WE ARE MOVING!!!

Starting immediately,
our new home
is
www.civitatensis.ca

Mr. Dithers Knows Best

After Dithering for more than a year regarding Senate appointments, Paul Martin claims that his newly announced choices " reflect the choice of outstanding Canadians with a record of accomplishments." But it is hard to think of one thing that Grant Mitchell ever achieved in public life. Conversely, last fall, Albertans elected four outstanding Canadians to represent them in the Senate. Yet, Mr. Dithers refused to name any of them. Many Albertans are rightfully upset. Even the Globe (subscription required) was unimpressed:

Yesterday's first instalment, filling nine seats, was quintessentially Martinesque: not egregious, not brilliant, just middling.

Paul Martin, the man who would wipe out the "democratic deficit;" who claims to be in favour of Senate reform; and who claims to be sympathetic to western concerns now says that he does not want to achieve reform "piecemeal."

That can only mean that the PM has a better plan, and that he knows better than Albertans. If Martin is so wise, will he then present to Canadians his plan to reform the Senate? Considering that he will not accept the proposal that Albertans have placed before him, when will he reveal his?

Perhaps his Senate reform plan will be published at the same time as the still-awaited Kyoto policy. In the meantime, he can continue to make room in the Red Chamber for his liberal friends and pals. Some of them will badly need to continue to contract out their girlfriends.

Cross posted to ThePolitic

Ignorant Albertans?

Commenting on Ralph Klein's position regarding homosexual marriage, The Toronto Star (registration required, no subscription) hints at a conspiracy (Imagine that!). It is predicated on the manipulation of the Albertan public, for as long as it remains, the Star says, "ignorant."

"It's bad to be on the wrong side of the law on an issue of human rights. It's almost as bad to cynically grandstand, to mislead Albertans about your authority, to curry favour from voters you have deceived, hoping they will remain ignorant and supportive."

It does not occur to the Star that not all political issues need be framed in the language of rights, or that the Alberta premier may be trying to do something that Albertans want. If one were to be bet money on who knows the wishes of Albertans better, the Star would not come out ahead of Klein on any list.

Cross posted to ThePolitic

Save Doyle House

A couple of years ago, someone confessed to me that he had selected a particular post-secondary institution because, in his words, "the girls are hot" in that school. Naturally, boys want to be among girls (and vice versa), but not all the time.

Here is a story, from Memorial University, of a bunch of boys who like girls but value living among boys. Manly men know the difference. They live in the last all-male residential building that bureaucrats are trying to convert to co-ed.

The Doyle House boys are lining up to defend their tradition. There are two all-female houses at Memorial, and they support the boys in their fight. A resident of Doyle House said (NP -subscription required):

'There are a lot of things you have to worry about in a co-ed house, a lot of drama. But in an all-male house, all those stresses are gone. You get to be yourself.... In co-ed houses you have to get up and shower right away and clean yourself up.'

I found this refreshing. It is also a question about variety and choice. Another student was quoted by the St. John's CBC:

"If you're taking away the place where we feel comfortable growing and expressing ourselves, and forcing us to mature in an environment we're not comfortable with, how are we going to be able to grow into the individuals we need to be to lead the country in the future?"

The Doyle House boys have an on-line petition of support here.

Is Democracy Hypocrisy?

"Democracy is hypocrisy" was the (in)famous line by Malcom X.

I received a comment about yesterday's post from fellow blogger The Shotgun Solution. I am grateful for her/his visit. Her/his words reminded me of what Malcom X said. S/he accuses my suggestions of hypocrisy. I'll make a couple of comments about her/his reply, but first here is what s/he said:

Politically, the Conservatives can't do anything about Jim Prentice. Imagine the Conservatives, after a policy convention which they were supposed to leave united, block the nomination of a moderate member because of his views on same-sex marriage. If you think the national media was harsh on the Conservatives DURING the convention, check out the massive slamming the Conservatives will get in the media (and public opinion) if they try and silence their moderate members. The Conservatives would lose legitimacy on several fronts. 1) A few days ago they could perhaps be considered a pluralist, moderate conservative voice. Canadians have a new impression of the Conservative party (slightly, Harper is still leader and Canadians will always be skeptical of him) and now the party is considering tarnishing this image. 2) The party claims it will be more democratic, accountable and transparent in government. Apparently, the suggestion is to silence a member through an authoritarian process. How democratic is that?

Your suggestions are hypocritical and poor politics.

1. Let me take the first line of the comment: "the Conservatives can't do anything about Jim Prentice." Here, it is obvious that Shotgun Solution and I may have a different understanding of what a democracy is supposed to be. Contrary to the Shotgun Solution's contention, if one reads my previous post, I am arguing that the constituents of Calgary North-Centre are not invalids. They have choices, real political choices; they have abilities, and no one should tell them that there is nothing that they can do. That kind of politics, the top down kind, don't go very well in Alberta. I am arguing that they are in charge of their own course, and that they can make sure --if they wish-- to have choices when next election comes.

2. To me, homosexual marriage is not the center of the issue, and neither does it seem to be for Shotgun Solution. For her/him is party unity and media reaction. We seem to agree that the question of democracy, however, is central here.

3. The prudential counsel that the media will have a field day is well taken, and should not be discounted. I have no doubt that this is true. That is why I said that it would be a little hellish. But that is no reason to do nothing. If, for example, the Media (by which I assume Shotgun Solution means the liberal media) were the principle concern of every good Tory, if Mr Prentice were solely worried about the portrayal of optics of disunity within the party, he would not have EVER made his announcement. If Shotgun Solution calls immoderate anyone who would not tug the party line and puts the party in a position of having to defend itself against charges of disunity, then I am afraid that Jim Prentice fits that description as well.

The question then is: Why are Prentice's actions, in full display of disunity, a good thing, but dissenting from his decision labeled "poor politics"? In all evidence, Prentice was not worried about the optics through which the media would portray his about face. In his calculations (see this post) he knew that he would get favored media attention; he also knew that the media would say all kinds of things about a rift in the party (as indeed they did). He put at risk the unity of the party in the wake of the national convention. That much seems clear to anyone that can see. But he went ahead and did it anyway, right? Shotgun Solution seems to be saying that after Prentice rocked the (party) boat and compromised unity, no one should be allowed to rock the boat. I'd be surprised if the party constituents in North-Centre will swallow that.

4. Prentice made a decision based on conscience, on principle, on can say. Personally, I don't really buy that, but I'd respect it if it were true. So in a spirit of respect, let us assume that it is true. Then, if Mr. Prentice can act on his convictions, why can his party constituents not act on theirs?

