Freedom is My Nationality

Bill O'Reilly supports the legalization of pot

2009-11-25T07:17:00.002-05:00

In this segment Fox New's Bill O'Reilly says that he "doesn't care what adults do, I don't care if they smoke pot." You then goes on to explain that he doesn't want children to smoke pot.

Bill O'Reilly and I are in complete agreement. Especially considering that the most harmful aspect of pot smoking is heightened in younger people. So make it legal for anyone above the age of 18.

Also note Chong's awesome shirt.

The solution to US debt

2009-11-25T07:12:00.000-05:00

U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt

I want to be a Member of Parliament

2009-11-25T04:48:00.002-05:00

Usually I would sputter in outrage at the government using tax dollars for the purpose of boozing up MPs. But with billions of dollars being thrown into the waste basket every year, I just can't work up the same energy for $2 000. (Though I am surprised that the Speaker of the House has an entertaining budget of $170 000. What affairs of state would really require a Speaker to entertain?)

So instead I'm going to be very jealous. I am a man who loves his scotch (in my more honest moments I will admit that is part of the reason I came to Edinburgh for grad school). The idea that I could go to a free scotch tasting, if only I convince about 30 000 of my neighbours to send me as their voice in the Parliament of the People, is surprisingly enticing.

I may run next time around.

Liberal leader's to do list

2009-11-24T14:41:00.002-05:00

Libertas Post has obtained a copy of Michael Ignatieff's to do list.

The best thing written about the Krieber thing

2009-11-24T04:51:00.002-05:00

This from Scot Feschuk at Maclean's.

It is one of those rare posts that make me really wish I had written it. Though I will add one thing to it. My favourite thing about the Krieber incident is that I did not know the name of Dion's wife before this little foray into commentary. Way to be known Mrs. Krieber.

How to get your readers to read your article

2009-11-24T04:49:00.001-05:00

This was the opening paragraph of this article:

Students from a Mississauga high school reached out and touched the Prime Minister's Office today, and are claiming that the PMO touched back.

Kinky eh?

Why are policies different?

2009-11-21T09:12:00.003-05:00

There are three factors to why policies that address the same issue vary so much between political systems: ideas, interests, and institutions. No study of policy differences would be complete without reference to all three of these concepts. Ideas are defined in this essay as Craig Parsons defines them: “claims about descriptions of the world, casual relationships or the normative legitimacy of certain actions.”(Parsons 2002: 48) Interests are defined along an economic or rational choice model. That is, each actor attempts to maximize their own utility. Institutions will be defined as formal arrangements of individuals who are regulated by enforceable rules and decision making (Pontusson 1995: 25).

Each of these concepts has a place within the policy process. Solutions and perceptions of issues originate with ideas. If there is a sufficiently powerful actor with an interest connected to that issue or solution, then the policy is placed on the political agenda. Once the various actors’ interests have been negotiated or pacified the policy is adopted by the institutions. The institutions then adapt the policy to fit the existing framework. This is a simplified model of how policy is developed and implemented. It is also a simplification of the relationship between the three concepts. This model will however serve to demonstrate the reasons that policy differs between polities.

Ideas, the first stage of the model, are fundamental in explaining the origin of policy (Beland 2009: 703). Daniel Beland writes that ideas shape assumptions, provide discursive tools for actors, and often shape the agenda (Beland 2009: 702). Ideas are the most significant for how they shape assumptions. Organizational institutionalists argue that cultural assumptions produce certain policy outcomes (Campbell 1998: 382). The example of this given by Frank Dobin (as cited Campbell 1998: 382) is the difference in which France and the United States of America handled the construction of a railway network. USA, with a more individualist cultural bias, was more decentralized in their railway construction than collectivist France.

Beyond affecting solutions, ideas can shape the perception of what needs to be solved. Jean-Claude Barbier discussed French concepts of employment precariousness and its lack of counterpart in the United Kingdom (Barbier 2004). French and British employment policy would thus differ greatly because United Kingdom officials would not consider precariousness whereas it would be central in France’s employment policy. The assumptions formed by ideas create this policy difference at the very beginning of the process.

