before the Council - it is debatable and quite defensible that she may not have had any role in approving them what so ever.

2) According to Geneva-based Human Rights Group UN Watch, Mme. ARBOUR made 79 critical statements directed at 39 different countries during 2007/8. This amounts to 3 rebukes per month. I am sure a good deal of painstaking research from hostile resources must take place before anything is released. The majority (69) were directed at "non-democratic" nations including Myanmar who received 7 warnings - the most of any nation. Council members2 were largely absent of criticism. I am not sure if this is because they must ratify the HC's statements or what, but it is not surprising that many are not partial to being self-critical3. Israel received 4 warnings - the same as Zimbabwe, Nepal, DR Congo, Afghanistan and Sudan whereas Lebanon received only 1 "mild" citation. 4 of 79 direct citations - however misconstrued or misguided - does not seem to constitute "disproportionate" as Mr. COHEN states.

3) Condemnation of Mme. ARBOUR's decision to choose when she would "Name and Shame" or take a "quiet diplomacy" approach is moralistic. But it is a legitimate criticism. As UN Watch noted "There is no magic formula for how to criticize countries". Many influences went into her choices but presumably our evaluation of her success should measure results, not the process. Yet it is disappointing when democratic countries with a free and open press that provide balanced reportage suffer official international disapprobation whereas many countries with repressive regimes and a non-free media which is a mere front for official propaganda do not.

4) Diplomacy at the UN does not function in a simple and direct manner as one might think, in fact on close inspection it seems alot closer to "Alice in Wonderland". UN Watch identifies two seemingly innocuous resolutions under which support was indicative of "many regular acts of intimidation by regimes interested in hiding their abuses."4 Supporters unaccountably included many "free" states like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India and Mexico, while South Korea and Switzerland merely "stood by" allowing the injustice by abstaining from the vote.

5) Given the task of taming dozens of totalitarian/authoritarian regimes, many of whom openly flaunt Human Rights can not be a simple job. Some may call it impossible. Mme. ARBOUR certainly failed in adjusting expectations and setting objectives by which she could be fairly judged.

6) If UN Watch has the neutral moral compass needed to crititic Mme. ARBOUR, she appears to have recieved what I would call a C+ grade. They have not showered Mme. ARBOUR with the same vehement criticism as Mr. COHEN.

Mr. COHEN seems to have an axe to grind. He obviously doesn't take kindly to any criticism of Israel. I have often observed such an attitude by supporters of Israel. It reminds me of the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq. Any citizen was pilloried as disloyal to question the White House determination - dissent was quashed and a "my country right or wrong" attitude took hold. That attitude no longer has much credibility and the press has in fact faced alot of criticism for not "challenging" conventional wisdom more strongly at the time.

Undoubtedly, Mme. ARBOUR failed to tame the UNHRC - yet to believe otherwise is the failure we should address.

Footnotes:
1) The Right to Name and Shame: An Analysis of the Tenure of Former UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour with Recommendations for New High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay. August 4, 2008, UN Watch. Mme. ARBOUR was appointed High Commissioner of the UNHRC from July 1 2004 to 2008 but this report studies only 2007-8.

As UN Watch notes "As High Commissioner she is subject to the authority of the Secretary-General of the UN but wears two hats in that she serves the Human Rights Council but also has a significant role as an independent voice to promote human rights."

The Council consists of 47 nations. Those considered "*free" include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, S. Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK and Uruguay (23) - while those "partly free*" were Bahrain, Bolivia, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Gabon, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines and Zambia (14) - and those "not free" Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia (10). *Freedom rating taken from 2008 Freedom in the World Survey by Freedom House. 23 are free, 14 partly free and 10 not free. This means a majority of 51% (24 of 47) fall short of basic democratic freedoms.

2) Of 79 critical statements, 23 were weak, 32 moderate and 24 strong. Russia and China sustained minor rebukes.

3) As UN WATCH claimed "[Mme. ARBOUR] was silent, or spoke out no more than once, on systematic human rights abuses committed by China and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council, and on those committed by Egypt, a country that exercises great influence at the Human Rights Council through its leading position in various UN country groupings. Similarly, Mme. ARBOUR only issued one statement for human rights victims in Angola, Chad, and Kazakhstan, whose very systems deny basic civil and political freedom." P.2, The Right ti Name and Shame.

4) They were UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/2 of 27 March 2008, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Sponsored by the Cuban government. Adopted by a vote of 34 in favor, 10 opposed, and 3 abstentions and UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/159 of 19 December 2006, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Sponsored by the Cuban government. Adopted by a vote of 118 in favor, 7 opposed, and 55 abstentions.

Why was Kyle WEESE Free?

Fast on the heels of Mr. GUNTERS article on "Why Gun Bans won't work" came the news of this shooting death of an innocent bystander in Toronto.

Incredibly, the jerk-kneed editorials of Liberal rags like the Toronto Star AGAIN suggested the problem would have been solved if a "handgun ban" was in place. INCREDIBLE! No exploration of the fact that the perpetrator was a career criminal out on bail on a previous handgun charge.

