pleasure pure madmen know

Award for most amateur press conference

2007-05-14T13:59:00.000-04:00

Mitchel Raphael's Macleans Magazine blog Capital Diary: Ottawa Outtakes credits York-Simcoe MP Peter Van Loan with the "award for most amateur press conference." A Tory staffer is reported to have made interns line up boy-girl-boy-girl and practice smiling in front of the podium where Van Loan would make his announcement about "expanding voter opportunities." Journalists, not surprisingly, were amused.

Van Loan's proposed legislation would facilitate greater voter turnout by increasing the number of advance polling days.

An equally effective strategy might be to nominate candidates who know how to complete simple tasks (like organizing press conferences).

Just a thought.

What if the scenario was reversed?

2007-05-10T03:34:00.005-04:00

"They don't know English right so I start cuss'n em' and say'n all this bullshit to em' and they can't understand me and I say it with a smile and they think I'm like being nice to them or something" -- excerpt from "On Vacation in Iraq"

Several U.S. soldiers describe their experience in Iraq while degrading Iraqi children (note: explicit language.)

A winning strategy

2007-05-05T13:21:00.000-04:00

Shane Doan responded to political scrutiny about alleged anti-French comments by scoring three goals against Belarus.

If Parliament redirects their attention onto Leaf captain Mats Sundin....

Can political prediction markets forecast political outcomes better than polls?

2007-05-03T13:21:00.000-04:00

Investing in political futures is like gambling on the stock market. An individual pays, say, $.40 for one "share" of Barack Obama, and if he wins the contract pays out $1. If demand for Obama shares increases then the share price that pays a $1 return will increase.

Buying one share of Obama is not the same as telling a pollster that you will vote for Obama. A poll asks "If the election were being held today, do you think you would vote for the Democratic candidate or for the Republican candidate?" Prediction markets ask "who will everyone vote for on election day?" The latter question appears to yield more accurate results. In their assessment of the Iowa Electronic Markets (small-scale, real-money futures markets created for academic purposes) researches at the University of Iowa found that

the market outperformed polls in 9 of 15 cases according to both measures (election eve closing price and last week average prices). Across all elections, the average poll error was 1.93% while the average market error was 1.49% and 1.58% by the two measures. In a few cases (the 1988 and 1992 U.S. Presidential elections) the market dramatically outperformed the polls (Joyce Berg et al. "Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Market Research. November 2000")

Prediction markets with real cash trading may provide more accurate predictions; but like polls they might only be useful in predicting only short term outcomes. Graphs of the "2008 US Republican National Convention Market" make this clear. John McCain's stock, once competitive with Giuliani's, has plummeted like an energy stock after the announcement of environmental legislation. The market may, however, sometimes predict outcomes where polls are less conclusive. Iowa Electronic Markets currently predict Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani will emerge as Presidential candidates. The market's predictions vary from a recent Rasmussen Reports poll which puts Obama slightly ahead of Clinton (32% and 30%). Percentage differences in the Rasmussen poll are statistically insignificant and leave Clinton and Obama in a virtual tie. Iowa Electronic Markets data from the same dates give Clinton a substantial lead. If Clinton pulls ahead the market would appear to have predicted the result before the polls.

Canadian political futures are available online at Intrade.com. If an election were held today Intrade.com predicts a Conservative victory. Currently, shares in "Liberal Party to win most seats in next Federal Election" are worth less than shares in "Conservative Party to win most seats in next Federal Election."

If you want to learn more check out Slate.com's converage of the 2008 Presidential Election. See also Iowa Electronic Markets, Intrade.com, or Newsfutures.com.

A look at John Baird's press releases

2007-05-02T20:56:00.000-04:00

Canada's new champion of the environment, John Baird, a few days ago told voters the Conservative government will "come forward with meaningful initiatives on technology, meaningful initiatives on international collaboration, meaningful initiatives to get the job done."
Has Baird participated in any "meaningful initiatives"? The following are press release titles from Baird's website dating back to March 22, 2006:

John Baird Teams Up with Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario to Promote Clean Air
John Baird Celebrates Earth Day at Lakeview Public School

John Baird Announces the Successful Restoration of the Parkdale Fire Station

John Baird Applauds Algonquin College for Green Initiatives

Baird Tours Ottawa Hospital's Stem Cell Research Labs

Queensway Carleton Hospital Thanks MPs Baird and Poilievre For Securing $1 Rent

John Baird Visits Troops in Afghanistan, witnesses first hand the tremendous reconstruction efforts by Canadian Forces

