« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »

February 29, 2004

The Decline and Fall of Howard Dean

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has a fascinating article on the factionalism that brought down the Howard Dean campaign. The story sets up two camps within the campaign, an inner core of Vermont loyalists led by Kate O'Connor, and a professional cadre of Washington strategists led by Joe Trippi.

The story contains some damning quotes from O'Connor, who controlled acess to the candidate, which suggest that Dean and his people were far from ready for prime time. First:

O'Connor said it wasn't her job to decide which journalists got on the plane. But she acknowledged her frustration with the coverage. "I stopped reading newspapers and watching television," she said, because many stories were "completely false."

Yea, that's a great idea, because obviously everyone else in America will draw the same conclusion and similarly stop reading/watching. This absolutely unbelievable attitude came back to haunt the campaign after the "I Have a Scream" speech:

"We didn't get to see television because we were on the road all the time," [O'Connor] said. "We had absolutely no idea it was being played all the time."

Returning to Vermont, O'Connor maintained in a meeting with Hollywood activist Rob Reiner, who had flown in to advise Dean, that people were overreacting to the high-decibel speech and voters didn't care. Reiner was flabbergasted at this attitude -- he wondered whether the staff was "crazy" -- and expressed amazement that they hadn't moved faster to neutralize the issue, two participants said.

They didn't monitor press reaction to the speech!? But perhaps the most damning quote is this admission of an unfitness to govern:

Still, [O'Connor] said, "he didn't expect to be there" as the front-runner, and they were surprised at the intensity of the media barrage. "We never anticipated the constant getting beaten up over something every single day," O'Connor said.

Never anticipated it? Can you imagine how these people would have run a White House? Yeesh.

One interesting thing about the article is that Joe Trippi, while coming under some criticism, emerges looking pretty good. Too good, I'd imagine; if nothing else, the idea that an 'outsider-against-Washington-special-interests' message was some stroke of political genius is laughable. I suspect Trippi had a hand in shaping the tone of the story, aided unwittingly by the, uh, witless - or at least hapless - Vermont group.

Posted by David Mader at 03:29 PM | (0) | Back to Main

More Numbers

Ekos also has numbers on the Conservative leadership race - well, sort of. They've polled Canadians, as opposed to Conservative Party members or likely Conservative voters, and find that Belinda Stronach enjoys as much theoretical support as Stephen Harper.

The Belinda folks will go nuts about this 'electability', but there's far less to this than meets the eye. Most Canadians have only the slightest idea who Stronach is, and have never seen her in a truly political context. They like the idea of Stronach, or the idea the Stronach campaign presents; and heck, even I was willing to give Belinda a chance. But I'd wager that the more folks see Belinda on the stump, the less they'll like her - or want to vote for her. Stronach continues to get good reviews in the media, but I was in the room at the Conservative leadership debate last week, and if you believe anything I write at Maderblog believe this: she was atrocious. Simply not up to the job. Heck, I've seen city counsellors with better political presence. So while Canadians may be inclined to believe - as the Stronach campaign claims - that Belinda is the real deal, they'll quite quickly change their minds if Belinda is dropped into a campaign and serious media scrutiny.

Not to be a hack, but I think the opposite is true of Tony Clement. Most folks know very little about him, and what they know isn't generally that positive. But the more exposure he gets, the better Tony looks and sounds as a serious national candidate. He still doesn't have the gravity and presence of Harper - his 'scrappiness' is more Bryan than McKinley, to use yet another obscure American analogy for Canadian politics - but he has command of the issues and a wonderful self-deprecating humor that works on the stump.

Posted by David Mader at 12:02 PM | (2) | Back to Main

New Poll Numbers

The Toronto Star is reporting that the bleeding has stopped for the Liberals, with support back up to 42% nationwide. They had fallen to 35% earlier this month. The Conservatives, last marked at 27%, have also gained support however, and now stand at 33% (certainly the strongest numbers in my memory). The NDP have fallen from 17% to 15%.

The NDP drop is 2%, and I just can't figure out where the other ten percent that the Conservatives and Liberals have gained came from. But then I'm no mathematician; I'm sure I'm overlooking something fairly obvious. In any case, the important thing is that the sponsorship scandal seems to have significantly effected the electorate, with the Ekos polling firm reporting that about 40% of respondents felt so outraged that they vowed not to vote Liberal in the next election.

[Via Andrew Coyne's nifty news-feed.]

Posted by David Mader at 11:49 AM | (0) | Back to Main

Under the Radar

Did anyone else notice the story late last week about a fire that sunk a ferry in the Philippines? Or that the al-Qaida-linked group Abu Sayyaf has now admitted responsibility? It may be a false confession; still, it may also be the most recent attack in a global campaign of terror.

Posted by David Mader at 11:23 AM | (0) | Back to Main

Aristide Resigns

Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide has fled the country, bowing to international pressure and the threat of an imminent attack on Port-au-Prince. The chief justice of the nation's supreme court has, pursuant to the country's constitution, been sworn in as president. Rebel leaders, who had been prepared to take the capital on Friday, announced that they would wait "a day or two" over the weekend, and Aristide's removal has all the fingerprints of an internationally-organized operation.

Speaking of which, Washington is promising an immediate deployment of forces to Haiti to restore order in the country. French troops are expected to participate.

This is only the beginning; there are now armed thugs across the country who will be disinclined to recognize the constitutional government, and the stabilization force will have its work cut out for it. Still, it's hard to disagree with the assessment of HaitiPundit: "This is good news for the people of Haiti."

Posted by David Mader at 11:20 AM | (3) | Back to Main

February 27, 2004

No Free Lunch

Pfizer Canada has stopped supplying two major Canadian wholesalers in an effort to stem cross-border shipment of Canadian drugs. The wholesalers claim the decision will hurt only American seniors: "It's really going to hurt the American consumer.... It will be seniors in the U.S. that we sell to."

But unless this cross-border transfer is cut off, it's the Canadian consumer who will suffer most. If drug companies can't be sure that their discriminatory pricing can be maintained - which it can't if marked-down Canadian drugs flow back across the border to the US - they'll simply stop supplying the Canadian market with drugs. Well, that or they'll simply start charging Canadians the American price - a price which, at two-thirds the standard of living and seven-tenths the dollar, Canadians simply can't afford. So three cheers for Pfizer, standing up for the market - and for Canadian consumers as well.

[Thanks to Charles for the heads-up.]

Posted by David Mader at 11:31 AM | (1) | Back to Main

Eavesdropping

Telegraph Defense Editor John Keegan writes on the long history of British signals intelligence, and points out the significant difference between 'bugging' and interception. He's got a point; it's surprising how many people broadcast their voice over thousands of miles and hope - or even expect - that only one person will hear it. If you don't want to be overheard, whisper something into the intended recipient's ear; anything more than that involves broadcasting a message, and there are very few ways to ensure privacy of broadcast.

Posted by David Mader at 10:34 AM | (0) | Back to Main

Interesting Juxtaposition

Neale News has two interesting articles:

Conservatives Brace For Liberal 'Dirty Tricks' Campaign - "Complaining that all campaigns involving the federal Liberals are very dirty, Harper said he will not put up with "the kind of garbage" that was thrown at predecessors like former Reform leader Preston Manning and Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day. He listed as examples, Liberal attacks on Western Canada, ethnic or religious backgrounds and misrepresentations of party policies."

Harper Apologizes For Wishing Aboriginals Happy India Day - "The Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres issued a scathing response this week, describing the letter from the Conservative party leadership hopeful as "shameful." The one-page letter, dated Jan. 26 2004, and signed by Harper, is titled 'Greetings on the Occasion of India's National Day.'"

The emphasis is mine. What took the OFIFC a month to respond - and to go public? Why, they wouldn't be playing politics with the letter, would they?

And while I maintain that airing a charicature of a Caribbean voice is simply bad politics for any party, let alone a conservative party, I think Damian Penny has this issue right:

Considering how many times I've been told "Indian" is not an appropriate name for Canada's aboriginal population, I think Harper's staff can be forgiven for assuming the "Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres" was an Indo-Canadian, not native group.

Yea. Still a stupid mistake - but just that, a stupid mistake. For the OFIFC to immediately (well, not immediately) play the race card is irresponsible and inaccurate.

Posted by David Mader at 10:13 AM | (1) | Back to Main

Congress Stands Opposed

Josh Chafetz of Oxblog has been collecting first-hand pronouncements of Senators on a proposed marriage amendment, and he finds at least 39 nominally opposed (with only 76 counted). An amendment needs two-thirds of the hundred-seat Senate to pass and go to the states for ratification. Of course the precise amendment hasn't even been determined, and political pressure has probably not yet been brought to bear on individual senators; for instance, Democrats up for reelection in 'red' states might waffle. Nevertheless the amendment does not look likely to pass.

