Jesse:
This may seem too pat and obvious, but is there anyone in the US (or here, but you don't tend to hear it quite as much yet) fighting against this "protect our freedom" tea party crap by making an affirmative argument for either:
A) The fact that they're just picking and choosing negative freedoms?
The "freedoms" that the radical right in the US goes on about doesn't include civil liberty; they had no problems with the Bush administration spying on Americans. Which is not even to mention the fact that it's "freedom" only for "them" (whites southerners, mostly), and they have no interest at all in freedoms that were taken away from prisoners, or anyone else?
There's a case to be made there that any serious person would include those freedoms. But I don't really hear it; maybe I've missed it.
B) Freedom from.
This is especially stark in the health care debates. There are at least four ways to talk about health care:
Now, to my mind, Democrats are focusing on the first one, because it lets them vaguely (or explicitly) demonize insurance companies. And everyone hates insurance companies. We're not hearing much of the second one, which to me is the sort of counter-economic argument ("these people go bankrupt otherwise, we need to help them be able to start small businesses"), though it obviously sounds little like equality of opportunity. We do hear the third one, but I think it's simply a moral power play (which there's definitely space to attack the right with). I think the fourth is something we should be hearing.
Someone should be out there saying that this is about creating freedom. Health care (it should probably be better labelled health insurance) reform in the US is the essence of liberal (small L) government. The American people, through their government, are going to (fingers crossed) decide to come together and create a system which will enable more (not all) Americans to be able to purchase health insurance, thus rendering them free from the affliction of fear for themselves or for their families, or for their own and their families well-being. It's about freedom, not handouts.
Now, obviously the tea party right doesn't think government can possibly create freedom. But since it can, I think that's a part of the debate that shouldn't be ceded.
Friday, October 23
Freedom From
Thursday, October 22
Let The People See My Work
Jesse:
In the interests of writing something more substantial than a book club post today, I want to talk about my foreign aid thought.
I was reminded to bring this up because of this Andrew Sullivan post, suggesting that it would be impossible to send tens of thousands of experts in various fields (doctors, lawyers, business executives, professors, nurses, whatever, to participate in nation building in places like Afghanistan because it would be impossible to convince those types of people. There was also these outtakes from Paul Wells's interview with physicist Neil Turok, in which Turok suggests that what Canada should be doing for Africa is helping Africa nations build up health care and education systems like ours, rather than just handing out money and food.
This is something I've thought was the way to go about this for a long time (the first time it came to me was when a friend working at DFAIT was writing a paper about aid). I think the thing to do when it comes to improving the way Canada delivers aid is to pick a country or two (Haiti probably makes the most sense, but I think Canada should really be involved in Africa, as well). Then pick a town. And then absolutely go bananas trying to help that particularly town improve. Send city planners to plan things to build. Then send construction workers to build things, like serious schools and a serious hospital. Then send teachers to teach in that school and work with local teachers, and post-secondary students to spend time with those kids, and send doctors and nurses to help run that hospital, and help train locals to continue to run it afterwards. Canada, like other western countries, seems to me to have a glut of business consultants. Let's send them in there, and have them help locals figure out what can be done in that direction. And on, and on, and on.
This would not only be a fantastic help, it would also be a way to start building up, from the grassroots, some Canadians who could actually understand for themselves what it means to "do" foreign aid, and especially who locals in aid recipient countries actually are. To me, this is the way to improve the quality of our aid, and the engagement of us with recipients, and recipients with us.
As a further idea, build a university. Just build it. And then get Canadian professors to help staff it. Call it the University of Canada, or even (shudder) the University of Toronto African Campus. Give people in that country a chance to learn without leaving the land they know. Make it affordable. Recognize that some of those people will leave, but lots of them will stay, and put their knowledge to work.
I think all of this would make aid real, and would constitute a worthwhile Canadian project for the 21st century.
Let's Book Club!
Jesse:
OK, so this is sour grapes, but I've definitely forgotten some books I read over the last while. Some of this is that I've started and read substantial parts of: Charlie Wilson's War, Israel's Secret Wars, and (somewhat more ambitiously) A Secular Age. However, I can add a couple books (and if I think of more, I'll add them). So, my additions:
The Future of Liberalism by Alan Wolfe (288 pages)
This book was super interesting, and clarified a lot for me about what I believe in, and how I could be thinking about liberalism. However... some of the middle sections definitely draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag. I think it's worth the reading the first couple chapters, and some of the more "philosophical" chapters. I found his argument that on one (right) side of liberalism is a movement that's basically romanticism (cough cough John McCain / neo-Conservatism) interesting, but really, his thesis (regarding there being three meanings for liberalism; attitude, procedural, and substantive) was the most important part of the book. Some of the "practical applications" you could probably skip. I give it a B, to match What's the Matter With Kansas.
Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman (272 pages)
An interesting book. I was not blown away. I found it somewhat of a weird mix of middlebrow armchair philosophizing, interesting social commentary, and Gen X whining (which, to be fair, he totally recognizes he's part of). I thought the first chapter (how movies and TV have made him incapable of love) and the chapter on how the media really works were far, far more interesting and important than the others. Nifty chapters included the one on Star Wars and the chapter on The Real World. Interesting, not that arresting, I give it a B.
Friday Night Lights by Buzz Bissinger (400 pages)
A fantastic book. Extremely interesting. This is, of course, the book upon which the movie was based, both of which upon the TV show was based. I highly recommend this look at how insane a town in Texas (which actually isn't that small, by the way) takes high school football. A-
The Blind Side by Michael Lewis (352 pages)
Another great book. My biggest question? Since Lewis clearly set out to write a book about the left tackle position, then found Michael Oher to be so fascinating that he decided he'd just write it about Oher... why didn't he go back and edit it to make it a book about Michael Oher? The "left tackle" stuff he does do, to me, seemed to have nothing to do with the rest of the stuff. I particularly enjoyed the questions it raised for me at the end (when we learn that his family is talking about starting up a charity to help kids who can play sports really well go to school); is this really charity? Is there "good" and "not as good" charity (curing cancer vs. helping kids play football, or teaching kids to read vs. building an art museum)? Can't recall if Lewis meant for these questions to be there... but they were for me. A.
And, finally, some comments on the books I know I started but didn't finish. Israel's Secret Wars was interesting, but became far too "here's an interesting story" followed by "here's some dull information about how the Israeli secret services reorganized for the 19th time". Charlie Wilson's War was interesting in that it totally tracked the movie (which was based on the book). Great film. Really great film. See the film. The book... shmeh.
Kyle
1. Outliers | Malcolm Gladwell (299 pages) | Grade: C+
2. Boys Will Be Boys | Jeff Pearlman (365 pages) | B
3. Acme Novelty Library #19 | Chris Ware (80 pages*) | A
4. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao | Junot Diaz (340 pages) | A
5. Rome 1960 | David Maraniss (460 pages) | B+
6. The Reckoning | David Halberstam (733 pages) | A
7. Generation Kill | Evan Wright (370 pages) | B
8. Friday Night Lights | Buzz Bissinger (400 pages) | B+
9. Pictures at a Revolution | Mark Harris (496 pages) | A+
10. The Withdrawal Method | Pasha Malla (321 pages) | B+
11. Long Lost | Harlan Coben (374 pages) | D
12. Liar's Poker | Michael Lewis (249 pages) | B
13. McCain's Promise | David Foster Wallace (138 pages) | A
14. The Long Walk | Stephen King (380 pages) | A
15. The White Tiger | Aravind Adiga (276 pages) | A
16. The Closers | Michael Connelly (406 pages) | B+
Total: 5687
Rob
1. The Inner Game of Tennis | Timothy Gallwey (134 pages) | A
2. The Last Shot | Darcy Frey (240 pages) | A+
3. The Road | Cormac McCarthy (287 pages) | A+
4. Outliers | Malcolm Gladwell (299 pages) | C+
5. The Last Season | Phil Jackson (304 pages) | B-
6. The Sunset Limited | Cormac McCarthy (160 pages)| B-
7. The Education of a Coach | David Halberstam (288 pages)| B+
8. Downtown Owl | Chuck Klosterman | (288 pages)| B
9. Can I Keep My Jersey?| Paul Shirley| (336 pages)|C-
10. Then We Came to The End| Joshua Ferris| (416 pages)|B+
11. Friday Night Lights| H.G. Bissinger|(400 pages)|A++
12. Strokes of Genius| L. Jon Wertheim|(208 pages)|B
13. Who's Your City| Richard Florida|( 345 pages)|C
14. Brief Interviews with Hideous Men| (336 pages)|A
Total: 3753
Jesse (Me)
1. America America | Ethan Canin (450 pages) | C+
2. Outliers | Malcolm Gladwell (299 pages) | B-
3. Lester B. Pearson | Andrew Coyne (174 pages) | B
4. All The King's Men | Robert Warren (609 pages) | A
5. The Gamble | Thomas E. Ricks (325 pages) | A-
6. What's The Matter With Kansas | Thomas Frank (251 pages) | B
7. Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime | Eliot A. Cohen (248 pages) | A
8. Churchill: A Life | Sir Martin Gilbert (959 pages) | A+
9. The Future of Liberalism | Alan Wolfe (288 pages) | B
10. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs | Chuck Klosterman (272 pages) | B
11. The Blind Side | Michael Lewis (352 pages) | A-
12. Friday Night Lights | Buzz Bissinger (400 pages) | A
Total: 4672
Tuesday, October 20
Comment Anti-Trolls
Jesse:
Pulled a good point off the Macleans comment boards (at which point I pulled the chute, since comment boards are terrible, and I shouldn't read them) about the Conservative Stimulus Scandal.
