Democratized Foreign Aid Plan Not Everything It's Cracked Up To Be

British Tory policy could founder on lack of public awareness

As countries around the world continue to search for newer, more innovative solutions to the puzzle posed by poverty in the developing world, David Cameron and Britain's Conservative party have come up with what seems like a novel solution:

Let the people decide.

The British people, that is.

In the proposed project, British citizens would be granted the opportunity to vote on foreign aid projects. 40 million Pounds Sterling would be placed into a "My Aid" fund, which may or may not be increased to match the amounts raised by private donors.

The plan would then establish a website and outline the projects being considered, their history, and their successes. British citizens would then receive the opportunity to vote on those projects and be continually updated on their choice via email.

War on Want director John Hilary has denounced the proposal as pandering to "popular gimmickry".

"It is important to recognise that these are serious and complex issues and what may seem like a good thing to the public may be completely hopeless in reality," Hilary added.

John Hilary seems to be an acolyte of Jeffrey Sachs' aid model, wherein aid decisions are decided and administered through a collection of centrally-planned intergovernmental agencies. IGOs have relied to an unfortunate extent on the participation and cooperation of corrupt local governmental agencies that have led to the squandering or outright theft of billions of dollars in foreign aid.

This general state of affairs has led to what economist William Easterly has termed the "second tragedy of poverty" -- that those living in impoverished countries continue to suffer despite the trillions of dollars spent to alleviate their suffering.

While Hilary's subscription to this failed perspective on aid policy is rather unfortunate, his point in regard to aid policy is actually spot-on.

Foreign aid is actually an extremely difficult topic that requires a great deal of expertise to make good decisions. To give ordinary citizens -- a term that shouldn't be seen as derisive, but merely descriptive -- decisive say over aid projects may be sadly overestimating their ability to unravel the complex issues surrounding aid policy.

What should one honestly expect the man on the street to know about police reform in Jamaica? The Ethiopian social security system? Post-civil war diplomacy in Sierra Leone?

The answer, more often than not, will be "not much". Most voters would likely be able to find a project they like the sound of, but do they know whether or not some of these projects can be successful? Do they know enough about the political or social climate in the country in question? Do they know enough about the agencies involved?

The move to democratize decisions regarding the projects selected for foreign aid is a novel one. But it may be democratizing the wrong side of the aid decision -- or at least not significantly democratizing the business end of the decision.

As Dambisa Moyo points out, many African countries hold elections and purport to be democracies, but don't fully fit the bill of a developed multi-party democracy.

William Easterly would add that most African countries lack the basic democratic institutions that manage and regulate an economy -- such institutions such as banks, courts, or offices to register the ownership of property. He would further add that the decisions made by central aid planners have seldom met the specific needs of those at whom the aid in question is actually directed.

To put decision-making power in the hands of British citizens only further removes that decision-making power from the hands who need it most -- at least so far as British aid policy is concerned. Naturally, one could argue that British citizens should have the right to make decisions regarding where their tax dollars are spent, and this argument does have merit.

But as Moyo would argue, the continual casting of western aid agencies strips local democracies -- as they were -- of their legitimacy in the eyes of their own citizens.

Giving ordinary Africans more power to control the aid programs administered in Africa through micro-economic techniques would actually strengthen their sense of democracy, and in time could strengthen their individual democracies.

If British citizens were to agree that it's in their best interests to deal with mature democracies in Africa, they may also agree that it's in their best interests to allow experts to control British aid policy in such a way that fosters such democratic growth.

Naturally, those experts should be obligated to administer these policies in a way that isn't out of touch with the expectations of British citizens and with the needs of African citizens.

But David Cameron's plan actually guarantees neither of these things. His plan really isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

Gutter Politics, Defined

Harper not to blame for "gutter politics" -- at least not alone

In a blog post appearing on the website of Vancouver's Georgia Straight, Charlie Smith derides Stephen Harper and the Conservative party for allegedly indulging themselves in "gutter politics":

"This week, I stumbled across another piece of garbage sent through the mail by a Conservative MP.

