Theo Caldwell Media Archive

Citizen Bain

2012-01-11T10:54:00.000-08:00

There is a film about a ruthless, wealthy man who just wanted to be loved. The man bought up everything that caught his eye, but it was not enough. All he really yearned for was his childhood sled.

Replace “his childhood sled” with “the presidency of the United States” and you have the gist of a new movie about Mitt Romney’s career in venture capital, which this column calls, “Citizen Bain.”

The actual, considerably less-catchy, almost yuletide title is, “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” and viewers might be surprised that the 28-minute film is the work of supposedly rightist Republicans, rather than seething, class-warrior Democrats (though the latter are reportedly working on a sequel, to be released during the general election).

Sponsored by supporters of Newt Gingrich, and produced on a Super-PAC basis at arm’s length from the former Speaker (Super-PACs being yet another absurdity of America’s campaign finance laws, requiring candidates to have no official involvement in, and to feign implausible ignorance of, the actions of some of their most heavily invested advocates), the movie is meant to document Romney’s career at Bain Capital.

Four companies are highlighted, ostensibly representing thousands of jobs lost to Romney’s personal greed. That is, by taking over entities that were not viable and selling off their assets, Romney made himself unspeakably wealthy by putting vulnerable people out of work. Counting his money with one hand while twirling his Snidely Whiplash moustache with the other, Mitt supposedly went about the country seeking out simple lives to destroy.

Bollocks on stilts, it says here.

Forces for and against Romney’s candidacy, as well as neutral observers (to the extent those truly exist in this age of ubiquitous politics), have analyzed his Bain career to determine whether he was a net creator, or eliminator, of jobs. Results have varied, but none of this is the point. Jobs are important, as are the lives and livelihoods of individuals, but even those of us who are sharp critics of Romney must recognize that when it comes to wealth creation and contribution to the economy, Mitt is very much on the happy side of par.

Josef Schumpeter observed that capitalism is incomprehensible without understanding the role of the entrepreneur. Specifically, absent individuals with ideas and courage, combined with people who can pony up the money to turn those ideas into reality, nothing would get invented, produced, bought or sold. At Bain Capital, Romney was part of that second group, selecting nascent enterprises for investment, and he was very, very good at it.

Venture capital, like any number of investment fields, requires a highly specific skill set, and you can come in for an intergalactic hosing if you don’t know what you’re doing. Indeed, this column has a monsoon of respect for Mitt’s acumen when it comes to picking companies, and for what he was able to accomplish in the private sector. Newt Gingrich should, too.

Simply put, without men like Mitt, able to identify opportunities and provide the capital to make them successful, our economy would not work. Conversely, the free market can trundle along just fine without Gingrich being compensated by government agencies to the tune of $1.6 million for his services as a “historian” (which, as George Will points out, is a heckuva lot more than anyone ever paid Herodotus).

Of course, we are talking business here, and in that arena, Mitt trumps Newt every day of the week and twice on Sundays. In matters of public policy, however, and in terms of a record of fostering limited government, Gingrich wins going away.

To wit, much as I may admire Mitt’s business skills, I still don’t think he should be president, unless and until he smartens up – starting with his tax plan, which the Wall Street Journal and others have correctly called, “timid.”

While the film’s faux-populist silly-bears may scare off some potential Romney voters, it is perhaps likelier to entrench his current supporters. More than anything, though, it reveals a disappointing side to Gingrich – one which we hoped he would keep under wraps until near the end of his first term as president.

Our disappointment in Newt is informed by the fact that he has a responsibility to present an alternative on Romney’s right. For all the story-ginning excitement among those who sell news for a living, none of the other Republican candidates has much chance of surpassing the former Massachusetts governor.

With successive strong finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, Ron Paul seems to be getting weirder, if that were possible, cackling through speeches like Dwight Schrute at the Dunder-Mifflin sales conference. As for Rick Santorum, politically interested people who for years have been spraining their fingers on the mute button whenever he appears on a news program already know what new voters will soon discover – he does not wear well. Santorum’s trouble isn’t his unwavering social conservatism, or that he lost his last Senate race by 17 points, it’s that he’s even less likeable than Romney.

One assumes Rick Perry is simply giving his donors their money’s worth, giving a conspicuous best effort before repairing to his successful governorship of Texas and shootin’ coyotes full-time. Finally, this column sheds no tears for Jon Huntsman who, we have every confidence, will emerge from this race to find no shortage of audiences to which to deliver his special brand of squinting, stern lectures.

Our support of Gingrich is not born of some notion that he is the best possible person to lead America. Rather, he is the best among the candidates who are currently on offer (seriously, Jeb Bush, please do call your office – you have about 300 million urgent messages).

Newt presents the boldest course on the economy, with a phenomenal, pro-growth tax plan that would restore America to preeminence in global markets. This is the contrast Gingrich should draw. “Citizen Bain” does not become him.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

The Pointlessness of Mitt Romney

2011-12-29T12:33:00.000-08:00

“Pointless…like giving caviar to an elephant.”
– William Faulkner

Leave it to Faulkner to create a simile so apt that it reaches across decades to apply, very neatly, to the futility of foisting Mitt Romney upon the Republican Party as its presidential nominee. The image of the elephant is self-evidently appropriate. As for caviar, despite its association with money and privilege, one wonders who actually enjoys its taste. Truth be told, it is over-rated, as most delicacies are. Caviar is a lot like Marmite, only more expensive and lacking its nutritional value. So it is with Romney, moneyed and privileged, yet without much to recommend him.

Of course, the late Nobel Laureate knew nothing of the former Massachusetts governor, but ‘twas always thus with a masterful turn of phrase – it can be wheeled out again and again, pertinent to any number of circumstances.

In this case, nominating Romney to lead the GOP in November, and even electing him president, would be pointless. While a President Romney may slow the country’s deterioration, and may even make good on his pledge to repeal Obamacare (that is, if the Supreme Court doesn’t drive a stake through that vampire-law first), his toothless policy proposals will do no more than delay the inevitable – that is, the end of America as we know it.

Getting the nation back to where it was in, say, 2007, is not a realistic option. The unfunded liabilities of the country, including Social Security and Medicare, total in the tens, and perhaps hundreds of trillions of dollars. As for debt and deficits, these have taken on a life of their own, rocketing to unheard-of peacetime levels. Finally, as pertains to personal freedom, the United States continues to increase constraints on its citizens, while closing itself off from the rest of the globe. To wit, America will cease to be a force for good in the world – let alone the indispensable nation – if it does not undertake immediate and drastic changes to the way it operates.

Romney, for all his Hugh Beaumont good-looks, solves none of these problems. This column maintains that Newt Gingrich, warts and all, is the strongest of the GOP candidates who have made themselves available (Jeb Bush, please call your office), and this is largely because the former Speaker has advanced, and can articulate, a platform of bold reform. Without one, America is just whistling Dixie.

The United States spends, taxes and borrows too much, has rules and laws for every facet of human existence (with more than 3,000 new federal regulations created this past year alone), countenances a Congress whose members enjoy a median net worth 35 times that of the citizens they govern, and continues to layer police-state security onto all aspects of daily life.

A word on that last – the Land of the Free loves to lock people up. America has an incarceration rate 13 times the rate of population growth, and has more individuals in prison than any other nation in the world – not per capita, but straight up. Long before he was running for president, Gingrich led the way in denouncing the American penchant for putting people behind bars. One might imagine this issue is the province of hippie-freak heroin-legalizers, or a simple matter of law-and-order politics. But prison is the default option in America, for everything from minor drug offenses to bouncing a check, and prosecutors are given overwhelming power to abuse the system, bully witnesses, and strip citizens of their right to a proper defense.

Freedom-minded conservatives should care very much about America’s lock-and-key mentality, as should bleeding-heart leftists – and let that latter group recall that Barack Obama not only failed to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he signed legislation allowing Americans to be sent there.

Where is Romney on all this? When has he shown inclination or initiative to restore America’s freedoms and reform an abusive system? Does he even know the problem exists?

On spending, Romney pledges to cram government outlays back down below 20 percent of GDP, from their current 25 percent, while cutting $500 billion from the budget in 2016. For those whose pidgin politician-speak isn’t up to snuff, “cutting” means reducing the rate of growth, not actually getting to a lower number. In any case, with an entitlement-laden federal budget edging up toward $4 trillion, a promised reduction of one-eighth that amount, to be delivered four years’ hence, is just so much chin-music.

It is on taxes that Romney is at his most unctuous and misguided. He shows no intention of reducing the tax burden on those who create jobs, repeatedly stating that relief for the middle class is the best way to spend our “precious” tax dollars. Aside from the Gollum-like fascination with other people’s money, does Romney imagine tax cuts are just temporary measures to give “relief” to people until such time as rates go up again? Or does he recognize that lowering rates and simplifying the system is the way to create a thriving market and increase employment? If he does not, as seems to be the case, then Romney has no business leading a party that purports to advocate limited government and free enterprise.

In fact, quite apart from a bold plan, Romney offers almost no tax-reform plan at all. For him, maintaining the Bush tax “cuts” (an absurd moniker, inasmuch as these rates have been in place longer than the 1997 Clinton tax regime they replaced) would be sufficient. Never mind that for those who would be most likely to hire their fellow Americans, this leaves rates on income way up at 35 percent – and north of 50 percent in some cases, once state and local taxes are included.

Romney would peg corporate taxes at 25 percent – far higher than America’s competitor nations and twice the rate Gingrich is proposing. Why on God’s green Earth would anyone start a business in America right now, or in the country Romney envisions?

As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris pointed out, while giving props to Gingrich, the budget was balanced in the 1990s by way of tax cuts, not increases. Presidents of both parties, from John F. Kennedy through George W. Bush, have demonstrated that lower rates lead to higher tax revenues, while spurring the economy. For this reason, Art Laffer, supply-side pioneer and architect of the Reagan boom years, has endorsed Gingrich over Romney, stating, “Newt’s plan is right.”

In a general election, Romney could probably defeat Obama (though he might make Southern states closer-run contests than they might be for a different GOP standard-bearer), but so what? President Romney would spend his first term as he has campaigned – splitting the difference, careful to offend no one, hoping to win again in 2016 – sounding great and looking presentable while the country goes to blazes.

Many Americans understand that the economic crisis, and the nation’s towering obligations, represent an existential threat to the nation. Even so, they ought not to fall for Romney’s bleat that he is “a business guy,” and therefore equipped to make things right. It is entirely possible – indeed, demonstrable, in Romney’s case – that someone can have the foresight to be an early investor in Staples, yet misunderstand how an economy grows.

A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for managed decline. At this time for choosing, America must do better than that.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

Newt Gingrich: One-Term President

2011-12-12T07:39:00.000-08:00

On October 10, 2011, this column (which is an unnecessarily self-important way of saying “this guy”) anticipated the rise of Newt Gingrich in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Having presaged most polls and pundits, we (which is an unnecessarily self-important way of saying “I”) are (am) now prepared to dash whatever street cred our lucky call accrued by making an unnecessarily rash prediction: Newt Gingrich will be a one-term president.

Self-importance is significant to this exercise because if Gingrich does indeed go on to champion the GOP against Barack Obama, Americans will be treated to the World Series of Self-Importance, pitting a challenger who is pleased to tell you he has written 24 books, including 13 New York Times best-sellers, against a president who has written two books about himself.

And as for winning the presidency, Newt is quite capable of doing just that, notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that he would be a weak general election candidate. Elections are won or lost on contrasts and, between Obama and Gingrich, voters will have a clear policy choice. Plus, as a matter of simple arithmetic, if Newt is able to keep from falling far behind generic Republican polls and flip a few states back to the GOP column – Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and Florida, among others – Obama’s path to re-election becomes extremely narrow.

First, Gingrich must secure the nomination. For 2012, the GOP has eschewed its all-or-none system of previous cycles and will award delegates on a proportional basis for primaries and caucuses held before March 31. This makes it numerically possible that the nomination contest will go deep into the summer, perhaps even to a brokered convention. More likely, however, Newt will win in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, leaving little doubt that he is the choice of the party, encouraging other competitors to save their money, wrap up their campaigns, and hope for Cabinet posts.

Gingrich’s principal rival, of course, is erstwhile frontrunner and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. While Romney remains likely to win the New Hampshire primary, that should be his high-water mark, and America ought to be glad of that.

Romney is the Republican Al Gore: humorless, awkward, the son of a successful politician who can fill out phenomenal suits but never seems quite comfortable in his own skin. Further, just as the 2000 presidential election should have been a layup for Gore, Romney is losing a nomination that should be his because he badly misread the moment.

After seeing the face of government overreach these past three years, and recognizing that America’s economic condition represents an existential threat to the nation, Republicans yearned for a nominee who would take bold steps to make things right. Romney responded by playing it safe, making small plans, and winning no hearts.

His tax plan, in particular, is timid and pointless. Romney would have corporate rates way up at 25 percent, considerably higher than America’s competitor nations, while leaving personal rates basically unchanged. As Newt has aptly pointed out, Romney’s proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes only for those making $200,000 or less will do nothing to spur the economy – filers at this level represent only 9.3 percent of capital gains revenue to the Treasury – and is actually to the left of Obama’s position.

Romney’s language betrays him. In a recent Iowa debate, he defended his insipid recipe by expressing concern that we, “spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut” that benefits the middle class. This sentiment sums up why Romney cannot be the Republican nominee. It is Democrats who characterize tax cuts as “spending.” Conservative Republicans consider cutting taxes to be, simply, letting people keep their own money.

At this point, the best Romney should hope for is to serve as Newt’s running mate – assuming Marco Rubio says no – and perhaps swing Michigan and lock up New Hampshire for the GOP, while doing no harm on the policy front.

So, with Romney dispatched to his well-deserved obscurity in private life or the vice presidency, how might Gingrich go on to defeat Obama, only to hand over the White House keys four years later?

Like so many men of consequence, Gingrich’s greatest qualities sow the seeds of his undoing. It begins with his world-beating intelligence.

Newt actually is brilliant, unlike Obama, whose genius is uncritically attested to by those who have heard it spoken of, or who choose not to contest the point for fear of being called racist. Indeed, Obama’s brilliance is much like global warming: Its existence is insisted upon by nasty people who stand ready to condemn you in the worst possible terms if you hesitate to agree.

Perhaps the browbeating over Obama’s alleged brain power informs some of the eagerness among Republicans to see Newt take him on in presidential debates. To wit, after generations of being lectured that the most leftward candidate is by definition the smartest, conservatives are itching to see a genuine heavyweight from their side mop the floor with a media-acclaimed poseur like Obama.

Gingrich is smart and he knows it. Obama merely thinks he’s smart because, well, Chris Matthews says so. Having learned nothing from the colossal failure of his statist policies, and now turning to class warfare as his campaign theme, Obama has gone from being merely insufferable to downright dangerous. His defeat is essential if America is to remain a country of consequence.

Obama has nothing new or helpful to offer, and this will become obvious in the debates. As is his wont, Obama will fertilize the landscape with garden-variety liberal notions that he thinks are profound, but which any Occupy Wall Streeter could recite without missing a beat in the drum circle, and Gingrich will respond with specific references, historical precedents, and good humor.

Fair enough, then, let us suppose the Self-Important World Series ends in a Gingrich sweep, and Newt is sworn in as America’s 45th president. His downfall will not come at the hands of the adversarial left – angry hippies have hated him for 20 years and their complaints and chants practically write themselves. No, Newt’s presidency will be held to a single term by the behavior and dynamics described by Republicans who served under him as Speaker of the House in the 1990s. Prominent among the many disaffected alumni of the Gingrich Revolution is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who politely but damningly refers to Newt’s leadership as “lacking,” and suggests he demands a higher standard of those he is leading than of himself.

Assuming that not all of those who have worked with Newt and now decry him are complete cranks – undoubtedly, some are, but that’s just the law of averages, adjusted upward for Congress – there is no mutual exclusivity between the masterful, often genial Gingrich we have seen in GOP primary debates and the ogre described by his former colleagues.

We all know the type. Some people come across very well during a speech or public appearance. Meanwhile, those who know them best recognize the reality to be a total freak show, complete with temper tantrums, disingenuousness, and downright lousy behavior.

Some of this tempestuousness may, in fact, work in Newt’s favor, particularly on the foreign policy front. After the pre-emptive apologies, prominent bowing and unseemly prostration of Obama’s tenure, it might be healthy for America’s enemies to see a president who has little interest in their good opinion, and who just might be crazy enough to let the dogs off the chain.

But on a day-to-day basis, dwelling as the president does on the television screens of the nation, Newt’s disposition will become difficult to abide. The barely stifled anger, professorial condescension and notorious self-regard will begin to outweigh whatever good Gingrich is doing.

And Newt will be a very good one-term president – perhaps the best since James Polk. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was successful in balancing the budget, reforming welfare, and allowing the private sector to thrive. But if that history is any guide, four years is more than enough time for Newt’s appeal to wear thin. All of us are who we are, and age, maturity, grandkids, what-have-you cannot change that.

In 2016, the Republican pool of presidential candidates will be deep and, with each bruising political or public relations fight, a 73-year-old Newt will be reminded that Rubio, or Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush might be an excellent commander-in-chief. This notion will occur to American voters, too.

If he can enact even a portion of his policy proposals – repeal Obamacare, create a 15 percent optional flat tax, reduce corporate rates to 12.5 percent, eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and death – President Gingrich will serve America well. But not long thereafter, it will be time for him to go.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

Eye of Newt

2011-10-10T07:45:00.000-07:00

President Newton Leroy Gingrich. How does that sound? Roll the words around in your mouth for a bit. Could you get used to that? It’s a cheeky, full-bodied taste, to be sure.

With New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the GOP’s latest deus, opting to remain in his machina, and Sarah Palin sparing us the shrillness and acrimony that would accompany her candidacy, Republicans have come to the bracing realization that their current crop of presidential contenders is as good as things will get.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the safe choice with a haircut you can set your watch by, has reached a plateau of 25 percent in the polls, which is right about his high point from 2008. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, coming off a monster fundraising quarter even as he massively underperforms on the policy front, may once again give credence to the adage that money isn’t everything.

And Herman Cain, everyone seems to agree, is just so doggone likeable. As this column has stated, Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is the boldest proposal put forward by any GOP candidate, and would be gangbusters for the economy. But it is not sensible for Republicans to nominate someone who lacks even basic comprehension of foreign affairs, as Cain has demonstrated, notwithstanding the strength of his economic platform.

The rest of the field – Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul – may soldier on for some months, and might add to the policy discussion, but none of them is going to win.

And then there’s Newt. We have described him as yesterday’s man in a hurry, and the former Speaker of the House has shown remarkable energy and determination, even as folks count him out. Indeed, months after much of his staff defected to the Perry camp, Gingrich has offered stronger and more specific policy proposals in debate answers than the Texas Governor has put forward in his entire campaign.

Recently, Newt unveiled his 21st Century Contract with America, a rhetorical and philosophical follow-on from the 1994 plan that led Congressional Republicans to victory. This new compact includes fundamental tax reform, offering people a choice between a flat tax with few deductions and the current system, while eliminating taxes on capital gains and estates, and reducing corporate rates to 12.5%. It repeals Obamacare, reins in the judiciary, and offers clear steps to end economy-choking regulations and legislation such as Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley.

There are weaknesses and omissions – for example, Gingrich does not call for the outright abolition of the police-state boondoggle that is the Department of Homeland Security – but all things considered, it is the sort of platform one expects from a serious, freedom-minded presidential candidate, and its enactment would be an appropriate denouement to a political cycle in which Americans awoke to the self-evident truth that their government belongs to them, not the other way around.

If Romney or Perry had the conservative instincts or policy understanding to advance such a plan, the Republican nomination, and probably the presidential election, would be in their pocket already. But they don’t, and that’s why we’re talking about Newt.

It has been suggested – not without reason – that the Republican Party often chooses its presidential nominee by asking, “Who’s next?” – as the 2008 runner-up, that’s Romney – or, even more cynically, “Alright, who’s the oldest guy here?” – which would mean Ron Paul (if you consider him a viable candidate), followed by Newt. Four years ago, John McCain was the answer to both of those questions.

But things never happen the same way twice. The system that clinched the 2008 GOP nomination for McCain, the day before yesterday’s man, no longer exists. In 2012, delegates will be awarded proportionally in primaries held before March 31, which means the all-or-none system that allowed McCain to wrap up the nomination by securing a plurality of support in early states is gone.

For Romney’s purposes, this means his 25 percent standing is insufficient to put the contest away early. The Romney campaign’s agitation to hold the initial caucuses and primaries as soon as possible may garner him some good press and fundraising momentum – especially if, as expected, he wins New Hampshire in a walk – but it will not make his nomination a numerical certainty.

This means it may be some time before the Republicans have a presumptive nominee. And so the rumpled, corpulent Newt, who can never seem to get his tie done up properly but simply will not go away, could trundle along to surprising success. Gingrich’s problems, of course, extend beyond wardrobe and body type, but that might be a good thing.

On the slight right, we do not lionize our leaders – at least, not while they’re alive (the modern Republican tic to idealize, and name everything after, Ronald Reagan represents a considerable shift from the rough ride he received while in office). So what if Newt is flawed and unlovely?

Go ahead, try to say Newt isn’t smart. Despite his glaring and public faults, the man is brilliant to beat the band. And not brilliant in the Barack Obama way – that is, you’d better say he’s a genius or we’ll call you a racist – but in the sense that he has comprehensive and novel ideas on just about every policy area (not all of them gems, admittedly), decades of legislative success, and, for what it’s worth, a Ph.D. in History lying around somewhere.

Of course, being brilliant doesn’t make one infallible. Brilliance and bad judgment can occupy the same space.

And Newt’s bad judgment is a matter of record: his three marriages, including acrimonious and unseemly divorce circumstances, his occasional flirtation with lefty notions, his canoodling with Nancy Pelosi in a unified effort to combat “climate change,” his tempestuousness, his misbegotten labeling of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposals as “right wing social engineering,” and on.

Each of these is dreadful and, if revealed in the days before a key primary, or even a general election, might tip the balance. But all of this is already priced into the market for Newt. No one is perfect and, in Newt, Americans know what they would be getting.

And if there are, indeed, second acts in American public life, there would be a particular resonance to this one. President Bill Clinton tried to nationalize health care and failed, but the backlash to this attempt allowed Newt and his original Contract with America to claim the Congress for Republicans in 1994. The next Democratic President, Barack Obama, did manage to ram through a health care takeover, and so Gingrich returns, like Cincinnatus from the farm, with an even more comprehensive Contract, to restore limited government.

(Lest historically minded readers take umbrage, this column does not condone declaring Newt to be Dictator, as Cincinnatus was, nor do we expect he would relinquish that title after 16 days, as the Roman leader did; we’re just saying Newt would be an old guy making a comeback.)

For Gingrich, the current polling picture is a freak show. In a head-to-head matchup, he trails President Obama by a Real Clear Politics average of 15.2 percent – the largest such deficit of any Republican candidate – and from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina, there is no early contest in which he leads or appears poised to do so.

But available polls pre-date the release of Gingrich’s new Contract and, more importantly, reflect the mindset of Republican voters still Waiting for Godot. With the demurrals of Christie and Palin, along with those of some outstanding presidents America may never have – Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, et al. – the GOP recognizes that its choice most likely comes down to Romney or, well, someone else.

“I’m someone else!” was enough of a platform for Homer Simpson to get elected head of the neighborhood watch, but Republicans should expect more of their nominee, and America certainly deserves better from its next president.

So, given a binary choice between Romney’s anodyne remedies for a system of taxes, laws and regulation that is in need of comprehensive reform, and someone who purposes to make big and necessary changes, the decision should be obvious – or, at least, could become so in a protracted primary campaign.

Romney’s focus-grouped, peripheral tinkering – leaving corporate taxes far higher than those of America’s competitor nations, giving tax relief only on a class-targeted basis, etc. – is designed for no practical purpose other than to get him elected – and it may yet. But what the country requires is someone with the courage and wherewithal to overhaul the tax code, drastically reduce the reach of the federal government, and scare the holy hell out of Iran’s mullahs like no one has since, dare we say, Ronald Reagan.

Despite his warts, and in some measure because of them, Gingrich can do all these things. In this way, there may yet be a future for yesterday’s man.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

Ignoring Ron Paul

2011-09-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

Ignore Ron Paul at your peril.

In fact, even if you take full notice of the Texas Congressman, yet commit the heresy of concluding that he will not be elected president of the United States, you are still asking for a little bit of peril.

As a commentator on the slight right, one becomes inured to blowback and hate mail. A number of us earned our stripes during the 2008 presidential campaign when we learned, to our great surprise, that opposing Barack Obama made us horrible, horrible racists.

But something that started with the 2008 Paul campaign has become a notable feature of this cycle – that is, the Texas-sized chip Paul’s supporters carry on their shoulders. Sincere and energetic, perhaps even well-meaning, these people are perpetually poised to get honked off.

If you follow politics and political reporting, you have probably seen some of this. They flood websites, send angry emails, shout at newscasters shooting in public, and demand that the media “Stop ignoring Ron Paul!”

You may also have seen some pre-emptive apologies from broadcasters and commentators, cognizant of the disproportionate response they will get from Paul’s supporters if they do not show him adequate deference, regardless of his chances of victory.

I do not blame Rep. Paul personally for this. Indeed, I have met and talked with him, and found him to be a nice enough man. Even so, I do not believe he will ever be president of the United States. That’s not a personal slight, or a function of corporate interests supposedly pulling my strings. Lots of people won’t be president (Jon Huntsman, a word, please?). It’s not a dig to say so.

The commitment of Paul’s supporters, including and especially younger people whom you might not expect to see at political events, particularly Republican ones, is fascinating. Their demeanor, versus that of the man they purport to represent, as well as the age gap between them and him, make for a compelling picture. How is it that this unassuming man can motivate folks in this way? There’s an anthropology thesis in there somewhere.

Paul is an accomplished person, who has garnered a profoundly committed political following. He can claim a number of other achievements that I and many others could never match: For example, he has earned a medical degree and got himself elected to Congress.

But all things being equal, even including his recent second-place showing in New Hampshire primary polls, the chances of America electing a 76-year-old, isolationist Congressman to be only the second person in history to go straight from the House of Representatives to the presidency are remote.

The truth is, no one ignores Paul. Everyone reading this column knows precisely who he is, what he has said, and the things he represents. On some issues, he is sage; on others, he is out where the buses don’t run. For all his strengths and imperfections, he has attained clear fame.

But let us suppose that, not for the first time, I am dead wrong and Paul has a chance. I was wrong in 2008 when I thought a radical-snuggling lightweight like Barack Obama could not wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton and go on to win the White House (more fool me, for underestimating the awesome and destructive power of white liberal guilt). In 2012, I hope I am even more wrong.

For example, in a recent column, I casually remarked that Herman Cain wouldn’t win, and boy howdy would I like to be wrong about that. Not long after I cast my judgment, Cain won the Florida 5 Straw Poll in a landslide, and Zogby shows him with an outright lead in national polls. His 9-9-9 plan, representing nine percent tax rates on corporations, personal income, and sales, is the boldest and most invigorating proposal of any GOP candidate. If a President Cain could actually enact such a system, America would be restored to global economic supremacy in a jiffy.

But back to the Congressman from Texas. We could do a lot worse than a President Paul, and have done (see: “Obama, Barack”). There are a number of domestic policy areas in which Paul is strong, even visionary. As two quick examples, if he could actually audit the Federal Reserve and abolish the Department of Homeland Security, I would be eager and glad to thank him.

Paul was unfairly ridiculed when he spoke of “capital flight,” which he extrapolated to suggest that the proposed fence on the southern border could be used to keep Americans in, rather than to keep Mexicans out. While actual physical impediments to leaving may or may not be in America’s future, from a taxation and capital perspective, Paul is correct. For example, as this column recently noted, the IRS claims authority over the income and assets of U.S. citizens, no matter where they live in the world. If a law-abiding, non-resident American, all paid up on their taxes, decides he or she would prefer to be free of this obligation and renounce their U.S. citizenship, the IRS may simply refuse to let them go. If a person’s income is above a certain amount, or if their net worth exceeds two million dollars, the IRS will require tax filings from that person for another decade at least, after which they will review the case. Even Russia does not do this, nor does China. America sure does.

In this way, America is easier to get into than to leave. This was Paul’s point, and such a system is anathema to the “Land of the Free.”

But it is on foreign policy that Paul falls down. His instincts are correct, inasmuch as in overseas matters, particularly the Middle East, America is constantly picking the wrong friends, arming the wrong people, and jamming its thumbs into complex problems it has neither the capacity nor humility to understand.

Even so, to expect or advocate America’s withdrawal from international defense obligations is unrealistic. Moreover, Paul’s assertion that 9/11 was brought about by U.S. “occupation,” apart from its deal-breaking offensiveness, neglects the fanatical and murderous nature of Islamist terrorism.

