The CRTC got it (mostly) right

By Andrew Coyne - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 6:07 PM - 68 Comments

I am writing this with trembling hands, willing my fingers to type the words I never thought to see under my name: The CRTC Made The Right Decision.

You can imagine my surprise. Certainly it must have come as a shock to the parties in the longrunning fee-for-carriage dispute. Both sides were demanding, and expecting, that the CRTC would guarantee them a living, as it had always done in the past. The cable (and satellite) companies expected the CRTC to continue to force the broadcasters to provide them with content for free. The broadcasters expected the CRTC to force the carriers to pay them for their signals. And if it had just been one or the other pressing their case, I’m sure the CRTC would have happily obliged.

But it couldn’t satisfy both of them, and rather than split the difference the CRTC has chosen to get out of the game altogether. Rather than forbid the broadcasters from charging for their signals, the CRTC will now allow it. Only rather than force the cable companies to carry the signal at whatever fee the broadcasters would like to charge, the cablecos will have the right to drop them, if they find the price too high — no more “must-carry.” (As, for their part, the broadcasters will be able to withdraw their signal — and “black out” programs on other networks for which they hold the Canadian rights — if the price is too low. Or they can just stick with the current system.)

In other words, rather than bind the hands of one side or the other, or worse, set the fee itself at some arbitrary level, the CRTC is leaving the two sides, buyers and sellers, to negotiate the fee between them. You know, like in any other business. Why, it’s almost as if I wrote the decision myself.

Oh sure, the rest of it is the usual bilge: Canadian content quotas, both in terms of airtime (but down from 60 per cent to 55!), and spending (30% of gross revenues overall, 5% of it on “programs of national interest”), though broadcasters will have greater flexibility to shuffle all this unwanted Cancon about the dial. But why let all that spoil a good day? Here at Andrew Coyne’s Blog, we’re all about the love. The CRTC got at least one decision right.

Well, almost right. Two corollaries are needed before I start breaking out the party hats. One, if cable companies are no longer to be obliged to carry signals, consumers should no longer be obliged to pay for them. The cablecos may decide they can live with the fees the broadcasters are charging, but consumers may think otherwise. As long as the cablecos can just pass the fee along to consumers, via the forced bundling of channels, they will have little incentive to drive a hard bargain with the broadcasters. So pick-and-pay is the logical, and long-delayed, next step, allowing consumers to choose precisely which channels they will and will not pay for.

The other bit of unfinished business is the CBC. The Corpse is mightily put out that the commission did not give it the same green light to charge for its signal, and I can’t say I blame it. So let the CBC charge a fee if it likes — but cut its public subsidy by the same amount. Over time, the idea should be to move the CBC all or nearly all the way on to pay. It would still be a public broadcaster, so far as that was thought desirable. It just wouldn’t be a subsidized broadcaster.

But that’s for another day. For today, let’s just all hug and say the words together: the CRTC got one right. The CRTC got one right…

Californians could vote on legalizing pot

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 5:37 PM - 4 Comments

California’s image has taken a beating in the past couple of years, mostly because the state, with its massive deficits, has looked all but impossible to govern properly. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, once a political success story, has seen his approval ratings plummet. But California still has the capacity to look audacious. The latest: fourteen years after the state allowed medical marijuana, it looks like Californians are about to vote on legalizing pot outright. State election officials say enough signatures have almost certainly been collected to put the issue on the ballot next November under California’s famous direct-democracy procedures.

LA Times

Ignatieff "would have preferred a different result"

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 5:32 PM - 12 Comments

It was the vote Liberals had been waiting for. When it was done, the ever-demure Michael Ignatieff said only that he “would have preferred a different result.” On Tuesday night, Canadian MPs voted on whether or not to support family-planning initiatives that fell within Canadian aid projects abroad. The Liberals forced the vote, hoping to peel support away from Stephen Harper, whose government raised concern with its hard line against funding for family planning schemes. But things didn’t play out according to the Liberal plan. The measure was defeated 144-138. What’s more: more than a dozen Liberals didn’t even show up to cast a vote, and three Liberals voted with Conservatives. Ignatieff brushed aside speculation that his leadership rests on fragile grounds: “I don’t think my troops are shooting at me.” Still, Tuesday’s vote have Liberals and Conservatives alike asking: just where were those missing Liberal MPs?