Conservative Government delivers tax cuts that students and their families can really count on

John Baird Meets with Mayor-Elect Larry O'Brien and Transport Minister to Tackle Issues Affecting Ottawa

John Baird, MP Hosts Veteran's Night at Local Legion with Defence Minister

John Baird, MP Hosts Successful First Annual Seniors' Seminar

The Ottawa Gala presents $30,000 to OCRI for School Breakfast Program

Canada's New Government cuts wasteful programs, refocuses spending on priorities, achieves major debt reduction as promised

John Baird, MP Visits Local Service Canada Office

John Baird, MP and Heritage Minister Bev Oda announce funding for Great Canadian Theatre Company

Baird & Poilievre Deliver on Hospital Campaign Promise

Major Announcement Planned For The Queensway Carleton Hospital

John Baird Hosts Town Hall on Federal Accountability Act

Baird Supports Tim Horton's Camp Day

John Baird Hosts Town Hall on Federal Accountability Act

John Baird Sworn In as Member of Parliament

Baird Lends Support to International Day to Stop Racism

John Baird has teamed up with a children's hospital, celebrated Earth Day with a public school, and congratulated a college. Where are the "meaningful initiatives to get the job done?" Perhaps he expects the children to clean things up, say, in 2050.

What sad irony.

Baird vs. Suzuki

2007-04-29T05:13:00.000-04:00

A giant panda. John Baird. David Suzuki. Dalton McGuinty. Happy investors. They all made the clip. CTV report: Baird vs Suzuki.

O'Reilly UNHINGED and ANGRY: Stop Quoting Me!!!

2007-04-28T18:27:00.001-04:00

This proves again (not that it needs more evidence) that Bill O'Reilly is not just stupid but deliberately dishonest.

Toronto City Council Retake

2007-02-07T14:32:00.000-05:00

Toronto's new city council cancelled an official photo session because members could not agree over seating in the front row. Below, the successful retake. Isn't Davey Miller's bow tie adorable?

Byers, Jim. "City council bickers its way out of photo." Toronto Star. February 7, 2007.

Brian Mulroney Named "Canada's Greenest Prime Minister" -- Acceptance Speech Part 1

2007-02-05T18:22:00.001-05:00

I think even non-Conservative bloggers will enjoy this acceptance speech. Mr. Mulroney is a hell of an orator, and he's pretty funny too.

Stephen Harper's introduction (also available on Youtube), less inspiring and not funny.

Hey who knows, maybe Stockwell Day is an idiot.

2006-12-13T10:26:00.000-05:00

Revelations about Stockwell Day's illiteracy and narrow-mindedness should come as no surprise to anyone. The former leader of the Canadian Alliance, and current Minister of Public Safety, has a proven record of making a complete ass out of himself. Recent quips about global warming ("Hey who knows, maybe Al Gore is right.") are only the tip of the iceberg.

Macleans Magazine has a hilarious sampling of Stockwell Day's published wit and wisdom. You can view it here.

These are a few of my favorites:

"Problem is, in politics the facts in the heat of the battle can turn into factoids, which don't serve the public. And for the record I'm not saying it's just Liberals or NDP who do that. I can think of a time or two when EVEN Tories were off the mark with their 'facts'."

"'Good morning Mr. President'. I realized I was speaking in a near reverential tone without even trying. As those words came out of my mouth I felt a bit self-conscious, but after all, I was standing in front of the United States Commander in Chief, world leader and defender of democracy and freedom."

"Government bashing is an easy thing to do - when you're in the opposition. Now that I'm representing you as a Member of the Government, I'm finding that punching myself in the nose is hardly any fun at all."

Not included in the Macleans list, but equally outrageous, are Stockwell Day's views on evolution. The As it Happens Election 2000 "Feature interview with Stockwell Day" is especially entertaining. You can listen to it here. The fun starts at minute 8:30.

A Good Idea

2006-12-11T12:25:00.000-05:00

I recommend everyone read "40 Ideas We Need Now," the feature article in This Magazine's December issue.

My favorite suggestion, and there are many worthy candidates, comes from Mark Kingwell who imagines a world where "the unforced force of the better argument [is] the sole yardstick of political authority." I imagine this world and it's progressive, free, united and prosperous.