5. If Prentice possesses the resolve of his conviction, he should not fear facing the convictions of others, much less the convictions of those whom he serves, the constituents of Calgary-North-Centre. Neither should Shotgun Solution fear them.

6. At bottom here, there may be a conflict between the will of the MP and the will of those who selected him and gave him the party nomination, both apparently based on conviction. If this is the case, and if we profess that the party is a democratic community (not an authoritarian one), it is clearly the will of the selectors that ought to prevail. To deny this would be authoritarian or anti-democratic.

7. Given these, the considerations of the media, liberal or not, and the considerations of the rest of the party, important --no doubt-- though they may be, do not supersede in any way the will of the constituency party members, the Conservative members of Calgary-Centre-North.

8. Hypocrisy, let us be clear, would be to advocate one thing and to do another. Hypocrisy would be to claim the right to adopt a position on grounds of conscience and then blatantly or subtly to deny to others the benefit of the same position. I am not trying to call Shotgun Solution hypocritical by saying this, let me be clear. Insofar as I ignore her/his motivations, I could not reach that conclusion. But the position is not very consistent.

9. Finally, there is nothing authoritarian about my suggestions. On the contrary, they are "more democratic, accountable and transparent." My suggestions may not be convenient to Mr. Prentice and his acolytes; they may not even be convenient to the party brass, but that is another matter. It is up to the party constituents of Centre-North to decide. There is nothing intolerant or immoderate about my suggestions. They are perfectly consistent with the most fundamental principles of the democratic ideal, and with the principles upon which the party rests.

Malcom X was simply wrong. Shotgun Solution might be in good company.

Sex Awareness 4

This is the fourth and final posting on this question, I am hoping. In my first post I wondered if it was true that Honey Houston was Miss Nude Canada 2005 as it was being claimed in the newspapers and blogs. Poking around, but apparently not enough, I was led to conclude that it was untrue for reasons that I mentioned here.

Three days ago, I got a copy of an e-mail from Chris Landale, the owner of the contest, in which he confirmed my suspicion. Here is part of his e-mail.

...this is Chris Lansdale, I am the owner of The Miss Nude Canada Pageant? and can assure you and the rest of the world Damanda Moore is the reigning Miss Nude Canada? for the year 2004/2005. Honey Houston won the title Miss Nude Canada? Au Natural�, she was also voted by all the contestants Miss Congeniality for The Miss Nude Canada Pageant? National Finals 2004/2005.

Have you check [sic] out the website www.missnudecanadapageant.com and the specific link contained there within for Pageant Results? The official awards and titles for the various years are all shown there.

Thank You for your attention to this disturbing matter.

I am told that Au Natural, for those wondering, means that there are no artificial elements involved. Who knew? Congeniality? Well, that is likely the side of Houston that the guys at the Gaunlet will likely never see in court. Since I received the message from Chris Landale, and while I wondered whether to post on this once again or not, a reader found postings here, confirming the same. Boy, and someone thought that I was being too diligent about this.

I am guessing that Houston probably told the papers her whole proud title: "Miss Nude Canada Au Natural" and that they omitted the last part; or that she did not mention the last part. Mistake or negligence? Either way, the report that Honey Houston is Damanda Moore is incorrect.

Landale has written to the papers to rectify the error. I am not sure that the Herald will publish his letter, and doubt whether they would want to admit any mistakes on this. Voila!

Previous:

• Sex Awareness
• Sex Awareness 2
• Sex Awareness 3

Knock, Knock, Knocking on Prentice's Door

Yesterday, a reader left the following commentary on a posting from last month regarding Tory MP Jim Prentice's opportunistic volte face on the question of homosexual marriage. It has prompted me to remember some of the history of the riding in which I lived for a few years, and to ponder some of the avenues open to Prentice, and to those who oppose his about face.

As a resident of Prentice's riding, I'm disappointed by Jim's decision to support the Liberal redefinition of marriage, but not the least bit surprised. As mentioned on the blog, Jim is a calculating man. Joe Clark held this riding before Prentice. He won because NDP and Liberal voters in the riding threw their support to Clark to prevent an Alliance candidate from winning. Prentice is calculating that he will pick up more than enough NDP/Green/Liberal votes to offset the few Conservative votes he will lose, thus guaranteeing him another win. Unfortunately Jim has sent a message to Conservative voters like myself that says - if he can change his mind on one Liberal issue, why note another - like gun control, or decriminalizing marijuana?

Thanks for the comments, JR.

The Joe Clark element that JR identifies is very much on the radar for Prentice, we can be sure. But there are a couple of things that lead into that first. Prentice is counting on the fact that candidates' nominations in the Conservative Party will be grandfathered for all MPs heading into the next election. Prentice's calculating mind knows that he will not have to face a nomination race, in other words. He can coast from here to the next election, he has figured. And by the time the next one after that comes around -- five, six, seven years from now-- no one is going to remember any of this. Time is on his side. Sounds like a good bet for him.

But Prentice must also be counting on Harper to sign his nomination papers. Harper might be encouraged not to, though, if there is enough pressure put on Harper by the grassroots in the constituency. It might be a little hellish, but it can be done.

My guess is that the Tories from Calgary Centre-North should not wait until there is an election called to try to move on this. It will be too late by then. They should move now, get some speed going, and press Harper not to sign Prentice's papers. If the constituents of Centre-North do nothing or if they lose in their attempts to remove him, they'll end up with a pro homosexual marriage MP no matter what. They got nothing to lose in that sense. And, as JR points out, what else will Prentice sacrifice his constituents about in his effort to be more appealing down East? What else will he switch camps on? And even more so now that he will learn that he can just get away with it if nothing is done.

Pushing Prentice out is about the only option they have left, if they wish to have choices in the next election. That, or more democratic deficit, if you will. Conservatives in Centre-North will have to choose and vote between an all pro gay marriage political cast. In the absence of a contrasting choice, I will repeat myself, if the Libs run a strong pro homosexual marriage candidate, s/he would have an excellent chance of taking Prentice out.
Constituents of Centre-North can make the argument that the party could lose the seat to a pro gay marriage Liberal. All things being equal, why would voters want to vote for someone who changes his mind and betrays his partisans? Even Liberals understand loyalty. Has Prentice not been watching the unfoldings of the Gomery Commission? What would be the incentive for a Liberal to vote for a candidate like Prentice, if their own is also in favor of the same thing?