The economy may be the most important issue of this campaign – and on some economic issues, Paul is very good. But when discussion turns to foreign policy and Paul posits that Iran’s jihadist maniacs will be circumscribed by the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction, as the Soviets were, so why shouldn’t they have a nuclear bomb, then he is just too far wrong to lead America.

One more thought on angry supporters, please. Paul is not the only politician whose backers are getting their backs up of late. It seems some fans of Sarah Palin have gone feral. Even Ann Coulter, for years one of Palin’s most vocal defenders, has remarked that it’s no longer worth discussing the former Alaska governor on TV, lest she put a foot wrong and get an earful for it.

The insistence that Palin is suited to the Oval Office is somewhat akin to liberal demands that we all concur Obama is brilliant. Proponents’ only recourse is to attack those who disagree. I reject these shibboleths, but remain curious about just what’s gotten under the Palin people’s saddles.

This is, indeed, a new phenomenon, to see such furious behavior from supposed conservatives. Supercilious as it may sound, we simply don’t do that sort of thing. I wonder how many other rightist commentators have perused the day’s batch of electronic ire and, upon squinting, realized that an angry, misspelled, ALL CAPS, insulting diatribe is, for once, not from an outraged Obama hopey-changer, or a Moveon.org maven, or from Teresa Heinz-Kerry – but from one of ours!

Fair enough, though. Let’s have some fun with it.

Inviting a perfect storm of Republican hate mail (and, to be clear, such a thing should not exist – you’re better than that), I will say that if I had to choose between Sarah Palin and Ron Paul for president of the United States, I’d take Paul every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

Romney or Perry? Neither

2011-09-23T10:08:00.000-07:00

Michele Bachmann made some sense. Near the end of the GOP presidential debate in Orlando, Florida, she observed, “Every four years, Republicans are told they have to settle.” The congresswoman’s meaning was that the party always gets urged toward someone moderate and “electable” – you know, like John McCain – rather than picking a proper conservative to run for president.

While Bachmann herself remains highly unlikely to become that proper conservative nominee, the current Republican frontrunners, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry, offer precious little hope.

In Romney’s case, his economic plan, particularly on taxes, is anemic, timid, and out of synch with the mood of the time. Perry, meanwhile, evinces an inexcusable lack of specificity and comprehension.

I don’t give a sweet tinker’s damn that Romney and Perry “look presidential,” as folks so often point out. Does a nation cracking under massive taxation, undermined and demoralized by ubiquitous government rules for living, find comfort in its president’s glorious hair or breathtaking haberdashery?

America needs bold, fearless and thoughtful leadership in order to regain its freedom and right its economy. Thus far, the two candidates most favored to contend with Barack Obama for the presidency offer nothing of the kind.

One wonders why and how men like Romney and Perry ascend to front-runner status, given the paucity of good ideas they put forward, in contrast to their struggling rivals. The best tax proposals to date have been advanced by Herman Cain – who will not win – and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty – who was never going to win either, and is now out of the race.

Indeed, after Pawlenty withdrew, Romney got his endorsement and Perry hired his advertising guys, but neither candidate had the good sense to copy his tax plan. In Perry’s case, it remains possible that he will come out with something similar but, after three debates and almost two months as a candidate, it is unacceptable that he has not done so. As for Romney, his prescription is a mess.

Cutting corporate taxes only modestly, from 35 to 25 percent, as Romney proposes, would still leave America’s rates on business much higher than those of its competitor nations. Such a move would do not one blasted thing to attract investment, but might well reduce tax revenue. Likewise, eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest only for those making under $200,000 will do nothing to encourage job-creators or goose the economy.

This sort of insipid rate-fidgeting solves no problems and satisfies no one. It is precisely the split-the-difference nonsense one unfortunately expects from tasseled-loafered Northeastern Republicans who, despite their party affiliation, are not truly animated by freedom-minded notions.

To wit, America did not have its 2010 political awakening just to end up with Romney tinkering with the tax code. A comprehensive reduction of rates is what is required, leading to an outright overhaul of the system. That is, corporate rates should be cut to 15% or less straight away, capital gains, dividend and interest taxes should be scrapped for everyone, and a single rate on income of 23% or below should be the order of the day. So why would Romney advocate such an anodyne plan instead? Does he believe that limp, non-threatening proposals will make him more palatable in the general election? Oh, for Heaven’s sake.

I have every confidence that Romney would defeat Obama. But so what? Will that usher in a new birth of freedom, as America hopes to find?

Is it any stretch to imagine President Romney shaking his head and waving his hands in his now-familiar gestures of equivocation, explaining to the American people why he couldn’t just take the limited government option on some issue or other – taxes, spending, oil drilling or debt, for example? Moreover, does anyone really think President Romney will ever present the sort of comprehensive reform for which the nation is clamoring? Would he abolish the EPA or the Department of Education? Would he wipe out the monstrous, 70,000-page tax code and start afresh? Not likely.

“I’m a business guy,” Romney pleads, and this may seem a strong quality to those who are unfamiliar with the sort of empty suits and silly-bears one routinely encounters in the “business” world.

In its conventions, redundancies, made-up language and pointless puffery, corporate culture rivals government itself for outright defiance of satire. There is good reason that iterations of “The Office” have resonated with millions of viewers on two continents. Mitt Romney might not be Michael Scott, but one could see him as David Wallace, the by-the-book, milquetoast CFO who does everything right, but still gets it wrong, and finds himself selling “Suck It” out of his palatial home.

As for Perry, where is his plan and, perhaps more important, what does he truly believe? We’ve heard about his HPV-Gardasil gack, and his repeated, cloying answer about how he “chose life” in mandating that sixth-grade girls be immunized against sexually transmitted disease does not serve him well. But on Social Security, taxes, and other specific issues, where is Perry’s core? We don’t see it. And at this point, one suspects we don’t see it because it isn’t there.

Studying up – as so many suggested Sarah Palin ought to do – is not the answer. If you want to be president of the United States, a cogent political and economic philosophy should be part of who you are, not something you manufacture just to get the job. This does not mean you should be a bloodless, single-minded creature, bred and raised to run for political office (Al Gore, please call your office), but you ought to have spent time thinking in an expansive way about what works and what does not, developing a personal set of beliefs as to the proper role of government.

So who else is there? If Republicans could wave their magic wands and pick their presidential champions, after a Harry Potter-type battle, we would likely see some pairing of Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie on the ticket.

But since none of these men is on offer for the 2012 contest, we have to do the best we have with what we’ve got. What to do, what to do…

Everyone please keep calm, but may we take one more look at Newt Gingrich? No doubt, complaints about his negative ratings and personal foibles practically write themselves – for me personally, the advertising image of him and Nancy Pelosi, seated on an outdoor loveseat, pretending to care about “climate change,” periodically hits me like shellshock. But the former Speaker (Gingrich, not Pelosi) is smarter than any two of the other GOP candidates combined and, his shortcomings notwithstanding, he has bold plans for the nation and understands the wider world.

Rumpled and corpulent, Gingrich doesn’t even “look presidential,” and God bless him for that. In debate after debate, Gingrich shows that he has thought through the issues of the day, and in presenting his views, he is fearless – as well he might be, since he is yesterday’s man with nothing to lose.

Barack Obama can and should be defeated in 2012. But in choosing his replacement, America should not settle.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

Hail to the Hobgoblin

2011-09-19T16:55:00.000-07:00

Ralph Waldo Emerson famously and aptly observed that, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Coming from his essay, “Self-Reliance,” the full quotation asserts such folly is, “adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

As if further proof of Emerson’s wisdom and foresight were needed, along comes America’s divine philosopher, President Barack Obama, abetted by his band of little statesmen, presenting yet another misbegotten plan to tax and spend – perfectly consistent with his foolish policies to date.

Following on a disastrous trillion-dollar “stimulus” plan, along with job-killing regulations across the land, the president now promises more of the same, including $1.5 trillion in new taxes. And as though government had not grown enough under his watch, he proposes that nanny state programs be expanded, proving once and for all that “Self-Reliance” has no place in Obama’s America.

At this point, Obama’s speeches practically write themselves. Each time he speaks, the only suspense lay in wondering just how big the tax bill will be. Full marks, as they say, for consistency.

The hobgoblin’s hallmark is a refusal to learn. But “little minds”? Really? Can we say such a thing about Obama and our betters at Harvard, NPR and the New York Times? Boy howdy (for the benefit of liberal readers, that means “yes”).

To abide on the left is to inhabit a little mind. Like a Manhattan studio apartment, there isn’t much space, so only the most cherished items are kept. There is no room for new ideas, only the single set of tired nostrums they inherited.

And so, in the parlance of William James, liberals simply rearrange their prejudices in lieu of thinking. Each iteration of Obama’s economic prescription bears this out, as new words are used to describe the same abysmal ideas.

“Stimulus” becomes a “jobs plan,” “tax hikes” become “revenue increases,” and “government spending” becomes “investment.”

This president doesn’t have a plan, he has a thesaurus. But this is the way of the left – they know only one way of looking at the world, and all their years marinating in news rooms, or the academy, or at Starbucks are spent coming up with novel and clever ways to say the same dopey things.

To wit, taxes always need to be higher, the rich are always wrong, Republicans are always stupid, Christianity is for cranks, and it’s all America’s fault.

I think it saves time to forego the common conservative courtesy of pretending liberals are intelligent just because, well, everyone says so. Even if this were true, it’s irrelevant so long as the left refuses to look at issues from any side but their own. This is why you find supposedly brilliant leftists observing a demonstrable and conventional conservative notion – such as, lower tax rates can lead to higher revenue – with the same screeching suspicion as the prehistoric primates beholding the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

But in case it’s helpful, let’s revisit this notion of superior liberal intelligence one more time. After years of scrutiny and contemplation, I consider this president, along with Joe Biden and the vast majority of Obama’s Cabinet, individually and collectively, to be dumb as a sack of doorknobs.

The grand prize for fatuity goes to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – a “man-caused disaster” in her own right and the most malign and breathtaking imbecile in American public life.

As the Obama Administration’s fecklessness applies to the economy, this one-note approach is doing real and perhaps permanent damage to America. Increased government spending, debt and taxes have been tried and found wanting. Their outright refusal to contemplate a new paradigm, even as their own has failed so obviously and spectacularly, reveals unfathomable selfishness and intellectual vanity.

Much is made of the fact that none of Obama’s inner circle has ever run a private business, and that’s fair enough, so far as it goes. This would not be dispositive, however, if these folks showed at least some willingness to adapt and learn. It’s not just “experience” that matters – it’s judgment, too.

A person can “experience” something for ages, but still reach the wrong conclusions. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for example, has business “experience” to beat the band, but he has not the first clue about personal freedom or the proper role of government.

But even as unemployment soars and markets crash, Obama seems to imagine he has the country on his side – or, at least, that he can sway the national mood with just one more speech. Before seeing his poll numbers smacked by the debt ceiling negotiations, Obama reportedly warned Republican Rep. Eric Cantor that he would take his case, “to the American people,” as though this would turn the tide.

A similar attitude was on display when Obama addressed a joint session of Congress recently, suggesting there would be serious consequences if they did not pass his bill promptly. “I intend to take that message to every corner of the country,” the president ominously intoned, giving a stern look to all assembled.

Does Obama think he’s threatening anyone with this sort of talk? We are told that the presidency is a bubble, but is Obama so isolated that he is completely unaware of the punch-line he has become?

What politician up for election in 2012 is frightened of having to run against Obama’s record or cowed by the prospect that he may deploy another speech? Seriously, is Obama still taken by his own “I’m LeBron, baby” braggadocio?

Until recently, many of us who considered Obama to be a plodding, humorless, lousy speaker were like the early Christians, communicating our beliefs in no more than a whisper, since the consequences of being found out just weren’t worth the hassle. Now, though, everyone is coming to this realization and, as we long-time critics come blinking out of the catacombs, we say to our new friends, especially you independent voters, “Welcome.”

Of course, hectoring speeches can be forgiven if the substance is sound. Obama, though, offers the worst of both worlds. You can teleprompt bad ideas ‘til the cows come home, but that don’t make them right.

There is nothing for it but that America must elect a new president. As to who that will be, we cannot know, but in choosing a chief executive, the country has nowhere to go but up. Mitt Romney’s tax reform policy is limp – it’s basically Jon Huntsman’s plan without the sanctimony and Mandarin-speaking – and Rick Perry’s has yet to be revealed.

But any available candidate at least offers the hope that America will shake off the hobgoblin of foolish consistency and try something new.

Theo Caldwell, an international investor and broadcaster, has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the Kansas City Board of Trade. He can be reached at theo@theocaldwell.com

An Unimportant President

2011-09-01T16:29:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry wants to be unimportant. The Texas Governor has famously promised that, if he is elected president of the United States, he will "work hard every day to make Washington, DC, as inconsequential to your life as possible." In Austin recently, he gave a few of us some details as to how that shakes out.

Freedom is the watchword of the unimportant president. Perry relates how, in a recent visit to Gaffney, South Carolina, a woman who runs a small business asked him to say something that would give her hope. Perry replied that he would, “take the boot of regulation and taxation off her neck.” The woman was moved to visible emotion.

The pledge resonates in a country where all but the ideologically blinded recognize that government micromanagement, overspending, and confiscatory taxation stand in the way of economic growth. And it is getting worse – as Pete du Pont notes in the Wall Street Journal, 369 new federal business regulations came into effect in July alone.

But would any politician spend the time and money required to get himself elected to the most powerful office in the world, only to turn around and dismantle its influence? Candidates of both parties make such promises, but would Perry actually deliver? An unimportant president would certainly be a step up from what America has now – a self-important president. Everything you do is some of his business. And this compulsion to control your life, coupled with his preening self-regard, makes America’s current leader ridiculous.

To be clear, it is ridiculous that Barack Obama is president of the United States. And as Perry’s prospects and those of his Republican rivals are contemplated, it is worth noting that just about anyone would be a better fit for the job.

That’s right – anyone. Wherever you find yourself reading this column, take a quick look to your left and right. Now, a case can be made that whomever you might have seen would make a better president than Barack Obama. If you are on the New York subway, for example, even that crazy shirtless guy, coming at you while giving you the finger with both hands, might be a better bet to lead America than its 44th Commander in Chief. Or, if you are reading in some bucolic meadow and there are no other humans about, that tree stump or rabid gopher you spied would be a superior choice to occupy the Oval Office.

If nothing else, while the gopher was posing for its presidential portrait, America would save a trillion wasted “stimulus” dollars and purchasing health insurance would remain a matter of personal choice, rather than a government diktat.

But back to Perry. If we take the repeal of Obamacare as read, inasmuch as all Republican candidates will promise this, how else might he achieve his desired state of inconsequence? Reducing the comprehensiveness and complexity by which Washington collects taxes from its citizens is an excellent way to start. Perry is quick to volunteer that he favors the repeal of the worldwide reporting requirement, and resultant double taxation, for U.S. companies doing business internationally, noting that this move could see as much as $4 trillion repatriated to the American economy.

The worldwide reporting requirement for American citizens should also be eliminated. America is one of the only countries in the world that requires annual tax filings from its citizens, no matter their country of residence, demanding payment above whatever rates required by that country. That is, even if an American does not work in the U.S., consume services, or make any money there, the IRS still claims authority over that individual’s income and assets, and requires an American tax filing, as well as copies of all filings in their country of residence, and demands payment at higher, American rates.

One consequence of this global taxation without representation can be found in media reports of Americans renouncing their citizenships abroad, with U.S. consular services backlogged by requests to do so. The cost to the U.S. economy is significant, as these are often productive individuals who do not wish to be beholden to the IRS even as they live elsewhere, and who, by renouncing their citizenships, remove themselves from American tax rolls permanently. But apart from the dollar cost, it is anathema to a free country – especially the United States – that its tax department should pursue law-abiding citizens around the globe.

Perry’s prescription for tax rates, both personal and corporate, is refreshingly straightforward: “Lower.” With the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a byzantine, 70,000-page tax code, America makes it awfully easy for investors to choose another destination for their capital. Perry appreciates the economy-goosing potential of eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest, in contrast to benighted politicians who mistakenly assume higher tax rates lead to increased revenue.

He eschews the mindset of Washington-centric, regulation fetishists for whom things must be mandatory or forbidden. The unimportant president is content for you to make your own decisions. Not only is this a welcome departure from Washington’s reigning philosophy, whereby the Constitution’s Commerce Clause is absurdly stretched to justify federal intrusion into the most picayune matters, but it bespeaks an understanding of how a free society operates and thrives: through millions of people making different choices.

Enthusiasm for Perry’s early candidacy is reflected in national polls, and in the reaction of voters he meets across the country. Whether this can be maintained will depend on myriad factors, from debate performances to emerging specifics of the Perry platform. But even as he aspires to be the most powerful man in the world – if the president of the United States is still considered as such – Rick Perry promises to leave you alone. It is a counterintuitive and compelling message.

The Caldwell Account

2011-03-20T23:12:00.000-07:00

In the marketplace of ideas, you need buyers and sellers – that’s how you find the price of the truth. The Caldwell Account, soon to debut on the Sun News Network, will make that market.

Truth is not personal – nor is it political – and if you stop and think things over, testing your own assumptions and allowing them to be challenged, you may find that much of what you thought you “knew” simply isn’t so. On The Caldwell Account, you and I can challenge our assumptions together.

For example, Canada is now the freest country in the world. I never thought I would write such a thing, and I do so in the full knowledge that our taxes are too high, free speech remains tenuous, and we countenance kangaroo-court absurdities like the “Human Rights Commission” that famously ganged up on my old friend and new colleague, Ezra Levant (note to the HRC: 40 to 1 is not a fair fight; next time, bring more guys). Also, when I speak of being the “freest country,” please understand I’m referring to major nations here, not some obscure Polynesian island-state where folks aren’t even obligated to wear trousers.

In Canada today, your chances to make all your dreams come true, to be Laverne slipping that glove onto the passing bottle, are higher than anyplace else, including the United States. We are uniquely poised, then, to speak the truth, boldly and in freedom as perfect as humankind can manage. The Sun News Network will be outstanding in that capacity.

I have followed the media coverage of this project, including reports that the head of our network, Kory Teneycke, supposedly huddles with Stephen Harper, Rupert Murdoch and Darth Vader to decide what we will broadcast.

If those meetings take place, I’ve certainly not been invited. But since one of those arch-villains must have set down his goblet of puppy blood and suggested my name, I suppose I should thank them.

That, however, has been the extent of their involvement. No one has told me what to say, and the day they do will be my last. Indeed, folks expecting The Caldwell Account to be a pro-Conservative, America-boosting, Promise Keepers’ rally should be surprised.

For instance, I think this North American perimeter plan, where airline logs and customs information are shared between Canada and the U.S., is a bad idea all around. I have always been a proponent of freedom for this largest trading relationship in the history of the world. But so long as an unaccountable, Frankenstein’s monster like the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is our partner, Canada should tell its southern pals to go pound sand – we will decide who boards our planes or sets foot on our soil.

Let’s get a few other things out of the way right now: I am an un-impoverished, somewhat-literate, heterosexual white male. I hold American citizenship, which I make no apology for keeping next to my Canadian passport, and when I’m not chasing the almighty dollar or publishing reactionary columns, I write books I want your kids to read. I invite you to vent your spleen on all that, get it out of your system, so we can move on to a real debate.

Please join me as we open The Caldwell Account on April 18.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell will host The Caldwell Account on the Sun News Network.

While I Breathe, I Hope

2011-03-15T17:35:00.001-07:00

“While I breathe, I hope.”

-Willis S. McLeese, 1913-2011

On January 5, 2011, Upper Canada College bid farewell to one of the school’s most extraordinary friends. In the 98th year of his remarkable life, Willis McLeese passed away.

From his World War II service in the Navy, to his legendary and lucrative careers in refrigeration and power, to the resort community he built at Cobble Beach, Ontario, Mr. McLeese made the most of every moment.

Along the way, he developed a myriad of skills, including thermodynamics and time management (a must, for someone who ran several companies). But of all the lessons Mr. McLeese gleaned from his decades of achievement, none was more pronounced than this: The power to persuade is essential to success.

His philanthropic efforts were vast and various, from giving financial aid for less-privileged students to attend UCC, to providing the opportunity for physically challenged youth to experience horseback riding through the Georgian Riding Association for Challenged Equestrians (GRACE) in Owen Sound. But the cause to which Mr. McLeese was most devoted was helping young people learn the craft of persuasive speaking. He donated time, money, and energy to this effort for 40 years, particularly in support of UCC and the Canadian Student Debating Federation (CSDF). He endowed the Willis S. McLeese Chair in Canadian Debating, based at UCC and working with the CSDF, to bring young people across the country into this activity. The program is outlined at mcleesedebate.com.

Mr. McLeese believed that students who develop the skills and confidence to speak publicly and advocate positions are well equipped for the contest of life. As someone who prevailed resoundingly in that contest, Mr. McLeese knew of whence he spoke. CSDF Founder Tom Lawson recounts how, in 1971, he telephoned Mr. McLeese, whom he did not know, and asked him to fly to Edmonton to debate the merits of the free market in an open public broadcast in front of 70 teenagers from every corner of Canada: “You’ll do it,” Lawson told him, “if you love kids.”

Not only did Mr. McLeese accept the invitation and bring the house down with his performance, but he signed on as Treasurer of the nascent coalition that became today’s CSDF. Lawson discusses how Mr. McLeese’s commitment and business acumen proved invaluable: “With infinite patience, he taught us how to conduct an Annual General Meeting, how to keep minutes, how to incorporate, how to raise funds. Over those years he personally raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for us, and whenever our backs were to the wall, he came through with five or ten thousand dollars to keep us afloat.”

As a result of Mr. McLeese’s support, says Lawson, “Countless thousands of great young Canadians have participated in formal, structured debate at both junior and senior levels in district, provincial, national, North American, and world competition, learning the basic skills desperately needed for effective citizenship in a democratic society: integrity in research, articulate persuasive speech, acute listening powers, open mindedness, and a keen interest in issues of common concern to all Canadians…none of this would have come about but for the never failing generosity, knowledge, infinite patience, and buoyant good humour of this remarkable man. I consider it one of the greatest privileges of my life to have known, as a mentor and friend, a great Canadian. I shall not see his like again.”

Indeed, Mr. McLeese considered listening skills and keeping an open mind to be indispensible components of the power to persuade. To wit, debating is not just about saying what you think; it requires hearing what other people are telling you. Consequently, Mr. McLeese insisted that student debaters argue every resolution from both sides, believing this would teach young people respect and tolerance for each other.

“Debating is a way to extend your influence,” he was fond of saying, often adding, “Canada will always need great leaders.” He understood and evinced that being a leader does not require your name on a ballot. Leaders come in all sorts, in every profession. What they share is the power to convince and inspire.

Drawing upon his wealth of experience, Mr. McLeese knew that whatever future careers students might pursue, someday they would have to answer questions like: What makes you different? Why should we do it your way? Why should I buy what you are offering? So much of life, and success, is about selling ideas. From Clarence Darrow to Don Cherry, if you can make a case, you can make a living. For Mr. McLeese, teaching young people this craft was practical education at its best.

It was a supreme and undeserved compliment when Mr. McLeese asked me to take up the Chair that bears his name. Working with, and learning from, a man of his character and stature was one of the great privileges of my life. Together, we were able to bring students from UCC and across Canada to the famed Munk Debates in Toronto, introducing them to luminaries, getting them newspaper coverage, and making it possible for them to debate live on the radio. We facilitated tournaments and workshops for hundreds of students from every background, as well as tutorials for teachers and coaches, enabling schools to create and develop their own debating programs.

Beginning in 2011, the McLeese Prize in Debating will be presented to the graduating UCC student who best exemplifies Mr. McLeese’s ideals of skill in the activity, tolerance and leadership. He was particularly enthusiastic about our latest venture, the McLeese Online Debating program. Hosted by mcleesedebate.com, this unique function will allow any student with web access to participate in teacher-moderated debates from anywhere in Canada. This undertaking appealed to Mr. McLeese straight away, as he understood that many schools and regions lack the funds or the infrastructure to allow kids to participate in debating.

Mr. McLeese knew he was a blessed man, and nothing made him happier than to share his good fortune. Even in his final months, when he could not attend debating events as often as he would like, he never lost his enthusiasm for helping young people. I will always remember the light in his face, or the joy in his voice on the telephone, when I would tell him of some opportunity or success enjoyed by the students he helped and cherished. With a masterful mind and a servant’s heart, he was a remarkable patron of the art of argument.

His copious experiences were animated by his personal motto, “Dum Spiro, Spero” – Latin for, “While I breathe, I hope.” The McLeese Debating crest, which combines the McLeese family coat of arms with symbols of UCC and the CSDF, bears these words. By his example, and through his tremendous generosity, Willis McLeese offered hope to countless young Canadians. What a magnificent legacy he leaves.
Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

The TSA Tea Party

2011-01-21T09:26:00.000-08:00

Yet again, those in power have misread and underestimated the will of the American people. Last November’s election results shattered the grinning assurances of politicians who supposed voters were unserious in their objections to government over-reach in matters of economics, regulation and health. Now, in the face of mounting protest against the excesses of TSA officers at America’s airports, those responsible for the policy of continued sexual violation of travelers maintain that they are winning the argument. They are wrong, and they will lose.

One hesitates to equate the grassroots and growing opposition to TSA’s practices of perversion with the Tea Party movement that propelled GOP gains in the 2010 elections, since the latter largely represents a right-of-centre worldview, while the airport uproar encompasses people of all political and ideological persuasions.

This is fitting, as the current TSA situation is a bi-partisan disgrace – including the lucrative compensation received by Bush-era Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for selling Rapiscan backscatter x-ray machines to his former department for use at airports, as well as the eagerness of Chertoff’s Democratic successor, Janet Napolitano, to implement and expand this disgusting program.

Indeed, at a recent Washington, DC, conference hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (epic.org), which is suing to halt the use of full-body x-ray scans by the TSA, speakers represented every conceivable background and affiliation – Congressmen and staffers from both parties, lawyers, municipal officials, pilots, students, security experts, libertarians, liberals – even Ralph Nader, for good measure. Assessing the TSA’s enhanced screening techniques from all sides – efficacy, cost, safety, constitutionality and on – this group of people who had probably never found themselves in one room and on the same side (TSA officials declined invitations to attend) demolished any and all rationale for a technology that has been abandoned by other countries for its obscenity and ineffectiveness.

But despite the diversity of its participants, the populist nature of this protest feels familiar. Government officials chug along as though all will be well once folks settle down, even as opposition websites, Facebook groups and on-line networks boast memberships in the tens of thousands, and rising. Americans of all types are sharing their stories of mistreatment at the hands (and eyes) of TSA officers, and pooling ideas to bring this shameful episode to an end.

In response, government spokespeople continue to proffer the same assurances about privacy and necessity and the “next generation” of security tools, assuming Americans simply need time to adjust to the system. The most egregious such comment comes from Napolitano herself, in reference to the “enhanced pat-down” techniques that permit TSA officers to put their hands in travelers’ most intimate areas: “It’s something new. Most Americans are not used to a real law enforcement pat-down like that.”

This is true, since most Americans do not find themselves arrested or in jail. How could we claim to have a free country if innocent citizens were to become “used to a real law enforcement pat-down”? Unlike many, I do not consider Napolitano to be a scheming abettor of some sinister New World Order. Rather – and I sincerely do not mean to be glib – I assess her to be so cosmically stupid and barren of understanding as to the nature of this nation or her job that she simply does not recognize the absurdity of such a remark.

TSA Administrator John Pistole, on the other hand, appears to be a very different sort. In a recorded message, played in loops at American airports, authoritarian menace drips from his voice as he speaks of, “your options as a passenger” under his regime. He does not say as much, but your “options” are to be photographed nude, groped, or both, at the whim of a TSA worker, under threat of arrest and prosecution if you refuse to comply.

As columnist Chris Selley observed in a different context, there are some police officers who are incapable of dealing with a citizen who knows his rights. A 26-year FBI veteran before being tapped by President Obama for his TSA post, Pistole seems like such an officer.

Pistole’s recording concludes by thanking the flying public for its cooperation in the security effort as, “We all work together.” We are not working together, John. You and I are not on the same side. You want to violate and take naked pictures of my countrymen and loved ones; I want to prevent that. Neither your mission nor mine has the first thing to do with terrorism, but at least I admit it.

It bears mentioning that, even if done precisely as advertised, TSA’s system is still an abomination. A government agent is still seeing your naked image and/or physically violating you, without cause, explanation, escape or recourse. The dynamic between uniformed officials and citizens is appalling. I have routinely witnessed travelers at Washington, DC’s Reagan-National Airport crammed three or four at a time into a tiny glass cage, locked at one end and guarded by a uniformed officer at the other, and held there until TSA personnel are good and ready to release and grope them one by one.

