Pigs Fly in Great White North

Am....too....stunned....to....write......

Entire....worldview.....shaken.....

All....certainties....now....uncertain.....

The Toronto Globe and Mail has endorsed the Conservative Party:

Canada has been well served by 12-plus years of Liberal rule. Despite what the opposition parties would have us believe, it has not been all scandal and nest-feathering.

Ask yourself a simple multiple of Ronald Reagan's famous electoral question: Are you better off today than you were 12 years ago? Unemployment then stood at 11.2 per cent. Today, it is 6.5 per cent. An average mortgage rate was 8.78 per cent. Now it is 5.99 per cent, making home ownership affordable for hundreds of thousands more Canadians. The national debt has fallen from 66.5 per cent of gross domestic product to 38.7 per cent. Taxes are down; our standard of living is up.

On a more qualitative level, while much of the world has struggled with intolerance, Canada has emerged as a beacon of diversity — home to newcomers from around the world and confident enough of managing differences to become one of the early adopters of same-sex marriage.

The Liberal years certainly have not been without their failings, from the gun registry to the sponsorship scandal to the fumbling of the income-trust issue. But there is no denying we are better off than when Jean Chrétien first came to power with Paul Martin at his side.

Nonetheless, we have concluded that the time has arrived for a change of government in Canada. Three reasons stand out above all.

1. While the past 12 years have been relatively good ones, the law of diminishing returns has been eroding Liberal effectiveness since at least the 2000 election. A change of leadership in 2003 has failed to reverse the process.

The government of Canada, long of tooth and short of energy, is mired in policy gridlock. Hard choices give way to easy spending, and long-term thinking is overwhelmed by short-term calculation. Lacking firm policy anchors, a heavily politi-cized Prime Minister's Office bobs from issue du jour to issue du jour, neglecting enduring challenges in favour of quick hits that hold out the promise of instant gratification. Thus, from nowhere, comes a proposal to outlaw the notwithstanding clause. Apologize, spend, line up behind the parade; it's hardly inspiring, even if a mean-spirited minority Parliament deserves some of the blame.

Moreover, Liberal verities hinder rather than assist the finding of answers to such challenges as increasing productivity, fixing an unwieldy and politicized immigration system, steadying relations with the United States and confronting the real ills of the health-care system. Too often, ministers have resorted to the politically correct course: waving a Kyoto agreement rather than tackling greenhouse-gas emissions, or throwing money at aboriginal problems. Fresh thinking is demanded, but the same old elected officials supported by the same old circle of advisers naturally come up with the same old solutions.

2. Then there is this matter of the culture of entitlement that has taken deep root within the Liberal Party. C. D. Howe may have been arrogant in invoking closure before debate even began on the pipeline bill in 1956, but at least he didn't hold up his chewing gum and announce he was entitled to his entitlements. Nor, to the best of our memory, did he take his driver on overseas business trips and defend the decision on the basis of his need for security advice. The Liberals have simply become too accustomed to power, and the elites in various sectors too accustomed to the Liberals. When even Ralph Goodale thinks it's all right to investigate yourself, you know you're in trouble.

Mr. Martin, a modest and honourable man personally, has done little to challenge this culture, despite so promising during the leadership race. His parliamentary reforms proved a damp squib. Electoral reform died on the vine. A new group of PMO apparatchiks picked up where the old ones left off, exercising an iron grip over party and government affairs. In conducting business with the government of Canada, the question of ‘who do you know in the PMO?' remains regrettably relevant.

3. Change is essential in a democracy. A perpetual lease on 24 Sussex Drive fuels the sense of entitlement that blurs the line between private gain and public good. Just as bad, a perpetual lease on Stornoway discourages the discipline and moderation required of an alternative government. Without a vibrant, continuing competition for power, a democracy runs the risk of degenerating into hegemony on the governing side and unreality on the opposition side. Both parties need to believe they can win elections — and lose them.

Unfortunately, Canadians have lacked such a choice for most of the past dozen years. The Conservatives, historically a weaker coalition than the Liberals, splintered, rendering themselves chronically uncompetitive. If Canadians were primed for change in 2000, that possibility was rendered moot both by the continued split on the right and by the inept leadership and bizarre views of Stockwell Day.