In any polity there is a limited space for policy debate on the political agenda (Beland 2009: 705). It requires a significant actor, such as political parties, unions, public servants, or businesses, to move this policy onto the agenda (Campbell 1998: 379). This is the second stage of the model mentioned in the introduction.

Since policies require an interested actor to get on the political agenda, the variant interests and distribution in power within different polities explains differences between policy outcomes. Distribution of power is important because having an interested actor is not always enough. Some actors may not be powerful enough to overcome the counter interests of another actor (Galston 2006: 549). Iain McLean in his article Rational Choice and Politics enters into a discussion of the power relations between actors with his use of the prisoner’s dilemma (McLean 1991: 502). He first assumes that politicians and civil servants, as human beings, are self interested (McLean 1991: 500). They may occasionally act in the interests of the greater good, but it is extraordinarily rare that any human being would act radically against their own interest. It is therefore important to understand how power relations work to understand why some policies are implemented and others are not.

The power relations and indeed the interests of actors are partly shaped by the institutions (Pontusson 1995: 119). It is the institutionalized power relations and interests that are crucial to the development of policy (Pontusson 1995: 120). Consider the electoral system as an example of an institution that shapes interests. Kenneth Arrow points out that in any electorate there are many possible majorities and it is the institutions that give them shape (Galston 2006: 545). A real world example of a policy affected by an electoral system would be the USA’s environmental policy bias towards ethanol fuel. The reason for this bias can easily be traced to the order of Presidential primaries, which give corn growers in Iowa disproportionate power. Presidential candidates give their support for ethanol to ensure that they would gain an early lead against their opponents. In this way the institution of the electoral system influences the policies that politicians have an interest in.

Beyond institutions affecting the interests of actors, they also affect the manner in which a policy concept is actually implemented, which is the third and final stage of the model. John Hudson et al provide a clear example of this in his comparison of Third Way policies in the United Kingdom and Germany (Hudson et al 2008). German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair were both Third Way proponents with a similar enough vision to publish a joint document of policy principles (Hudson et al 2008: 209). However, as Hudson points out, the institutional history of Germany and the UK are significantly different (Hudson et al 2008: 211). This meant that the actual application of these joint principles were different. For example Mr. Blair increased employment regulation and Mr. Schroder decreased employment regulation, which actually brought the two countries closer together (Hudson et al 2008: 217). This example demonstrates that even with the same ideas, institutions can create different policy outcomes.

This paper has been working with a simplified policy development model of ideas being adopted by interests then adaption by existing institutions. At each stage it is clear how different political systems can have different policy outcomes. Between polities ideas, interests, and institutions are all different. They each then have a different effect on the policy out comes in different polities.

(This is a thousand word essay I wrote for my graduate program. If anyone is interested in the references you can e-mail me for the bibliography hughmacintyre@aol.com)

Shut up Lisa MacLeod (VI): Six things you should know about Lisa MacLeod shutting up

2009-11-20T06:22:00.004-05:00

It was demanded upon me to make this next installment of my popular series: Shut up Lisa MacLeod.

Today's episode involves an opinion piece that she co-wrote for the National Post, regarding the HST. In it she isn't as mind numbingly foolish as she has been previously, so maybe she should get someone to co-write everything she says. But luckily for my readers there is still plenty of silliness to mock.

She makes six points in opposition to the Harmonized Sales Tax:

1. Ontario is surrendering its constitutional taxation powers.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that allows regional governments unlimited taxation powers. Believe me, many in the Scottish Government looks towards Canada with envy. So this indeed is an important power to protect. Luckily it isn't actually in danger. The Parliament of Ontario is still free to levy all the taxes that they want thank you very much.

I admit that most of the knots and bolts issues regarding the sales tax will be handled by the Federal government. MacLeod claims that this means taxation without representation. As if Ontario wasn't represented in the Federal Parliament. Wait...what province is the Finance Minister from again...I forget...

2. There will be a hidden tax

The GST is currently at 5% and the PST is currently at 8%. What exactly is being hidden here? Is it that she's afraid Ontarians can't do basic math?

