In the history of civilization — and that’s how old terrorism is, it wasn’t invented on Sept. 11, 2001 — terrorists have never, on their own, succeeded in destroying or significantly altering a culture. They utterly lack the resources to do so.
Where they have succeeded, terrorists have done so only by so frightening a society into abandoning its fundamental values.
That guy who tried to fly a plane into the White House? The one who failed to detonate an explosive device in an airplane approaching Metro Detroit International? The shoe bomber? The guy who just failed to set off a bomb in Times Square? The homegrown terrorists at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood?
The combined death toll from their acts is less than 100. The U.S., supposedly the world’s sole superpower, has a population of 308 million.
The distinction between a global superpower and a nation afraid of its own shadow is becoming more difficult to discern with every attack on the U.S. homeland. Each has been met with an over-reaction — in the media and among government officials — that would embarrass the Londoners who stoically endured the Blitz.
David Olive, “The terrorists win”, Toronto Star, 2010-05-14
May 14, 2010
QotD: Western civilization – stick a fork in it
Defence minister denies that the Navy to be cut by half
Canada’s Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay claims that the following operational changes to Canada’s naval forces do not constitute a serious cut:
The directive was sent to maritime forces on the west and east coasts, as well as to senior officers in charge of naval reservists.
The letter says:
– The fleet of Kingston-class maritime coastal defence vessels will be reduced to six ships from 12.
– Three frigates, HMCS Montreal, St John’s and Vancouver, will now be conducting domestic and continental missions to a “limited degree.”
– Combat systems on HMCS Toronto and HMCS Ottawa, as well as on HMCS Athabaskan, will be “minimally supported to enable safe to navigate sensors and communications only.”
– A key weapon system on board the Protecteur-class supply ships designed to destroy incoming missiles “will not be supported.”
Jedi Master MacKay is attempting a mind trick: “these are not the defence cuts you’re looking for”.
May 13, 2010
QotD: Because your government cares about your health
If there ever was a reason to get the Ontario government out of the liquor business, this is it. While taxes on booze will drop on July 1, thanks to the introduction of the province’s new Harmonized Sales Tax, the price of your favourite poison will actually increase because — wait for it — the government doesn’t want to turn you into an alcoholic.
[. . .]
Actually, the whole modus operandi of the LCBO is counter-intuitive. At the same time that it preaches social responsibility, the LCBO inundates Ontario households with glossy brochures that take lifestyle advertising to new heights. The latest one cheekily invites customers to take “French lessons”, and features winsome couples in various states of embrace (hey, aren’t the French always making out?). A concurrent radio campaign features a sexy French-accented female voice extolling the virtues of Bordeaux. You get thirsty just listening to her.
Such campaigns are designed to make Ontarians drink more, not less, of course, funneling more cash into LCBO coffers and keeping its employees on the public payroll at juicy union wages. All fuelled by taxes and a staggering mark-up of 71.5% on that latest imported bottle which pairs so well with flank steak and frites.
This kind of hypocrisy is but one reason why the government shouldn’t be in the liquor business. The others include higher prices, less consumer choice, and the general inefficiency inherent in any monopoly business, whether public or private.
Tasha Kheiriddin, “Lower taxes, higher prices, courtesy of your local LCBO”, National Post, 2010-05-13
May 12, 2010
Welcome to the new British PM: “Dick Clameron”
The Register‘s guide to the new British government:
The people have spoken — and party leaders Nick Clegg and David Cameron, henceforth to be known as Dick Clameron, have filled in the details.
A document released this afternoon reveals what Lib Dems and Tories have been talking about for the last four days, and what our new coalition overlords have in store for us over the next four years.
As with every political stitch-up, it’s going to be a Curate’s Egg, but there are some positive things being promised:
On civil liberties, there is much to please (most) Reg readers, including
A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill
* The scrapping of the ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database
* Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission
* The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act
* Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database
* A review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech
* Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation
* Further regulation of CCTV
* An end to storing internet and email records without good reason
* A mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences
As with any coalition, there’s no guarantee that any of their announced plans will be carried through, but this list of improvements would be a very good thing.
The full text of the agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is at The Times. On reading through the document I’m actually rather pleasantly surprised: more of the sensible policies from each party appears to have slipped into the mix and rather fewer of the authoritarian (Tory) or redistributionist (Lib-Dem) ideas. Yes, it’s only a temporary agreement, but it’s better than I expected.
May 7, 2010
QotD: The HST only looks good on paper
I know all the reasons why sales taxes — i.e. consumption taxes — are to be preferred to income taxes. Every economist I respect believes consumption taxes are better because they let the taxpayer control the amount of tax he pays. Don’t want to pay as much? Don’t buy as much.
But to an ordinary person, this is a silly argument. Everyone has to buy stuff — school clothes for the kids, a new car, a laptop. If your washing machine breaks down, you have to buy a new one or pay for repairs. There is no alternative but to pay the sales tax.