CBC News

Toronto Star

Uncover your face

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 5:00 PM - 23 Comments

The Quebec government is diving deep into controversy by tabling a bill saying it will no longer tolerate face-coverings that obstruct communication or visual identification when delivering services. Premier Jean Charest held a conference where he defended the move, saying “This is a symbol of affirmation and respect. … An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state.” A debate over face coverings has been raging in Europe, but has largely been swept under the rug in Canada, although Charest’s government is known for drawing lines in the sand over accommodation for minorities. Muslim leaders have questioned the need to legislate against the tiny percentage of Quebecers who wear niqabs or other face covering—estimating that there are only about 25 in the whole province—and say they feel singled out despite the legislation making no reference to specific religions.

Toronto Star

Missing Moncton woman found alive

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 4:46 PM - 6 Comments

Donna O’Rielly has been found alive nearly a month after vanishing outside of the mall where she was working in Moncton, New Brunswick. Police have arrested a 62-year-old man in connection with the case. “She got away on her own when the guy went out for some reason. She got out of the house, went out on the road and flagged down a Purolator truck. And from there the guy took her right to the cop station, from there cops took it over,” said O’Rielly’s brother, Austin Lawrence. O’Rielly’s family has maintained throughout the ordeal that she was abducted, although police treated their investigation as a missing persons case.

CBC News

Pickton case under review

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM - 1 Comment

The Supreme Court of Canada is reviewing the 2007 trial of Robert William Pickton, Canada’s most notorious serial killer. At the heart of the review are instructions issued to the jury deciding the case by B.C. Supreme Court Justice James Williams. The jury asked if they could still convict the Port Coquitlam man if they believed he had accomplices. Williams said they could if Pickton had killed the women or “was otherwise an active participant in the killings.” After further deliberations they returned a guilty verdict. But the pig farmer’s defense team has appealed the case, arguing that allowing the prosecution to reframe its version of the crime, from Pickton acting alone to having accomplices, gave them an advantage that made the trial—which took five years and included 129 witnesses and 1.3 million pages of documents—unfair. The prosecution wrote a letter to the Supreme Court saying that there is overwhelming evidence against Pickton, that a retrial will almost certainly result in another conviction, and that starting over would “only serve to detract from society’s perception of fairness and the proper administration of justice.” But there is a real chance that the nine judges may order a new trial—the B.C. Court of Appeal split their decision 2-1 when presented with the same case, and responses to jury questions are one of the leading causes for overturning verdicts.

Globe and Mail

Saudi Arabia breaks up terror cells

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 1:54 PM - 0 Comments

Saudi law enforcement officials have arrested about 100 people in a massive sweep targeting what it claims was a terror plot. According to the country’s interior ministry, the suspects were members of three terrorist cells, two of which were planning to attack oil and security facilities. Among them was a Yemeni security officials described as being a prominent member of al-Qaeda. “We seized belts of explosives which they were planning to use in suicide attacks,” a security official said.

Al Jazeera English

Heroes of academe

By Andrew Potter - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM - 47 Comments

Some professors at the University of Regina are upset about the school’s participation in a scholarship program that pays the tuition for students who had a parent die while on military duty. They think that Project Hero celebrates military intervention and glorifies the Afghan mission. Poli sci prof Jeffrey Webber has a better idea:

“Why stop at the question of dependents of Canadian Forces personnel? There’s all kinds of people who are killed in workplace accidents,” he said. As an alternative to the program, the group says there should be universal access to post-secondary education.

I’d very much like to see Professor Webber tell this woman how much her attendance at Algonquin is a glorification of her father’s death.

What would we be allowed to know?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 1:36 PM - 21 Comments

Over the weekend, Canadian Press considered how a committee of Parliament might be empowered to review documents related to Afghan detainees. Jack Harris’ proposed motion hints at the same basic idea and, in fact, an interim committee of Parliament (that included the current Defence Minister) laid out in much detail how this might work in a 2004 report.

Here, though, is how that plan explains such a committee’s reporting process.