In 2004, Canadians were not ready to bet on a party just recently knit back together and a leader, Stephen Harper, with a controversial political past and a brittle and angry campaign presence. They preferred to give Paul Martin, the most successful finance minister in the history of the country, the benefit of the doubt, despite his ill-starred early months as prime minister.

Today, Canadians clearly are ready for change. If not now — if not after a painfully incoherent minority Liberal government, if not after a succession of scandals, if not after four full terms of deteriorating government — then when? When is change acceptable if not now?

The argument against change essentially amounts to this: better the devil you know than the new devil. After all, the devil you know has been mediocre, not disastrous, and lies closer to that ephemeral Canadian consensus sometimes called values. Many on the centre-left of the political spectrum remain not unreasonably suspicious of Mr. Harper's election-hour shift to the political centre. They continue to think the erstwhile neoconservative harbours a hidden agenda.

Then again, Mr. Martin himself has shifted all over the map in recent years — on ballistic missile defence, on same-sex marriage, on the Clarity Act. In the run-up to the election in June of 2004, we wrote: “We wish Mr. Martin had afforded himself the opportunity of an 18-month tryout before going to the polls. Now the voters have the opportunity to impose a probationary period themselves.”

Mr. Martin did not pass that 18-month probation. He doesn't deserve the public's opprobrium, or an electoral wipeout, but neither has he earned the right to a fifth Liberal term. A spell out of power would give the Liberals the time they so clearly need to renew themselves.

In that same 2004 editorial, we characterized Mr. Harper as “a product of Central Canadian caution and Alberta's can-do frontier mentality.” But, noting his propensity to “respond to challengers withquiet contempt and truculence,” we expressed doubt that he had “matured into a truly national leader.”

There is greater reason to feel comfortable with Mr. Harper today. He has shown himself to be an intelligent man and one, in this campaign at least, who has learned to master his emotions. He has gained control of a party inclined to fly off in all directions, moved it to the centre and proposed a reasonable if imperfect governing platform. His targeted tax measures are measured, his defence policies are sound, and his approach to waiting times is worth experimenting with.

His pledge not to use the notwithstanding clause on same-sex marriage provides some comfort, as does his promise not to reopen the abortion debate. In both cases, he has demonstrated a deft political touch, giving something to his base but leaving himself ample political room to steer clear of unnecessarily divisive issues. (Private members have their rights, but we doubt they can muster a majority.) It is the same pattern with his gradualist approach to Senate reform and his willingness to engage the once-dreaded Red Tories.

The question many ask — who is the real Stephen Harper? — cannot be answered with exactitude. Then again, who was the real Pierre Trudeau — the civil libertarian or the invoker of the War Measures Act? All politics contains a degree of posturing and calculation. That said, the evidence suggests Mr. Harper has indeed evolved as a national leader.

It is hard to endorse him and his party unreservedly. We worry about his seeming indifference to the need for a strong central government in a country so replete with runaway centrifugal forces. We worry about him teaming up with the Bloc Québécois to weaken the federal government's tax-raising capacity and its advocacy of national programs. We worry that he might have to strike retrograde compromises with social conservatives in the party's midst. We worry that he may prove heavy-handed in wielding the considerable powers of a prime minister.

But we also know that public opinion in an information-enriched society provides a natural check on immoderate policies and behaviour. Political parties are in the business of currying public favour; a governing party, even an unnatural one, will not stray too far, too frequently, from the social consensus. The dynamic of democratic change keeps competitors for power within reasonable bounds. So it will be for Mr. Harper and his Conservatives.

I'm starting to think there may be hope for the Red Ensign after all.

The Red Line

Iran broke open internationally monitored seals on at least three of its nuclear facilities on Tuesday, clearing the way for uranium enrichment activities that Europeans and Americans say are a crucial step toward making a nuclear weapon.

-- Report, January 11, 2006, New York Times

European officials warned that Tehran would have to reinstate the seals at its Natanz research facility and refrain from all the activities it announced this week if it wanted to avoid a UN referral. "We made clear in December they had to retain the full suspension. Removing the seals [at the Natanz plant] was the critical step. They've crossed the red line," said one diplomat. "A half-step back will not stop us [in seeking a UN referral]."

