In my latest National Post commentary I urge the federal Liberals to recognize that deficits are bad for the economy and for government finances and to reject the Harper legacy of running them to “stimulate” the economy. (NB “While deficit spending may have a beneficial short-term impact” was an editorial insertion and I do not agree that it is a possibility.)
In my latest National Post commentary, I say New Brunswick’s latest budget is dangerously ordinary.
My friend Tom Harris is inviting people to attend a conference sponsored by his International Climate Science Coalition and others in Paris at the same time as the big UN affair. Even if you don’t find yourself in Paris this coming week, it’s well worth pondering the questions Tom and his colleagues are asking about the orthodox view.
Most fundamentally, the ICSC and others ask for proper evidence on these three points:
- Recent climate change is unusual in comparison with historical records;
- Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ are dangerously impacting climate;
- Computer-based models are reliable indicators of future climate.
If the consensus is as solid as alarmists claim, it should be easy to provide. If they can’t or won’t provide it, something very unscientific is going on here.
In my latest National Post column I talk about how odd it is that instead of Canadians mistrusting government, we now allow it to mistrust us. It doesn’t believe we can shop by ourselves, ride a bicycle or get in a boat safely, defend ourselves, speak freely without speech codes or build a deck without rules about the height of our railings. And instead of insisting that we know what we’re doing, too often we let it tell us what to do.
In doing so we are losing our heritage. Servile incompetence is not a Canadian value. This country was built by self-reliant people who kept their governments in check, and it’s high time we went back to that arrangement.
In an excruciatingly studied effort to show more passion on the campaign trail, Jeb Bush says he would have killed baby Hitler given the chance. Apparently the question is a thing these days thanks to New York Magazine, and Bush’s response was a mild obscenity (wow, such authenticity) followed by “yeah, I would!” Phooey.
If I might refer you to my Sept. 28 post on the apparent opportunity of Henry Tandey, VC, to shoot a wounded Hitler on September 28 1918, it’s absurd to suppose that anyone could have known a corporal in the trenches of World War I would have turned into a successful genocidal warmongering maniac politician in the 1930s. It’s not even a category into which that young soldier could fall.
As for the notion that you could identify a baby who would later certainly do great evil if you didn’t slaughter it in its infant innocence, that you could determine scientifically its necessarily malignant influence on history and preemptively exterminate it with a clean conscience, let’s leave that for Minority Report and stick with the fairly elementary fact that killing babies is wrong.
So is appeasing dictators, but that’s a story for another decade.
As for politicians faking passion, it’s always a sorry sight.
The Canada Post Corporation just delivered a problem right to Justin Trudeau’s door. But there’s also an opportunity inside the package.
The problem is that Canada Post has suspended plans to move from home delivery to community mailboxes in much of urban Canada, daring Trudeau to follow through on his pledge to reconsider and by implication reverse the change. The opportunity is that he can really rethink mail delivery in Canada instead of surging cheerfully back to the future.
Early in the election, Trudeau hid behind the all-purpose objection of inadequate consultation and promised a moratorium on community mailboxes pending comprehensive review, which could mean anything, or nothing, and take forever if necessary. By platform time the Liberals went further, promising “We will save home mail delivery. We will stop Stephen Harper’s plan to end door-to-door mail delivery in Canada and undertake a new review of Canada Post.”
The reflexive personalization and demonization of “Stephen Harper’s plan” was an unfortunate nasty undercurrent in an allegedly sunny campaign. But it’s also completely beside the point in this case. Canada Post is a Crown Corporation supposedly insulated from “political” interference, so it wasn’t Harper’s plan in the first place. It was a reaction to losing business relentlessly thanks to that darn Internet.
In my latest National Post column, I suggest an idea for this campaign.
Brigitte comments, with respect to that Maclean’s article, that “The Tories put the ‘Royal’ back in the name of our navy. Too bad they didn’t do anything about the ‘Navy’ part.”
More evidence, from Maclean’s, of the Harper administration’s incompetent and frivolous neglect of defence, the first responsibility of government. Can’t wait to hear the deep blue partisans explain why we don’t really need a navy and how awful it would be if Trudeau or Mulcair was in charge. Why, we might have no destroyers or supply ships.
Good thing we’re nowhere near an ocean.
A nice comment on iPolitics about my “Why I Can’t Vote For the Harper Tories” National Post column, from Michael Harris, who I worked with at CFRA. There’s something fishy about him calling me an “old trout” as I don’t make a habit of saluting colleagues as “abalone” or “plaice” or other terms associated with aquatic life. But nice otherwise.