On Intellectual Gymnastics, Globe and Mail Style

The Globe and Mail's lead Monday editorial is the worst and most intellectually dishonest editorial that I have read in years.

As a subscriber to The Globe and Mail since 1999, I have often been in positions where I am forced to defend my newspaper of choice to my free-market and conservative colleagues. While I am much more predisposed towards the editorial positions and opinion pieces appearing in Canada's other national newspaper, the Post, I have always been impressed by the intelligent level of discourse and breadth of news that the Globe provides, even if I don't always concur with their editorial perspectives.

Today's editorial was an endorsement of John Kerry's run for the U.S. Presidency. While I am supporting his opponent, I acknowledge many shortcomings in the incumbent President's administration and will accept sound, rational, and principled arguments against his re-election.

However, this editorial succeeds in not only eliminating every last vestige and memory of when the Globe used to be a conservative newspaper, it also succeeds in endorsing a candidate who, as it points out, has serious character flaws (if you dislike them both why endorse anyone?) and is not even a centrist, let alone a conservative.

Some lowlights:

-- The Globe opposes Bush's tax cuts

-- Taking a page out of the handbook of American lefties, The Globe describes Bush's tax cuts as being unfair and "disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest in U.S. society"

-- The Globe opposes Bush's opposition to partial-birth abortion, a practice that even many ardent pro-choice advocates oppose

-- The Globe favours strengthening gun control

-- The Globe admonishes Bush for "taking his eye off" Osama Bin Laden and "fixating on" Saddam Hussein (this is rich, coming from the same newspaper which ENDORSED the War in Iraq)

-- Despite calling Kerry "the ultimate politician, and that is not a compliment", they endorse his "tolerant" social views, while acknowledging that Kerry is anti-gay marriage

-- The Globe expresses concerns about Kerry's "wishy-washiness...when it comes to the war on terror", but argues that "he possesses the requisite intelligence to climb the learning curve quickly"

And, the piece de resistance: Kerry's magical powers of "logic and persuasion", coupled with the fact that he is "intelligent, eloquent, and experienced in the ways of Washington" (despite ridiculing him for being the 'ulitimate politician'), make him qualified to be president. Oh, and of course, the Globe also states the obvious: Kerry would "drop his meandering, pandering ways in the heat of the Oval Office".

WOW.

I'm speechless, though if they awarded a Pulitzer for the single most contradictory and hypocritical editorial of the decade, this piece of journalistic trash would win uncontested.

Gerard Mao Kennedy, Ontario's "Nutritionist-at-Large"

I had to republish a very droll release sent out Wednesday by "Hollywood" Frank Klees, Ontario's Opposition Education Critic, deriding the Education Minister's recently announced Orwellian food policy (about which I ranted below). The original can be found on www.ontariopc.com.

Kennedy Assumes "Official Parent" Role

20/10/2004

Frank Klees, MPP
OAK RIDGES

Education Critic

Frank Klees, MPP for Oak Ridges and Education Critic for the Official Opposition today accused Education Minister, Gerard Kennedy, of appointing himself Ontario's "Official Parent".

"What leading edge thinking has led to today's pronouncement that the Minister of Education is assuming the role of "Official Parent" for Ontario's children?" said Klees, and "What equips this Minister of Education with the omniscient wisdom to proclaim himself the "Nutritionist-at-Large" for the province?"

Klees accused the Education Minister of undermining school boards, school councils and parents with his announcement that he will dictate what foods are available in Ontario schools.

"While Premier McGuinty talks about restoring democracy at the local level with school board trustees, his Minister of Education, Gerard Kennedy is dictating what can and cannot be done in schools - another broken promise," says Klees. "He isn't returning democracy to school boards. Once again, this government and in particular, Minister Kennedy, are demonstrating their belief that government knows better than parents, school boards and school councils what is best for their children."

"This pronouncement is clearly just another way of the government assuming parenting responsibilities," Klees continued.