If political bloggers are to have any meaningful impact on policy, or on the upcoming election, we need to assess issues on merit, and not with unreasoned partisan dismissal.

Kingwell: "The idea whose time has come is philosophy, understanding by that much-abused word what Jonathan Lear calls 'conceptual therapy': not making ourselves feel better by means of concepts, but subjecting our concepts to therapeutic investigation. That’s an idea whose time has always already come, has come again and again, forever and ever, world without end."

Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Rooted in Bigotry and Homophobia

2006-12-07T16:54:00.000-05:00

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the man who promised to bring the contentious same-sex marriage issue back to the Commons, was absent from the chamber and had no plans to defend traditional marriage as debate opened Wednesday on whether to revoke Canada's same-sex marriage law."
-- Janice Tibbetts. "Harper mum as Commons debates same-sex marriage proposal." The Vancouver Sun. December 7, 2006.

The Vancouver Sun reports that only 20 of 308 members of parliament were present in the House of Commons to debate the same-sex marriage proposal tabled by the Tories. Liberal, Bloc and NDP members of parliament were absent probably because the motion is ridiculous. The Prime Minister was absent because there are no good ways to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

This becomes abundantly clear when one examines the online religious propaganda devoted to restoring the traditional definition of marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage rely on one or all of the following propositions.

There are no good reasons to accept any of the above justifications.

Responses to Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

1. Same-sex marriage destroys the family because it threatens reproduction.

This objection to same-sex marriage is laughable and doesn't really need much discussion. The union of Adam and Steve in holy matrimony will not send humanity into population decline.

2. Same-sex marriage hurts children.

This is a dirty and sinister proposition with no scientific basis. Web communities such as http://www.preservemarriage.ca/ and http://beta.blogger.com/www.defendmarriage.ca site "scientific evidence" to demonstrate that traditional families produce better outcomes for families. They often deliberately confuse concepts, discussing, for instance, non-related topics such as the age of consent, child pornography and gay marriage within closely related paragraphs. There is no attempt whatsoever to legitimately look at the science.

The Canadian Psychological Association's position on same-sex couples is very clear:

CPA's review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex couples do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychological development, their gender development and their gender identity. In 2005, the CPA voiced its support to the House of Commons of Bill C-38 legislation legalizing marriage of same sex couples...The opposition to marriage of same-sex couples, on the grounds that it fails to consider the needs or rights of children, does not consider the most relevant body of psychological research into this topic or draws inaccurate conclusions from it. ("Marriage of Same-Sex Couples - 2006 Position Statement." Canadian Psychological Association.)

When it comes to understanding children and their development one should accept the opinion of the child psychologist.

3. Same-sex marriage is wrong because marriage traditionally is a covenant between a man and a woman.

See Rick Mercer video on Traditional Values.

4. Same-sex unions destroy the sanctity of traditional heterosexual marriage, and open the door to polygamy.

This is a pretty funny argument that goes something like this:

The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. (Stanley Kurtz. "Dissolving Marriage: If everything is marriage, nothing is." National Review Online. February 3, 2006.)

Again, opponents of gay marriage make the slippery and unwarranted connection between unrelated topics; gay unions are described as a gateway to polygamy which acts as a gateway to my marrying a banana or a piece of wood. There is no good reason to accept this line of argument.

5. Same-sex marriage threatens religious freedom.

I think the other arguments against same-sex marriage are phantoms created because of number 5. Same-sex marriage threatens religious freedom, where religious freedom entails discrimination against a particular group. The Bible makes many controversial claims, among them this passage in Leviticus 18:22. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The same-sex marriage debate isn't really about children or reproduction or polygamy. It's about protecting one's freedom to act upon beliefs that discriminate against homosexuals. Opposition to same-sex marriage is thus a veiled form of bigotry.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with this suggestion to look at the Canadian websites devoted to "preserving traditional marriage" (a list of Canadian sites devoted to protecting "traditional marriage" is available here). Most are faith-based; many make unsubstantiated claims about the science of homosexuality and its effect on children; many make implicit connections between pedophilia and homosexuality. All seek to make homosexuals second-class citizens.

If this isn't homophobia then I don't know what is.

I applaud the members of the house who voted not to reopen debate about same-sex marriage.