Posted by David Mader at 09:43 AM | (0) | Back to Main

February 26, 2004

British Bug Kofi's Phone

Subterfuge in international relations! I'm, I'm aghast! What next!?

Tony Blair also deserves credit for this zinger:

I really do regard what Claire Short has said this morning as totally irresponsible and, well, entirely consistent.

Number Ten removed the wonderul "well" from the transcript.

Posted by David Mader at 11:23 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Something Ain't Right...

... about a festival honouring Winston Churchill - in Cuba.

I know, I know, it's a cigar festival. Still, tell me it doesn't strike you as, well, odd.

Posted by David Mader at 07:42 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Baby Steps, Continued

Colin Powell has started to wonder out loud whether Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Arastide might not be the best leader for his country:

Whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something he will have to examine carefully in the interests of the Haitian people.

At this rate there will be boots on the ground by about 2016. Let me say again that I understand troop overextension and existing commitments mean the US doesn't really have the capacity at present to deploy a sufficient force to Haiti. My problem from the beginning has been that instead of simply admitting this while indicating a desire to restore order, Washington has simply refused to act. Strategically speaking everyone knows the US military is extended (if not quite over-extended), and admitting as much could only be politically beneficial as it would both indicate a desire to help while explaining why help was not possible at the moment. By refusing to show even a desire to help - and by obstructing French and other efforts to intervene - Washington surrenders any claim to simple logistical impossibility.

Posted by David Mader at 06:10 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Bush the Anti-Federalist?

Andrew Sullivan suggests that the President's support for a marriage amendment is in fact designed precisely to prevent local autonomy on the issue.

Sullivan and Reynolds therefore have entirely contrary interpretations of the President's remarks. Both parties could continue to make arguments about their favored interpretation; or we could all wait to see exactly what it is the President means to propose.

I don't think we're going to see a clear indication from the White House prior to November, and that's yet one more reason why I think the announcement was legislatively meaningless while politically important.

Posted by David Mader at 04:34 PM | (0) | Back to Main

That Didn't Take Long

The Globe and Mail: Tory Ad Rubs Caribbean Community the Wrong Way.

I heard the ad on Monday (or Tuesday), and it took me all of ten seconds to realize what a mistake it was. I believe my exact words were "I wouldn't run that ad in a million years." It was a no-brainer, and the fact that someone at Conservative Party HQ a) thought up the ad, b) made the ad and c) failed to veto or table the ad suggests a disturbing lack of, well, brains within the Party.

Posted by David Mader at 10:08 AM | (6) | Back to Main

9/11 People

Mark Steyn explains that the coming election is about one thing [registration required].

I think that's one reason I can't get too worked up about the FMA (the other is that if passed I believe it would be repealed well within a decade). Andrew Sullivan suggests that this 'attack on the Constitution' delegitimizes the President's war on terrorism. I understand and appreciate the passion behind that sentiment, but frankly I think it's absurd. Go and stand in front of that big wide open space in lower Manhattan and then come complain to me that the State won't recognize your relationship with your significant other.

I'm not just waving the bloody shirt here. If President Bush is defeated in November, the security policies of the past four years will be reversed, and will have been no more than an anomaly in the course of American history. They will have been 'Bush Administration policies'. But if he wins they will become codified - or rather, they will become entrenched. They will become American policies. And because the war goes on, even though we are aware of it less and less - because of the successes of those policies - it's vitally important that the President's response to September 11 become lasting American policy.

One way or the other I'll speak out against the marriage amendment - unless it comes before Congress as an explicitly federalist measure reserving power to the several states. But I refuse to lose sight of the overarching reality of our world, and of this coming election.

Posted by David Mader at 09:54 AM | (1) | Back to Main

February 25, 2004

Baby Steps

The US is now calling for an international 'police' force to maintain the peace in Haiti - once it has been restored by Haitians. Better than nothing, and there seems to be a trend towards intervention.

Speaking of which, the Congressional Black Caucus has proposed the creation (by force) of a '"humanitarian quarter" in Haiti where relief supplies could be distributed,' according to the article. When the Congressional Black Caucus is pressuring a Republican president to invade a Caribbean country - well, I don't know what to say, except to welcome you all to the twilight zone.

And I continue to be troubled by this: "State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States supports the French initiative. But he suggested the administration does not see France taking a leading role." The US seems torn between asserting it's hemispheric influence and not giving a damn. It can't have it both ways, and that's becoming increasingly apparent. I wonder how much the foot-dragging in Washington reflects an attempt to allow French intervention without setting a precedent for foreign interference in hemispheric affairs.

Posted by David Mader at 08:11 PM | (1) | Back to Main

The New York of Nebraska

It's a Toronto-versus-everybody-else slug-fest in the comments to this post.

Well, not really, but there's some debate and discussion anyway.

Posted by David Mader at 07:58 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Hait Descends into Chaos

As looting erupts in Port-au-Prince, and as armed gangs take control of roadblocks across the country, the US and France publicly hope somebody else will do something:

President Bush said the United States is encouraging the international community to provide a strong "security presence" in Haiti as Washington and its allies work for a political solution.

Opposition leaders asked the international community to help ensure a "timely and orderly" departure of Aristide.

And French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin urged the "immediate" dispatch of an international civilian force to restore order in its former colony.

And yet no-one does anything. Well, that's not entirely fair; Canada has dispatched a "team" of soldiers, apparently to aid in the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Haiti.

Perhaps most promising is the suggestion that the international community - whatever it is - has backed off its insistence that Aristide remain in power. Whether negotiations with the peaceful opposition will have any effect on the armed groups now taking control of the country isn't clear, but I'd bet against it. Powell, de Villepin and others continue to call for a 'peaceful' solution, but their continued inaction will only lead to violence. An international intervention force is the best hope for a speedy restoration of peace and order in Haiti.

But I wouldn't bet on that either.

Posted by David Mader at 03:44 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Bush the Federalist?

Shortly after the President's announcement on a federal marriage amendment, Dan and I had a discussion about its ramifications. He argued that it represented an attack on federalism, to the point that it undermined the President's commitment to defend a federal constitution in the War on Terror.

In his MSNBC column, however, Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit) argues that Bush's position may actually be federalist itself:

It sounds to me as if he wants to constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era law that says states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit provision...

If states are free to make their own arrangements, then there are two possibilities: they're free on everything, or they're free on everything but the name. The latter seems rather silly, and also rather trivial. (And whatever the law says, most people are going to call it marriage.)

A Constitutional amendment which ensured that states would not have to recognize the marriage provisions of other states would, far from enforcing morality, ensure state autonomy on this moral question, reserving the definition of marriage to the people of the several states. The caveat - that the amendment might bar the appliacation of the word 'marriage' for homosexual couples - is serious, but the very ambiguity of the statement suggests to me that Bush has no strong commitment to such a provision, and is only covering his base.

Is this President really attempting to alter the Constitution to conform to his religious beliefs? Or is he staking out an entirely defensible position under the guise of religious activism in order to mollify his religious base? I think there's a strong possibility of the latter. I also think it's better for all political parties involved if no-one says it out loud.

Not that I'm going to stop. By the way, you could do worse than to read the comment by Dave K on this post. Dave argues that definitions of marriage should be local rather than central, and he explains why. And he's right.

Posted by David Mader at 09:32 AM | (2) | Back to Main

February 24, 2004

There and Back Again

Just got in to Montreal; the train ride back - which took about as long as the drive from Ottawa to Toronto (4 hours) - was great, although the company couldn't compare.

I've long had an Ottawan's distaste for Toronto, but I must say that I quite enjoyed it this visit. Many thanks to my various hosts and guides. It may have been the nature of those hosts and guides, but I was left with the impression of a city which, while widely lampooned for taking itself too seriously, is nonetheless a serious place full of serious people doing serious things. I quite enjoyed the architecture, both the older colonial and Victorian buildings and the modern towers around Bay Street and downtown (not to mention the assorted deco and other fine facades). The University of Toronto campus is gorgeous, and I wonder whether a visit four years ago wouldn't have swayed me away from fine McGill. I also found Toronto to be much cleaner than Montreal, a function, I think, of the decades-long economic downturn from which the latter city is only now emerging. Thank you, separatism.

Still, the grime and grunge are part of the charm, and it's lovely to be back in Montreal - "The City That Doesn't Give a ..." - well, you know.

Back to the apartment, back to the desktop, back to more regular blogging.

Posted by David Mader at 10:08 PM | (9) | Back to Main

Half Way There

The US and France are floating the idea of an international peacekeeping force in the event rebels and opposition groups fail to accept a Caribbean Community peace initiative. Neither nation is prepared to commit combat forces, however, insisting that order must be restored before an intervention force is deployed.

I expect Port-au-Prince to fall to rebel forces within the week, at which point there will likely be mass murdering of Arastide loyalists and the repeat declaration of a new Hatian state by the rebels. What will the international community do then? Will they simply accept the new group of thugs? Will they intervene to restore Arastide once again? Or will they simply shrug their shoulders and move on?