Lorne GUNTER makes a completely common-sense suggestion in sayoing that a good first step towards preventing such murders of innocent bystanders would be rational sentences with no parole for violent crimes - rather than tying to impose onerous useless regulations of ordinary law abiding citizens. Amen.

Real Healthcare crisis is fear of criticism + lack of transparency

Bombastic Newfie Premier Danny WILLIAMS holds forth at Cancer Diagnosis Inquiry in St. John's.

And then only yesterday, a hospital in High Prairie AB admits that some patients may have suffered unanticipated infections from reused needles used in Dental Surgery since 2001 and Endoscopy procedures since 1991. Thousands may be a risk - although significant the likelyhood is thought to be very small.

Such failures come after a more serious incident involving improperly cleaned medical instruments and equipment in Vegreville in April 2007.

Government R&D merely crowds-out legitimate research

Karen SELICK is - as usual - right on!

I have had experience in this, having helped a start-up try to launch a "green energy" service in 2002/3 right after PM Chretien flip-flopped and announced that Canada would support The Kyoto Accord. This was a tall order given the increase in heavy oil production in Alberta since the 1990 base period - but we figured there would be growing interest in energy efficiency and lots of government support due to the $6bn that was expected to be committed to implementing Kyoto.

It was just like Karen described and was a complete bust. Federal government departments like EnerCan fell over themselves promoting "energy efficient" ideas and hype - often with the implicit understanding that they "maybe" would offer incentives for various projects. I can recall at least 4 projects that might have become customers had they not been seduced away by government plums and promises like free consulting advice and "pilot project" subsidies. I think only 1 is still operating - even though they should have been quite attractive as energy prices skyrocketed and despite tighter "spark spreads" (the "spark spread" is the difference between energy prices and wholesale electricity prices. It indicates the substitution potential for "net metered" power and the "cost advantage" wedge between the 2 energy sources).

Also we attempted to approach operations in the North West Territories (NWT), as we figured we only had to compete against "dirty diesel" power - but their was virtually no interest - as more than 60% of "economic activity" is not actually market-driven work. Most activity is all driven by government transfers - Healthcare, Education, Welfare, Aboriginal Government (most reserves have 50%+ unemployment if measured in the traditional sense, except for government jobs. Technically they are not in the "labour force" and as housing and utilities cost are free or heavily subsidized they merely supplement their welfare payments with traditional hunting, fishing or guiding activities. These are the only "jobs" and are seasonal.) Many men leave and become itinerant workers by taking jobs in the south "remitting" their earnings back to their families. Sometimes a mine opens nearby and they can "commute" (although it may be 100's of kilometers). Given such a fragile "real business" economy - and despite Greenhouse Gas emissions that were far in excess of 1990 levels, the Government of NWT was allowed to ignore the Kyoto Accord limits!

Needless to say, the only remaining incentive was "moral suasion" - which normally came with a big grant and many strings attached (who to hire, what to buy, where and how). Not to mention fighting the perpetual requirements of government administration - who seemed sustained by a never-ending supply of coffee-breaks and meetings.

[Update: Nov 1, 2008 - A few responses have made it into the "Letters" section over past week - have been posted. This one from a retired Business Prof repeated the "public policy" response. But the most self-serving came from Claire M. Morris, president and CEO, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. She repeated research by economist Edwin MANSFIELD that publicly funded research has generated returns of between 28-50% - worth some $60 billion in 2007. ]

Guns bans do not prevent murders.

Lorne GUNTER makes this point in the National Post very well - so I will not repeat it.

Yet today I heard Mayor David MILLER repeat for the umpteenth time that the problem is guns. That is simply not true - as supported by the facts. That he refuses to address the real problems that drive such heinous crimes - state-sponsored family breakdown, increased criminalization of men, increased substance abuse and gang activity - we will never successfully attack the real problems.

I would also argue that the indifference of local police to rising minor crimes - like car break-ins and theft - is part of the problem that drives citizens to own guns (despite the high regulatory burden and cost). As a friend of mine put it, more and more the police seem to practice "crime management" - that is triaging events into emergency, major and minor (with minor ignored or investigated by the victim with prompting by police via telephone) rather than prevention. And they wonder why the public is losing confidence in their ability.

Source: Statistics Canada Online Juristat. "Homicide in Canada" 85-002-X, Oct 2008.

Tragedy for family of Jennifer HUDSON

What a terrible tragedy for this talented young women. I believe Johnathon KAY is correct when he says this will effect Ms. Hudson in a terrible fashion.

This is the crisis that Sen. Barack OBAMA should dedicate himself to repairing.

St. Crispin's Day

Sadly, a 15 yr-old boy in Barrie ON named Brandon Crisp has been missing for over a week (since Thanksgiving Monday, Oct 13) after an argument with his parents over excessive Xbox use and online playing of Call of Duty 4. In this article from the National Post, "experts" indicate that any obsessive compulsive behaviour should be a red flag to parents about "possible deeper emotional turmoil within their kids lives".

Still another media outlet (CTV) interviewed an expert who said that parents underestimate the degree of social interaction such games involve. In many cases, children derive a high degree of personal identity from the fantasy world of the game and the other participants they meet online. In some cases they can avoid uncomfortable social circumstances because of their online skills and in this way their online "memes" - with whom they may have a huge amount of interactions with - become an important part of their social network.

