Canadian Cincinnatus

John McCain and Timothy McVeigh

The media is predictably pooh-poohing Barack Obama’s relationship with former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers. I wonder if they would be as understanding if it was discovered that John McCain had a long-standing business relationship with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh?

Since McVeigh and Ayers both tried to kill Americans with bombs, the media reaction would likely be similar, right?

The left’s problem with evolution (and other human sciences)

John Derbyshire, over at National Review Online details the left’s problem with human sciences in his informative article, Will Obama Kill Science?

While the left loves to regale us with tales of the Scopes monkey trial (while omitting the detail that the high-school biology textbook that got the trial going in the first place recommended eugenic strerilization for lesser breeds – ‘nothing to see here folks, move along...’), they are increasingly wary of all the stuff coming out of genetics, genomics, demographics, psychometrics, physcial anthropology and neuroscience. As Derbyshire details:

“E.O. Wilson was having a jug of ice water dumped over his head at an AAAS symposium by people shouting “Racist Wilson you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!” (1978)”, “Art Jensen looked set fair to be kicked out of the AAAS altogether following agitation by Margaret Mead et al. because of his 1969 paper on group differences in I.Q.”

The problem is that all the stuff about human nature that the left believes in is being disproven. Take the nature/nurture debate:

“Most people still think of human-science controversies in terms of nature/nurture. As a matter of real scientific dispute, that is all long gone. Nature/nurture arguments were at the heart of the sociobiology wars that roiled the human sciences through the last third of the 20th century. (The 2000 book Defenders of Truth, by the Finnish sociologist of science Ullica Segerstråle gives a full — and so far as I can judge, very fair — account.) The dust of battle has pretty much settled now, in science departments if not in the popular press, and nature is the clear victor. Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences. You may say that is only a half victory; but it is a complete shattering of the nurturist absolutism that ruled in the human sciences 40 years ago, and that is still the approved dogma in polite society, including polite political society, today.”

And that’s not even getting into any IQ controversies. Lots of data there if you care to look. Unfortunately, not a lot of politically correct conclusions can be based on it. So once again, move along folks, nothing to see...

Take this citation from the National Post that Derbyshire quotes:

“A group of U. S. professors launched a campaign this week protesting plans by a prominent political science organization to hold its annual conference in Toronto next year, claiming that Canada’s restrictions on certain forms of speech puts controversial academics at risk of being prosecuted … Bradley Watson, professor of American and Western political thought at Pennsylvania’s St. Vincent College, said he will present a petition calling for the American Political Science Association (APSA) to re-evaluate its selection of Toronto for its 2009 conference at this year’s annual meeting … His protest has garnered support from dozens of professors across the United States, including prominent scholars such as Princeton University legal philosopher Robert P. George and Harvard University’s Harvey Mansfield … [P]rofessors signing the petition are concerned that recent human rights commission investigations into Maclean’s and Western Standard magazines over articles concerning Islam, and the conviction of pastor Stephen Boisson, who was ordered by Alberta’s human rights tribunal in May to cease publicizing criticisms of homosexuality, suggest that professors risk being chilled from discussing important academic subjects, or ending up in legal trouble …”

It sounds like if you are in the life sciences, you are living in interesting times.

Toronto Spends Extra 100 Million On Defective Buses

The Toronto Sun quietly reported last week that the Toronto Transit Commission no longer wants to buy hybrid buses because they break down a lot and they don't save much fuel.  These buses cost an extra $200,000 per bus, not including GST.  After buying 500 buses that's an extra 100 million dollars to date, with 120 more on delivery in 2009--a shocking amount that is not mentioned in the Sun article.  The reader is left to do the math.

That the city of Toronto can waste far more than 100 million dollars on defective equipment with hardly a word reported in print media is disturbing.

By comparison: the MFP computer leasing scandal resulted in the city paying 42 million more than council approved for computer leases.  A little known councillor named David Miller pointed out the extra expense and demanded (rightly) an inquiry.  The MFP scandal played in the media, especially the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, for years.  It was even brought up several times by Miller during the last election as a reminder of why he should be re-elected mayor.

The TTC suddenly says it's all the federal gov's fault because they "forced" the TTC to buy hybrid buses.  Funny, I've heard Miller complain a lot about the federal government over the years, but I've never heard him state that this was an onerous condition on the money that was generously provided for TTC buses.  I find it hard to believe the "green" mayor was against it when Paul Martin's liberal minority insisted on hybrid buses.

The purchase of the MFP computer leases definitely stank and was an example of city hall employees and councillors giving cushy deals to friends.  While there is no evidence of corruption with the purchase of these hybrid buses, there is certainly evidence of poor decision making, enough to prompt an inquiry.