[David]

Posted by David Mader at 02:52 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Russia

Vladimir Putin says no autocrats here:

The Russian president Vladimir Putin has announced that he is dismissing his government, less than three weeks before presidential elections.

In a televised address, he told Russians: "In line with article 117 of the Russian Constitution, I have decided to dismiss the government."

Perfectly legal, I'm sure, but am I the only one with the feeling that for all intents and purposes Putin is the government?

[David]

Posted by David Mader at 10:47 AM | (1) | Back to Main

FMA

David again. CNN is reporting that the President will announce, at 10:45, his support for a constitutional amendment reserving marriage for heterosexual couples.

The easiest comment is that this is a political reaction to the weakening support for Bush among the social-conservative base. Slipping numbers have spooked the White House, and as the campaign kicks off a little early, the re-election team will be hoping to get the base firmly back in line as soon as possible. The cynical calculus will have opposition to gay marriage more of an asset among potential Republican voters than a liability, since supporters will be assumed, on the whole, not to vote Republican in any case.

Still, I can think of at least one Republican who likely won't be voting for Bush this fall, and he's likely not alone. While I understand the political considerations, I'm disappointed myself; I'd hope the President could make political hay with better issues than this.

As for the Amendment itself, it won't pass in a million years - which is part, I'm sure, of why the President is endorsing it.

Posted by David Mader at 10:28 AM | (9) | Back to Main

February 23, 2004

Separation Anxiety

It's David. I've been away from the computer all day, but there's lots going on.

The Marines are going to Haiti, though only fifty and only to secure the largely abandoned embassy. Meanwhile it seems a matter of time before the armed rebels - as opposed to the peaceful opposition - take Port-au-Prince. At that point the international community will face a reall decision; simply telling both sides to accept the Caribbean Community peace plan won't work when the armed rebels control the country by force of arms.

And there's more going on, but - again - I'm away from the compu. More later. I am, after all, on vacation. (It's reading week, not slack week! -- Ed. Wha-who are you? I'm going out.)

Posted by David Mader at 09:40 PM | (1) | Back to Main

The Players

Ever wonder who the players are in Adscam, not on the government side, but within the communications firms?

This Gazette article has great details about them and what they're up to now. Well worth a read.

Posted by David Mader at 02:31 PM | (0) | Back to Main

February 22, 2004

Long Day

It's David - I'm in the T-dot at Dan's place, blogging on his laptop (which for some reason won't let me log in to Movable Type as myself).

We drove down after attending the Conservative Party leadership debate. I can't do much better than Adam Daifallah except to add that Stronach was much worse in person.

I might also add that the drive from Ottawa to Toronto is brutal, and I don't know how or why people do it; and that the Ottawa-Montreal route is far more civilized.

More to come.

Posted by David Mader at 10:01 PM | (7) | Back to Main

Nader to Run

Ralph Nader is once again running for president.

It's a little hard to understand what Nader hopes to achieve. In his soundbite announcing his candidacy Nader mentions his "desire to retire our supremely selected president," which is cute but ought to remind him of his own responsibility for throwing the 2000 election to Florida and the courts.

In any case, if defeating the President is Nader's prime objective, surely the goal would be better achieved - if it is to be achieved - by presenting one prominent alternative rather than two. My general line on Nader in 2000 is that there was obviously a reason so many voted for him and not for Gore, and so those votes could not be seen as simply 'stolen' from the Democrat. All the same, Nader - who stands squarely on the anti-liberal left (I use liberal in the true or classical sense) - will either neutralize certain issues for the Democratic candidate or expose him as insufficiently leftist for certain voters.

Traditionally, third party candidacies have served to alter the policy direction of one or both of the major parties. They have introduced new issues into the national political debate and have helped to reorient the major parties along new policy lines. No such issues stand ready to be exploited by Nader; his candidacy will not achieve, and cannot hope to achieve, such a reorientation. Anti-establishment leftist insurgency has already been largely internalized in the Democratic party; a Nader run will not help to redirect the Democrats towards that orientation, but will more likely draw leftist insurgents from the party, shifting it back towards the center.

In any case, a fearless prediction: Nader's returns will fall within the margin between the two major party candidates; in other words, if the Democrat wins, the Nader vote will not have offered a much greater victory, and if the President wins, the Nader vote will not have been enough to put the Democrat over the top. Embittered Democrats have likely learned their lesson - or the supposed lesson - in the 2000 election. Nader is now running not for the country or for the issues but for himself. As folks come to realize that, they'll be uninclined to give him much support.

Posted by David Mader at 10:51 AM | (1) | Back to Main

Iran

The returns from the Iranian election are in, and with most reform-minded candidates barred from standing - and widespread disenchantment with parliametary 'reformists' among the electorate - the clerical/regime parties look to take control of the legislature.

Over the weekend - I heard a report on Friday - the CBC was reporting the election straight, going so far as to claim that turnout was up on previous years, and repeating without skepticism the reports of the regime's Islamic Republic News Agency. An AP report in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen reported the same. I haven't been able to find either online; indeed, both the CBC and the AP are now reporting a turnout of somewhere between 45% and 50%, and their leads seem to be regime efforts to legitimize an illegitimate election process. From the AP story:

An Interior Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his offices were "under tremendous pressure" from conservatives to inflate the turnout to match the television and radio predictions.

No doubt. When a regime bans free elections, it's best to treat the reports of its 'news' agency with skepticism.

Posted by David Mader at 10:39 AM | (0) | Back to Main

February 20, 2004

It's a Start

Washington is sending a welcome signal to Tehran:

Risking a nationalist backlash, the United States criticized Iran's parliamentary elections on Friday as unfair because hard-liners had banned reformist candidates.
"Candidates have been barred from participating in the elections in an attempt to limit the choice of the Iranian people for their government. These actions do not represent free and fair elections and are not consistent with international norms," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters.

Right on.

Posted by David Mader at 03:49 PM | (0) | Back to Main

If Only

The American representative in Havana says the US has no plan to invade Cuba.

It's not entirely a laughing matter, I suppose; Washington says Cuba is fabricating the invasion threat in order to tighten political control. While the official line is that the Castro regime will eventually fall, it's certainly true that invasion would be the most straightforward way to liberate Cubans from that political control. So while it's not going to happen, it's not entirely illegitimate for Havana to talk about the eventuality.

If nothing else it's another example of the Wolfowitz Domino Effect, I think.

Posted by David Mader at 03:27 PM | (0) | Back to Main

WMD, Terrorism and Africa

Libya failed to disclose plutonium production as well as uranium importation, according to the IAEA.

Where, I wonder, did that uranium come from? And does it have anything to do with this?

Posted by David Mader at 03:15 PM | (0) | Back to Main

And If They Say No?

Officials from the US, the EU, the OAS, the Caribbean Community, France and Canada have presented Haitian President Aristide and opposition groups with a peace prosposal designed to resolve the current conflict through peaceful democratic reform.

The proposal is said to be largely based on a Caribbean Community initiative from earlier this year. There's no word, however, of how this international community would react to a rejection of the plan; nor is there any indication, in public, of how or whether the community would ensure or enforce the proposal.

I've made clear where I stand on the issue, I think; but while I'm happy to see a recognition of the importance of institutional reform to long-term stability, I'd like to see a more comprehensive plan for implementation.

Posted by David Mader at 03:12 PM | (0) | Back to Main

February 19, 2004

Tony

Apologies for the light blogging on my part, though my brother has more than made up for it with a series of excellent posts.

I've been on the road with Tony Clement for much of the week. Its been a good, but tiring week.

Tony was in Kitchener today for a major policy speech. It went over very well. Expect coverage in the Post tommorow. Among other things, he discussed:
-limiting the size of government as a % of GDP
-limiting the growth of government spending to inflation and population growth
-using the money freed up to: increase healthcare spending so that the feds pay 25% of costs, give the military more funding, pay down debt

Good speech. Great reaction. Momentum continues to build for Tony.

Posted by David Mader at 10:56 PM | (2) | Back to Main

Shoes on the Ground

James Dobbins has a piece in today's NYTimes recommending concrete steps for the international community to take to help Haiti:

• The international community, either the United Nations or the Organization of American States, should administer the balloting, not just offer assistance. No Haitian government will be able to organize elections with even minimal standards of fairness.[...]

• Some of this foreign aid should go toward strengthening Haitian institutions. Even the Clinton administration preferred to channel American aid through nongovernmental organizations, fearing that any money given to the Haitian government would be misspent. But no Haitian leader or leaders, however good their intentions, will be able to govern wisely if they have no institutions to rely on. We need to begin now to give Mr. Aristide's successors the wherewithal to govern.