To help in the search, a number of community volunteers have begun looking for the boy. Microsoft Canada (who produces the Xbox) has contributed to a reward for tips that lead to Brandon being found. They also maybe able to provide information about some of Brandon's online gamer friends. A growing concern is that he may have been aided in his runaway or possibly abducted by a fellow online gamer.

October 25 was before Vatican II1 known as Saint Crispin's Day and was the feast day of the twin Christian Saints Crispin and Crispinian (also known as Crispinus and Crispianus, though this spelling has fallen out of favour), twins who were martyred circa A.D. 286.

I know it primarily for the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, dramatised by William Shakespeare in Henry V, with his famous battle-rousing speech, but is was also the day of other famous battles: the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Pacific theater in 1944, the Battle of Balaklava (Charge of the Light Brigade 1854) during the Crimean War.

[Update: 2008NOV10 The body of this young boy was found by hunters about 8-10 km from his bike at the base of a tree. It is thought that he suffered critical injuries when he fell from it. A sad story to be sure and the couple and two older sisters are doubtless wracked with guilt and grief over this tragic turn of events. I do feel for them.]

Footnotes:

1) Vatican II was the twentieth century Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965. These saints were removed from the liturgical calendar (but not declared to no longer be saints) during the subsequent reforms. The feast remains as a 'Black Letter Saints' Day' in the Calendar of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) and a 'commemoration' in Common Worship (2000).

The reasoning used by Vatican II for this decision was that there was insufficient evidence that Saints Crispin and Crispinian actually existed. Indeed, their role as shoemakers, their relationship as twins, and the timing of their holiday are suggestive of the possibility that they could have represented a local Celtic deity (Lug-Mercury) which had been made into a saint as a result of syncretism.

Market MAYHEM

Finance Minister Jim FLAHERTY sang yet another "lullaby" to the roiling banking sector this morning offering to "insure" Canadian Bank's debts for a fee. The apparent market effect saw perceived "higher quality/retail" franchises fall (TD, RY) while "poor perceived quality" rose (NA, BMO). The announcements coming from LatAm region recently - the Mexican Banker's Acceptance (BA's) Market has seized up and Argentina's has nationalized the US$30bn private Pension Industry likely had something to do with Scotia Bank (BNS) tanking! (Although it may have just been reaction or hedging related trade to the recent purchase offer for CI Financial).

The "Canadian TED" spread narrowed on the news. The real benefit will be to insulate Canadian banks from the still rampant global banking contagion, despite the relative good health of Canadian Bank sector. Together with the recent temporary loosening of "mark to market" accounting rules may make the Oct 31 FYE for many of the Canadian banks bearable.

We are still in a Global Banking crisis - triggered by meltdown of insolvent U.S Investment Banks, that infected Commercial Banks globally. The crisis has now caused a full blown meltdown of our entire financial system. Bin Laden could not have done better. Contributing mightily to the panic has been the "hair on fire" approach of politicians in the U.K and U.S that dramatically escalated the severity surrounding the initial events - in the UK the nationalization of mortgage lender, Northern Rock PLC in Feb 2008 and in the U.S., the liquidation of investment bank Bears Stearns in March 2008. Both responses ignited a collapse of trust that spread like wild-fire given the widespread speculations and financial alchemy undertaken with full connivance of the federal government through institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The financial repercussions of the collapse of the banking sector is now spreading to the "real economy" and lending is seizing up or grinding completely to a halt. The stock markets have been showing this turmoil for weeks and - I believe - many other speculative enterprises such as hedge funds attempt to unwind positions due to necessity by bankers or because their "investment thesis" no longer holds water. IMHO, this all of these events will definitely cause a severe Global recession - and indeed all current indications point in this direction. It is not so much a problem of judging an entry point that is near the bottom - as there will continue to be other follow-on earthquakes. It is now a question of all economies regaining the ability to function at all. At that point markets will stabilize and we can begin the recovery process.

What bothers me now is that I can not understand how that recovery can take place without massive deflation (similar to the Japanese experience during their 1990's post-bank collapse) which would render a return to a "normal" yield curve impossible.

I will continue to follow this crisis as event unfold.

[Addendum: Mon Oct 27 - Financial Post: The Next Worry: a deflationary slump, like Japan. Right on cue! Jacquie THORPE refers to Roger BOOTLE's 1996 book "The Death of Inflation" in which he correctly described the phenomena that had gripped Japan following it's banking sector collapse in 1991. He predicts U.S deflation of -2% next year. One aspect that is troubling is that digging out requires vast amounts of public sector spending. In Japan the government pumped billions into the banking sector - M1 (aka M1 or currency in circulation + cash in chequing accounts) grew at 20% while M3 (the broadest measure of Money Supply) barely grew at all. His prescription: get ready for more bailout measures!]

Indoctrinate U

This film is too good to ignore. I especially love the clip where a black female college professor explains how she was turned down for a grant because she does not agree with affirmative action! How's that for racist? (unfortunately is was not included in trailer below).

35 inconvenient UNTRUTHS about Al Gore's crusade?

