Poetry contest!

Don Martin, writing in the National Post: "The Conservative party wrapped up its founding policy convention here as the fallen, fractured Humpty Dumpty of Canadian politics put together again." Hmmm... Humpty Dumpty sat on the fence, Humpty Dumpty wouldn't budge thence. All of the pundits and all of the press Couldn't conspire to make sense of this mess. Well, anyway, you have a try...

The Conservative capitulation

My first take on the Conservative convention is up (short form: it was a disaster). More -- much more -- to follow. THE CRITICS RAVE Selected quotes from media reaction to the convention: Richard Gwyn (Toronto Star): "The Conservatives have made themselves electable by making themselves indistinguishable from the Liberals... Indeed, the strongest political differences in Canada — over same-sex marriages, for instance, or relations with the U.S. — now exist within the Liberal and Conservative parties rather than between them. Harper deserves an enormous amount of credit for this accomplishment." Chantal Hebert (Toronto Star): "Joe Clark did not get the last laugh on Brian Mulroney after all. Clark had predicted that the battle for the soul of the new Conservative party would result in a born-again Reform party. Instead, it allowed for the revival of many of his own core Red Tory values. Over the weekend, the delegates at the new Conservative party's first policy convention came together around a full range of future government policies. It is hard to find many that Clark could not have supported." Toronto Star (Toronto Star): "[Harper] can now fight the next election less hobbled by a strident right-wing agenda." Or, indeed, any agenda. Remind me: Why are Conservatives celebrating after this convention? MORE Jeffrey Simpson (Globe and Mail): "What a curious lot are Canada's born-again Conservatives. They are led by a policy wonk, but they offer few policies. They are supposed to oppose, but they do so half-heartedly. They insist they want to be different from the Liberals, but, if you listen to them carefully, it would appear they really don't want to be all that different."

My Saturday column, somewhat delayed, presents the best case for subsidizing Bombardier -- which dissolves on the slightest contact with reality. My thoughts on the Conservative convention to follow in coming days...

My Wednesday column on the Jetsgo mess is up, containing rather too many uses of the word "I".

Google News, in case you hadn't heard, is now customizable. Here's how I've customized mine.

Your tax dollars at work

My Saturday column deals with the strange similarities between the goings-on that are properly the subject of the Gomery inquiry and the perfectly legal raiding of the public till that is the hallmark of our "reformed" system of campaign finance. For those interested in the numbers alluded to in the column, here they are (courtesy of Elections Canada): 2004 Election Tally

Party	Expenses	Reimbursed @60%	+ Subsidy @1.75/vote	= Total Public $
Liberals	$16.6 mil	$9.9 mil	$8.7 mil	$18.6 mil
Tories	17.3	10.3	7.0	17.3
NDP	12.0	7.2	3.7	10.9
BQ	4.5	2.7	2.9	5.6
Greens	0.5	0.3	1.0	1.3
TOTAL	50.9	30.4	23.3	53.7

As you can see, all parties except the NDP were able to cover the whole cost of their campaign out of public funds -- and then some. The Liberals turned a $2-million profit on the deal. And, as I mention in the piece, that's not counting the cost of the political contributions tax credit. It will be interesting to find out three things: 1) how the cost of campaigns, and the percentage covered out of public funds, has grown over the years, 2) how the rising cost of push-polls, attack ads and other essential features of modern election campaigns correlates with voter turnout (ie inversely), and 3) how Canada compares on both these scores with other countries. POSTSCRIPT: While I'm on the subject, I'd be remiss if I did not link to some fascinating research by Stephen Taylor, blogger, sometime Conservative candidate and master of the political graphic (see his famous Liberal Monopoly Board). Taylor dug up the data on political contributions by the current directors of three of Canada's largest Crown corporations -- Canada Post, Via Rail, and the CBC. Surprise -- Canada Post's ran 95% Liberal, Via Rail's 97% Liberal. The CBC, by contrast, was a relatively fair and balanced 82% Liberal, in the great tradition of our public broadcaster. He's got pie charts, and he knows how to use them. ADDENDUM: Also check out his handy Adscam damage-control strategy flow chart.

For want of a pica

You see those little box-like things to the right? The ones marked "Recent Posts" and "Miniblog"? They're supposed to be tabs. Meaning the base-line marking the "page" to which each is notionally attached does not cross the front tab (the white one), but does cross the back tab (the grey one). That's how it's supposed to look. That's how it does look, in Safari and Firefox. But in OmniWeb and Camino, the line crosses both, because of a difference of 1px in where they place the various parts of the tabs in relation to one another. To make matters weirder, when I threw away my preference file for Safari, I found the same thing - yet it reverted to form when I put the same preference file back in its folder. Of course, the whole page has gone to hell in Opera and Internet Explorer. And I've no idea what it looks like in any non-Mac browswer. This is ridiculous. Why can't these browser people get it together?