The committee shall make reports directly to Parliament only after consultation with the Government to ensure that no classified information is disclosed. The Government shall have the right to review the committee’s reports before they are tabled in Parliament, and to black out, but not edit or delete, such classified information as it deems necessary. The committee will also respect its obligations with regard to the disclosure of personal information as required by the Privacy Act.

Which perhaps brings us back to the tricky questions of what qualifies as a matter of national security, what qualifies as a matter of public interest and who decides as much.

Favourite Bad Sitcom-Within-A-Sitcom?

By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 1:30 PM - 14 Comments

I haven’t checked to see if TVTropes.org has an entry for this, but a common joke on television — mostly comedies, but sometimes dramas in a lighter mood — is to do a parody of a bad sitcom, often with its own theme song. The 10-second sitcom “Makin’ It Happen!” on 30 Rock is an example of this. (A related trope is where the characters are transported — either via a dream or some wacky plot device — into a bad traditional sitcom, which was done well on Supernatural, okay on Scrubs, and badly on My Name Is Earl.) It’s an easy target, but one that’s hard to resist. So does anyone have a favourite parody of bad sitcoms, or fake sitcom theme song, done within an existing sitcom or drama?

The fake sitcom theme song that is still in my brain, 20 years after it aired, is this 30-second bit from Just the Ten of Us where Wendy, the materialistic daughter, imagines that she has a chance to star in a sitcom about a large family making ends meet (something like the show itself, in other words), and re-tools the whole thing into a show about a rich girl and her butler. I have no idea why, but I’ve been known to sing “Wendy and the Butler” at inopportune times.

Soldier pleads not guilty in Taliban murder case

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 12:59 PM - 5 Comments

A Canadian soldier accused of killing a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan pleaded not guilty on the first day of his general court martial. Prosecutors say Capt. Robert Semrau fired two bullets into a wounded and unarmed insurgent after a firefight in Southern Afghanistan on Oct. 19, 2008. He’s been charged with second-degree murder, or alternately, attempted murder; behaving in a disgraceful manner; and the negligent performance of a military duty, and is the first Canadian soldier to face a court martial in connection with a battlefield death. His trial is expected to last until June.

Ottawa Citizen

Out of sight, out of mind

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 12:21 PM - 1 Comment

That first love note. A piece of jewelry. A photograph. Whatever physical remnants of a painful experience—a failed relationship, say—are haunting you, gather them up and put them out of sight. A series of four experiments by researchers at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management shows that the act of boxing up items related to unpleasant events helps people get over their negative feelings. This exercise doesn’t just apply to relationship troubles, but any difficulty including work or financial matters. In their study, the researchers say that rather than packing up physical reminders, a person can also write about their problem, and then put that account into an envelope. They also say that this discovery may present an opportunity for the development of products and services that help people “enclose or take away memories” associated with tough times.

Rotman School of Management

Tempest in a niqab

By Martin Patriquin - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 12:16 PM - 155 Comments

Photograph by David Boily/ La Presse

UPDATE: The Quebec government tabled a bill Wednesday requiring faces to be in plain view when obtaining or delivering government services.

In August 2009, Naema Ahmed, a pharmacist, mother of three and an observant Muslim living in Montreal, began what is known in French as a cour de francisation—literally, a Frenchifying class—at CEGEP Saint-Laurent in the city’s north end. Apart from being taught the (often confounding) rules of French conjugation, students taking the 33-week, 1,000-hour class learn rhythm, intonation and the practical use of the language: how to shop for groceries and clothes, as well as how to ask for help if they get lost or confused. They also learn the basic workings of Quebec society: that it is French-speaking, secular and considers men and women as equals. In other words, the class teaches integration nearly as much as it does the French language.

At the behest of a school official, Ahmed lifted her niqab—a garment worn by certain observant Muslim women that covers the whole face except the eyes—when registering for the course. When she showed up for class, however, Ahmed refused to remove her veil in the presence of the three male students in attendance in the class of 19. The following 11 weeks, according to a government source, “were one step forward, two steps back”; the teacher often had to halt oral exercises between students to accommodate Ahmed—she didn’t want to speak unveiled to the men of the class. Moreover, the source said, Ahmed at first agreed to remove her niqab for certain exercises, then changed her mind as the classes wore on. “There was no will on her part to compromise,” said the source. (Ahmed was contacted by Maclean’s for this story, but she declined an interview.)