Cathy Cove, Director of the Parent Network, also questions the initiative stating, "As a parent, I'd like the Liberals to leave the parenting to me, and leave the day-to-day operations of schools up to the people most affected by them...the principals, teachers and parents."

Klees points out that the new curriculum that the PC government put in place has grade-by-grade education on nutrition/health and physical activity and emphasizes that it is more important for kids to learn what is healthy, rather than attempting to micro-manage the contents of vending machines in every school of our Province.

"The Liberals are undermining the work of school councils, which is where these decisions should be made," Klees adds.

Klees challenged the Minister to focus on his responsibilities as Education Minister, rather than continuing to undermine the authority of school boards, school councils and parents, to improve the quality of education.

On Government Dietary Intervention

Just days after the Liberals decided that Ontarians could no longer own certain breeds of dogs arbitrarily designated as a threat to public safety, the heavy hand of the state is reaching into the stomachs of our youths. Yes folks, it seems like the only promise the Liberal Government won't break is their pledge to ban the sale of junk food in schools. While other governments in the Western hemisphere have declared wars on crime or wars on terror, the Liberals at Queen's Park have declared war on obesity.

However, understanding that students in primary and secondary schools will still want to eat, taking a page out of such revolutionary dietitians as Kim Jong-il and Mao Tse-Tung the Liberals have decided to release a list of "acceptable" foods that should not only be sold in schools, but consumed by our errant youth. CBC reports that such recommended food items are "milk and granola". Upon examination, the government also recommends such healthy foods as "muffins" be consumed.

Oddly, however, a brief perusal of the nutritional value of some of these recommended treats illustrates that they are not much better than the foods that the Liberals wish to ban. For example, the USDA notes that a 200g serving of regular granola contains an astonishing 910 calories, and 16.5g of fat!

We can all take solace knowing that government is at least trying. Isn't that all that counts?

On Sunday Shopping (Redux)

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear as if Sunday Shopping will be legal within the foreseeable future here in Nova Scotia, thanks to the results of a plebiscite held Saturday in which approxmately 55% of electors opted to maintain the status quo. So for now, the Retail Business Uniform Closing Act remains intact.

For clarity's sake, the status quo is an absurdity, irrespective of whether one supports Sunday Shopping or not, because Sunday Shopping in effect exists. For starters, all drug stores are open, as well as many independant stores because they are below an arbitrarily-defined square-footage, above which stores cannot open legally. So there is ample opportunity to shop on Sundays, and opponents of Sunday Shopping generally don't seem to have a problem with this. But (gasp, horror!) if a grocery store wants to open on Sunday, that is deemed offensive to the provincially-mandated morality. The consequences of this are best illustrated by walking into drug stores on Sunday--persons aren't purchasing cough syrup or ibuprofen. They are there to buy milk and other staples.

It's upsetting that the forces of market irrationality have solidified this province's reputation as Canada's anachronistic backwater, but I have thus resigned myself to the unique Sunday sight of watching tumbleweeds roll down downtown streets so lively and vibrant Monday to Saturday.

On Liberal Australia

A belated congratulations to John Howard--leader of Australia's Liberals--who won a fourth term as Prime Minister this weekend. The victory is even more sweet when one remembers that he contributed forces for the liberation of Iraq despite massive public resentment and protests. While both major parties steered clear of the Iraq issue during the course of the campaign, one can't help but observe Howard's vindication of doing what was right even though it was hardly popular.

For the first time in recent memory, conservatives will have control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, making it much easier to introduce more pro-free market initiatives over the next three years. Some observers expect Howard's government to undertake the following now that there is a cleared parliamentary path towards implementation:

"...Mr. Howard could push through measures that the upper house blocked during his third term, including selling off the government's remaining multibillion-dollar stake in former telecommunications monopoly Telstra and relaxing news-media ownership laws.

He is also expected to push through a controversial industrial-relations bill designed to weaken the influence of trade unions."