LOL Quote of the Day

2006-12-06T09:46:00.000-05:00

"Every reporter worth his or her salt in Canada wishes they were Ezra Levant today. That is if they are honest enough to admit it to themselves."
-- Judi McLeod. "Ezra Levant Canada's Leading 'Mr. Scoop'." Canada Free Press. December 6, 2006.

If McLeod is correct, every honest journalist in the country wants to be a giant douche bag.

Rick Mercer Parodies the Same-Sex Debate

2006-12-05T12:00:00.000-05:00

The same-sex marriage debate has once again made its way into the House of Commons. This video seems appropriate.

Rick Mercer on Traditional Values.

Underdog Wins When He/She Transcends Party Rifts

2006-12-03T16:16:00.000-05:00

This was one hell of a weekend, with new party leaders chosen for both the federal Liberals and the Alberta Tories. If there's one thing I learned it is this: Never count out the underdog. Dion went from fourth on Super weekend (with 16.2%) to first on the final ballot, and Ed Stelmach surprised everyone in Alberta to defeat front runners Jim Dinning and Ted Norton.

There are many possible reasons for this "underdog" phenomena. Backroom deals no doubt are one reason. Kennedy's support of Dion changed the race. But I don't think this behind-the-scenes bargaining alone is what determined the winners.

Delegates in both the Alberta Conservative election and the federal Liberal election chose the least divisive candidate.

Ted Morton and Jim Dinning took many nasty jabs at each other. Ignatieff and Rae did not see eye to eye on Quebec or foreign policy. When the top dogs tore each other down, delegates chose unity over controversy.

Liberals and Tories share different visions for the country, but the logic propelling their leadership choices is the same. Both chose the candidate who best transcended the rifts created by the front runners.

Sometimes, being the underdog isn't so bad.

Lonond-North Conservative Candidate's Skeleton in the Closet

2006-11-14T21:26:00.000-05:00

The Human Rights Commission of Ontario's Board of Inquiry announced its decision last week concerning London Mayor Diane Haskett's refusal to proclaim a Gay Pride weekend in 1995.

The deliberations lasted over 11 hours and concluded that Mayor Haskett and London's City Council acted in a discriminatory manner on the basis of sexual orientation, said Dan Wilson, chair of the Homophile Association of London Ontario's political action committee.

"This was an expected decision. It was a clear cut case of discrimination," Wilson said. ("Mayor Faces Discrimination Fee." UWO Gazette: October 15, 1997.)

Diane Haskett is the Conservative candidate in the upcoming North London by-election.

Ignatieff's Remarks About War Crimes in Qana: The Real Fallout

2006-11-09T22:05:00.000-05:00

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that."

In the wake of the most recent Israel-Lebanon conflict Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of committing war crimes. The fallout for Ignatieff was enormous. The co-chair of Ignatieff's Toronto campaign resigned; MP's withdrew support for Ignatieff's leadership; and the Prime Minister accused Liberal's of anti-israel bias.

Today, the great tragedy and fallout for Ignatieff is not the loss of a few supporters; it is the restraint placed on his voice.

Only a few days ago Israel launched an offensive in Gaza that killed 19 people:

Israeli artillery shelled houses in northern Gaza early yesterday, killing 19 Palestinians, including five women and seven children, the youngest a one-year-old girl, hospital officials said.

It was the deadliest single Israeli strike killing civilians in Gaza since the second Intifada (uprising) erupted six years ago amid a deadlock in peace talks. More than 70 Palestinians have died in the current Israeli offensive. (Mark John, "Israel's Gaza Strike Provokes Outcry." Business Day: November 9, 2006

The next UN secretary-general has expressed "deep concern." UN officials have voiced "shock and dismay." Special rapporteur John Dugard has described the current crisis in Gaza as intolerable. "What Israel chooses to describe as collateral damage to the civilian population," says Dugard, "is in fact indiscriminate killing prohibited by international law."

Canada's response?

Peter MacKay stated the following:

“Canada is concerned by the escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip and the civilian casualties resulting from the latest Israeli military operation. We offer our heartfelt sympathies to the victims and their families. We urge all sides to act with restraint and to take all measures possible to protect civilians and reduce tensions.

“The Palestinian Authority must take concrete measures to eliminate attacks against Israel. The statement by a leading Hamas official encouraging attacks against Israel is disturbing, and once again demonstrates the incompatibility of terrorism and democratic principles.

