The Lies Roll On
Harper's Press Gallery Dinner Speech
has had a cartoon included in The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader
by Michael Moore. John's cartoon, aptly titled Fahrenheit 911
, takes up a full page in Moore's companion volume to the film. The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader is a powerful and informative book that includes the complete screenplay of the most provocative film of the year. The book also includes extensive sources that back up all facts in the film, as well as articles, letters, photos, and cartoons about the most influential documentary of all time. (Amazon
)" href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=5436bba7-fd4d-4a64-996f-cd5def4c7cac" target=_self>E-Group Cartoonist Fewings Featured in Michael Moore Book
Stephen Harper on Quebec
endorses Kerry, it does raise one's eyebrows. Though not as influential as the big city papers, Crawford, Texas's The Lone Star Iconoclast
stirred things up a few days ago by endorsing Kerry over hometown favourite, George W. Bush.Now, conservative editor, columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan has officially endorsed John Kerry. Sullivan describes why he cannot support Bush..." href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=2b53c3d5-08bf-4a73-97a0-50a0dca3493a" target=_self>Kerry Gets Conservative Endorsements
Campbell Webster's Guardian Article
STV in BC
Official multiculturalism has been a success, but not in ways usually appreciated. Official multiculturalism proved to be the death nail of an Anglo Canadian identity based on god, the Monarchy and country. As it stood Anglo Canadian values were not woven together by prominent national myths as in the United States and without official state sanction such an identity simply dissolved as Canada opened its borders to more and immigrants. Only trace elements remain.
' href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=585806c6-93b6-406a-bbcb-318245a72aa3" target=_self>Official Multiculturalism
Republicans Deploy WMD: Weapons of Mass Disenfranchisement
Not Paul's Baby
The cartoon on my left is by John Ditchburn at INKCINCT
, an Australian cartoonist, and is used by permission, according to the copyright procedures listed on his website
. During the free trade election of 1988, the debate over free trade between Canada and the United States was summed up by a political cartoon in the Toronto Star. Two cars, one a rich Mercedes, the other a patched-up jalopy, each bore a rear bumper-sticker. On the patched-up jalopy: “The minimum wage in Georgia is $1.25. OPPOSE FREE TRADE!” On the rich Mercedes: “The minimum wage in Georgia is $1.25. SUPPORT FREE TRADE!” Evidence that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement hurt Canada can be found in the village of Weston
, in the old City of York, and on Lakeshore Boulevard through the old village of New Toronto. These areas used to be strong working-class neighbourhoods fueled by factories susceptible to free trade competition from cheaper factories and non-union workforces south of the border. When the trade barriers fell, the factories shut down, the low-skill workers were left unemployed, and the working class neighbourhoods of Toronto developed into ghettos. All of this was predicted. What was also predicted, by proponents of free trade, was the growth of innovative industries, fed by Canada’s highly educated workforce. It would take longer for these innovative industries to replace the jobs vacated by the low skill factories, but the jobs would come. Niagara’s wineries, which greatly feared Free Trade, are now producing wines that are the envy of the world. Waterloo and Ottawa battle for the title of Silicon Valley North. Even as the tech-bubble burst in 1999, many of Canadian high-tech companies survived on the strength of their innovative products. RIM’s Blackberries
are the prized possesions of U.S. Congressmen. So, perhaps history has proven Brian Mulroney right." href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=df4ac0a6-94b1-4d73-aeaa-5208f4e397e9" target=_self>Canada's Surprising Prosperity IV: Did Free Trade Work?
All things Canadian....
Need a break from serious topics and heavy thinking? Here's a review of the new book The Little Book of Canadian Political Wisdom. " href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=4fc806c8-de7b-406f-99e3-8e0a57083a96" target=_self>"A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof..."