This one featured a 'pop quiz'. It asked how long Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was away from Canada.

On the flip side, it contained the Conservative slogan 'Ignatieff: Just visiting'.

There was not a word about public policies, plans, or issues--just a vicious personal attack on the Opposition leader.

I wonder what thoughtful conservatives think of these tactics, which are so typical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper seems to think that if you treat the public like they're idiots, you have a better chance of getting reelected.

It's time for people like Senator Hugh Segal, former federal cabinet ministers John Crosbie and John Fraser, and former prime ministers Kim Campbell and Joe Clark to stand up and condemn this nonsense.

Harper is debasing our political culture. As we've seen in the United States, whenever this occurs, there's a corresponding decline in political literacy.

That's likely followed by reckless policies that can bankrupt the nation and lead it into perpetual war.

It's time for conservatives to say enough is enough. The ends don't always justify the means."

Smith is perfectly right to note the irresponsibility and recklessness of the Conservatives' "Just Visiting" campaign.

But in order to make the argument that Harper, and Harper alone, are responsible for the rise of gutter politics in Canada would be a facetious argument ad extremis.

It would ignore the Liberal party's long, somehow proud history of engaging in gutter politics, embodied in some savagely personal and pernicious attack ads being aired against Harper.

One can say what they will about the "Just Visiting" ads. They don't accuse Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff of plotting to summarily declare martial law upon winning power. While the move to impugn Ignatieff's citizenship based on time spent out of the country is atrociously irresponsible, at least they stay on the right side of accusing a political opponent of plotting treason.

Then, of course, there is the matter of Canada's undisputed king of gutter politics, Warren Kinsella. Even against the testimony of Liberal Senator Noel Kinsella that Harper consumed the allgedly-missing communion wafer, Warren Kinsella has been utterly shameless about using this non-scandal for his party's advantage.

Among the other media sources peddling "Wafergate" as if it were a scandal of any political consequence is the Huffington Post.

Even feverish arch-Liberal blogger Darryl Raymaker is unshockingly eager to get in on the act.

Classy.

Yet, if one were to ask Charlie Smith, it's Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper alone, who's responsible for "gutter politics" and the "decline in political literacy" that comes with it.

Those who have actually payed attention to anything over the past 20 years in this country know better. Harper certainly hasn't shied away from gutter politics, but he certainly didn't pioneer it.

An Anti-Hero For All Times

Is Foreign Aid Undermining African Democracy?

Coming via ForaTV, Dambisa Moyo presents an intriguing critique of current foreign aid programs.

According to Moyo, successes enjoyed under programs such as the AIDs program -- in which AIDs drugs are provided to HIV sufferers -- lead Africans to doubt their elected leaders, as they watch foreign organizations provide services their governments should be responsible for.

Paradoxically, aid programs that seek to by-pass Africa's entrenched system of government kelptocrats may be stifling the single best antidote to this kleptocracy: a strong, vibrant democracy in which oversight is ultimately wielded by a citizenry that has confidence in their system.

According to Economist William Easterly, the most effective aid programs are those that will democratize the process of prioritizing the areas by focusing on allowing the citizens of impoverished countries to build their own economies from the ground up by utilizing the principles micro-economics.

Aid planners, still under the thrall of Jeffrey Sachs and his mostly-failed policies, continue to favour the principles of macro-economics and a top-down method of building national economies.

But as Easterly has often pointed out, this risks the creation of aid programs that are dangerously out-of-touch with the needs of locals.

An interesting case in point is a $15 billion agricultural aid program being pushed by Barack Obama. Investing in things such as seed, fertilizer, produce storage and research, the plan seems to be aimed at jump-starting a new green revolution in Africa.

While this satisfies an obvious need that impoverished countries have, locals may prefer to continue utilizing traditional agricultural methods as opposed to high-tech agricultural methods that will remain expensive -- likely prohibitively expensive -- long after aid dollars run out.