“We also understand and recognize Israel’s right to protect its citizens. However, Israel must assume its responsibility to exercise the utmost caution to prevent civilian casualties. We welcome Israel’s decision to investigate the shelling." ("Statement by Minister MacKay Regarding Recent Escalation of Violence in Gaza." Judeoscope: November 8, 2006)

The Canadian Government's official response to alleged war crimes in Gaza was to urge the victim "to take concrete measures to eliminate attacks against Israel."

Opposition MP's and candidates for the Liberal Party leadership might justifiably see the Government's response as a cruel joke. But with Ignatieff's wounds still healing, MP's are reluctant to speak up.

It's a sad day for democracy when a human rights professor, one who might become the next Prime Minister of Canada, has more freedom to speak in the classroom than in the House of Commons.

My Apologies

2006-11-09T13:38:00.000-05:00

My apologies to anyone whose post was bumped from a blog feed site by old posts. I signed up for "blogger beta" yesterday. Today, old posts were making the rounds on the Internet again.

Not sure if this is a defect in the program, or a necessary part of converting.

Maybe Peter MacKay was Referring to Plato's Republic

2006-10-22T14:43:00.000-04:00

The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal.

What trait?

Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry; when an acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one has never done him any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious?

The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognise the truth of your remark.

And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming;--your dog is a true philosopher.

Why?

Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance?

Most assuredly.

And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy?

They are the same, he replied.

And may we not say confidently of man also, that he who is likely to be gentle to his friends and acquaintances, must by nature be a lover of wisdom and knowledge?

That we may safely affirm.
-- Glaucon and Socrates, Republic Book XVII

Israel's "Disengagement Plan" Does Not Work

2006-10-22T14:01:00.000-04:00

"A little more than a year after Israeli troops pulled out of the Gaza Strip, nearly everything that was expected to improve for the 1.4 million Palestinians here has instead gotten worse."
-- Anne Barnard. "Life in Gaza Stedily Worsens". The Boston Globe, October 22, 2006

"The resulting damage-both present and future-cannot be undone simply by 'returning' Gaza's lands, removing 9,000 Israeli settlers, and allowing Palestinians freedom of movement and the right to build factories within an enlarged but isolated and encircled Gaza. Gaza's many problems cannot be addressed when its burgeoning population is confined within a physically constrained territory of limited resources. Density is not just a problem of people but of access to resources, especially labor markets. Without external access to jobs and the right to emigrate, something the Gaza Disengagement Plan and Olmert's realignment plan effectively deny, the Strip will remain a prison unable to engage in any form of economic development."
-- Sara Roy, Professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. "The Gaza Economy". The Palestine Chronicle, October 21, 2006.)

Why Would Ignatieff Supporters Boo?

2006-10-22T02:47:00.000-04:00

Paul Wells writes in his blog that Ignatieff supporters booed Stephane Dion when he read from Michael Ignatieff's op-ed titled "Why Bush Must Send in His Troops -- Imposing a Two-State Solution is the Last Chance for Middle East." It's unclear why anyone on the Ignatieff side booed. This op-ed, published in The Guardian, clearly outlines a reasonable solution to the Palestinian conflict.

The time for endless negotiation between the parties is past: it is time to say that all but those settlements right on the 1967 green line must go; that the right of return is incompatible with peace and security in the region and the right must be extinguished with a cash settlement; that the UN, with funding from Europe, will establish a transitional administration to help the Palestinian state back on its feet and then prepare the ground for new elections before exiting; and, most of all, the US must then commit its own troops, and those of willing allies, not to police a ceasefire, but to enforce the solution that provides security for both populations. ("Why Bush Must Send in His Troops -- Imposing a Two-State Solution is the Last Chance for Middle East". The Guardian: April 19, 2002)

I do not know the specific context of Dion's comments, but I imagine he used this article (and its provocative title) to suggest that Ignatieff supports George Bush and an American foreign policy of aggression.

This analysis of Ignatieff's op-ed could not be further from the truth. Ignatieff supports American intervention (in this op-ed) as an alternative to secure American interests in the region, and as a method of imposing U.N. supported resolutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ignatieff's position in this paper cannot be an apologetics for American aggression because it clearly outlines a Israel-Palestine solution that opposes prevailing American middle east policy. Ignatieff's two-state solution calls for Israel to dismantle settlements beyond the 1967 green line. This is something the UN has sought for many years (see "List of the UN Resolutions Concerning Israel"). It is something that the US prevents through its continued support of repressive Israel tactics.