-- Report, January 11, 2006, Financial Times


Bible-thumping and neo-conservative morons that we are, conservatives have viewed the diplomatic initiative launched by Britain, France and Germany (known internationally in connection with this effort as the "E3") to curtail Iran's nuclear programme with a mix of contempt and satisfaction. The contempt part is easy enough to comprehend; given the modern conservative understanding of Islamism as a form of volkish fascism with a religious overlay conservatives view negotiations with Islamists with about as much respect as the world today holds for the British and French negotiations at Munich with the last wave of fascism.

That's easy enough to understand. But where does the satisfaction come from?

It must be regrettably admitted that there is in human affairs no satisfaction quite like that of seeing others fail due to their refusal to heed our advice. Whether it be loved ones or hated enemies, we always seem to carry within ourselves an inherent "know-it-all-ism" that feeds itself on the fruits of wasted efforts contrary to our thoughts and wishes. This is an altogether contemptible impulse and one that must be watched closely. If the Iraq War has taught conservatives anything it should teach us above all that there are certain things that even a forthright and clear-headed worldview can miss, one of which is certainly the immense soft power of culture.

(To his credit, one anti-war conservative, George Will, swam against this tide when he noted, in response to neo-con theories about the implanting of the habits of liberty in the parched soil of the Middle East, that there were patches of the South Bronx that seem to have remained resistant to those particular habits even after being part of the United States for over 200 years. It seems to me that that particular lesson, while capable of being blown up into an all-purpose argument for perpetual inaction, is one that conservatives would do well to keep in mind.)

Still, watching the E3 have talks, talks about having talks and further talks about entering into negotiations that would lead to talks, while all the while the Islamic Republic was stating forthrightly that it would never agree to give up its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in peaceful nuclear pursuits-the stated aim of the E3 powers in entering into the talks in the first place-produced the requisite schadenfreude conservatives always get when liberal fantasy meets the harsh light of day. It comes as no surprise to us conservatives, sad to say, that the whole sorry exercise now appears to even the German Foreign Ministry as nothing more than a sham designed to buy time by the mullahs in Tehran.

And now, sayeth the European diplomats, a "red line" has been crossed. It appears that Iran has found the game tiresome. So tiresome, in fact, that it didn't even bother to show up to the latest IAEA meeting last week to explain itself.

However, rather than representing the crossing of some red line drawn on the Quai d'Orsay, the Iranian actions are simply more of the same: they have said they would act thus, and thusly they have acted.

Or, as the Great Mark Steyn put it, Iran's position has always been "Give us the right to go nuclear, or we'll go nuclear." Either way you go, you get the same result. There isn't much to admire in fascism, but the fact that its always clear on its goals and acts with enormous self-confidence is beyond doubt.

The press, or, to be more exact, the European press is now breathlessly reporting that Iran's actions have proven so "provocative" that there is now no alternative but to "report" Iran to the Security Council. In fact, Prime Minister Blair told Parliament (he still speaks there?) today that he not only expected to do so, he expected the entire E3 will act as one on this front.

That remains to be seen. It wouldn't be the first time a straight-forward Prime Minister of the U.K. has been left with egg on his face after finding his rear left unguarded by French and German forces. Perhaps Chancellor Merkel or deVillepin will decide that Guantanamo is an issue more worthy of their time than another round of Security Council inaction.

But let us assume that this is so. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the E3 has finally had enough, admits its diplomatic initiatives have failed, and joins the US in convincing the IAEA board to submit the Iran issue to the Security Council. What then?

In order to answer that question, first one must take notice of certain facts on the ground, so to speak. Let's walk through them:

First, it is clear that the Islamic Republic has in the past lied and cheated under the NPT. This is not (as it is often portrayed in the European press) an assertion of the United States Government, but of the IAEA itself. In its Resolution of September 24, 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors noted that:

The Board of Governors,

(a) Recalling the resolutions adopted by the Board on [various dates],

(b) Recalling that Article IV of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stipulates that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty,

(c) Commending the Director General and the Secretariat for their professional and impartial efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement in Iran, to resolve outstanding safeguards issues in Iran and to verify the implementation by Iran of the suspension,

(d) Recalling Iran's failures in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC 214) with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material had been processed and stored, as reported by the Director General in his report GOV/2003/75 dated 10 November 2003 and confirmed in GOV/2005/67, dated 2 September 2005,