A debate, not a party line

Having said that I hope there'll be a debate on abortion at the Tory convention, I don't actually think the party has to take a position on the issue. I agree with Harper: this is a matter best settled by individual MPs voting their consciences. You take a stand as a party on the things you agree on. You leave the rest to MPs and their constituents. So I don't agree with the right, who are upset that the party might substitute a commitment to free votes in place of an overtly pro-life plank in the platform. And I don't agree with the left, who think that even allowing MPs to vote on it as individuals is somehow beyond the pale. The problem is not that the party refuses to take a stand, one way or the other. The problem is when the party refuses to take a stand and refuses to let anyone else do so either. Either there's a party line or there isn't. If there is, let the party debate it, and MPs should then be expected to fall in line with whatever the party decides. If there isn't, then let the debate happen in Parliament. And let MPs speak their minds. UPDATE: Somebody's had a bit of a rethink.

My Wednesday column is up. Readers who are interested in knowing more about the two legal cases cited can read my columns on each here (the glue-sniffer case) and here (the negligent driver case). Then there's this case, which is even sadder. Finally, for an example of the totality of our present confusion, read this.

The original mono recordings, now digitally remastered

I've posted, at long last, my back-catalogue of essays, magazine pieces and longer-form newspaper articles, going back nearly twenty years. Some of these were written on a typewriter, a useful data-input device (no external power block, built-in printer) which younger readers can ask their parents about. They're still in pretty rough shape -- I'll have to look up the publication dates, for example -- and in many cases have not aged well. But there you are: neither have I. What took me so long? Just the thought of having to organize and link them all, not to mention converting them into some sort of browser-friendly format. (They were in RTF, which my browser can read but others can't.) Fortunately, I found a couple of small apps that would do each of these tasks, albeit with some glitches. (The html converter seems to forget to close italics after it opens them, for example.) A sobering note: Several of the magazines I used to write for -- The Idler, The Next City, Cité Libre -- are now dead. I don't think it had anything to do with me, but the pattern is suspicious, isn't it? Anyway, have a read. Just click on Essays at the top of the page. They should be searchable in a few days, once Google has spidered them. POSTSCRIPT: I used to write all my university essays on an old pounder. As I was too lazy to write a rough copy, every one of them was perforce a final draft. Direct to disk, we called it. And as I could not be bothered to correct any mistakes in the typing -- typing "k" to start a word, for example, rather than "l" -- I would instead have to think of another word that did start with k. Sometimes the essay would veer off in a completely different direction by this serendipitous process. One virtue of composing on a typewriter, versus a computer, is precisely that it forces you to compose the sentence in your head -- which makes for clearer, shorter sentences. With a word processor, by contrast, you can just sail off into the sentence with no idea where it is headed. The results sometimes show. Something of the same explains the success of Lennon and McCartney as composers. I think I saw one of them say this in an interview somewhere: Because they could not read or write music, they had to be able to remember the tune if they wanted to work on it the next day. So the tunes that survived were, by definition, the ones that were most memorable. The computer obviously has its uses. So does writing longhand. Writing is an associative, intuitive process, and sometimes a simple change in technology will unblock the thoughts where nothing else will. I don't know why: it may be the emotional associations with longhand -- we still write out personal letters -- or it may just be the pace and movement. Could even have something to do with the circulation. But it works. MORE TO COME: I still have to put up my columns from the last half of 2004. Plus there seem to be a number missing from the 2002 collection. And some more comprehensible system of headings for my Southam columns is clearly in order. Plus if I'm feeling very energetic someday I'll post my editorials for the Financial Post and Globe and Mail: there are hundreds of them...

While I'm asking for favours... Does anyone know how to flow text into several columns, newspaper-style? I've tried the "multicol" attribute, but apparently that only works in Netscape. Suggestions?

President Richard M. Nixon today disbanded the Senate committee looking into Watergate, saying it had become a “partisan witch-hunt” and that committee chairman Sam Ervin (D - N.C.) had “clearly made up his mind” about the matter...

My Saturday column is up. I've also made it (and every other post) printable, for those interested in such things. Problem: how do you get back to normal layout? Click on the title of the post, or failing that, the date. (Or in case of emergency, here.) It's the only way I could think to do it, as the only way I could think to make things printable was by flowing a different css sheet through the page. What would be better, and what most sites do, is to call up a separate page in printable style, but I can't figure out how to do that. Anyone fill me in? There's a much simpler way, as commenter Jesse was good enough to point out. Just hit "print" to see what I mean.

Site update

Check out some new/old features, now available in version 3.0. The miniblog is in place, if not yet chock-a-block with links. (Coming, coming...) Click on the "<<<" button at right to reveal it. The collection of useful links at lower right in the sidebar is well worth investigating. Or click on the links button above to see them on a separate page. I've moved the links to the search and news compendium pages to the right, just above the search bar. Plus you can call up a browser for easy skimming through links. Finally, don't forget to try out the bookmarking feature. Just click on the [+] under or beside a post to save its location in the sidebar. ABOUT FEEDS: I've been told people are having a hard time finding the feed for this site. I'm probably to blame: I changed the feed URL (there was some good reason for this -- oh yeah, to distinguish between the feed for the current, revamped page and the one for the old one): it's now http://andrewcoyne.com/blog.xml in Atom XML format. The RSS feed (using the 2rss.com converter), is http://2rss.com/atom2rss.php?atom=http%3A//andrewcoyne.com/blog.xml. There are also separate feeds for the columns and miniblog streams -- the links for these are all at the bottom of the page. I'm also hoping to add a feed for the comments, when that becomes possible. UPDATE UPDATE: Oops. I seem to have posted the wrong feed for the main blog. It's fixed now.