Midway through the second 11-week block of classes, the teacher had had enough. She went to the director of the school, Paul-Émile Bourque. School officials further attempted to have Ahmed remove the veil, which failed; Bourque then called the province’s Immigration Ministry, which runs the classes. (The $4,000-program is entirely subsidized by the Quebec government.) With the consent of Yolande James, Quebec’s minister of immigration, Ahmed was asked to leave the class. It was likely the first time in the program’s 40-year history that a student was turned away on account of a few square centimetres of black cloth.

Continue…

Pulling the plug

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 11:22 AM - 8 Comments

Hydro-Québec is officially out of New Brunswick. After several months of difficult negotiations that saw New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham take a political beating from his constituents, the $3.2 billion deal that would have seen the Quebec powerhouse control the lion’s share of New Brunswick’s energy assets is off the table. Though he at first endorsed the deal, Graham now says the changes Hydro sought in the deal were “unacceptable.” Incidentally or not, New Brunswickers head to the polls in September.

CTV News

Breast cancer screening doesn’t work: experts

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 11:19 AM - 1 Comment

Amid a fierce debate about how often women should be screened for breast cancer, researchers from Denmark and Norway are reporting screening may have no effect on death rates. In a study published in the British Medical Journal, they said the reduction in breast cancer death rates in regions with screening were the same, or even smaller, than in areas where no women were screened. “Our results are similar to what has been observed in other countries with nationally organized programs,” lead researcher Karsten Jorgensen of the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen told Reuters. “It is time to question whether screening has delivered the promised effect on breast cancer mortality.” In Denmark, women are screened every two years from age 50, while in the U.S., following a controversial task force report in November, mammograms are recommended every one or two years for women aged 50 and up. Critics say widespread screening can be harmful as it can result in unnecessary biopsies, false positives and anxiety. Jorgensen said evidence suggests that for ever 2,000 women screened over 10 years, only one stands to have her life saved by the program, whereas the risk of an unnecessary breast cancer diagnosis is 10 times that.

Reuters

'Seriously, it's not my money'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 11:18 AM - 13 Comments

For those keeping score at home, Jack Layton says he’s not in favour of turning over the House of Commons books to the auditor general. Michelle Simson makes the case for doing so.

She said that if MPs are afraid to let Fraser look at their books, they can’t blame people for being suspicious. ”Without that kind of scrutiny, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to successfully convince Canadians that what happened in Britain can’t happen here,” Simson said…

Simson said the benefits of performance reviews and value-for-money audits go far beyond catching embarrassing spending from MPs, as the budget for the House of Commons and Senate is $533 million and every other branch of the public service is subject to Fraser’s audits. ”When it’s combined, it’s a huge amount of money,” Simson said. “And it’s one thing to make sure the columns add up. It’s a performance issue in terms of making sure that she could see a trend. She could see an economy of scale. She could see ways we could save money.”

News flash: no free lunch after all

By Andrew Coyne - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM - 116 Comments

Fraser Institute study confirms what was already plain as day: fiscal “stimulus” had nothing to do with the recovery. Using Statistics Canada data, they find:

Of the 1.1 percentage point improvement in economic growth between the second and third quarter, government consumption and government investment each contributed only 0.1 percentage points. Business investment contributed 0.8 percentage points and was the driving force behind the improvement in economic growth.

Of the 1.0 percentage point improvement in economic growth between the third and fourth quarter, government consumption and government investment contributed nothing. Over this period, increased net exports were the primary reason for the improvement in economic growth.

This, as I say, was obvious enough already. The recovery began at the end of Q2, long before any shovels hit the ground. Fiscal stimulus, besides ineffective, was unnecessary: the extraordinary infusion of monetary stimulus by the Bank of Canada was bound to trigger a revival in total spending. With inflation expectations knocked flat, it was to be expected that this would translate into gains in real output in the short term (though with inflation already showing signs of life, the Bank will need to be quick to withdraw the liquidity it injected).