What is more, sensing the softness of the riding on the question, the Liberals would be encouraged to launch a strong candidate to get that seat, which would turn into a cabinet seat, in Calgary, should they win the big prize. Why would a Liberal back Prentice when s/he could end up with a Liberal cabinet minister instead? And one more: Why would a pro gay marriage Liberal vote for Prentice if he and his ideological kin in the Conservatives are but a small rump, rather than having a Liberal of their own representing their views among a bigger, friendlier caucus? Conversely, if the Conservative Party wins the next election, and Prentice gets into cabinet, he will be even more inclined to do what he wishes, instead of listening to his constituents. Centre-North will be looking at an even greater democratic deficit then.

At first blush, the calculation that Prentice might pull a Joe Clark in the riding seems like a long shot. Joe --for better or for worse, actually more likely for worse-- was a former PM. He has a wife and a daughter that worked their tails off for him. In the days when Clark knocked off Erick Lowther, the Alliance and the Tories were split, and the Libs were running a nobody. Therefore, the logic and incentive (against Lowther and) for a pro Clark axis (Tories, Greens, NDs and Libs) was strong. One imagines that those conditions will not be repeated in Centre-North the next time around (And Prentice does not enjoy the organizing talents, and the restless work of Maureen McTeer; nor is Katherine likely running to come door-knocking with Jim).

On the surface, Prentice's chances are not as good as they seem, as I argued in the post last month, unless... any of three scenarios (or a combination thereof) come to be:

1. Prentice vaults and runs as a Liberal candidate (Laugh, if you will, but I am not discounting this one. Prentice walked the line between the Alliance and the Tories without blushing before, and he is now walking the line between the Grits and the Tories. It's clever positioning. Let's give him that)
2. Prentice cuts a deal with the Liberals and the other parties, like Joe Clark did back in 2000, to abandon their own candidates in favor of him. (But such a deal will not come for free. The question here is: what will Prentice promise them in return? Do we see another Grand Marshall pushing a broken car in a parade already?).
3. The Conservatives in Prentice's riding submissively take their MPs about face and don't do anything at all

I am assuming here that Prentice has not already worked out a deal with the Liberals in his riding before he made his public announcement. Prentice may have inherited more than a grandfatherly nomination; he may be the natural successor to the Joe Clark deal of five years ago. From the Conservative grassroots point of view, that should be reason enough to act. If Prentice has negotiated with the other parties already, the riding's Conservatives will have to take him out. Harper will pull the proverbial trigger, one hopes. If Prentice has not yet cut a deal, why wait until he does, or until the constituents finally find out that he has, after the election?

Leave Canada!

A CBC radio personality and a Toronto blogger are going at it. My money is on the blogger, for the record.

CBC's Andy Barry sent a terse reply to Angry in the Great White North blogger, after the latter requested an explanation regarding public funding and the ideological preferences of a CBC's broadcast. Barry replied:

I've got a way for you not to pay for the CBC. Leave Canada.

Worked for me. I didn't want to pay for the Viet Nam war, so I left. Consider it a fair trade. You'll be in the only country in the industrialized world without a national broadcaster, and you'll have the satisfaction of not having to see you tax dollars wasted. And I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that someone who gets his facts from Fox won't be voting in any more Canadian elections. You won't have to be Angry in Toronto any more.

You can be Happy in Toledo.

Then everybody's happy.

First, I though: Uhhmmm! How poetic that the quitter advises others to quit their own country. Tried, tested, and true. How conservative of him.

I wrote yesterday (right below) about deserters and brain drained Americans coming up to Canada to stay. Voila. Barry's invitation may be the thing to do for many of us. But the agreement would have to be fully reciprocal --or it will not work. Carolyn Parrish will be Canada's ruler then.

(Hat tip: Bene Diction Blogs On)

This Trade is Not Free

VDH laments the propagation in the readily use of Hitler analogies.

So what gives with this crazy popular analogy --one that on a typical Internet Google search of "Bush" + "Hitler" yields about 1,350,000 matches?

These betray enormous ignorance of the conditions under which Hitler rose and thrived; ignorance of the beliefs that fuelled his policies and actions, and the results that they produced. All true.

My question is: why is it that half the moronic souls comparing GWB to Hitler always want to head up here to live in my country?

For decades Canadians have decried the "brain drain." It typically meant that Canada's brightest were often heading south of the border looking for more opportunity: a better life, better careers, less commies and less taxes. Bad enough for us then? It just got worse. Now we are inheriting half the "brain drained" from the United States. How long can this possibly go on before Canada collapses under the weight of the aerocephalines?

If this is what free trade means, I want out!

Related: Deadbeat Hero

Invisible Minority

In spite of the openess and availibility of blogs, they tend to be populated by whites males, some have remarked --and it has led to some bemoaning. I wonder what Harvard president Larry Summers will have to say about this.

One out of two ain't bad for me.

Notes on Homosexual Marriage

1. Public Opinions polls increasingly reflect that the Canadian public wishes to have an input into the decision to grant homosexual marriages to some Canadians.

Public opinion appears divided on how to grant legal status for gay and lesbian unions. 36 per cent of respondents believe lawmakers should keep the existing legal definition of marriage and set up a separate legal category that includes same-sex unions but would not be called marriage, 35 per cent believe the legal definition of marriage should be changed to include the union of any two persons, regardless of their gender, while 29 per cent are opposed to any law recognizing same-sex unions.

If we look closely at this report, there is not much of an appearance of division but a clear division against homosexual marriages. While 35% support the redefining of the institution, 65% want the status quo to remain or oppose changes to it.

2. At its first convention in Montreal, the Conservative Party has chosen to stand its ground against homosexual marriages, while the Liberal Party aligned in favour. There is no telling how this will play out in a future election, but the numbers are not encouraging for the Liberals if homosexual marriage became a central issue in the next election.

3. Conservative MP from Calgary Centre North, Jim Prentice, heir to Joe Clark's legacy in that city, must be watching the numbers closely in disbelief.

4. Canada is going through the approval of homosexual marriage in a similar fashion as Spain did: without much debate, pushed by the government in power. Barcepundit writes about a manner that ought to sound rather familiar to Canadians, except for the part about action:

Zapatero always brags about being the champion of tolerance, of listening to others, and of the beauty of dialogue, but when it's the moment to act, he simply does whatever he wants without listening at all.

"Landslide Annie" Targeted

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan has become the target of defenders of traditional marriage in a fullpage newspaper ad (see below) this weekend.

Most embarrassing for McClellan is a video that was placed on the web. The former minister of justice, in her trademark Preston Manning voice and in her typical anticlimactic delivery, declares herself in support of the traditional definition of marriage.

But here is the clincher, McLellan argues (in 1999) that the question of equality can be addressed without granting homosexual marriage:

I fundamentally believe that it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issue around same-sex partners.