That may not mean boots on the ground - troops - but it must mean shoes on the ground - administrators with education and expertise working for the Haitian people and government by creating and sustaining institutions. The US has shied away from traditional intervention, which means the deployment of a military force. In a sense they're right; that sort of intervention won't help matters. Real intervention means civil commtiment.

[Via HaitiPundit]

Posted by David Mader at 12:05 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Lame Duck

Yesterday Bourque was reporting that some disgruntled Liberals had begun entertaining plans to dump Paul Martin before the next election. Martin came into office with such fanfare and such widespread support that this kind of speculation seems ludicrous.

But then you read someting like this, and suddenly it doesn't seem so far-fetched.

The PMO has been hewing to the line that Martin himself was never involved in this massive, organized and partisan distribution of taxpayer money. They've been pushing the idea that Martin was detached from the corruption. If they're successful in selling that argument, it would make Martin the most detached 'executive' Canada's had in ages - a man who has no idea what his own aides and office are up to. He would make Ronald Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.

(Ok, that American politics reference was obscure and out of context; come on, you guys know Canadiana isn't my thing. Work with me here.)

Posted by David Mader at 11:52 AM | (0) | Back to Main

Chutzpah

EC Comission President Romano Prodi says that comparing present-day anti-Semitism to the situation prior to the Second World War is an "insult [to] the memory of the Shoah."

Certainly one must be careful with historical analogies, especially analogies of such gravity. Still, at what point would M. Prodi allow the comparison? Must gas chambers be constructed before we recognize the problem? Wasn't the lesson of the Shoa supposed to be the importance of speaking out early against discriminatory hatred?

Europe is not headed for another Jewish genocide - at least not in the near future -and it's wrong to bandy about that language when real genocide goes unchecked in other regions. Protesting semantics, however, does nothing to address the very real and very disturbing resurgence in European anti-Semitism.

Posted by David Mader at 09:31 AM | (1) | Back to Main

February 18, 2004

Scrambling

There's some activity in Washington as officials try to figure out a way to defuse the Haiti situation:

U.S. officials worry that the current crisis would only worsen if Aristide is forced to flee. One option being discussed internally is a transfer of power, with Aristide's consent, to a temporary governing board made up of Haitians who would run the country until a new president was elected...

U.S. interagency meetings on what to do about the situation in Haiti include representatives from the Homeland Security Department and the Coast Guard, the senior U.S. official said, asking not to be identified. This is an indication that officials are concerned about a possible new Haitian refugee crisis.

The problem with these sorts of plans is that they fail to address Haiti's most basic problem: poor government:

The men painstakingly shaping the wooden stay of a boat with a homemade tool reckon it'll be ready in two months to take to the seas and, hopefully, reach the shores of Florida.
These would-be migrants are preparing their escape from Haiti at a time of rebellion that poses the greatest threat yet to the presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But their reason for fleeing has been the same for many years: the lack of jobs and a future.

"There is no work here, no money, nothing to do," 26-year-old Dorelus Franco said Wednesday, standing guard over two half-finished boats as another man worked on the wooden stay with a sharpened piece of steel.

Joblessness and Aristide are not unrelated phenomena; on the contrary, the present economic situation is largely a consequence of the President's misrule. Any 'solution' which does not result in a strengthening of democratic institutions - including the court system and property rights - will simply delay another round of civil strife.

Posted by David Mader at 07:56 PM | (0) | Back to Main

E-Group Blog

I've been meaning to post a link to Blogs Canada's Election Blog, a group effort, which has ongoing coverage of the Adscam scandal and its effect on the upcoming general election.

Posted by David Mader at 02:05 PM | (0) | Back to Main

America Blocking Haitian Intervention?

The Telegraph suggests that tentative French plans to send an intervention force to Haiti are being opposed by Washington:

M de Villepin's proposal - however well-intentioned - has prompted another round of jostling between the leading powers, reminiscent of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

America considers Haiti within its Caribbean sphere of influence. France would like to expand its role as a leader in international diplomacy and United Nations-led interventions - both military and humanitarian. The UN has already sent a team to Haiti to assess its humanitarian needs, and the UN refugee agency is discussing ways to cope with a mass movement of displaced people if the violence continues.

Emphasis added. Reader M Simon notes - quite rightly - that America lacks the political will neessary for a proper intervention:

The problem is that America would need to take over the administration of the country totally for 30 years to get the schools right and turn out people capable of running day to day operations. Followed by a 20 year transition to total self rule. The cost would be enormus. The rewards very small.

I think that's true. Had the Washington line been that current American obligations overseas precluded the investment of resources necessary to make intervention worthwhile, I'd have given them credit. Instead they've simply ruled it out without explanation, and - as noted above - may in fact be preventing other nations from intervening.

The outrageous absurdity of Washington claiming a sphere of influence in which it refuses to act should be self evident.

I understand the political realities, and I understand that there's no political will for intervention and neo-colonization (or what you will). That's precisely why I'm not going to stop talking about it. At present Americans - and Canaidans and many others in the developed world - would rather allow their governments to waste billions of dollars on a pantheon of worthless domestic programs than contribute a fraction of that money to the active reconstruction of democracy and good government in the developing world. I think that has to change, and I'm going to keep talking about it until it does.

Posted by David Mader at 01:53 PM | (2) | Back to Main

Not Ready for Prime Time

Adam Daifallah has two interesting examples of amateurism on the part of the Belinda Stronach campaign.

I've been taking the Belinda campaign seriously from the beginning, and was initially impressed by the team and its work. The challenge has always been to add substance to the style, however, and after a number of weeks there's still very little substance. Allowing the kind of anecdotes Daifallah highlights, or failing to control them, suggests that Belinda's campaign has problems beyond policy.

Posted by David Mader at 01:42 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Helping Our Neighbors

The Montreal Gazette says that Haiti needs help - and that means intervention:

We must abandon from the outset any notion of perpetuating the regime of Jean-Bernard Aristide, who was restored to power a decade ago by an American force of 20,000 dispatched by former U.S. president Bill Clinton. Formerly much admired by the international left - including opinion-makers who had Mr. Clinton's ear - this former priest has turned out to be a tyrant scarcely less brutal than his predecessors...

The best strategy is to forge links quickly with the unarmed coalition of opposition parties, students, business leaders and trade unionists that has taken shape in Port-au-Prince. Calling themselves the Democratic Platform, they clearly represent the only bulwark against an armed coup.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has already ruled out sending a military force to maintain order. This creates an opportunity for other nations - including French-speaking Canada and France - to intervene, and quickly.

Yes. France is now said to be considering an intervention force, and Canada has committed aid. Unless there is a clear commitment to restore and maintain democracy in Haiti, these measures will only be temporary and superficial.

Posted by David Mader at 12:10 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Aristide

The man at the centre of his country's turmoil once gave hope to Haitians, only to take it away as an undemocratic and often brutal leader. Read more about Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Posted by David Mader at 12:37 AM | (0) | Back to Main

February 17, 2004

Not Good Enough

Haiti is now on the brink of civil war, and authorities are asking for international intervention to restore peace, though not necessarily to restore the status quo.

Colin Powell says no.

There is frankly no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces to put down the violence that we are seeing... We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect law and are bringing terrible violence to the Haitian people.

For goodness' sake, that's just not good enough. Powell is right to recognize that the insurgents are unfit to govern. He ought to recognize that Aristide and his own gang of thugs are equally unfit to govern. Government must be restored to Haiti, and that means intervention. The official line - that the US and other nations "may be willing to send peacekeepers once peace is restored" - is a condemnation of the Haitian people to further violence, and it is an abrogration of America's centuries-old self-declared responsibility for the security of the Western Hemisphere.

Had Powell protested America's inability to intervene given its other military commitments I'd have understood, but his outright dismissal of intervention even in the abstract is shameful. But the United States is not alone; every liberal nation has a responsibility to foster and protect democracy around the world, and the failure of France - Haiti's colonial ancestor - to consider intervention is equally deplorable.

American failure to address the Haitian situation unfortunately undermines the legitimacy of the Bush Doctrine, and international indifference to the situation undermines any pretence of a community of nations or a liberal order. Where is the liberal power who will make the investment - or the simple outlay - necessary to restore and protect democracy in Haiti?

LATER (20:47 EST): I don't know why it didn't occur to me to look, but there is (of course) a Haiti Pundit. Link via Instapundit.

Posted by David Mader at 07:53 PM | (4) | Back to Main

The Time is Now

The concensus on all sides of the current Liberal scandal seems to be that a general election, previously expected in May, should be pushed off to the fall. In a meandering column, the National Post's Don Martin lays out the logic, although he suggests that Prime Minister Martin will pay the price one way or the other.

The Opposition seems to have adopted the line repeated over and over this past weekend that voters must have all the facts before they go to the polls. This was the message delivered by countless callers to Paul Martin as he appeared on call-in shows and made other media appearances. I think, though, that from a purely partisan perspective the Opposition Conservatives are making a mistake. Those callers didn't want Martin to delay so that, given all the information, they could vote against him; on the contrary, many wanted to know the whole story so that they could excuse Martin himself and so return him to office.