Fiscal policy’s chief impact is on the composition of demand. It does not ultimately expand it. As was more or less the consensus in the economics profession, before the “policy panic” of 2008.

So all we got for all that federal spending was a $160-billion increase in the national debt, a pile of dubious make-work projects and a fistful of photo-ops for grinning Tory MPs. Which, after all, was always the point.

Time for another mailbag

By Scott Feschuk - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM - 45 Comments

UPDATE: Mailbag replies will arrive early next week. Bad form on my part, I know, but I’ll make it up to each and every one of you by personally refunding 100% of the purchase price.

•

I think I can find time to type up a mailbag column Thursday or Friday in between a big speech I’m writing and the desperate hours I’m spending preparing for my fantasy baseball draft – hours that I could be devoting to more important pursuits, such as online poker that speech I mentioned back there online poker.

Got a question? Type it below in the comments.

Most exclusive PM interview ever

By Scott Feschuk - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 9 Comments

Photographs by Adrian Wyld/CP (Left) , J.P. Moczulski/ Reuters (Right)

In a Maclean’s exclusive, Prime Minister Stephen Harper sits down for an intimate conversation with…the Stephen Harper from five years ago.

Stephen Harper 2005: Let me just say: congratulations, Prime Minister.
Stephen Harper 2010: I couldn’t have done it without you.

SH 2005: This feels like one of those old Freedom 55 commercials where you get to meet your future self. Give me a piece of advice that will save me some grief.
SH 2010: Remember this sentence: O Canada is fine the way it is.

SH 2005: Let’s get down to business. Tell me everything. I assume we’ve completely remade Canada by now.
SH 2010: Yep. [Pause.] Well, pretty much, anyway. [Pause.] Um, the GST used to be seven per cent and now it is five per cent.

SH 2005: That’s our only achievement?
SH 2010: Of course not. Mike Duffy is now a senator.

SH 2005: So it’s all taking some time. We’re still moving ahead with big change, right?
SH 2010: Absolutely. If you look at the portions of the latest Throne Speech dedicated to livestock, uranium and maritime traffic, you’ll see that we—

SH 2005: Maritime traffic? I though we believed a government with a million priorities was a government with no priorities.
SH 2010: You’re overreacting. There was a lot of good stuff in that speech. We vowed to eliminate unnecessary appointments, close unfair tax loopholes and get rid of red tape.

SH 2005: So we used our Throne Speech to tell Canadians that the person running the country for the past four years has been doing a lousy job?
SH 2010: I’m not sure you’ve got the right attitude. My psychic hairstylist says that…

[An awkward silence falls.]

SH 2005: I’m going to pretend I didn’t hear that.
SH 2010: That’s probably for the best.

SH 2005: I have to ask: on a personal level, what’s it like being PM?
SH 2010: It’s great. Remember what we used to say—that it’s better to be respected as a leader than to be loved? Well, it turns out it’s even better to be feared. Plus, there are perks. When I was at the Olympics, I got to sit next to Wayne Gretzky.

SH 2005: That’s terrific! Hey, how’d our book on hockey turn out?

[Silence. In the distance, a coyote howls.]

SH 2005: I don’t have much time. I need to get back and promise Canadians that ministers in a Conservative government will never succumb to the culture of arrogance and entitlement that—

[sound of glass shattering down the hall, followed by screaming].

What the heck was that?

SH 2010: Helena Guergis. Her tea must have been served lukewarm.

SH 2005: I’ve got to be honest: this is a little disheartening. I guess I’ll have to content myself with knowing that we’ve got a Conservative government focused on ordinary Canadians. No longer will the Prime Minister indulge and cater to the elites.
SH 2010: Exactly. I only played them one Beatles song on the piano. But I actually know two.

SH 2005: How do the books look?
SH 2010: The economy took a bit of a turn. Bad timing for us, because we used up the surplus trying to win over voters. So now we’ve got—

SH 2005: I’m just going to take a drink of water. Keep talking.
SH 2010: Now we’ve got a deficit of $56 billion.

[Water sprays from SH 2005’s mouth.]

SH 2005: So—quick checklist. Did we create those child care spaces I’m promising?
SH 2010: No.

SH 2005: Reduce health care wait times?
SH 2010: Oh dear heavens, no.