Folks are finding the reality at airports is nothing like the anodyne assurances they have received from government officials and sympathetic media outlets. As the EPIC legal team noted in its January 6 brief, “Public opposition has correlated with the actual experience of those who undergo the TSA’s new screening procedure.”

A recent Zogby poll found that 61% of Americans oppose the TSA’s new methods, and this number has nowhere to go but up. As more and more Americans discover the depravity of TSA’s system for themselves, watching their children be photographed naked or their spouses touched in obscene ways by government agents, the only remaining supporters of this regime will be those who are empowered by and exempt from it, such as Napolitano and Obama, along with those pitiful stragglers whose public personae consist of being loudly wrong about almost everything (Gloria Allred, call your office).

As security expert Bruce Schneier stated at the EPIC conference, “Terrorism cannot end our way of life – only our response to it can.” In this way, the TSA has succeeded where al-Qaeda failed. Since 9/11, Americans have defied fear and embraced freedom, choosing to fly despite the remote danger of airline terrorism. Now they are demurring, as they are faced with the very real possibility that they or those they love will be violated by agents of their own government. This cannot be our way. As Schneier observes, “If we are indomitable, the terrorists lose, even if their attack succeeds.”

With that sentiment in mind, I have hope. This will end, because it has to end. In recent years, we have seen the American people, including many who had not previously raised their voices in the public square, come together to make a difference. Now, on this issue, we are doing so again. I am confident we will prevail.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

"While I breathe, I hope."

2011-01-08T11:46:00.000-08:00

Willis S. McLeese
1913-2011

Power, Freedom and Christmas

2010-12-22T11:49:00.000-08:00

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

So begins and ends the role of the most powerful person on the planet in the greatest story ever told. Taken from the Gospel of Luke, these words set the context in which Jesus Christ came to be born in Bethlehem: An important man had a grand idea.

As Rome’s first emperor, Caesar Augustus ruled supreme. Across the globe, his name was known and his word was obeyed. Yet at Christmas, as people celebrate the seminal union of creation and Creator, he rates only passing mention. Joseph and Mary, traveling to the City of David in accordance with Augustus’ orders, took refuge in a rude shelter so she could give birth to her child. As “all the world” moved to comply with an emperor’s proclamation, who would have imagined the destiny of humankind was laying in a manger?

This is one of the many welcome messages of Christmas: Man is not in control. Our ambitions do not rule the universe – and what an encouraging thought that is. God’s ways are not our ways, and though this sometimes brings suffering, as prayers seem unanswered and we struggle through the agony of a broken world, it also brings hope. Look at the world of men and wonder who would want them to have the final word. Many things that matter most to us – power, prestige, wealth and renown – do not reckon in God’s estimation. Even if, like Augustus, we achieve the pinnacle in each of these, we can still be confounded and forgotten.

The story of Christmas reminds us where true power dwells. It is in love, and humility, and evinced through God’s use of the weak to shame the strong. That means every one of us has a chance, and it means we all matter.

Each of us comes to Christmas – and every day of the year – with hopes and fears, clinging with joy or pain to those things we think are important. To be sure, some of these are important to God, as well. We may sense when our desires match those of the divine, as we are designed to appreciate the power of gentleness, the feeling of selfless love, and the warmth of a servant’s heart. But there are other concerns we carry around, priorities of men but pittances to God, and Christmas gives us a chance to set them down. Saint Paul offers simple counsel and encouragement to do just that: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”

There is liberation to be had by admitting we are not in command. As we recognize the limits of human power, we concede that our understanding of God is inchoate. This frees us from prejudices and serves to reinforce the Christmas message. For example, those of us who believe in the divinity of Jesus and the salvation obtained through his birth, death and resurrection must recognize that our appreciation of these events is incomplete. Indeed, the Gospels themselves give varying descriptions of Christ’s nativity and life, reminding us that we are reading the Word of God, rendered by imperfect people.

This means that as arguments over religion and belief swirl around December 25 and persist throughout the year, we can take peace in recognizing that none of us has all the answers. Whether we are great or small, Christmas invites us to embrace the precious simplicity pronounced by the angels two millennia ago: “Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men."

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The TSA Singers

2010-12-17T12:23:00.000-08:00

Good Lord, they’re singing.

This column has been sharply critical of the TSA and its invasive screening procedures for American air passengers. Monitoring the TSA’s public responses to concerns raised by people across the country, one notices an unsettling selectiveness. In a chipper, useless hybrid of corporate communications and government-speak, the TSA responds to those matters it thinks it can manage, ignoring the major problems with its new system.

In case you’ve missed the last couple of months, the TSA has been ramping up its regime of full-body, naked scans of air travelers, complemented by intense pat-downs that amount to government-sanctioned sexual assault. Reports of abuse have been rampant, including the grotesque targeting of female travelers by male TSA officers, and questions about privacy, power, and how these procedures can possibly jibe with Americans’ Constitutional rights.

It was rightly to be hoped that as we move into the Christmas travel season, and as opposition to their vulgar policies grows, the TSA would remedy – or at least acknowledge – these glaring flaws.

Instead, we find they are singing Christmas carols. Yes, the TSA has returned to the headlines as a choir of its officers sings to travelers at Los Angeles International Airport.

TSA supervisor and tenor Ernie Perez says he hopes to put a “positive face” on airport security, adding, “We’ve been taking a lot of heat for what we do.”

If I may be of some help here, Ernie, that’s because what you do is really, really wrong. This Christmastime, millions of Americans who want to be reunited with their families will be forced to run a groin-grabbing gauntlet erected by you and your colleagues. Your “positive face” doesn’t enter into it.

How many Americans have seen their holiday cheer darkened by anxiety, knowing that they, or their loved ones, will be subject to government-ordered nude photos and/or physical violation by TSA officers before their reunion can take place?

Perhaps the TSA singers hope to alleviate some of that anxiety by belting out a few holiday favorites, but here’s an even better move: Stop taking naked pictures of people and grabbing their intimate regions. It’s not much of a Norman Rockwell Christmas, but these are the times in which we live.

If, as the TSA insists, their officers are Americans like anyone else, understanding the concerns of the flying public, maybe they should stop singing and start protesting this twisted system. Why have we not seen that? Are TSA spokespeople so thoroughly committed to defending the indefensible, and are their ogling officers enjoying their new powers too much?

Perhaps, as their bizarrely cheerful public pronouncements suggest, the TSA folks actually feel they are winning this debate. But I doubt it. As employees, whether they work in communications or at airport gates, they must know that what they are doing is dead wrong, and a disgraceful violation of people’s dignity.

At least one TSA officer has had the sand to speak out and say as much. “I truly feel that it is morally and ethically wrong to do it,” an agent in Pittsburgh told CBS. “This does not make flying safer. It’s just taking away American citizens’ rights.” He noted that those who are most often singled out for extra scrutiny are seniors, lamenting, “Just the looks on their faces, some of them, the fear.”

So again, why has the TSA not made changes? Do they suppose this controversy will simply blow over? Again, I am doubtful.

An issue on which Charles Krauthammer, the ACLU, Ann Coulter, David Corn, Kathleen Parker, Jeff Jacoby and Alan Colmes all agree is one that has legs. Simply put, the TSA cannot win this fight with the American people and their Constitution.

In defense of their new rules, the TSA continues to wheel out a dopey, months-old poll, taken before Americans realized the detail of the naked scans, the vulgarity of the new pat-down procedures, or the capricious power of airport officers, showing widespread support for “full-body x-rays,” presented as a binary choice with “ethnic profiling.” But as the country’s mood shifts, and anger mounts, the TSA keeps humming along, calling us “customers” and acting as though we’re all on the same side.

The TSA is losing in the court of public opinion and, one can reasonably hope, they will lose some or all of the legal challenges being brought against them.

One of the many things we Americans do well is sue each other. It would be optimal for our national security officials to recognize the error of their ways on their own but, if a court order is what’s required to stop this madness, so be it.

But back to the TSA choir. If you want to give a gift to the American people, you can stop grabbing their groins and photographing them nude. This Christmas, TSA, just do the right thing.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

If You See Something, Say Something

2010-12-15T08:49:00.000-08:00

“If you see something, say something," our national security officials are fond of telling us. Indeed, the idea that ordinary citizens should be vigilant in spotting suspicious behavior was broadly encouraged long before this handy slogan was popularized. In the days after 9/11, as the anthrax scare ramped up, President George W. Bush was pressed by reporters as to just what sort of things folks should be looking for. The exhausted commander in chief replied, in a wordier iteration of the current motto, "If you find a person that you've never seen before getting in a crop duster that doesn't belong to you – report it.”

To be sure, civilians have been an important line of defense in the War on Terror since the brave passengers of Flight 93 took control of their aircraft, up through the citizen-led thwartings of attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid and would-be underwear-exploder Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. With these examples in mind, we can agree that any villain attempting to blow up a plane or train or shopping mall using identifiable methods will come in for an intergalactic beat-down from all decent persons within reach.

But what if the danger you see is something different and coming from an unexpected source? More pointedly, what if the threat you spot originates from the government itself? What to say then, and to whom do you say it?

One disgraceful example continues to stand out. To wit, there is no more egregious and obscene internal threat to our way of life than the TSA’s continued sexual violation of American travelers, in the form of full-body, naked scanners and invasive hand searches at the nation’s airports. Ostensibly in the name of stopping terrorism, our government is stripping us bare.

In response to mounting citizen protest, we hear, “Flying is a privilege, not a right.” What catchy nonsense. The government is not in place to dispense privileges, nor does it give us our rights. Moreover, on a practical level, the very idea that citizens of such a vast and various country as ours, who need to travel for work, family, and myriad other reasons, should simply stop flying because of repulsive rules established by government officials is bollocks on stilts.

But let’s revisit that concept of rights. The US Constitution was written by Americans, for Americans. The same is true of its first ten Amendments, which we call the Bill of Rights. Of particular relevance is the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from "unreasonable searches."

One wearies of those who insist we cannot understand the Constitution’s plain meaning without comprehension of case law, precedent, and a Yale-educated interlocutor to walk us through the document’s “living” nature. As we peruse the brilliant yet simple words of James Madison, they ask, “Who’re you gonna believe – a bunch of lawyers or your lying eyes?”

Simply put, if taking naked pictures of innocent travelers isn’t "unreasonable search," I should like to know what bloody well is.

And so we find ourselves at loggerheads with our own government, personified by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Chief John Pistole. As these two insist on expanding this odious regime, one wonders if they have considered how it will end. Two possible scenarios come to mind:

In the first, Americans become inured to these searches, accepting personal violations as the price of peace. I picture Pistole and his staff, huddled in his secure, undisclosed office, sipping Champ-Ale and congratulating themselves on weathering a media storm, coming through it to find a docile populace, arms raised in surrender, naked in the scanning gaze of government.

In the second, the scanners go away. Decades from now, we see them and their images flash by in retrospectives of “the year that was,” a quick reminder of a time we allowed our leaders to go too far.

I believe and hope the latter scenario will prevail.

Again – “If you see something, say something.” I see something, alright. I see a government that sees too much. I see federal officials contravening the supreme law of this land and robbing citizens of their dignity. I see you, Secretary Napolitano and Mr. Pistole, and I'm saying something. I say it to those whose consent your government requires – the American people. I say do not let this stand, and don’t become used to this.

I have written a great deal about these searches because I truly believe we are at a turning point for America. I’ve stated that a nation that will not tell airport apparatchiks to keep their claws out of their crotch cannot vanquish al-Qaeda. But it’s more than that.

It is anathema to a free country that a leering government officer can point to your wife or daughter and force her to hold still for a naked photo. Yes, we have to defeat Islamist terrorists who wish to destroy us, but we will have nothing left to defend if we surrender our liberty.

Stay outraged, America, and stay free.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Janet Napolitano's Appalling Judgment

2010-12-13T10:05:00.001-08:00

When she ascended to her position as Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano let it be known that the “War on Terror” was over. Instead, she decreed, America would conduct an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” in order to avert “man-caused disasters,” of the type we experienced on 9/11.

Ah yes, “man-caused disasters.” One is struck by the passive sense of the phrase, as though folks may have set out with the best of intentions, but things went awry. By that definition, what else might qualify as “man-caused disasters”? The Titanic? The Hindenburg? “Showgirls”?

As to just who might be responsible for such future “disasters,” Napolitano opined that “rightwing extremists,” including returning military veterans, were cause for concern.

Such a peculiar world view would be troubling in any Cabinet official, especially one charged with keeping the nation safe. But Napolitano’s notoriously poor judgment has been reinforced for all of us in recent days, as she continues to insist that in order to wage the homeland portion of our “Contingency Operation” and prevent “man-caused disaster” in the skies, TSA officers must take naked pictures and grab the groins of American air travelers.

Much has been made of whether these measures are a trial run for some Big Sister society, and Napolitano has asserted that the use of nude, full-body scanners should be expanded from airports to shopping malls, sporting events, and the like. But I am doubtful a larger agenda is in play for the same reason I understand this is a bad system. That is, conspiracies rarely happen because so few people are competent.

Even so, freedom can be crushed without coordinated effort. What’s more, if you lead people into temptation, they will follow.

We hear reports from all over the country, and those of us who travel have seen it: young women lined up at airports, having been selected by male TSA officers to go through full-body x-ray scanners. The TSA continues with its silly-bears about images being viewed in separate rooms and not being stored, but they are unable to address the probability that their men in uniform relish sending nude female photos to one another, and they miss the salient point: It is disgraceful and dangerous for a government to give male officers such sexual dominance over women.

Look, you don’t have to be B.F. Skinner to figure this one out: A mostly male force, empowered to take naked pictures of the females under their authority, will do so.

But back to Napolitano, and her fear about “rightwing” bringers of “disaster.” Suppose some conservative-minded fellow, perhaps with a military background, saves up to take his wife and daughter on a trip. And let us suppose that, as the family goes through security, male TSA officers take a liking to the women and, with the glances and gestures we are coming to recognize at our airports, single them out for naked scrutiny. Finally – and to be clear as a millimeter-wave scan, I am not calling for or condoning such action – let us suppose the pater familias takes umbrage with the officers and a violent incident ensues. Will Napolitano have been proven correct?

There is resonance to John Tyner’s now-famous phrase, “Don’t touch my junk.” But ogle my wife or touch my child, and the conversation takes on a whole new tone. Why are we creating this problem for ourselves?

Oh, right – in the name of security. This is the claim, even as the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly informed Congress that naked scanners would not have caught the so-called “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – who in any case, boarded his plane in Amsterdam, and about whom the State Department had received prior warning from his own father.

So again, why is this system in place? Well, if you thought Islamist terror acts could be stopped by calling them, “man-caused disasters,” you might also be persuaded that nude photos of every American flier are worthwhile.

Napolitano is not a thorough person – aside from her inspection preferences for innocent civilians, of course. She railed against the recent Arizona immigration law, calling it “bad law enforcement,” until she was compelled to admit before a Senate hearing that she had not even read the 12-page bill – and this was after she had seen her Cabinet colleague, Attorney General Eric Holder, similarly humiliated in front of a Congressional committee by confessing he had not read the law either, even as he was threatening to sue over it. Whatever you think of the Arizona legislation, consider the intellectual laziness evinced by this behavior.

Simply put, if you want to create and defend a system that compels Americans to be routinely and obscenely violated, you had better be someone who has the faith of the nation and a record of stellar judgment. Janet Napolitano is no such person.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Stanford Prison Experiment at America's Airports

2010-12-09T19:22:00.000-08:00

In 1971, researchers set up a prison in the basement of Stanford University’s Psychology Department. The idea was to observe how 24 undergraduate students would behave when divided into two groups – “prisoners” and “guards” – and allowed to play out their roles over two weeks. But within 6 days, the simulation had to be stopped. Students playing “guards” became sadistic, while “prisoners” evinced severe anxiety and distress.

Scientific criticisms of the Stanford experiment notwithstanding, the elemental message lingers: It is human nature to abuse authority; and the fewer checks on that authority, the more obscene the abuse becomes.

With that in mind, let’s have a gander at America’s airports and see how the TSA’s new virtual strip-search, busy-fingered pat-down policy is going. To re-cap, government agents have been empowered to subject airline travelers to nude, full-body scans and/or highly invasive hand searches. TSA officers may choose anyone for such scrutiny, without explanation, and if the selected person attempts to avoid whatever search methods the officer decrees – even by opting not to fly – he or she will be detained, prosecuted, and subject to massive fines.

Even without the empirical evidence of eggheads from Stanford, most folks instinctively understand you cannot give people, no matter how well-adjusted, this level of unaccountable authority over others.

Take the example of former Baywatch star Donna D’Errico, who claims a male TSA officer grabbed her out of line at Los Angeles International Airport and forced her to undergo a naked scan. When the fetching Ms. D’Errico asked the officer why she was the only person chosen, he replied, “You caught my eye.” For good measure – and plausibly, to obscure his true motives – the officer also scanned Ms. D’Errico’s young son, and subjected him to an extensive pat-down. Afterward, Ms. D’Errico reports seeing the officer and a male colleague – possibly the one who was privileged to see her naked image on the scanner – smirking and watching her walk on.

Much has been made of the fact that Ms. D’Errico has appeared in Playboy, suggesting nudity ought not to trouble her. That is relevant only insofar as it seems the same assets that got her into the magazine also got her into the scanner. The point is that she was violated with no recourse, escape, or appeal.
Reached for comment, a TSA spokeswoman called the incident “funny.” Really, now? Ms. D’Errico does not find it “funny,” nor does her son, nor do millions of women and families who face the prospect of government-sanctioned sexual violation as the price of travel. Indeed, the word I have read and heard most from females anticipating a flight is, “Dread.”

Consider the case of Stacey Armato, the young mother who was shoved into a glass cage by TSA officers at Phoenix Airport for refusing to allow her breast milk to go through an x-ray machine. She was held for an hour in full view of other passengers, subjected to a thorough hand-search, and told to, “Be quiet if you know what’s good for you.”

No one thought for a second that the breast milk was a matter of national security. I admit I wasn’t there, but I’ll say it again: The breast milk was never a threat. You know it, I know it, and the TSA thugs who abused this woman knew it. But the “guards” were in control.

As the system now stands, stories like these will multiply. Unfortunately, TSA Chief John Pistole and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano show little interest in making changes.

Some have suggested the TSA’s methods are part and parcel with the war on terror, and these are small sacrifices for civilians to make while our troops are overseas, fighting for freedom. That’s half-right – our troops are fighting to preserve a free country, not one where husbands and fathers stand helplessly aside while the government takes naked pictures of their wives and children.

Indeed, how might a soldier hunkered down in Iraq or Afghanistan feel, being told that at that very moment back home, a TSA officer was ogling his wife’s naked image, or thrusting his hands into his child’s crotch, ostensibly in the name of the freedom he signed up to defend?

Stop it. Just stop now. Call it whatever you like – a re-evaluation period, a budget cutback, a legal opinion. But turn off your naked scanners, wheel them out, and tell your officers to keep their hands in the sunlight. Learn the lesson from Stanford some 40 years ago and wrap this one up early.

Pistole and Napolitano do not appear to be listening. They imagine we will become inured to scans and gropes, and some day look back, in Virgil’s supposition, to laugh at how prudish we once were. That, I believe, is a miscalculation.

America eventually does the right thing. The scanners will disappear from our airports and the blue gloves will retreat from our inseams. I believe that because I believe in the people of this country. Stick with it, keep at it, and let’s end this together.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Is the TSA targeting women?

2010-12-06T13:10:00.000-08:00

The young, male TSA officer walks slowly down the line of airline passengers waiting to clear security. He looks down at tickets, up at faces, then points to those whom he selects for additional screening. In a theoretically possible, albeit unlikely, random sample, when the officer reaches the end of the long queue, we find that every passenger he has chosen for further scrutiny is female.

As I watched this scene unfold at Washington, DC’s Reagan-National Airport recently, the moment that struck me most was when the officer looked down at my ticket and seemed about to pull me aside. But when he raised his eyes to see my face, he veered his blue-gloved finger, already in mid-air, toward the woman standing behind me.

I readily admit I do not know what was in that young man's head, but the facts of the incident are straightforward: He appeared about to select me and, after he saw my face, opted for a female instead; further, everyone he picked was a woman.

Since the TSA stepped up its use of full-body x-ray scanners and invasive hand searches at America’s airports, almost every female traveler I know has at least one story of being scanned and/or patted down – and in some cases, they advise it happens every time they fly. Meanwhile, very few of the men I speak to report anything similar.

This is, of course, a wildly unscientific survey of my personal acquaintances, but anecdotal evidence is mounting that TSA officers are inappropriately directing their newfound powers to prod and peer at female passengers. Consider the father who reports hearing a TSA officer tell his colleague by walkie-talkie, “We’ve got another cutie coming through,” before sending the man’s teenage daughter into the scanner; or Eliana Sutherland, who claims two male TSA agents ogled her up and down at Orlando International Airport before one of them pulled her aside for enhanced screening; or Alyson Galen, who says Philadelphia TSA agents selected her for a thorough pat-down because she wore a Dallas Cowboys’ jersey.

The TSA does not provide information on how passengers are selected for enhanced screening, except to say that the process is "random," and these new measures are in place due to "classified intelligence" of imminent threats. But if you'd like further insight into that "random" process and you'd like to see some of that "classified intelligence" – as well as your fellow Americans naked – simply call the TSA employment number advertised on your pizza box and apply today!

TSA Chief John Pistole assures us that officers never see the naked images of the passengers they are "assisting," since the x-ray scans are viewed and deleted in a separate room, and those looking at the images "never interact" with the scanned person. As to the scans themselves, the TSA helpfully shows us, on signs posted at airport security checkpoints, as well on their website, "What Officers See," and it is a blurry image of the photographic quality usually reserved for sightings of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

If that is what the actual scans looked like, not even the TSA could defend using them, so with all due respect, Mr. Pistole, serve it on toast. More believable representations are available in many of the television news reports on the new procedures available online.

But let's give TSA the benefit of the doubt on the privacy aspect, assuming they do not save or store images, and that officers don't see their "assisted" passengers nude. Human nature being what it is, how hard is it to suppose that if you are working a menial, hourly job at the airport, and you have opaque, random power to choose people to be exposed naked to whichever of your chums is manning the peep booth, you would be tempted to send pleasing shapes through the scanner, on the understanding he will do the same when it's your turn to do the ogling?

The TSA says its officers are 60 percent male, and 40 percent female, and there could be reasons besides prurience that officers might single out travelers for scrutiny – as in the case of Ms. Galen, above.

Some have proposed, bizarrely, that such potential abuses would be averted by paying TSA officers better. But a more practical, economical option is available: The government should stop taking naked pictures of people.

President Barack Obama has defended the TSA’s new procedures, while conceding they are, “a huge inconvenience for all of us.”

"Us," is it? Has the First Family found themselves wrapped up in this predicament? "Mr. President, you're fine, but Michelle, Malia and Sasha will all have to be scanned. Don't worry – the person who'll see them naked is 50 feet away and won’t interact with them – apart from seeing every inch of their bodies, of course.”
America, this is just wrong, and it must end now.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Hands Off America

2010-11-19T09:18:00.000-08:00

Alright, that does it.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans have been willing to do their part for safety in the friendly skies. Indeed, citizens have generally been reasonable, even in the face of monumental unreasonableness, of the type only government can attain.

But now, it has gone too far. The Transportation Security Administration has begun offering air travelers an abominable, binary choice between nude, full-body x-ray scans and groin-grabbingly invasive “pat-downs.”

It is encouraging to read of danders rising all over the country, as people see this hideous overreach for what it is. It has occurred to me that this policy is in fact an elaborate prank, just to see if the nation still has any nerve at all. If, however, this federal initiative of naked pictures and government gropes is sincere, Americans’ response will determine their success or failure in the worldwide struggle with radical Islam.

Preposterous as it seems to suggest the war on terror will be won or lost in the trousers of America, what is at stake is nothing less than the character of the country. Has the Land of the Free reverted to such docility that its citizens will meekly let anyone in a uniform get to third base simply because those are the rules?

America has had a lot of rules in its time, some sinister and some asinine; segregation and prohibition come to mind, respectively. In each case, nonsensical or nasty regimes were overthrown when regular people, individually and en masse, said, “enough already.”

This is, or should be, such a time. A nation that will not tell airport apparatchiks to keep their claws out of their crotch cannot vanquish al-Qaeda.

Resistance to tyranny, petty or grand, is the spirit that created the country. If citizens cannot summon it now, even as twitchy, blue-gloved fingers creep below the equator, then America is simply living off the capital of previous generations as it whittles down to its inevitable demise.

One tires of those who shrug and say, “Go ahead and scan me – I have nothing to hide.” To them I’d respond, it isn’t about you and whether you can sell that look. Kids, families, or even just people who don’t share your ease with revealing their nakedness or watching their spouses do the same should not be subject to this insanity. Your comfort with your own body is admirable, whether well-founded or not, but if you suppose that your personal decisions should be good enough for the rest of the country, you are either a White House czar or you’ve simply missed the point.

The TSA and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have tried various tacks in responding to growing public outcry. Napolitano, in a USA Today column that reads like the copy of an automated complaint line, refers to this new system as “the evolution of our national security architecture.” Airport screeners who have received complaints from molested passengers have reportedly been parroting that, “The rules have always been the same.” Nice try, Charlie. I’m fairly certain we would have remembered that move, had you “always” been using it.

We are reminded, of course, that these enhanced techniques come in response to would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempted Christmas Day attack in 2009. But Napolitano and her minions do not offer any counter to the argument that this new and invasive approach would not have stopped him.

And anyway, these are the same geniuses who responded to Abdulmutallab’s attempt by decreeing people couldn’t have books in their laps for the final hour of flights. What crack team gamed that one out? Besides the obvious incongruity – some guy stuffs explosives into his y-fronts so you can’t finish your chapter of Johnny Tremain until safely inside the terminal – what did they think would happen? That terrorists would seize planes using the complete works of Dickens? Perhaps Orwell would be more appropriate. To be sure, nothing cracks a cockpit door like Leon Uris.

But this is the way of bureaucrats. In lieu of doing the right thing, they must do something. The opportunity to stop Abdulmutallab came when his own father walked into the US Embassy in Nigeria and warned that the young man was a threat. For whatever reason – political correctness, overwork, under-interest – officials did nothing, so the first photos of your Disney vacation will be of you and your family without clothes.

There are, however, reasons for hope. Wednesday, November 24, which portends to be the busiest travel date of the year, has been declared “National Opt-Out Day” by grassroots organizers who are encouraging Americans to refuse to submit to full-body scans, thereby requiring TSA agents to perform pat-downs on all fliers. The prospects for this approach are unclear, but at least it’s something.

And that is what we need – people from all parts of the country finding ways to make their displeasure known. Moreover, folks must stick with it and keep up the pressure. Please do not get used to this nonsense. Stay outraged, America, and stay free.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

We Will Remember Them

2010-11-10T01:01:00.000-08:00

Just what do we remember on Remembrance Day? Certainly, we recall that at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the armistice was reached to end The Great War, as World War One was known. All wars did not end with that consuming conflict, as had been hoped, and successive generations have stood against tyranny to preserve our freedom. In the words of British Major John Etty-Leal, “For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”

But what, exactly, comes to mind with almost a century of war and peace gone by?

Author and veteran George Orwell averred, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” That is true, so far as it goes, but many of those whom we honour on November 11 are neither rough nor men, and they stand guard for the best interests of their fellow human beings, regardless of faction. Western militaries in modern times are an amalgam of destructive power, engineering genius and humanitarian outreach unmatched in history.

Whether they carry a gun, or a tool kit, or a doctor’s bag, these are real people in unreal situations. And, in today’s all-volunteer force, they are there by choice.

Ray Wiss, a Canadian Forces doctor and author of A Line in the Sand about his tours in Afghanistan, says that it is not enough to “support our troops” in the parlance of some who are unsure about the cause. Go further, he instructs, and, “Support our mission.”

If you differ from the surrounding politics – for which civilians, not our military, are responsible – pick some portion of their mission you can support, and do so with strength and pride. Perhaps it is allowing girls to go to school, or protecting them from rape and mutilation. Maybe it is bringing medical care and supplies to people who have known only brutality and hardship. Or perhaps it is just the telling humanity of our military doctors that wounded enemies are given the same treatment as our own injured troops.

The Great Lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, opined, “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier.” This bespeaks the monumental courage of those who face and return fire, but also the spirit of sacrifice evinced by those who sign up to serve. Most of us lack one or both of these towering qualities.

In honouring that spirit of sacrifice, we remember above all those who did not return, who died far from home in defense of the best things we know. As has been understood since the dawn of our culture, “Greater love hath no man than this – that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Although they answered a higher calling, these were people just as we are. Canadian Army surgeon and In Flanders Fields poet John McCrae captured this commonality by reminding us, “Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved, and were loved.”

