E-Cool

non-political post warning:

Alexandria (VA) is going wireless. I have always wondered which city would be the first to go completely wireless.

I lived in Alexandria for half a year when I was working in Washington DC and attending the NAFTA programme at The Washington Centre. It's a wonderful city. (And in case you are wondering, you can also get free internet by going to the George Mason University School of Law.

Balanced Life - the Liberal Approach

One of the subjects that I have some interest in is that of parenting. Unlike my girlfriend, I am not quite at the reading books stage, but I always stop to read any article or blog post on the matter while I am browsing the net.

Today, I came upon this through Drudge.

This, I think, is the most interesting excerpt:

There are certain cultures--particularly Asian ones--that produce child prodigies. Relentless parents, goading their children to success at the youngest possible age, are but one explanation. These are all cultures in which, traditionally, children have begun work early, in which childhood as we know it in the West is an alien idea. Indian kids are potty-trained by two. In America, that would be regarded as precocious. Pressure is brought to bear much later on purely American children than on those kids whose parents persist in old-world child-rearing ways long after they immigrate to America.

This explains my theory on parenting quite well. I believe, through reading, observation, and my own personal experience, that the purpose of childhood is often misunderstood in North America. The idea that children should do nothing other than play is highly disturbing.

When my family first immigrated to Canada, my brother was placed in a Grade 2 class at the local elementery school. He spoke no English, but after the first day he came running home and claimed that he had already graduated because he would never need to do homework ever again. I kid you not. My 7 year-old brother, who had spent only one year in a school in Middle East recognized that what we do in North America to our children is not schooling. It's some sort of social education, but not schooling.

Sure, our kids learn to share, play, and sing. But does the fact that the majority of them can't read, spell, or do long division not bother anyone? When I first moved to Canada, in Grade 8, I had to take two years off from the Junior High's math classes. My teachers actually asked me to go sit at the back of the class. One of them even gave me a book to read on Chaos Theory. I barely spoke any English and she gave me a book on Chaos Theory - I'm convinced just to get me out of her hair.

Many years later I would go through my Grade 7 notebook from Iran and realize that the math I had done in Grade 7 was the math that was being thought in Grade 12 and, the now defunct, OAC. I remember being good at it in Grade 7, but somehow after 4 years of Canadian education I had to re-learn this stuff because I had forgotten a good chunk of it.

This is a problem. We are babying our children. This is why those parents that leave the education of their kids to the schools are condemning them to a life of wondering "why is that Asian kid so good at math?" We are raising our kids to be stupid, and then wondering why they turn out that way. We are signing up our sons for hockey teams and wondering why they didn't use their brain before they punched that kid's nose in with their oversized fists.

I had a conversation with an Indian friend of mine the other day about the Indian Institute of Technology. (If you haven’t heard of it, start worrying now. You’re job will likely be off-shored soon to someone who graduated from IIT.) Anyway, I asked my friend why so many Indians were attending engineering school in North America when IIT was clearly the best school in the world. His answer: not all Indians are smart enough to get into IIT, so if they can’t get in to IIT they try MIT.

This is India folks. The same country that has people dying on the streets, going hungry, and living- well - like they do in India!

They are kicking our asses. Just think about that the next time you want your son or daughter to have a “balanced life.” I am not saying that children shouldn’t play hockey. All I’m saying is that a balanced life (edit) ought to include at least some level of academic education.

H&H: Harper and Healthcare

The mass hysteria over Harper seems somewhat too organized to be random. I don't know who is pushing it, but I intend to find out. If there is one thing I’ve learned about MSM, it’s that they don’t do anything without being pushed. My original post on this issue still applies.

On health care and the Supreme Court:

A couple of years ago I was on a rant about how judicial activism hurts the country and how the Charter of Rights was a Liberal scam. Like most other conservatives I had decided that since so many bad things have happened since the charter was enacted, they were caused by the charter. I have since learned that this is not true. I have even come to accept, if not tepidly endorse, judicial activism.

The reason why conservatives keep losing charter fights is because we refuse to fight them. Sure, our hit rate may be lower than the left wing nut-jobs, but we should still fight them. We should not let the fact that the courts are stacked full of left wing judges stop us either. Because even all the left wing judges have a certain respect for the law and will have to give in to a good argument based on it.

This is the base of the recent healthcare challenge. Sure, the SCOC did not go far enough, but this is a start. Now when the Liberals go on a rant about private health care we can point to the Supreme Court and say "well, Mr. Martin, are you saying we should use the notwithstanding clause?" (Yes, this is a legal nons-equitor, but so is the Liberals claim re: notwithstanding clause on numerous other issues.) "Are you saying we should ignore the courts that are designed to protect our rights?" Canada needs a conservative legal corps – like these guys.

This is the time to push for liberalized health care in Canada. Stephen Harper should ignore the party's policy resolution, just like he promised he would ignore the anti-abortion policy if it passed, and push for medical saving accounts. (Medical version of RRSP's.)

This, as they say, would be one small step for our party and one giant leap for our country. (or something silly like that.)

I'm freaking psychic

Okay. How apt is my post about actual conservatives questioning Harper given this?

Brock's argument particularly crappy given that Stephen Harper grabbed a larger pluarlity of the vote out of any Tory/Reform leader in the past two decades with the exception of Mulroney. Stephen Harper will be the Prime Minister. Give him a year.

Rick Peterson et al

My post earlier today, on Harper, seems even more appropriate now. See here for some predictable moaning.