From Micheal MOORE to Al GORE and David Suzuki - the environmental hysteria continues to run unabated through our media. How can they be so complicit?

Here are 35 factual errors in Al GORE's monumental greenwash movie. It is interesting that the author (Mr. MONCKTON) notes a spokeswomen for Mr. GORE claimed that each of these "facts" was indisputable, whereas MONCKTON points out the opposite and calculates the odds of someone "inadvertently" picking the wrong interpretation in ALL 35 CASES as 36 billion to 1!

Recently (Sep 2008) the current President of Czech Republic, Vaclav KLAUS has undertaken to refute the Global Warming alarmists. He does so based on his experiences and those of many former Soviet Union satellites who understand the massive damage imposed by what I can only describe as propaganda and political "thought control".

[Current Global Warming alarmism is] "...an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism."

It is a sad comment that despite communism being overthrown we now face a similar threat from within our own democracy.

Louise ARBOUR - next Liberal leader?

Now that is a scary thought - Louise ARBOUR the next Liberal Leader? Apparently she is being mooted as "interested" - although that was not evident when I heard her response recorded by an enthusiastic CBC reporter in Toronto during a LEAF luncheon today.

Unfortunately, I am not a fan of this self-satisfied feminist lawyer - or her buddies at the Supreme Court. I also do not think she did much at the International Criminal Court, which I oppose in principal. [In this matter I side with the United States who disagreed with the creation of yet another extra-governmental organization, sponsored by the UN. This opinion was strongly buttressed by Canada's role in supporting 3 major UN missions - Sarajevo, Rwanda and International Crime Commission - led by Mme. ARBOUR. All missions were conceived of by the Liberal government of Jean CHRETIEN and all were disasters. CBC Radio journalist Carol OFF, thoroughly dissected these failures in her book The Lion, the Fox and the Eagle: The Story of Generals and Justice at the UN.]

Cleanup after the Election

How Elizabeth MAY feels that she deserves special attention is beyond me! That she didn't win a single seat should consign her back to the dust-heap - and join David SUZUKI Foundation - as far as I am concerned. However, perhaps more important is why the media keep her in the spot-light.

During this campaign I feel that partisan self-interest has become endemic in the media. The Leaders Debate was a perfect example - Steve PAIKIN seemed to forget that he was the Moderator and practically assisted holding back HARPER so the others could gang tackle. I don't recall him pointing out inconsistencies in Jack LAYTON's comments or taking DION to task on any issue. Such double-standard performances were most galling when given by the CBC - should not a public broadcaster show some balance rather than being the cheer-leaders for the left?

Despite my opposition to the Election Canada "gag laws" harming individuals and interest groups ability to engage in public debate and the exemption given the media should be undone. Similar to the financial commentators who are expected to disclose any financial conflicts of interests by disclosing their personal holdings, I propose all political media commentators disclose any political party affiliations, political contracts and how they voted on the last election in order that readers can gauge their political bias. This would provide a "quid pro quo" balance to the media's free ride.

Similarly, I was dismayed at Edmonton-Strathcona's M.P Elect Linda DUNCAN smug assurances that she had won over incumbent Rahim JAFFER . She had a fair lead but given the number of difficulties over Voter ID, some self-control is in order. Let's see how this "brou-ha-ha" ends.

Election Over - No Change

More of the same.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives could not mount an effective campaign against an ineffective opposition. It was a gift - and we blew it. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

While there is was a small advantage gained in Conservative seats (+16) 1 leading to a minor victory in the house, there was significant changes to the players. Many old hands were ejected and new - stronger - blood transfused across all party spectra. With the firing of Liberal Leader Stephane DION likely, there will be another hiatus until the Liberals regroup. This will make the dynamics of governing quite interesting over the next 1-2 years.

I contend that Leaders Debate was critical to Harper's failure to define what "Conservatives Stood For" - he was constantly on the defensive and let LAYTON, DUCEPPE (and even DION) brand him as un-NDP, un-Quebecois/BQ and un-Liberal. That he could not mount a spirited defense was costly. Furthermore until the BQ is broken no party can successfully govern.

Nonetheless, I do not see that a Minority Conservative Government will actually harm anyone. "Less is More" is possibility the best prescription right now. Apparently everyone is expected to report for work ASAP. Throne speech before Remembrance Day and Xmas Recess on Dec 12.

Here were the results of the UBC Election Market.

UBC has been running the Election Market for at least a decade now - and I think has done an excellent job.

It is worth noting that Alberta voter turnout was the lowest ever at 52.9% (this is the percentage voted of Total Registered Voters - itself a fraction of total population.) Doubtless because of the large-scale Conservative landslide anticipated in the province, other party supporters (Liberals, NDP) did not bother to show. Preliminary2 national turn-out of 59.1% was also lower - as anticipated - than the 2004 Election (60.9%) and the uptick in 2006 (64.7%).

Indeed "voter apathy" was a problem in my own riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. However it was in the other direction. Voter turnout - a healthy 65.4% - was from the wrong side. It would appear that many disaffected and/or uninspired Liberals switched their votes to the ever-persistent NDP Candidate, Linda DUNCAN and too many "tethered conservatives" abstained on Election Day narrowly denying incumbent Conservative Rahim JAFFER a victory.