(e) Recalling also that, as deplored by the Board in its resolution GOV/2003/81, Iran's policy of concealment has resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with its Safeguards Agreement,

(f) Recalling that the Director General in his report to the Board on 2 September 2005 noted that good progress has been made in Iran's correction of the breaches and in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations,

(g) Noting that, as reported by the Director General, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important outstanding issues after two and a half years of intensive inspections and investigation and that Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue,

(h) Uncertain of Iran's motives in failing to make important declarations over an extended period of time and in pursuing a policy of concealment up to October 2003,

(i) Concerned by continuing gaps in the Agency's understanding of proliferation sensitive aspects of Iran's nuclear programme,

(j) Recalling the emphasis placed in past resolutions on the importance of confidence building measures and that past resolutions have reaffirmed that the full and sustained implementation of the suspension notified to the Director General on 14 November 2004, as a voluntary, non legally binding confidence building measure, to be verified by the Agency, is essential to addressing outstanding issues,

(k) Deploring the fact that Iran has to date failed to heed the call by the Board in its resolution of 11 August 2005 to re-establish full suspension of all enrichment related activities including the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the Uranium Conversion Facility,

(l) Also concerned that Iran has to date failed to heed repeated calls to ratify the Additional Protocol and to reconsider its decision to construct a research reactor moderated by heavy water,as these measures would have helped build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme,

(m) Noting that the Director General reported that the Agency "continues to follow up on information pertaining to Iran's nuclear programme and activities that could be relevant to that programme" and that "the Agency's legal authority to pursue the verification of possible nuclear weapons related activity is limited" (GOV/2005/67),

(n) Endorsing the Director General's description of this as a special verification case, and

(o) Noting that the Agency is still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

1. Finds that Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT SafeguardsAgreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency's Statute;

2. Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities referred to in the Director General's report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency's verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

* * *

(I apologize for the length of that quotation, but understanding its contents is crucial to any understanding of this issue.)

The bottom line here is that the IAEA has declared, at a minimum, that the government of the Islamic Republic has: 1) failed its obligations under the NPT, 2) has a policy of concealment with regard to those failures, and 3) not allowed inspection to a point where the IAEA ceases to have concerns raised by those past failures.

Once again, it's important to realize and to remember that none of these conclusions have been reached by the United States Government or scary neo-cons with Jewish names like Wolf-a-Witz. They are by and large shared by the USG, but they have not been advanced by the USG as the main accusatory body against Iran on this issue.

Second, the United States was convinced by the arguments of the E3 that it is the Europeans and not the Americans who will take the lead on this issue. (Note: I finally saw a liberal bumper-sticker in Portland I can get my arms around: "Not Every Problem Has An American Solution"). This has been abundantly clear and has been completely and totally communicated to our European allies as a whole, and not just the E3.

A frankly remarkable and must-read interview given by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel back in October buttressed this point with good, old-fashioned Rummy directness:

SPIEGEL: How concerned are you about Iran?

Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world. They obviously have certain ambitions, powers and military capabilities ...

SPIEGEL: ...and nuclear ambitions...

Rumsfeld: That's apparently what France, Germany, the UK and the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded. Everyone wants to have the Iranians as part of the world community, but they aren't yet. Therefore there's less predictability and more danger.

SPIEGEL: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council.

Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.

SPIEGEL: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. I thought you, and the U.K. and France were.

SPIEGEL: You aren't?

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. You've got the lead. Well, lead!

SPIEGEL: You mean the Europeans.

Rumsfeld: Sure. My Goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don't have to do everything!

SPIEGEL: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany...

Rumsfeld: ... that's hardly the phrase I would have selected.

Rumsfeld has been roundly criticized by many for the various failures of the Iraq War, but an interview like this also reveals his many advantages, not the least of which is the very un-European tendency to blurt out the cold, hard truth even when it is definitely declasse to do so.

Third, now that the matter is reaching the crisis point, the European reaction, so typically foreshadowed in the Der Spiegel questioner's lame excuse making about the current ability of the Merkel administration to handle such a task, is beginning to shift rapidly in its old, tired-and very predictable-manner. Already, just a few days into this "red line" crisis and the various news stories and diplomatic pronouncements out of Europe suggest that somehow, magically, now the U.S. is responsible for taking the lead out of the crisis. Where once the headlines screamed "E3" is now substituted "U.S." Where once we read a quote from Jack Straw, we now get them from Condi Rice.