Here are the questions that should be asked:

• Who verified the manufacturer's claims that the buses would save 20-30% in fuel?  Since the TTC has found that the buses barely save 10%, this would have been easy to disprove before the purchase with a simple test drive.
• Did anyone put a test bus through the paces to ensure it could withstand a typical city route without repeated breakdowns?
• What other buses (hybrid or otherwise) were considered?
• Did anyone lobby the federal government to have the hybrid bus condition removed when it became apparent that the buses couldn't perform?

What the Main Stream Media should ask is whether spending an extra 200,000 per bus was sensible even if they did meet the manufacturer's claims.

Of course, David Miller has received new strong mayor powers from Dalton McGuinty, so it will be impossible for a couple of rogue councillors to force a vote on an inquiry as Miller did with the MFP scandal when he was a councillor.  David Miller got elected the first time with the symbol of a broom for the clean sweep he was bringing to city hall.  Apparently that broom was to sweep unpleasant mistakes under the carpet.  The MSM should be ashamed that they are complicit.

Mike Downtown

The real lesson from the Federal election

You can’t have a conservative government that is dependent on Quebec. Oh, you can have a large-C Conservative government that has a strong base of support in Quebec - Mulroney proved that. But you can’t have an ideological conservative/libertarian federal government with deep roots in Quebec.

Simple arithmetic tells us that the loss of seats in Quebec is what cost Harper his majority, at a time when he was expecting major gains there. What caused the collapse in votes? – a promise to crack down on young offenders and cut arts funding. In the pantheon of conservative ideas, these are about as innocuous as you can get. If that’s all it takes to create a stampede in Quebec away from conservatism, then no meaningful small-c conservative government is possible with Quebec as part of your base.

It may be countered that Canada’s electoral math does not allow a majority government without Quebec, but I disagree. Its just harder. You have to scrounge up every potentially winnable seat you can. Take Tuesday’s result. 143 seats – only 12 more seats to go to reach majority status. And that is with an ongoing public feud with Newfoundland that effectively shut the Conservatives out of Newfoundland. If you count all the close races that the Conservatives almost won outside Quebec, 12 potential Conservative seats can be found. Take for instance Rahim Jaffer’s loss to the NDP in Alberta. Tell me the Conservatives can’t regain that Alberta riding. And tell me Ralph Goodale’s riding in Saskatchewan isn’t ripe for the taking as soon as he retires.

A real conservative government is only possible in Canada when the majority of its support comes from two places - the West, and Ontario (outside of the Liberal fortress of Metro Toronto). It may be politically incorrect to say this, but that’s the way it is. It is just unfortunate that real small-government conservatism doesn’t attract Quebecers.

Let me know if you disagree. I would love to be proven wrong on this score.

Perhaps a charismatic small-government conservative like Andre Arthur is a data point for the opposing argument.

The Conservatives broke the first rule of campaigning

Run a positive campaign first, then go negative at the end. This rule was followed in 2006 and it worked like a charm.

Unfortunately, politicians are afraid to go positive because it requires exposing yourself to controversy. This left Harper wide open to charges of indifference to the economy. As I have stated previously, pooh-poohing economic difficulties was a big mistake.

They should have presented a bold free-market economic recovery package and used that as a raison d’etre to argue for a majority. This would have motivated the troops and expanded their base. Then in the final weeks of the campaign –-go negative and attack Dion’s leadership. The purpose of the negative phase is to corral in the people who aren’t really interested in policy.

One reason you do things in this order is because at the point you switch from the positive to negative phase, you have effectively branded you public image with your policies so that none of the puffin poop in the negative phase will stick. The voters will still connect you to your positive image.

Another reason is because different types of voters have a different memories. The policy-wonk type and the enthusiastic partisan have long memories. The barbecue-and-ball-game Joe six-packs have short memories.

When I attended campaign school, this was part of Campaigning 101. If this is common knowledge, then why is the rule disregarded so often?

The problem is - and it sounds paradoxical to say this - because going negative is less controversial than going positive. This is because the positive phase of the campaign works only if it is sufficiently controversial. It is not enough to mouth motherhood-issue platitudes. Nobody cares about that (if you don’t believe me, just check out the reaction John Tory’s election platform elicited in the last Ontario provincial election – nobody cared). For people to take notice you have to say something that takes guts. But when you do that you are, of necessity, opening yourself up to attack. And politicians are understandably afraid to do that. But you must disregard your survival instincts because it is only through controversial policies that you differentiate yourself from your opponents, dominate the news cycle (garnering free publicity), have a chance to connect with the voters (assuming the voters like your proposals) and keep the negative news you don’t want to get out (petty scandals, minor slips-of-the-tongue, etc) off the front page.

.

Next Liberal leader

Iggy: In spite of all the media cheerleading, he’s the best choice from Conservative perspective. He’s got a lot of the same faults as Dion. Both are academics not well suited to the rough and tumble of retail politics. Neither can relate to the man on the street if his life depended on it. However, thanks to his nastier personality, he would likely be more dangerous as an opponent.