SH 2005: Create an effective plan to combat climate change?
SH 2010: Well, we’ve been meaning to get—

SH 2005: Nah, I’m just messing with you. I was never serious about that.

[They share a laugh.]

SH 2005: But we killed the gun registry and got Senate reform done, right?
SH 2010: Listen—governing is tricky. It’s hard to do things like…anything.

SH 2005: So we’ve been PM for four years and our primary accomplishment is…what? Still being PM after four years?
SH 2010: Don’t knock it—it worked for Chrétien.

SH 2005: At least tell me we’ve gotten tough on violent crime.
SH 2010: We’re on it. We’ve introduced the bills—lots of them—but we keep running into hurdles.

SH 2005: The opposition finds a way to stop them?
SH 2010: Actually, I prorogued Parliament, killing the bills and forcing us to start over. [Pause.] Twice.

SH 2005: One final question—if I punch you in the face, will I feel it?

Barenaked about former bandmate

By Mike Doherty - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 5 Comments

Photograph by Andrew Tolson

The Barenaked Ladies are mad as hell—or at least, being polite Canadian gentlemen, they’re rather peeved. “Give it up for anger—it makes us strong!” sings Ed Robertson on the band’s new album, All in Good Time. Having survived a time in their history they describe as “devastating,” Canada’s most playful band is ready to let some darker feelings show.

In the summer of 2008, 20 years after Robertson and co-frontman Steven Page, pals since grade school, founded the band in Scarborough, Ont., their career took what Robertson describes as “a major left turn.” In the midst of promoting their children’s album Snacktime!, Page was arrested for cocaine possession. Plans for promoting the CD were curtailed, and by February 2009, he had left the band.

“It felt like everything we’d worked hard for for 20 years was being dragged through the mud,” says Robertson, sipping on a skim-milk latte at a Toronto restaurant with drummer Tyler Stewart. “I was worried and sad for [Page], but also I was kinda disappointed and angry—it was incredibly tumultuous, because he didn’t go through it as an individual; he went through it as the guy from Barenaked Ladies, and that was all of us.”

Continue…

Addicts in the Afghan police force

By Kate Lunau - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 2 Comments

Photograph by Hitoshi Yamada/ Zuma/ Keystone

In Afghanistan, the illegal drug trade helps pay for Taliban weapons, explosives and training. To rebuild this war-ravaged country, counter-narcotics efforts are crucial—but according to a new report for the U.S. Congress, much of the Afghan police force is addicted to drugs.

At regional training centres, 12 to 41 per cent of police recruits tested positive for drugs, notes the report, prepared by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. And that number could even be deceptively low: opiates leave the system quickly, and “many recruits who tested negative for drugs have shown opium withdrawal symptoms later in their training,” it says. The report only confirmed what was already widely believed. Just last year, one U.K. official suggested some 60 per cent of police in Helmand province, a hotbed of narcotics production, were addicted.

This isn’t the first mark against the Afghan police force. Critics say it is badly trained and corrupt, with some reports suggesting that locals fear them as much as the Taliban. While the international community has long treated them as a crucial part of reconstruction, “the truth is, there wasn’t much infrastructure to reconstruct. There was no police, so they had to start from scratch,” says Lael Adams, a graduate student at Boston University who previously worked for the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development in Afghanistan. An Afghan police officer’s duty, then, “is to serve a state that hasn’t served them.”

With an estimated two million Afghans struggling with drug addiction, the problem goes well beyond the police. Still, U.S. officials are looking at ways to curb addiction among officers, including new rehab clinics at training centres. But there are larger challenges in the way of creating an effective police force. “Building a state means building a state of mind,” Adams says. “That sense of national pride is key to forming an effective police force, and the international community can’t create that by pumping in more money.”

The real Jesus?

By Brian D. Johnson - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 8:25 AM - 67 Comments

Photograph by by Carlo Dolci/ Getty Images

You can take Paul Johnson’s word for it. In one persona, the 81-year-old Englishman is a right-wing journalistic gadfly with an acid tongue and the inclination to use it, once dismissing Bill and Hillary Clinton as locked in “a dynastic marriage of ambitious swine.” In what amounts to an entirely different avatar, one that expresses the better angels of his nature, Johnson is a distinguished (and calmly judicious) historian, the author of well-regarded works on topics ranging from Napoleon to the origins of modernity.