It would seem that Stephen Harper hired away the Deputy Prime Minister's speech writer.

Cuba's Healthcare

Babalu exhibits a few pictures of one of Cuba's health facilities.

Sex Awareness 3

The two Gaunlet editors at the University of Calgary, who allowed the nude picture of philosophy student Honey Houston (stage name) to be printed, were suspended without pay, one for two weeks and the other for three.

I noticed that published media stories are still affirming that Houston is the winner of Miss Nude Canada 2005. No evidence to that effect exists (See Sex Awareness 2). Houston participated in the contest, but the winner is someone else who even has a different stage name (Damanda Moore).

As far I can tell, The Calgary Herald is the source of the inaccuracy. It is not clear if The Calgary Herald made a mistake in this story, or if Houston told a fib.

Previous:

• Sex Awareness
• Sex Awareness 2

Run, Forrest, Run!

Courtesy of the NYT, deserting, or refusing to serve one's country, now has a new designation. It is called un-volunteering. Orwell would be proud!

And why is it that they have to come to "un-volunteer" to this country? The weather in south eastern Cuba is lovely this time of year.

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

China's Appetites

The price of oil hit a record $57.50 US yesterday, and experts predict a potential rise to about $60 per barrel in the near future. The CSM explains that the hikes are in part due to seasonal winter demand but the lion's share is caused by the growth in Chinese demand.

The main forecasters continue to predict that China will represent a third of growth in demand. Some of the Chinese appetite comes from work on filling a strategic petroleum reserve of up to 750 million barrels of oil.

While OPEC has agreed to increase production by 500 000 barrels daily to meet the increased demand, potential trouble in Iran and in Venezuela could send oil prices even higher.

One has to wonder about China's latest appetite for a 3/4 of a billion barrel reserve and its talk of war against Taiwan. Are these two different sides of the same gluttony?

Smoking Gun at Gomery

Bernard Thiboutot testified today that during the 2000 federal election he made payments to list of liberal organisers in Quebec, some of which are connected to Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, Radio-Canada reported. Writing cheques from his own company, Commando Communication Marketing, at the request of Jean Brault from the ad agency Groupaction, Thibotout redirected $57 000 to Liberal workers. The money was paid back to him by a company called Splash, a subsidiary of Groupaction.

In the picture above, Guy Bisson, who received a cheque from Commando Communication for $6 4000, is seen with Paul Martin.

Thiboutot also testified that Jean Brault asked him twice to make donations to the Liberal Party of Canada for a total amount of $22 000, from which $2 000 went to an event for Quebec MP, Chretien loyalist and Martin replacement wannabe, Dennis Coderre. These monies were later reimbursed by his employers as professional expenses.

Now Gomery is getting somewhere!

Previous:

• Andre Gauthier's Job
• Palermo on the Ottawa
• Grit Mud for Gomery
• Kinsella @ Gomery via Coyne and Spector
• What is responsibiliy?

Nobel Fools

A group of Latin American intellectuals are petitioning the UN not to condemn Cuba for violations of human rights. Their petition takes place as Castro further tightens its grip on the country. The group makes moral equivalences, linking the US treatment of al-Qaeda operatives in Guantamo with the Cuban persecution of peaceful dissidents in Cuba. In essence, the argument turns to saying that if the Americans violate human rights, it is therefore okay for Castro's Cuba to do the same. Castro is after all simply persecuting his own people.

One of the signatories of the document is Rigoberta Menchu, the Guatemalan Indian woman who received the Nobel Price for her work with Guatemalan natives. Menchu had been earlier exposed for a web of lies that the Nobel authorities never acknowledged. Why would the Swedes let truth get in the way? Menchu hardly has the authority morally to endorse or condemn after the string of lies that fill her autobiography, and from which she received the international award.

That the affirmation of the evils on one side must accompany a denial of the other's is a product of their ideological dreamworld. Sadly, many Latin American intellectuals are unable to abstract themselves from the manichean trap in which they reside: it is perfectly feasible to condemn Castro without endorsing abuses in Guantanamo. One would think that all those Nobel recipients coming together to sign the petition would have figured that out already.

Good Trip, eh?

Our tax dollars at work in the Canadian Forces. Read Musings of a Navy Wannabe.

I hope he was not booked with Jetsgone for the return trip to civilization. Hey, and those folks that can't locate a file, fly planes and stuff. Ay, caramba!

PRAVDA

A friend of mine who was born and grew up in the Soviet Union told me the story of how the Encyclopedia Sovietica would regularly send a kit of illustrated instructions to its subscribers, scalpel and glue included, on how to extract specified pages from it and replace them with the ones in the kit. References to a purged apparatchik were ordered removed, and an article about Siberian fauna, for example, would replace it. In this way, each collaborating citizen became his own Winston Smith.

In 2001, 15 000 copies of the Canadian Encyclopedia were printed, and through a series of moves from one side of the print shop to another, the Lafleur Liberal ad agency charged the federal government tens of thousands of dollars to distribute them. They even made $7 622 commission on the untendered $43 185 posting charges by Canada Post, even though Lafleur had already received an additional $135 000 from Ottawa for the distribution of the encyclopedia. In the end, about 15 000 undistributed copies were destroyed, and are likely padding some landfill on the south shore.

What could be so crucial in the Canadian Encyclopedia being delivered to schools that the feds would spend so lavishly? The prime minister under whose orders the project was funded, we learn from Le Devoir, appears in the encyclopedia's entry as

"an expressive and convincing orator," well loved both in Quebec as in the rest of Canada. "Expressing himself in a language popular and rich in imagery, in English as well as in French, he knows how to touch his audience."

We paid for these truths to be manufactured, printed and delivered to our children in schools. Soon we'll have to manufacture, print and distribute the Martinista version, I am sure. We are our own versions of Winston Smith.

To quote a recent speech by a cultured, expressive and convincing Liberal orator, "The world needs more Canada. And Canada needs more liberalism."

Deadbeat Hero

US war deserter, now a hero of Canadian and European peaceniks is, ironically, a deadbeat dad. His

desertion is only another chapter in "a long history of running from commitment." Anderson became a father as a junior at Bryan Station High School in Lexington.

Pulliam says Anderson spent little time with his daughter for almost three years after he left Lexington in 2001. Contrary to Anderson's statements that he wanted to help support his daughter, Pulliam says he never paid child support.

"When I heard that he had gone to Canada I thought it was kind of comical, knowing Darrell the way I do," Pulliam said. "From the first time I met him I thought he was an immature young man. He has a long history of running from commitment. But I'm also saddened for him, because this time I'm afraid he's probably run as far as he can run."