Right now Canadians are very, very angry with the ruling Liberals, to the point that they're considering casting Conservative ballots. Because the new Conservative Party is untested, unproven and leaderless, and because voting Liberal has become almost rote, this makes Canadians nervous. They want a delay to ease their consciences. A delayed vote is a huge victory for Martin, and he must privately be thanking his lucky stars that the Opposition has bought, nay demanded that he be given, more time to excuse himself.

Michael Bliss has an op/ed in the Post arguing for a snap election on more general rather than partisan grounds. According to partisan or general criteria, however, I think the Tories are making a big mistake.

[Both links require subscription.]

Posted by David Mader at 07:33 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Liberal Monopoly

Canadian blogger Stephen Taylor has a nifty graphic that's well worth a look.

[Thanks to Elana for the pointer.]

Posted by David Mader at 06:28 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Casualties and Fatalities

David Adesnik notes that the casualty rate among troops in Iraq is falling much faster than the fatality rate, and wonders what - if anything - the discrepancy means.

I think that sort of pattern is consistent with Coalition predictions made last fall, especially after the capture of Hussein. While attacks were expected to continue, the ranks of 'insurgents' were expected to thin over time as opposition to the Coalition presence lessened and as anti-Coalition fighters were killed. I imagine there's been a considerable amount of the former, leaving the anti-Coalition forces with far fewer fighters; those who are left are the most passionately anti-American, and in particular the most dedicated remnants of the Iraqi army as well as trained foreign terrorists.

In other words, there are far fewer anti-Coalition fighters, but the remaining fighters are far more skilled than the average of a few months ago. The result: anti-Coalition attacks are fewer, but more deadly. Casualty rates fall, but fatality rates remain relatively steady.

Posted by David Mader at 03:37 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Detailed Poll Numbers

The latest Ipsos-Reid poll shows the Liberals at 35 and the Tories at 26. The detailed breakdown is more interesting, though.

Only in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces are the Liberals significantly holding onto support. They continue to lead 41 to 26 in Ontario and 47 to 32 in the Atlantic. And even this is a drop from the over 50% they recently had.

Everywhere else, though, things are looking pretty bad.

Remember back when Martin was hoping to pick up seats in Quebec and the West. Several weeks ago, that looked credible. Today it looks like a joke.

In Quebec, the Bloc leads the Liberals 45 to 31. In BC, the Tories now lead 32 to 27. In Alberta it isn't even close. Tories 58, Liberals 20.

If the election comes this spring, McClellan is toast. So is Brison.

Posted by David Mader at 03:10 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Ask not for whom the bell tolls...

"We've never seen, in 20 years of polling, such a drop in support of an incumbent party during a non-election time." -John Wright, Ipsos-Reid

NOTE: I'm paraphrasing from something I just saw on CBC, so this may not be word for word, but it does capture the essence of what he said.

Things don't look so good for Martin.

Posted by David Mader at 02:37 PM | (0) | Back to Main

That's gotta hurt

Can you hear that ripping sound coming from Ottawa?

That's the sound of John Bryden tearing Paul Martin a new a**hole.

He's leaving the Liberals because they are no longer a party of ideas but a party of cynicism.

He disagrees with a lot of Tory policies but believes that it is still a party of ideas and optimism. A party that believes in building a better Canada. Unlike the Liberals.

Ouch.

Posted by David Mader at 01:36 PM | (0) | Back to Main

It begins

"I can't be in the Liberal caucus under the circumstances because, basically, what I've said is I've lost confidence in the prime minister and I've lost confidence in the Liberal party" - John Bryden, MP

Me too.

Posted by David Mader at 01:09 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Adscam

Its official. The growing Liberal scandal shall henceforth be known as Adscam.

So says Andrew Coyne, anyway.

I like it.

Posted by David Mader at 01:01 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Bryden to Tories?

(via bluedraft)

Ontario MP John Bryen has just announced that he is quitting the Liberals after 10 years in office.

He has hinted that he may join the Tories.

A news conference has been scheduled for this afternoon.

This scandal almost makes you feel bad for Scott Brison, who looks sure to lose his seat. Almost, though not quite.

Posted by David Mader at 12:45 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Wishful Thinking

Paul Tuns says that I'm doing some wishful thinking:

I know things are beginning to look grim for the Liberals but 1) never underestimate the ability of a Conservative Party to mess things up and 2) don't forget the Liberals and their willing accomplices in the media will say to the Canadian people, "Yes, we (the Liberals) were involved in an unfortunate and unseemly series of transactions in Quebec but at least we (they) don't want to take away your healthcare, abortion rights and clean rivers."

Good point. Damian Penny agrees, quoting Christie Blatchford:

In Toronto, in Ottawa, in the central vote-heavy part of the nation, that sound you hear is the hiss of dissipating anger.

I first heard it myself on Saturday night, or less than a week after the full sponsorship scandal engulfed the PM and his government, at dinner with some bright professional friends.

They said all the right things, of course. They just aren't going to do the right thing, which is to vote anybody but Liberal.

They were deeply saddened by the revelations in Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's report; they were shocked; they were even angry. But one by one, they veered back to the Liberal mothership. "Prime Minister Stephen Harper?" someone said with a delicate eastern shudder. "What are the alternatives?" someone added. Besides, said one of the men, "Don't you believe Martin when he says he didn't know anything?" One of the women muttered ominously, "Abortion."

And let's throw some David Frum into the mix for good measure:

The Quebec-based Liberals have held power in Canada for all but 31 of the past 108 years – a better record than either Mexico’s Institutional Revolution Party or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Under the circumstances, it is a wonder that they don’t steal even more than they do. At the same time, it’s also a wonder that Canadians have tolerated the stealing as long as they have.

Quite. In my defense, I think I chose my words rather carefully. The conclusion "[The Conservatives] might find themselves in government sooner than even they expected" ought immediately to have provoked the rejoinder "or they might not." In any case, my substantive point was that the poll bounce the Conservatives are enjoying seems mainly due to discontent with the Liberals rather than, uh, content with the Conservative reaction. If the Tories want to overcome that institutional obstacle to government, and that latent bias in Central Canadian parlours, they need to step it up a notch.

Posted by David Mader at 10:03 AM | (0) | Back to Main

February 16, 2004

Free Fall

CTVNews is reporting that the Liberals have fallen to 35% support, with the Conservatives up to 27% and the NDP relatively steady at 17%. That 35% bar is generally seen as the bare minimum needed to avoid a minority government.

Political correspondent Craig Oliver pointed out that there was no news on the scandal over the weekend - except for the PM's radio show on the subject. The Tories have been lucky to pick up support, but they need to do more to demonstrate their readiness to govern. They might find themselves in government sooner than even they expected.

Posted by David Mader at 11:06 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Mad As Hell

Dan's away from his computer but he asks me to blog this piece by James Travers in today's Toronto Star. Money 'graph:

A suddenly suspect challenger who split a party while successfully toppling a sitting prime minister now stands vulnerable to those who lost in an epic power struggle. Canadians are furious and disaffected Liberals are pointing their own fingers and Martin should expect much more of the same in the weeks ahead.

And:

Last night's performance, no matter how necessary, calming or even brave, only confirms how fast this government has fallen. Far from enjoying a honeymoon, far from being carried toward a spring election on the shoulders of an adoring nation, Martin was verbally beaten up by callers who made it clear they are not going to take it any more.

That's not the debate Martin hoped to have with the country. He wanted to talk about social policy, building a 21st century economy, the democratic deficit and this country's place in the world.

That's not what the country wants to hear now. Liberals have been caught with their hand in the till and usually docile Canadians won't listen to anything else until the guilty are punished.

Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep.

Posted by David Mader at 10:14 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Helping Native Students

Though I was critical of today's National Post comment page earlier, I should note that they have an excellent leader on Queen's University's proposed affirmative action program for native students. The Post writes (subscription only):

There are good and bad ways to help tackle the problem. And Queen's University's newly announced decision to set up a separate application program for aboriginal students falls into the latter category. As the Post's Heather Sokoloff reported on Wednesday, the school is planning to reserve 10 undergraduate spots exclusively for natives every year. For applicants in this stream, the university's normal academic standards will be waived.

The basic problem with this sort of program is the same as with any affirmative action scheme: Race-tagged set-asides are discriminatory, and fly in the face of the merit principle.

The leader goes on to discuss why so few natives are graduating secondary school, and what might be done about it.

When I posted on the topic last week I wrote that "simply getting the discussion out into the open will be a valuable development in Canadian society." Hopefully the Post's leader will be the start of a forthright discussion of native education, and native governance in general. Kasra Nejatian, Maderblog's own Dan Mader and all those who've helped get this issue the attention it deserves should feel proud.

