You know those little silver balls you use to decorate cakes and cookies? Well, they have a name - dragées. And apparently they are bad, bad, bad for you. They contain silver! Which is almost as bad as mercury, except not really!

Some guy in California (of course) has apparently dedicated his life to the eradication of this evil menace, and is merrily suing bakers and decorators across the land.

How bad for you are they? Well Jim Hu did the math:

So...if you ate a 25 g package (which has hundreds of individual dragées), you'd ingest about 20 mg of silver. The amount of silver in a bunch of cookies would be more in the range of tenths of mgs.
emedicine writes:
The normal human body contains approximately 1 mg of silver; the smallest amount of silver reported to produce generalized argyria in humans ranges from 4-5 g to 20-40 g. Silver at 50-500 mg/kg body weight is the lethal toxic dose in humans.

So you'd really have to go crazy on these puppies to do any damage. And although I'm sure there are destructive individuals out there who would eat entire packages, the danger to your children seems small. And if you are letting them eat that many cookes anyway, you have other problems.

On the bright side, a society in which the toxicity of cake decorations is seen as a major threat is a comfortable society indeed.

On that note, have a Merry Christmas (insert other holiday here). I am going to my parents' for a few days, where there is only dialup internet access.

I plan to spend the time reading Virginia Postrel's book, which is fitting since I found the dragée story her site.

Posted by Ginna Dowler
(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic)

(Here's a topic which I'm sure will be new to Peaktalk readers!)

Further to my comments about Walmart and suppliers digging their own graves, I'm making a confession here which will surprise not one of the readers who know me in real life:

I read romance novels.

Yes, it's true. I used to feel guilty and try to hide it, but I don't even bother anymore. I'm not alone though - Romance novels make up 18% of all adult books sold, and more than half of all paperback fiction, accounting for a staggering $1.63 billion in sales in 2002.

Okay. So part of that $1.63 billion is my money. In my youth, I bought Harlequins because they were cheap. In university, my roomate and I shared a subscription to Harlequin's mail order club. For something like $20 a month, 5 or 6 books were mailed to us. Magic!

Anyway, as the years went on, I moved away from "category" romance, as it's known in the book trade. I realize now that I did so after TorStar bought both Harlequin and Silhouette and started making changes.

Up until a few years ago, Harlequin/Silhouette (same company) was the cash cow of the TorStar empire. Category romance used to be king in the industry, but the percentage of readers who only read series romances has dropped to 18%.

Part of this is that TorStar seemed determined to kill the category romance. It's not clear why. According to their 2004 annual report, revenue was down 20% from 2003. They complained that the mail order business was "challenging", so they axed it altogether this year., driving more women to the stores, where they might select romance novels from many publishers. Good one.

Now, they've decided to shrink the things even further. Smart Bitches - Trashy Books (which is one of my favourite sites, although not always work-safe) reports that Harlequin is sick of getting complaints from readers that the fonts are too small and the margins too narrow. The solution? Shrink the word count.

For their "long" books, instead of 80-85K words, the size restriction for authors will now be 70-75K words. Same price, of course. Is this likely to drive me back into the arms of Harlequin? Ummm, no. Unlikely.

The other strange strategy they have adopted is that of increasing category granularity. At eHarlequin, I count 32 separate categories. I couldn't tell you the difference between them to save my life. Strangely, their annual report insists this is a winning strategy, and plan to increase the number of lines they offer. Romances used to be broadly divided in categories such as modern, historical, paranormal or sci-fi, Christian (no sex) etc. Well those old categories as so passé.

Meanwhile, romance authors complain that the once extra-tight guidelines are getting a tad ridiculous. I leave you with the writing guidelines from the Silhouette Desire series:

At 57,000 words, Silhouette Desire books are filled to the brim with strong, intense storylines. These sensual love stories immediately involve the reader in the romantic conflict and the quest for a happily-ever-after resolution. The novels should be fast-paced reads, and present the hero and heroine's conflict by the end of chapter one in order for the reader to understand what obstacles will impact the characters for the remainder of the novel.
The Desire hero should be powerful, wealthy — an alpha male with a sense of arrogance and entitlement. While he may be harsh and direct, he is never physically cruel. He is capable of being saved and it's up to the heroine to get him there. The Texan hero should own the ranch, not work on it, and the urban hero should be the company CEO, not a handyman.
The Desire heroine is complex and flawed. She is strong-willed and smart though capable of making terrible mistakes when it comes to matters of the heart. This is primarily her story so much of the book should be from her point-of-view. There is room for the hero's perspective as long as his thoughts are centered on the heroine and their conflict. Instead of dividing the novel equally between both protagonists' points-of-view, Desires should be more 60% heroine and 40% hero.
The conflict should be dramatic with such classic plot lines as revenge, secret pregnancies, marriages of convenience and reunion romances. Plots which focus on suspense, paranormal or character-driven concerns are best directed elsewhere. The story can be set anywhere in the world, but the tone should be true to the author's voice.

