Privileged Thoughts of a Grumpy Lawyer

Missed Opportunities

2010-03-15T17:37:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a cruise on the Mexican Riviera. It was a relaxing vacation, filled with great food and great times with family. I did some much needed reading, including General Rick Hillier's book A Soldier First (which is definitely worth a read if you would like a deeper understanding of the recent history of the Canadian Forces).

The only blemish on the vacation was that a group calling itself "Progressive Voices" was on the same ship. Everywhere we went on board, there were signs for "Progressive Voices" seminars and discussion groups. It appeared to me that any and all American leftie groups were represented. At one point, Robert Kennedy Jr was brought on the ship for a seminar of some kind.

While annoyed by the appropriation of the word "progressive" by liberals and socialists, this did give me another opportunity to discuss the "commies" with my kids. My wife kept telling me to keep it down, but I guess I was spoiling for a fight that never happened.

Throughout the trip, I kept recognizing another passenger, who I assumed was another lawyer or maybe a representative of a client, whose name was escaping me. I figured his identity would eventually come to me.

It just did (two days after leaving the ship). It was Ron Reagan Jr.

I'm not a fan of the younger Ronald Reagan, at all. From what I can tell, he is truly a leftie. However, I am a huge fan of his father, who I believe was one of the greatest world leaders of the 20th Century. Had I recognized his son early enough, I would have enjoyed the opportunity to meet him and tell him how highly I think of his father (and bite my tongue with respect to his own views). I'm sure he's NEVER heard that before.

Getting Past Keynes: "...free money always comes with a cost."

2010-01-14T12:21:00.000-08:00

Good article by Conrad Black in the National Post online: see the link below. Starts and ends with the following great statements:

"America's practice of spending its way out of recessions is a Faustian bargain -- one that replaces occasional economic stagnation with devaluation of the purchasing power of the currency."

"Politicians should stop preening and primping because of their avoidance of depressions since the Second World War, and recognize that economics is half psychology and half Grade 3 arithmetic. Like the proverbial free lunch, free money always comes with a cost."

Full article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2439222&p=1

Beware the Global ... err ... Cooling

2010-01-11T10:13:00.000-08:00

Where I live, we are having a mild winter. I am happy about this.

Elsewhere, people are suffering through a deep freeze and uncharacteristically cold weather. In fact, this seems to be happening most places other than where I am. You can all have it, with my best wishes.

Interesting article in this regard:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Arctic sea ice is ... increasing!

Perhaps if you all leave your cars running all night you'll be able to reverse the trend. This assumes, of course, that human emissions cause global warming.

Stay tuned for the warning that human emissions are causing global cooling and that there should be massive transfers of wealth from the first world countries to deal with the problem.

Low Taxes for Kids

2010-01-07T20:05:00.000-08:00

I have a son in grade 5. They are learning about democracy and how laws are passed. The teacher devised an exercise where the kids proposed laws for debate and discussion by the class.

Step 2 was for the class to choose a proposed law for debate and, if it met the approval of the class, passage. The proposed law: that the government should build more houses for those that don't have them.

Step 3 was the debate. I would have thought that passage of that proposed law by 10 year olds was a given. Apparently not. My son advises me that he argued to the class that someone will have to pay for those houses and that means they will all lose money.

I can't tell you how pleased I am that he thought that through and realized that there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay. The class agreed and, to the astonishment of the teacher (I'm sure), the "bill" was defeated.

My son and I have had a good discussion about the merits of private charity and why it is so important to help those less fortunate than us. But I also told him that I'm very proud (I am) that he understood the difference between state coercion and voluntary charity.

More over, Stephen Harper, here comes my kid.

Grow Up!

2010-01-07T09:40:00.000-08:00

Canada needs to grow up. Or at least its media does.

The media handwringing over prorogation is so patently partisan that the media should be ashamed. I understand that Parliament has been prorogued, on average, about every 1.3 years in Canadian history. So what's the big deal?

Presumably, it is only to try and make the Prime Minister look bad. I'm all in favour of making elected officials accountable, but getting bent out of shape over insignificant issues reduces the credibility of the fourth estate such that fewer people will listen when it really matters.

We're really talking about fewer than 40 days of Parliamentary time. No one thinks that the opposition parties will bring down the government over that time and the government continues to work. No true voice has been lost, as evidenced by the fact that the media has created a story where none really exists. Democracy is not in crisis, people. Nothing to see here - move along.

