Obama's Clever Liberalism
Apr 20, '09 11:39 AMfor everyone
Hold the tea bags: "Obama has no intention of changing the nature of American capitalism," Frank Foer and Noam Scheiber write in The New Republic. Obama believes in "behavioral economics" (which policymakers call "libertarian paternalism"). "Obama has set out to synthesize the New Democratic faith in the utility of markets with the Old Democratic emphasis on reducing inequality. In Obama's state, government never supplants the market or stifles its inner workings--the old forms of statism that didn't wash economically, and certainly not politically. But government does aggressively prod markets—by planting incentives, by stirring new competition—to achieve the results he prefers." Foer and Scheiber conclude: "Obama has groped toward a form of liberal activism that is eminently saleable in this country—both with the average voter, easily spooked by charges of creeping statism, and the constellation of political interests in Washington."

NEW DELHI’S END GAME? -Adnan Khan, Maclean’s Apr. 27

I am surprised that Maclean’s would abet and countenance such abject, one-sided and biased presentation as the one given here by Mr. Khan. He intimates that “India’s goal is Pakistan’s disintegration” or at least, “to keep Pakistan weak.” This, he does, neatly, by quoting a Mr. John Pike as an alleged authority (“a leading online source for security and intelligence information”). Not only is India blamed for Pakistan’s woes, but they are also implicated in fomenting conflict in Sri Lanka!

It seems to me that Pakistan is quite capable of self-immolation and requires little help therewith from India. His arguments might carry more weight had it not come from a Pakistani-descendant scribe quoting internet-based “authorities.”

“Tamil protesters, yes. George Galloway? Keep out.”

“Tamil protesters, yes. George Galloway? Keep out.”
–Andrew Potter, Maclean’s Apr.27th


Mr. Potter writes that “if these (Tamil) protesters were, say, Palestinians in support for Hamas, we’d be far less tolerant”. Maybe so, but I am not sure you can equate Tamils in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) with Palestinians. However, they have one thing in common: “suicide bombers” and terrorism, though I have not heard of Tamils plotting to assassinate our government leaders, or blow up our railways or any other Canadian institutions.

I think most reasonable Canadians reject both groups behaviour, but it would likewise be within the law if Palestinian immigrants here wanted to peacefully demonstrate in support of Hamas, or Afghans supporting the Taliban for that matter. To paraphrase Voltaire, “I don’t agree with their beliefs or behaviour, but I will defend their right to protest.”

Where I draw the line, however, is at Mr Potter’s analogy and juxtaposition of Tamil protesters, who are mostly Canadian citizens, or at least landed immigrants, with Mr. Galloway, who is a foreign demagogue and rabble-rouser. We have no obligations whatsoever, to allow this self-promoting, aggrandizing political agitator to use our home as his pulpit.

“Mother ‘trapped’ in Saudi Arabia” –Star April 16, 2009

I find it very hard to feel sorry for this woman who on her own volition went to Saudi Arabia to get married and now, after seven years and two children, has second thoughts after her marriage did not turned out to be the Cinderella story she envisioned. She has returned here twice, so she isn’t imprisoned there, but now she wants to leave again, with the children who are Saudi nationals. And, of course, she is looking for the Canadian government to help her leave.

Her “plight” must really resonate with the many really abused Canadian women in shelters here. Give me a break!

“How the rich and powerful win again” –Bob Hepburn, Star April 16th

“How the rich and powerful win again” –Bob Hepburn, Star April 16th

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Hepburn, et al, about not revoking Conrad Black’s Order of Canada.

As Mr. Hepburn notes, “there is a bad smell” to this, and I can see a few reasons for it (check one):

Conrad Black is a (ultra) Conservative ( C & c)
He has friends in high places –whose reputation he is protecting and whom is protecting him –he could raise a “stink” here).
He is a friend of the Asper’s (friends in high places cont.; see National Post).
He is an enemy of Jean Chrétien –thus the adage “your enemy is my friend” applies here.
ALL OF THE ABOVE

All that’s now left to do is returning his citizenship and welcoming the prodigal son “home.”

Rushing to judge others – Star editorial April 10th/09

Rough night’ for baby Kaylee, Star April 10/09.

Help me out here, but was it not Mr.Wallace, the father, who suggested Kaylee be taken of the respirator so her heart could be harvested and given to the Lillian O’Connor, another child in need of a heart transplant? It is a legitimate question to ask whether Mr. Wallace and Ms.Vitelli, the parents of Kaylee, were not in some way seeking public attention and glory by offering their dying child’s heart to another dying child – something they had no right to do –and by the same magnanimous effort ridding themselves of the liability of a severely handicapped child that would require constant attention for years to come. It seems he is now vacillating between wanting to keep his daughter on the respirator and “pulling the plug,” while putting words in the mouth of hospital staff to the effect that he is wasting resources. I don’t believe him. Mr. Wallace’s last pronouncement is now “that they are ‘not going to go with life support’ for their daughter.”

It is not so that the media pounced on this issue and these people by their own volition. It was Mr. Wallace who brought this to the fore, and kept it in the public eye by repeatedly calling radio stations and newspapers about the situation and their personal struggles.

There seems to be a trend these days, of people in stressful circumstances to air their sorrows and frustrations in public. After a while, it becomes an addiction, where the publicity is reinforcing and supporting their need for attention. There is a downside to this for these Thespians, when their histrionics are no longer news; they are left alone with only themselves and their personal grief and frustrations.

Death penalty arguments

“Death-row cases deserve aid: Poll” Star April 4^th/09

While I am not a proponent of the death penalty, I do question the need and appropriateness of the Canadian Government’s further involvement in the Ronald Smith case. This man decided to kill someone in Montana, a foreign country, and he has faced justice in the jurisdiction where he committed the crime. Montana is not some banana-republic without human rights or democracy. As we expect the US to respect our sovereignty and laws, so we must abide by theirs. Beyond ensuring that Mr. Smith receives proper legal representation, we should not –nor do we have the right to –interfere in another country’s legal affairs. No one compelled Ronald Smith to commit murder in Montana.

We should also remember that in the seventies, for almost ten years, the US did not have the death penalty (found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in its then present form), but Canada did (though no one were executed from Dec.1962 (Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas, hanged back to back at Don Jail in Toronto), until its abolition in 1976.

Sometimes I think we Canadians act a bit like “the mouse that roared” vis-à-vis the US. It might be better to mute our criticism and save the ammunition for the really important and deserving cases.