Obama must stay above the fray
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
OBAMAGATE(S)
"Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. has agreed to take President Obama up on his offer to have a beer with Sgt James Crowley, who arrested him earlier this week, at the White House. "I am hopeful that my experience will lead to greater sensitivity to issues of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience," Gates wrote in an email to the Boston Globe. Obama said in a surprise appearance on Friday that Gates and Crowley were both "decent people" and should have "a beer here in the White House." He then called both men to invite them personally. Obama earlier caught heat from police and others when he said Crowley "acted stupidly" when arresting Gates in his own home. He dialed back on those comments Friday after igniting a fiery national debate about race, saying he should have calibrated those words differently."
"There was discussion about he and I and Professor Gates (sic) having a beer here in the White House. We don't know if that's scheduled yet." -- PRESIDENT OBAMA
I do think Obama, though well-meaning, made a grave error here. As President of the United States, he should be above the "fray" -- in this case a local problem between a citizen and the police. He picked the wrong issue and picked on the wrong person. The fact that Professor Gates had political connections to Obama did not make Obama’s interference look any better. Policing is difficult at the best of times; the police do not need the Chief Executive second-guessing their work. If there was any wrong-doing, that's what the courts are for. "Having a beer at the White House" is a “stupid” solution to a “stupid” issue. Obama should stop preening for the public and attend to the huge job for which he was hired. He should not try to "micromanage" the country, and he should avoid casual, extemporaneous comments on sensitive issues. If he does not, he is going to get his nose bloodied more than once.
Having said that, I am still a Canadian Obama fan.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A CRACKDOWN ON QUEUE-JUMPERS – Maclean’s Aug.3rd
As a one-time immigrant myself, I must agree with Jason Kenney’s attempts to limit the continuing abuse of our over-generous, liberal refugee system. Of the many and varied arguments for stemming the flood of illegal immigrants –costs to our country, lack of screening for undesirables, etc. –the major reason I hear from immigrants here is that they think the system is unfair. They often have to wait for years to bring relatives here, and they resent the fact that phoney refugee claimants can jump the queue, while they had to wait their turn, following the rules and going the proper route. It is highly unfair to everyone, and there should be legislation remedying this inequity. Requiring visas for specific problem areas, while justified, is a short-term measure akin to putting a band-aid on a festering sore.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: A POLEMIC
While I have no love for Muhammad or Islam; I don't think Christians should be too "holier than thou" either. We have some far- out fundamentalist Christian "redneck" types in the US and even Canada (an extreme, but not singular example is that of Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist and practicing Irish Catholic who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995), and if we go back a few hundred years, Christian Europe did their share of killing in the name of their own "Mohammed", except they called him Jesus. They burned to death thousands of unbelievers, apostates, Jews and Moors (Arabs), and called it Inquisition instead of Jihad or Fatawa. The Radical Muslims today are just behind the times by a couple of hundred years or so. The last Witches-burning in North America was in Massachusetts in 1692-63.
The Salem witch trials were a series of prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts, between February 1962 and May 1693. Over 150 people were arrested and imprisoned. The courts convicted twenty-nine people of the capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen womenand five men, were hanged. One man, Giles Corey, refused to enter a plea and was crushed to deathunder heavy stones in an attempt to force him to plead. At least five more of the accused died in prison.
The Jerry Falwells of today are perhaps not that far removed from Salem. "Witch-hunts" are still alive and well among some Christian fundamentalists. Just turn over some rocks, and there you are!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
"TORONTO STINKS" - MACLEAN'S Magazine Juy 27
I thought the article was informative and fair to Mayor David Miller, but I hear on my radio news today that he is rather upset with you and intimating unfairness in your reporting.
I understand Mayor Miller is in an un-enviable position: He is a left-leaning NDP’er and owe his job to the support of city unions. He is, however, the Mayor of the entire city.
Mr. Miller should have had a chat with Bob Rae –or maybe he did –since Mr. Rae felt the brunt of union ire when he tried to save jobs by having the workers share work, and thus save jobs of fellow workers. “Rae-days” became a pejorative amongst union members.
Mayor Miller understands that he has reached the end of his rope: the citizens are not going to accept further tax rises, and as you point out, the sentiment is against the union and its “featherbedding” practices, in an environment of a major recession and huge layoffs in private industry. To quote Samuel Johnson, "… when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." This is a good time to consider either making the city employees an essential service, or privatize garbage removals. It works just fine in Etobicoke, and in Mississauga where I reside. By dividing contracts along the old borough lines, it would be carved up into manageable sizes for private firms, and also allow for competition and better cost control for the city.
There may ultimately be more votes in the anti-union camp, and this is his opportunity to claw back the excessive benefits obtained by aggressive unions and passive, compliant politicians. If he fails this test, he will surely suffer at the polls in the next election; but much worse, the city will lose its place in the sun and there will be many cloudy days to come.
I understand Mayor Miller is in an un-enviable position: He is a left-leaning NDP’er and owe his job to the support of city unions. He is, however, the Mayor of the entire city.