Some people think that this is all to "hide" or "run away" from the Afghan detainee "scandal". Remember that the underlying events occured primarily under the watch of a Liberal government. If anyone should be, it is the Liberals who ought to be embarrassed, not the government.

And with respect to that "scandal", our allies in Afghanistan all transfer detainees to Afghan forces without national navel gazing. Why? Because they are mature democracies who understand nothing is perfect and that unfortunate, regretable and nasty things can happen in war. We can learn from mistakes and move on, without hysteria and hyperbolic calls for political heads to roll.

Media writers and reporters need to take a deep breath, look for a real story and stop engaging themselves in the partisan antics.

The Forgotten War on Terror

2009-12-09T17:27:00.000-08:00

I recently finished reading "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror", co-authored in 2003 by David Frum and Richard Perle.

Overall, it was a disappointment. It was replete with many of the same bromides for which the neo-conservatives in the US have become famous. (Note that I use "neo-conservative" in its proper sense, refering to Straussians who don't oppose big government and tend to be "tory" in the traditional British sense of believing that the elites have special knowledge that they can use for the benefit of the masses. Too many journalists have taken to using "neo-con" in a pejorative sense to refer to individualists, libertarians and Reaganites, which is not accurate.)

I came to the book a bit disillusioned with the war in Iraq. Before it began, I believed that Anglo-American intelligence probably had much more information than we in the public and was prepared to defer judgment.   I also believed then, as now, that Saddam Hussein was a bad man - little better than Hitler perhaps - whose influence in his own country and the world was a source of evil. That alone doesn't justify a war to replace him. I also believed then, like now, that the aspect of the Bush Doctrine that permits war to be declared on a hostile foe before a Pearl Harbour event, where the prospect of an attack is real and palpable, is theoretically solid.

I thought the book may offer a greater justification for the war than we now know to have been the case. I didn't find it.

In retrospect, Iraq was probably a mistake in that he was containable and there were other ways to destablize Saddam. In pursuing the war in Iraq, some discredit has been done to the overall war against the fascists parading as fundamentalist Muslims.

Al Qaeda and other (nominally) Islamic terrorist groups hate the west and the individual freedoms we enjoy. The west should not tolerate these sentiments and should battle those seeking to destroy us by force. The war in Iraq did allow many of these people to congregate and fight the US and British armies away from Western populations. That, from the seat of a westerner, is a good thing.

However, I don't think that alone was sufficient to justify the war.

The book rightly points out that there was at the time of publication, and now, much to be done and there are a number of seemingly credible and important suggestions made to enhance the war on terror. This is particularly true in suggestions made to change US bureaucratic and crime-fighting organizations.

Where the book falls flat is in its justification of the Iraq war, which was a disappointment for me.

A key to the success of the west is some self-esteem.  We have too many apologists for the successes of western culture among us. All cultures are not equal and all cultures have not succeeded equally in terms of granting individual freedom and establishing prosperity. This is not a commentary on the equal value of all people - but on the values enshrined in some cultures.

Western civilization, for all of its excesses, still has much to be proud of and has much to offer the rest of the world. It is no accident that former British Colonies have done better than the colonies of other European powers. It is because, in part, the British left good institutions that protected individual freedoms and the free market. Western civilization, based on individual liberty, is worth exporting.

The war on Islamist-based terror organizations such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda cannot be won because we strongly believe in the values that have made western civilization great. But it can be lost if we lose sight of those things and stop fighting for them.

Elitism

2009-11-05T09:14:00.000-08:00

Visiting Royalty

I'm an egalitarian and believe that society should primarily be a meritocracy. The idea that a person can become the head of state, enjoying wealth and privilege paid for by the taxpayer, by the accident of his/her birth is anathema to me.

For these reasons, I am not a supporter of the monarchy and chafe at the idea of my tax dollars being used to pay for a romp across the country by Charles and Camilla.

The institution of the monarchy has been useful to ensure stable transition of democratically elected legislators. However, there are numerous options to replace a foreign monarch, represented by an unelected Governor-General. The GG could be elected. Alternatively, the PM and cabinet could be removed from Parliament, with the PM as head of state, elected separately. The Senate (if elected) could choose a Governor-General to serve for fixed periods. The alternatives are almost endless and there are many examples of successful models around the world.