Why I trust Stephen Harper

There are many places where one can read about Stephen Harper's "amateurism," his strategic mistakes, or his inability to lead.

In fact, if I hadn't experienced, first hand, media's war on Stockwell Day, I would have said that Stephen Harper has gotten the worst media treatment out of all conservative leaders in the history of this country. So it is not a complete surprise to hear some conservatives start questioning Harper's leadership. (Red Tories were always trying to bring him down, but some conservatives are now starting to oppose his leadership.)

Here is, in one sentence, why I trust Stephen Harper: He is smarter than any politician I have ever known.

He is scary smart. This is a guy who sees four or five moves ahead, when the best of us can only see two or three.

For example, back when the new election financing bill was going through everyone was wondering why Harper had pledged his support for it. After all, the measure was not by any means conservative.

At the time I said it was because Harper was a member of the infamous Red Reformer crew. Western Canadians who were centrist Tories in their heart, but had joined the Reform Party out of pure ambition. (A crew co-lead in 1993 by Harper and Jan Brown, the MP from Calgary Southeast.) I thought this was just the Red Reformer in Harper coming out.

Well, it turns out I was wrong.

Harper knew that the new system would leave any future PC Party leader, who would have had campaign debts of his own from the leadership, in a bind. The new leader would be unable to tap into the treasure that had kept the PC's alive- the traditional Tory corporations like Rogers. This, inability to raise the money needed to fight an election, must have been one of the reasons why Pete Mackay agreed to the merger agreement.

He also knew that he may have to undergo a leadership race soon. Since he had a healthy war chest from his own leadership race against Stockwell Day, he would not need to raise much money. Any opponent, on the other hand, would have to raise millions of dollars and may be forced to do so only from individuals. (As it turned out the Conservative Leadership came under the wire by a matter of a few weeks so candidates could raise money under the old rules.) This remains true today. Harper has a war chest so he can fight off any effort to dethrone him while any one who wants to do so would have a very hard time raising the money required.

This is only one example. Other examples can be found going all the way back to 1992. Whether it was his refusal to use the standard Reform Party literature in 1993, his decision to leave the Reform Party, his decision to not run for the PC Party Leadership, and his strategic move to the right before his run for the Alliance leadership.

Anyway, this post has turned out to be a lot longer than I wanted it to be. All I wanted to say to my conservative friends is put your trust in Harper. What he is missing in charisma, he more than makes up for in brains.

More on morons

I think this latest Democratic effort to brand Republicans, and George Bush, as idiots is quite interesting. First they branded the Republicans as being heartless. They've accomplished that so they have no moved on to add the idiot label.

This is not a one-off thing.

According to Democrats and MSM, every Republican Presidential candidate of the past two decades has been mentally inferior to his Democratic opponent:

Reagan X2
Bush X2
Dole
Bush X2

And this has started to work. Just like the Republicans labeling Democrats as being immoral liars.

I wonder which one is more dangerous: being an immoral liar or a heartless idiot.

hmmm...

Who is the idiot now?

So John Kerry's Yale average was lower than George W. Bush.

In fact he had four D's, out of ten courses, in his first year. This after spending most of his life going to expensive private schools where he would have been spoon fed the material.

More on this later.

Supreme Court Decision on Pot

MaderBlog has a decent, and short analysis of the Gonzales v. Raich decision.

I consider myself a social conservative and I can't believe I'm supporting any decision written by Sandra "the horrible" Day O'Connor, but the federalist in me says that this is a bad decision.

I don't care so much for how the interstate commerce clause precedent has come to mean that the Federal government can do whatever its heart pleases. I especially dislike how the court has weighted political considerations in making its decision. I've skimmed the decision, but it seems to me that if there is any body that ought to be more ideological than practical it is the Supreme Court.

So far today, I've disagreed with stricter limits on a criminal and promoted marijunan liberalization laws. I think that is my limit for liberalism for the week. Tomorrow, I am going to try to have a detailed post one why I oppose marijunan liberalization.

Homolka stuff..

The Libertoons are having an internal fight over Karla Homolka.

Read their background discussion on S.810 first. Then come back here.

I have been struggling with this issue for about two weeks now. I have thought about more than any other recent political issue. There are four competing priorities that I've considered:

1. The right of the victims and their families. It is reasonable to assume that these people would like this child rapist to stay behind bars as long as possible. We must certainly consider their feelings on this issue. (This is why I am a proponent of allowing victim statements at parole board hearings.)

2. Protection of society. Is Homolka a psychopath who will kill/rape again? If so, the government has a basic duty to its citizens to ensure their protection from her.

3. Homolka's rights as a criminal. Now, I don't often consider such things but surely there are some rights bestowed upon even the worst criminals. (We would not advocate random tortures in our penal system for example.) So the question is does her rights as a criminal include being free to go about as she pleases once she has finished her sentence? My answer to this question was no.

So why do I think she should be freed without any restrictions?

Here is the fourth priority:

4. The people's word: Our government struck a deal with Homolka. It was a bad deal, but it was a deal nonetheless. For the sake of my friends in law school I will compare this to a contract. There is an offer (I will rat on my husband if you give a deal), there is acceptance (Crown's attorney's plea), and there is consideration (she did rat on her husband.)

It seems to be she held up her end of the bargain. We should hold up our end.

Lesson learned: don’t let a criminal get away with murder just because some socialist attorney general thinks she was an abused wife.