3. There is no evidence that harmonized taxes work in other federal jurisdictions

Her argument here is basically that just because it has been done in other countries doesn't mean that it will work well here. This is not an entirely unfounded complaint. One of the things I'm learning about in Grad school is pitfalls of cross country policy analyses. It is not so simple to say that something was done there so we can do the exact same thing here. The institutions and organizations are different in every country.

That being said it is possible to learn from the mistakes and successes of other country's policy. We can take those lessons, adjust them to particularly Canadian needs, and apply them. How do I know that this can be done? Well because it is done all the time. You would in fact be hard pressed to find policy proposals in Canada that wasn't in some way partially based on policies in an other jurisdiction. So why won't HST work in Canada again?

4. It will cost businesses money and resources to learn the new system

This is true. It is also true of any policy change made ever. There is always a capital investment made into learning how a law, policy, or institution works. That is part of the reason why it is so hard to change things, people don't want to give up that investment. This is basically an argument against the government doing anything...hang on...hmmm...

But anyway I doubt the cost will be as much as say MPPs moving to half day or MPPs recieving free childcare.

5. Companies that are exempt won't be exempt anymore

Well good. It is bizarre to me that the government picks and chooses who pays more taxes and who pays less. The government shouldn't be giving unnatural advantages to companies or industries. If her argument here is that taxing businesses ultimately hurts consumers, then yes I agree. So we should get rid of all corporate taxes right?

6. It would be hard or impossible to undue the HST

This is a good thing if you think the HST is a good thing. It isn't really an argument for not doing it. I guess if you were unsure about the HST you would rather that it be easily reversed once it has been tested. But still, this isn't an actual argument against the HST.

Nice try though...

CCF fights for raw milk

2009-11-19T05:04:00.003-05:00

Last year William Joseph wrote on this blog supporting Michael Schmidt, the raw milk crusader. Mr. Schmidt has dedicated his time and resources to reverse a law forbidding people from selling raw milk. Both Will and I have full heartily supported his cause.

Now it seems that he is going to get stronger backing than some blog (though an awesome blog).

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a well known freedom loving organization that advances the cause through the courts, has taken up Mr. Schmidt's cause.

The CCF has announced that it will represent Mr. Schmidt in ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the raw milk ban.

“This is about the rights of Canadians to choose a product that is safely consumed by tens of thousands of people around the world. It’s also about the right to earn an honest living free from government regulations that are unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair,” said CCF Litigation Director Karen Selick.

“There have been huge technological improvements in refrigeration, transportation and pathogen testing, in addition to the entrenchment of individuals’ constitutional rights. Consumers who want freedom of choice expect their government to make the transition to the twenty-first century and to respect their rights,” added Selick.

Marc Emery Documentary

2009-11-19T04:58:00.002-05:00

Western Standard reports that Paul McKeever, leader of the Freedom Party, has made a documentary about Marc Emery. From the commercial it sounds like it goes as far back as his days of fighting the mandatory close on Sunday law.

Also, the Western Standard has announced that they have commissioned a biographical book on the live of Marc Emery.

Natives and Property Rights

2009-11-19T04:46:00.002-05:00

It has long been a problem of the Native nations that their members could not own land on the reserves. All land was communally owned thus no individual could leverage their home for a loan. This prevented Natives from being able to start businesses or otherwise invest in their community.

Now in BC, at least one tribe is trying something different. The Treaty nation of Nisga'a has decided to allow its members to sell and mortgage their homes.

Hats off to the Nisga'a. It would be interesting to see how much this will improve their community.

Drugs and a Cop Fail

2009-11-18T06:04:00.001-05:00

In case you don't know...you can't overdose on weed...

Free Marc Emery

2009-11-15T14:26:00.002-05:00

Cannabis Culture Magazine

Healthcare Reform and what the Democrats need to succeed

2009-11-15T08:18:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin in: Who cares who is coming to dinner

2009-11-14T09:58:00.004-05:00

As I was signing into my email, a story caught my eye. Sarah Palin, former Vice President candidate and former Governor of Alaska (I'm sure she is former a lot of other stuff as well), has invited some guy named Levi Johnston to dinner.