Wow, that is awfully specific.

Posted by Ginna Dowler
(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic)

Almost 10 years ago, the science fiction author David Brin put forth an interesting theory in Wired magazine. Brin pointed out that when surveillance cameras become ubiquitous, we will have two choices. We can either let them remain tools of the police, or we can take ownership, and let everyone see everything. Neither option seemed ideal, but Brin's point was that these surveillance cameras were coming. We could either embrace them and become a transparent society, or we could let them remain in the hands of the state. (Brin later turned the essay into a book, and Chapter 1 is here.)

Well it looks like that day is just about here. Technology is hardly the barrier anymore:

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.
Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.
By next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London, will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.

We see it now with the uproar over the NSA surveillance. Whatever you believe, the use of this technology is coming. We just need to decide who will control it.

Posted by Ginna Dowler
(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic)

Instapundit links to this NY Sun editorial calling for automation in the NYTC system.

Already, trains in Paris, Cairo, and Calcutta operate with computerized or automated systems. In Paris, the Meteor Project was launched in 1998, with an automatic piloting system that controls the train line’s traffic, regulates speed, manages alarm devices, and allows for traffic of automatic and traditional conductor trains on the same line. There have been no serious accidents reported since this system deployed in the late 1990s, and more than a billion people have been transported. Computers make the trains run on time and they don’t threaten to walk off the job. All of us are replaceable, but some are more quickly replaceable than others.

Ahem. Since I know a little something about Computer-Based Train Control (CBTC), I will comment on how wrong this is.

First off, New Yorkers do not have to look to Calcutta to find CBTC in action - they only need to look as far as the JFK Airport. Airtrain is as automated a transit system as they come - completely driverless. (It's a Bombardier Mk II Linear Induction Motor vehicle with an Alcatel SELTRAC Automatic Train Control system, if you must know.)

But it is still entirely and completely dependent on unionized workers to make the system run. Believe me, I know. (1) Automation will not solve the labour problem. You still need maintenance personnel, train conductors, operations specialists, and without them, the trains do not move.

Actually, there are really only two arguments for automation - safety and service speed. Automation increases the safety of the system, because the single greatest cause of accident is driver error. (This is not because drivers are incompetent, but merely because they are human.) Furthermore, train safety analyses are easier and more predictable if you can minimize the dreaded human error factor.

Headway, or the required space between trains, can be reduced with an automated system as well, increasing service.

So could the NYCT make use of CBTC? Yes and no. Several trains have systems on board, but the stations, guideways and infrastructure is not in place to accomodate wide-scale implementation, and it would be very expensive (i.e. billions of dollars) to make it happen. The L trains are already out-fitted with CBTC, and my understanding is that with management support they are running with limited service.

Eventually as wireless technologies become more secure and sophisticated, the implementation of CBTC will be more feasible.

But it still won't help with the strike threat. You can't remove humans from this equation entirely.

Posted by Ginna Dowler

(Will eventually by cross-posted to Gin and Tonic.)

(True, if tangential, story: Last winter I was at Airtrain doing a software upgrade for our equipment - a procedure which had to be done over night. After 5 nights, I only had one train left to upgrade. Operations agreed to bring the train in if maintenance would send one more out. There was a train ready and waiting in the shop. To get them out into the yard, you collected some workers and pushed the train out the door until it hit a powered rail - not as hard as it sounds, as the bearings make the train easy to move. But I could not collect enough people to push out the train, and the shop supervisor kept shrugging his shoulders and telling me it was a Union shop, so what could he do. My plane was leaving in the morning, and as the hours ticked by it seemded more and more likely I would have to stay another night just to get this one car. Consumed with rage, I started pushing. Now, I am not a big woman, but damned if I didn't get that puppy moving. All of a sudden I was surrounded by big guys shouting at me, but they did push out that train, and I made my flight.)