from the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions." href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=2623b94f-7a07-4f76-8529-66b380b6fdd3" target=_self>Bush supporters still believe Iraq had WMD, supported al-Qaeda
that reminds us of an important upcoming anniversary. Bill C36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, received Royal Assent
on Dec. 18, 2001. As a result of criticism of the initial draft of the legislation, the bill as finally passed included the stipulation that it would be reviewed by Parliament in three years, which would mean that review will take place in the current session. That assumes, of course, that the government doesn't fall before we get to that point. " href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=9ed80567-f362-41e0-81a4-6c27a1a5b754" target=_self>Bill C36 to be reviewed
Kinsella's Game of Blog
Apathy and Outrage in New York
has a number of posts up about a speech Stephen Harper gave in Quebec recently, in which he appeared to endorse several things that make me twitchy, such as a massive plan to reorganize the country along linguistic lines, giving Quebec it's own Constitution and a new name, etc. It's mentioned as being part of the plan developed by the ADQ, but a scan through their English platform
provided no information on exactly what is being discussed. I read the speech itself
, and I didn't find it nearly as scary as Kinsella made it out to be, although I would want to have a very clear idea of what is on the table before endorsing this. For one thing, it's not clear that Harper is endorsing whatever the ADQ position is. So, does anyone know where I can find a statement of the ADQ position that isn't as weasel-worded as the English version of their platform? " href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=dce98360-85fc-4f0d-961d-901d917b9072" target=_self>Blegging on Harper and Quebec
As I started posting this series, Jay Currie wrote in the comments of BlogsCanada
I suspect the GST may well have something to do with what you are describing. What the GST does is move to taxing consumption rather than taxing earnings. In many ways this changes the incentives in a society and rewards savings.
I am reluctant to give full credit to this theory because I have a collectivist streak in me. A part of me strongly believes that individuals are better off within the protection of society. They can achieve more with their liberties working with other individuals than they can in a wild anarchy. A part of me believes that most individuals benefit from being in a society, and rich individuals benefit more than most. As they make more use of the security that society provides, and the tools that society gives to help forge their wealth, they of course should pay more into the maintenance and development of that society.
But income tax has a dirty not-so-secret: to legally avoid paying income taxes, one avoids making an income. If enough individuals do this, it suppresses economic activity, and reduces the lot of individuals everywhere.' href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=cab62206-83e8-4531-bec0-a04fa9011b38" target=_self>Canada's Surprising Prosperity III: Is Taxing Consumption Key?
, thinks that GWB has lost it. Stephen contends that American voters face what would seem to be an obvious choice.
It is whether they re-elect a man who, it is now clear, has become palpably unstable. (Full article
' href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=c25e0e3c-5845-4c5b-a151-6c28ca44e968" target=_self>This Presidency Thing Can Drive You Nuts
) " href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d079563b-a592-4a2f-bbf5-bc3289625e2f" target=_self>Iraq Kidnap Victim Saved by... Google
Warren Kinsella and the Gomery Inquiry
The Greatest Canadian
' has started and listed the top ten up for consideration. Here's my preliminary ranking of them... Terry FoxWayne GretzkySir John A. MacdonaldLester B. PearsonPierre Elliott TrudeauTommy DouglasAlexander Graham BellDavid SuzukiFrederick BantingDon Cherry " href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=653cd869-16d3-45b1-9cd5-8db6ffac813d" target=_self>Greatest Canadian
Canada’s economy has been doing well since the recession ended in the early nineties. The crazy thing is, it shouldn’t be. Our neighbour to the south, upon whom a fair chunk of our economy depends, has not been doing well. The United States has added a trillion dollars to its federal debt, and since 2001 has seen more job losses in any time since the onset of the Great Depression.
It is counterintuitive to say that Canada’s high tax economy is responsible for Canada’s surprisingly good performance compared to the United States, so what is responsible? Today, we look at the first of a number of theories that may explain the secret of Canada’s success' href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=525495ac-2dd1-4d26-be61-c48e598d1285" target=_self>Canada's Surprising Prosperity II: Are Balanced Budgets More Important than Tax Cuts?
How Blogging is Supposed to Work
Bow. James Bow
It’s a fact that George W. Bush loves his tax cuts. When he campaigned to become president, the United States was in an enviable fiscal position. Record surpluses raised the possibility of paying off the national debt by 2010. Bush felt that surpluses were the right time for tax cuts, since they were a sign that the government was taking too much out of the pockets of Americans. With the economy performing so well, the government could afford to share that wealth with the people who provided it.
For various reasons, the fiscal picture of the United States reversed soon after Bush’s tax rebate. The United States entered into a recession, and for Bush the solution was clear: more tax cuts. Cutting the revenue the government received from taxpayers would put more money in taxpayers’ pockets, allowing them to spend their way out of recession. Even now, as the United States struggles through a lackidaisical recovery, Bush points to his tax cuts as the reason why the recession wasn’t as severe as it could have been.
I’ve already made my attempt to debunk the correlation between tax cuts and increased economic activity
. Bush is holding onto his belief that tax cuts always generate jobs in a 1:1 ratio out of a dogmatic stubbornness akin to his belief that there’s nothing wrong with his foreign policy. Counter-evidence to Bush’s claim that tax cuts spared America from a worse recession can be found north of the border.' href="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0413fecf-e163-4b6f-81db-407f960955d7" target=_self>Canada's Surprising Prosperity: What's Our Secret?