A final issue that has arisen in post-election chatter is the newly amended Elections Canada Act. Firstly, many have complained that the stringent "Voter ID" rules damaged access to the ballot boxes and in some situation were incorrectly enforced - leading to eligible voters being turned away. Still others found the delays due to incorrect voter names and address information unconscionable and that many were discouraged from voting as a result. Secondly, there has been speculation that the "Third Party Lobbying" rules could be broken when various Premiers rail against Federal Political Parties - as Ontario's Dalton McGINTY and Newfoundland's Premier Danny WILLIAMS did during the campaign. I can only hope that Elections Canada gags him. Of course, those issues should be weighted with the thoughts expressed by Brian KALT, that we are still better served than U.S voters.

[Addendum: Oct 16 National Post "Censored by Elections Canada" Editorial again brings up the staggered voter hours - that has been endlessly debated in the past - as a cause for concern. I disagree, it is a minor issue compared to the gag law and other election law issues as mentioned above. See also ABC News "Laws disenfranchised 1 million indigenious Canadians" which highlight the Voter ID issue, but overstates for a headline. ]

Footnotes:

1) 2008 Sept 10 Dissolution of 39th Parliament, the Consevatives held 127, Liberal 95, BQ 48, NDP 30 and Independents 4 (including 1 Green) - there were 4 Byelections pending that were expected to go to 1 Liberal, 1 BQ and 1 NDP (and 1 a tossup between Conservative/Liberals) .

2) www.elections.ca indicate voters of 13.833/23.401 million eligible.

[I note the uusual CPC candidate of Sharon SMITH in Skeena-Bulkey Valley, BC (ED#59025) who came in 2nd by 4,500 votes (7.5% of registered voters) - losing to NDP Nathan CULLEN. Sharon was the infamous "nude" ex-mayor of Houston BC.] (Storey here)

Quebec faces secular "crisis of values"

This article reminded me of another piece this week where the Catholic Bishop of Scranton PA warned the flock NOT to vote for any presidential Candidate who supported Abortion. In case it was not clear Barack OBAMA was identified as the candidate who would be denied the host (if he happened to be through Scranton!). That article highlighted the conundrum faced by Roman Catholics and shows the breakdown of traditional voting support for the Democrats.

Referring to Quebec Archbishop Cardinal Marc OUELLET the piece was timed - of course - to coincide with our Federal Election. In it Cardinal OUELLET warned that "the spiritual and cultural void is fueled by cliche-ridden, anti-catholic rhetoric that we often find in the media."

Strangely, a survey was released at about the same time, stating that "Quebecer's suffer greater levels of stress than other Canadians". (Is it possible that the two are related?)

Given that the BQ is a logical contradiction (they exist as a Federal political party to deny that Canada should exist) who's policies closely resemble the NDP (except in french) I found this of interest. The political history of Conservatism in Quebec has been closely aligned with the Catholic Church going back to the Dupleisse era. That Pierre TRUDEAU was one of the intoxicating ideologues who ushered in the "Quiet Revolution" is well remembered. (Now that his son - Justin TRUDEAU - is running in the Papineau riding of Montreal.)

Can these two strands of thought be woven together again?

[Addendum: Oct 16 National Post "Courting the religious right" by Fr. Ray de Souza discusses Senator OBAMA's courting of Catholic voters - traditionally Democrats. OBAMA is identified as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever - even more so than Hillary CLINTON or Joe BIDEN. 1) He is in favour of partial-birth abortion, 2) He is against parental-notification for minors seeking abortions, 3) He is against "conscience-clauses" for doctors who refuse to do abortions, 4) He favours federal funding of abortions, 5) He has committed himself to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would eliminate any abortion regulations devised in all 50 states, and 6) if consistent with his past legislative actions he could vote against the "Born- Alive" Act that mandates full legal protection of any child who survives a late-term abortion - as he did when he abstained when the vote passed in the Senate and as he voted in a near identical bill before the Illinois Senate in 2003. By adopting the most extreme pro-abortion position of any presidential candidate he may have created an unbridgeable gap with pro-life voters.]

Those who refuse to pass their conceits are destined to be reminded?

Apologies to SANTAYANA1. I note that this book is coming out soon. Likewise, when Margaret MACMILLAN had her last book launched "The Uses and Abuses of History" she managed to have an excerpt printed in the National Post that highlighted the same controversy. Perhaps this is just opportunism?

However I am sympathetic to our veterans. My father was one of them until his death in 2000 - and he never spoke glowingly of his wartime experience. I think he was just glad to have survived - unlike many of his compatriots. Survivor guilt perhaps.

What I think is wrong is to re-evaluate the morality of war - after the fact. Revisionist History. War is hell - pure and simple - you either win and live or lose and die. How do we moralize that? I am sure there were probably alot of terrible things done by our us and our Allies, but they were also fighting against another tyrannical dictator who was ruthless. We now know more about the atrocity's of Buchenwald and Auschwitz that our parents did at the time - which was perhaps before the bombing of Dresden. I know that the London Blitz was as much a terror campaign as strategic bombing because my mother's family were subjected to it. My aunt patrolled the community weekly looking for anyone who had not put up blackout curtains for months on end. The fear of not knowing if your home would be hit was real. Do not tell me that was not Hitlers and Goering's intention.