Posted by David Mader at 05:05 PM | (0) | Back to Main

What Liberal Media?

From the BBC:

The Washington Post London correspondent Glenn Frankel, a Pulitzer Prize winner and former editor of the Post's Sunday magazine, defended his newspaper's editorial judgment.

"We've been down this road many, many times before. We are extremely reluctant to follow this kind of thing up unless there is a really, really compelling public interest. We don't feel there is any reason to until it reaches a threshold.

"All we have at the moment is that the woman's parents, who are republicans, don't like Senator Kerry.

"In any case, nobody would be too shocked if Kerry lied about an affair. Even if someone came to us with photographs we still wouldn't run it. Lying to Don Imus [the radio host to whom Kerry gave his initial denial] is not a federal offence."

Hey, that's a good campaign slogan: "John Kerry - he's no felon!"

Of course, the implication is that Bush's military service - or rather his alleged non-service - is a felony, and Bush therefore a criminal.

Posted by David Mader at 02:58 PM | (1) | Back to Main

Nothing Else to Say?

I must say that in my newspaper reading I was struck by the fact that, despite it's news coverage, the National Post had precisely no items on its comment pages dedicated to the current Liberal scandal. Perhaps the realities of a Monday paper preclude more topical coverage; still, if the country's leading (and perhaps only remaining) organ of conservative opinion has nothing to say - despite the continued outrage of Canadians - then perhaps this brouhaha will indeed blow over.

LATER (11:48 EST): I should note, in fairness, that John Ivison had a commentary piece below the fold on the front page - and quite a good piece at that. Also, what was on the comment pages was quite good as well. Still, there's something unusual about turning to the comment pages to find, well, nothing about quite a big scandal. But maybe it's just me.

Posted by David Mader at 11:39 AM | (0) | Back to Main

Tuition

I picked up the papers today for the first time in months - I generally get my news online, which is why it's skewed towards my interest (US news) rather than my context (Canadian news). Generally interesting reading, although it's frustrating to see the exact same story appear on the front page of Southam's national paper (the National Post) and its local broadsheet (the Montreal Gazette).

In any case, the Gazette had a two-page spread (not available online, as far as I can tell) on the proposed tuition hikes for Quebec university students. There's a column on the issue available here. Student groups - which are representative much in the way the Canadian Senate is representative (which is to say nominally rather than actually) - are raising a predictable stink. University administrators, including McGill's own Heather Munroe-Blum, point out that they simply do not have the money to remain competitive institutions of learning.

It's largely left to the columnists and reporters to point out the injustice of taxing those who do not attend university to fund the education of those who do. The student organizations argue that raising tuitions will prevent poorer students from having full access, but their logic is flawed. Students without the pecuniary means should be sponsored, but they can only be sponsored if students with the means are charged something approximating the actual cost of tuition. The current situation - wherein the rich are subsidized by the poor - is as inequitable as it is illiberal. Far from standing for social justice, student organizations protesting tuition hikes champion only entitlement and privilege.

Posted by David Mader at 11:35 AM | (4) | Back to Main

Haiti

The crisis continues, as "former exiled paramilitaries" join the rebel force attempting to oust aristide.

One of those reportedly is Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a former Haitian soldier who headed army death squads in 1987 and a militia known as the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti, or FRAPH. The group allegedly killed and maimed hundreds of people between 1991 and 1994.

Several people in Gonaives said they saw Chamblain, who fled to the Dominican Republic in the mid-'90s.

Also spotted was Guy Philippe, a former police chief who fled to the Dominican Republic after being accused by the Haitian government of fomenting a coup in 2002...

"We don't have any platform," he said. "Our fight is for a better country ... We are fighting for the presidency, we're fighting for the people, for our convictions."

Philippe said the rebels have an arsenal of weapons and he doesn't think it's in U.S. interests to pursue another intervention.

"We don't want to fight with them," he said. "We are fighting for our own cause."

In this fight between tyrants and thugs, the Haitian people cannot but lose. Secretary Powell is quoted as saying that the US and other nations "will accept no outcome that ... attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti." That's not good enough. Violence and misrule will continue to destroy Haiti until there are boots on the ground - the boots of soldiers who keep the peace by force of arms, and the boots of administrators who create and maintain the institutions of democracy and liberty.

That's not imperialism, for a pitched battle between tyrants and would-be tyrants is in the interest of no honest Haitian. We have a responsibility to our neighbors; it's time to help.

Posted by David Mader at 09:46 AM | (0) | Back to Main

Damned Communists

Or, John Kerry's Legacy

In America, according to myth (and a fair amount of history), with enough hard work and dedication a man can achieve his dream.

A man can dream all he wants, but he cannot defeat the government of Vietnam:

With directions from the Internet and an old Russian truck motor, a Vietnamese farmer fulfilled his dream of making his own helicopter. The job took two friends, seven years and $30,000.

Now, military officials say he can't fly it, because he didn't get approval to build it, and they confiscated the makeshift copter.

"It's my hobby," farmer Le Van Danh complained by telephone Monday from his hometown of Tay Ninh, in Vietnam's southwest. "I will do whatever I can, including going to the prime minister, to get the permission."

True, he admits, the helicopter is still a work in progress: It only rises about 18 inches off the ground. "We are in the process of a fifth test of moving forward and backward, left and right," Danh said.

Getting approval to keep working on the chopper won't be easy. No Vietnamese individual has ever been granted a government license to build an aircraft, said Le Cong Tinh, director of the Air Transport Safety division of the country's Civil Aviation Administration.

The farmer said he won't give up, vowing to sell his house or 25 acres of land if that's what it takes to get the license. "If I cannot do it, my children or my grandchildren will do it," he said.

May God bless those who dream. And may the enemies of innovation be damned.

Posted by David Mader at 09:38 AM | (0) | Back to Main

The Last Word on Triumph

The National Post:

If the Canadian psyche is so fragile that it can be shaken by a puppet, Mr. O'Brien is the least of our problems.

Indeed. It reminds me of a line from Mark Steyn's latest online piece on all things Canadian:

The fact is, as Pete McMartin points out, bribing indifferent Quebecers to allow their festivals to be festooned with maple leafs isn’t a failure of the system: it is the system. If it’s considered bad form to mention that, we ought at least to be allowed to give subliminal expression to the thought through snide cracks on NHL broadcasts or by sniggering when a Canadian government-subsidised US celebrity comes up here and sneers at la belle province. I hasten to add I speak as a man who loves Quebec, who’s determined to be the last anglo living here, who has little time for anglo whining about signs and hospitals, who sees no reason why the Quebec motor vehicles department should provide service in English, etc, etc. But the fact is paying cronies to deck the hall with boughs of maple isn’t the fraud; the Trudeaupian state is the fraud, and the flag business merely a logical manifestation thereof.

That's some pretty heavy Canadiana for Maderblog, and I apologize to American readers. I focus on these issues only because I think that they are, for Canada, terribly important. And because unless they're addressed - by the populace as well as the government - there won't be any Canadian issues worth mentioning at all.

Posted by David Mader at 09:32 AM | (0) | Back to Main

I'm Just Asking

What liberal media?

Posted by David Mader at 09:22 AM | (0) | Back to Main

February 15, 2004

Different Nations, Different Worlds

Is this how Canadians really think?

Canadians are non-aggressive by nature. We are non-confrontational in our world dealings. Bush, with his international, in-your-face response to the horrors of 9/11, has stirred up a hornet's nest which we would walk over broken glass to avoid and which frightens the pants off us.

The very acts of 9/11 and the American response, including the war in Iraq, have brought into focus the frightening world we live in. Just how dangerous, how violent and how deep the hatreds, how determined and deadly the terrorists, has been exposed.

President Bush has chosen to react to 9/11 without subtlety. He has not engaged the world in dialogue designed to keep violence to a minimum. He has stumped the enemy, like some gunfighter out of a western movie, out to fight. If the rest of the townsfolk won't help, let them hide under their porches.

President Bill Clinton before him played a delicate game with international terrorism, bombing those suspected of inflicting damage on U.S. institutions just enough to send a message and maintain American pride. The policy, unlike that of the Bush administration, was designed to keep the lid on. To show strength, but to buy time to attempt solutions which, if workable at all, take time.

Canadians were comfortable with this.

And that Clintonian policy, with which Canadians were so comfortable, worked wonders, didn't it? I'm not surprised to find myself among the very, very few Canadians who admire the President. I am surprised to discover - assuming the column's assertions are correct - that Canadians have so massively failed to understand the consequence of September 11. To bemoan a lack of 'subtlety' is to deny the gravity of that terrible attack. To condemn confrontation is to ignore the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the destruction of two brutal regimes. To counsel Clintonian diplomacy is to confer an unwarranted legitimacy on murderous terrorists and their accomplices.