And so, on November 11, consider that each name on a wall is a life that was lived. With a thankful heart for those who serve, and a thoughtful prayer for those who are lost, we heed the declaration of Laurence Binyon’s immortal verses: “We will remember them.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Remember the Morning

2010-09-10T12:15:00.000-07:00

Nine years ago today, our world changed. On the morning of September 11, 2001, four hijacked airliners crashed into targets in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, killing 3,000 innocent people. The reasons and consequences would emerge in the weeks that followed – indeed, they are still unfolding in theatres of war around the world – but on that fateful day, the most we knew was that tragedy had struck and life would never be the same.

Everyone has images they recall of 9/11. Perhaps it is the planes hitting the World Trade Center, or flames rising from the Pentagon, or people clinging to the glass outside smoldering skyscrapers, or leaping to their deaths hand in hand.

For me, the image that keeps returning is a man in a dark suit, maybe 100 floors up, hanging from the outside of one of the World Trade towers. He has what appears to be an umbrella, which he hooks to the frame of a shattered window as he tries to swing from a burning office to the floor below. It is a pitiful scene – a desperate man with inadequate tools, unprepared for his final moments. He loses his grip and departs this life.

I wonder, as he fell, did he curse, or pray? Did he think of his children, if he had any? We can never know.

1,616 death certificates were issued without a body at the World Trade Center site. Of the approximately 20,000 body parts collected there, among the most affecting was a man’s large fist, clenched around a tiny hand.

Today, and in years to come, how will we mark this date? Will we don black arm bands and read the names of the dead? Will we observe moments of silence and prayer? Perhaps, and rightly so.

Some will want to discuss political, cultural, and historical matters of varied importance – foreign wars, recrimination for past acts, and so on – but today is about those who died on September 11, 2001. In what way should we honour them?

Maybe we should remember how survivors and citizens behaved on 9/11, in contrast to the manner in which the innocent were taken from us.

The victims of 9/11 were not killed by accident. They were murdered. And everyone who died that day was the most important person in the world to someone.

How can we contemplate and counter so great an evil, that would bring such death and pain to so many people?

As then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani observed at the time, “We have met the worst of humanity with the best of humanity.” That is the strongest legacy of this tragic date.

Examples of 9/11 heroism abound, from firefighters and police who ran into burning buildings, even as others were running out, to the passengers of United Flight 93, who crashed their hijacked plane into a field in Pennsylvania, rather than let it strike some target or civilian-populated area in Washington, DC.

As for humanity, there are countless instances, large and small, of people reaching out to one another – from strangers offering their homes to stranded travelers, to those who ensured their co-workers were safe before evacuating, to people watching the news and simply appreciating their loved ones a little more.

A banner on one of the myriad 9/11 remembrance websites shows an image of the September sky, emblazoned with the words, “Remember the morning.” To be sure, this is a call to remember each precious life lost. But it also reminds us of the things people did and felt as the tragedy unfolded.

The nobility of the human spirit rose above the rubble, even before the sun had set that day. 9/11 will always be with us, and to honour the dead, we embrace courage and compassion. Most of all, we hold fast to hope. Even in our darkest moments, when we stare deep into the face of fear and recognize the smirk of evil, we can know that there is still good in the world. For that, we may be thankful, and remember the morning.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

What Does Victory Look Like?

2010-09-02T01:00:00.000-07:00

Sixty-five years ago today, World War II officially came to an end. On September 2, 1945, Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu boarded the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay and signed the Instrument of Surrender in front of American General Douglas MacArthur.

It was a formal and solemn ceremony, coming weeks after atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, concluding six years of warfare, with some 70 nations fighting on three continents.

Today, we find ourselves in another global conflict, and it is broadly understood that there will be no such official declaration if and when we win.

Who would sign the surrender, and where? Would Osama bin Laden apply his imprimatur to some document at Ground Zero, perhaps in the Great Hall of Faisal Abdul Rauf’s planned “community center”?

In 1945, Japan’s leaders, like countless signatories to surrenders of centuries past, were agreeing on behalf of an entire population that hostilities would cease. In today’s war, where terrorist cells attack civilian and military targets all over the world, no leader is empowered to make that peace, even if he cared to.

Without a surrender, how will we know when we have won? Victory will take years, if we can manage it, but what will it look like and how do we achieve it?

Military might alone cannot win this war. And so, the adage goes, we will conquer by the strength of our ideas. Swell – but what’s that mean?

Often, the delineation of “our ideas” takes one of two forms. First, there are people like me, banging on about “freedom,” whatever that might be. Or, we are told, standing up for “our ideas” means making some absurd concession to antagonistic forces, in hopes our good intentions and intellectual bio-diversity will green the souls and stay the hands of our enemies (Mayor Bloomberg, call your office).

Political correctness is no match for radical Islam. The latter has shown its commitment, time and again in locations around the world, to winning this conflict. The former, meanwhile, is a tiresome modern reflex, whereby poseurs take a quick assessment of common sense, then put all their energy behind the contrary view. This tic can manifest itself in straightforward fashion – as in, when people aver it is offensive to erect a nativity display at Christmastime – or abstractly – such as, you demonstrate how a cut in capital gains tax rates spurs the economy, then someone calls you a racist.

In either case, this is no way to win a war.

That brings us back to freedom. But the question remains: Just what would the victory of “freedom” mean to us? Would we breathe a little easier? Would the Kabuki dance of airport security be curtailed? Most important, would the brave members of our armed forces be spared from injury and death on foreign soil?

Intelligent and experienced people have struggled to define victory in Iraq, where the US combat mission has just ended, and Afghanistan, where human rights abuses abound and military casualties continue – to say nothing of the almost-nuclear, terror-sponsoring Iran. What does “freedom” look like for Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, and others?

There will be no top-hats and ceremonies when this war ends. And so I put the question to you, gentle readers – what does victory in the war on terror look like?

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Hearts and Minds

2010-08-26T23:12:00.000-07:00

A young couple died a cruel death last week. According to BBC News: “A man and a woman who allegedly had an adulterous affair have been stoned and killed in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz.”

The pair, both in their 20’s, were hauled into a crowded marketplace and murdered. The woman, named Sadiqa, was brought out first. Taliban thugs threw rocks at her for half an hour, at which time the man, named Qayum, was pulled into the bazaar to suffer the same fate.

Apparently, the couple had run away together. Sadiqa had been betrothed to someone else, while Qayum was already married. This dreadful story conjures a number of thoughts.

First, there is the sheer horror of the scene. Consider, if you can, what it would be like for you and the person you love most to be in such a circumstance. Your own torturous death is compounded by the inability to protect someone you adore.

Next, there is the frequency with which Taliban forces are inflicting brutality in areas of Afghanistan that fall under their control. I wrote recently of Aisha, an 18-year-old girl whose nose and ears were cut off on the order of Taliban authorities for the crime of running away from her husband. There are reports that the Taliban flogged and killed a pregnant widow in the western province of Badghis this month.

In early August, ten medical aid workers were lined up and shot, one at a time, by Taliban terrorists in the northern province of Badakhshan. The chief crime for which these noble souls were tried and executed on the spot was, “preaching Christianity.”

Writer P.J. O’Rourke, having just returned from Afghanistan, quotes a female MP who says Taliban forces make a simple demand of villagers they subjugate: “Son or money.”

The reaction of Afghanistan’s government to the stoning deaths of Sadiqa and Qayum is disconcerting. Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, is quoted as saying, "Even in Islam this [stoning] has to be done through proper judicial systems.”

While Omar suggests the government would condemn the incident, his comments imply that their chief objection would be that the Taliban did not complete Form Z-914B Rock-Hurling Requisition in triplicate before proceeding.

This raises the much larger concern of the Karzai government in general. Western forces are forever picking the wrong allies in regions they don’t understand, then clinging to them like grim death.

Finally, one wonders about the 150 or so people in that marketplace who watched as Sadiqa and Qayum were slowly killed. Those are 150 of the “hearts and minds” we hear so much about. Reports are that the Taliban did the actual stoning (they finished Qayum off with bullets), while villagers were made to observe and contemplate the fate of those who behave in “un-Islamic” ways.

Those villagers have seen the face of evil. And as human beings, they must want something better for themselves and their families. One has to think that in this battle for hearts and minds, forces of freedom and dignity can outdo the stone-throwers, nose-cutters and son-snatchers.

For the sake of those people – and for Sadiqa and Qayum and for every person in Afghanistan who does not share our good fortune – let us show them a better way.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Ashtiani Has Confessed

2010-08-18T09:25:00.000-07:00

Sakineh Ashtiani has confessed. Ashtiani is the Iranian woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of “adultery,” and whose cause was championed by people around the globe. Owing to public outcry, Iran’s mullahs, in their mercy, commuted her sentence to death by hanging. But this week, Ashtiani appeared on Iranian television, where she confessed to various charges, including being an accessory to the murder of her husband.

Ashtiani’s lawyer advises that she was tortured for two days before she appeared on television. This is not the first time Iranian authorities have broadcast a forced confession from someone they seek to condemn. And using history as a guide, fears are mounting that Ashtiani’s execution – by whatever method – could come at any time.

The mullahs’ move, it seems, is to paint Ashtiani as a murderer – indeed, it was an investigation of her husband’s death that started Ashtiani’s ordeal back in 2006 – and execute her, just as other countries, including the United States, do to killers in their midst. The absurdity of the regime’s ploy is twofold – first, that they would attempt it; second, that they would expect anyone to believe it.

Originally cleared of involvement in her husband’s death, that investigation uncovered Ashtiani’s apparent “adultery,” for which she received 99 lashes in front of her teenage son. A re-opening of the murder case led religious authorities to determine that penalty had been insufficient, and they decreed she should be stoned to death.

Now, exposed as the fanatical monsters they are, Iran’s leaders want to tack the murder charge back on, and do away with this inconvenient person. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Even Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – a sometime ally of Iran and no snuggly-bear on human rights – has offered to give Ashtiani asylum in his country. Iran has declined. To sweeten the deal, I’ll even take her place. No doubt, Ashtiani is a far finer person than I am, and I have shattered any number of God’s laws in my time. Come and get me, mullahs, and I will confess to any crime you care to name – adultery, regicide, coveting my neighbour’s ass – if you’ll let Ashtiani go free.

But this isn’t about crime, or even a country. It is a perverse prescription for the entire planet. In the words of the founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Given their druthers, Iran’s rulers would murder Ashtiani, and me, and you who are reading along, in order to realize their vision. This poor woman is one of countless thousands caught up in a twisted experiment.

It bears mentioning that the Iranian people, 60 percent of whom are under age 30, are not on board with this madness. During and after their stolen elections of last year, the citizens of Iran did what they could to bring about change. It is to the shame of free nations that we did not do more to help them.

But here, in the person of Sakineh Ashtiani, we have another chance. Let us keep her hope alive.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Democrats Dread November

2010-08-11T15:53:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats are already nervous about November’s congressional elections. The bad news for them – and good news for America – is that their defeat may be even worse than they think.

In 1994, Democrats knew the midterm elections would be tough. First-year President Bill Clinton had reversed course from campaign promises and announced the largest middle-class tax hike in American history. He took on, and booted, divisive issues like gays in the military, and tasked his wife with constructing a schmozzle of a health-care package.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich’s Republicans offered the country a concise alternative in their ten-point “Contract with America.”

The result, when voters went to the polls that November, was more dramatic than people expected. Republicans captured both chambers of Congress in a nationwide sweep.

In 2010, indicators for the ruling Democrats are worse than they were 16 years ago. The generic ballot, which polls voters’ preferences of Republican or Democratic congressional candidates, was tied on Election Day in 1994, and the GOP only saw its first, slight, lead that autumn. Today, Republicans are ahead in the generic ballot by 6 points, according to the RealClearPolitics.com average, and have enjoyed leads since June of 2009.

Then, there are the issues. This Democratic Congress actually did pass health-care reform, in a monstrous piece of legislation that they did not read, and which a majority of Americans want to see repealed. Unemployment remains high as businesses groan under massive regulation and impending tax hikes. As federal debt surpasses the nation’s GDP, and trillion-dollar deficits are projected for the next decade, a newly engaged citizenry is taking a look at its elected leaders. They do not like what they see.

As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful legislator on the planet. She is also ridiculous. One could spend a lifetime outlining the absurdity of Pelosi’s positions and statements on issues from the economy to health-care to immigration to the CIA. But a handier approach is to send folks to, say, YouTube, and invite them to watch a clip of the Speaker – just pick one at random – and suggest they make up their own minds. After watching Pelosi opine on any matter, ask yourself – would you trust this person to work an electric can-opener? Now consider that this is the top lawmaker of the world’s sole superpower.

Consider, also, that Pelosi became Speaker because House Democrats looked around and said, “Yep, she’s the best we’ve got” – and, from a group that includes Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, et al., they may be right.

As for President Obama, Americans are not seeing the brilliant, moderate, outcome-oriented leader they willed him to be, but a hard-left ideologue who wouldn't know the answer to a doorbell if it weren't printed on his teleprompter.

To win the House, Republicans need to pick up 40 seats this November. In 1994, the GOP added 54 but, based on this climate, commentator Bill Kristol calls for Republicans to gain 60 seats or more.

The Senate will be tougher, but political consultant Dick Morris, who helped rescue Clinton’s presidency after the 1994 shellacking, says Republicans should win the 10 seats they need to control that chamber.

A lot can happen between now and November, but welcome change seems on the way.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Win This War

2010-08-04T10:33:00.001-07:00

I wondered, in last week’s column, whether the war in Afghanistan is still a worthwhile enterprise, nine years on. As American and Canadian governments contemplate withdrawal in 2011, commentators far wiser than I – George Will comes to mind – have opined that it is time for allied forces to pull out. Indeed, I had begun to congratulate myself on my reasonableness and good intellectual company.

Then, I saw the cover of Time magazine. The photo and story are of a young Afghan woman named Aisha, who was apprehended and sentenced to mutilation by Taliban authorities for running away from her husband’s house. As writer Aryn Baker puts it: “Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.” Baker adds, “This didn't happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened last year.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and some U.S. policymakers have floated the idea of reconciliation with the Taliban, in hopes of achieving stability and peace. Personally, I prefer freedom and human dignity.

But even if a reconciliation were possible, would we want it?

Have we fought and sacrificed for nine years only to leave Aisha and millions like her to their fate? Afghanistan presents a challenge, in which we are already engaged, and in which the delineation between barbarity and civilization is plain to see. If we cannot see this through, in what way will Western nations, blessed beyond the comprehension of most of the world, stand against evil in our time? By recycling? Driving hybrid cars? Gimme a break.

But let us say we depart, giving a finger-wag to the grinning maniacs left in charge, admonishing, “Now, no terrorist acts! And keep the amputations and honour killings to a minimum. Okay? We’re really, really cereal!”

Would that achieve our humane and practical goals?

Either way, the strategic and humanitarian missions are not mutually exclusive. And to accomplish both, we must win this war.

Often, when the concept of total victory is put forward, people suddenly become military historians. “Ah,” they say, “even the Soviet Union couldn’t win in Afghanistan.” For those who missed the 20th century, there were any number of things the Soviets could not do, including, but not limited to, basic economics and intentional comedy. You’ll excuse me if I don’t use the regime that brought us the collective farm as the benchmark for what can and cannot be done.

Along these lines, accommodation with the Taliban should be akin to Ronald Reagan’s prescription for rapprochement with the USSR: “We win, they lose.”

When he was Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier told me, “There is no such thing as a doorstop defence.” That is, no nation can be an oasis to itself and, as we have learned during this decade, darkness from elsewhere in the world comes to find us at home. Lest we forget, we went into Afghanistan to deprive Islamist terrorists of safe haven after they killed thousands of people in North America.

Not only do we have a human obligation to succeed in Afghanistan, but the strategic argument still obtains. As the poet Terence averred, “Nothing that is human is foreign to me.” For Aisha and the people of Afghanistan, let us remember that.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Where to from Here?

2010-07-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

In last week’s column, I put out a call for proposals to solve the heretofore intractable Israel-Palestinian situation.

Readers did not disappoint. I have tremendous respect for those who take the time to read this space – like a true Irishman, I admire the wisdom of those who seek my opinion – but even I was surprised by the strength of the responses.

Some of the sagest suggestions began more or less like this: No matter your sentiments on this issue – whether you feel the creation of the State of Israel was fair or not, and whether you believe Israel has merely been defending itself against overwhelming odds or oppressing unfortunate people – both sides have suffered. Most important, the past is prologue and there’s no going back. So, we must stop being concerned with who was right or whom to blame, and focus on what to do next.

There are myriad challenges about which we could ask similar questions. The war in Afghanistan was a necessary undertaking when it began, but what is our best move today, nine years on? The invasion of Iraq may not have yielded WMD, but what steps can be taken now to help that recovering country, comprised of three distinct groups, develop into a secular Middle Eastern ally? Western nations may have mishandled Iran for decades, but what should be done as its despotic regime nears nuclear capability? This week, Canada announced, in conjunction with other countries, it would stiffen sanctions against the Iranian government. Was that the right thing to do? (Hint: Yes, it was.)

To find the future you want, you must put aside the past. Learn from it, certainly, but don’t allow your judgment to be clouded by injustices. In this way, forgiveness can be highly practical. It is difficult, nonetheless.

But on the Israel-Palestinian matter, let us give one another substantial credit and assume we can take a purely objective, forward-looking stance. Now what?

Several readers took issue with the premise of my original question – “What should Israel do?” – pointing out that the plight of the Palestinian people is not solely a responsibility of the Jewish State. Their Arab neighbours can also take steps to help.

As columnist Khaled Abu Toameh recently observed, “Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs,” adding, “Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country.”

So if we want to help the Palestinian people – and as a matter of human decency, all good folks share that goal – perhaps the best approach is to spread the pressure. That is, rather than focus solely on, say, Israeli checkpoints and Jerusalem building projects, we might also find the dialing codes for Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, ring them up and ask, “Could you find a path to citizenship for the Palestinians in your midst?”

We might add, “We’d love your help in achieving a peaceful Palestinian state and, in the meantime, would you please drop any restrictions on them working as journalists, pharmacists, physicians, what-have-you, so they can earn a living?”

It’s not perfect or complete, but it’s a way forward.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Always, Always Israel

2010-07-21T13:19:00.000-07:00

For some people, it’s always about Israel.

Over the past few weeks, I and other columnists have written about Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the crime of “adultery.” The good news is, folks from all walks of life and political persuasions have rallied to Ms. Ashtiani’s cause. The strange news is, some still suppose Israel is the problem.

You can extrapolate the Ashtiani case to any number of issues – the growing danger of Iran, the cruelty of Sharia law, the misogyny of Islamic regimes – but even if you spend a paragraph, as I did last week, pointing out that Israel is irrelevant to the topic, that’s still the part that gets people animated.

Every public opinion engenders some measure of response, and there are those who perceive hypocrisy whenever one injustice is given press, rather than another. They’ll complain, “I notice you didn’t write about the expulsion of the Acadians” or “the theft of the Elgin Marbles” or whatever. But as a reliable tangent and an object of anger, the Jewish state stands alone.

And I don’t just mean anonymous ravings by people who post opinions online. I’m a sanguine sort, but even I don’t expect to read surpassing wisdom from “ChunkyLover54” on some Internet comment thread.

Awhile back, I was invited to speak at an educational institution, which posted the transcript of my remarks on its website. The speech was not about the Middle East, but one member of the school’s community, on poring through the canon of my columns, discovered that I had, from time to time, written positive things about Israel. He demanded that a disclaimer and link to an Arab advocacy group be posted under my comments.

After a business partner and I went our separate ways, he opted to punctuate our relationship by sending me a hand-written screed about “the Arabs” – a topic we had never discussed and on which I was unaware he held any view – stating that he had harbored anger with me for years because of public statements I made in support of Israel.

One of the most affable journalists I know (to the extent that’s any kind of distinction) finds it impossible to discuss current affairs for any length of time without making reference to my “twisted defense of Israel.”

Look – I’m just a Presbyterian. Why should these people care what I think about the Jewish state? The answer is, they don’t care about my opinion, but their anger is so strong that it blinds them to anything else. And Israel, as with politics in general, becomes the focal point for their other frustrations.

But you know what? Let’s use that energy. Herewith, I put out a call for proposals.

In Israel and the Palestinian territories, you have millions of people in a small space that most of them consider holy, and home. Without forfeiting your spot at the grown-ups’ table by ranting like a nut, tell us what Israel should do.

Would you then turn to the plight of Ashtiani? Or do you imagine that solving the Israel-Palestinian situation would somehow civilize the entire Middle East, eliminating the region’s many problems with human rights? I might disagree with you on that but, if you’ve got a great idea, let’s give it a try.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

One Person Matters

2010-07-14T13:30:00.000-07:00

Last week, I wrote about Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman who has been imprisoned, beaten, and sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the crime of “adultery.” Recently, Iranian authorities announced they probably won’t stone Ms. Ashtiani after all. That’s tepid progress, inasmuch as she may yet be hanged and at least 15 other people await stoning deaths in that nation.

Mine is one of many voices calling for Ashtiani’s release, and I am encouraged that her supporters include folks from various countries, cultures and backgrounds, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. I am fascinated, however, by those who insist on staying in the middle.

For example, I participated in a BBC radio program about Ashtiani and the brutality of the Iranian regime. Bafflegab was thick on the ground, and at one point the host mused that Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals is a moral judgment akin to the United States banning gay marriage.

Equating two obviously unequal situations is not clever or nuanced. It is idiotic and irresponsible. Similarly, asking the insipid modern question, “Who are we to decide?” only serves to evince moral vacuity but, if you must pose the query, let me help you with the answer.

You are a human being, born with the capacity to determine right from wrong. Further, if you are reading this column, chances are you have the magnificent good fortune to live in a part of the world that allows freedom of thought and expression. If you grew up in Western society during the last generation or so, you have likely been browbeaten into believing there is no absolute right and wrong and even if there were, you have no business deciding which is which, since your ancestors probably owned slaves or didn’t recycle.

There is evil in the world, uncomfortable as that is for people who yearn to reduce any situation to a contest of two extremes, placing themselves in the serene center.

Certainly, there are issues where the line between right and wrong seems blurry, but bashing people’s brains out with rocks should not be one of them. If it is, though, on what other topics would you demur to pass judgment? Child slavery?

The logical extension of this approach is that folks become open-minded imbeciles, incapable of making a decision.

Or, people want to make a case like Ashtiani’s about something else. Let’s suppose, for example, you strongly disagree with the State of Israel and consider their treatment of Palestinians to be criminal. That does not mean everything happening in the world, or even the Middle East, pertains to that issue. Ashtiani’s predicament has nothing to do with Jerusalem settlements, and even if a peaceful two-state solution were achieved in Gaza and the West Bank today, she could still be killed tomorrow.

One person matters. It is easier to love mankind than to love your neighbor, as author Eric Hoffer opined, but if you remember that each person is the most important in the world to someone, it becomes less difficult.

As you read this, Ms. Ashtiani is sitting in a cell, not knowing if she is about to die. You have the privilege to be as philosophical as you like, but if you care about what’s right, this woman’s fate really ought to be enough.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A Way of Life

2010-07-08T06:49:00.000-07:00

Every Monday, for 15 minutes, a young man speaks to his mother through prison glass. She is Sakine Mohammedie Ashtiani, and since 2006 she has been tormented by the government of Iran for “adultery.”

Ashtiani was originally condemned to 99 lashes, a sentence which was carried out in front of her 17-year-old son. Now, after re-examining her case, Iranian authorities have decided she should also be stoned to death.

To be clear, these maniacs want to throw rocks at this woman’s head until her brains are dashed out.

Treating people like this is evil. Regimes that do such things must be exposed, rattled and, at times, replaced. And in countries fortunate enough not to be subject to such brutality, we ought to recalibrate our priorities from cozy concerns like reality shows and “climate change” to the plight of our fellow human beings.

This struggle is cultural, psychological, military, and economic. Most of all, it is a test of wills. Do we have the strength to call evil by its name and resist, or will we fumble about and find reasons not to until it’s too late? Iran is only the most prominent and dangerous among the entities that oppose us, and Ashtiani’s story is one of heartbreaking thousands, chronicled by Amnesty International and others.

An opportunity existed, after the uprising that followed Iran’s stolen elections last year, for good people of the world to show their support. There was one guy in particular who could have made a difference with a single speech. Unfortunately, Barack Obama demurred.

To understand the value that a few words from the American president can have to folks who are under repression, consider former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky’s reaction to Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “Tear down this wall” address in Berlin: “That was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us.”

On an individual basis, Western nations, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have been hopeless at protecting their citizens when they are imprisoned or unjustly treated in basket-case countries. The closest thing to a victory on this front came when Bill Clinton flew to North Korea last August to rescue two American women from the clutches of Kim Jong-il. The former president even posed for a forced photo-op in a room so hideously decorated that sanctions should be suspended until the regime has time to buy something tasteful.

So if free nations cannot protect their own people abroad, what can they possibly do for Ashtiani? And what could anyone reading this column do to help her? Perhaps, provide profile for her cause.

I’d like to see her on more t-shirts than Che Guevara. If a fraction of the energy evinced by those who showed up at the G20 in Toronto to protest the evils of “globalization” (or whatever) were instead directed toward, say, not hitting women with rocks until they die, we’d be getting somewhere. Or, if the zeal of feminists who demand the freedom to abort a child right up until he goes to his first hockey practice were pointed toward sparing their sisters from state-sanctioned death by blunt-force trauma, their help would be invaluable.

We enjoy a way of life in this part of the world. We owe our support to those who do not.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A Great and Good Country

2010-06-30T10:23:00.000-07:00

A 143rd birthday is as good a time as any to consider one’s health. This Canada Day, we can contemplate a storied past and wonder if we are headed the right way for the future.

The short answer is yes, Canada is going in the right direction. Moreover, we have attained this trajectory by way of the best elements in our national culture. But first, some context on the state of other countries and what sets Canada apart.

At the best of times, the world is a dangerous place. This is nowhere near the best of times, as nations are still struggling out from under a worldwide recession, and much of the Earth is bound up with wars and rumours of wars. The planet’s condition is reminiscent of Woody Allen’s Speech to the Graduates: “Mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

But within this maelstrom, Canada stands tall, distinguishing itself in military and moral conflict, maintaining an economy and financial markets that are the envy of all.

There are institutions that require reform, certainly – Parliament and the Hockey Hall of Fame come to mind – but in the main, this land is doing alright. Further, it is encouraging that other countries have taken note of Canada’s relative good condition.

Author Quentin Crisp opined, “Americans want to be loved, the English want to be obeyed.” If nations can be written down to such singular motivations, then perhaps Canadians simply want to be noticed.

Canada’s hosting of the recent G8 and G20 conferences, which came just as other parts of the world began to observe this country’s economic strength, may do something to scratch this itch.

Over so many years, in any photo of international heads of government, Canada’s prime ministers would wear hopeful smiles that invariably went unrecognized. They seemed like good-natured hangers-on, in the company of well-known statesmen from seemingly more important parts of the world.

Owing to reasons perfectly in keeping with the national character – caution and circumspection – Canada’s economy has finally brought the country the respect it craved.

For ages, we heard nationalist cries for Canada to “punch above its weight,” which always seemed an inapt incitement for a land less likely to punch than to compose a strong letter. Tin-eared monikers like “moral power” were fashioned, ascribing a level of influence the nation never really had.

It is not that the country’s ambition exceeded its grasp, inasmuch as I think Canada is capable of anything to which it aspires. Rather, all this talk of power, and yearning to stand astride world affairs like some wintry colossus, is at odds with the national character. The image has always been incongruous, like Paul Martin in a cowboy hat or Stephen Harper attempting a freestyle rap.

We are not chest-thumpers, by and large, though we do engage in a unique and gentle sort of self-promotion. This is often misguided, from unwatchable, publicly funded television series’ to successive generations forced to read Margaret Atwood at bayonet-point.

Indeed, the only endeavor in which Canadians cannot accept also-ran status, or even second place, is hockey, and it is ironic that a country of measured expectations and pre-emptive apologies would choose such a fast, physical game into which to pour its national pride.

There is something endearing and healthy about this exception to our rule of modesty. It shows Canadians are capable of consuming passion, just like anyone else, but the nation knows to channel that energy into something enjoyable and good, rather than, say, imperialism or mime.

We are, therefore, a nation that does one thing very well, and most everything else with the best of intentions. Canada is great because Canada is good, and with this in mind, we may press on with hope for even better days to come.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Race and Reason

2010-06-24T08:04:00.000-07:00

For the last two weeks in this space, I have been critical of President Barack Obama. My reprehensions have largely pertained to his policies and performance, in areas like the Gulf oil spill, health care and debt.