Anderson has maintained a high profile since fleeing to Canada on Jan. 6. He was featured in the Feb. 28 Time magazine, is scheduled to appear soon in a CNN report, and has been interviewed by publications in France and Germany, countries that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

No one is prophet in his own land, I suppose.

Electing Premiers?!

Lougheed's Conservatives win a landslide victory in Alberta election

National Post

March 14, 2005
March 14, 1979: Peter Lougheed led his Progressive Conservative Party to a landslide provincial election victory, winning 74 of 79 seats in the Alberta legislature. Mr. Lougheed was instrumental in the negotiations that led to the Constitution Act (1982) and was a driving force behind the amending formula that gave no province a veto but allowed dissenting provinces to opt out of amendments that would reduce their powers. He was re-elected premier in 1975, 1979 and 1982, resigning in 1985.

This is great. I am pleased to see that a national newspaper would pay such attention to things Albertan and to an Alberta premier. Just one small thing, though, for the record. Peter Lougheed was never elected premier, let alone re-elected premier. We do not elect premiers of prime ministers in Canada.

Sex Awareness 2

In a follow up piece, The Calgary Herald agreed not to reveal the real name of Honey Houston (see Sex Awareness), but published that she was the Reigning (2005) Queen of Miss Nude Canada (MNC). At the MNC site, we read:

Congratulations to DAMANDA MOORE for winning the title Miss Nude Canada 2004/05 at the National Finals held in CALGARY, ALBERTA November 29 to December 04 at THE SPEAKEASY.

The current Miss Nude Canada also has a Fan Club Page (registration required). Is Honey Damanda?

My guess is that IF Honey Houston is in fact this year's Miss Nude Canada Queen, she must be under contractual restrictions not to appear photographed (much less in the nude) in publications not sanctioned by the organization. This may in fact be the key to the threat of a lawsuit against the Gaunlet. It is interesting that some of the uproar in this controversy has been centered about the exploitation of the female body.

If there were such a contractual restriction, and this type of pageants normally do have them, Houston and the organizers will have lost the advantage of exclusivity for deals with publications such as Playboy. In short, both Houston and Miss Nude Canada possibly stand to lose revenue as a result of the Gaunlet's picture.

The Calgary Herald reported that Houston would have to finish her semester by correspondence due to the embarrassment the Gaunlet picture caused her:

"I don't do photos that I can't show my mom and dad. And I can't show my mom and dad this." The student will finish the semester by correspondence, with help from her professors and classmates.

If Honey Houston were Miss Nude Canada, she would have had trouble keeping her professional and her academic schedules at the same time. Damanda Moore's Fan Club page says she is booked solid for the remainder of the month of March (pdf file) and early April (pfd file) in a few strip Clubs in Quebec. The correspondence option seems practical for one who has business engagements at the other end of the country. The embarrassment and humiliation thing sounds like a convenient cover, and it will likely strike a cord in Quebec.

However, I am not convinced that Honey Houston is the alias for Damanda Moore (Demand More or it is Demand Amour? Does that sound like anyone's real name to you? It sounds as real as Honey Houston). If Honey Houston were the winner of Miss Nude Canada this year, as the Calgary Herald says, why would she have entered the contest as two different people, using her alias and her real name at once? That does not make sense. On the MNC contest page, Damanda Moore (pictured above) and Honey Houston appear as two separate contestants. One cannot be the alias for the other as The Calgary Herald's story and others suggest.

Sex Awareness

Sex Awareness!! I often wonder why a twenty-something university student needs to be made aware of sex?

This year, "Sex Awareness Week" at the University of Calgary has brought plenty of self-awareness to a female student in the Department of Philosophy. She goes by the stage name of Honey Houston; she also happens to have been a contestant in (and some say this year's winner of) the Miss Nude Canada pageant, and was performing (semi)nude on Campus as a member of group immodestly named Nasty Girls Entertainment. Her picture, leaving nothing to the imagination, was published by the campus paper, The Gaunlet, causing a significant amount of controversy.

Houston also gave an interview to The Gaunlet, which they titled "Staying Abreast of Sex Awareness:"

Nasty Girl Honey Houston has an interesting perspective when it comes to the sexual acceptance of students at the U of C, being both an exotic dancer and full time philosophy student. She hopes that the week will help U of C students loosen up when it comes to sex.

"Being a student and an exotic dancer are in two opposite worlds--doing homework in a strip bar can be interesting," said Houston. "I hope students at the U of C will get the confidence to try new things. This is the place to expand your mind in different ways" (emphasis added).

The Gaunlet has been receiving plenty of traffic, some of which appears to have been designed to jam their site. Next to the story, they have defiantly placed this graphic.

Rob, from Say Nothing, has now reproduced the controversial photograph in his blog.

Houston is said to be enraged by the publication of the compromising image in the school paper, and is planning to sue The Gaunlet, the Calgary Herald reported. The Edmonton Journal also picked up the story.

Notwithstanding her assertiveness in the interview to The Gaunlet, she is reported to be embarrassed to the point of not wishing to set foot on campus, and will now finish her semester by correspondence. The newspapers reports do not mention whether she may have been aware of embarrassing others while she paraded through the university food court in the nude, however.

By now, she is probably also aware that small cameras can be smuggled in just about everywhere; that student newspapers will stop at little, if at anything, to shock and awe their readers and university administrators; and that embarrassment is a relative thing.

Whether or not university students need sex awareness is a debatable subject, I imagine, but Houston's story makes it clear that students ought to ponder the necessity of an ethics awareness week, and a privacy awareness week. The Department of Philosophy will probably assist in the task.

No Market Wimpiness Allowed

Fidel Castro's most recent plans to move into full state centralization were propelled, in part, by the economic hopes that the discovery of oil offshore brought him. Ironically, Castro's plans are about to be helped by another valuable liquid, water. In this instance, however, it may be the lack of water that speeds Castro's designs. Cuba is experiencing one of its worst droughts in years. It is reported that already nearly 10% of the population is receiving water from delivery trucks, and things are expected to get worse.

Nature appears to be helping Castro's plans from two different ends. The magnitude of the drought will prompt greater and greater state intervention, and the process of centralization will be accelerated.

The Miami Herald (Registration required but not subscription) speculates that the rapid pace in resuming the economic and political control of the Cuban state is linked to preparations for the eventual death of Fidel Castro. Castro was recently quoted saying that the Revolution will no longer allow [market?] "wimpiness."

Previous:

• Biting the Hand that Feeds Him
• Cash and Ship
• No Tips Allowed
• Caribbean Phoenix
• Pressure Cookers Fix Economic Errors

Crossposted to The Politic.