Easterly points out that, mixed in with successes, similar plans have been tried unsuccessfully before.

“The curse of aid is that they never learn from history,” Easterly said. “They need to go back and realize a lot of things promised today have been promised before.”

But even when the things that are promised are delivered, as Moyo points out, foreign aid is actually posing unforeseen problems for African democracies, as it undermines elected leaders who lack the resources to deliver on their own responsibilities.

If the western world truly expects democracy to flourish in Africa, it may be for the best to start to design foreign aid programs that allow it to function properly.

Canadian Conservatism Needs to Save Itself

Adam Daifallah annoints Tim Hudak as conservative saviour

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah all but annoints Tim Hudak as the saviour of conservatism not only in Ontario, but perhaps in all of Canada:

"Tim Hudak's ascension to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is an important development in the Canadian conservative movement for several reasons. Most importantly, it represents a clean break from the rudderless and inept leadership that has guided the party for more than five years. Let's not mince words: Ernie Eves and John Tory were unmitigated disasters as leaders. Hudak represents a clear return to the conviction-based politics that vaulted the Tories to power -- and kept them there -- in the 1990s."

It would be unreasonable to suggest that Tory and Eves, as leaders, could not have done more.

That being said, it's unreasonable to overlook the fact that, as leaders, Tory and Eves had to work with what Harris had left behind him when he resigned as leader. It wasn't a pretty sight.

Mike Harris left behind him an extremely unpopular incumbent party, which had failed to deliver on its espoused fiscally conservative principles, had made controversial moves in relation to education and relations with municipal governments, and had often stirred up a wasp's nest of public protest against it.

To saddle Tory and Eves firmly with the failure of the Ontario Tories to retain power -- or win it back from Dalton McGuinty in the years since -- is partially unfair. While one cannot overlook their own failures as leaders, one also has to remember the position Harris had left them in.

Yet Daifallah seems to believe that only a leader practically hand-picked by Harris can deliver the Ontario Tories from the ignominous position they currently find themselves in.

"For the first time in recent memory, during the course of the leadership race no candidate ran on an explicitly centre-left platform. Hudak, runner-up Frank Klees and maverick Randy Hillier all staked out clear conservative ground. Christine Elliott ran a formidable campaign and was essentially forced into positioning herself as the centrist candidate due to crowding on the right. (Frequent cheerleading from the Toronto Star also helped burnish her image in that regard.)"

Daifallah seems to do everything but label Elliott Liberal-lite.

"Elliott miscalculated in making the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- a cause championed by Hudak and Hiller -- a wedge issue. This didn't sit well with Hudak's and Hillier's supporters, whose second-choice votes she needed to gain in the preferential ballot voting system. Her announcement that she would implement a flat tax if elected -- effectively outflanking Hudak on the right -- sent an electroshock through the other camps. In the end, Elliott proved to be a master of the air war, but lacked the ground game necessary to mount a serious challenge."

But Daifallah would be foolish to insist that the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not, in and of itself, designed to be a wedge issue.

Hudak used that policy as a method to determine those who were, allegedly, true conservatives from those who were simply "Liberal lite" -- a label he applied to both Elliott and Klees.

"The significance of the Hudak victory should not be downplayed. The Ontario Tories now have a leader who, unlike his predecessor, won't shy away from drawing clear distinctions between himself and the McGuinty Liberals. Hudak believes in ideas -- he won't be afraid of making bold proposals going forward. His mandate of presenting policies that respect conservative principles yet recognize the current difficult economic context will neutralize Liberal attempts to paint him as a reincarnation of Mike Harris."

And yet Hudak's branding of himself as a "common sense conservative" has already done so much to accomplish this very act.

Distancing himself from Harris will be a difficult act for someone who enjoyed such fervent support from Harris to do. And, really, one may wonder what reason Hudak would have to want to distance himself from who has proven to be his most valuable supporter.