This policy piece deserves applause.

(I have limited knowledge of Ignatieff's overall philosophy and make these comments only in reference to the mentioned op-ed)

Blogging Tories Discover the Canadian Media's Sinister Plot

2006-10-21T23:56:00.000-04:00

The Blogging Tories have uncovered the Canadian media's sinister plot to destroy the Conservative Party. The media's most recent target? The Blogging Tories.

CTV reported that "Conservatives are not only supporting Peter MacKay -- a handful of them on the Internet are going even further in comparing Belinda Stronach to a dog." Rather than apologize, or engage in meaningful debate and analysis, many Blogging Tories have, in typical form, defended their juvenile rants by attacking the liberal media bias. "CTV news staff are ardently anti-Conservative," writes one blogger. "Despite their attempts to sway public opinion with their biased content, their readership remains defiant."

Complaints about media bias, common among Tory bloggers, are based on the false belief that "balanced coverage" will necessarily weigh all ideas as equally valid; even the most ridiculous ones.

There are always two sides to a story (in fact there are usually more than two), but often one position or idea is clearly better than another. Peter Mackay's recent comments in the house were not one of his brighter ideas. Accusations of bias are a sad attempt to undermine the legitimacy of sources that, although not immune to occasional biased commentary, often justifiably call a spade a spade. Conservatives would be wise to acknowledge MacKay's mistake and move on.

Here is a sample of blogs recently posted on the Blogging Tories Website:

"BBC Admits they are Biased"
"the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism."

"Gray Lady's with Jumpin' Jack"
"The NY Times is...silly"

"The Problem with the Globe and Mail"

"CTV Idealist Nutbars"

What Came First: the Threatening American Chicken or the DPRK Nuclear Egg?

2006-10-16T02:11:00.000-04:00

North Korea's nuclear program presents us with the classic chicken or egg problem. Was North Korea's nuclear program accelerated by American threats of aggression or were threats of aggression the natural effects of legitimate concerns about an imminent North Korean nuclear threat?

Our question is one of cause and effect. What precipitated the present North Korean crisis?

An editorial in the Arab News suggests the cause was the 2002 State of the Union Address and the invasion of Iraq:

"It was President George W. Bush who pushed the diplomatic button that yesterday triggered North Korea's first nuclear weapon. He did it on March 20, 2003 when the first US cruise missiles smashed into Baghdad. He had prepared even earlier in January 2002 when in his State of the Union Address he called North Korea, Iran and Saddam's Iraq the The Axis of Evil....In January 2003, when it had become patently clear that Washington was poised to invade Iraq, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."("Editorial: North Korea’s ‘Deterrent’.")

And that's how the American chicken laid the North Korean nuclear egg.

North Korea might have developed Nuclear weapons without the "Axis of Evil" speech or the invasion of Iraq. We can never know. What we do know is that the invasion of Iraq gives North Korea a pretext to legitimize a nuclear weapons program (on grounds of deterrence).

UN sanctions are a temporary solution that really won't accomplish much, except maybe to make North Koreans even more hungry. An effective solution will be one that removes the precipitating cause. The precipitating cause, if we accept the Arab News analysis, is threat of preemptive attack. A diplomatic solution to the Korean nuclear crisis is therefore possible only if North Korea is guaranteed security.

Sources:
"Editorial: North Korea’s ‘Deterrent’." Arab News: October 10, 2006.
"Axis of Evil." Wikipedia: October 16, 2006.

See also:
"Axis of Evil Rhetoric Said to Heighten Dangers." Los Angelas Times: January 23, 2003.

Anne Coulter: always good for a laugh.

2006-10-14T21:03:00.000-04:00

"The Best of the Coultergeist" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9K6tdy3Y-I

Disturbing Comments from Syncrude Chairman

2006-10-02T02:26:00.000-04:00

Responding to calls for changes to Alberta's oil sands tax structure Syncrud chairman Marcel Coutu said he expects the Alberta government “will continue to let economics and the market guide them in their decisions, no matter who the leadership winner is.”

Isn't the Alberta government obligated to let voters guide government decisions?