To consumers, a sales tax looks like the least avoidable kind of tax. For most people, the only true way around a consumption tax is to hid their spending by switching to cash, barter or the black market.
On paper, I agree with my economist buds. And if we lived on paper, I might try to convince you to learn to love the HST.
Lorne Gunter, “The HST is fine on paper. It’s only painful in real life”, National Post, 2010-05-07
May 4, 2010
Let’s return to the proper name: the Royal Canadian Navy
I can’t help but endorse this Globe & Mail editorial calling for the government to give the Navy back its proper name:
Today marks the 100th anniversary of Canada’s navy, which fought with distinction in two World Wars and the Korean War, and is now, alas, known as the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, a bulky and obscure label that communicates little of what it is and what it has done.
What better way to mark the centennial than to restore its rightful name, the Royal Canadian Navy, which it carried from 1911 to 1968, when defence minister Paul Hellyer unified the navy, army and air force under one command. (At one time, each service reported to its own cabinet minister.) The unification does not need to be undone. The navy does not need to go back to having its own command structure. Just the name will do.
[. . .]
Defence Minister Peter MacKay has honoured the service and sacrifice of the navy by announcing on the weekend that the executive curl, a distinctive loop on the upper stripe of naval officers’ uniforms that disappeared after unification, will make a comeback. He should take the next step and bring the name back.
And while we’re at it, I’m sure the Royal Canadian Air Force would like to go back to its correct name, too.
April 26, 2010
April 16, 2010
April 15, 2010
March 31, 2010
More on the growth in public sector employment
March 29, 2010
Americans to lose privacy in offshore banking
Of course, the headline assumes that they had any such privilege in the past . . .
Samuel Taliaferro is disturbed by provisions in a new law which will extend US government intervention into foreign bank business:
The name of the bill is the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2487) commonly known as the HIRE Act. This is the jobs incentive bill that was signed by the President on March 18th amid little fanfare.
Relatively small by Washington standards (“just” an $18 billion stimulus package) the bill was drafted to provide incentives to employers to hire more people but contains some very disturbing language concerning the ownership and transference of money to any overseas account. The truly galling part of the bill is that it attempts to require “foreign financial and non-financial institutions to withhold 30% of payments made to such institutions by U.S. individuals unless such institutions agree to disclose the identity of such individuals and report on the bank transactions”. Think about this — the U.S. government is attempting to strong arm foreign financial and non-financial institutions (think banks and law firms) to either withhold 30% of the transactions in a U.S. individual’s account (and presumably remit this to the U.S. Treasury) or disclose the account details to the U.S.. The language of the bill addresses both bank accounts and any foreign trusts (ie- Private Interest Foundations).
In other words, the US government is afraid more Americans are going to be worried about the security of their money and will look to offshore institutions to preserve their savings. The government is moving pre-emptively to deter that flow of money away from their direct control. You’d almost think they didn’t trust their own citizenry.
March 25, 2010
QotD: The all-conquering Commerce clause
. . . this kind of argument proves too much, since it means that everything people do or don’t do potentially qualifies as interstate commerce, once you consider substitution effects, secondary and tertiary consequences, and similar behavior by other people. If sleeping with the windows open or failing to purchase an air filter triggers people’s allergies and causes them to “purchase over-the-counter remedies,” it affects interstate commerce. By Balkin’s logic, Congress therefore could pass a law requiring everyone (or maybe just allergy sufferers) to close their windows at night or purchase air filters. Mandatory calisthenics, which would make the population fitter and thereby reduce health care costs, likewise should qualify as regulating interstate commerce, along with myriad other measures aimed at increasing health-promoting behavior or reducing health-compromising behavior: a national bed time, mandatory tooth brushing, a donut ban, a weight tax, etc.
And these are just the possibilities suggested by the government’s interest in health care. Add in the other five-sixths of the economy, and the Commerce Clause swallows pretty much everything, subject to specific limits such as those listed in the Bill of Rights. Hence Congress could not stop us from watching a particular TV show or playing a particular video game (which would violate the First Amendment), but it could prevent us from engaging in such sedentary activities for more than an hour a day in the name of improving our health and boosting our productivity, both of which would have consequences that ripple through the economy and have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce.
Jacob Sullum “Uninsured People Do Things, So They Should Be Punished”, Hit and Run, 2010-03-25
March 23, 2010
Comparing congress to prostitutes is unfair to prostitutes
Scott Stein upbraids Glenn Reynolds (aka the Instapundit) for his sloppy and insulting comparison:
[P]rostitutes sell themselves for money — the most intimate part of themselves, even their souls, some opponents of legalized prostitution might say. So looked at this way, Congress is full of prostitutes. Members of Congress sell their souls (if any in Congress have such things). Principles, values, the interests of the nation, the Constitution — all of it — are up for sale to the highest bidder, and that bidder need not be offering money directly. Votes or influence in a political party will often do just fine. Of course, these lead to money and power, which is what the whores in Congress want.