"The McGuinty government is vulnerable on almost every important issue: Ontario's economy is in shambles, taxes are up, spending has soared with no correlative improvement in service quality, unemployment is skyrocketing and the deficit and debt have ballooned. Admittedly, not all of these problems are Dalton McGuinty's own fault, but in politics, the party in power wears the good news and the bad, regardless of its cause.

The next provincial election is still more than two years away. Anything can happen in that time, and it is still unknown whether McGuinty will run for a third term. But if he does, he will be ripe for defeat as an out-of-touch, tired leader who bungled the economy. In the meantime, the way Hudak conducts himself as opposition leader will have important ramifications far beyond Ontario politics."

Hudak has yet to accomplish anything during his (to date short) audition to be Premier of Ontario.

Yet Daifallah already seems to have Hudak pegged as a successor to Stephen Harper's leadership of Canadian conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism:

"Small-c conservatives across the country are disheartened by the Harper government's numerous capitulations on a whole host of red-meat issues. They are desperately looking for a new champion for the conservative cause. If Hudak can make conservative policies stick and bring the Ontario Tories up in the polls -- and, in the unlikely event that the 2011 election occurs before the next federal campaign, win a government -- it will give great comfort to principled conservatives to know that their ideas still have traction. It would also discredit the Harper government's calculation that the public is only interested in statist solutions to the current economic situation."

Yet Daifallah seems to be overlooking what the historical trend in Canadian politics has tended to be.

That is, when Liberal governments reign in Ottawa, Conservatives tend to win power in Provincial elections. When Conservative governments are in power in Ottawa, Liberals and the NDP tend to win in the provinces.

While the Saskatchewan party claimed victory in the first post-Harper election in the Land of Living Skies and Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives won in Newfoundland, it's worth noting that Rodney MacDonald's Conservatives were defeated by the NDP, Gordon Campbell's Liberals retained power in British Columbia and Gary Doer's NDP won the 2007 vote in Manitoba.

To expect that Hudak alone will be enough to buck this trend in Ontario and deliver salvation to the federal Tories is, in and of itself, a bit of a pipe dream. Hudak has to be up to the task, and we have yet to see if he actually is.

"Tim Hudak as Canadian conservatism's saviour? Someone needs to assume the role, and I know he would relish it."

Not only does Daifallah's analysis of Hudak's emerging role within Canadian conservatism seem overly Wagnerian, it's also deftly out of touch with the roots of the conservative movement in Canada.

Lloyd Mackey provides a reasonable list of the differing philosophical strains on conservatism. He classifies them as following:

1. Fiscal conservatism - This is the strain of conservatism that prefers controls on government taxation and spending. This is also the very strain of conservatism that Daifallah seems to appeal to most in this article.

2. Social conservatism - Social conservatives prefer family-friendly policies and government regulation -- if not outright prohibition -- of abortion. This particular strain of conservatism has found itself at odds with Human Rights Commissions as many of its most vociferous proponents find themselves paraded before them on an ongoing basis.

3. Democratic populism - Democratic populism insists that the spirit of democracy is found in the will of the people. It favours the "common sense of common people", and has been most strongly represented nationally by Preston Manning.

4. Progressive Conservatism - Progressive conservatism, as embodied by leaders such as Joe Clark, John Diefenbaker and the late Robert Stanfield, advocates using conservatism to moderate political and social change.

5. British Toryism - Proponents of British Toryism favour the preservation of existing institutions, including current parliamentary structures and offices such as Canada's various vice-regal offices such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.

6. Libertarianism - Libertarians prefer that government stay out of the lives of its citizens as much as possible. Libertarians favour as much freedom as possible for citizens, and tend to be the strongest voices in favour of small government.

Of Mackey's six strains of Canadian conservatism, only one -- British Toryism -- arguably sets the table to favour the salvation of Canadian conservatism by a single leader.