This would be tolerable were to Europeans to admit forthrightly that their approach has failed, the Americans were right all along and, now, as a result, we are now planning a united front. That, however, is apparently too much to ask for. Instead, now that the responsibility-passing stage has been met, the Euro press is now full of "Gosh, I Sure Hope The Stupid Fucking Americans Don't Get Us Into Another War This Time Round" memes.

Typical of the genre is this unintentionally funny op-ed by (all good Englishmen have three names) Timothy Garton Ash of The Guardian, entitled "Let's Make Sure We Do Better With Iran Than We Did With Iraq." After proving his bona fides by agreeing that Iran has acted horribly and represents a unique threat, he writes:

So what should Europeans and Americans do on the edge of this Persian precipice? Here are a few things for starters. First, Europeans should take the threat of an unpredictable, fragmented Islamic revolutionary regime obtaining nuclear weapons very seriously indeed. Europeans led the movement against nuclear arms escalation by the superpowers in the 1980s; today's threat of nuclear proliferation is probably more dangerous. Americans, for their part, should not confuse European warnings about the need to proceed cautiously with cowardice, euroweeniness, and all those other failings of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" attributed to us by red-blooded American anti-Europeans.

Well, alright then, we shall proceed cautiously. So what does Timothy Garton Ash suggest we actually do, cautiously or otherwise? The remainder of this essay concludes:

Second, we should share all the information, knowledge and intelligence that we have. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has observed that Iran is unique among the countries of the world in that the US has so little direct contact with it. The US has had no diplomats there since the end of the embassy hostage crisis a quarter-century ago. It has very few businesspeople or journalists there. And, if James Risen's State of War, is to be believed, the CIA managed to shop its whole network of agents in Iran to the Tehran authorities by inadvertently sending a list of them to a double-agent. So they don't even have any spooks there. The Europeans, by contrast, have diplomats, businesspeople, journalists and possibly also spooks aplenty in Iran, and so should be better informed.

We need to share all this information and reach a common analysis. And before we take any step in the diplomatic dance, we need to ask ourselves two questions: how will this affect the Iranian regime, and how will it affect Iranian society? The regime is complex. Ahmadinejad is the president, but not the ultimate boss. The boss of this theocratic regime is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini. Without his say-so, the nuclear seals would not have been broken. But he is constrained by strong interest groups, such as the Revolutionary Guards, and by other ayatollahs, such as the president's fundamentalist guru, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi.

As important is the dynamic within Iranian society. I feel deeply uncomfortable when I hear the American neoconservative Frank Gaffney calling for a revolution in Iran. It's so brave of him to risk other people's lives. Iranians would do well to remember what happened to their fellow Shias in the south of Iraq when the last President Bush encouraged them to rise up at the end of the Gulf war. But it is the case that Iranian society is potentially our greatest ally - indeed, probably the most pro-western society in the Middle East outside Israel.

As far as I can tell from this intrepid action plan we are to share information, use diplomacy, share information, hope crazy Iranian impulses are constrained internally and ally ourselves as much as possible with "Iranian society."

Nope, no euroweeniness there.

In short, we are seeing a precise re-run of the run-up to war in Iraq, which was caused largely by the exact same abdication of responsibility by the Europeans. We must proceed (cautiously, of course) under the assumption that the Europeans will be of absolutely no help whatsoever, not even the British, and that they will content themselves with relying on Sheriff Bush while all the while hating his guts and preparing international law briefs against him.

So: what is to be done?

As I have long argued, a good many of the strategic and military challenges the United States finds itself facing today are largely a result of Imperial over-reach. Much of it is not our fault, at least not directly, as that over-reach was a response to the unique challenge the Soviet Union and the Cold War posed to the Free World. However much we may understand how it came about, however, doesn't help to disguise the lethargy and weakness in the states under Uncle Sam's protective bubble have become, both culturally and militarily. Until and unless the U.S. begins to demand that other world powers assume responsibilities commensurate with their economic and political status, the U.S. will continue to be the world's policeman and greatest criminal at the same time.

Fortunately for us, the "Red Line" crisis provides an important and once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the U.S. to break the pattern of dependency that allows once grown-up countries like France and Germany to sulk like teen-age children while living off of "Daddy's" labor.