Mr. Miller should have had a chat with Bob Rae –or maybe he did –since Mr. Rae felt the brunt of union ire when he tried to save jobs by having the workers share work, and thus save jobs of fellow workers. “Rae-days” became a pejorative amongst union members.
Mayor Miller understands that he has reached the end of his rope: the citizens are not going to accept further tax rises, and as you point out, the sentiment is against the union and its “featherbedding” practices, in an environment of a major recession and huge layoffs in private industry. To quote Samuel Johnson, "… when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." This is a good time to consider either making the city employees an essential service, or privatize garbage removals. It works just fine in Etobicoke, and in Mississauga where I reside. By dividing contracts along the old borough lines, it would be carved up into manageable sizes for private firms, and also allow for competition and better cost control for the city.
There may ultimately be more votes in the anti-union camp, and this is his opportunity to claw back the excessive benefits obtained by aggressive unions and passive, compliant politicians. If he fails this test, he will surely suffer at the polls in the next election; but much worse, the city will lose its place in the sun and there will be many cloudy days to come.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
RE. GOOD NEWS : P'tit gars, big honour - Maclean's July 27th.
I must take issue with you comment about Jean Chretien's Order of Merit and your comparison to Conrad Black's Peerage . There is really no comparison: Chretien's award is a honour bestowed upon "individuals of exceptional distinction" in any arena, as you say, "following the footsteps of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson."
Conrad Black got a Peerage, which did not allow him to keep his Canadian citizenship, and it obliged him to take a seat in the British upper chamber --House of Lords -- in England. Having to make a choice, he went off in a huff and renounced his Canadian citizenship for a foreign one, then went off to England to strut his stuff among the British elite, with his paramour Barbra Amiel. Yes, I know; Max Aitken ( Lord Beaverbrook) became a Peer in 1917 after leaving Canada and some questionable business affairs in the cement business. He also got involved with the British press -- apparently a sure road to British Peerage. In Britain, he cemented some great relationships, not the least with Winston Churchill during WWll. When Ken Thompson ( Lord Thompson of Fleet) became a Lord, he forfeited his Canadian citizenship and settled in Britain, also a purveyor of Fleet street news.
There is no "precedent" to follow here; no need for Chrétien to "choose between the honour and his Canadian citizenship". Your allusion to Black's predicament is, what they call in hockey, a "cheap shot ," unworthy of your esteemed publication.
Conrad Black got a Peerage, which did not allow him to keep his Canadian citizenship, and it obliged him to take a seat in the British upper chamber --House of Lords -- in England. Having to make a choice, he went off in a huff and renounced his Canadian citizenship for a foreign one, then went off to England to strut his stuff among the British elite, with his paramour Barbra Amiel. Yes, I know; Max Aitken ( Lord Beaverbrook) became a Peer in 1917 after leaving Canada and some questionable business affairs in the cement business. He also got involved with the British press -- apparently a sure road to British Peerage. In Britain, he cemented some great relationships, not the least with Winston Churchill during WWll. When Ken Thompson ( Lord Thompson of Fleet) became a Lord, he forfeited his Canadian citizenship and settled in Britain, also a purveyor of Fleet street news.
There is no "precedent" to follow here; no need for Chrétien to "choose between the honour and his Canadian citizenship". Your allusion to Black's predicament is, what they call in hockey, a "cheap shot ," unworthy of your esteemed publication.
RE. GOOD NEWS : P'tit gars, big honour - Maclean's July 27th.
I must take issue with you comment about Jean Chretien's Order of Merit and your comparison to Conrad Black's Peerage . There is really no comparison: Chretien's award is a honour bestowed upon "individuals of exceptional distinction" in any arena, as you say, "following the footsteps of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson."
Conrad Black got a Peerage, which did not allow him to keep his Canadian citizenship, and it obliged him to take a seat in the British upper chamber --House of Lords -- in England. Having to make a choice, he went off in a huff and renounced his Canadian citizenship for a foreign one, then went off to England to strut his stuff among the British elite, with his paramour Barbra Amiel. Yes, I know; Max Aitken ( Lord Beaverbrook) became a Peer in 1917 after leaving Canada and some questionable business affairs in the cement business. He also got involved with the British press -- apparently a sure road to British Peerage. In Britain, he cemented some great relationships, not the least with Winston Churchill during WWll. When Ken Thompson ( Lord Thompson of Fleet) became a Lord, he forfeited his Canadian citizenship and settled in Britain, also a purveyor of Fleet street news.
There is no "precedent" to follow here; no need for Chr�tien to "choose between the honour and his Canadian citizenship". Your allusion to Black's predicament is, what they call in hockey, a "cheap shot ," unworthy of your esteemed publication.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
“Unnecessary at any speed”…Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s July 20th issue.
Aside from a clever paraphrasing of Ralph Nader’s 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed, Andrew Coyne has made me reassess some of my cherished assumptions about high-speed rail travel.