A Peaktalk reader wonders if I can handicap the Canadian election. At this juncture, I am not ready to go so far out onto a limb. In fact, despite Conservative party membership, my own vote is now in play.

The best indicator of the election progess is probably the UBC Election Stock Market, historically more accurate than the polls.

So, why have I joined the ranks of the undecideds? Because the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, has become convinced that the way to win this election is to cosy up to the Qubec separatists, going to far as to offer them a "voice" in international organizations such as UNESCO. Columnist Andrew Coyne puts the argument much better than I can:

If the only lesson Quebecers absorbed from each concession were that blackmail works, that they should never forswear the separatist "option" or fear of giving up their leverage, that would be one thing. But in fact it's worse than that. The more we hollow out federal authority to appease nationalist demands, the more we are confirming Quebecers in the belief that they are already an independent state in all but name, that the federation is at best a kind of cocoon, from which the butterfly of a sovereign Quebec will in time emerge.

I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for a party so willing to abandon Federalism. So now I'm undecided.

Posted by Ginna Dowler

(Cross-posted in modified form to Gin and Tonic.)

I've been following the NYC Transit strike with interest. I think it's hard for many of us to imagine the scale of such an event, but one comparison I like to make for Canadians is that the NYC Transit Authority is larger than the government of Ontario.

The NY Times has been all over the story naturally. To be honest, although I'm not usually a big supporter of labour, where the complaint is working conditions I see the union's point here. The front-line workers do have difficult conditions, and they deal first-hand with security threats. In fact, one of the chief complaints from transit workers that I used to hear is that the operators and conductors are now considered the front-line in the anti-terror war. The are expected to watch passengers for suspicious behaviour, and make the decision to call in police or other security. On the other hand, they will be blamed if it's a false alarm and causes a delay in revenue service. I'm not actually supporting the TWU-local 100 strikers, but having seen their working conditions first-hand, they have a far more legitimate beef than say, the BC teachers ever did.

What's most interesting for me though is how little support the union is getting from other organized labour groups, most importantly their own parent organization. The local union is in serious trouble with penalties, and even considering selling their building to cover costs. The union is facing fines up to $1 million a day, and they only have $3.6 in cash. From that they have to also pay strike wages. They don't even seem to be getting support from left-wing bloggers.

Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems to me that the level of support for a strike has nothing to do with the issues involved, and everything to do with the level of inconvenience it causes locals.

Posted by Ginna Dowler

(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic)

A series of related stories in the National Post this morning. The first, on the front page with a nice photo of a sub breaking through the ice, is a story about how a U.S. sub may have toured the Canadian Arctic. Without us knowing about it of course, as Canada has no ability to detect foreign incursion in our waters.

The second item, describes how the Liberal government ignored the advice of the Defence Department to plow ahead with a purchase of tactical transport planes, as opposed to the heavy lift aircraft on the Canadian Forces' wish list. Canada's lack of strategic airlift is an ongoing problem.

And finally, an article about the non-existence of discussion on the global terrorism threat in this election campaign. No party leader has brought up the topic, and none give particularly good answers in response to the question.

So lets review. The Canadian Forces have no ability to transport themselves quickly, whether it be around the world or across the country. They have no ability to even monitor, let alone defend, our northern territory. The logical conclusion to this is that they have no ability to respond to a terrorist threat, but that's okay, since no one is talking about it. That must mean it's not much of a threat, right? Boy, I wish I could believe that.

In any case, if you needed a more selfish reason to support expansion of the forces, and the purchase of heavy lift aircraft, I will give you my craven self-involved reason.

I live on an island (Vancouver Island), which is in a serious earthquake zone. All respectable geologists and seismologists agree that it's not a question of if the big one will arrive, but when. So you would think the emergency plan of the City of Victoria would acknowledge that threat, and it sort of does. Earthquakes are high on the list of possible emergencies. But the plan explicitly states that citizens are entirely and completely on their own for the first 72 hours. That's the plan, for you Katrina-watchers. After that, the expectation is that the provincial government will ask for help from the federal government (that is, the army), and the army will come and save us.

This made a teeny bit of sense when the nearest army base was just outside Vancouver. That base was closed, and now the nearest help is in Edmonton Alberta. That's 1200 km away (775 miles, if you prefer). Google maps informs me helpfully that it would take a day and a half of driving to get here, assuming you went straight through. Assuming no weather delays. Also assuming you had some way of crossing the body of water between us and the mainland. Which, in the case of a major earthquake which would probably damage or destroy all the ferry terminals, seems unlikely.