Where the other strains of conservatism -- notably libertarianism and democratic populism -- weigh in on this topic, they weigh in against such an option.

Where Daifallah would argue that Tim Hudak is the one man who can save conservatism in Canada, democratic populists would rebel against the notion of any single leader leading Canadian conservatism without a strong consensus to back his direction. That was the act that Preston Manning accomplished so masterfully as leader of the Reform party.

Libertarians would point out the sheer scope of the power, influence and authority conservatives would have to grant such an individual upon being annointed as a conservative "messiah". Libertarians would reject such a notion outright.

Small-p, small-c progressive conservatives would find the urge to reject Hudak as a conservative saviour almost irresistable. To such individuals, Hudak represents the kind of ideologically-isolated neoconservatism that is utterly offensive to their particular values, even as fiscal and social conservatives would likely react favourably to Hudak in such a role.

Contrary to whatever Adam Daifallah may like to believe about Tim Hudak, no one man can save conservatism. Not in Ontario, and not in the rest of Canada. Rather, conservatives must save conservatism together by maintaining the common bonds between its varying -- although often over-simplified, by Lloyd Mackey's own admission -- strains.

Conservatism must save itself.

Knowing Without Meaning May Not Be Enough

In Knowing, ingenious director Alex Proyas presents the tale of an astrophysicist who is convinced by a number list "randomly" presented to his son that he can predict and prevent disasters.

When John Koestler's son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) comes home from school with a list of numbers scrawled out by a youngster 50 years previous, John (Nicholas Cage) insists that he must return it as quickly as possible.

Upon more closely examining the page, however, John recognizes that 9/11 is predicted on it -- right down to the number of people killed on that fateful day. As he continues to examine the list he finds that each one corresponds to every major disaster of the previous 50 years, including the one that killed his wife.

According to the philsophical principle of determinism, everything that happens occurs for a reason. It insists that there is purpose and meaning to everything that unfolds in the universe.

Determinism is at the heart not only of many theistic religions, but also of many works of historical study. Theological scholars, like historians, often look for underlying causes for any particular event that would render them inevitable.

John Koestler doesn't fully believe in determinism, even though his father is a pastor.

John eventually concludes that the number series is a warning meant for him. He concludes that he must be able to prevent these incidents from happening, if only he can discern what they are. And yet, despite his best efforts, they continue happening. These events may be pre-determined to the extent that not even his intervention can prevent them.

In Preempting Dissent, Andy Opel and Greg Elmer argue that preemptive action is based on a principle of inevitability.

Aside from the minor detail that inevitability suggests that an event cannot be prevented -- whereas most of those who offer justification for preemptive action insist that it's necessary in order to prevent something from occurring -- the determinist philosophy of which Koesler speaks of seems to be deeply ingrained within Opel and Elmer's thesis.

This element of determinism is unmistakable. It should be remembered that Elmer and Opel don't necessarily incorporate this determinism as part of their own personal beliefs, but rather attribute that determinism to the beliefs of others -- in this case, those who make important policy decisions.

While that determinism may not be as pure as the version described by Koesler -- purely considered, determinism ascribes meaning and inevitability to events through a combination of natural and human factors -- this impurity actually suits the needs of Elmer and Opel's argument. Opel and Elmer's thesis is best related to human factors alone.

In Knowing, there is much more to the list than it would seem. In its own way, the list very much is a form of otherworldly intervention. It very much does have meaning and purpose, even if the events it predicts actually cannot be averted -- even one that seems like it may be the end of the world.

But The Problem Is That He Allegedly Is Mike Harris

Tim Hudak's "common sense conservatism" could be his greatest asset, greatest weakness

In an editorial appearing in the Welland Tribune, Kalvin Reid writes that "Tim Hudak must prove he's not Mike Harris":

"It will be a challenge for Hudak to translate that success across the province, but there is no question he is up to the task. The 41-year-old is already dealing with accusations that he is a clone of former premier Mike Harris and will replicate the divisive policies of that regime.