What would Brian do?

In all the avalanche of well-deserved scorn heaped upon the Martin government, the strangest and least-deserved came from the Montreal Gazette's L. Ian MacDonald, speechwriter for and biographer to M. Brian Mulroney. MacDonald's complaint is not that Canada refused to take part in ballistic missile defence -- after all, the great man himself declined participation in its Star Wars precursor -- but rather the way we refused. Specifically, he faults Martin for being overly solicitous of caucus concerns, and not solicitous enough of the Americans'. Too democratic at home, not nearly obsequious enough abroad. What he should have done, in MacDonald's view, is, well, what Mulroney did:

In 1985, Brian Mulroney called his caucus together in the Centre Block on a Saturday morning, and informed them that Canada would not join Ronald Reagan's cherished Strategic Defence Initiative, known as Star Wars. He then went upstairs to his office and called President Reagan at Camp David. "Ron," Mulroney began, "I'm sorry to say we can't be with you on a big project, but Canada will not be joining in SDI. It's not in our interest, though it may well be in yours as the leader of the free world. I wanted to tell you, Ron, personally, before you read about it." "Brian," Reagan replied, "I'm very sorry to hear that, but I appreciate you informing me yourself." That was the end of it. There were no divisions in the governing party; the policy was determined by its leader. The caucus was informed, not consulted. There was no debate in the House. And there was no harm done to Canada-U.S. relations.

This is classic Toryism: The same policy as the Liberals, only more polite about it. Obsessed with process, oblivious to substance. And appallingly anti-democratic in the bargain: "caucus was informed, not consulted... no debate in the House." Well, at least Martin got that last part right.

More missile defence reax: National Post: Shame on both of them, February 25, 2005 Montreal Gazette: Martin shows his cowardice, February 26, 2005 Globe and Mail: Martin's missile fumble, February 24, 2005 Toronto Star (!): Martin misfires on U.S. missiles, February 25, 2005 Plus there's my Wednesday column (The US is in no mood for this nonsense), which expands on my earlier post.

Canadian free riders

The Wall Street Journal weighs in:

Prime Minister Paul Martin bowed to a rebellion in his Liberal Party ranks last week and announced that Canada won't participate in the U.S. missile-defense system. Translation from the Canadian: They'll now rely on the Americans to defend their country for them... Of course, the reason Canadians can indulge their moral afflatus against "weaponizing space," and in favor of maintaining "Canadian values," is because they know their proximity means the Americans will always come to their rescue. It's a classic example of what economists call the "free-rider" problem. A statement last week by Defense Minister Bill Graham was particularly revealing. Speaking about Norad -- the binational command located in Colorado Springs that monitors U.S. and Canadian airspace -- he said: "Norad evaluates a threat. Making a decision to launch a missile is a whole other story." But that was the whole point of asking the Canadians to sign on to the missile-defense system -- to include them in the decision-making process in the event of an emergency. As the Canadians were amazed to discover, the U.S. doesn't need them to deploy the shield -- no Canadian radar station, no Canadian territory on which to station interceptors. Washington was nevertheless offering Ottawa a chance to participate in its own defense and choose what its contribution would be. Now, if a North Korean missile targeting Seattle goes off course and heads instead for Vancouver, the U.S. will decide for Canada. Ottawa had been hemming and hawing about the U.S.-led missile defense system since Washington withdrew from the Cold War-era Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. Meanwhile, dire predictions about a new "arms race" failed to materialize and the proposed shield has quietly gone international. Britain, Australia and Japan have signed up; allies in both Old and New Europe have expressed interest, and there's even talk about including Russia. Canada stands alone among America's close allies in its outright rejection of missile defense. The Canadian decision calls into question the future of Norad, which plays a critical role in the U.S. missile defense system. After much internal political angst, Canada agreed last summer to permit Norad to transmit any information it gathers on incoming missiles to the missile-defense system. But the agreement establishing Norad expires next year. Also in the small favors department, Canada announced last week that it would increase its spending on defense, which as a percentage of GDP -- 1.2% in 2003 -- is now the lowest in NATO after Luxembourg and Iceland (which has no military). The U.S. spent 3.5% of GDP in 2003...

I've brought the columns and miniblog over onto the TheirSay inline comment system, which I think readers will agree is easier to use than Blogger's built-in commenting. Unfortunately, that means the counter for each post has been reset to zero -- but previous comments are all still there. In other commenting news, the Recent Comments list at right has been upgraded: click on the link and it takes you to the originating post, rather than to that pop-up thingy. That brought its own transitional glitch: in the course of restarting the database, existing comments were all reset to the same timestamp (12:05 pm yesterday). It doesn't seem to have affected the order in which they appear, thank goodness, so the discussions still follow logically. That is, so far as they ever follow logically.