[Addendum: Oct 16 A number of letters have been printed in the National Post - many from veterans - who object along the same lines. The one that was most satisfying was this one who throws the impertinant lines at the end of the article, back at them.]

Footnote:
1) George SANTAYANA The Life of Reason 1906. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This has produced numerous paraphraseings and variants.

Million, Billion, Googol or Boon Doogle

Given the Global Financial Meltdown this idea by Russell CROWE didn't seem half bad (also a little unkind - I mean he didn't vaporize the banks). And his calculation was right but he failed to get the "translation" correct. Giving US$1 million to 300 million Americans would be US$300 TRILLION (or US$300 x 10^12) or the same as 429 x $700 billion in U.S Government Bail-Out Packages! 1

But he is not alone as many people have trouble with such BIG NUMBERS - and for good reason. In America and Global Financial Markets, these are the definitions that count.

• a Million is 10^6 ( 1,000,000) = 1,000 x 1,000
• a Billion is 10^9 (1,000,000,000) = 1 thousand x 1 Million
• a Trillion is 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000) = 1 thousand x 1 Billion (or 1 million x million)
  

But this confusion is well placed as before American-dominated finance invaded Europe, the common scientific usage for large numbers in the UK and Europe typically considered one Billion = 1 Million-Million or 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000) and 1 Trillion = 1 Billion-Billion or 1o^18 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Both are 1 order of magnitude larger than common parlance used in the U.S Financial Markets.

Such fascination with large number concepts has a rich history. The ancient Greeks largest term was a Myriad (or 10, 000) but Archimedes was attributed to introducing the term a Myriad-Myriad (100 million or 10^8) when he tried to estimate the size of the universe. This tradition continues to this day in the name of the remarkablly sucessful internet search engine company, Google Inc. - it's name derives from the term Googol which refers to 10^100 as invented by American mathematician Edward Kastner.

Footnotes:

1) Table shows Total Obligations of the U.S Federal Government as $67.3 trillion at April 30, 2007. As such, Mr. CROWE's $1 million plan would represent 5x the combined total obligations of the U.S Government. This is clearly insane and unsustainable.

2) Source: Grant's Interest Rate Letter - July 25, 2008. These figures are drawn from various sources by Grant's, but there is no single disclosure source (that I know of). Components can be found referenced here: A) Total U.S Public Debt o/s - Dec 2007, www.treasurydirect.gov Public Debt Reports: Monthly Statements of the Public Debt. B) Federal Employee & Veteran Benefits, U.S Dept of Health & Human Services - Note 12. Federal Employee and Veterans Benefits: At September 30, 2007, the actuarial present value of accumulated plan pension benefits was $7,575 million, of which $578 million was not vested, and the liability for medical benefits was actuarially determined to be $697 million. C) Expected Expenditures for Social Security. The projected actuarial deficit in the OASDI Trust Fund over the infinite future is 3.2 percent of taxable payroll (1.1 percent of GDP), or $13.6 trillion in present value terms. Current deficit is $4.3 trillion (in 2007). D) Expected Expenditures for Medicare, U.S Dept of Health & Human Services - Note 11. Entitlement Benefits Due and Payable, footnotes refer to "Medicare benefits payable consists of a $35,063 million estimate ($36,628 million in FY 2006) by CMS Office of the Actuary of Medicare services incurred but not paid as of September 30, 2007." E) Ginne Mae Guarantees: na F) FHLB Liabilities: na G) Fannie and Freddie MBS & Liabilities: na H) FDIC Insured Deposits: na

Some fun webtools

This website - www.wordle.net - composes word clouds depending on text input. The image below was generated from Martin LUTHER KING Jr. Aug 23 1963 speech "I have a dream".



© 2008 Jonathan Feinberg subscribe Creative Commons License
Still another website allows one to create quite sophisticated logos/graphics for website use. And this link for free HTML code

And here is a Greeting Card Generator.

And here is another useful link for my daughters math homework.

Fight Nite!

Canada Card

Starring

Stephen "Uncle Stevie" HARPER

vs.
"Taliban" Jack LAYTON
and
Stephane "The Professor" DION
and
Gilles "Hollywood" DUCEPPE
and
Elizabeth "Just glad to be here" MAY.

America Card
Starring

Sarah "Annie Okley" PALIN
vs.
Joe "VAWA" BIDEN

It was a great night with a "4-on-1 Beat-Down" in Canada and Light/Heavyweight ticket in St. Louis.