But this is politics, a cutthroat game, and that is to be expected.

Hudak will have to prove to Ontario that he is more pragmatic and, as he said repeatedly during the leadership campaign, a different man in a different time than Harris."

The problem, of course, is that Hudak didn't campaign for the Progressive Conservative leadership under the pretenses that he isn't Mike Harris.

In fact, he ran for the leadership under the pretenses that he was Harris' annointed successor to John Tory.

Hudak may be right to note that Harris, as close to an ideological neoconservative as Canadian politics has to offer, is the last man to have successfully led the Ontario PCs to any sort of election victory at all -- let alone a majority government. Tom Long, who helped Hudak with his leadership campaign, certainly seems to think so.

Moreover, Hudak owes a great deal to Harris. Harris not only issued an emphatic endorsement of Hudak, but also organized behind-the-scenes to help Hudak's victory on a much more practical level.

To think that Hudak would now turn his back on the man who played kingmaker in his ascension to the Ontario Tory leadership is rather absurd.

But many other Ontarians remember Harris rather well. Many of them have been crystal clear about where they stand on Harris' record.

Tim Hudak's "common sense conservatism" -- an obvious take-off of Harris' Common Sense Revolution -- may play well for fiscal and social conservatives in Ontario. It won't play well for those who count themselves among Harris' critics.

But should Hudak decide he wants to prove to Ontarians that he isn't Mike Harris, he will have plenty of time to do it. As Kalvein Reid notes:

"Time is on his side. With a provincial election a little more than a two years away, Hudak has a mulligan. If he pulls off a victory in 2011, great for him and the party. But barring a PC meltdown in that vote, he will get a chance to lead the party into the 2015 election. That is six years to step out of the shadow of the man who first put him in cabinet and carve his own niche in Ontario politics."

But counting on a man who campaigned for the PC leadership on the promise of Harris-style ideological neoconservatism to move to the centre is likely to be a long wait for a ship that never comes.

To think that Tim Hudak will go out of his way to distance himself from Mike Harris simply defies credulity -- even if he probably should.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Sandy Crux - "Attn Tim Hudak: Does “B i l l-177″ thwart trustees?"

Joseph Uranowski - "Career Politician. Intellectual Lightweight. Puppet. Blast From The Past."

They Truly Are Everything They Claim to Abhor

Anyone who follows the abortion debate in any way, shape or form -- or even watches the news in general -- remembers the pro-abortion lobby's reaction to the murder of Dr George Tiller.

Naturally, they expressed outrage. Normally, there would be nothing at all wrong with this. After all, Dr Tiller's murder was an act of domestic terrorism and any proper-thinking individual should be outraged at it.

The problem with the outrage of the pro-abortion lobby over the matter was that it was entirely feigned. They blamed the pro-abortion lobby as a whole for inciting the murder of Dr Tiller.

Violence, one would think, is where the pro-abortion lobby would draw the line in terms of acceptable action.

Think again.

When 60-year-old James Canfield was nearly run over by an SUV while protesting at an abortion clinic, JJ from Unrepentant Old Hippie immediately moved to try to minimize the incident as much as she could.

As with the previous case of Ed Snell, JJ's attempts to sweep this example of violence against pro-abortion protesters under the carpet was nothing if not utterly revelatory regarding her true attitude regarding violence centred around the issue of abortion:

"It's OK when we do it."

JJ's near-tragic hypocrisy is now on display once again as she mocks another blogger, Jill Stanek, for writing about another case of violence against an anti-abortion protester, yet another one involving a deadly weapon.

The case involves the matter of a man pointing a gun at a pro-abortion protester outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic. Apparently, what she had done to justify the assault is hand the man a pamphlet.

And JJ apparently seems to feel it very much is justified. One only has to look at her comments on the matter:

"Stand back! Looks like some of us are losing our patience."

As if this weren't bad enough, one only has to read on:

"When it comes to firearms, I follow one simple rule of gun safety: never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot."