The number of alternatives may become one of the greatest hindrances to removing the monarchy from the Canadian landscape since under our Constitution, all provinces and the federal government must agree to such a change. But consider the result of not changing: King Charles on your $20 bill.

H1N1 Vaccines

In listening to the news about the Calgary Flames jumping the queue for the vaccine, I was reminded of the famous summary of the commandments in Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". In that case, the "more equal" animals were the swine.

As witnessed in all authoritarian regimes, central planning results in abuses by those exercising state power or having connections to those exercising state power. When resources aren't distributed on the basis of the fundamentally democratic free market, the opinions of a small group carry disproportionate weight.

If the Flames had been able to privately purchase vaccine and jump the queue at their own cost, the allegations of abuse wouldn't be there.

Ah ... but you say that would create unfairness in the fact that those with money would get all of the vaccine, which is short supply. Consider this: the vaccine is in short supply because the government has a monopoly and it is getting it from a single supplier. If companies other than GlaxoSmithKline were able to manufacture and privately sell the vaccine, people could choose to shell out for their own inoculation, or wait for the the government supply. The lines would be shorter and vaccine would be more available for the government to hand out "free" to those that want it.

Once again, Canadians are ignoring the true problems and complaining about the symptoms of a flawed system of health care delivery.

Big Government: The Bridge to Nowhere

2009-10-20T10:19:00.001-07:00

I couldn't have said it better myself:

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2550/26/

Awards as Ideological Tools

2009-10-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

Much has been expressed and written about how Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. I agree - he doesn't. This is particularly clear in light of the fact that Gandhi was nominated 5 times (1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and 1948 shortly before he was murdered) - and didn't win. Gandhi is one of the strongest symbols of non-violence in the 20th century.

In retrospect, the decisions not to award Gandhi with a peace prize is astonishing, if not indefensible.   But these decisions are made in the moment, not with the improved vision of history.

Obama was nominated within weeks of his inauguration. He has accomplished very little and the vacuous promises of hope and change are not sufficient. But he is a symbol of things for many people. Perhaps one day he will be as iconic a symbol as Gandhi. Perhaps (but I doubt it).

Obama has accomplished very little, other than to be elected president of the most powerful nation on earth. That is, of course, a remarkable accomplishment for anyone.  But it is not sufficient for the Nobel Peace Prize. Otherwise, Reagan, Clinton and Bush x 2 would also have received one. But Obama did so as an African-American. That is a milestone, for sure, but what does that have to do peace?

Obama is cited for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation". By making a few speeches? Where are the results?

In our world of instant messaging and instant gratification, results of actions are often ignored. Policies are promulgated on the basis of how they appear now to the masses, not on whether they will be successful. As an example, Canadian health care debates are clouded with ideological rhetoric about whether private money will be spent or made and not about what means of care delivery will cause the best health care outcomes. As the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged, access to a waiting list is not the same as access to health care.

The committee that awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize appears to have swallowed the Obama ideology and rhetoric. The resulting discussion has mostly followed party lines about about whether you agree with Obama, not whether he deserves the award.

The ideological nature of the award is evident from the fact that both Al Gore and Yasser Arafat won it. It is clear that the Nobel prize is not readily appointed to those on the political right.

Turning the Nobel Peace Prize into a blunt ideological tool is a very bad idea. It undermines the award and the credibility of its recipients.

I expect that those who advocated for Obama understood their own ideological drive. Sadly, I expect that those who awarded it to him may not even see that their own political views clouded their decision.

This is SCIENCE??

2009-09-21T20:44:00.000-07:00

My daughter asked me to help her study for her 6th grade science test. We started at the beginning and I found the following written under the heading "Defining Living Things":

Many Aboriginal stories tell of people or animals changing form. Secwepemc stories from southcentral [sic] British Columbia, for example, tell of Coyote introducing salmon to the Secwepemc people and creating important fishing sites. They also tell of Coyote being foolish and not completing his work. They tell of the "Old One" transforming Coyote into the Coyote Rocks that can be seen today throughout Secwepemc territories ... Both rocks and animals like Coyote are living, related parts of the Secwepemc world.

I almost came unglued. This is science? Teach this as part of social studies, maybe. A study on Aboriginal mythology, perhaps.

How about the fact that this is teaching religious belief in science class? Shouldn't we all be deeply offended? Maybe putting "Old One" in quotes removes the religious connotation.