Opining about the most prominent politician on the planet engenders fiery responses from all sides. One of the reasons it is unwise to discuss politics socially is that folks tend to jam all the frustrations from elsewhere in their lives into that topic, so rhetoric quickly becomes heated. But with Obama, the debate persistently reverts to the issue of race.

I first puzzled over this after one of my early columns on Obama, years ago. Why was a political article suddenly about skin color? Had my editors slipped in a racial slur?

Myriad opinion-pedlars had the same experience, and it was only in the fullness of time we realized this was “the move” among some partisans – accuse any Obama critic of racial bias.

No decent person opposes Obama simply because he is black. But opposing him does not make people indecent, either. Yet people hammer each other on this score.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say these accusations are generally insincere. That is, folks who hurl the charge don't actually believe that in today's day and age, evil, moustache-twisting racism is behind criticism of Obama.

In my experience, when such accusers are confronted, they normally demur, saying they're not speaking of anyone in the immediate discussion, then they make some vague reference to the rampant intolerance of the Canadian West or the American South. This, too, is bollocks on stilts, defiant of modern realities. Seeing the Calgary Stampede on TV doesn’t mean you understand Alberta, just as changing planes in Atlanta doesn't make you a Civil War buff. Besides, impugning an entire population just to make a political point is pretty poor.

People were hopeful that Obama's election would solve racial problems, but this emerged from overturning the misbegotten notion that America would never elect a black president. Almost two years after a majority of voters did just that, including in the South, the issue lingers.

Look, Obama has not thrived in the presidency. For the good of the world, I hope he gets it together and becomes a smashing success but, for the moment, his lousy performance is a matter of record. That’s not a slur, it’s a fact. But therein lays an opportunity.

I believe real progress will come when Obama is treated like any other politician and the subject of race is no longer raised in his defence. That is, when Americans are just as comfortable voting against him as for him. Obama, or anyone else, should be judged on the strength of his policies and, dare I say it, the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin, even if that means being critical.

Supporting or opposing a candidate for reasons of race, gender, or anything besides what they do and advocate evinces ingratitude for the hard-won struggles of the past. Likewise, assigning sinister motives to fellow citizens who disagree with you is not the stuff on which strong societies are built. We can do better. At long last, it is time for us to treat people, simply, as people.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A One-Term Wonder

2010-06-16T13:47:00.000-07:00

Watching Barack Obama speak from the Oval Office Tuesday evening, I was reminded of a remark he made back in January: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” At the moment, he is on track to be neither, but I have often wondered just what he meant.

Does Obama believe he has been really good thus far? If so, in what area? Certainly not the Gulf Coast oil spill, which occasioned his Tuesday speech (if Obama wants that second term, it’s a good thing pelicans don’t vote).

Health care? He forced a trillion-dollar overhaul through Congress, which 63 percent of the American people want to see repealed.

The economy? He is adding more to America’s national debt than all 43 previous presidents combined.

Foreign policy? He laid down fewer conditions for meeting with the president of Iran than with the CEO of British Petroleum, and both oil-rich entities remain troublesome.

After taking office, Obama’s approval rating fell faster than any first-year president in the history of modern polling. When they voted for him in 2008, Americans wanted to believe they were electing a moderate, outcome-oriented, problem-solver.

Instead, Obama has turned out to be what those knuckle-dragging, book-burning, typical white people who opposed him warned: a garden-variety leftist. Like it or lump it, America is a centre-right country, and Obama’s prescription of stern lectures and statism is incompatible with the public mood.

But those are just facts and opinions. Truth be told, I think Obama does feel he’s been successful. The oil spill is not his fault and, unpopular as the new health care law and enormous debt may be, I expect Obama genuinely believes his policies are in America’s best interests. To give the man his due, he is loyal to his convictions.

Fundamentally, though, Obama does not seem to be enjoying his job. Like many liberals, he sees government as central to all human endeavours, which makes the American presidency the grand prize in the game of life. Now that he has the pressures and problems of that portfolio, however, he appears nonplussed.

Which leads us back to that one-term business. If I had to guess, I’d say Obama will not run for re-election in 2012.

The last two presidents who were eligible to run for re-election and chose not to do so, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were also Democrats who had grown unpopular with the American people. Johnson, in particular, faced opposition from within his own party, as Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy mounted primary challenges. How does this history apply to Obama?

Does anyone remember Hillary Clinton? There were, and are, about a zillion excellent reasons why she should not be president, but not in Newt Gingrich’s wildest dreams could she have done worse than Obama. She may run for the Democratic nomination again, perhaps under the slogan, “Told ya so.”

Who will run for the Republicans? Gingrich? Mitt Romney? Mitch Daniels? We don’t know, and at the moment, it doesn’t much matter. As the adage goes, elections are referenda on the party in power and, although Obama may not be on the ticket, the Democrats will be holding the White House.

In 2008, Americans wanted fresh ideas and a new start. In 2012, they may actually get it.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Obama and The Beatles

2010-06-09T23:26:00.000-07:00

It takes character to withstand the rigours of adulation. Two men who know what it is to receive the worship of the world met in Washington recently, and the outcome was intriguing.

Last week, President Barack Obama welcomed Sir Paul McCartney, the most prolific of the Beatles, to the White House and awarded him with the Gershwin Prize, commemorating his magnificent musical career.

The presentation was the culmination of a star-studded event, wherein Obama helped McCartney croon his old ballad, “Michelle” to the First Lady. Unless you happen to be a Gulf Coast resident who wishes Obama would call a halt to White House parties until the massive oil leak has been capped, I’m sure it was a touching moment. Maybe McCartney should have included “Fixing a Hole” in his playlist.

But Sir Paul couldn’t just “Let it Be.” After thanking Obama and the award’s sponsor, the Library of Congress, McCartney added, “After the last eight years, it’s great to have a president who knows what a library is.”

This little dig was, of course, the one-millionth instance of some bien-pensant coming up with a new way to call George W. Bush stupid. As it happens, Bush’s wife was a librarian, so one assumes that as a young caveman, the future president would at least pop by the place to drag her home to cook the day’s hunt.

But let’s say it’s true, and Bush is the most remarkable mouth-breather imaginable. So what? He will never hold political office again. Why sully a celebration by trashing a man who’s long gone?

Obama has made a habit of blaming Bush for everything from economic collapse to vapour lock, but unlike McCartney, he has practical reasons for doing so. To wit, the longer Obama can blame Bush, the longer he can avoid criticism himself.

Even so, in the whole history of humankind, scant few have ever been the objects of such global adoration as have Obama and Sir Paul. What, then, are they so cross about?

Obama could be forgiven for being frustrated, as his presidency has not been the success folks expected. As leader of the hopey-changey crusade that swept the world in 2008, he had nowhere to go but down.

McCartney referred to “the last eight years,” and it bears mentioning that Obama has been president for seventeen months. In that time, America’s budget deficit has tripled, unemployment has hovered around ten percent, and Obama’s approval ratings have plunged.

The Beatles, too, began to crack at the height of their success, including the 1966 comment by McCartney’s song-writing partner, John Lennon, that they were, “more popular than Jesus” (Lennon claimed the remarks were misinterpreted; the Vatican posthumously pardoned him in 2008).

Like many young people, I went through a “Beatles phase” (I have yet to experience an “Obama phase,” but anything’s possible), wherein I became a font of trivia about them. But one learns that everybody is fallible, celebrity notwithstanding.

These men, Obama and McCartney, have had it all. They have been to the mountaintop, yet they are still capable of bitterness. How is that possible? Perhaps, to paraphrase another sensation, Shakespeare, the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Maybe success and happiness are states of mind, no matter what the world thinks.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Great Health Care Debate

2010-05-25T06:15:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, DC – Would you rather get sick in the United States or in Canada? The answer depends, perhaps, on who you are, and how sick you get. If, for example, you are a third-generation Canadian with a family doctor and the connections to jump hospital queues for treatment, the Great White North might be where you’d prefer to feel under the weather. If, however, you lack inroads and require urgent attention, you may want to head south and pay for health care in the Land of the Free.

On June 7, four celebrity doctors, including former Vermont Governor and US presidential candidate Howard Dean and former US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, will argue the issue in Toronto as part of the semi-annual Munk Debates. Just prior to this event, four students from high schools in the area will tackle the same resolution. It says here that the students will present more cogent, circumspect cases than their older counterparts, but both debates will be streamed online so viewers across Canada and around the world can decide.

Press bookings have been brisk, especially for the eminently quotable Dean, he of the literal and figurative primal scream. As you might expect, Dean favours a socialized, single-payer system like Canada’s, but he was refreshingly candid in explaining why meaningful tort reform – without which, lawsuits abound in the American system – was absent from the recently passed US health care legislation: “The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers.”

The fact that Dean is able to concede such a strong point augurs a robust debate. And one can be certain that the new American health regime, dubbed “Obamacare,” will get plenty of airtime on June 7.

Munk Debate moderator Rudyard Griffiths has opined that it was "downright impressive" to see Americans “survive” the overhaul of their health care system over the course of a few months. Well, yes, "impressive" in the sense that an exploding star or massive earthquake might impress a person from a safe distance. As to whether the United States will survive, no one seriously suggested the Republic would crumble the moment President Obama took his Paper-Mate to the bill. Rather, it was the enormous and indefinite expense of the measure, combined with the spectre of rationing and the forcing of citizens to purchase health coverage under penalty of law that brought protests in cities across America.

Indeed, that may be the most "impressive" part of the process – the way in which ordinary Americans rallied, peacefully, against a costly, freedom-squelching initiative for which they did not vote, and which members of Congress did not read.

One of the most eye-catching signs at the health care protests read, “If Obamacare passes, where will Canadians go for their health care?” An interesting point, that. Perhaps a single-payer set-up like Canada’s can exist only in proximity to an open market, as in the US, where folks who have the means and cannot wait for treatment often go – as Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams did recently – thereby reducing strain on the socialized system. Canadians are proud to have universal health coverage – but “coverage” and “care” are rather different things.

Whether Canada's health care system is superior to that of the United States is, at best, debatable – and debated, it shall be.

theo@mcleesedebate.com

Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

Less Fear and More Friendliness

2010-04-29T07:30:00.000-07:00

Recently, I attended a book launch for my old friend, Dr. John Bowen, who has just published a tome called, “Growing Up Christian.” It’s based on research he did with alumni of a Christian camp in Ontario where I and many other teenagers worked in the 80s and 90s, tracing people’s relationships to the faith after those formative years. Until he delivered his speech at the launch, I had forgotten that I was one of the participants in Dr. Bowen’s surveys about six years ago and my remarks, quoted in the book, read in part as follows:

“My MOST screwed up friends are those who were sequestered in church/Christian families all their lives. It fosters an insecurity and ‘us against them’ mentality, stemming from the repeated belief that the outside or ‘secular’ world is all evil....people lose ANY ability to relate to everyday folks. Whenever I travel to churches, I see that glazed-over look of the lifelong Christian....Less fear and more friendliness is what Christians should have.”

I stand by my comments today, maintaining that, beyond the extreme and tragic cases of abuse in recent news, Christian communities could do a better job of relating to those around them.

Unlike, say, Judaism, which is not particularly given to proselytizing, or Islam, which sometimes does it rather stringently, Christianity is a soft sell. That is, its adherents are called to bring people to the faith by the power of example and compassion. In figurative and literal terms, if you have a Jesus fish on your car, don’t cut anybody off.

Now, there is no shortage of showerless atheists poised to lecture Christians on how they should behave and point out their supposed hypocrisies. Likewise, within political and policy circles, from Howard Dean to Christopher Hitchens, there are plenty of non-churchgoing experts who use the faith to lambaste opponents or recite its history as a litany of crimes. But for my part, having fidgeted awkwardly through Bible songs with actions for more years than I care to recall, I believe I have the bona fides to offer a semi-informed opinion.

Christianity is a faith populated by deeply flawed people, including me. As Dennis Miller said of Watergate convict Charles Colson finding Christ just before he entered prison: “I guess Christ didn’t see him first.” This is precisely the point of the religion. Christ did not come to recruit the best and the brightest, and make them even better. Rather, he came to save sinners.

This is why, whenever some Christian politician, or champion of “family values,” is caught in a compromising position, it makes no sense for folks to cry, “hypocrisy!” The whole gist of Christianity is that people cannot achieve goodness on their own.

The problem arises, in my view as enunciated above, when Christians themselves forget this basis of the faith. When they become smug, convinced that their every action is forgiven in advance, clucking at their fellow man for smoking a cigarette or enjoying a beer, they become insufferable and, more important, do a disservice to the religion they represent (Jesus himself enjoyed a cocktail or two, lest we forget).

Bowen categorizes me as an “Absent Believer,” meaning someone who has not abandoned the faith, but who has departed from organized Christian communities (in fact, I have become a churchgoing Presbyterian, but my fellow congregants could be forgiven for suggesting that I give one of the other major religions a try). This is contrasted with “Loyal Believers,” who never left the fold. In either case, Bowen’s statistical and anecdotal research uncovers vastly disparate life stories as he seeks to determine what drives people from today’s church, and what brings them back.

“Growing Up Christian” gives consideration and voice to those who, for better or for worse, spent adolescent years in Christian communities, providing cogent analysis of the questions that arose from that experience. It is a timely work, by one of the few fellows I met in that milieu for whom I would go to the effort of contributing and reading. Whether Bowen’s subjects have stayed true to the faith, or have left and are contemplating a return, he encourages them to work out their salvation for themselves, advising, “God hopes for a response, but God’s love is a gift.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Saint Patrick and the Selfless Life

2010-03-16T07:18:00.000-07:00

“I am Patrick, a sinner, the most unlearned of men, the lowliest of all the faithful, utterly worthless in the eyes of many.”
–St. Patrick, Confession

The life of Saint Patrick is celebrated the world over on March 17, when everyone is a little bit Irish. Solemnity and sobriety may be in short supply on Patrick’s feast day, but this great man merits serious contemplation.

Born a Roman citizen on the west coast of Scotland around 400 A.D., Patrick was kidnapped from his home at age 16 by kinsmen of Niall of the Nine Hostages, Ireland’s most powerful ruler, and held as a slave for six years. It was a brutal time, but one for which the Saint would eventually thank God. Only through the misery of bondage, and his miraculous escape, did Patrick find his true calling.

He missed the major portion of his formal schooling and this made him insecure his whole life, causing him to write very little. When he did take up his quill in later years, Patrick apologized profusely for the quality of his prose: “Anyone can see from the style of my writing how little training in the use of words I got.”

What an irony that the Patron Saint of Ireland, a nation of outsized authors, was not, in fact, Irish, and lamented his own lack of skill for the written word. But Patrick was a gifted speaker, able to find the natural tone that resonates with listeners, whether they are learned or not. As scholar Donnchadh O’ Flionn opined of Patrick’s oratory, “How his unbookish common sense must have baffled those suave and contriving learned opponents of his!”

And opponents, he certainly had. Both within the Church and without, Patrick was surrounded by those who doubted his credentials, his motives, his character and his message. Despite his lifelong knowledge of Christianity (his father had been a church deacon), Patrick did not appreciate the value of faith until he lost his freedom. After escaping to England on a ship that was transporting dogs, Patrick embarked on a lightning clerical career that saw him elevated to the rank of Bishop. Over the course of years, he had visions and dreams of his former captors in Ireland, calling him back to teach them about Christ. He knew that his mission would be hard and folks would doubt him. Yet Patrick persevered, stating, “I came to the Irish heathens to preach the Good News and to put up with insults from unbelievers.”

Patrick understood that, through him and others, God would embrace a new country. In his Confession, he quoted Romans 9:25: “I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘You are my people,’ and to a nation I never pitied, ‘I pity you.’” To be sure, Patrick believed he was helping to fulfill this prophesy in Ireland.

But discard any idea that Patrick strode onto the Emerald Isle, plucked up a shamrock (derived from the Irish word seamrog, meaning “summer plant”), explained the Holy Trinity to the pagans using its three leaves, then everyone settled into a chorus of Danny Boy (the non-Irish derivations of that song being another discussion entirely). It was a far harder slog. Patrick was imprisoned and robbed repeatedly, attacked, vilified, and he lived in constant expectation of murder.

Gradually, throughout his eventful life, Patrick became aware of his place, if not in history, in God’s plan. He did not think of himself as special; rather, he took pains to point out that his faith, mission, and even his suffering were gifts from God and, perhaps to prove a point, the Almighty had chosen an unlearned former slave, rather than a brilliant scholar, to spread His message.

It is often observed that Patrick led the only bloodless revolution in the whole troubled history of Ireland. Author and Irish Bishop Joseph Duffy notes, “The later compilers of saints’ lives, who were by no means given to understatement, tell of only one martyr in his entire missionary career.” The pen may be mightier than the sword, but Patrick used neither. Instead, his simple faith and plain speaking changed the course of his adopted country.

Writers largely ignored Patrick for more than 100 years after his death around 480, but he was rediscovered in the 7th Century. It was not until 1681 that we find the first reference to wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day, and this was the same century wherein “Patrick” became the most common Christian name in Ireland. Like any number of ancient tales, the facts of Patrick’s life are disputable but the larger point remains. To wit, a selfless life is worth living.

Patrick had a special relationship with young people, and some suppose he strove to give them a hope and happiness his own childhood had lacked. But were it not for his early suffering, could Patrick have become such a seminal figure of faith? How many people, afflicted as Patrick was, might decide they deserve a comfortable dotage? What, then, urged him on? As he put it, “Surely it was not without God or for worldly purposes that I came to Ireland. Who compelled me?...I sold my birthright without shame or regret for the benefit of others...Thus I am a servant of Christ in a far-off nation on account of the indescribable glory of eternal life which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Willing to See, Ready to Believe

2010-02-25T14:32:00.000-08:00

Kids will ask. When it comes to faith, they have the same questions we all do: Where did we come from? Where are we going? What is the point of this life? To be sure, they will include the kind of queries only children could come up with – Does God have feet? Could Jesus lift the car? – and teaching them about religion is our way of saying, “Here’s what we’ve come up with so far.”

This is a delicate proposition, and you want to find the tools that will serve them in later life. Trying to rush, trick or terrorize kids into a particular belief system is counterproductive. To quote Lady Macbeth, pace Hieronymus Bosch, “'Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil.” Many of my contemporaries are still recovering from early religious instruction, which prioritized that doing one thing or another would land them in Hell. Besides turning people off, this tack misses the point. Fear might keep you from sin, but it makes you too timid to be much use.

Does Hell exist? Is it anything like Cleveland? Perhaps, but damnation is only one part of God’s story. For me, the handiest definition of Hell is existence without God. If you’re going to teach kids about our relation to God, why get hung up on that unpleasant bit?

A preferable approach is to let kids know they matter. “Let the little children come to me,” a good fellow said, adding that anyone who harmed a child was in for a world of trouble. You can never be too small for God to use, but you can certainly be too big. This message matters to kids and, imparted properly, will stay with them when they grow up.

So, how to do this? Religion, like life, is one big best guess. Some folks think they have the answers, including believers and non-believers alike. Whenever one writes a column like this, one hears from doctrinaire adherents, as well as angry atheists (who, it seems, not only don't believe in God, they also don't believe in spell-check). Ironclad certainty in the face of the infinite cosmos is absurd, even with the Scriptures or Richard Dawkins on your side.

But if you give kids the rudiments, explaining what you believe and why, they have the tools to make choices and adapt. As the adage goes, “A scholar is always made alone.” Eventually, a child will have to make his or her own decisions. They must attune to that compass we all possess, which points toward what is right, and not deny it exists. Shine your light, be an example, and if people want a piece of what you’ve got, more the better.

For my part, I am Presbyterian – which is very much like being Christian, only Scottish – and my faith is based on sacrifice for others and the suppression of self. In particular, I believe each of us is so important that God came to live among us, and to die, in order to reunite us with Him. Come to think of it, those are just about the only things I can tell you with any conviction about my religion.

Where, exactly, Jesus was born, what he looked like, etc., are unknowable, and even the Gospels are at odds on such things. Details aside, I choose to believe the larger truth. That is not so simple as it sounds. Lest we forget, it was Jesus' message that got him killed. Then, as now, people had very definite ideas about how God should be. When Jesus was not as they expected, unpleasantness ensued.

Whatever your religious faith (or lack thereof), how many of your most cherished assumptions could you stand to see overturned?

Jesus said, "Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." That is an enchanting yet foreboding remark, but what does it mean? If I had to give my best guess at an interpretation, I’d say: Be open.

We are all someone's children, and we are not in charge. That, in itself, is an encouraging thought. I have seen too many of us wearing socks with sandals to suppose humankind has all the answers.

Fortunate children preserve their sense of wonder and openness into adulthood. The best thing to teach them is to be willing to see and ready to believe.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Power to Persuade

2010-02-13T14:18:00.001-08:00

Willis McLeese has accomplished a lot in his first 96 years. From his WWII service in the Navy, to his legendary and lucrative careers in refrigeration and power, to the resort community he is building at Cobble Beach, Ontario, he has made the most of every moment.

Along the way, he developed a myriad of skills, from thermodynamics to time management (a must, for someone who runs several companies). But a key lesson McLeese learned through his many experiences is: The power to persuade is essential to success.

For all his philanthropic efforts, the cause to which McLeese has been most devoted is helping young people learn the craft of persuasive speaking. He has laboured at this for almost 40 years, particularly in support of the Canadian Student Debating Federation (CSDF). Most recently, he endowed the Willis S. McLeese Chair in Canadian Debating, based at Upper Canada College in Toronto and working with the CSDF, to bring young people across the country into this activity. The program is outlined at mcleesedebate.com.

McLeese’s belief is that if students are given the skills and confidence to speak publicly and advocate positions, it will serve them well later in life.

“Debating is a way to extend your influence,” he avers, adding, “Canada will always need great leaders.” He notes that being a leader doesn’t require your name on a ballot. Leaders come in all sorts, in every profession. What they share is the power to convince and inspire.

A small percentage of student debaters will grow up to be politicians or trial lawyers (at least, one hopes it’s a small percentage). But whatever careers kids pursue, someday they will have to answer questions like: What makes you different? Why should we do it your way? Why should I buy what you’re offering?

So much of life, and success, is about selling ideas. From Clarence Darrow to Don Cherry, if you can make a case, you can make a living. Teaching young people this craft is practical education at its best.

Personifying McLeese’s faith in this philosophy is Chantal Jauvin. While a high school student in the mid-1980s, she approached McLeese at a national debating event and told him what the activity meant to her. The two have been close friends since and Jauvin credits her debating experience for her intercontinental legal career. When I spoke to her from Thailand, she pointed out, “The most important skill that I learned was to listen to what others were saying.”

Indeed, debating isn’t just about saying what you think; it requires hearing what other people are telling you. McLeese echoes this, insisting debaters should argue every resolution from both sides: “They learn respect and tolerance for each other.”

In a rare deviation from the shrewd judgment that made him a success, McLeese has asked me to take up the Chair that bears his name. My early debating made it possible for me to opine in the public square (for better or for worse), and one hopes I can help offer today’s students the same opportunity. Our first step is a partnership with Rudyard Griffiths and his famed Munk Debates, commencing this spring. But whatever contribution I might provide, it could never compare with that of Willis McLeese, an extraordinary patron of the art of argument.

theo@mcleesedebate.com

Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

The Super Bowl and the Contest of Life

2010-02-03T13:30:00.000-08:00

Sunday’s Super Bowl is not just a contest between two football teams. This year, there is an undercard, featuring a clash of beliefs about life and choice.

Tim Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, is set to appear in a pro-life commercial during the game, along with his mother, Pam. The ad tells the story of Pam’s difficult pregnancy, in which she contracted an infection and was advised to abort Tim. Pro-choice activists claim that the ad, paid for by the Christian group Focus on the Family, could lead to violence and have been pressuring CBS to keep it off the air. The broadcaster has said the commercial will be shown, but the imbroglio begs the question: Can the abortion fight ever be resolved?

In Canada and the United States, folks are fond of saying the issue of abortion is “settled,” pointing to rulings by each country’s Supreme Court, in 1988 and 1973, respectively. But the decades of turbulence over this matter have taught us that something so emotional and elemental is not “settled” by a few lawyers.

Other news from recent days proves the point. In Kansas, the trial of the man accused of killing late-term abortion provider George Tiller began on January 22, the 37th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling (Scott Roeder was convicted of Tiller’s murder one week later). At the same time, a new Marist poll shows a majority of Americans, and nearly 6 in 10 young adults, see abortion as morally wrong.

Meanwhile in this country, a recent Angus Reid poll finds, “Only one-in-five Canadians (20%) are aware of the current status-quo of abortion in Canada: a woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, with no restrictions whatsoever.” In addition, “Respondents are almost evenly divided on whether the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested.”

To be sure, whenever the topic of abortion is broached, people become angry almost at once. But before everyone gets their sticks up (to expand the sporting analogy), let’s suppose for a moment that there is, in fact, common ground on this issue. One finding of the Reid poll gives us a starting point:

"A large majority of Canadians (79%) would back an initiative in their own province that would make it mandatory for health care workers to offer information to pregnant women about alternatives to abortion."

It is often said that it is more effective to change hearts than to change legislation. In this case, while the finding speaks of a “mandatory” initiative, the underlying sentiment may, in fact, be most helpful. To wit, while abortion may never again be illegal, it is broadly undesirable.

Common parlance bears this out. Politicians who believe abortion should be available any time, for any reason, rarely speak in plain terms. They talk of “choice” and “reproductive freedom” and “women’s rights.” Indeed, it would take a hard person to say that abortion, as an act, is a good thing. If we can agree on that, it means most of our hearts are in the same place.

So, what if we agreed that, as long as public money subsidizes abortion, an equal or greater amount should go toward a mechanism to find homes for unwanted babies? If you really wanted to be controversial, you could add a bit about preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place – that is, letting young people know that abstinence isn’t only about Bible-thumping and promise bracelets – but that might be too big a leap right away. For now, let’s just suppose that citizens made it a priority that every little person gets a chance at life and no young woman goes through the misery of abortion.

This is less a function of writing laws than of changing priorities. Nothing gets banned in this scenario, but possibilities are opened. If we shift our default response to an unwanted pregnancy from contemplating abortion to offering support, great things could happen.

Add incentives for religious and private-sector organizations to provide money and means for young mothers who want to raise their babies themselves, and we’re starting to get somewhere. Again, if we stipulate that abortion itself is a tragic act, wouldn’t a robust and ubiquitous network of alternatives be helpful? When you offer people good choices, bad laws become irrelevant.

The hardship of anyone contemplating an abortion is something that cannot be denied. Pam Tebow knew this fear all too well. And the perspective from which the decision is undertaken makes all the difference.

Ironically, one of the world’s foremost experts on death, the late Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, provides a quotation applicable to this fundamental question of life: “Mankind's greatest gift, also its greatest curse, is that we have free choice. We can make our choices built from love or from fear.”

Folks can always choose, but with love and support, it becomes easier to choose wisely. What a wonderful thing that would be for women and families. And, not for nothing, millions of little people would get a chance at life, with all the choices it has to offer.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

State of the Union: A Chance to be Wise

2010-01-26T09:34:00.000-08:00

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” – Otto von Bismarck

Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama has an opportunity to be wise. As he makes his first State of the Union address before a Congress that is controlled by his fellow Democrats, Obama can decide whether to learn the lesson of the last president from his party, or doom himself to defeat.

In the 1994 mid-term elections, President Bill Clinton saw his Democrats lose both houses of Congress in what became known as the “Republican Revolution.” Clinton had been elected two years earlier as a centrist, tax-cutting “New Democrat.” Once in office, however, Clinton announced the largest middle-class tax hike in history and embarked on a national health care plan that was expected to cost one trillion dollars (of course, this was back when a trillion dollars was considered a lot of money).

The parallels are potent. In 2008, Obama was elected to quell an economic crisis, including a record budget deficit, while ushering in an era of bipartisan comity. Since then, he has quadrupled the deficit, adding trillions to the national debt, and tried to enact purely partisan, widely unpopular health care reform. The voters have rendered their opinion on these policies, first by electing Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey – states Obama carried in 2008 – and last week, the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown to the United States Senate.

So where to from here? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican takeover in 1994, explains the binary choice Obama faces thusly: “He either has to double down, or he’s got to say, as Bill Clinton did, ‘the era of big government is over.’”

Massachusetts was the canary in the coal mine, and Obama should be grateful for it. Bill Clinton got no such warning.

If Obama does not shift his agenda, he can expect a 1994-style shellacking in November, en route to a single-term presidency that makes Jimmy Carter’s tenure seem like the Golden Age. Obama has stated he would rather be a spectacular one-term president than a mediocre one for eight years. One has to go back to James Polk to find a one-termer who is generally considered to have been successful, and the most common scenario is that presidents get retired after a single term when voters do not care for their work.