Only in the mind of someone whose views on the topic of abortion are hopelessly extreme could an attitude like this be tolerated.

But one would think that the simple, basic hypocrisy of all of this would at least rend on JJ's conscience, just a little. Anyone who thinks this would be sorely overestimating this individual's self-awareness:

"Anti-choicers seem to think that because they lamely 'denounced' the May 31st murder of yet another doctor by one of their own, everyone will forgive and forget and they can just pick up where they left off on May 30th and carry on with the hateful rhetoric and clinic protests as usual. They don’t seem to realize that for some, Dr Tiller’s murder might have been a game-changer. It might have awakened people to the fact that the violence inherent in the fringe of the anti-choice movement isn’t a series of random one-offs, but part of a larger pattern, and that 'mainstream' anti-choicers share a lot more with their fringe than they’d willingly admit. People are frightened and they’re responding accordingly — that’s why it’s called 'terrorism'."

The twisted logic in a statement like this is nothing if not a little frightening.

JJ's preferred response to the terrorist violence being perpetrated by extremists within the anti-abortion movement is to attempt to embrace violence within the mainstream of those who support abortion.

At least the anti-abortion movement, as a whole, has the class and dignity to push violent anti-abortion activists as far away from their movement as they can and denounce them.

Yet individuals like JJ refuse to perform the same act. There are two reasons for this:

First, individuals like JJ -- and her would-be "sergeant at arms", Mike from (ir)Rational Reasons -- are individuals whose views on abortion are so incredibly extreme that no rational individual would ever find much in common with them on that topic.

Secondly, individuals like JJ -- and Fern Hill, and the rest of JJ's cohorts -- are shameless hypocrites. They are more than willing to embrace violence if it suits their purposes of shutting down debate on the topic of abortion.

This, of course, makes them every bit as bad as the man who murdered Dr George Tiller. They know this. They understand this. They simply refuse to admit it publicly, pretending as if that somehow makes a difference.

It doesn't.

Obama Must Not Repeat Bush's Mistake

Barack Obama has an opportunity to support democracy in Russia

At the end of his first visit to Russia, Barack Obama must certainly understand the opportunity that lays before him.

Perhaps more than anything else, Obama has the opportunity to not make the same mistake that George W Bush did.

Bush made the mistake of failing to make the same pro-democracy stand in Russia as he claimed he was making in Iraq. In his extremely soft approach to then-President (and now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin, Bush played directly into Putin's hands.

"Putin is immune unless he hears a firm reaction from the top man," former World Chess champion and Soldarinost leader Gary Kasparov told Playboy Magazine in 2008. "He doesn't care about clerks, even Condoleezza Rice. Only a message from the top counts. Everything else is a game. When Putin made some of the statements that implied he could stay in office for a third term, he didn't hear anything from Bush. President Bush, you stuck up for him; you looked into his eyes. Why are you silent now? Instead, what does Putin hear? Condoleezza Rice says, 'we'd rather have him inside than outside the tent.'"

"This philosophy has never worked before," Kasparov continued. "Churchill said 'no matter how beautiful the strategy, occasionally you must check the results.' For seven years, with engagement by the West and with the influx of capitalism, Putin destroyed all democratic institutions in Russia. So we all remember that Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes. Putin looked into Bush's eyes as well. He saw he could push Bush's limits. Every time he pushes he tests the waters. He pushes and Bush does nothing."

The challenge for Obama is evident: he must not allow Putin to push his limits.

Obama has the advantage of having to deal not directly with Putin, but rather through Dmitri Medvedev.

But even amidst some seeming efforts by Medvedev to wield Presidential power himself, as opposed to merely being a lackey for the former President, Putin will remain a factor in dealings between the two leaders.

But Obama seemed to be alluding to Putin in many of his reflective comments after his visit. The allusions were far less than flattering.