The Calgary-Edmonton link does not make sense – at 300 km through a relatively thinly populated area, it will never garner the passengers needed to break even. People will use their cars, especially since they will need them to get around Calgary and Edmonton, with its limited public transport. Renting a car at either end will negate the advantage both economically and environmentally. For those who cannot drive, there is the bus; just a three hour ride.
I do still think, however, that the Toronto-Montreal (not Windsor-Quebec) corridor does make sense for the following reasons:
1. Both Toronto and Montreal have good public transit and a large population. There are a few fair size cities en route (Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston and Cornwall), and a secondary Cornwall – Ottawa spur could also be viable.
2. A modern, electrified, dedicated train is fast, efficient, high-capacity, low environmental impact and more comfortable (and faster) than a bus.
3. While needing some subsidy, so does our highways –the 401 is in need of upgrading. Another alternative is air travel, with the concomitant drawbacks of crowded airports, high cost of getting downtown from the airports, and of course, higher negative environmental impact. Airports are also, to a degree, subsidised.
Running high-speed passenger trains over the present freight lines do not make sense. Substantial upgrading at crossings will be needed, as well as fencing along the line. Even so, the potential speed of the train on the present rails is quite low, thus limiting the advantage and attraction of train travel. A dedicated, limited access rail is required for a proper high-speed train, even if not a super-train like a maglev. An efficient inter-city passenger train will attract both business travellers who fly, and the general public who now drive or take the bus.
The degree of diversion from air, car and bus will depend on the cost of the ticket compared to other modes of transport. That, of course, will depend upon the subsidies available, and is in that way a bit of a catch-22.
The real punch line here is Mr. Coyne’s last paragraph: … “take the subsidy out of driving –charge a toll….” Right on, Andrew!
There is another argument made in favour of efficient, high-speed ground transportation, including good highways, and it is an economic one: The trans-Canada railways and highways all contributed to more and better interchange of people and goods, thus benefiting the overall economy. There was, of course, a political imperative to this transportation nexus –had we not the transcontinental railway we might be even more economically dependent on our southern neighbour.
However, there is a counter argument also for this –one is put forward by Fared Zakaria in his book The Post-American World (Norton 2008). He points out that France has the fastest and most efficient rail network in Europe –one “that gleam compared to America’s creaky system –yet it is the US economy that has edged ahead of France for the last three decades. A vibrant private sector can deliver extraordinary growth even when traveling on bad roads.”
Wouldn’t it be nice –if we could have both a vibrant private sector and efficient transportation? At this point, we are trailing in both.
The Calgary-Edmonton link does not make sense – at 300 km through a relatively thinly populated area, it will never garner the passengers needed to break even. People will use their cars, especially since they will need them to get around Calgary and Edmonton, with its limited public transport. Renting a car at either end will negate the advantage both economically and environmentally. For those who cannot drive, there is the bus; just a three hour ride.
I do still think, however, that the Toronto-Montreal (not Windsor-Quebec) corridor does make sense for the following reasons:
1. Both Toronto and Montreal have good public transit and a large population. There are a few fair size cities en route (Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston and Cornwall), and a secondary Cornwall – Ottawa spur could also be viable.
2. A modern, electrified, dedicated train is fast, efficient, high-capacity, low environmental impact and more comfortable (and faster) than a bus.
3. While needing some subsidy, so does our highways –the 401 is in need of upgrading. Another alternative is air travel, with the concomitant drawbacks of crowded airports, high cost of getting downtown from the airports, and of course, higher negative environmental impact. Airports are also, to a degree, subsidised.
Running high-speed passenger trains over the present freight lines do not make sense. Substantial upgrading at crossings will be needed, as well as fencing along the line. Even so, the potential speed of the train on the present rails is quite low, thus limiting the advantage and attraction of train travel. A dedicated, limited access rail is required for a proper high-speed train, even if not a super-train like a maglev. An efficient inter-city passenger train will attract both business travellers who fly, and the general public who now drive or take the bus.
The degree of diversion from air, car and bus will depend on the cost of the ticket compared to other modes of transport. That, of course, will depend upon the subsidies available, and is in that way a bit of a catch-22.
The real punch line here is Mr. Coyne’s last paragraph: … “take the subsidy out of driving –charge a toll….” Right on, Andrew!
There is another argument made in favour of efficient, high-speed ground transportation, including good highways, and it is an economic one: The trans-Canada railways and highways all contributed to more and better interchange of people and goods, thus benefiting the overall economy. There was, of course, a political imperative to this transportation nexus –had we not the transcontinental railway we might be even more economically dependent on our southern neighbour.
However, there is a counter argument also for this –one is put forward by Fared Zakaria in his book The Post-American World (Norton 2008). He points out that France has the fastest and most efficient rail network in Europe –one “that gleam compared to America’s creaky system –yet it is the US economy that has edged ahead of France for the last three decades. A vibrant private sector can deliver extraordinary growth even when traveling on bad roads.”
Wouldn’t it be nice –if we could have both a vibrant private sector and efficient transportation? At this point, we are trailing in both.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)