Tonight, will Obama show he has absorbed the lessons of Bill Clinton in 1994 and Massachusetts in 2010? The auguries are not good. Of the Republican senate victory, Obama says, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.”

This is either false bravado or a sincere belief. One hopes it is the former, because if Obama truly believes this, it reveals delusion that is unsettling in someone who has access to the nuclear football. As Hamlet’s uncle opined, “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

Let us assume and hope that the president is not insane. He must therefore believe he can benefit by claiming solidarity with voters who have just handed him the most explicit repudiation that the election calendar allows. Obama amplifies his rationale, saying, “People are angry and frustrated.”

We heard this in 1994 as well, when the late Peter Jennings summarized the GOP victory by saying the electorate, “had a temper tantrum.” This is a common spin: When voters pull the lever for a Democrat, they do so while adjusting their pince-nez with their free hands as they study the intricacies of current accounts and marginal rates. But when they vote for a Republican, they’re just “angry.”

Warming to his “angry” theme, we can expect that tonight, Obama will promise to “fight.” He’s fighting for Americans, against bankers, insurance companies, special interests and corporations. Unfortunately, if those Americans pay bank fees, require credit, purchase health insurance, or work for a company, they will be caught in the crossfire.

A better choice for Obama would be to rediscover that compromising coolness that helped get him elected, while adding a dash of regret – not heated, but hopeful; not combative but contrite. This is a lot to expect from a man who has a harder time than The Fonz saying he was “wrong,” but it is still the president’s strongest option.

If Obama were to say to Americans tonight, “I have heard you, and we will change course,” the nation, and his presidency, would benefit. One hopes he has that wisdom.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The 2010 Economy: A Glass Three-Quarters Full

2010-01-12T07:26:00.000-08:00

Just a couple weeks into 2010, the year looks like a glass that`s three-quarters full. That is, nine of the next twelve months augur economic and market strength in North America. But when the leaves start to turn, so may our fortunes, unless the right moves are made.

First, the good news. As Lawrence Kudlow and others have happily reported, the US Yield Curve, which measures interest rates by maturity from 91-day Treasury Bills to 30-year bonds, is not only positive – showing short-term rates lower than long-term – but steep. This upward slope indicates good economic times ahead. Manufacturing and production indices in both Canada and the US have risen above their magical 50 percent thresholds, suggesting economic expansion. For those who need quantitative assurance that better days are at hand, the numbers are there.

And on a personal level, the opportunity is palpable. People are tired of being pessimistic. There continues to be cash on the sidelines, held by individuals and institutions that have waited to invest until the turbulence of the previous year subsides. As Canadian and American equity markets inch upward, and bits of good news – nascent economic growth, improved retail numbers, solid corporate earnings, etc. – seep into the public consciousness, more and more money will be coaxed into the game.

But when the autumn comes, it will bring new challenges. For one thing, September and October have historically been tricky months for equity markets – the years 1929, 1987 and 2008 come to mind. Moreover, for American investors, there will be incentive to dump stocks before the end of the year to avoid higher capital gains taxes in 2011 (more on that in a moment).

One area in which even the most sanguine among us should not expect improvement by this fall is unemployment rates. This is invariably a lagging indicator, so an expanding economy with a lousy jobs market is not so inconsistent as it may seem. Even so, there are moves government can make to get folks back to work.

In the United States, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts on personal income and capital gains are set to expire at the end of 2010, meaning rates will rise. Small businesses create three-quarters of the jobs in the US, and many of these companies pay taxes at individual rates. There has been scant commentary on the impact of America’s imminent tax increases on the employment picture. But entrepreneurs and small business owners, who must keep an eye on such things as a matter of economic survival, are keenly aware that government will be hiking their overhead in the form of higher tax rates (and, quite possibly, new health care and energy fees) in a matter of months. This will hamper the jobs market unless and until American employers get a better idea of what costs will look like in 2011 and beyond. Freezing US tax rates at 2010 levels – or cutting them, better yet – would go a long way toward reducing unemployment.

Bear in mind that government doesn’t create jobs; private enterprise does. Using so-called “stimulus” money to keep states and cities from having to trim their payrolls, while hiring folks for one-off projects like cleaning up after parades and counting birds at the airport, is not a sustainable way to grow an economy. Heaping fees and heavier taxes on an already groaning private sector is no help. So the shorthand message to America’s lawmakers and president for 2010 is: Stop borrowing and spending, freeze or cut tax rates, and give the economy room to grow.

In Canada, the federal government and central bank have two key jobs apiece, in order to make the most of the next nine months. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty must continue to focus on reducing and eliminating the nation’s budget deficit. Every other pro-growth ambition – including meaningful tax cuts – depends on keeping government from making overspending a habit. Second, these fellows must use every political and moral means at their disposal to convince our American trading partners to get their own budget deficit under control. A spendthrift government in Washington leads to a weak US dollar, which means America buys fewer Canadian exports.

As to that, Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney must continue to keep interest rates low for as long as he can. Hiking rates begets a rising loonie and, for Canadian manufacturers and exporters, the dollar is already too high. Carney has indicated he will avoid raising rates before the end of the summer, unless inflation forces his hand. In the meantime, Carney should continue to talk down the loonie, reminding currency traders that the central bank will not allow our dollar to be speculated into the stratosphere. Canada is an exporter nation and, as such, needs a competitively priced currency for its products. If Carney can manage this, the country should thank him.

Barring some extraordinary incident, the first nine months of 2010 look good for the economy and markets. With the right moves, North America’s leaders can give that three-quarters-full glass a top-up.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Saint Nicholas and the Present

2009-12-04T09:01:00.000-08:00

Beginning on his Feast Day of December 6 and continuing through the Christmas season, folks are put in mind of St. Nicholas, who comes in guises ranging from a red-suited elf to a retail pitchman. In reality, Nicholas was a Fourth Century Bishop of Myra, born in what is now southern Turkey, who personified the divine nature of generosity.

As the Patron Saint of, among others, archers, bakers, bankers, mariners, merchants and pawnbrokers, he has myriad responsibilities, to be certain. Of course, Nicholas is best known as the Patron Saint of Children.

At first, this may appear an impossibly eclectic group of things for one saint to represent. In particular, the idea that the same figure can oversee both businessmen and babies might seem a stretch. But there is something to Nicholas’ combined portfolio of commerce and kindness. Simply put, the more you give, the more you get.

Economist Arthur C. Brooks has done extensive research on this counterintuitive phenomenon, noting, “It’s like the hand of God or something on the economy.” Brooks concludes that being generous makes people happier and thereby more successful. He stresses that a person does not need to be rich before he or she can benefit from giving. That is, kindness of spirit does the trick, no matter your tax bracket. Such is the example of this Bishop from a backwater of Asia Minor.

Not much is known of Nicholas’ early life, but it is supposed that he grew up in great wealth and gave it away. One of the most commonly repeated tales of Nicholas’ generosity has to do with a poor father who could not afford dowries for his three daughters. As a result, the girls could not be married and would be sold into slavery. When Nicholas heard of this family’s trouble, he slipped three bags of gold through their windows and into socks that had been hung to dry. The relation of this tale to the modern practice of hanging Christmas stockings is obvious. The story’s more potent aspect is the virtue of showing kindness to people we don’t know, without expectation of recognition or reward.

Each year at Christmastime, we are reminded of the value of giving by greeting cards, The Grinch, and ghosts of past, present and future. This year, the lesson may be more relevant than ever.

World markets and economies have suffered as of late and this would seem an odd time to be generous. Who can think of giving when there may not be enough to cover one’s own expenses? But recent troubles should at least have relieved people of the illusion of control. That is, no amount of hoarding or responsible miserliness can protect against calamity – cash can lose its value as dollars are slugged by inflation, seemingly safe investments can be lost or stolen – and in any case, you can’t take it with you. So the choice for anyone – rich, poor, or at some point of transition between the two – is what type of person do you wish to be?

Unlike many saints, Nicholas was not martyred, although he was persecuted and imprisoned for his Christian faith. In this way, it is Nicholas’ life, rather than his death, that informs his legacy. To wit, while the catalogue of holy people is crammed with saints marching off to be killed in nasty ways, Nicholas demonstrated how to live. A wealthy man, he decided to make kindness his currency.

And so the decision is laid before each of us. Any given moment, we may choose to be kind. We can keep Christmas every day of the year, following St. Nicholas’ example and Charles Dickens’ advice, giving generously without regret for the past or fear of the future. As the adage goes, “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift – that is why it is called the present.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Ten Questions with Theo Caldwell

2009-10-15T13:38:00.000-07:00

“Finn the half-Great was just that. Greater than some and less than others, he made his way in the world as best he could....” Open Book talks to Theo Caldwell about his book, Finn the half-Great (Tundra Books), his next project and more.

Open Book: Toronto:
Tell us about your book, Finn the half-Great.

Theo Caldwell:
Our hero, Finn McCool, is half a giant and the most famous hero in Ireland. At fourteen feet tall (give or take), you’d think Finn is the biggest thing on the Emerald Isle. Not so, not by a long chalk. When he ventures from his childhood home, Finn discovers that ancient Britain is a land of giants, dragons, wizards and men, in which he is only one little fellow. Just like in real life – there’s always someone bigger and there’s always someone smaller. To wit, we’re all half-great.

OBT:
You work as an investment manager and a financial writer. What inspired you to write a young adult novel?

TC:
Investment managers are the folks most in need of inspiration these days.

OBT:
Which books made a great impression on you when you were a child?

TC:
The Hobbit, Wind in the Willows, Watership Down and Animal Farm.

OBT:
Did you have a specific readership in mind when you wrote your book?

TC:
Kids are smarter than big people recognize. I wasn’t a particularly precocious child myself, but neither was I as gaping and gobsmacked as my superiors supposed. More than anything, I want children to read and be challenged by Finn’s adventures. If grown-ups want to have a look too, they’re certainly welcome (not that I could stop them, anyway), but little people are very important.

OBT:
What’s the best advice you’ve ever received as a writer?

TC:
Be there when it happens.

OBT:
Describe your ideal writing environment.

TC:
Dogs are present and there is something else that I should be attending to. I read once that there is no amount of work a man cannot do, so long as it is not the work he is supposed to be doing at that moment. I thrive on distraction. F. Scott Fitzgerald described writing as holding your breath under water. For me, that means I can bang out a few words, then I need something to go busy myself with before I sit back down and write a few more.

OBT:
If you had to choose three books as a “Welcome to Canada” gift, what would those books be?

TC:
Xenophobe’s Guide to the Canadians, Atlas Shrugged and I Want To Go Home.

OBT:
What are you reading right now?

TC:
The Bible, cover to cover, including all the “Him-Ham begat Zim-Zam” stuff in the early books. I’m up to First Kings. We’re winning, so far.

OBT:
What advice do you have for writers who are trying to get published?

TC:
Finish your project first. Once you have a complete piece, the world is your oyster. Selling your work is a separate skill set, so keep it out of your head while you’re writing and create the best book you can. To do that, write a couple hundred good words every day. No need to overdo it if the muse isn’t with you. Better a couple hundred well-chosen words than pages of balderdash. At that moderate pace, in the space of a year, you’ll have a novel. When it comes to getting published, there is no substitute for enthusiasm. I’ve heard that anyone can be enthusiastic for 30 minutes, but a successful person stays enthusiastic for 30 years. Go through your network of friends and colleagues to find publishing contacts. Publishers have Byzantine rules for submissions, but jumping the queue has a rich and noble tradition and I recommend it highly.

OBT:
What is your next project?

TC:
The second book in Finn’s five-part journey, Finn the half-Great and the Death of Gogmagog.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Authors, Kids and the Canadian Position

2009-09-08T10:46:00.000-07:00

The investment industry has a term for making statements in support of a stock you own: “Talking your position.” This is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as full disclosure is made, so let me tend to that straight away: The initial reason my attention was caught, and my dander raised, by the set of circumstances described below is because my first kids’ novel, Finn the half-Great, goes on sale this autumn.

My published political views and this new foray combine to form the most unlikely of business card monikers: “Right-Wing Children’s Author.” But with those views in mind, consider that I am talking my position not only as a writer, but as a Canadian and a taxpayer.

On January 20, 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Education announced $15 million in discounts for the province’s elementary school libraries to purchase reading materials. Folks can agree that getting books to kids is a good thing. But here’s the onion – on June 17, the Canadian Coalition for School Libraries issued a media release stating, “Only a shocking 13% of the recent funds used to buy books for Ontario school libraries was spent on Canadian authored books.”

Canadian children’s publishing is a quiet, pleasant industry (I’ve only just arrived), so its stakeholders are disinclined to kick up a kerfuffle, but come along – 13 percent? In a nation where private broadcasters are required to carry higher percentages of Canadian content in return for use of the “public airwaves,” one would expect a targeted, tax-funded program to include at least some sweetener to purchase home-made materials.

I’m not a fan of “Buy Canadian” (or “Buy American”) policies, and I’ve often considered Canadian content mandates to be recipes for mediocrity. Moreover, I have opined in these pages against protectionism – recently and repeatedly.

But when Canadian tax dollars are being used to buy educational supplies, there should be some incentive toward products created by the taxpayers. And not for nothing, if the objective is to educate Canadian kids, how about giving Canadian authors first crack at the task?

There is another wave of funding coming from the Ontario Ministry this fall, as children return to school. The question becomes, then, how best to incentivize schools to buy Canadian materials?

And before some bureaucratic smarty-pants suggests it, the solution is not to slap a tax on foreign books. If our experience with the broadcasting industry is any guide, this will just limit the market and lower the number of purchases. We want more books getting to kids, not less.

How about adding 5 percent to the original discount for the purchase of Canadian books? That is, if there is some Dutch tome that a librarian feels the little darlings cannot live without, he or she should buy it with our blessing and, say, a $1 discount. If, however, there is a comparable Canadian book, make the discount $1.05. Perspicacious readers will point out that increasing the discount will simply cause schools to run through the allotted money faster, and that’s fair enough. So perhaps convince the federal government to waive the 5 percent GST on home-grown purchases, pointing out that they will make at least some of it back in taxes from Canadian publishers and authors.

This is, of course, part of a larger and distinctly Canadian question: How do we support our national arts without creating an artificial industry and subsidizing work that cannot stand on its own? Whether because of the relatively small size of our market or an aversion to local talent, Canada has a history of artists needing to move away to find real success (I call this, “The Celine Dion Principle”). But we can kindle enthusiasm for our arts industry by giving kids Canadian materials – and this worthy program provides an opportunity to do just that.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Some Men See Things As They Are

2009-08-28T07:23:00.000-07:00

The Romans had a rule for those who would comment on departed foes: “Speak nothing but good about the dead.” So with the passing of US Senator Ted Kennedy, a man whose politics and personal life pressed the boundaries of that ubiquitous and respectful euphemism, “imperfect,” what to say?

Must we overlook his excesses in remembering one of the most significant American politicians of the last half-century? While he is celebrated as the “Lion of the Senate” by those who admired him, as well as opponents who are being polite, perhaps it is fitting to consider Kennedy’s career more fully.

Since Kennedy’s death, we have been reminded that on July 18, 1969, Mary Jo Kopechne died when the senator drove a car carrying the two of them off a bridge and into a tidal channel at Chappaquiddick, in his home state of Massachusetts. Rather than report the incident at once, Kennedy spent precious hours doing damage control with consultants as Mary Jo fought for air in the submerged vehicle. In the wake of Kennedy’s own demise, some say it is in poor taste to mention her – but why? What makes her life less valuable than his?

Mary Jo would be 69 today, had Kennedy evinced nobler priorities. Instead, she died in that river while he went on to be “lionized” in the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest deliberative body.” Perhaps, as his defenders suggest, the incident at Chappaquiddick did not define Kennedy’s life – but it certainly defined hers.

In the political arena, Kennedy’s career is often conflated with the Camelot mystique of his older brother, President John F. Kennedy. In reality, their policies were very different. While Ted was an unrepentant advocate of government intervention and income redistribution, JFK’s tax cuts exceeded even those of Republican White House successors like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

In foreign policy, JFK was a strong anti-communist who understood and articulated America’s unique responsibility to defend freedom in the world. Ted, meanwhile, adopted every tenet of the isolationist Left, from supporting the “Nuclear Freeze” that would have given the Soviet Union permanent military supremacy, to opposing the 1991 Gulf War.

As to communism, Ted’s campaign to de-fund the government of South Vietnam in the 1970s was the most significant move, in human terms, of his career. Millions were murdered in the aftermath. To his credit, Ted sought to help Vietnamese refugees, known as “boat people,” who after years of bombing and war only took to the seas as the Northern communists approached. But with a little foresight, this tragedy could have been prevented.

When a third brother, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated in 1968, Ted eulogized him in words adapted from another unapologetic leftist, George Bernard Shaw: “Some men see things as they are and say, ‘why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘why not?’” It was a magnificent, timeless address, suggesting a talent and intellect that one mourns in contemplation of what this man could have been.

Different as they were, I hope Jack, Bobby and Ted are happily reunited in Heaven. Brothers are brothers and anyway, politics, like life, is one big best guess.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

What is Political and What is Important

2009-08-24T15:47:00.000-07:00

The challenge for any elected official, especially one with a key portfolio, is separating what is political from what is important. Last week, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty welcomed an eclectic group of Canadians to Meech Lake to help him do just that. Investment professionals, policy experts and entrepreneurs prioritized the nation’s problems and opportunities, from budget deficits to trade and beyond. Flaherty hoped to consult with Canada’s best and brightest, but one of them must have declined because I was invited, too.

Some issues that came in for discussion would seem beyond the purview of the Finance Department. But as other ministers inevitably request budget dollars to fund their priorities, Flaherty, or any Finance Minister, must exercise judgment on a plethora of concerns. Information and opinions abound. The trick is to determine what is germane and actionable. Two examples of matters that encroached on talk of dollars and cents were the environment and health care.

In the former case, there is an exhausting tendency in policy circles to couch every topic in terms of environmentalist dogma, no matter how tenuous the connection. Anyone familiar with this tic will appreciate that an otherwise cogent debate on Canadian pensions can quickly devolve to whether raising RRSP contribution limits will anger Gaia the Earth Mother. But issues like climate change do, in fact, hold real and immediate ramifications for the nation’s finances, especially in the area of trade.

The growing trend of “Green Protectionism” sees countries that enact environmental regulation adding duties to imports from nations that do not have the same Earth-centric standards. Owing to free trade agreements and economic reality, organized labour and other traditional tariff proponents cannot attain trade barriers overtly but, if they are able to achieve similar ends while wrapping themselves in the mantle of climate sanctimony, more the better. Such provisions are evident in America’s erstwhile “cap-and-trade” legislation which, though it may go no farther than the House of Representatives, provides a case study in this coupling of protectionism and piety.

Sagely, Flaherty sought insight on the state of this issue. Expanding Canada’s trade markets, while preserving the free trade relationships we have, is crucial to maintaining Canada’s economic strength, and understanding environmental policy is part of that task.

With an aging population, health care expenditures, particularly in the form of federal transfer payments to fund this provincial mandate, must factor into the Finance Minister’s calculus. Health care is perhaps Canada’s most contentious political issue, but with an unsustainable cost structure looming as baby-boomers enter their dotage, sober discussion cannot be delayed much longer. There was debate as to whether transfer payments should be increased, cut or eliminated to make room for private sector solutions. Folks could agree, however, that Flaherty will not be the last Finance Minister confronted by these questions. Over imminent years, political will and courage must be summoned and sustained to face this challenge.

In the field of finance proper, budget deficits can be both political and important. Oftentimes, when a government runs a deficit, its chief function is as a hobbyhorse for the opposition. “We left you nincompoops with balanced books and now look!” screams the finance critic of an ousted party anytime expenditures exceed revenues, no matter how marginally. This is the political factor. The important aspects to a budget deficit are the reasons it exists, the length of time it is sustained, and its size as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. At 3.3% of the nation’s GDP, Canada’s deficit is relatively small (despite its ominous $50 billion appearance), especially when contrasted with the 13% of GDP shortfall currently hobbling the United States.

Even so, Flaherty understands the importance of getting the nation out of deficit and, in case he harboured any doubts, this priority was reinforced in the strongest terms by his invited interlocutors. The Finance Minister has announced a plan to return to surplus by 2014 and he was urged not to neglect that goal. As budget items are entrenched and spending is less discretionary, a deficit can become inescapable and structural. To wit, once a government begins running deficits, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop. Conservative and Liberal governments have reduced Canada’s debt in recent years, and no one wants to see that progress reversed by habitually spending more than we make.

But Flaherty remains fretful for the goliath and growing budget deficit south of the border. Projected at $9 trillion over the next decade, it seems a matter of time before America’s spending overruns call the country’s creditworthiness into question. And the Finance Minister is not the only one who’s noticed. On his recent trip to China, a major creditor to the United States, Flaherty was gratified to learn that the Asian nation wishes to take its relationship with Canada to a higher level. It is unfortunate, though, that these overtures are partially prompted by Chinese concerns about our neighbour. The Canada-US trade relationship is the largest in the world, and no ancillary benefit of new markets can eclipse its importance. America must get its books in order, though there is precious little Flaherty can do about it. In this way, the matter is important without being especially political.

Flaherty thanked his guests in words of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, appropriate to a great nation in a challenging time: “Look a little ahead, my friends.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Wisdom Store

2009-08-17T12:29:00.000-07:00

It is said that when the Royal Library at Alexandria was burned down, perhaps by Julius Caesar in 48 B.C. or by the Bishop Theophilus or Caliph Omar sometime later (depending on which version of events you choose to believe), the progress of human knowledge was delayed by centuries.

The library was the vision of Egypt’s King Ptolemy, who wanted to possess all the literature of the world, encompassing history, astronomy, mathematics and medicine.

Nowadays, the notion of keeping the canon of the planet in one location and in tangible form seems quaint. With our technology, we can access the learning of the ages from almost anyplace.

For example, if you are reading this column anytime after August 2009 or anywhere besides a Canadian city, chances are you are seeing it on some lighted screen, rather than on paper. If a century or more has passed since these words were written and cross-time communication has been mastered, please email to let me know if the Leafs have won the Stanley Cup.

Newspapers have been especially affected by the advent of the electronic age, in terms of relevance and revenue. With the egalitarian influence of the Internet, a respected reporter who has won several Frowning Beaver Awards for Serious Canadian Journalism may have less readership than some crank at a keyboard in his mother’s basement in Chatham, Ontario. And from a business perspective, how can they coax folks to pay for what is freely available?

News Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch recently announced that the company would begin charging for all its online reporting, but this has already been attempted by publications large and small, without success. Many have supposed, therefore, that newspapers as we know them are doomed. What of books, though?

My own book, Finn the half-Great, is juvenile fiction (which is also how some critics describe my newspaper columns). Books of this genre tend to sell moderately over time, rather than in large numbers when first released. As young people become increasingly inclined toward items that are electronic, rather than tactile, and making the massive assumption of at least a modicum of public interest in my tome, will it be more commonly read in print or on displays like Kindle and Sony Reader? While “E-book” sales represent maybe 4 percent of the total market today, convenience is a cousin to exponential growth.

But is our information any safer now than it was at Alexandria? For all environmentalists’ insistence that we rely on windmills and hamster wheels to power our computers and gizmos, are these energy sources reliable? Or suppose some malefactor nation or group succeeds in detonating an Electro-Magnetic Pulse, which could permanently disable all electronic devices and communications over a continent-wide area. What then? How much of our accumulated millennia of learning could we recall and preserve through oral tradition, passing the Talking Stick from generation to generation as we re-build from scratch?

With today’s technology, one can hold Ptolemy’s dream in a device. But information is not knowledge, and wisdom trumps them both. However we express ourselves and catalogue facts in years to come, let’s hope we hold on to timeless truths.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Walled Garden

2009-08-05T08:18:00.000-07:00

In the syllabus to his fictitious Fundamental Astronomy class, Woody Allen wrote, “The sun, which is made of gas, can explode at any moment, sending our entire planetary system hurtling to destruction; students are advised what the average citizen can do in such a case.”

A reminder of just how small and vulnerable we are – or, at least, of how humungous and dangerous the rest of the universe can be – came in recent days as a meteor hundreds of metres wide hit Jupiter, leaving a hole the size of the Pacific Ocean in the massive planet’s atmosphere. Jupiter is about 318 times the size of Earth, so if that collision had happened here, it’s safe to say the Canadian National Exhibition wouldn’t open on time this summer.

An enormous outer space smash-up puts into context some of the trifling issues that come in for wide-eyed seriousness and spittle-flecked rage here on Earth, from bike lanes to recycle bins and, especially, politics (as the saying goes, all maniacs are local). Moreover, it reminds us how little we can control, or even predict, in the darkness that surrounds us.

A similar incident occurred in 1994, when pieces of the Shoemaker-Levy IX comet hit Jupiter, and astronomers supposed that such collisions only happened every few thousand years. It seems one of those Poindexters forgot to carry the remainder because a blink of an eye later, here we are again.

This is, incidentally, what Jupiter does – it takes the hit for the rest of us. Its immense gravity pulls in debris left over from the creation of the solar system (whether it’s called a “comet” or an “asteroid,” the upshot is it’s a great big rock that can ruin your lunch plans), keeping other planets safe – usually.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg notes that there are 1,000 near-Earth meteors more than a kilometre wide, adding, “Those are the ones that really leave a mark. Just ask the dinosaurs.”

If we missed one of these coming, it might be similar to how Obi-Wan Kenobi described the destruction of Alderon in Star Wars: Millions of voices screaming in terror and one nerd at a telescope saying, “Oops.”

Perhaps it’s just as well we have no sway over the solar system. The smartest person you’ve ever heard of cannot tell you with certainty what the weather will be like a week from Tuesday or who will win the Stanley Cup next year. People are idiots, even the geniuses. Just as William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather have been governed by the first 400 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard, I’d rather take my chances in a cosmic shooting gallery than surrender control of the universe to the most brilliant man who ever lived.

But there is comfort to be taken in the symphony of the cosmos. Jupiter plays its role as giant protector of smaller planets, giving us the luxury of eons to grow and learn, creating civilizations, countries, Pilates and fondue. In a dangerous galaxy, Earth is an oasis of existence, a walled garden, guarded by the heavens’ design – and that is an encouraging thought.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Latest Kerfuffle

2009-07-20T09:54:00.000-07:00

The course of intelligence gathering never did run smooth. In the United States, this challenge is compounded by the imperfect dynamic between those tasked with protecting the country and liberal legislators who believe they are protecting the country from itself.

The latest kerfuffle has Congressional Democrats accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of having a “secret plan” to capture or kill al-Qaeda leadership. To this, any reasonable person might respond, “I should bloody well hope so!” Who doubts that eliminating Osama bin Laden would be a good thing? And as for the plan being secret, what is the CIA to do? Announce on its website that, “agents with baseball bats will be waiting for bin Laden when he comes out of 31 Flavours this evening”?

Of course, this whole issue has been constructed to protect Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most remarkable moonbats ever to appear in American public life. Back in May, while attempting to chew her way out of a leg-trap set by her left-wing base as to whether she was aware of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation by the CIA, Pelosi accused the agency of misleading Congress “all the time.”

Folks who feign fright that the supposedly vapid Sarah Palin could have become vice president of the United States should consider that, as a Constitutional and practical matter, the Speaker of the House of Representatives wields vastly more power than the vice president does. And compared to Pelosi, Palin is Golda flippin’ Meir.

But let us return to the gravity of what Speaker Pelosi said. For Canadians who are unfamiliar with American civics, lying to Congress is not equivalent to telling your MP he can count on your vote just so he’ll get off your front porch. It is a major offense. Here, Pelosi has accused America’s flagship intelligence agency of doing so not only once, or inadvertently, but “all the time.”

Pressed for specifics, Pelosi was desolate, culminating in a painful press conference wherein the Speaker made Jon Lovitz’s truth-challenged “that’s the ticket” SNL character seem like the voice of authority.

So, unable to answer questions about these unfounded allegations, what do Pelosi and the Democrats do? They viciously accuse the CIA of doing its job. If the CIA were NOT planning to put the kibosh on terrorists who killed thousands of Americans and aspire to do so again, an overtaxed populace would wonder just what they were paying these eggheads for.

The ostensible crux of the Democrats’ complaint is that Congress was not briefed on this particular plan, which in any case never got off the drawing board. Columnist Andrew C. McCarthy has sagely advocated more judicious communication between the CIA and federal legislators, noting, “Problems arise, though, when congressional leadership goes juvenile, as has happened in recent times.”