I thought Harper did well just to survive the unrelenting attacks by the other 4 leaders. He never lost it - which must have been hard - whereas Dion did not manage to lay any solid punches. "Taliban" Jack was perhaps the strongest opponent in the ring and he brawled incessantly but Harper seemed able to adroitly side-step his KO punches. Layton and Harper were the only ones who got cheap shots away at each other. Layton started early with his "are you hiding your platform under your sweater?" jab below the belt and 2 rounds later Harper almost got away with "I was the only the leader who didn't use private healthcare" head butt before Referee Pakin cautioned him. Yet the heavy slugging was clearly wearing Jack down by the final rounds - but he kept trying - hoping one of his flurries would earn him extra points. Duceppe's showed a shrewd move when outta nowhere he caught Harper off-guard with his "elitest culture and gala" hook, but Harper came back with "the Québécois nation resolution" that drew blood. Rookie May surprised everyone by occasionally punching above her weight and staying with a "rope-a-dope" strategy. Despite being water-girl for previous Liberal Heavyweights, May was concentrating on staying in the ring for her first pro fight and only tested harper with a few, opportunistic jabs. The clear winner after 12 rounds - Harper, but just by a TKO.

I was unable to tear myself away from the Canadian title match, but it semed Palin matched Biden toe-to-toe throughout the night. It ended very close to a draw with Biden just edging out Palin on style points. I hope to see the tapes later.

Healthcare Myth - Who is better?

Healthcare has always been a "sacred cow" in Canada during past elections - and usually it comes down to assertion that "we have the best in the world" while pointing to massive infrastructure investments like the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute which is being completed at the University of Alberta here in Edmonton.

Liberals and NDP politicians usually take a "Don't Touch" attitude to any debate about Healthcare that quickly polarizes into support for a Public or Private delivery system. Such an attitude truly does not reflect what has been happening in the healthcare system for decades. It is not monolthic and it has been evolving and adapting - and very well - to a "mixed" environment for years.

The (infamous) Shouldice Clinic, Catholic Orders, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Testing Labs etc. - all of them are mixed public/private healthcare operations which have been accommodating, sharing and thriving in the existing Healthcare system. Such public/private partnerships have not weakened the provisions of Universal Healthcare under the Federal Canada Health Act as many insist.

Yet this much should be very clear, the Federal Conservative party has no intention of revoking Universal Heathcare. However any party in power that is honest must admit that fiscal responsibility demands the current model needs study (without revoking the laws of gravity). Given the massive financial resources needed, we have to get past solutions constrained by ideology.

Even in the US election, Barak OBAMA has indicated he favours "importing" some aspects of the "Canadian Universal Healthcare Model" into the US in order to serve those 47 millions Americans who cannot afford private coverage.

Yet is the Canadian Model "better"?

• The 47 million figure in the US maybe misleading. For many of these uninsured it is a temporary condition due to unemployment, retirement, disability or critical illness - and the true figure is likely half that representing 7.9% of the population.

• StatsCan estimated that 1.7 million Canadians or 6% of the population - could not find a Family Physician an in 2007. Without a family physician they cannot access primary care or elective surgery referrals. Is this not the same thing as not having Healthcare insurance?

The Fraser Institute has working on comparing benchmarks of performance in Canada with the US - and here are some of their conclusions. One cold hard fact of Canadian superiority usually is that Americans spend 55% more per capita on Healthcare - yet consider:

• Americans have 327% more MRI units and 183% more CT Scanners per capita.
• Americans receive 100% more inpatient surgical procedures per capita.
• American wait-times are lower across the board for most common hospital procedures.
• American has more doctors and nurses per capita.
• American hospital facilities are newer and more modern.
• Americans have greater access to more ground-breaking drugs (even experimental) and procredures.
  

Conclusions:

1. Just like zero% unemployment is unrealistic in a large, dynamic economy, there may always be a certain percentage of the population who can not reasonablly access Healthcare for good (and unsinister) reasons. So while 100% coverage makes good politics, it may not actually be a realistic benchmark. Perhaps 95% would be better.
   
2. Americans pay more per capita but receive greater "value" - as defined by faster testing, better procedures and more effective pharmacololgy. Given the similarity of practice models and mobility between our two countries, the amount they pay may not be too different to what the similar services would cost Canadians.

This debate is not over.

Ontario Justice takes 2 body blows - same day.

Two scathing reviews of Ontario Government departments were released today.

The Province of Ontario's Ombudsman issued "Oversight Unseen" which was a review of the Ontario Attorney General's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which investigates all police incidents that result in serious injury or death to a civilian. Established in 1990 the SIU has become "Timid and fearful of it's watchdog role". Charges are rarely laid - as in 2006 when only 2 were made out of 226 investigations. The Ombudsman, Mr. Andre MARIN made 46 recommendations to improve operations was also in charge of the SIU from 1995-98. To undertake new leadership of the department in order to study and possibly implement the review, the province has just named a Crown attorney and a former defence lawyer who has defended and prosecuted police officers - Mr. Ian D. Scott.

In addition the Goudge Inquiry released its report into Office of the Chief Corners of Ontario regarding their management practices and lack of proper oversight of pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH. Retired Ontario Superior Court Justice GOUDGE indicated that the senior management of the Coroners Office failed the public.

Both cases reveal the systemic problems in the adminstration of justice and a public loss of confidence.

Is CBC a nest of left-wing vipers?

[Update2: Oct 2 - CBC said it will meeting a reporter - Isabelle Guilbeault, who reports on arts for the morning radio show in Quebec City - for recorded a 30-second filmed spot for a campaign called "Unite our voices" to protest Conservative cuts in culture subsidies and prevent the party's re-election.]