So, the Conservatives appear to have directed about 55% a lot more money per riding to Conservative ridings than they have to non-Conservative ridings (which is a lot). Two points, one mine, and one from the trolls:
1) Doesn't this mean that, per capita, the hosing is even greater? I think the Liberals have thrown some numbers out along these lines. But Conservative ridings are much less dense.
2) If this had simply been done based on efficiency and ease of getting the money out there, without partisanizing the issue, shouldn't it have gone completely the other way? Liberal ridings, for example, are basically all in cities. Cities have lots of matching funds. Cities have loads of projects that could use money (more roads, more rinks, more bridges, more libraries) and far more expensive projects (airports, for example). I doubt this point is going to get any traction with The People... but I think it's a good one. The money probably should've been 60-40 the other way. Without factoring in the per capita question, which probably would've made it even worse.
Now, is it possible that the Cons manage to come out with some sort of face-saving numbers (since they usually do) and this all goes away because it becomes he-said-she-said for the press? Yes. I think the per capita stuff might help them out a little here once they start trying to doctor something and get it out there (did the home renovation credit and other population-wide measures disproportionately benefit city-dwellers, so this is arguably a make-up plan?). And they seem to be able to get away with pretty much whatever they want. But we'll see.
Monday, October 19
Proposed Line of Attack
Jesse:
Ignatieff: "Mr. Harper's spent millions to try to prove to the Canadian people that I'm an academic, not a politician. He's right. I don't "need" to be Prime Minister. I want to lead this country because I care about Canada, and I care about Canadians. But Mr. Harper and his gang need to be in power. They're lifelong, professional politicians. Mr. Harper's never done anything else. Jim Flaherty's never been anything other than a deficit-ridden finance minister. Is it any surprise they're taking your children's tax dollars and spending them on getting themselves re-elected? They have nothing if they're not in power. [So how's the hockey book coming, Mr. Prime Minister?]"
[Editor's note; maybe don't say the hockey book part].
Sunday, October 18
More Gas Taxes!
Jesse:
And now the CEO of Enterprise Rent-A-Car agrees with my earlier series of suggestions and self-congratulatory piffle that we stablize gas prices by raising the gas tax:
It strikes Taylor that if the government were to guarantee a stable gas price of between $3 and $4 per gallon—through a high national gas tax like they have in Europe, for example—it might spur innovation and hasten the shift to electric cars.This is crucial. It could not be more obvious that we're not going to take this stuff seriously until gas prices are high, and it would help consumers and business and scientists alike to know where prices are going to be.
I justify this intervention into the market on environmental (keep driving down, help us figure out how to solve this problem), social (people probably have better things to obsess over than the price of gas), and economic (help us, instead of someone else, figure out how to solve this problem and ching-ching cash in.
Big, ugly downside? This would probably heavily politicize gas prices, giving unscrupulous governments more levers to tweak. How long until the first allegations that gas prices are being kept artificially lower in Conservative districts?
Friday, October 16
Plausible Deniability
Jesse:
If Ministers MacKay and O'Connor did not, in fact, see reports on detainee abuse in Afghanistan, then I think we're at the point where they were willfully blind. I wonder if they'd testify in court that they never told anyone to keep stuff like that off their desks? I wonder if they're chiefs of staff would?
Either way, this is a big, big problem. It really sounds to me like MacKay, O'Connor, and Harper are either lying, or they're technically telling the truth but in reality perpetrated a coverup designed so as that they could deny this stuff.
Thursday, October 15
Scandalicious
Jesse:
When you combine putting the names of your own MPs and your party logo on government cheques with directing stimulus money preponderantly into your own ridings... isn't that showingmore chutzpah than the Liberals did during the sponsorship scandal?