Blogging Sheila

Sheila Copps started a blog with some "associates" just this March.

Here is a jewel from her first and only posting so far: "I have always believed that politics and policy are intertwined." Well, with wisdom like that, no wonder she was chosen Deputy Prime Minister.

Abu Qutada Released

On the anniversary of the Madrid bombings (11 March) that killed 191 people, El pais of Spain announced that Omar Mahmud Othman, aka Abu Qutada, has been released by British authorities. He is said to be out on bail.

Spain's most famous prosecutor, Judge Garzon, considers Qutada or Qatada to be the mastermind of the Madrid attacks ayear ago. Qutada had been in detention since 2002. He is believed to be the central al-Qaeda figure in Europe, and has been linked to Richard Reid, best known as the shoe bomber.

For insightful comments on Madrid's bombings visit Barcepundit.

Andr� Gauthier's Job

The federal government has hired a special prosecutor to try to recover the monies "defrauded" through Adscam. A law suit was introduced in a Quebec court naming several ad agencies and individuals, among whom figures Charles Guit� --the Public Works bureaucrat that reported to Alfonso Gagliano (Gagliano is not named in the suit). Gagliano was one of Jean Chr�tien's lieutenants in Quebec.

Prime Minister Martin is eager to distance his (Martinista) Liberals from the Chr�tienista Liberals, and is trying to give the appearance that his government is doing all it can to recover what was "lost." Jean Lapierre, the turncoat Blocquiste now transfigured into Martin's Quebec lieutenant, says that this is a cynical way of looking at things.

It seems clear, nonetheless, that the Liberal Party of Canada is not without liability. If one buys a stolen car, one cannot keep the vehicle when the origin of the vehicle is discovered. The donations that the Liberals received from the likes of the Lafleurs are the proceeds of illegal activity, and are therefore tainted. If Paul Martin's move to have a prosecutor were not mere window-dressing, if Martin were truly serious about recovering our money, he would instruct his party to return what the Liberals received from adscammers?

Will Andr� Gauthier, the special prosecutor named by Martin, go after the Liberal Party of Canada in order to recover the taxpayers' money that was looted out of the state coffers?

Will the prime minister put his prosecuting spirit were his wallet is!?

Crossposted to The Politic

The Incubator Effect

Mark Juergensmeyer from the University of California speaks of the "incubator effect." "One has to examine the penal system's role in creating more terrorism," Juergensmeyer said. He means to criticize the United States for producing terrorism behind the wires at Guantanamo.

Are there more or less terrorists now? Newsflash! And if terrorists are spawned in detention centres like that in Cuba, where did the the IRA, the FMLN, the FLQ, the FSLN, Qaddafi, Arafat, Abu Nidal, Daniel Ortega, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda and the Taliban come from?

Chicago-Boys Legacy Welcome

The main objection of critics to the privatized pension plan in Chile is that some people either cannot afford to set aside 10% of their income to make contributions to their personal fund, or are not disciplined enough to do it when they are self-employed.

I am not sure that having no income is much of a barrier to establishing the plan, however. No income for an entire life? One can conceive of cases where individuals are severely handicapped or incapacitated, of course. There is room for exceptions, and they can addressed as such. But exceptions should not drive policy. Retirement is something that is typically earned, even now, and judges have not yet made it a right under the Charter in Canada. So let's hurry up and get a real pension plan before Arbour comes back modeling her Santa suit and kills all prospect of it!

The typical objections against the Chilean practice do not much apply to Canada. There are people who don't have a 10% disposable income to put aside in Canada, but that is largely because much of their income is already being taxed significantly. With a privatized fund, the feds would not longer grab CPP deductions for their slush funds. People would have more dough in their pockets to invest in their future.

People who are self-employed must still file tax forms in Canada, and we have enough of a paternalistic tradition that the state could compel them to do it. But that would defeat the purpose, unless it is done on a voluntary basis. We should give ourselves enough liberty for some us to choose to be wards of the state, if we so choose. Imagine having the choice to run your own pension plan rather than letting mommy Ottawa do it for you. Why not? Chile is doing it rather succesfully.

As to those who are under the radar of the economy, they might not at all be persuaded to return just with a pension plan anyway. So, WTH. But there may always be hope for them once the Liberals finish decriminalizing everything.

What Were They Thinking?

The Union/Wal-Mart saga in Quebec continues to grab attention. The "economic terrorist" appellation was not enough. "A Quebec television broadcaster compared Wal-Mart to Nazism, but later apologized," reports the NYT (registration required but no subscription). And not surprisingly, "Bernard Landry, the leader of the separatist Parti Qu�b�cois and a former premier of the province, has announced that he is boycotting the chain." He should try boycotting his own leadership! Oh, wait a minute. He is already doing that too.

Discord and conflict are not just surfacing among the attention-grabbing usual suspects. A combat mode seems the more palpable in the Jonquiere store and in the community itself. There are reports of various intimidation tactics on both sides, the union peddlers and those who are trying to hang on to their jobs.

"This store is basically hell right now," said Noella Langlois, 53, a saleswoman in the Jonqui�re store who opposes unionization. "You have two deeply divided clans."

Close to 20% of all the Wal-Marts in Canada are located in Quebec, a substantial investment and an attractive profitable prospect for the chain. But they took a significant risk in opening all those stores in Quebec. I am not sure that I want to be sympathetic now when I hear them complain about the unions changing their business model. After all, they must have known that

the battleground in Quebec, where Wal-Mart has 47 stores, is not particularly favorable to the chain because provincial labor law is tilted in favor of unions. Forty percent of the province's work force is unionized, a rate 25 percent higher than the rest of Canada and more than three times the rate in the United States.

Duh! What were they thinking?

Related:

• Bomb Voyage!

My name is Pierre...

Ethanol is a powerful political lubricant. It has long contributed to the shaping of our political realm: Van Horne, Macdonald, Klein, Campbell, just to name a few. Gordon Campbell, of course, got into trouble with the law in Hawaii not long ago, pounding back martinis and then getting behind the wheel of a car. Although he only had two!

Campbell and Pierre Pettigrew, apparently, have more in common than the party labels under which they labor. Pierre was seen pounding martinis like a rapid-firing Patriot battery at a favoured watering hole during the Ottawa Liberal Convention. No one saw him driving afterward, though. Just debating the course of his party.

Pressure Cookers Fix Economic Errors

On the International Day of Women, and speaking to an audience of Cuban female leaders, Fidel Castro announced that his government will make available to Cuban households 100,000 pressure cookers a month. The measure is intended to correct "the errors, deviations and confusions" of the few liberalizing measures introduced into the Cuban economy in the recent past.