I have to admit that I was curious. Not really curious over who Levi is or why he would be spending thanksgiving with her Formerness. No I was curious about how on Earth this could be considered news.

Turns out that Levi Johnston is the father of Mrs. Former Governor's grandchild. They seem to be having some sort of public estrangement and She Who is Former is trying to patch things up. I'm sure if I catch it on Oprah I will cry. But why would we care about this anymore than I care about anything else that comes on to that horrifically boring (though admittedly commercially successful) television show?

They say that President Obama is the celebrity politician, but they are wrong. Sarah Palin is the one that they are treating as a celebrity with endless intrusions into her personal life. I am puzzled for why Levi was interviewed by Vanity Fair or Playgirl. It's like he was someone of real interest, such as Paris Hilton, or something.

In case you have missed it, part of my point here is that Sarah Palin is a former public official. Any legitimacy the press may have in digging into a politicians family (which I think extends only as far as looking for corruption) surely ends when that politician no longer holds office.

That is to say, why should anyone give a flying fuck where Levi Johnston decides to eat turkey?

Gerry Nicholls speaks to the Libertarian Party

2009-11-14T07:34:00.003-05:00

Mr. Nicholls talks about his time at the NCC and the importance of buying his book.

(I actually did buy his book. It is a good read and I recommend it)

UK citizens turn to private security firms for protection

2009-11-14T07:00:00.003-05:00

Ultimately it is the job of the state to ensure that we are protected from violence or theft, but the state can't be everywhere nor can it do everything. That is why many citizens in the United Kingdom are hiring private firms to patrol their neighbourhoods.

According to the BBC, members of the community pay between 2 pounds and 4 pounds to have security guards protecting their area. These guards have no official police power, though the local constable can assign powers to them. The whole concept is by their mere presence they would deter any thieves.

Of course some police officials don't like this for some bizarre reason. There is a complaint being made by the Vice Chairman of the Police Federation that these guards might create confusion. People will see uniforms and be unsure about who these people are answerable to.

I am going to take a leap of faith here and assume that their uniform is not the same as a police uniform. I am also going to assume that it is illegal for any of these guards to claim to be a police officer on duty (I expect some of them are off duty or retired policemen). So exactly how are people going to be confused? When I see a mall cop or a condo security guard I don't think that they are police officers. I sincerely doubt anyone would make that mistake for longer than two seconds.

The Vice Chairman also made this claim:

I understand the public's fear of crime but actually it's the police who patrol public space and we should be very wary about giving those powers to private security companies

If the police were patrolling to the satisfaction of the public no one in the public would pay money to have more patrols. So why shouldn't the public hire more protection?

This is how former Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair would respond:

I do not see community safety as a commodity to be bought and sold and therefore we shouldn't be having the private sector in policing.

Oh it isn't a commodity is it? Then I guess police work for free, out of a sense of civic duty presumably. Seriously this is a total nonsensical argument. People have been paying for protection sense...well likely around the same time that people started paying for sex.

Also we can make a distinction here between private security and policing. No one is claiming that the justice system should be made private (at least no one here isn't). It is just that people have the freedom to hire extra protection. Much like a dance club hires bouncers or a celebrity hires bodyguards.

And finally:

Unless we get this right, we will end up with private security coming in and they will work for the rich and the poor will go without.

Or because the wealthier neighbourhoods are now better protected the police can commit more resources to those poorer areas. Or is it that you think that the rich would be better served by their private protectors than their public protectors.

Is that the real fear here? That the private sector could actually do a better job of neighbourhood patrolling than the public sector?

I leave you with that question...

BNP forms a block with other "nationalist" parties

2009-11-14T06:53:00.000-05:00

Social nationalist parties perhaps?

In case you thought no one predicted the economic crises...

2009-11-12T10:24:00.002-05:00

Dogs fighting in Afghanistan

2009-11-12T09:05:00.002-05:00

This is an old story about dogs landing with special forces to help sniff out insurgents.