There was a breakdown there, and some bad seeds stole some government money. And it was bad. But it wasn't a government sponsored slush fund to try to buy votes.
Sunday, October 11
Pulpits
Jesse:
A post that interested me by father-of-a-friend-of-the-blog, Dennis Gruending, went up today, and I had some thoughts (below the fold). You can find said post here.
The bit I found interesting in the post was this (sorry for the long quotation):A story that the mainstream media both covered and missed was the Prime Minister’s promotion of two individuals to senior positions in the PMO in March 2009. Darrel Reid became chief of staff and Paul Wilson replaced him as PMO policy director. Reid and Wilson have deep roots in both religious and political organizations. Reid was chief of staff to Reform Party leader Preston Manning while he was leader of the opposition. Later he became the president of Focus on the Family Canada, a conservative Christian lobby group that has worked against public childcare, same-sex marriage, and against adding sexual orientation to a list of minorities protected from hate crimes.
Now, the question this initially raised for me was "is this really OK?". I made the following comment on Mr. Gruending's blog (and I'll be sure to post any response he might right here, for my loyal reader):
Wilson has worked for Trinity Western University, which is based in Langley, B.C. and is one of the largest evangelical educational institutions in Canada. Trinity established an Ottawa “campus” in 2001 in an old mansion near Parliament Hill. It houses the Laurentian Leadership Centre, which places students as interns with Ottawa-based organizations, predominantly with MPs. Wilson co-ordinated that internship program but when the Conservatives won election in 2006, he left Trinity Western to become a senior policy advisor to Vic Toews, then the justice minister. Wilson later served in a similar policy role for Diane Finley, the minister of human resources.
There is nothing wrong with these individuals occupying senior positions but their combined political and religious connections are worthy of note and journalists reporting the promotions missed the religious side. [Emphasis added.]Just out of interest, do you think there would be anything wrong with outspoken, “professional” atheists occupying senior positions in a government, just like Wilson and Reid? Atheists who were as vehemently intolerant? Who believed that religion (instead of just every other religion) was wrong, and who thought that everyone should really just believe what they believe? Who were as interested in manipulating government policy to support their beliefs?
And, you read it here first, as much as I wouldn't want to get into a whole hullabaloo about this, I'm pretty serious.
Perhaps the more interesting question is whether Wilson, Reid, and Harper would accept something like that in the PMO.
Trinity Western University comes to one's attention in law school because it fought a case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada demanding that it be certified as a school for accrediting teachers. The reason it was rejected was that the school banned practices that were "biblically prohibited" included homosexuality. The B.C. College of Teachers thought this was discriminatory; the Supreme Court disagreed, suggesting that there was no evidence that TWU teachers would actually discriminate.
Attending a school that excludes a segment of society because their religion tells them they're bad isn't, to my mind, that different from attending a school that excludes people based on race. I think we can also safely assume that I, for one, would not be particularly welcome at TWU based on my religion (hint: not evangelical Christianity).
Now, I haven't looked into what else TWU stands for. Nor have I poked around at these two gentlemen further (fortuitously, Mr. Gruending has already highlighted that Reid worked for Focus on the Family, which opposed homosexuality to the point of trying to ensure homosexuality wasn't on a list of possibly grounds for hate crimes. Opposing gay marriage is one (horribly wrongheaded) thing. Opposing the idea of protecting gays from being assaulted for being gay? All I can say is wow.
Let's play our game then, shall we?
Would it be OK if these guys had worked for organizations that wouldn't allow Blacks, Asians, Jews, or Muslims? Would we be sanguine about them having prominent jobs in the PMO? I really, really don't think so, and I think that, at the least, we'd want some really, really serious apologies and explanations.
Beyond the despicable gay-bashing... I think I'd be interested in having the conversation about religious beliefs that are just plain unacceptable on their face, when it comes to this point. As I (attempt to) illustrate in my comment on the original post... would it be hunky dory for an atheist who was going to push for anti-Christian policies to be in the PMO? What about a fundamentalist Muslim who thought government's role was to try to push everyone into Islam? Or, hell, a homosexual who didn't think that straights should have the right to marry?
I don't really think we'd be OK with that. So why are we OK with this?
Monday, October 5
A Quick Thought...
Jesse:
On the current Conservative lead in the polls.
Talk to me in three or four weeks. They were all tied up a little while ago. Sheesh.