So there’s no reason to doubt him when he claims there are more than 100,000 biographies of Jesus Christ in English alone, including a good 100 written in just the last decade. It’s a staggering number, but hardly beyond belief for the single most influential figure in human history. And you can also take Johnson’s word for why he has added to that count with Jesus: A Biography From a Believer—every generation deserves its own portrait, which here emerges as surprisingly modern. What you cannot do, however, is accept his book as a work of historical scholarship.

That is in spite of the fact Jesus is a lovely little book, as beautifully written as any of Johnson’s histories, subtle and insightful on what the New Testament aims to tell us about Jesus Christ. But it isn’t historical writing, at least not by the standards of those—skeptic and believer alike—who abide by the rules of the professional historian’s craft. In a nutshell: human events have human or natural agency (miracles are not, cannot be, explanations); time moves in only one direction (seemingly successful predictions—of betrayal, death and resurrection—are much more likely to be the result of retroactive insertion into accounts than of divine foreknowledge); outsiders’ statements or random documents (a name on a tax roll, for instance) are more coolly informative than followers’ claims.

Continue…

Eye of the beholder

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 2:17 AM - 97 Comments

After a day of debate, the Liberal motion was defeated by a count of 144-138, with three Liberals voting against.

The Canadian Press figures we’ve gained no clarity on the government’s position. With the Campaign Life Coalition having deemed this vote a referendum of sorts on abortion, LifeSiteNews calls the result a “pro-life victory.”

Coulter: the she-devil in her own words

By Colby Cosh - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 11:38 PM - 296 Comments

Ezra Levant, who was present at the venue for tonight’s aborted Ann Coulter talk at the University of Ottawa, spotted my quickie weblog entry about the cancelled event and had me chat briefly with the leggy agitator. Coulter tells Maclean’s she never had the chance to move on from a private dinner reception at which she was signing books, meeting local conservatives, and waiting for the all-clear from her bodyguard, who was on the scene at the university. “I was just reviewing my speech. It was a fine little speech, and by the way, I cut it down so we could have an extensive question-and-answer period. I gathered that I was going to have a very exciting crowd tonight.”

The police, Coulter says, “had been warning my bodyguard all day that they were putting up [messages] on Facebook: ‘Bring rocks, bring sticks, you gotta hurt Ann Coulter tonight, don’t let her speak.’ And the cops eventually said, we’ve got a bad feeling, this isn’t gonna happen. And they shut it down.”

Coulter agrees with the suggestion that conservative speakers face greater dangers and nuisances in trying to encounter audiences on university campuses. “I speak at a lot of college campuses and I need a bodyguard… Michael Moore does not; Judy Rebick does not. I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could have spoken tonight with less controversy.” She dismisses the possibility, however, that things are ever likely to change. “Unfortunately, conservatives are too polite, so they will never get a taste of their own medicine in that regard, in terms of angry mobs with sticks and rocks.”

She accuses the University of Ottawa’s academic vice-president, Francois Houle, of “inspiring hatred” toward her with his epistolary warning to her that she needed to be conscious of Canada’s criminal prohibitions of hate speech. Indeed, she says she intends, with Levant’s help, to ask police to proceed with exactly the same charges against Houle.

“He described the law to me very carefully—any speech that incites hatred toward someone based on membership in an identifiable group can be criminally prosecuted. Well, before I even set foot in Canada, he had identified me as having criminal proclivities because I belong to an identifiable group: conservatives. Or it could be because I’m a Christian, I’m a Presbyterian. I’m a female conservative. If what Francois Houle did to me is not a hate crime, then nothing is.”

After the event was cancelled by the police, Coulter says she went to her hotel room to relax and had a surreal moment. “I was watching the local news, which was all hockey and Ann Coulter, and some nut came on claiming that he was the organizer behind my speech. [murmurs in background] OK, his name is Craig Chandler. I sent an e-mail to my bodyguard saying Craig Chandler is disinvited from the event in Calgary. He’s on TV claiming to be the organizer and denouncing me!”