Can you imagine the following in a public school science text book on the topic of defining living things:

Some people believe that "God" can create life from inanimate objects. For example, many Christians accept that the original person, Adam, was created from dust and that his wife, Eve, was created from his rib. In this way, they believe living things are only separated from the dust by the power of "God".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that my paragraph has any business in a public school science class. But neither does the paragraph I quoted from above.

What possible justification is there to teach a Secwepemc myth as part of science? To be inclusive, why aren't other myths and religious stories taught. Oh right ... because science is supposed to be taught on the basis of facts. To be science, a method of inquiry and learning is supposed to be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence, subject to principles of reasoning.

I don't think that enjoyable pantheistic tale about Coyote Rocks and the connection between animate and inanimate objects, both being "living", meets the test of science.

After subjecting my poor daughter to an extemporaneous lesson on the scientific method, neither she nor my wife will let me write the letters of complaint that are so obviously needed. So, I'm left to wonder: where is Richard Dawkins when I need him?

They Sure Can ...

2009-09-16T12:31:00.000-07:00

The Liberals have released their slogan for the (possible) upcoming election: "We Can Do Better".

Best Liberal slogan ever.

If by "we", the Liberals mean their own party, it's true. They sure can do better ... than Ignatieff.

If by "we", they mean Canadians, it's again true. We all can do better ... than the Liberals.

Who came up with this? Are they asleep at the switch at Liberal headquarters? Who would choose a slogan that so obviously has multiple meanings, most of which aren't flattering. Interestingly, this is a similar slogan used by Robert Stansfield and the Progressive Conservatives in 1972. They lost, but at least the message of their slogan was clear: "A Progressive Conservative government will do better".

If this is the best the Liberals can do and the strongest message they have, bring on the election! It should be fun.

A Tribute to the Fallen

2009-09-11T06:58:00.000-07:00

I realized with astonishment that a full 8 years have passed since that fateful September morning when planes smashed into buildings in Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

It was a "what were you doing when" moment of my generation. But that trivializes both the events of September 11, 2001 and the emotions made raw that day by murder, hatred, suffering and grief.

I remember my own shock and, eventually, anger that such things could occur to so many innocent people. Some people in the world actually celebrated. Most were somber and offered prayers for survivors and families left behind by fallen loved ones.

I later visited the WTC site. It was eerily quiet. A spot in Manhattan where no street vendors plied their trade - not because of regulation but out of respect. Visitors were noticibly moved as the devastation was still so evident 4 years later. A portion of a girder from one of the twin towers was set up as a cross to honour and remember the lost.

In a church near Wall Street, from where emergency personnel had been based, memorials were set up. Shoulder flashes from first responders in hundreds of communities across the USA and Canada had been received and piled on tables as silent tokens of the thoughts and prayers of thousands of colleagues.

The terrorist attacks and the responses of many nations have been politicized. This was perhaps inevitable as 9/11 will forever be linked to geopolitical issues and war.

But today is not a day for politics or arguments. Today is a day for remembrance, prayer and a sober recognition that in this sinful world, we need salvation from someone much bigger than ourselves.

Back to School

2009-09-08T21:30:00.000-07:00

We were asked by our daughter's new teacher to write something about her. I wrote the following:

Many parents believe that their daughter is remarkable. The difference is that ours truly is.

She's a wonderful person. So considerate and thoughtful, she never puts anyone before herself.

We spoil her rotten. She gets everything she wants, mostly because she deserves the world.

She is perfect and sinless.

If she doesn't get an "A" in each subject, it will be your fault. We believe in corporal punishment, so watch out if her report card isn't perfect.

My wife wouldn't send it. It seems that only one of us has good judgment.

Lessons from the Past

2009-09-08T11:34:00.000-07:00

I recently finished reading a book about the history of the conservative movement in the US. One of the "takeaways" was the difference between the 1964 and 1980 US presidential elections.

Both had true conservative candidates. 1964 was a blowout for Goldwater. 1980 was a massive victory for Reagan. What changed?

Obviously, it was no one factor. Maybe if Goldwater had been able to run against Carter in 1980, he would have won, too.

I think that one big factor was the tenor of the two Republican campaigns. In 1964, Johnson portrayed himself as a moderate (although with his "Great Society", he was one of the most collectivist presidents in history) and Goldwater as an extremist. The famous "daisy girl" TV commercial was an example of how Johnson was able to define Goldwater, who came across as "against" things, negative and extreme. The Republican campaign was reactionary and didn't communicate conservative principles in a way that was understood and attractive to voters.