But in many ways Congress is nothing like a prostitute. A prostitute only wants cash that customers actually have, and usually tells them the real price of the services being purchased. A prostitute doesn’t impose hidden fees through inflation (we don’t generally give prostitutes the power to print money, but somehow we let Congress approve stimulus packages and spend money that doesn’t exist). A prostitute doesn’t increase the national debt (in fact, it is government, by keeping prostitution illegal, that increases the deficit in yet another way, by making income from prostitution outside of the system and not taxable).
[. . .]
Yet I’ve never heard of a prostitute that had to convince constituents that they wanted to get laid. I don’t recall prostitutes having to give speeches to persuade their constituents that the sex would be good for them and worth the price. Prostitutes have willing and eager constituents. Prostitutes might proposition men, advertise their wares, but they don’t have to force themselves on johns. Prostitutes don’t have to rape anyone.
Can the same be said of Congress?
Glenn, comparing prostitutes to Congress is insulting — to the prostitutes. Perhaps you owe them an apology.
Stimulus did little, private sector did much more
Despite all the expensive ads (especially noticeable during the Vancouver Olympic coverage), it wasn’t the federal government’s stimulus package that has been creating jobs: it was the private sector:
Canada’s economic fortunes have seen a dramatic turnaround in the last year, but according to a new study by one of the country’s leading think-tanks, it had little to do with the federal government’s $47.2-billion Economic Action Plan.
The Fraser Institute released a study Tuesday that found that government stimulus packages contributed only 0.2 percentage points to the rise in GDP between the second and third quarter of 2009 and nothing between the third and fourth quarter.
The group found that it was private-sector investment and increased exports that were the driving forces behind the change in GDP growth.
“Although the federal government has repeatedly claimed credit for Canada’s improved economic performance in the second half of 2009, Statistics Canada data show that government spending and investment in infrastructure had a negligible effect on the country’s improved economic growth,” said the Fraser Institute’s senior economist, Niels Veldhuis.
Here is the news release from the Fraser Institute.
This shouldn’t be a surprise: the stimulus was, and continues to be, a media exercise much more than it was an economic plan. As with any outcry in the mass media, the government had to be seen to be doing something, regardless of the likely success. The illusion of positive motion was necessary, and the federal government knows it has little wiggle room as far as the mainstream media is concerned — doing nothing was not going to be an acceptable choice, even if doing nothing was the “correct” response.
The government can’t really “create” jobs — although it certainly can destroy ’em — most of the jobs “created” in response to government funding are going to go away as soon as that funding dries up. There’s no economic justification for them to exist, absent the stimulus money. If there was an economic justification, private employers would have created them (where not hindered by government action of one form or another, that is).
The increase in public sector employment is unsustainable: the money to pay salaries and benefits (ahem), training, equipment, and facilities all has to be taxed from individuals and companies. The more public sector jobs, the greater the drain on the private sector. The greater the burden placed on the private sector, the slower the growth of the economy. As you approach the “break even” point, where the private sector can no longer fund all the demands from the public sector, the economy gets more and more sluggish — no sane private employer is going to expand business if there’s no profit to be made. No expansion means no new jobs.
It might be possible for us all to live by “taking in one another’s laundry”, but it’s not possible for us all to live by approving permission forms, having meetings, and bureaucratic empire-building.
March 18, 2010
Compare and contrast
Andrew Coyne looks at what would have happened in the Watergate scandal (the original “-gate”) if President Nixon had the same scope of power that a Canadian Prime Minister enjoys:
As the Watergate scandal deepened, the U.S. Senate struck a committee to investigate. Headed by Sen. Sam Ervin, it had broad powers to subpoena documents and compel evidence, together with a staff of investigators and legal counsel.
On July 13, 1973, Alexander Butterfield, Richard Nixon’s deputy assistant, told committee staff that discussions in the Oval Office were routinely tape-recorded. Before long, judge John J. Sirica had launched proceedings to force the president to hand over the tapes. Nixon refused, citing executive privilege, but in the end complied with a Supreme Court ruling ordering their release, with consequences that are well known.
But suppose the U.S. Congress functioned like Canada’s Parliament, and Nixon had the powers, not of a president, but of a prime minister of Canada. The committee, uncertain of its jurisdiction and with little in the way of staff or resources, would very likely never have learned of the tapes’ existence. Had it persisted with its inquiries, Nixon could have shut down the committee, and the Congress with it. And, rather than defend his case in court, Nixon could have hired a former Supreme Court judge to “advise” him on whether to release the tapes. And that would more or less be that.
He does say that he’s not trying to draw a direct comparison between the two situations (Watergate versus the Afghan detainee issue), but to highlight the relative amount of power a “mere” prime minister wields.