So to me, the ability of the army to transport themselves quickly is pretty important on a purely selfish level.

But yeah, the fact that we have to beg transportation from the Americans or Brits or (God help us) the Australians whenever there's a global crisis, that's fun too.

(As an aside, I discussed the situation with someone a while ago, and he didn't think it was a big deal, because the US Army would probably help us. I pointed out that a) that would be the US Army everyone loves to bash, b) wouldn’t they be a bit busy helping out in Seattle, and c) there's the way to stand up for our sovereignty - invite a foreign army to save us!)

Posted by Ginna Dowler

(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic)

In an effort to involve myself more in the onging Canadian Federal Election, I sat through the entire leader's debate (a trial in itself). The only comment that really stunned me came from Jack Layton, the leader of the left-wing NDP.

At one point, in response to a question regarding the lack of civility in question period (which apparently even stunned a "rock star"), Layton declared that he would solve the problem of civility with women.

That's right. His point is that the NDP has the highest percentage of female candidates, and that having more women would naturally bring calm and civility to parliament.

Ick.

Seriously, am I the only one who was completetly turned off by this reasoning? That sounds like an incredibly paternalistic remark to me. I admit I get frustrated by anyone who makes sweeping generalizations based on gender, but haven't we outgrown the calm and collected "civilizing influence" steroptype?

To me the hidden message here is that women can't get into the fray, that they haven't the strength and stamina for dirty politics. Our delicate constitutions just aren't up to it.

I wonder what Layton's wife Olivia Chow, running for parliament herself, thinks about this characterization?

Posted by Ginna Dowler
(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic, where comments are enabled)

I've spent the last three weeks taking an incredibly intensive course for budding entrepreneurs. I call it business boot camp, and it was easily one of the best courses I've ever taken, including anything at University. One of the first things our instructor told us was that as prospective founders, we had to take responsibility for how our businesses progressed, or didn't. "It's all your fault" he told us. If your business fails, it won't be because of your competitors, or mysterious market forces, or your clients, or the weather, or your employees - it will be all you. You will have failed to adapt, failed to respond, failed to innovate.

With that in mind, I read a good serious of articles over at Fast Company documenting how Walmart is mean to their suppliers, and often drives them out of business. In a companion piece entitled "Ten Steps to Turn Around Walmart", another author argues is that Walmart is struggling, which I'm not sure I believe, and that among other things, they should be nicer to their suppliers.

I don't know if Walmart is struggling. Their share price is lower than at many points over the last five years, but on the other hand, growth and sales are both strong.

But the issue of Walmart's behaviour to their suppliers is what interests me. The Fast Company article documents the sad story of Vlasic Pickles, who are struggling now because of Walmart.

Young remembers begging Wal-Mart for relief. "They said, 'No way,' " says Young. "We said we'll increase the price"--even $3.49 would have helped tremendously--"and they said, 'If you do that, all the other products of yours we buy, we'll stop buying.' It was a clear threat." Hunn recalls things a little differently, if just as ominously: "They said, 'We want the $2.97 gallon of pickles. If you don't do it, we'll see if someone else might.' I knew our competitors were saying to Wal-Mart, 'We'll do the $2.97 gallons if you give us your other business.' " Wal-Mart's business was so indispensable to Vlasic, and the gallon so central to the Wal-Mart relationship, that decisions about the future of the gallon were made at the CEO level.

The story is that Vlasis, a premium pickle brand, agreed to sell a gallon jar of pickles in Walmart for an absurdly cheap price. What happened is fairly predictable. Why would conumers buy a small jar for $3.00 when they could get a gallon for the same price? Yet the margin on the gallon jar was incredibly thin, so despite the increased volumes, the pickle maker took in less and less, especially when you factor in Walmart's insistence (stated up front) that suppliers lower their prices each year. So are Vlasic's troubles really the fault of Walmart?

Finally, Wal-Mart let Vlasic up for air. "The Wal-Mart guy's response was classic," Young recalls. "He said, 'Well, we've done to pickles what we did to orange juice. We've killed it. We can back off.' " Vlasic got to take it down to just over half a gallon of pickles, for $2.79. Not long after that, in January 2001, Vlasic filed for bankruptcy--although the gallon jar of pickles, everyone agrees, wasn't a critical factor.