In an effort to avoid the ever-growing statism of Canadian society, methinks I may forgo moving to Alberta or America and just take up residence in Australia.

On Aqueous Property Rights and Managing Fisheries

Today our Orientation to Law professor discussed fisheries management and its relation to the law. In a criticism of purely ideological or unidimensional perspectives of the law, he argued against private property rights over fish stocks, implying that he supported a moderate approach to maritime resource management.

His argument was buttressed, and ultimately undermined, by his example of the problem of private fishery management. The professor noted that (this is a paraphrase) "if a large, profitable corporation, with a diverse portfolio of industries, owns a fishing stock which comprises a small portion of the corporation's holdings, than it can afford to exploit the resource to the point where it cannot be replenished because they can simply profit from other ventures."

This assertion makes no sense, however. If a private groups were able to exercise true or even quasi property rights (through quotas allocated by auction or other market mechanism) over a particular fishery, there would invariably be an economic incentive to maintain the value of the holding, especially if it was interested in divesting the holding. If the group was not interested in divesting the holding (ie. if it intended the maintain ownership over the holding) would it not make sense to ensure the continued viability and profitability of the fishery over which it has jurisdiction?

More property rights on the sea--instead of the bureaucratic intervention that our professor by default accepts--is the answer to the sustainability of renewable maritime resources.

John Kerry: "Fighting for Proliferation"

Besides that ill-timed slip about nuclear disarmament, I think that tonight's presidential debate ended in a clear draw, in a contest where Kerry needed to squeeze out a clear victory in order to restore his flagging candidacy. This is especially true in light of the fact that both candidates have staked their campaigns on foreign policy--the very focus of tonight's debate.

To be fair, I think Kerry is decent, articulate debater--he lived up to expectations in this regard. His aura was more statesmanlike than the President, and was successful in hammering away his key Iraq spin that the Bush administration has not been focussing on the "real terrorist threat". Kerry portrayed himself as the candidate who would change the "style" of Bush's foreign policy, but not the general substance. However, his frequent allusions to his "plan" to solve the current difficulties in Iraq would have been more compelling except that he didn't adequately identify what his plan was. His support for "another round of resolutions" in dealing with Saddam completely ignored the decade of UN resolutions which failed in securing any progress towards engaging Saddam Hussein. The Senator also lost points for his inability to look straight at the camera, which made it seem as if he was talking at rather than speaking to the American people.

Bush, though no oratorical mastermind, won points for his style. He portrayed himself as a straight-shooter, with a consistent and non-vacillating value set, while being honest enough to indicate that his foreign policy has alienated some individuals. The President could aptly be described as "brilliantly folksy", something which plays well in America but is anathema to the self-righteous chattering classes in Canadian politics. Bush perhaps relied too much on platitudes like "we will win (this war)" and "we need to be resolute" instead of substantive policy proposals, but alas, this debate was about the President's record and not the future of Iraq. Bush also rightly focused on Kerry's inconsistent positions on the War, and hit the best punch of the debate when he stated that Kerry's only consistency was "that he is inconsistent". Brilliant.

The most intriguing (and ironic) portion of the debate had to be the focus on North Korea, with Bush coming out as the multilateralist, with Kerry supporting bilateral negotiations with the People's Republic. Kerry, to fault, paid homage to the Clintonian doctrine of engagement with North Korea, which only resulted in the rogue state accelerating its nuclear programme. But Bush's failure to link the current crisis with the Clinton's decision to facilitate the North's access to nuclear technology illustrated his inability to capitalise on what could have been pivotal, knock-out moments in the debate--opportunities of which Bush had far more than Kerry.

I'll reiterate--no candidate won this debate. But on an evening where Kerry could have distinguished himself from Bush, and during which he had a tremendous opportunity to make the debate a referendum on the incumbant's record, he succeeded only in failing to answer the $10 million question--for what exactly does John F. Kerry stand?