The columnist concludes that Canadian enmity towards Bush is the result of the president's enmity towards Canada, and in this he might not be entirely wrong. In fact it's difficult to tell exactly where the columnist's own feelings lie. But if he's correct in saying that Canadians resent the realities of a world at war, then Canada deserves no better than to cower under the damned porch, unable and unwilling to stand for freedom, unloved and unwanted by those who dare to fight.

[Story via Neale News]

LATER (18:16 EST): Let me make clear that I do not in fact agree with the columnist about the roots of Canadian animosity towards the president. Remember that many Democrats and liberals exhibited a passionate disliking for Bush during the 2000 campaign - to put it mildly - and many Canadians (including then-Prime Minster Chretien) openly shared the sentiment. I think, in fact, that Canadian anti-Americanism and more specifically anti-conservatism shares many factors with the American-liberal phenomenon. (I don't mean to suggest that American liberals are anti-American, but rather that if Bush were not president Canadian anti-Americanism would be much less pronounced).

I don't know exactly what those shared factors are, but I think reactions to the War on Terror are a manifestation rather than a root cause. In short: I dearly hope, and largely believe, that the columnist is wrong. His is not an unreasonable supposition, however, and that's what bothers me.

Posted by David Mader at 05:50 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Haiti

Clashes between rebels - many of whom are no more than criminal thugs - and government forces - many of whom are also no more than criminal thugs - continue in Haiti. The main route into the country from the neighboring Dominican Republic has reportedly been closed, preventing the distribution of food aid.

The situation seems at an impasse: opposition parties will not participate in elections they say (quite rightly) are deeply flawed; rebel groups will not lay down their arms while aristide remains president; and aristide himself refuses to leave before the end of his 'term' in 2006. Haiti is in as much need of foreign intervention now as it was ten years ago, when the Clinton administration restored aristide after a military coup. With American forces already stretched with Afghani and Iraqi deployments, and with the legacy of installing a disastrous ruler, Washington is in no hurry to get involved.

Haiti is an issue for the Americas, and now more than ever this hemisphere needs a second power ready to intervene to secure democracy and freedom. In time the Latin American republics will have that capacity, but they don't yet. Canada's inability to field a stabilization force to one of our American neighbors illustrates the extent of the nation's decline. We were once committed to democracy in the western hemisphere; now we lack both the commitment and the capacity to do anything about it.

Posted by David Mader at 05:37 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Vietnam? Bring It.

Mark Steyn says John Kerry would be crazy to run on the past.

Here we are two years later, and [the Democrats are] running on biography all over again. But this time their chosen biography is Vietnam, and for many Americans, and especially boomer Democrats, that's far more psychologically complicated. Look at Kerry's stump speech: ''We band of brothers,'' he says, indicating his fellow veterans. ''We're a little older, we're a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for this country.'' Thirty years ago, he came back from Vietnam and denounced his ''band of brothers'' as a gang of drug-fueled torturers, rapists and murderers.

These versions are not reconcilable. When he was palling around with Jane Fonda in the '70s, he hated the military. It wasn't just that he opposed the war but that he accused his ''band of brothers'' of a level of participation in war crimes and civilian atrocities unmatched by the Japanese, the Nazis and the Soviets. If he'd said, ''We band of brothers . . . We're a little older, we're a little grayer, but we still know how to get high, murder the gooks and rape their womenfolk,'' it would at least have been consistent with his congressional testimony.

You might want to read the whole thing.

Posted by David Mader at 01:12 PM | (3) | Back to Main

"Let's Move On"

American Democrats? Nope: Canadian Liberals.

Unfortunately for Matt and those like him, Canadians do indeed seem to "Give a Damn." Perhaps they understand that the scandal is "incredibly important" not only "for the Liberals and the election," but also for the country.

"Move on" has become a mantra among liberals in the US who are all too happy to dwell on conservative failings, but who feel that liberal indiscretions are unworthy of public discussion. It's crass partisanship, sure, but it's also intellectually unbecoming. So sorry, Matt - I think I, and many others, will dwell on this massive betrayal of trust by the Liberal Party and government for quite some time.

Posted by David Mader at 11:08 AM | (3) | Back to Main

February 14, 2004

Willing Accomplices

Britain is seeing a tremendous increase in anti-semitic incidents, according to a report published in today's Telegraph. Neo-Nazi and Islamist groups are both - perhaps together - targetting prominent Jews with hate mail and property assault. The home of one prominent Briton, former Labour Party secretary Lord Triesman, has been attacked on twelve separate occasions. The attacks are so threatening that Scotland Yard advised him to erect a 10-foot high fence around his property. You can guess what happened next.

The problem became so bad that he was advised by Special Branch to erect a 10ft fence around his home in Dartmouth Park, north London. The fence was dismantled in December, however, because it fell foul of the planning rules of the Labour-run Camden borough council.

Lord Camden should tell the council that unless they can guarantee the security of his property, he'll do as he damn well pleases. He also ought - though of course he can't - tell them that in the absence of a fence he'll be forced to protect his property with arms.

To obstruct security measures in the face of violent anti-semitic attacks is to be complicit in anti-semitic attacks.

Posted by David Mader at 08:35 PM | (0) | Back to Main

14 point swing

The scandal has started to bite:

The latest Ipsos-Reid poll reports that Liberal support has dropped 9 points since their last poll on January 15. Tory support has climbed 5 points.

Its still 39 to 24, but the Tories always, always closes in on the Liberals during a campaign. 15 points is way closer than anyone even dared to dream they'd be before the campaign started. If the Liberals drop below 35% then we get into minority government territory. And after the way Martin built up expectations, a minority government would be an abject failure.

Posted by David Mader at 12:23 AM | (3) | Back to Main

February 13, 2004

Polls

Michael Duffy, CTV's political commentator, just said that there are new polls coming out tonight at tommorow.

Initial rumours are that they will show a huge swing against the government.

I'd guess at least a 20 point drop in confidence in Martin. The key question is, where will this support go?

Posted by David Mader at 04:31 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Revenge is Sweet

Anyone glancing at the front page of today's National Post would have seen a great big knife embedded in Paul Martin's back. Not a literal knife, of course, but one hell of a metaphorical knife.

It has now emerged that Akaash Maharaj, liberal party policy director, warned Paul Martin in February 2002 about potential fraud in the sponsorship program. That's several months before Martin would have us believe he knew anything about the scandal.

But there's more to this story.

You see, Maharaj was not just policy director. He also ran for president of the Liberal Party, with the vote taking place the same weekend Martin became leader. Maharaj was known to be running for a long time, and so stayed neutral in the leadership. Just before the convention, though, when Martin knew he had things wrapped up and so didn't have to worry about who he pissed off, Martin got one of his cronies to jump into the race against Maharaj and got his delegates to abandon Maharaj, who until then was to be acclaimed.

Martin's guy, of course, won. This was widely seen as Martin screwing over someone who wasn't even working against him but had made the fatal sin of staying neutral.

Now it seems that Martin's vindictiveness is coming back to haunt him. Maharaj just happened to have what sure looks like evidence that Martin is lying about when he knew of the scandal. Of course, Maharaj has denied that he was the one who leaked the letter. But then, he WOULD do that, wouldnt' he?

A few months ago Martin was secure enough that he could alienate whoever he wanted. Now he suddenly need all the friends he can get.

Posted by David Mader at 04:30 PM | (0) | Back to Main

The Smoking Gun

The next election campaign may well revolve around the questions: What did Martin know and when did he know it?

Well, the ansers are already starting to come out: he knew way more than he's letting on and he knew it a long time ago.

A member of Martin's own caucus has now admitted that this subject was discussed at a caucus meeting (that Martin attended) way back in 1999.

So, the question for the Prime Minister is, is he accusing his own MP of making this up?

NOTE: I now can't seem to find the right link. I'll post it when I find it.

Posted by David Mader at 04:11 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Tony on the Scandal

Dave has asked why the Conservative Party leadership candidates are refraining from weighing in on the scandal rapidly engulfing the Chretien/Martin liberals (fiberals?) in Ottawa.

I was Tony Clement speak last night at the nomination meeting of Josh Cooper (the next MP for Thornhill!!!).

Tony made a great speech, showing how he has really improved since his run for the provincial leadership. He spoke for 15 minutes without notes, and showed real passion.

More importantly, though, he took on the scandal head on. First, he ridiculed the idea that Martin represents a real change: its the same government, the same lack of ethics.

Next, starting what will almost certainly become an opposition trend, he called on the Prime Minister to wait for a full investigation before calling an election. When Canadians go to the polls, we have a right to know what really went on.

Posted by David Mader at 04:02 PM | (3) | Back to Main

Nothing to Say?

Canada is facing its greatest political crisis in recent memory, and yet three people who hope to lead the opposition Conservative Party to the government benches have nothing to say about it. Not on their campaign websites; not on GoogleNews Canada; not on TV - as far as I've seen.

Hey, folks: you want to lead us? Then for goodness' sake, lead. For the first time in ages we're listening. Talk to us.