Optimistic about newly formed alliances with China (errr!) and Venezuela, and rather hopeful about recently discovered petrol deposits off the Cuban coast, Castro believes that liberalization can be erased and centralization can be brought back in (Hat tip: Tom Cerber @ The Politic).

In the meantime, Europeans are once again trying to bring pressure to bear on Castro over Cuba's persecution and execution of dissidents, in anticipation of a vote in June of this year to end European sanctions against the Castro regime.

Right in the opposite direction heads Kathleen Blanco, Governor of the State of Louisiana, who useful-idiotically traveled to Cuba this week wishing to drum up business for her state. Positively emboldened by these developments, Cuba has launched another attack against the United States for shortcomings in human rights. Cuba compares the American handling of al-Qaeda terrorists detained in Guantanamo, Cuba, with Cuba's persecution and harassment of peaceful political dissidents.

Related:

• Caribbean Phoenix
• No Left Turns

Are You Not Entertained?!

Al-Qaeda had plans to kidnap Russell Crowe as part of a master plan to destabilize American culture. The FBI tip came before Crowe won an Oscar for the movie Gladiator.

Living in a cave must not be easy; Osama may be confusing gladiators with crusaders. Following the trend of confusion, one can expect that when Jacques Chirac finally sees Master and Commander, his government will likely put out a fatwa against Crowe.

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

PAUL FM

David Akins tells the cute story of a radio station in Ottawa being renamed after Paul Martin, the Prime Minister. At issue is a promise that Jack FM made to the PM. If Martin could get Bono and U2 to come to Ottawa for a show, they would rename the station Paul FM for a day. And they have, given that U2's recently-announced tour includes a stop in Ottawa.

Two things that we may not have known before become obvious from the story:

1. Notwithstanding the Ballistic Missile Defense fiasco, Paul Martin is able to use the phone and call people in other countries.
2. Jack FM have a better track record of keeping their word than does Paul Martin.

To bloggingly go...

Some are concerned by the possibility that bloggers may be silenced during future US elections. Today, the NYT writes about "the first blogger in the short history of the medium [who was] granted a daily White House pass for the specific purpose of writing a blog, or Web log." In essence, this elevates segments of the world of blogging and brings them closer to recognition as "journalists" --a status that in the long run some may live to regret.

Cross-posted to The Politic

Fingering Agression 2

Studies of finger length ratio reported to signify levels of aggression among males are also being used to explore sexual orientation among lesbians.

Evolutionary Inconvenience

When someone pointed out to the Liberals that they had voted in favor of the traditional definition of marriage (as a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other) less than two years earlier, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Martin Cauchon jumped up to say that things had changed, that societies evolve. With evolution, they imply, things change for the better.

What is more, when others pointed out to them that the evolutionary change of which they speak could bring about all sorts of unforeseen consequences such as polygamy, the same Liberals have steadfastly asserted, and here we include Cotler, that such things would never happen.

It is curious that two years ago they could not predict the "evolutionary" change of homosexual marriage, but they now can predict in all assurance what is going NOT to happen in the future.

The Liberal experiment cum (in)ability to read the future exhibited yet another facet today. CTV reports Paul Martin as saying that "the missile shield is a project in evolution." If one could expect Mr. Dithers to be consistent in the use of language, one would then expect him to say that Missile Defense is only going to get better. But he could not say that now, could he?

Suddenly, the future is now uncertain once again and the evocation of evolution is not an assurance of improvement. In fact, for as long as it's convenient, evolution now represents unforeseen flux and the possibility that things may not turn out right at all. In his own words: "It [missile defense] will continue evolving. And we don't know what the demands will be, for a project that is evolving because it will change."

Finally, Mr. Dithers has borrowed here from the Jean Chretien Encyclopedia of Logic. To say that a project is evolving because it will change is redundantly meaningless. One may as well say that a child will get older because she will grow.

Many who hoped that Mr. Dithers would "evolve" into a Prime Minister are at a crossroads. Their expectation of evolution involved change, and that change, too, expected better. But now that evolution simply means change, and change means evolution with no peculiar characteristics of amelioration, they are faced with the sad probability that Mr. Dithers will actually get worse: They simply "don't know what the demands will be."

Cross-posted to The Politic

Not Interested.

Pierre Pettigrew, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, wants to give the country renewed "international influence." Normally, one does not think of Canada and international influence in the same sentence: not since the Suez Crisis, perhaps; not for a generation. So what might be the impetus of his foreign policy that will, as he claims, restore Canada's influence?

"Our foreign policy," he said, "is not based on ideologies or on our national interest. We have a foreign policy based on principles such as human rights, the promotion of peace and respect for others."

In essence, his ideology is to give up on our interests, to renounce the national interest. With no interests to guide us, Pettigrew is telling us that Canada will pursue peace and human rights at its own expense. We'll do "whatever it takes," said Paul Martin.

There is plenty of experience among them in the exercise of a limp form of power. The Liberal Party of Canada has been practicing a respectful and disinterested policy within the country for years. In domestic politics, one can see how Liberal influence has increased manifold: Disinterestedly, they have been vigorously funneling hundreds of millions out of the public purse for the protection of the human rights of all those friendly marketing agencies in Quebec.

Intimidated by Militants

The word militant sounds ominous. It is, after all, related to the word military. Le Devoir reports how militants in the Liberal Party of Canada ran over Cabinet Ministers on missile defense, among whom our Minister of Defense, Bill Graham. Graham has even admitted to losing "the war."

But militants in the Liberal Party of Canada are not what the militants in Mao's Communist Party were during the Cultural Revolution. And, considering that the Liberals have never really been a grassroots party, it is of concern to see that a bunch of loud youth is all it takes to scare the defense minister of this country.

Fingering Aggression

Get your measuring tapes out, everyone! Edmonton researchers say that the relative length of fingers in males is linked to male aggression.

The researchers found that shorter second-to-fourth finger ratios predicted proneness to physical aggression, but not other types of aggression, and only in men, not in women.

Because mothers are always to blame for this sort of thing, the differences are apparently determined by hormonal levels in the womb.

One would expect that Dubya's second fingers will be shorter and Mr. Dithers' longer. Or is it the other way around? This is likely the very reason why our PM and their Prez are meeting at Baylor. President Fox will report on the results next week!

Palermo on the Ottawa

Omerta! That seems to be the binding thread in the testimony of Jean Lafleur in front of the Gomery Commission for the last two days. Omerta is the Italian expression that signifies the vow of silence taken among Sicilian mafiosi. Transgression of the omerta leads to vendetta, and to guaranteed loss of life.