"I think that Americans and Russians share an interest in strengthening the rule of law, democracy and human rights," Obama explained. "To quote my inaugural speech: ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’ Later, speaking in Cairo, I said: ‘I have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights.’"

Obama may, however, be underestimating the Russian leadership's commitment to these values.

"These ideas are shared by your President and your people," Obama continued. "I agree with President Medvedev when he says that ’some freedom is better than no freedom.’ I therefore see no reason why the ‘reset’ in relations cannot include the common desire to strengthen democracy, human rights and the rule of law."

For his own part Gary Kasparov is unimpressed by Obama's sentiments.

"Abandon the policy of double standards and call a spade a spade," Kasparov said. "Stop pretending that the current regime under Putin is democratic and thus give it a carte blanche for further abuses."

Obama's stance on Russia is a definitive improvement over George W Bush's, but some improvements clearly need to be made. Obama cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor.

Setting the Record Straight is Only the First Step...

...The second is to see what the record actually tells us

With the public health care debate heating up in the United States, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is continuing to peddle horror stories about the Canadian health care system.

The horror story most frequently being peddled right now is the sad story of Shona Holmes, who was unable to procure treatment by Canadian cancer specialists and was forced to borrow $100,000 in order to obtain treatment at the United States' Mayo clinic for a brain tumour.

Aside from the fact that this case is fairly similar to thousands of cases in the United States, where individuals without health insurance are forced to burden themselves with gargantuan debts in order to receive treatment -- and in some cases, shady insurance companies simply refuse to abide by the terms of their contracts with their customers.

McConnell's peddling of this story -- and others -- has raised the ire of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who has publicly defended Canada's health care system south of the border.

"The notion that we have some bureaucrat standing next to every doctor between the patient and that doctor is a complete creation, there is no truth to that at all," Hugh Segal told CNN. "What you have is a longer life span, better outcomes and about one-third less costs. That's what you have."

A Canadian also has superior access to health care. Once again, this is something that McConnell has failed to mention.

McConnell's comments, however, have sparked a vital debate on the role of the bureaucracy within health care.

The first thing that should be noted is that the United States wastes more money on health care bureaucracy than Canada does. this has been known since at least 2004.

But this doesn't mean that Canada's priorities regarding health care are actually in order.

When presented with the priority between providing front-line medical service -- the kind that Shona Holmes didn't receive -- and maintaining a bureaucracy to oversee the system, the priority is obvious: provision of front-line service is the purpose of the system, and it thus the priority.

Yet Canada's health care system provides no incentives for the reduction of overhead costs. Bureaucrats have no incentive to control the growth of a bureaucracy, and reduce the amount to which that bureaucracy eats away at overall funding.

Just because the Canadian health care system does a better job of controlling these costs than the American system doesn't mean that these costs aren't an obstacle to superior care.

Canadian conservatives should embrace the opportunity to defend Canadian health care against the attacks from south of the 49th parallel as an opportunity to have a debate about this topic, and the kind of reforms that could redirect vital funds from maintaining a bureaucracy toward proving front-end service.

That would go a long way toward preventing the Shona Holmses and the horror stories of tomorrow.

July 2009 Book Club Selection: Home Game, Ken Dryden & Roy MacGregor

In a month in which Canadians across the country and the world are celebrating our wonderful country, it's only appropriate to select a book that delves deeply into the Canadian cultural imagination.

Home Game was written as something of a sequel to The Game, in which Dryden followed his final season as a professional hockey player.

Home Game, written with Roy MacGregor, follows the central theme of The Game -- a life in hockey -- and applies it to the country as a whole, and chronicles the extent to which this magnificent sport may be the greatest unifying factor in Canada.

Regardless of wherever in Canada one comes from, one thing that nearly all of us agree on is our love of the sport of hockey.

Certainly, hockey isn't all there is to Canada. But Dryden and MacGregor make the case that it's a big part of it. The millions of us who tune in to Hockey Night in Canada on a wintry Saturday evening can attest to this.