Bob Rae: He’s a better choice for the Liberals, mostly because he’s got much better political skills than Iggy but he’s also overblown. Look at what a disaster he was as Premier of Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty: Oversold. He won two solid majorities in Ontario only because of two back-to-back disastrous Conservative campaigns. He is otherwise disliked by the voter. And from McGuinty’s point of view, why would he go federal? He’s got a rock solid majority at Queen’s Park and an opposition leader who is wounded and ineffectual. Hell, the opposition leader doesn’t even have his own seat any more. It doesn’t get much better than that. In Ottawa, he would inherit a party in disarray that is completely broke. And he would be facing a strong, well-entrenched Prime Minister with a well developed Machiavellian streak. Sure, if he overcomes those odds, all the more glory to him. But if he wins another majority in Ontario, he also has won something to write home about. And if the federal Libs are still in disarray, he can play saviour then.

Gerard Kennedy – He’s also ideal - for us. A screaming left-wing ideologue. Perfect.

John Manley – A bad choice - for us. He’s levelheaded with lots of common sense. Heck, he’s almost a Conservative.

Frank McKenna – Also a bad choice for us, for a lot of the same reasons - plus he has executive experience running a province that nobody hates.

143 seats – not a bad show for a terribly run campaign

The Conservative campaign was awful. This election (and the election south of the border) is so frustrating because the right has become so timid. The economy is traditionally the right’s strong suit – but only if they play it. Canada has to radically improve Canada’s business climate if it wants to rescue Ontario’s ailing manufacturing sector. A carbon tax certainly won’t do that. South of the border, nobody is mentioning the disastrous effect that Obama’s planned tax increases will have on business. His plan to ramp up capital gains taxes and income taxes at the top end will turn a potential recession into a full-blown depression. But McCain won’t say this.

Back in Canada, we did this good only because Stephane Dion’s leadership is so weak. We may not be so lucky with the next Liberal leader.

This frustrates me because, with Dion, a window of opportunity existed to win a majority government. If we were really good, we might have been able to knock the Libs to third place status. With Dion’s removal all but certain, this window is now firmly shut. The next time around, we won’t be able to sleepwalk our way to a credible election result. We will have to fight for every seat. To get a majority then, we will have to start taking some real chances.

Oh well, that’s what happens when you don’t seize opportunities.

What Harper should do next

As I write this post, I see that Harper has beaten me to the punch with tentative steps in the direction that I was about to recommend. He wants to recall parliament soon to deal with the economy. This is the right thing to do as the economy is the central issue of the day, and the one Tuesday’s election turned on.

Unfortunately, his proposals are way too timid. Of his six points, only one (control spending) is meaningful. The rest involve cooperating with existing efforts and a call for a bunch of high-level meetings Instead, he should present a bold, free-market economic recovery package. When they balk, he should tell the public that the loyal opposition has put socialist ideology ahead of the Canadian economy. And then he should dare them to vote it down.

When they don’t, Harper will look like a real leader dealing with the pressing problems of Canadians and the Liberals will look like obstructionists.

And in the unlikely event that they do vote it down, lets have another election with a wounded Dion at the helm of a bankrupt party. As Al Gore used to say, bring it on!

Another reasonable response to the phenomenon of Sarah Palin’s Vice-Presidential candidacy

here.

F.Y.I.: M.I.L.P. stands for Mothers I’d Like to Punch. I dunno… but for some reason that I can’t put my finger on, I think that the person who drew this cartoon is a pencil-neck dweeb.

(hat-tip to Michelle Malkin)

Victor Davis Hanson nails down exactly what is wrong with the economy

Some excerpts from his article Wall Street 101:

“Wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.”

“We as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.”

“Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.”

“Finally, what one makes is no proof of his worth. Almost every head of a Wall Street firm took tens of millions of dollars in bonuses these past few years, as they posted phony profits by borrowing ever more with ever fewer assets. But if financing facilitates the American economy, we should remember that less exotic and remunerative construction — such as farming, manufacturing, and mining — is what really powers America.

Recently, Americans built a new bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis to replace the older one on I-35 that collapsed last year. It was finished three months ahead of schedule, and the industrious construction team that worked 24/7 to make thousands of commuters safer is now eligible for up to $27 million in well-earned incentives. Meanwhile, Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae made nearly twice that sum in bonuses — leaving behind nothing much at all other than billions in other peoples’ debts.

How odd that all those boring lessons from our grandparents turn out to be true in the globalized, hip 21st century: Save your money. Don’t borrow what you can’t pay back. Look first at a man’s character, not his degrees.”

All of these are good populist-conservative messages. If McCain were to adopt them as his own, he would win a landslide.

P.S. Here is a good overview of what went right with the I-35 bridge reconstruction in Minneapolis.