Lafleur does not remember the time his income increased nearly 22 times (from $108,000 to $2.3 million) as a result of Liberal contracts; he does not remember speaking about sponsorships with Jean Pelletier from the PMO in the 4 or 5 expensive dinners they shared in Ottawa. Nor does he remember the invoice for $112,500 that he sent to Public Works. But he does remember thanking Pelletier for giving his son a job; and he does remember Pelletier as a charming man of refinement and culture, Le Devoir reported this morning. Flattery and proper gratitude must always be displayed publicly in Palermo.

Cross-posted from The Politic.

Our Piracy & Anti-Canadianism

The ditherings and the Ditherites in the PMO simply miscalculated the public reaction on Martin's flip-flopping on Missile Defense. Polls in Canada reveal that the population in the RoC may be more agreeable to MD. If the PMO is representative of the Canadian population, perhaps they too have the occasional but influential moron who thinks that we would be spending tons of money "joining."

But the greatest miscalculation may be in the unanticipated reaction of the people and government of the United States. Plenty of editorials and news columns have noticed the Canadian volta face, and folks there are not pleased. Scott Stinson in the NP reports about a rising anti-Canadianism. Andrew Coyne writes:

It turns out there are limits to American forbearance. The President who had publicly pleaded with Canada to sign on does not like to be publicly embarrassed. Imagine that.

I am officially predicting that it will not be very long before some enterprising American comedian (who dropped out of high school when Jimmy Carter was president) starts a new TV show called "Talking to Canadians," ambush-interviewing folks up here, exposing the underbelly of touchy-feeliness and inconsistencies of the average liberal Canadian on the streets of Montreal and Toronto.

Neither sane nor mad cows are crossing the borders right now, and it may be that soon, neither will California wines if BC has its way. Look out, for we cannot win an economic war with the Americans, and there may be lots of Canadian road kill as the Hummers head for the Northern border.

In his typical incisive way, Coyne sums it up:

In sum: We weren't asked to do anything, the system doesn't depend on us doing anything, and we've already done whatever it was the Americans needed us to do. They weren't asking us to participate, they were offering to let us: for with participation comes consultation, and a role in our own defense. Yet having rejected the offer of consultation, in the name of our sovereignty, we now demand to be consulted, on grounds of sovereignty. And the result of these affirmations of our independence is to make us utterly dependent on another country for our defense.

Take that, Mr. Dithers. Reminding us of the unseemly (and seemingly unending) Canadian whining after George Bush did not "recognize" us when he forgot to mention CANADA by name in one his speeches, Coyne then points out:

But now we have achieved every Canadian's dream -- they noticed us! -- and the results may not be quite what we would have wished. It was one thing for the Americans to protect us when there was some strategic value to the relationship. The Lester Pearson invoked today as the avatar of "internationalism" was the Lester Pearson who put nuclear warheads on Canadian missiles, whose government spent nearly 4% of GDP -- a quarter of its budget -- on defence. But today? What's in it for them?

We have made ourselves become so irrelevant. The Spaniards once called us "pirates" for boarding their fishing vessels in international waters under the explicit orders of one belligerent Captain Canada. But the Spaniards don't know better (That was then...). In fact, we are more like the pirate characters in Veggie Tales' Jonah and the Whale (Oh, and if you could only hear the music) who are quite fond of singing:

We are the Pirates who don't do anything
We just stay home, and lie around
And if you ask us, if we do anything
We just tell you, we don't do anything

Gomery Update

The testimony of Jean Lafleur further confirms what we already knew or suspected, but nothing earth-shattering so far. The Globe writes:

Documents tabled yesterday show one $300,000 invoice from February, 1999, charged $90 for each of a dozen RCMP souvenir knives, $95 for each of 36 cosmetic bags, $158 for each of 144 windbreakers and $78 to $175 for each of 720 polo shirts.

The inquiry will ask in upcoming days whether any of the sponsorship money was donated to the federal Liberal Party. The inquiry has already heard about Mr. Lafleur's largesse toward officials, as typified by the note then Canada Post chairman Andr� Ouellet wrote to the ad executive to thank him for an evening of hockey in a luxury box.

On the Importance of Deporting Ernest

Ernst Z�ndel was finally deported to Germany today after he was held in solitary confinement in Canada for two years on the basis of a security certificate. No one wants to take up the issue for fear of being branded some sort of Nazi sympathizer --which is understandable to some extent.

But the importance of the principles that have been trampled just to get rid of his unpalatable ideas is serious. The Globe reports that even people who disagree with him are alarmed at the way he has been treated. But no names are mentioned, no organizations, no one.

Terrorists, convicted terrorists, and fundraisers for terrorists in Canada, in the meantime, are roaming the streets or inviting Ministers of the Crown to have dinner with them.

It seems that extraterritoriality and globalization caught up with Z�ndel, who has committed no crime in Canada. He has been charged in Germany on the basis of his website hosted in the US, where he stupidly continues to deny that the Holocaust took place.

It's a crime in Germany to deny the Holocaust or spread Nazi propaganda.

It is also worth noting, as does the Post, that the evidence presented by the Crown against Z�ndel, arguing that he is a security risk to Canada, was kept secret even from Zundel and his counsel.

Caribbean Phoenix

The opening of Cuba to greater tourism, greater and freer circulation of foreign currency (US dollars, Euros) decentralization of some commercial and agricultural activity, relaxation of property rules and the opening of the island to foreign investment has helped the crumbling Cuban economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But Castro is no Deng Xiaoping. He has learned nothing, it seems, from the Chinese experience and from that of his own country in the last decade. Cuba has begun a new wave or recentralization and state control, curbing the few liberalizing policies that it had adopted not long ago. US dollar circulation has been curtailed, tips in the tourism industry have been banned, and now, BBC reports that minimal contact between tourism workers and tourists will be enforced. In Castro's mind, it is the process of recentralizing which has enabled Cuba to improve its economy, however modestly, and not the market liberalizing policies.

Workers are also told to watch their foreign employers and report actions that might threaten Cuba's revolution.

The new regulations make stark reading. Everyone who works in Cuba's expanding tourism industry - from bar staff to taxi drivers - is warned to keep a safe distance from foreigners.

Workers are advised that they can attend events at the homes of non-Cubans only with advanced written permission.

Gifts received from foreigners have to be declared. Electronic goods such as video players are expected to be handed over to the ministry for common use.

In the last few months, the US dollar has been removed from circulation. Private enterprise has been curbed and managers of Cuban state enterprises have been stripped of much of their autonomy.

President Fidel Castro has said that recentralization is enabling the Cuban state to rise again, like a phoenix.