For the Iranian regime threatens Europe much, much more than it does us. While it must be admitted that the Tehran regime reflects a grave threat to the national security of the United States, it is not so grave that the U.S. can't postpone action for some years. After all, the conventional wisdom that there isn't any viable military option here is just plain wrong. The U.S. hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of its war-fighting capabilities yet in the War on Terror and could muster up enormous resources if the reality of the situation really led us to war again. Given Iran's history with the American people, it's real nuclear programme and the statements of the Iranian regime, there isn't a President who, given the proper handling, couldn't rouse the American people to war in the face of this very real threat.

However, if the U.S. were to back off, not support or take the lead in IAEA referrals and defer leadership to the E3 in the Security Council, and were it to take a hard Rumsfeldian line towards the Europeans ("Well, lead!"), it would slowly dawn on them that they had better do something, and fast. The wonders that would do to the health of the European mindset would be amazing. There would be trauma, and temper tantrums at first, of course. After all, we are talking about Europeans. But, eventually, they would act in their national interests.

In other words, Mongo is riding into Rock Ridge.

And, unlike the movie, it would be a very good idea if Sheriff Bart's office was empty for a while.

Socialism For Thee, But Not For Me

*** Please see below for an update ***

Canada's New Democratic Party is clearly the most successful socialist party in North America. Over the years, the NDP has grown to a solid 15% support rating in that country's national elections, often times making the NDP's MPs in Ottawa important players on the national stage. At the provicial level, the NDP has led important provicial governments in both Ontario and British Columbia.

As one would expect from a "social democratic" party, one of the NDP's main issues is the Canadian health care system, which makes the provision of private medical care not only unavailable, but illegal in many instances. Its support for Canada's health care system is central to the NDP's just released election platform in advance of Canada's Jan 23 federal election. The NDP seeks to stop any privitization of the delivery of health care anywhere in Canada.

But like socialists everywhere and in every time, it turns out that when it comes to decisions affecting his personal health and that of his family, NDP leader Jack Layton would very much like to go to the specialists who are recognized as the best, thank you very much. From the Canadian Press:

PORT HARDY, B.C. -- NDP Leader Jack Layton, who's campaigning as the defender of public health care, had surgery at a private clinic in the 1990s, The Canadian Press has learned.

Layton had hernia surgery at the Shouldice Hospital, a private facility in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, while he was serving as a Toronto city councillor.

The NDP leader said he wasn't aware the clinic was private when he went for his surgery in the mid-1990s.

"It's just part of the system,'' Layton said in an interview. "The doctor says, `Go there.' You pay with your (Ontario health) card. It never occurred to me (it was) anything other than medicare, which it is.

"I can tell you now if my doctor ever refers me anywhere, I'll ask him that question. It never occurred to me at the time, it wasn't a controversy at the time. It wasn't something on one's mind.''

Layton stressed that the Shouldice facility is a not-for-profit facility that has been part of the Ontario medical system for decades.

It was originally set up for veterans returning from the Second World War and was grandfathered into the Ontario medical system, he said.

Layton pointed out he has been aiming at curtailing the growth of for-profit health-care facilities on the federal election campaign.

Earlier in the campaign, Layton criticized Conservative Leader Stephen Harper who said he would send a loved one to a private clinic if it would ease their pain.

There is the essense of socialism: in the name of social solidarity, you are not to take any steps to ease the pain of a loved one. Better that we are all equally miserable.

To be fair to Layton, he apparently was unaware that the famous hernia facility was private when he received treatment there. However, what is telling here is that when he was hurting, he wanted the best care possible, no questions asked. An option he and his party would deny to other Canadians, even those suffering from the immeasurable pain of terminal cancer.

UPDATE: Over at his election blog at the Maclean's site, Colby Cash adds some important detail:

I suppose you've all noticed that the median time until the average New Democrat mentions Jack Layton's "integrity" in a conversation is about 45 seconds. Well, when it comes to his hernia operation at the Shouldice Clinic I'm afraid Layton must be judged guilty of Martinizing. Despite living about 3,000 kilometres from downtown Toronto, when I worked healthcare as a journalistic beat in the mid-'90s I learned very quickly about the private status and sterling reputation of the Shouldice. For those within sneezing distance of the medicare debate, it has been famous specifically as one of those private clinical fixtures every province but Alberta is allowed to possess and cultivate with perfect impunity. Layton says he didn't know he was receiving private care until the anaesthesia wore off. I'm forced to conclude either that he's lying, or that my expertise about medicare--the subject supposedly nearest to his heart--is a good deal greater than his own. It's an awfully awkward choice.

