The National Post has been a fine newspaper, but lately they seem to be degenerating into another yeah for our side type non-independant publication. They apply a double standard in applying a weaker set of criteria on the Conservative Party then they would on other parties doing the same thing. Even worse they manipulate terms to their advantage, like claiming conservative or worse Conservative = low spending: when the evidence tends to be the other way around. I notice the last few days they seem to have started using the term "fiscal conservatives" where they had been using conservative and that I would have no objection to even if I would prefer the word libertarian.

They also seem to be engaged in narrowly focused moral crusades, even saying to invoke the "not withstanding clause" and publishing some true nonsense that indiacte some of their writers have no idea of how a constitution works, or perhaps they jsut choose to ignore details when they have a moral cause. Sad really, they have been a great paper, but .....

Here are some of my replies. They attack the National Posts editorial policy in a couple of areas and none are published.

Feb 4, 2009

Ezra Levant is correct that conservatives should not be too unhappy with the federal budget: purely since it allows the Conservative Party to retain power. Power for "The Party" at any cost, to the taxpayer, is what conservatives clearly want and this vote buying long predates the recent budget. Despite all the protests that amount to Conservatives are the lesser evil; the Conservatives are clearly just one more socialist party. I consider socialism evil, and when facing the choice of the lesser of evils I personally chose to not vote for evil.

And what of those libertarians/classical liberals such as myself, who truly do favour small government? Some of whom (not I) had been deceived into the oft repeated deception that conservatives are somehow linked to small government and in some cases had voted for them based on that? Well to appropriate Bob Dylan a little "now is the time for your tears".

The Libertarian Party is the only choice for small government out there, and they only run in ~10% of the ridings. Vote for them if you can, they are the only game in town if you want to stop the growth of big government.

Feb 3, 2009

Numerous articles in the National Post lately have been attempted to explain away the Conservative Party's spending binge of the last 3 years; without the conservative movement itself sharing responsibility. Denial ranges from 'the devil made me do it' of saying they are forced to for pragmatic reasons of maintaining power to claiming the Conservative Party are somehow not "true conservatives". Tasha Kheiriddin writes one more of these today, but she does prove she understands where the conservative movement comes from. Understanding the basis of the conservative movement is the key to understanding why the conservative movement does share the blame.

Historically the Liberal philosophy advocated less government, in an attack on the entrenched monarchies which the conservatives were formed to defend. The "government that governs least governs best" was the basis of the Liberal movement. While the Liberal Parties of today are a shameful distance away from that noble goal at least Tasha gives some credit where credit is due; to the Liberal party for conquering the deficit and even paying some of the debt off.

In contrast to a philosophical basis like this Tasha points out the conservative will "look to the past for guidance", and that is exactly what they have done and are doing now. Being conservative and looking to the past of big spending governments over the last 100 years to promote their personal power and as their mode of governing. The conservative movement is conserving the big spending of the past, and the results are obvious where-ever they are in power. If The Harper conservatives were an exception this would be a tenuous argument, but look to Bush or Klein and most every other conservative and the pattern is undeniable.

Well should be undeniable; but this is politics and I know it will be denied.

Jan 24, 2009


I'm baffled why your paper would make the obviously untrue statement "the Conservatives economic mantra has been about their preference for less government and paying down the debt. The consistent fact of the economic policies of the various Conservative parties of Canada is massive spending. Economics 101 says massive spending does not pay down the debt. From Conservative Alberta, with the highest program spending per capita in a nation of high spending governments, to Ottawa where the Conservatives were elected based on outspending the other parties with promises of $92 billion in extra spending the Conservative Parties actions create bigger government.

The Alberta Conservatives had seemingly endless oil tax revenue that has masked their big government ways, but with $40 oil can they continue to hide from the reality they created any more than Chavez can? Federal Conservatives do not grab as much of this windfall and so have already destroyed the surplus built up by the Liberals, and they did that before the current economic problems. They are now pushing their big government agenda further into massive deficit territory, and yet you try to mask this. I say shame. Just because your editorial policy is to support a party does not mean you should not accurately report their actions.

You further say "Tuesdays' budget will have Conservative fingerprints all over it". These words ring true as their greasy fingers will be in everyone's pockets; taking the hard earned pay for whatever boondoggle will buy them personal political power.

Jan 15, 2009 - The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation

The title of the column is "Let The People Decide". As a libertarian reading an often libertarian leaning publication I say right on: we need this! Sadly the column is yet another instalment of a religious crusade to do the opposite. In this case voluntary relationships between adults as in a marriage are to be structured based solely on the dominate religion's ancient rules as decreed by politicians. It gets even worse than earlier instalments, when invoking the not withstanding clause was proposed, and the crusade now goes on to attack the very principle of people even having universal rights. Of course that idea is also a religious one.

While Canada has at best a weak Charter of Rights it does have one that can curb some of the worst excess of politicians using the government to force their opinions on other people. Governments are created to protect people from coercion, not to enforce opinions. The more a government ignores this the worse the people in those countries suffer from oppression. History is clear on that and you can look to the sad current events in the theocracies of the world if you think that truth has changed. The author does not understand the rule of law. That what those "unelected" judges are doing is protecting us from the worst excesses of government based on the written law. This is the purpose of a judge. They must rule logically according to the law not just the local mob's opinion of the day and in general they do exactly that in Canada.

I understand being restrained by laws is a problem for those who seek to force their opinions on others without the support of logical benefit to all, but I hope they just have to learn to live and let live which is what the charter is about. As Trudeau famously said "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and he had a great accomplishment in bringing in a Constitution. I suggest Ms Albrechtsen go into a room with a book by John Locke, or similar authors, who showed us the way out of rule by opinion and into the modern world.

Jan 9, 2009 - Ya - let's talk about Polygamy.

I'm extremely disappointed the National Post editorials are taking such an authoritarian view on polygamy: an item that clearly should be an adult's personal choice not society's. As with most moral crusades yesterday your editorial even grasped at the "think of the children" type argument. Using the particular real problems in this case to avoid addressing the weakness in the general argument against polygamy which is the fact that consenting adults can and have done this without harming anyone else throughout history.

There are already laws against forcing people to marry people against their wishes or having sex with underage children and so protection from harm is already in other laws. As the reports indicating harm to children seems to be happening in B.C. those laws should be enforced to stop those real harms. Conversely a law against polygamy can only be seen as a moral crusade to force an opinion, as opposed to a proper role of the force of government like protection from harm, on consenting adults.

The charter should protect us against those who would use the force of government to further their own opinions (as opposed to a logically provable good for all), and it is sad to see a great paper like the National Post proposing to resort to the same low level of the 'notwithstanding clause' that was used in another moral crusade that should never have seen the light of day in a free and open society.

Jan 7, 2009 - Sid Ryan's Protest

Poor hard done by Sid Ryan; writing in and complaining about the National Post taking the "cheap and easy way to try to shut down debate". This written by the same person who is in the midst of trying use far more blunt force to totally stop anyone from opposing his views or for that matter stopping people just trying to pursue a career based on their heritage?!? Several words in addition to bigot should be added to this man's description by anyone in favour of freedom or logic.

By mentioning only the "recent events", and avoiding the fact of the thousands rockets that have been indiscriminately launched against Israel's innocents and Hamas cowering behind the innocents in Gaza in the hospitals and schools contributing to the innocents death toll, he betrays how fully slanted his view is.