The CIA is not perfect and its failings are highly publicized, from the inability to find WMD in Iraq to sending exploding cigars, Wile E. Coyote-style, to Fidel Castro in Cuba. But as Congressional Democrats question the agency’s honesty and candour, its operatives are risking their lives in locations around the world. There are 90 stars on a wall in Langley, Virginia, representing agents who have paid the ultimate price in defence of freedom. With this in mind, a little respect would go a long way.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Palin Pulls the Chute

2009-07-06T09:49:00.000-07:00

Last fall, a friend who works in television told me, “I supported John McCain until he put Sarah Palin on the ticket – that woman is a deal-breaker!” Now, this pal of mine didn’t know the first thing about Palin’s politics, but she had made up her mind, and she was mad about it, to boot. As American philosopher William James stated, “Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Now that Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has announced her intention to step down as governor of Alaska with sixteen months remaining in her single term, she is once again in the spotlight (as if she ever left it). Some admirers tout Palin as a presidential candidate in her own right, but what is most striking about the Palin phenomenon is the viscerally negative reaction she engenders.

I was in the hall at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota when Palin delivered her famous “pit bull” speech, and the atmosphere was extraordinary. But almost as soon as that night was over, Palin’s performance on the campaign trail, and her poll numbers, slumped.

National media interviews exposed gaps in her knowledge and perhaps this was for the best. After all, if you can’t handle Katie Couric, how will you cope with Vladimir Putin? To that point, I wish Barack Obama had been subject to at least half the scrutiny Palin got. I don’t mean the personal attacks and cracks about her children, I mean the pointed questioning she received from Couric, Charlie Gibson and others. Left-wing media are a refining fire for conservative candidates. Liberals and Democrats have no such advantage. If more reporters had asked frankly of Candidate Obama, “Do you understand the basics?” he might have been better prepared when he attained America’s highest office.

But Palin-hatred did not begin when she booted Gibson’s nebulous question about the “Bush Doctrine.” Rather, as with my TV friend, some folks just detested her from the jump. Whether it’s because of her pro-life views and the threat she poses to modern feminism, as some have suggested, I do not know, but it is a peculiar and ugly thing. In response, comedian Dennis Miller summarized why he likes Palin: “Too many people I don’t respect hate her.”

The unhinged hatred of Palin and idol worship of Obama are inverse symptoms of the same mass psychosis. As I have written before, if a commentator makes even the slightest criticism of Obama, he or she will hear at once from angry, glazed-over nutcakes, issuing pronouncements like, “Obama is building a new world for us all!” To those people I say, softly and with concern, you very badly need to get a life.

And to those who’ve shown hatred toward Palin, I say you’re better than that. Do you really want to be part of a mob that goes after a woman’s teenage daughters and questions the parentage of her infant son in vicious terms? There are excellent reasons to oppose Sarah Palin becoming president of the United States, but many of her harshest detractors couldn’t tell you what they are.

Ideas, not personalities; facts, not caricatures, should prevail in our public discussion. That may seem unrealistic and simple-minded, but the same can be said of politics.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The President's Parade of Horribles

2009-06-29T10:24:00.001-07:00

Former French President Charles de Gaulle observed, “To govern is always to choose among disadvantages.” This wisdom was amplified by Canadian rock super-group Rush, who advised, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Both axioms are applicable to the set of foreign policy challenges facing U.S. President Barack Obama.

The president of the United States has a unique job description. On any major global issue, he must take a position and, regardless of what stance he adopts, there will be consequences. At times, a leader may want to reserve judgment on a tricky situation of international importance, and that’s okay – if that leader is the prime minister of Burkina Faso. The American president, however, has no such luxury.

Most prominent among the parade of horribles presented to President Obama are the imbroglios in Iran and North Korea.

In the former case, a corrupt theocracy rigged the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then cracked down viciously on the civilian protests that followed. Obama’s response options included detached equivocation, which was his original tack, and stern condemnation of the Iranian regime, to which he correctly switched.

Even if one disagrees with the wisdom of the president’s initial reluctance to antagonize Persian rulers, one can see the logic that visible American support might have undermined the protesters’ credibility in the Middle East. And anyway, for all the grief Obama got for referring to Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini as “the Supreme Leader,” perhaps the president was merely speaking of himself in the third person.

North Korea, meanwhile, presents a more immediate problem. Its dictator, Kim Jong Il, has contemplated launching a nuclear missile toward Hawaii on or around the Fourth of July. In this case, President Obama must choose among strong diplomacy, deploying missile defence, and intercepting or boarding North Korean ships.

Obama has no ideal options in dealing with Iran and North Korea and, whatever choices the president makes, the consequences may not become clear for some time. But choose he must for, as the Romans would say, “Qui tacet consentit” (He who is silent consents).

Commentator Dick Morris has written that prior to World War II, Germany and Italy were emboldened by the West’s acquiescence to the Japanese occupation of Manchuria during the 1930s. When you are president, the world is watching – and that doesn’t just mean Newsweek, Mr. Obama. Harsher observers with unpleasant intentions are sizing you up and figuring what they can get away with.

America’s true strength is not born of its military or its missiles – although this power is nothing to sneeze at – but of its concept and practice of freedom. As another Frenchman, Victor Hugo, put forth, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.” When Ronald Reagan stood at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate and urged Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” those words were more effective than tanks or bombs could have been.

No sensible person suggests the United States should go to war over who is president of Iran, or to depose the maniacal gremlin who rules North Korea. Obama’s great strength is his oratory, or so we are told. Let him deploy it, then, in defence of liberty.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Killer and the Hall of Fame

2009-06-18T14:07:00.000-07:00

Last summer, shortly after the Hockey Hall of Fame announced its inductees for 2008, I wrote a column decrying the omission of former Toronto Maple Leafs’ captain Doug Gilmour. Like most opinions published in a newspaper, mine engendered both positive and negative reactions; and, since the topic was hockey, Canadian passions ran high on both sides.

As always, I am thankful to those who took my side and I admire their perspicacity. Among those who disagreed with me, however, objections fit into two major categories: Some supposed that my complaint was born of a Toronto-centric view of Canada’s national winter sport, as though any captain of the Leafs should, ipso facto, be granted entry to the Hall in his dotage (I don’t believe this, actually, although the annual snubbing of Wendel Clark, as well as Gilmour, remains a travesty). Others, meanwhile, wondered about my credentials to opine on hockey matters (I am, after all, an investment advisor), and this latter point is my detractors’ strongest.

In short, I am no more qualified than any of the millions of other Canadian ankle-burners who, as the advertisement says, “have driven an hour for 19 minutes of ice time.” That said, having braved decades of early winter mornings for the sake of a few shifts, I am no less qualified than they are, either.

But as to Gilmour and his claims to fame, I note that no critic took issue with the substance of my case. To wit, this man scored a point a game over 20 NHL seasons with seven different teams. As I wrote last summer: “For a year or so during the 1993-94 season, he was touted in many quarters as the best hockey player in the world. Was there one day, or even a single game, when the same was said of Anderson or Larionov [two players admitted to the Hall in 2008]? Moreover, Gilmour's career included captaincies of two Original Six teams (Toronto and Chicago), a Stanley Cup, a Canada Cup and the Selke Trophy as the NHL's best defensive forward.”

Speaking of that Stanley Cup, Gilmour was the only player to score a Cup-winning goal against the Canadiens in the Montreal Forum, leading the Calgary Flames to victory in 1989 (anything Toronto-centric about that?).

As the Hockey Hall of Fame prepares to vote on its inductees for 2009, it looks to be a bottleneck, with only four spots available and such superstars as Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Luc Robitaille, Alexander Mogilny and Brian Leetch eligible for the first time. The funny thing is, with the exception of Yzerman, Gilmour outscored every one of them.

Yes, that is correct: Doug Gilmour scored more career points than Brett Hull, one of the deadliest snipers in hockey history, or Alexander Mogilny, one of only eight players to score over 70 goals in a season (quick – name the others), and he did so while setting the gold standard for a back-checking forward. Granted, Leetch was a defenceman who managed to rack up over 1,000 points on the blue line while winning a Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP with the 1994 New York Rangers, but the point is not to run down these astounding players, it is to highlight Gilmour’s overlooked greatness.

With that in mind, as the Hall of Fame’s Selection Committee convenes on June 23, they should allocate this year’s four available spots to Yzerman, Gilmour, Leetch and Hull. If it seems unreasonable that superstars like Robitaille and Mogilny should be passed over in their first year of eligibility, along with perennial outsiders like Clark, Kirk Muller and Claude Lemieux, that’s because it is. But fame, like hockey, is a tough game.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

In Praise of the Quiet Professional

2009-05-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

In a dangerous world, there is a need for the quiet professional. Gen. Victor E. “Gene” Renuart, who heads up both the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), is a loquacious fellow on a personal basis, but he is all business and no bluster when it comes to his job.

Over the course of a week, I was part of a privileged group who accompanied Gen. Renuart on a tour of his operations throughout the United States. Despite its name, USNORTHCOM includes components in the South and East of the country, and our journey took us from the Colorado headquarters to Florida, Virginia, Maryland, and New York. On each stop, we were introduced to personnel in every branch of the military, and given demonstrations on how they guard against threats ranging from cyber attacks to nuclear detonations. These dangers may be extraordinary but, fortunately, so are the folks standing against them.

In his capacity as head of NORAD, Gen. Renuart is equally responsible to Canada’s Defence Minister and Prime Minister as he is to the American Secretary of Defense and President. The foyer of the General’s headquarters features official photos of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama, displayed with equal prominence, eyeing each other from opposite walls. Whatever political or cultural quarrels may exist between the two countries, the working relationship between Canadian and American personnel is seamless – they are all part of the same team.

The issues dealt with by Gen. Renuart and his staff are eclectic and ongoing, involving diplomatic, military and political leaders of both countries. For example, Operation Podium is the mission to protect the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. While overall responsibility for security at the 2010 Olympics resides with the RCMP, NORAD will monitor airspace, backed up by USNORTHCOM aircraft. In this way, U.S. forces normally reserved for protection of that nation’s homeland will help to protect the Canadian skies. This sort of thing requires a tremendous amount of negotiation, consultation and trust.

Consider that in the U.S., all domestic air traffic, whether it is military, commercial or private, is monitored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In Canada, meanwhile, two separate entities direct military and other aircraft. If, for example, a rogue airplane being chased by American fighters were to fly into Canadian airspace, would the U.S. have to abandon the chase, forcing the Canadian military to pick it up? Remember that in this plausible circumstance, we would have two national governments, three traffic control bodies, at least one renegade aircraft and any number of military planes carrying missiles. It is with good reason that the NORAD and USNORTHCOM folks are planning ahead.

Indeed, during a stopover in Washington, D.C., Gen. Renuart had to break off for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on just this topic, since the diplomatic implications of such a scenario are huge. He reported back that he was very pleased with the substance of their discussion and the progress being made.

The North American missile defence shield may have moved off the front pages since Prime Minister Paul Martin opted to withhold Canada’s official participation in 2005, but protecting the continent from nuclear attack remains part of Gen. Renuart’s day-to-day. He points out that the shield was designed to guard against an isolated launch from North Korea, rather than a massive onslaught from China or Russia, and he adds unequivocally, “It works.” North Korean targeting systems are notoriously unreliable and, that being the case, any missile headed toward Canada’s populated southern portion could reasonably be considered a threat to the American homeland and would be taken out: “That’s just what would happen.” Oftentimes, political and practical realities diverge. When it comes to missile defence, although Canada’s official policy has not been reversed under Prime Minister Harper, the nation still benefits from the system’s aegis.

The most chilling words one hears at NORAD are, “Operation Noble Eagle.” This is the mission by which wayward aircraft are identified, approached, communicated with, warned and – if ultimately necessary – shot down. This includes hijacked passenger planes that threaten to crash into buildings or populated areas. Comfortingly, this scenario includes multiple layers of contingency and consultation and is drilled repeatedly in order to find alternatives.

For a job like this, in which vigilance is required and crucial decisions must sometimes be made, Gen. Renuart’s staff – Canadians and Americans, military and civilian – are precisely the sort of folks you would want. The General himself possesses the rare ability to see things from other people’s point of view, and he is slow to pass judgment on those with whom he disagrees. He is well-suited to his Canada-U.S. portfolio, pointing out, “I’m three-quarters Canadian,” since three of his grandparents were from above the 49th parallel.

Despite the stars on his uniform and the weight of his command, Gen. Renuart issues no sputtering declarations of his own necessity and the nature of war, in the manner of George C. Scott's "Patton" or Jack Nicholson's Col. Nathan Jessop ("You want me on that wall – you NEED me on that wall"). Instead, he understands that in high stakes situations, panic is contagious, but so is calm. That kind of thinking can save lives.

And that is the purpose of this sprawling enterprise – saving lives. Every branch of the military and Coast Guard in two countries works in concert to protect the people of this continent. This is a tough job, and it is being done by remarkable individuals. This is why it is called military “service.” For all the power on display at NORAD and USNORTHCOM, one hears very little about killing or force – rather, these folks have devoted themselves to serving others.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in Canada and the United States.

A Bush by Any Other Name

2009-04-16T12:32:00.000-07:00

When catastrophe comes along, it opens a market for solutions. For the Republican Party, which has been shellacked in the last two American elections, this means every conservative with a platform is selling some prescription for a comeback.

From David Frum to Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and beyond, there is no shortage of alchemists who claim they can convert the GOP’s recent lead-balloon performances into electoral gold. History will judge whether some, none, or all of these people were correct, but there is one advocate to whom Republicans pay particular attention: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

As the son and brother of former American Presidents, Jeb Bush is a person of unique prominence and privilege. He is also anomalous among his Republican colleagues inasmuch as he has maintained some measure of personal popularity, while the party itself has fallen out of favour.

Recently, at the Greenville, South Carolina, home of former U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins (who was appointed by the governor’s brother, President George W. Bush), Jeb Bush laid out his four-point plan for a Republican rebound.

First, Gov. Bush advises that Republicans must recruit new, exciting candidates for the 2010 Congressional elections, while supporting deserving incumbents. Prosaic as this may seem, it is easier said than done. The GOP is in the minority and the tone in Washington, D.C, is as dyspeptic as ever, so it will take some doing to coax quality folks into the contest.

As for supporting Republican incumbents, which ones are deserving and which should go? With the Democrats already within one Senate seat of a filibuster-proof majority, such decisions could mean the difference between a Republican comeback and irrelevance.

Next, Gov. Bush insists the GOP must, “Advocate ideas.” He points out that both Republicans and Democrats have lost Congressional majorities in recent decades because they failed to express their core beliefs, articulately and consistently, between elections. “You can’t just think that people are going to support you because you’re in power,” he observes, adding that his chastened party can, “Regain power by humility.”

Third, he urges the GOP to be forward-looking and eschew nostalgia: “As much as I love Ronald Reagan...the world has radically changed. The world is moving at warp speed and our politics is moving like a tortoise.” By focusing on today’s challenges, rather than the glory days, Republicans can reclaim their relevance to voters, Jeb avers.

Finally, the GOP must, “Get better at the game.” Bush notes that his brother’s victorious 2004 campaign was the last 20th century-style election, with mailers and phone calls and traditional tactics. In 2008, the contest went viral, with Internet-based fundraising and organizing ruling the day. But as the game changed, the GOP did not, and the results speak for themselves. To regain power, Republicans must adopt modern methods.

Jeb Bush’s plan, compact and cogent, is delivered with the calm objectivity of an accomplished fellow who is not running for anything in particular. No longer looking for votes, he is asking folks for nothing more than a few moments of their attention.

But what gives Jeb Bush special resonance among Republicans? Some might suggest that he would never have been governor of Florida in the first place, were it not for his family name, and that’s fair enough. Even so, it was not his surname that achieved high approval ratings for two terms as he contended with hurricanes, health care and education reform, nor was it the Bush moniker that made him the only Republican governor to be re-elected in the Sunshine State.

And it is not as though the Bush brand has been wildly popular in recent years. But just as his host in South Carolina, Ambassador Wilkins, was consistently more popular in Canada than the president who appointed him, so Jeb Bush has crafted a political identity that is distinct from those who share his name.

In fact, if Jeb’s surname were anything but Bush, as the popular two-term chief executive of America’s most important swing state, he very likely would have appeared on the Republican presidential ticket in 2008.

Folks reflexively ask if Jeb Bush will ever run for president. The answer is a definite maybe. At 56 years of age, he could toss his hat into the ring anytime during the next four or more presidential election cycles. Even if he were to wait until 2024, Jeb would still be younger than the 2008 GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, was on Election Day.

More important than the chronology is Jeb Bush’s sense of service. The governor plainly believes in working for the good of his nation, but he seems genuinely undecided as to if and when he will ever do so again in public office. Such thinking is consistent with the tenets of conservatism and citizen government, whereby individuals put forward the better angels of their nature as an onus of citizenship, not a function of getting elected.

At the moment, the governor comments on those policy issues that mean the most to him, especially education, and he campaigns only for those Republican candidates in whom he truly believes. He receives many invitations to speak on behalf of the party, but he notes that as a private citizen, “I get to pick and choose.” Together with his son, Jeb Jr., the governor has founded Jeb Bush and Associates, LLC, which is involved in a variety of business projects, including infrastructure and consultancy.

Through his years as governor and since rejoining the private sector in 2007, Jeb Bush has shown himself to be less a political family scion than a candid and clear policy advocate. Whether or not he holds office again, he remains a person of consequence.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset
Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

The Future of the CBC

2009-03-13T11:20:00.000-07:00

As our national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation strives to offer original programming in both French and English but, when it comes to accepting taxpayers’ money, the CBC cannot say “no” in either official language. Each year, the enterprise receives over one billion dollars from the federal government. Now that difficult economic times have encompassed even the so-called “Mother Corp.,” the CBC has asked for an additional $60 million to make up an advertising revenue shortfall. Thus far, these requests have been rebuffed, but present circumstances occasion a reassessment of the status quo.

For all the things that make up the CBC – radio, Internet, other properties – it is the television component that is most problematic, in terms of cost and content. Therein lays the quandary – should taxpayers be financing this one broadcaster, even as it competes with private networks like Global and CTV?

As it accepts public funding, does the CBC offer content that could not be provided by private entities and, if so, does that content reflect the Canadian mainstream, or the worldview of the oligarchy that runs the network? Much has been made of the left-leaning nature of the CBC’s news coverage. As I wrote last year, “this is the network that marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a special investigation into whether the terrorist attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government (CBC gave ‘both sides’ of the story – note to our national broadcaster: both sides of bollocks is still bollocks).” But liberal media bias is not peculiar to public news outlets, or even to Canada. What sets the CBC apart is the nature and funding of its other TV programming, including comedy and drama.

Experienced viewers of television in this country can detect the bacon-y scent of Canadian production values almost at once. Sets and lighting are odd, wardrobes appear to have been selected in pitch darkness, and casts are made up of the same handful of actors who – when they are not manning picket lines to demand yet more handouts and guaranteed airtime – are mugging unmercifully on the taxpayers' dime. Bad television may not be a crime, but why should innocent folks have to pay for it?

Why, for example, should taxpayers foot the bill for CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie, an unwatchable politically correct harangue? Adding insult to injury, when 3.7 million people saw the debut episode of this monstrosity – presumably because they had passed out or were trapped under something heavy, rendering them unable to change channels – the aberration got banner reportage throughout the CBC’s 2006-7 Annual Report. That is, just over ten percent of the country tuned in to a production for which one hundred percent of the country was obliged to pay, and this success rate was sufficiently anomalous to be trumpeted to the skies.

In its 2007-8 Annual Report, the CBC acknowledges that Canadian television production is not profitable and avers that private broadcasters receive more money in tax concessions and “other indirect government support” than CBC Television receives in government funding. For the sake of argument, let’s say that’s true. Would this not suggest that the private broadcaster model is a better one? If CBC Television is so hell-bent on producing shows that are “distinctly Canadian” (a phrase repeated so often in CBC publications that it cries out for a drinking game), then wouldn’t this task be made easier by opting for the more lucrative, tax-advantaged route of its private sector competitors, rather than consuming over a billion dollars in direct subsidies every year?

The CBC contends that 80 percent of its television programming consists of Canadian content – notwithstanding the network’s ubiquitous imports like The Simpsons, Coronation Street, Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy! and myriad American movies – but this misses the point. If there is a need and appetite for the Canadian television the CBC provides, then it should be able to find viewers and private sponsors. If, however, there is an insufficient audience for their product, then the CBC is simply indulging in sanctimony at taxpayers’ expense.

At a time when economic turmoil is forcing governments and individual citizens to make cutbacks, cringe-inducing television is a good place to start. Moreover, if a private model provides greater funding for production, as the CBC suggests, perhaps a change would be in everyone’s interest. There is a place for public broadcasting, but in its current form – accepting billions of taxpayer dollars while bidding against private counterparts for U.S. programming and major events like the Olympics – the CBC does not fill it.

By all means, if the network wishes to take on a truly public role, it would be serving a need. Otherwise, the CBC should let us keep our billion bucks and compete for programming, audiences and advertising dollars as private networks are compelled to do.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in Canada and the United States.

It's Not About You

2009-03-05T10:15:00.000-08:00

“It’s not about you.”

These are the opening words of the Rev. Rick Warren’s best-selling book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” and the sentiment may be comforting to everyone affected by this unhappy economy.

To wit, we are all in this together. As much as folks who have lost their jobs or seen their incomes and retirement funds shrink may feel alone in the storm, in fact every one of us is touched in some way.

Of course, this is somewhat distinct from Warren’s intention of the words – he advocates a life of service to others with a higher meaning in mind – but the interconnected nature of our travails is worth a look.

In Canada, manufacturers and exporters were having a difficult time even before the current downturn began, owing in part to an inflated currency that made our goods more expensive. But now that our international trading partners, including and especially the United States, find themselves in financial turmoil and unable to buy what we are selling, times get even tougher. This translates to share price declines and massive job losses – 129,000 in January 2009 alone – which means that whether you are an investor, a worker, or both, you got hit.

On Parliament Hill, opposition parties have pledged to force an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty do not turn around the country’s economic fortunes by June. This is Olympic-calibre silliness. One hopes, certainly, that Canada’s economy rebounds in the next three months, but many of the factors affecting that outcome are beyond the powers of any Prime Minister or his cabinet. International trade and the global nature of our economy dictate that recovery or recession depend in large measure on the health of our trading partners. If other countries do not have the demand for our commodities and manufactured exports, the rest is just so much chin music.

As for the United States, the markets have rendered their verdict on the high tax, spending and borrowing prescriptions of a new president and Congress, and it is not good. Indeed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 20% of its value in the six weeks after Barack Obama became Commander-in-Chief and began to re-centralize the American economy.

Markets don't take things personally. The market has no politics, per se. What you see in the Dow and other indices is an objective assessment government policy and where it could lead. This is distinct from a poll or a vote in that investors’ assets are at stake, not their ideas. Opinions on abortion or government-funded television do not steer the markets; that is the task of steely-eyed pecuniary interest. So when a president announces higher taxes and unprecedented borrowing, market downturns occur as night follows day.

The good news is that this can be remedied, and whether you are in government, invested in the markets, or just working day-to-day, there are reasons for hope and steps you can take.

For example, companies that emerge from this period intact will be leaner and healthier than they were before this started. Bad news and cutbacks are announced and effected during such times, so when companies start to generate income again, it goes straight to the bottom line.

The task for investors, then, is to find the best companies in the best industries and buy with discipline and careful planning. For managers and workers, be brave and alert, ready and willing to adapt to new realities, in the form of concessions and improvements. Lastly, if you are in government, by all means spend and regulate where you must in order to get us out of this fix in the short-term, but then get out of the way and let people’s innovation and initiative lead on. One hopes that somewhere in this list of prescriptions, readers will recognize themselves.

It may seem like cold comfort to be reminded that the global downturn is not something that is happening to you, personally, but it is nonetheless true. More important, bleak as things may seem and despite the blame-laying on all sides, bear in mind that we as a society, a system, and a family of nations will get out of this mess the same way we got into it – together.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Words Are Important: Stimulus and the Environment

2009-02-11T01:00:00.000-08:00

In recent years, as brutal winters rendered the spectre of “global warming” a punch line, environmentalists have edged their argot toward the catch-all term, “climate change.” In the United States, a similarly subtle rhetorical shift has occurred regarding the so-called “Stimulus” package that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are pitching to the American people.

To wit, as the nearly trillion-dollar monstrosity lurching through the legislative corridors of D.C. is revealed to be primarily concerned with stimulating government, rather than the economy, its proponents have taken to calling it by the official short-form, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Words are important, and since not even the silver-tongued 44th president of the United States can explain how an omnibus appropriations bill that allocates billions to the ballet, hanging gardens, STD prevention and “neighbourhood stabilization activities” will do the first blessed thing to stimulate the economy, he and his colleagues must appeal to the greater good of “Reinvestment.”

This terminology adjustment is part and parcel with the political rudiment that whoever frames the question wins the debate. Throughout the sales process for this package, President Obama has chosen for his opponents straw men of his own design, refuting arguments that were never made. In his first White House news conference this week, Obama repeatedly chastised those “who believe we should do nothing,” as if opposition to this particular legislation were tantamount to declaring government has no place to address market failure. He spoke heart-wrenchingly of a school in South Carolina, where nearby train tracks disrupt classes, saying this package would help them. The president’s logic seems to be that if you oppose giving another $850 million to Amtrak, as the Reinvestment Act provides, ipso facto, you don’t care if kids learn to read.

Indeed, alternatives to this package, including a prominent role for government, have been suggested and summarily rejected. Senate Republicans cobbled together a mere $445 billion proposal that began by considering the most pressing causes of the current crisis – the housing meltdown and credit market freeze – then determining what should be done to remedy them. But Obama and Congressional Democrats prefer to stick with their method of dreaming up the largest dollar sum they can, then deciding after the fact how to spend the money.

Further similarity to the environmental movement can be seen in the urgency with which the Reinvestment Act’s supporters press their case. There is no time to debate, environmentalists have warned for years, the planet will incinerate if we do not switch to hybrid cars and unicycles by the end of the week. Likewise, Obama has set a deadline of February 16 for the Reinvestment Act, as though $650 million for digital TV coupons or $6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program could not wait one more day.

But crying wolf on a mass scale is always a risky proposition. As weeks pass and birds aren’t bursting into flames in mid-air, more and more people begin to question the purple-faced predictions of the green-savvy friends in our midst. Similarly, if Americans discover that the Republic can stand until, say, March, without spending $7.6 billion on “rural community advancement programs,” Obama may have a problem.

Speed and a lack of scrutiny serve the purposes of the Reinvestment Act’s advocates. For example, would House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey prefer America to linger on a bill that awards $1.7 billion to the National Parks System, for which his son, Craig, is the chief lobbyist?

Most important, once this massive spending is enacted, Americans will be stuck with it for decades to come. In Washington, government spending increases are used as baselines for subsequent years, making huge expenditures very difficult to undo.

As Milton Friedman observed, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.” If President Obama and Congressional Democrats insist on “reinvesting” in haste, the nation will repent at leisure.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Simple Tax Relief and a Capital Holiday

2009-01-22T22:00:00.000-08:00

One hopes the January 27 Federal Budget will allow Canadians to keep more of their own money and invest it with confidence.

Cuts in personal and corporate taxes, as well as a holiday from the capital gains tax (which would be relatively painless, since not many Canadians are fretting about how to offset gains just now), would place billions of stimulus dollars in the hands of private citizens and go a long way toward helping our country through its economic troubles.

While theyʼre at it, letʼs hope the government extends the end date for income trusts past 2011. Setting aside the questionable wisdom of cancelling the trusts in the first place, our economy was rather different when that decision was made. The price of energy was heading for the stratosphere and markets were in reasonable shape. It may seem awkward for the Tories to change course on this issue yet again, having repeatedly promised to leave income trusts untouched before reversing themselves completely, but inconsistent wisdom is preferable to intransigent folly. To wit, flip-flops can be forgiven, so long as you land the right way up.

Finally, when it comes to letting Canadians keep their own money, donʼt gild the lily. Make a tax cut a tax cut, not a credit where a person has to reinvest in government-approved silly-bears then run to the Parliament Hill parking lot and touch the hood of Michael Ignatieffʼs Thunderbird before getting any benefit. For once, make Canadian tax relief comprehensive and simple.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Hope at High Noon

2009-01-20T05:46:00.000-08:00

At noon today, Barack Obama becomes the 44th president of the United States. Here’s hoping that he is such a smashing success that he gets busted onto Mt. Rushmore and his face knocks Thomas Jefferson’s right off the nickel.

The presidency is always a heavy burden, but I have profound respect and compassion for anyone who would take on the leadership of the free world at this particular time. The economy is in ghastly shape and, around the globe, very bad men continue to plot the death of civilians in general and Americans in particular.

Here, one might cue the rubbish and rhubarb about how badly George W. Bush botched the last eight years, getting the nation into this fix. But many of these problems were decades in the making and are larger than one man. In any case, as the United States turns the page, one hopes the 16-year national pastime of hating the president (Bush Derangement Syndrome having been preceded by two terms of Clinton Hatred) is at an end.