So if the gallon jar wasn't a critical factor, what was it? The point here seems to me that the Vlasic management team made an incredibly stupid move in agreeing to the gallon pickle jar anyway. Once again, it was all their fault.

The article then goes on to discuss the tale of Levi Strauss's entry into the Walmart fray, which seems like a company-killing decision to me. The short version is that Levis has been struggling over the years because of competition from low-cost brands at, of course, Walmart. (In reality, the demand for premium jeans remains strong, but Levis has failed utterly to hold that market.) So now they are diluting the premium brand by selling a cheaply-made and cheaply-priced version through Walmart.

I will make a prediction: In a few years, Levi Strauss will file for bankruptcy, and blame their failures on Walmart's rapacious supplier management. There will be much sniffing in the mainsteam press.

And people will continue to buy cheap clothes at Walmart so they can have enough money to buy one pair of DKNY or other premium brand jeans - just not Levis.

Posted by Ginna Dowler
(Cross-posted to Gin and Tonic, where comments are enabled.)

Good morning Peak Talk readers. I'll be with you here until the New Year, and will try to keep you interested. Sadly, I know next to nothing about European politics, and usually rely on Pieter. Most entries will be cross-posted to Gin and Tonic, where comments are enabled. Onwards!

Normally a political junkie, I'm having a great deal of trouble involving myself in the Canadian election. But Andrew at Bound By Gravity has a very good reason why I should be paying attention: Six in Ten Canadians have no idea how they will vote in January.

I find that to be simply an astonishing number. In my memory, the undecided vote has never been so important. For those of you not as familiar with the Canadian electoral system, 40% is easily enough to win a majority in Parliament. So the undecided category, which is purged from most polls, is more than enough to form a government. For comparison, the undecideded percentage going into the 2004 election was, as I recall, around 9% - still enough to have a huge impact.

Which means of course that the conduct of the campaign itself will have more impact than ever before.

Maybe I should get interested.

Posted by Ginna Dowler

Yes, I’ve lamented the Euro-mentality on this blog more than once, but when it comes to taking a break I do revert to some of my native habits. And that means, like last year, a two week Christmas and New Year holiday.

But as opposed to last year, I have been able to find a very talented guestblogger who has been willing to mind the store in my absence. So welcome Ginna Dowler of Gin and Tonic, and if you want to learn more about here she is one of the fortunate ones to have been the subject of a Normblog Profile (number 64 to be precise). Keep e-mailing and keep linking; I will see you all again in the New Year. Take care.

It's like going into Hollywood and argue against the merits of producing entertainment. Hong Kongers are perplexed:

Shouts of "People before profit," "No tariff cuts" and "Down with the WTO" echo through the city that prides itself on being one of the world's major financial centers and a poster child for laissez-faire capitalism.

"Most people in Hong Kong don't understand what they (the anti-free trade protesters) are doing. This is not in their culture. They like free trade," said K.K. Cheung, a 68-year-old retired construction engineer.

Money, trade, markets. It built Hong Kong. It's the lifeblood of Hong Kong.

NOTE: Others blogging the WTO event in Hong Kong are Flagrant Harbour and Freedom to Trade.

In Iraq. For live coverage and updates, your first port of call should be Pajamas Media:

To provide the coverage, Pajamas Media – launched last month in New York – is teaming with one of its affiliates, “Iraq The Model,” a Baghdad-based blog authored by Mohammad and Omar and founded two years ago. Additionally, Pajamas has enlisted other Iraqis, including reporters and other bloggers, to provide reports, video and still photography, real-time, from eight Iraq provinces.

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna has a great post up on Hirsi Ali’s suggestion that the Dutch abolish one of the cornerstones of their society by suspending Article 23 of the constitution. Yes, that‘s the one that guarantees freedom of education and the one that ensures that public and private (read religious schools) are funded from the government’s coffers. Alexandra Colen has a comprehensive post about the topic up too.

In short, the time-tested mechanism that the Dutch felt would help integrate Muslims by allowing them to have their own social and cultural pillar – see my post on pillarization - has in fact achieved the opposite for the Muslim pillar made any proper assimilation impossible. Even worse, the Muslim pillar has likely accelerated a process of radicalization which is now spilling over into the Dutch streets.