I am beginning to think that anyone who works for the Federal Government should be dis-enfranchised (not permitted to vote in Federal elections) due to the the conflict of interest they find themselves. Honest! Liberals and NDP mostly all work for the Government. If they really has to earn an honest day's wage they couldn't cut it.

[Update1: Sept 30 - CBC accepts the blog has generated substantial criticism and has "pulled the piece". Head of News - John Cruickshank states the problem lies not with the piece but editorial control and lack of diversity in viewpoint. ]

This blog by CBC Journalist Heather MALLICK raised a stink at the National Post. Johnathon KAY also logged in on basically the same topic. When she was at the Globe & Mail I rarely gave Ms. MALLICK much attention.



I do think that such unadulterated smears demean any news organization that allows them, but that is for the to CBC to decide. Sometimes news organizations hear from their readers via letter campaigns, from subjects in defamation and libel lawsuits, customers "voting with their feet" and even shareholders.

However the CBC is a different news organization than Canwest Global, the CTV/Globe & Mail or Torstar in as much as it is taxpayer funded. So I think the point made is "should our tax dollars be used against us?".

The breadth and power of the state to abuse should not be overlooked, under-estimated or unappreciated. I merely point to the antic's of the many HRC's across the country - which have allowed an instrument of the state to trammel unhindered over many innocent lives with little or no recourse to stop any abuse of individuals rights. We can see the same circumstances in Education, Law Courts and Healthcare - where rights of the majority have been subjugated to attack by various vocal minorities.

• In B.C., "Gay lifestyle" is being "promoted" in grade school under the domain of HRC-threatened "sexual equality". 1

• In Ontario, pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH has been the subject of an inquiry for convictions from misleading evidence he presented during 1991-2001 acknowledging his disorganization, arrogance and the dogmatic manner in which he often presented evidence as an expert witness resulted in a "wrongful conviction factory". 2

• Incorrect testing by a lab at a Newfoundland Healthcare Region for 6 years led to 386 cancer patients receiving an improper diagnosis of their cancer illness. Clearly, bureaucratic procedures and attitudes protected the bureaucrats and inhibited discovery of errors that led to many untimely deaths. (It is very difficult to conclusively untangle exactly how many premature deaths occured from mis-diagnosis - or how much it may have directly reduced their lifespan and ending quality of life - versus what may have happened if the cancers were properly treated.) 3, 4

These are examples of government departments using rules and regulation created by other government departments to abuse it's own citizen's. Intervention in any of these situations is a Kafkaesque experience and practically impossible to effect except through a Supreme Court challenge. Personal accountability is removed from bureaucrats as they are merely following "the law". If they zealously "over-interpret the law" it is not possible for mere individual citizens to easily correct them until they have destroyed a vast number of people with their injustice. Such is the power of the state.

How are these issue relevant to the CBC? Many will defend the CBC as a top tier news organization, and I would not disagree. I depend on it mightily and I can usually count on them getting the facts right and eventually they get the context or interpretation right as well. Still others - supporters from left and right - will defend the CBC as being representative of many left and right-wing viewpoints. That would at least be fair. Sort of like the deary "free time political broadcasts" that used to clutter the airwaves just before the signed-off for the night. The full spectrum of political viewpoints should be represented at the CBC because it is a state run organization. Canada should not emulate Russia 's media control.

Unfortunately I believe the ranks of the CBC are filled with nothing BUT left-wing and liberal supporters - much like many other federal government departments. If they could be trusted to bring even-handed and balanced viewpoints to the table they would not be accused of political bias, but they don't and they haven't. There is no pressure to advocate for right-wing, conservative viewpoints at the CBC, just the need to sing along with their comrade brothers and sisters. They are subject to group-think of the worst kind. This is because they are - like the examples above - organized as instruments of the state and lack the controls that govern private behaviour and organizations.

Therefore, surgery is required at the CBC.

reference - http://www.heathermallick.ca/home/

Footnotes:
1) National Post Sept 2, 2008 "When Jill wants to be a Jack". According to Statscan "Gay Pride: by the numbers" 1.5% of the adult population +18 self identify as Homosexual (Gay or Lesbian). How is it that 98.5% of the population must bow to the apparent wishes of 1.5%?

2) National Post Oct 1, 2008 "Charles Smith Inquiry" 20 of 45 criminally suspicious deaths he investigated between 1991 and 2001 were found to be in error in reviews by other pathologists. Among these cases lie the wreckage of families destroyed by convictions of "shaken baby syndrome" where parents were sent to jail.

3) It is unknowable how many succumbed to the cancer due to improper treatment at an early stage, but one can assume it was - eventually - all of them (or whatever the incidence of untreated cancer is). Nurse tells Inquiry of painful calls to widowers - CBC News Sept 23, 2008

4) There must be some kind of "secret bee dance" among bureaucratic organizations that drives them to "play nice" with each other and adopt common legal barriers amongst themselves. To wit how the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons were on the brink of changing their Standards of Practice to prohibit Doctors from exercising their right of personal conscience in advising treatment for client's to avoid potential HRC prosecutions this summer. Opposition from members and the national organization led to the amendment being withdrawn.