Today an Australian soldier-dog who was missing for more than a year has been found.

I'm now going to restrain myself from making jokes about letting slip and dogs of war.

Gilles Taillon: The Tories made me resign!

2009-11-12T04:52:00.003-05:00

According to the Globe & Mail, former ADQ leader Gilles Taillon is blaming the Conservative Party of Canada for his ousting. His story is that after he cut ties with the federal party they conspired to throw him overboard.

This tale does not really scan right. First of all such ties were to the advantage of the ADQ not to the Conservative Party. In fact the ADQ had become some what of an embarrassment for Stephen Harper who was trying to patch up his relationship with Premier Jean Charest. Any Quebec strategy involving the ADQ that the federal Tories were contemplating has long since been abandoned.

All that was really left of those ties were in the body of a few party elites that moved in both federal and provincial circles, such as Senator Leo Housakos. So it is not surprising that some of these people were a little peeved at the prospect of being pushed out of the party.

Besides the connection with the Federal Tories was popular within the ADQ. They saw it as a source of pride and strength. Even if the grassroot membership didn't care, the party elites certainly enjoyed the connection. So could it be that it wasn't a Conservative conspiracy but the disgruntlement of the ADQ membership to the policies of their leader?

That scans a little better.

Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN

2009-11-12T04:26:00.006-05:00

Lou Dobbs informed his viewers that he was leaving to "pursue other opportunities." He lists what he thinks the concerns of the future is and instructs us, the public, to wait to see how he will contribute to solutions. Then he jumps on his familiar hobby horse of an over ideological Congress and a Washington that does not truly represent the people.

It sounds like he is running for something. Let's hope not. Lou Dobbs exemplifies what is wrong with populists. He accuses the present powers that be of lacking rigorous thought, but he would never hesitate to make emotional appeals or jump on board almost any wacky conspiracy theory bandwagon.

I can't say I rejoice at him leaving because I rarely watch CNN. If anything I fear him leaving because he may find a way to get more influence or power.

Action Democratique du Quebec is collapsing

2009-11-11T04:28:00.004-05:00

A few days ago I commented that I thought the ADQ was doomed. Well one more nail was stuck into the coffin by the leader, Gilles Tallion, who resigned after less than a month as leader.

It could be viewed as a good thing. A controversial leader stepping down, and his controversial opponent promised not to run according to the Globe & Mai l. This gives an opportunity for a compromise or peace making candidate to arrive on the scene. Perhaps someone who has stayed out of the recent conflicts. Mario Dumont himself put forth the name of Gerard Deltell.

The problem is, according to the same Globe & Mail article, that the ADQ does not have the money for a new leadership race. They are even considering the executive appointing a leader as a cost saving measure. You know you are in trouble when you are seriously considering abandoning democracy to cut costs.

Plus the wounds are still sore from the last leadership race. I know how bloody such races can be and usually they need a cooling down time. But the turmoil in the ADQ ranks has prevented people from cooling down. If anything heads have gotten hotter. It is possible, even by the admittance of ADQ members, that a new leadership race would rip the party apart.

The ADQ once gave me hope that a small government party could win in Quebec. That hope has not been completely dashed. I still think that there is an oppertunity in Quebec for a Mike Harris type politician to arise. I just don't think that politician will be a member of the ADQ.

The Wall

2009-11-09T05:46:00.000-05:00

George Smitherman will run for mayor of Toronto

2009-11-09T05:28:00.002-05:00

This is not exactly surprising but now it is finally official, Mr. Smitherman has announced that he is going to be a candidate for mayor.

I'm going to watch this campaign closely to decide who will get my support, but I like what I'm hearing so far from Smitherman. Along with his announcement Mr. Smitherman attacked tax increases and spoke of governing within "fiscal reality."

Certainly he is no right wing lunatic such as myself, but beggars can't be choosers in the city of Toronto. Besides he would certainly be better than David Miller.

There are still lots of candidates considering a run who haven't announced yet. So I'm going to wait and see how the race takes shape.