It has become very fashionable these days for Dutch politicians to throw out radical ideas in the hope that some of them will stick and miraculously resolve the nation’s immigration problems. And if they don’t then the mere act of positioning some rather uncompromising thoughts should be sufficient to at least get a refreshing debate going, some believe. The danger of such folly is that you activate the law of unintended consequences. Some of these inarticulate ideas tend to produce nasty side effects: people get killed, political alliances split, or some counter-initiatives produce the opposite of what was orginially intended.

And so I agree with Dymphna that a broad brush approach – if you can’t have religious schools, then no one else can – is counterproductive and reeks of the statist socialism that Hirsi Ali given her political allegiance, should firmly reject. As you all know, this issue has come up on these pages before, but in those cases it was always the liberal-left that resorted to blanket bans, not the right. Hirsi Ali’s party (the VVD) is one of the parties that given its classical liberal and conservative roots appeared to have been well-positioned to capitalize on the growing Dutch discontent. But so far they are struggling and worse, lagging in the polls and more than once they have made the headlines over internal divisions, especially when immigrant and/or Muslim issues were at stake. The emotions that have erupted over Article 23 haven’t really helped to put the party back into quieter waters, a goal that is no doubt further complicated by Hirsi Ali’s latest project:

Somali-born MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali revealed on Wednesday that the third in the series of controversial Submission movies will put God on the stage. "This will be the most difficult part," she said in the Christmas edition of magazine 'De Groene Amsterdammer'. "Because who is going to play Allah?"

In same interview she makes it clear what she expects from her party going forward:

“ … Hirsi Ali also demands that the VVD give her the same scope in the next administrative period as now, otherwise she will leave. "I will draw up the balance sheet just before the 2007 elections, and ask the VVD whether scope will remain, as now. If that is so, then I will be pleased to sign on for a new period in the House. I am by no means finished with my subject." She has no ambitions for a cabinet post.

Hirsi Ali has regularly clashed with colleagues in the VVD party because she spoke out strongly about others' policy areas. She also has difficulties with sticking to the party discipline customary in the Netherlands, under which all MPs are supposed to air the same views. She earlier left Labour (PvdA).

There will come a time for building constructive policies rather than pursuing relentless confrontation, as much as some of it was needed. The love affair between the Dutch right and Hirsi Ali may expire the moment that her strident rhetoric ceases to be an electoral asset. And that moment may come sooner rather than later.

I don’t think that Tony Blair has any reason to be overly worried about the new Tory leader, David Cameron, but his successor might. James Stickings is taking a closer look at Cameron’s flying start and wonders if he will be able to turn the British Conservatives Party into a real classical liberal party.

When I read last week’s Time Magazine and in particular Spielberg's interview about his new film Munich, I made a mental note to say something about it. Mind you, just about the interview for I haven’t seen the movie. But, The Augean Stables beat me to it and they have an excellent post about Spielberg’s comments and the implications they have for defining and fighting terrorism:

By giving the Arab and Muslim world a pass, by making them the beneficiaries of a grotesque moral affirmative action that “understands terrorism” we only encourage the worst. And that will not — Steven Spielberg’s best intentions aside — lead to peace.

My advice to the great filmmaker: If you wish to be the great storyteller of this critically misguided generation — and you could be — if you want to help us find a way through the heavy whitewater and jagged shoals of early 21st-century globalization, and towards a properous, responsible, peaceful and pluralistic world, tell the tale of Muhamed al Durah. It might help you recognize that, like everything, film can be used for good and for evil; that evil really does exist; and that disguising it in liberal egocentrism only makes it stronger.

It’s a lengthy post, but definitely worth your time.

Yesterday vs. Tomorrow?

It’s one of the topics that we put to rest here on Peaktalk some time ago – here are the archives if you’re interested - but with a general election campaign in full swing here, anti-Americanism has raised its ugly head again. So much, that we can unfortunately no longer ignore it and are forced to speak out, once more. A similar concern was shared by the US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins who offered scathing criticism of that peculiar Canadian practice in a speech yesterday:

It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” Mr. Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa. “But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship.”

It hard to say what Wilkins means by an impact on the relationship, but I wouldn’t want to guess. Canada’s economy is largely built around its exports to the US (85% of all exports find their way south), so the business community should take note. Equally important, in a world where the cross-Atlantic relationship between especially the US and Europe is under pressure, Canada will have to start thinking of its role on the global stage and wonder where from a security point of view its direct interests are and how they are best served. Economically and politically - and discounting Quebec – culturally too, Canadians will have to come to some sort of realization that in the 21st century its wagon is more than ever hitched to the United States. That by the way is a relationship that is already taking shape in a number of ways. Davids Medienkritik notes for instance that the German weekly Der Spiegel isn’t even able to distinguish between American and Canadian soldiers.