Reagan stood and campainged for many of the same things as Goldwater. However, the Gipper was able to portray himself as positive. Who can forget the "shining city upon a hill"?

The media loves to point out that Stephen Harper is not cuddly and suggests that he is cold and not likeable. I agree that he doesn't have the charisma of Trudeau or Reagan. But this doesn't mean that he and the Conservatives can't advance a positive view of Canada.

We have a lot to be proud of. We are temperate compared to our southern neighbour and our economy is relatively very strong.

If there is an election, negative compaigning will need to be part of the mix. However, for a big victory, Harper and the Conservatives will have to define themselves as having a big vision for a bright future for Canada and Canadians (as distinct from big government).

That is where Ignatieff will have to go and Harper needs to beat him to the punch.

Liberal's Main Plank: We're ENTITLED!

2009-09-03T09:10:00.000-07:00

During the American presidential election, there was an hilarious Saturday Night Live skit depicting Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, in which the Hillary character shouts "mine ... supposed to be mine!!"

That appears to be the main contention of the Federal Liberal Party. They are supposed to be in power and the electorate simply erred in twice electing the Conservatives.

Ignatieff and his party have not articulated any policy proposal that distinguishes them from the Conservatives. They haven't shown any issue or scandal that would justify spending $300 million going to the polls. Instead, they are worried that the economy is improving and that the Conservatives will benefit from appearing prudent and having a steady hand in tough times.

If Canadian go to the polls this fall, it's because the Liberals believe they should be in charge. They miss their cabinet limos and perqs of being in government.

If we do have to vote, yet again, I hope the voters give the Conservatives a majority mandate. They have earned it and it's time for a bit of political stability in Canada.

Workers Must be Abused in BC

2009-09-02T20:06:00.000-07:00

It was all over the news yesterday that BC has the lowest minimum wage in the country. This was news only because New Brunswick raised its minimum wage.

Unless and until all provinces coordinate their minimum wage laws, one will be lowest. This isn't newsworthy. The activists use the fact that one province is lowest to force the politicians to leapfrog that minimum wage over another province. Then the process starts again with the newly minted "cheapskate" province, resulting in ever increasing minimum wages across the country. All without anyone questioning what the "right" minimum wage actually is, or even whether minimum wages make economic sense.

The media completely fails to address the economic issues surrounding minimum wages. A leading Canadian labour market economics text states there is an "inescapable conclusion that ... minimum-wage laws reduce employment opportunities", leading to the argument that they "actually harm the very people they are allegedly designed to help." In a specific Canadian study (Schaafsma and Walsh, 1983), it was determined that there are large impacts on teenagers and a "significant adverse employment impact on adult workers".

In other words, minimum wage laws cause only those whose work is actually worth $8 an hour (in BC) to earn that amount or more. If your work isn't worth that to an employer, it will not hire you.

So, minimum wages create employment market distortions. Despite the rhetoric, they don't help those at the bottom end of the wage scale, because those are the people more likely to become or remain unemployed as a result of the legislation.

The only possible justification for these laws is political. It appears to be compassionate to have minimum wage laws or, as the advocates say, a "livable wage". The hidden cost is that there are fewer jobs and more people who can't find dignity in work.

The argument is that if wages aren't enough to pay for basic living costs, there is no incentive to work and welfare is preferable. If you can live more comfortably off the dole, why work? Fair enough.

If we are going to live with a social safety net and have some form of welfare, wouldn't it make sense to have a sliding scale of wage assistance where those whose actual income is insufficient to live would get a "top-up". The "top-up" can be graduated so that it is always better to earn more income. In other words, have the level of assistance decrease by less than each wage increase. At some point, wage assistance will gradually be removed, but only at the level of a "livable wage". This involves the government "subsidizing" wages, but it should result in less welfare paid overall, since employers will provide much of the income.

In economic terms, this is still an employment market distortion. But at least all of the incentives would be in the same direction: there would always be an incentive to work and employers wouldn't be artificially compelled to pay an uneconomical wage. The government would pay the cost of a minimum wage law since greater unemployment would mean higher welfare rates.

It's not a perfect plan, but it avoids the central planning aspect of minimum wages and the risk of creating higher unemployment.