Posted by David Mader at 02:03 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Why It Would Matter

In the comments to my post on the Kerry kerfuffle Nick challenges me to contrast the immorality of an affair with the indescretions President Bush has allegedly had. He sent me a list which I'll address fisk-style when I have a minute, but in the interim - and so it doesn't look like I'm ignoring the question - I point to today's Bleat by the inimitable James Lileks. Lileks hints at the difference between Bush's past indescretions and what may be - but may very well not be - Kerry's much more recent affair. He also touches on why an affair is a much different matter than, say, a DUI rap.

Posted by David Mader at 10:14 AM | (0) | Back to Main

The Counter-Offensive

Lots of people, especially in Canada, love to disparage Conrad Black. Those people have been having a field day with the recent corporate controversy involving Black's Hollinger group. Just because Black is unpopular with the chattering classes doesn't mean he's guilty of corporate malfeasance, however. That's a point now being made by at least two men involved in Hollinger who have stepped forward to champion Black's case.

In Canada, Peter White, co-COO of Hollinger Inc., has an article in the Globe and Mail addressing the roots of the controversy and particularly the actions of a holding group which appears to be forcing the issue in order to prompt a sale of Hollinger International's assets. Money quote:

Nearly eight months after the beginning of the investigation, there have been no actual findings of wrong-doing by any regulator or court of law.

Meanwhile, across the pond, Mark Steyn takes up Lord Black's case in the Spectator (registration required). Steyn's piece is more personal, defending Black and Barbara Amiel against some of the more vicious attacks they've recently faced and predicting that we haven't seen the last of this last press baron:

That’s Conrad Black’s business history in a nutshell. As his various current chastisers would say, follow the money. At one point or another, just about every blue-chip corporation in Canada except the Hudson’s Bay Company passed through his control and, in every case, he either got rid of them or, as with Hollinger, converted them into a newspaper company. In the late 20th century, not many fellows with an eye on the bottom line would take a big pile of dough from grocery stores, natural gas, farm implements, etc. and sink it into newspapers. Beating swords into plough-shares is one thing, beating your plough-shares into words is another.

That list of flagship Hollinger papers in the brief golden age - the National Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Jerusalem Post - suggests Black's nack for the newspaper business, and the heights he reached. I don't know whether Lord Black will rise again, but I know that many of the finest English-language journalists around today have worked for Black, and admire not only who he was, but what he did. They'll keep doing it too.

Posted by David Mader at 01:15 AM | (1) | Back to Main

February 12, 2004

Another Intern

Drudge is breaking a story about Kerry and an intern, along with interesting suggestions that the scandal was not only known to the Kerry, Clark and Dean camps for some time, but that it has already influenced the Democratic nomination race.

My completely unfounded prediction about something that has yet to be confirmed: It won't matter.

Oh, sure, the revelation that Kerry is a philanderer win the president back some conservatives who are once again falling for his political rope-a-dope (or not: discuss). But core Democrats have long since decided that infidelity is not only acceptable for a Commander in Chief, it's probably desirable. Middle Americans will take it into consideration when going to the polls, but they'll likely still vote based on who they feel, as they cast their ballot, would make a better president as they define it. Were this still 2000 - or any date in the September 10 universe - infidelity would probably be a big deal. We'd have to get worked up about something. But I hope - dearly - that give the security situation Americans will be more concerned with a president's capacity to govern in a dangerous world than an ability to keep it in his pants.

Does infidelity suggest character issues to the detriment of a potential president? I think so. But I also many Americans aren't so sure of the connection. Maybe this story, once confirmed, will sink Kerry. Or maybe, like Clinton in '92, he'll ride it out, casting it as crass politics. And maybe the electorate will agree.

MORE (14:29 EST): My take seems to be something like the standard conservative response - at least at the Corner. Start here and scroll up. I think conservative Republicans realize that for better or for worse they get more excercised about infidelity than the other two thirds of Americans, and that shouting about it last time did them no real favours.

Posted by David Mader at 02:14 PM | (2) | Back to Main

February 11, 2004

Slow Day, Busy Day

There doesn't seem to be much going on in the world today - well, there is, but nothing that demands my commentary. Well, I suppose nothing ever really demands my commentary, but that's the illusion under which this blog operates, so we'll stick with it. Anyway, there could very well be important things going on that do demand my commentary, but they're not quite as pressing as the mid-term papers I have due on Friday. So I'm busy with those.

More later.

Posted by David Mader at 07:12 PM | (4) | Back to Main

February 10, 2004

Clark Out

Wesley Clark is dropping out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Who'd have thought Clark would have out-classed Howard Dean? Well, a lot of people, I suppose.

[Via Instapundit]

Posted by David Mader at 11:47 PM | (0) | Back to Main

A Free Market For Innovation

Reader Aaron W. points me to this essay on what the Internet is and what it isn't, and what that means for the old-media industries and governments which would try to regulate it. The piece is colloquial, which is good in that it's perhaps more accessible that it would otherwise be, but bad in that it results in an understatement of some of its points which I'd have liked to have seen fleshed out a bit more. Still, it's well worth the read.

Posted by David Mader at 11:04 PM | (0) | Back to Main

A Timely Cartoon

From tomorrow's Telegraph:

More ghosts than just that one, I think.

I actually really enjoy the Telegraph cartoons' use of literature rather than dialogue boxes. I imagine this is a British vs. North American thing, though I don't read other British papers enough to know. I can't think of an American paper - or cartoonist - which (who) approaches cartoons the same way.

Of course the drawback is that you get things like an unintended (?) comparison of President Bush to literature's most indecisive character. But I like it nonetheless.

Posted by David Mader at 10:40 PM | (2) | Back to Main

Responsibility

While conservative critics have panned President Bush's appearance on Meet the Press, the White House has turned it into a campaign ad.

And not a half-bad one, either.

UPDATE (22:16 EST): The link isn't working - not sure if it's a server error or what - so you'll have to take my word for it. I'll try to find a working link.

Posted by David Mader at 10:07 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Becoming Henry the Fifth

Historian John Lewis Gaddis has a new book forthcoming which places George W. Bush among the preeminent grand-strategists of American history:

Gaddis knows the latter name may bring a number of his colleagues up short. Critics charge that President Bush is a lightweight, Gaddis laments, and they do so because the president is a generalist who prefers the big picture to its details. Over lunch at Mory's, Yale's tweedy private dining club, Gaddis suggests that academics underrate Bush because they overvalue specialized knowledge. In reality, as his new book asserts, after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush underwent ''one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V.''

The Bush doctrine is more serious and sophisticated than its critics acknowledge -- but it is also less novel, Gaddis maintains. Three of its core principles -- preemptive war, unilateralism, and American hegemony -- actually hark back to the early 19th century, to the time of John Quincy Adams...

The Bush administration, marvels Gaddis, undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more than a ''snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945,'' Gaddis says.

Despite the dark predictions of critics, Gaddis writes, so far the military action in Iraq has produced ''a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia . . .; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates.'' Indeed, Gaddis writes, the United States has emerged ''as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on Sept. 11, 2001.''

Read the whole thing - I know I'm now eager to read Gaddis' book. Any historical analogy is suspect, of course, so the whole discussion about whether Bush is acting like Adams is a bit silly; still, the basic point - that Bush is breathing life into tried-and-true American foreign-policy practices - seems sound. Of course a lot of people would have been just as opposed to 19th century unilateralism as they are to its 21st century echo. Them's the breaks, I guess; as Gaddis points out, and despite the caterwauling of - well, of so many folks, the United States is in many ways more powerful - and the world in many ways safer - than on September 11, 2001.

[Via Daniel Drezner]

Posted by David Mader at 05:04 PM | (0) | Back to Main

Colouring the Canadian Campus

Queen's University is introducing an affirmative action policy which establishes a distinct set of criteria for the admission of aboriginal students:

The policy in question would allow for the admittance of 10 aboriginal students to the Faculty of Arts and Science under a separate process from the general admission.

Christine Overall, associate dean of Arts and Science and the co-chair of the Aboriginal Council, said in a previous interview with the Journal the policy was put into place to compensate for the extraordinary under-representation of students at the University.

She had said the council wanted to ensure high entrance grades do not discourage aboriginal students from attending the University...

Dan Mader, the president of Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association, said the admission policy is a shocking example of institutionalized racism that has no place at a Canadian university and will not help aboriginal people.

“It is a laudable goal,” Mader said. “The problem is that once you start [admitting people based on race, the question is, where do you stop?” Mader said if special treatment is given to one group, other groups will start demanding it.

Mader said the government needs to start improving the education opportunities at the reserve level so that special policies would not be needed at the university level. He said he is against policies that “lower the standards” and make special exemptions for a specific group.

“If we ensure it is definitely a temporary program, it would be okay,” Mader said.

“My great uncle attended Queen’s because it was one