But on a public level Canadians prefer to be in denial. And that’s not because they dislike Americans or feel that they’re not benefiting economically from a close relationship with the US. From a cultural standpoint they have learned that their sense of nation is not being what it means to be Canadian, but what it is that makes them un-American. Privatized healthcare and gun ownership to name a few are apparently American virtues and that’s why anti-Americanism plays such a pivotal role in an election campaign. A vote for the Conservative Party could potentially mean that time-tested Canadian solutions are going to be changed and adjusted, or may even be abandoned. It may mean that market mechanisms and free individuals are often far better judges than the government in deciding certain matters. That’s why there was such an outcry over the conservative idea to let parents make their own childcare choices; it meant a decisive move away from time tested Canadian solutions for allocating resources. It’s telling that the fear of being identified with America runs so deep that even the leader of the Conservative Party feels compelled to distance himself from a right-of-center Washington newspaper that has recently endorsed him.

Canadians however are not by nature anti-American, nor do I believe after almost seven years of close observation that they are overly Canadian, whatever that means. When questioned or pressured, they can be very pragmatic and many even aspire to American virtues without directly saying so. They’re an odd blend of European and American traditions who somehow have retained a certain way of social-economic thinking much longer than some other parts of the free western world.

The anti-American rhetoric therefore appears to be a battle between the past and the future and given the rapid global changes, is now more intense than ever before. It’s a struggle over who is the dominant player in the economy, a fight over politically correct values, a debate over the extent of individual freedom. A country that has relied on publicly funded healthcare, a moviemaking industry bankrolled by the state and an economy with one of the highest degrees of unionization in the western world will be subject to a rude awakening in the 21st century. Remember the irrational and angry teacher’s strike discussed here a few months back? Part of the same battle. The tide is turning slowly but steadily, and we are seeing it in Germany, in France and we have seen it in Britain and The Netherlands earlier.

The overly institutionalized - and hence corrupt – left is fighting without argument, without logic and has little left but slandering and insulting those who challenge the perfidy of the past that somehow passes for tomorrow’s agenda. And the fear of the unknown, the fear of tomorrow drives Canadians back to those who can convincingly sell the past. There is your anti-Americanism and there’s your hidden agenda. To propose an alternative view, to look for a better tomorrow, it's all essentially un-Canadian.

It also explains the lack of real political progress in Canada as the one party with the ability to effect change and define a vision of Canada’s tomorrow is so fearful of being shut out of power that it campaigns in line with the songbook presented by the incumbents. Sure, they’ve floated a few interesting ideas, but they fail to take the debate beyond yesterday’s battle. No call to put an end to the poisonous anti-Americanism, and no agenda to really liberate market forces where even Europe is driving privatization and deregulation further than ever. Even increased military spending is draped in a sauce of Canadian sovereignty, ignoring the fact that a few generations from now Canadians may well be wearing an American uniform to defend what’s left of the western world. Canada can define the role its plays in that crucial partnership, but the absence of political guts has for now, again, prevented it.

One of Michael Yon's photos has been selected by Time's readers as one of the best of the year. Michael comments on his success are here and you can actually see and vote for the photo here.

Salman Rushdie sums up the challenges that multicultural societies face:

If we are to build a plural society on the foundation of what unites us, we must face up to what divides. But the questions of core freedoms and primary loyalties can’t be ducked. No society, no matter how tolerant, can expect to thrive if its citizens don’t prize what their citizenship means — if, when asked what they stand for as Frenchmen, as Indians, as Britons, they cannot give clear replies.

I am not sure if Rushdie still stands on the left as Michael Barone argues. The debate about multiculturalism is steadily moving beyond that perennial left-right divide, and especially in light of Rushdie's comments it should also move beyond racial and religious boundaries. It's becoming an issue for those that believe that free western democracies should - regardless of their diversity - provide enough of a unifying cultural and moral code to ensure their long-term survival. We should be relieved that the fatwa he has been subject to hasn't silenced Rushdie. He's worth listening to.

Posted at 10:15 AM by Pieter Dorsman | Permalink | End of the West ~ | Immigration | TrackBack (0)