The Annual Hajj Human Sacrifice, Again

Once again, during the lovely "Stoning the Devil" portion of the Muslim Hajj, where our good holy pilgrims throw rocks at pillars while shouting "Death to America!", a human stampede occurred, this time killing an estimated 345 people. CNN reports:

At least 345 people have been killed in a stampede during a symbolic stoning ritual at the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, according to the country's health ministry.

Health Minister Hamad al-Maneh told Saudi TV that 289 others were were injured in the stampede near Mecca and taken to hospital.

My only question is: Is this tragedy the fault of the Americans or the Jews? Or both?

Hugh Gets It

This morning, Hugh Hewitt posts a short entry at his website (here) setting forth the stakes in the Alito nomination. Along the way, Hewitt manages to come up with the best short summary of what has gone badly wrong with out Constitutional Law jurisprudence that I've ever seen:

That portion [of the American people desiring a change of direction for the Supreme Court] grew dramatically after Roe v. Wade and continued to grow as the Court and the lower federal courts grew increasingly distant from the mainstream of American opinion, especially in matters of culture and faith. By the time the Ninth Circuit declared the words "under God" to be contrary to the Foudners' vision of the country, the Supreme Court had gotten around to declaring the death penalty for a 17 year old, 11 month and 29 day old killer of cops always to be "cruel and unusual punishment," private property to be always up for grabs to government, international law to be persuasive in the councils of the SCOTUS, limits on political speech to be consistent with the First Amendment but limits of the crudest form of porn to be protected under the same, and the Ten Commandments to be a threat to religious freedom, the size of the portion of the electorate that votes for reform of the Court had grown significant.

It is the point I have highlighted that concerns me the most. The fact that our most prestigious and thoughtful jurists and law professors still rely on old law-school canards like "you can't define pornography," thereby gutting age-old prescriptions of obcenity, while, at the same time, approving wholesale restrictions on pure political speech in favor of certain candidates and issues prior to an election is very concerning.

If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects the right of people to stand up during an election season and attempt to sway their fellow citizens to vote a certain way. This is true even when the people doing the speaking do their talking through entities, such as business corporations, non-profit foundations or labor unions. It is even true when the people doing the talking have interests, political or financial, in the outcome. In fact, it is especially true in those instances.

This is exactly the kind of speech "campaign finance" reform has rendered illegal, while, at the same time, websites that feature simulated child pornography enjoy the full protection of the Constitution.

We need more conservative jurists who will slowly and wisely guide our Constitutional jurisprudence away from liberal shibboleths and back to its firm moorings in age-old principles consistent with our common law and basic Constitutional guidelines.

Justice Alito will be a strong step in that direction.

Under The Weather

I'm currently struggling with a very, very bad head cold. Regular posting to resume shortly, just as soon as I begin to feel vaguely human.

In the meantime, please do catch this essay by sane liberal Joe "Primary Colors" Klein over at Time. Klein, though still very much the anti-Bush partisan, is also an honest enough reporter to recognize a good legal and political argument when he sees it. An excerpt:

For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are "fruit," and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders.

Henry Kissinger even wiretapped his own aides. But the "all fruit" assumption doesn't take into account the strict constraints placed on the intelligence community after the Nixon debacle, or the lethally elusive nature of the current terrorist threat. The liberal reaction is also an understandable consequence of the Bush Administration's tendency to play fast and loose on issues of war and peace—rushing to war after overhyping the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program, appearing to tolerate torture, keeping secret prisons in foreign countries and denying prisoners basic rights. At the very least, the Administration should have acted, with alacrity, to update the federal intelligence laws to include the powerful new technologies developed by the NSA.

But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.

Klein is clearly correct in spotting the scandal. Had the NSA not used its technology to intercept suspected Al-Qaeda communications directed into the United States, it is that failure that would have been the impeachable offense.

See you all again soon! (I hope...)