Right now, America needs a president who has the endorsement of a majority of its citizens. Whatever your politics, Obama is that man today. The foreign and domestic problems facing the United States are such that a peaceful consensus is a necessary first step to solving them. Whether folks supported candidate Obama or not – and few commentators in Canada were as critical of him as I was – he is president now and we will all be better off if he does well.

I was wrong about Obama in many ways – not least, about his prospects for getting elected – and I hope I continue to be. To wit, he has shown signs of being a thoughtful pragmatist – advocating business investment tax cuts and retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, for example – rather than the left-wing ideologue he seemed to be during the primaries. Moreover, he has already made many of the right people mad. Rep. Barney Frank (D.-MA) is upset that Rev. Rick Warren is giving Obama’s inaugural invocation; Sen. John Kerry (D.-MA) is upset that he is not Secretary of State; Sen. Harry Reid (D.-NV) is upset about being Sen. Harry Reid (D.-NV). With these folks up in arms, Obama is off to a good start.

He has reached across the aisle, attempting to secure Republican support for his proposed stimulus package. To be sure, this is largely a political manoeuvre, to provide bipartisan cover for the 2010 midterm elections in case the legislation fails to right the economy, but it is a sensible approach. A week ago, Obama had a two-hour private dinner with conservative commentators at the home George F. Will. It was an informal, off-the-record meeting for the purpose of exchanging ideas. Such early-administration overtures have been tried before with middling success – recall Bush inviting Sen. Ted Kennedy to the White House for movie night in 2001 – but it is still the right thing to do.

Over the next four or eight years, there will doubtless be cause to criticize Obama, and I will likely sing a solo or two in that chorus. I prefer to think that such disagreement, whenever and for whatever reason it comes, will be based on legitimate policy, in contrast to partisans who refuse to give the man a chance. Step-on-a-crack silly-bears is no kind of loyal opposition. For example, to those conspiracy-minded stragglers who still obsess over whether Obama was born in Hawaii or a manger in Burkina Faso, I suggest moving on. The Constitution and people of the United States are satisfied that Obama is a natural-born citizen and anyway, what a man chooses to do with his life means more than how and where it began. Obama is a bona fide success story and his opponents would do well to recognize his qualities.

On his first day in office, there is such widespread adoration for the man that one wonders: Whither Obama’s admirers when it is revealed, inevitably, that he is less than perfect? No one can know for certain, but loyal Americans, and all those who hope for peace and freedom in the world, should wish this new president Godspeed.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

“How do I raise my children not to hate?”

2009-01-14T00:10:00.000-08:00

JERUSALEM -- “How do I raise my children not to hate?”

This was the question posed by a prominent Israeli journalist whose eldest son is now serving on the front lines in Gaza. In reflecting on bringing up his children amidst suicide bombings and rocket attacks, he was particularly concerned with their teen years: “As if it isn’t tough enough to raise teenagers.”

Faces here are filled with sorrow and resolve. Israelis know they are in the midst of a war they must win, waged by the most beloved among them – the young.

Quite reasonably, one might ask about the plight of Palestinian children, and it is a cruel irony that they are victims of the same violence. If only the grown-ups influencing them placed the same priority on barring hatred from their hearts. Instead, they are inculcated with perverse histories and vicious notions of murder and martyrdom from their earliest years.

World opinion has long since swayed in favour of creating a Palestinian state. The outgoing and incoming presidents of the United States, as well as leaders in Canada, Britain, and many citizens of Israel are on board with the concept, provided it can lead to some good end. No one needs another Syria – or worse – on Israel’s border, and it would be naïve to assume that simply conferring statehood on the current arrangement would quell the violence here. So to whom would the state be granted? To Hamas, the Palestinians’ elected leaders who have launched 3,000 rockets at Israel in the last year alone? How about no.

Indeed, one of the saddest aspects of the current conflict is the waste that the Palestinian leadership has made of the Gaza project. When Israelis withdrew completely from the territory in 2005, they left behind greenhouses, infrastructure and the makings of a community. Within days, however, Gaza became a staging ground for rocket attacks on southern Israel. The greenhouses are gone and the misery has returned. As much as many of us advocate the creation of a Palestinian state, we must recognize that no responsible Palestinian leadership exists to shoulder it.

The refusal of Palestinians and their leaders to move beyond grievances and make the most of their opportunities is a source of frustration to some Israelis, who recognize that their own country has managed to survive and thrive against towering odds. One Israeli privately remarked of the Palestinian failure to establish a place in the world: “If they spent time and energy building up their own state instead of trying to destroy mine, they might have something.”

A woman in Jerusalem echoed former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in lamenting, “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” As Meir perhaps had done, the woman spoke the first of these sentences with sadness; the second, with a touch of anger.

Certainly, there are Palestinian moms and dads who care for their children, just as Israeli parents do. Trouble is, those decent folks have no voice in their leadership. In Israel, meanwhile, the armed defense of the nation touches parents deeply.

Military service is prevalent in this country, where young people perform a mandatory three years, and decades in the reserves often follow. All over Israel, families are fretting for loved ones in harm’s way, as active duty troops have been deployed and tens of thousands of reserves have been called up or notified to prepare.

With parents desperately worried, the Israel Defense Forces have taken the precautionary step of confiscating cell phones from troops. There are two principal reasons for this. First, it is a case of good old-fashioned, “Loose lips sink ships.” To wit, even the most innocent revelation of military locations can be overheard or intercepted and lead to lost lives. Second, there is no percentage in having panicked parents all across the country. Knowing that their grown children are without means to communicate, Israeli parents do not want their phones to ring, as they assume it can only be bad news.

Such is the reality for families here. Israelis accept it with courage and determination. Most important, even as they live in the shadow of death, they teach their children to love life.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Peace Through Victory

2009-01-09T07:58:00.000-08:00

JERUSALEM -- Israel’s determination to continue its military campaign against Hamas terrorists in Gaza, despite tragic civilian losses, serves as a reminder that peace is the second-most important goal of geopolitics. Only freedom – which for Israelis means the elemental liberty to exist – matters more.

Ideally, of course, Israel would like to have both. Decent folks yearn for peace just as all people thirst for freedom, and it is truly tragic when leaders are forced to choose between them.

Over more than six decades of conflict with murderous neighbours, Israel has tried numerous tacks, from bursts of astounding force, to occupation, to land-for-peace, to humanitarian aid, to total withdrawal, in its quest for peace.

With this history in mind, observers may ask, isn’t this recent war in Gaza just another chapter in the apocryphal “cycle of violence”? What can Israel do differently? What is it about this conflict with this particular enemy that presents the potential for peace, at last?

For Israel, a prerequisite to peace is victory. And in achieving it, they must make an example of terrorist thugs who menace Jews and Muslims alike, including their own, long-suffering people.

In Canadian parlance, Israel must expose Hamas like a weak goaltender. Show them and their would-be recruits, as well as those of Hezbollah in the north, that the job satisfaction and benefits package for Iranian dupes are thin. Changing hearts isn't always about holding hands. Sometimes, it means extreme attitude realignment, accomplished with explosives. For Israel, this is such a time.

Set aside the notion that Hamas and its fellow-travelling radical Islamists have any claim to a divine cause. Hamas' strategy for attaining a ceasefire without offering concessions is to bring about enough casualties among Palestinian civilians, achieved by storing rockets and weapons caches under hospitals and schools, such that Israeli strikes will kill innocent people and sway world opinion. Any god who would be alright with that has no business being worshipped.

Dismiss, also, the popular idea that Hamas’ attacks are somehow about land. We are four years removed from Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza, yet Hamas has continued to lob rockets at Israeli towns – 3,000 of them in 2008 alone.

For Hamas, the bar for victory is relatively low. To win, they must accomplish two aims: survive, and attain some measure of international legitimacy. This second ambition may take the form of the opening of its waterways and crossings with Israel and Egypt, two countries with excellent reason not to trust Hamas. Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, now prominently involved in ceasefire discussions, well remembers that it was Muslim radicals who assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981, and Mubarak himself has been on the business end of several such attempts. Hamas and their ilk are demonstrably dangerous not only to Israelis, but to anyone of whom they disapprove.

An encouraging sign is that, for the moment, the Israeli people and leadership seem united in their resolve. Even prominent political figures who have embraced the land-for-peace experiment in the past, or the 2005 Israeli pullout from Gaza, such as President Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, today speak matter-of-factly of their country’s intention to see this current campaign through to its end.

But to do so, Israel finds itself in a ghoulish race against time. To wit, they must accomplish their objectives before civilian casualties, largely engineered by Hamas, turn domestic and international opinion against the operation. Military experts here suggest that the aims of Israel’s ground offensive against terrorist leaders will require weeks. For the sake of the Palestinian people, and for the freedom of all nations that stand against tyranny, one hopes that Israel will have the time and will to win its peace.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Insipid St. Not Allowed

2008-12-23T15:12:00.000-08:00

(a poem) by Theo Caldwell

If someone you know says what can and can't be,
And insists you matter less than some endangered rainforest tree,
If she or he declares you're just a face in a crowd,
Then you might have had a visit from Insipid St. Not Allowed.

Insipid lived long ago, when people were still allowed to do and say things,
When holidays were holy and not just children's playthings.
Of course, children are important, and Insipid knows that too,
Which is why St. Not Allowed wants to raise them instead of letting you.

Left to your devices, you'd teach them nonsense about Easter and Lent,
Instead of the most important things: Self-esteem and the Environment.
You'd teach them there's right and wrong, as if you could judge,
Instead of embracing their open minds and giving them organic, low-fat fudge.

“What’s wrong with an open mind?” Insipid asks, and it’s a fair point,
And if the Saint’s words meant just that, no one’s nose would be out of joint.
But “open mind” means shut your yap, you exclusionary lout.
In the name of tolerance and diversity, your beliefs must be stamped out.

If you don’t teach your kids that the marriage of two Rons is alright,
Then Insipid will do it for you, and please don’t put up a fight.
You may win on Election Day, but Insipid won’t be done yet,
The Saint will come for your house, your church and your pet.

Insipid is a Saint in the most modern way,
With no God but the Earth and only gender-neutral things to say.
In Insipid’s time, firemen were men, not combustion intervention counsellors,
But the Saint killed off differences, as the Patron of language heptachlors.

Insipid loves all people, but the Saint keeps a list,
Of non-recyclers who don’t know that Columbus was a racist.
“No free speech for hate speech,” Insipid says, and it’s really true,
That if you look ‘round and don’t know who the oppressor is – it’s you.

Insipid was martyred by having to choke,
On the intolerance of others and a plume of secondhand smoke.
But whenever some pure soul tells you what you can’t think or say,
Rest assured that St. Not Allowed still lives to this day.

Power to the People - Tax Cuts as Stimulus

2008-12-18T06:49:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, January 27, 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have a rare opportunity to change the landscape of Canada’s finances. That is when Harper’s embattled government will present its budget to a skeptical and ambitious House of Commons. If he has the nerve and the will, the Prime Minister can reverse the way Canadians think about taxes and spending, to the betterment of the nation.

In these troubled times, citizens have taken it upon themselves to become more literate in the ways of the economy and government. One of the first terms they have acquired is “stimulus,” which is broadly defined as anything the government does to give the slumping economy a kick in the behonkus.

Most commonly, stimulus is thought of as the government spending money on various industries and projects. But if we unpack what stimulus is meant to mean – that is, government finding ways to get investment flowing among businesses and individuals – one of the best ways to do this is to allow folks to keep more of their own money in the first place. To wit, tax cuts are a kind of stimulus.

In order to embrace this concept, citizens first need to understand that the government doesn’t run the economy – private enterprise does. Governments establish and maintain the parameters within which businesses create jobs and investments. With the right regulations, structures and laws in place, the best thing government can do is empower people to spend their money, take risks and reap the rewards of a free market system.

A cut in personal and corporate taxes, as well as a holiday from the capital gains tax (which would be relatively painless, since not many Canadians are fretting about how to offset gains just now), would place billions of stimulus dollars in the hands of private citizens and go a long way toward helping our country through its economic troubles.

This mission, should the Prime Minister choose to accept it, will require a selling job, since it defies common wisdom as to the role of government and taxes.

Decent and otherwise intelligent people will say, “We have to raise taxes so the government can create jobs by hiring more people.” There are at least three things wrong with this simple statement. First, raising taxes doesn’t necessarily raise revenue; indeed, it can easily do just the opposite as investment and innovation are squelched and taxpayers find ways to stash earnings. Second, government does not create jobs, businesses do. Third, even if government did create jobs by hiring people, swelling the civil service ranks is no way to steer a country into the economic fast lane.

There is, of course, a role for government expenditure, and infrastructure spending is a concept many people have embraced. One of the best things that can be said about this form of stimulus is that, at the end of it, there is actually something tangible and useful, like a bridge or a highway. Compare this with stimulus spending on interminable programs that help no one and never die. One is reminded of Milton Friedman’s maxim that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.

This is a risky proposition for the Prime Minister, make no mistake. Canada is only weeks removed from seeing opposition parties attempt to topple the government, ostensibly because of a lack of stimulus in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s November 27 fiscal update. Now, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the entire coalition imbroglio was about one man’s ambition (Bob Rae, call your office) that ended up costing another his leadership (Stephane Dion, call a cab). But if the lack of economic stimulus were really the cause of the inchoate coup, then Harper can address that issue and help the country simply by redefining the terms.

Politicians win or lose on contrasts. In deciding how to stimulate the economy, Stephen Harper has the chance to give Canadians a contrast like they’ve never seen.

Sell it, Prime Minister. There are plenty of overtaxed Canadians who believe in the concept and will be glad to help you.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

We Wish You a Merry Euphemism

2008-12-12T18:24:00.000-08:00

If you insist on saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” it doesn’t mean you’re a bigot – but it helps. Whether you’re a government type who declares that the arboreal splendour in the public square is, in fact, a “Holiday Tree” or a corporate whiz who calculates that “Season’s Greetings” will offend the fewest number of customers, you know who you are and what you’re doing. It’s Christmas and you know it. Clap your hands.

In this cold world, a kind word is always welcome, so if one person genuinely hopes for another to enjoy his or her holiday, or wishes to greet that person in the spirit of the season, far be it from me to cast a stone. But, in the weeks leading up to December 25, if you make a conscious choice to avoid saying “Merry Christmas,” there’s a good chance you have decided that a divine gift that was meant for all mankind, and in which billions of people rejoice each year, is too offensive a notion to cross your lips.

Yes, yes, I know – folks say “Happy Holidays” and other insipid nonsense because not everyone is Christian, so this is a way to be inclusive. But there is no inclusion to be had by euphemising the warmest wish of a particular religion, presuming it to be objectionable to non-believers.

Of course, there are many different religions and faiths in the world. This is something folks are taught by the age of, say, 4 or 5. So, if you are older than this, yet you eschew “Merry Christmas,” what you are putting forward is that one of the world’s religions is uniquely unsuitable for public acknowledgement.

No one frets about being ‘inclusive’ during Passover or Ramadan, nor should they. Ironically, the purported inclusiveness of the “Season’s Greetings” Stasi is actually about exclusion. To wit, it’s about excluding just one religion, Christianity, from any rightful place in modern society.

Showerless know-nothings of the Left have long since extrapolated their vague, fashionable notions of history – from the horrors of the Crusades to the dull intolerance of the 1950s – to name Christianity the culprit for all the world’s evil. This is the stupidest concept to achieve mass acceptance since acid-wash jeans, but here we are.

And so, budding iconoclasts can tee off on the faith, or inflict their petty “Holiday Tree” policies with impunity. And well they might, for it is a riskless proposition. The worst that will happen is they may stumble across a column like this one, calling courage-free conformity by its name. Indeed, those politically correct storm troopers who browbeat Christians in movies and television, classrooms and print, would be much more credible if, just once, they decided to try their censorious tactics on one of those religions where the practitioners react, shall we say, stringently to being muzzled or criticized.

Christians, their antagonists point out, are in the majority, and so their holidays do not merit the same exclusive attention and protection as those of other religions. The reasonable reply to this, of course, is “So bloody what?” Is tolerance a numbers game? Is courtesy quantifiable? Is the respect a religion merits inversely proportional to its number of believers? If so, how do we tally just how blessed rude we can be to the faithful? Is it calculated like a marginal tax rate, off the last adherent rather than the last dollar earned?

Folks may say that a contentious column like this one is inconsistent with the Christmas spirit, and so detracts from its purpose. But Christmas is not just about hand-holding and bad sweaters. I will gamble the false comity of a Sears catalogue photo to stick up for my religion. Too often, folks assume turning the other cheek means rolling over.

Christmas is about Jesus Christ, Son of God, coming down to Earth to show us how a proper life should be lived, then dying unpleasantly for our sins. Believe it or don’t. I am arguably the worst Christian in the world, but we do one another no favours by pretending this Happiest of Holidays is about anything but Him.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Bloodless Coup at Disneyland

2008-12-02T15:41:00.000-08:00

Canadian politicians aren’t making history, they’re taking up space. In other countries, particularly the United States, the decade preceding 9/11 is often referred to as a “holiday from history,” wherein the population was benighted to the realities and dangers of the outside world. In Canada, that halcyon respite can be measured not in years, but generations.

As just one example, while the powerful play of history unfolded over the last 30 years, Canada’s political class subjected us to repeated, lugubrious exercises – complete with tears and tape measures applied to French lettering on business signs – to determine whether one of the most blessed nations God gave to man should even stay together. If Canadians truly understood the misery of much of the rest of the world, and how lucky we really are, such nonsense would never even come up.

And now, weeks after spending $300 million on a pointless election, our sheltered and shallow Parliamentarians are creating a trumped-up “crisis” and have the gall to insist it’s “historic.”

There’s making history, and there’s making noise. For example, whether one agrees with the Afghanistan mission or not, 2,500 Canadians are in that dangerous country making history right now – in practical, not political terms – and putting their lives on the line to make the world a better place.

Meanwhile, back at home, our lightweight politicians refer to proposed spending cuts as an “attack on women.” Those who hold such hysterical views of Canadian government budgetary policy should consult with an Afghanistan war veteran, or a survivor of the Taliban’s regime, to find out what a real “attack on women” consists of.

This is less a question of policy than of culture. Yes, the prescriptions put forward by opposition leaders who are striving to force their governance on a population that did not elect them are probably wrong. Opinions vary as to whether it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cuts to social spending, or the elimination of taxpayers’ subsidies of political parties, or his lack of an economic stimulus package, or good old-fashioned political manoeuvring that prompted the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to cobble together their proposed coalition government – but none of it matters. The real question is, with the nation at war and a global economic crisis ongoing, should we be focused on the constitutionality of a hackneyed power-grab?

As this country and the world face extraordinary challenges, the events of this week remind us that some political cultures are too slow to move beyond the Mickey Mouse, navel-gazing mentality of fatter days. This is a bloodless coup at Disneyland.

In any photo of international heads of government, Canada's prime ministers invariably wear hopeful smiles that go unrecognized. Our politicians are hangers-on. Monday’s display of three electoral also-rans – Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe – holding forth as if they were the victors at Yalta goes a long way to explaining why this is. They have no idea what’s important.

Canada could and should be one of the most significant, powerful nations on Earth. With our resources, developed capital markets, rule of law and entrenched freedoms, we have the tools to create the world’s most attractive environment for investment and skill. But our politicians’ priorities are too puny. Small dreams stir no hearts. Think bigger, sirs, and history will take care of itself.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

George W. Bush and the Legacy in Waiting

2008-11-24T07:36:00.000-08:00

It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize President George W. Bush. So simple and widespread is condemnation of the man that, when one hears some concerned citizen spouting the usual lines about “lies,” “war for oil,” and the like, one wonders what that person thinks he or she is adding to the public discourse. It has all been said before, and it was dopey the first time.

What is far more difficult – harder, even, than finding someone to sing Bush’s praises – is to find intelligent analysis of Bush’s successes and failures as leader of the free world. His foreign policy forays, like the Iraq war, and his domestic policies, like the prescription drug benefit, bear serious scrutiny. But since folks start hyperventilating at the mere mention of Bush’s name, it seems sober discussion must wait until at least the end of his term.

It is often noted that while Presidents Lincoln and Truman were both reviled in their times, history has judged them to be among the strongest leaders in American history. This simply proves Fred Barnes’ formulation that in politics, as in life, the future is never a straight-line projection from the present. Also, it is fair to say that just because people hate you, that doesn’t make you Abraham Lincoln.

What, then, of Bush’s hordes of haters, who imagine him the cause of all the world’s evil? Bush’s legacy to them may be, “Get a life.” For eight years, Bush has been their Voldemort, and their antipathy toward him has defined their existence.

Moonbats have always been among us and their place in history is secure. The legacy of George W. Bush, meanwhile, is less certain. Angry mobs and conspiracy theorists have railed against leaders since time immemorial, and there is little to distinguish Bush's most venomous detractors from the wrathful wretches of centuries gone by. To wit, while his critics are not unique, perhaps Bush is.

Rarely, if ever, has a president left office with so much of his legacy up in the air. If, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan flourish into free and functioning nations, allies of the United States in difficult areas, Bush will rightly be remembered as the man who liberated over 50 million human beings while strengthening his own country in the process. Such success remains highly hypothetical, but it would be sufficient for future generations to relieve Bush of his contemporary moniker of History’s Greatest Monster.

Conversely, if these enterprises fail, or if Bush’s apparent coziness with Russia’s Vladimir Putin leads to a renewed twilight struggle with that increasingly aggressive nation, this president’s foreign policy must be judged a failure.

Domestically, while Bush’s growth-inducing tax cuts added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Treasury and increased the share of taxes paid by the highest earners, the nation is in the grips of its worst financial crisis in decades. In truth, the current debacle finds its roots in the misbegotten mortgages mandated by President Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, if not President Roosevelt’s creation of Fannie Mae as part of the New Deal. But as the man at the top when the bad news came down, Bush bears much of the burden.

Will this president be recognized for his better economic moves or will historians pass him the buck for today’s meltdown? Will his foreign policy look like wisdom or folly to future generations?

In short, is Bush evil and unintelligent, as his enemies claim, or is he the most visionary president in American history? Neither.

Politics isn't binary, nor are people. Leadership requires choices, and the consequences are often long-term.

Why then has Bush, whose policies cannot yet be assessed in total, become the object of so much scorn? In large measure, Bush Derangement Syndrome began before the man was inaugurated and has less to do with his actions in office than his detractors insist. The Left’s shorthand is that after 9/11, the country and the world were united and Bush squandered that goodwill by invading Iraq. This is bollocks on stilts.

In reality, the 2000 Florida recount divided the country. 9/11 reunited the nation briefly, but folks were soon back to obsessing over the rancour and result of the presidential race. Bush’s majority-vote victory over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 simply added insult to injury for those who felt he never should have been president.

However he got the job, the scope of his actions ensure there is room for George W. Bush in the roll call of the best, and worst, American presidents.

Theo Caldwell, president of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Good Luck, President Obama

2008-11-06T15:24:00.000-08:00

Good luck, Mr. President. I am one of those Americans Barack Obama spoke to on election night, the ones who did not vote for him. He’s right – despite my loyal opposition, he will be my president.

Some other conservative commentators have said we should treat this new Democratic commander-in-chief with exactly the same respect they showed our outgoing Republican president. This is meant, of course, as a call to lambaste Obama from day one and never give the guy a break, as the Left has done to George W. Bush. I say no – our actions are not defined by those of our political adversaries.

I and others are fond of calling the GOP the party of grown-ups. Now, it’s time to act like it. We lost, fair and square. By all means, we should oppose ideas with which we disagree – this is a responsibility of citizenship. But it’s not personal – it’s just politics.

America is bigger than any election and the presidency is greater than any one man. After 16 years of anger (recall that Clinton Hatred preceded Bush Derangement Syndrome), it is time to differ as adults and let dissent end at the water’s edge.

Remember, also, that the presidency of the United States is often, and aptly, described as the toughest job in the world. Only the handful of fellows who have held the office can understand this fully. Mr. Obama, when they opened that massive file for your first intelligence briefing as president-elect, did its contents change your views? I have not read that file, nor have your breathless, face-painting supporters. Only you, sir, have the knowledge of its contents and the power to respond.

From your public pronouncements, I perceive weaknesses in your domestic and foreign policy agenda. But I am working with a bounded rationality and, to be a responsible citizen, I must give you some benefit of the doubt for the good of the nation. If you err, I will say so. Indeed, I have not been shy about criticising you before and, frankly, with all the rapturous adulation round about you, I should think you’d welcome some sober assessment. And sober it shall be, since I doubt any Republican touched a drop of Champagne on election night or since.

To be certain, most of the media will not only give Obama the benefit of the doubt, they will resist until the last possible moment the need to hold him responsible for his own mistakes – and even his most hysterical supporters must admit that he will make them. How long will President Bush be blamed for all that goes wrong? A year from now, a pipe could burst in the White House and the press will say, “See? Bush forgot to winterize the place.”

But, just as Republicans should not repay Democrats’ disrespect of our party’s president in kind, so responsible citizens are not beholden to the excesses of the news media. If NBC’s Chris Matthews wants to maintain his famous leg-thrill for four or eight years, so be it. The rest of us can keep our wits.

And so, President-Elect Obama, I wish you wisdom and Godspeed. If you falter in office, expect to hear about it but, if you outperform my expectations, I will be happy to say so.

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Once More, Without Feeling

2008-11-05T07:46:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is over, might we at last have some civility – and some answers? “Hope” springs eternal.

The contest between Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for leadership of the free world was a visceral affair, wherein reason was often trumped by raw emotion. Obama’s supporters, in particular, were eager to overlook or suppress any inconvenient truth in their desperation to make history. The result was a hurricane of nonsense, with Democrats daring their fellow Americans to differ from destiny.

As just one example, author and noted silly person Erica Jong warned that Obama’s defeat would mean “blood in the streets” and precipitate “a second American Civil War.”

Tantrum is not policy. The terms are separated not only by several pages in the dictionary, but by the divide between sanity and madness. The expectation that a person will not throw a hairy fit if their candidate loses is one reason that voting is reserved for adults.

Since even before he secured the nomination, Obama’s supporters had the safety off and were ready to blast any critic of The One’s policies – no matter the substance – with the most scurrilous of charges.

To comprehend how objecting to a capital gains tax hike can make a person a bigot is to step inside the modern liberal mind. Conservatives and Republicans get used to this, sadly, since we know we cannot order a cheese sandwich without some open-minded agent of “hope” and “change” calling us racist.

But it was not just we misguided advocates of capitalism and clean coal who got smacked this time around. Ordinary citizens, journalists, plumbers and even liberal stalwarts were made to pay dearly for their insolence. One wonders where Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton go to get their reputations back – that is, if they want them returned.

The same folks who tut-tutted that Obama’s 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright should be off-limits were eager to root through the tax, divorce, custody, employment and licensing records of Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher because when the man saw an apparition of Obama at the end of his driveway, he had the nerve to ask the Anointed a tough question.

There is a standing dare to call a Democrat "unpatriotic" and, wisely, Republicans usually avoid falling for that rhetorical trap (Republicans themselves, of course, can be called unpatriotic with impunity – Teresa Heinz Kerry, have your butler call your office). Usually, when challenged to knock that particular chip off a liberal's shoulder, a conservative demurs, saying "of course" the leftist loves his or her country, and the matter is dropped.

Obama may be patriotic, but his priority seems to be himself. Demonstrably, he can say the right things about helping others, but the path of his career and his lifelong choices of allies – Wright, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Michael Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Khalid Rhashidi, et al. – reveal the single-mindedness of a fellow who will do anything to win.

In the closing days of this presidential campaign, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger noted that McCain spent more years serving his country in a POW camp than Obama has spent serving in the United States Senate. Some saw this as irrelevant or improper to point out – rather than a crucial distinction between the lives and careers of the candidates – revealing how skewed some voters’ priorities have become.

Beyond the vicissitudes of this campaign, blank spots remain regarding Obama’s alliances, actions and policies. Barack Obama has emerged from the past two years as the most remarkably unexamined candidate for the presidency in modern history. Now that asking questions cannot possibly endanger the most important election since a caveman first asked for a show of hands, as columnist Jonah Goldberg quipped, can we finally get some answers? Or must the truth remain on hold until 2012?

Theo Caldwell, president of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

How to Watch the Election

2008-11-03T13:07:00.000-08:00

Ever since the Florida fiasco of 2000, every Tom, Dick and Hanging Chad is eager to point out that it is the Electoral College, not the popular vote, that determines the winner of the U.S. presidential election. These budding federalists often fail to note that unless the popular vote differential between the candidates is less than one percent, that total will reveal the victor, but they raise an important point.

Apart from the profound Constitutional significance of the Electoral College – to wit, each state is allotted votes equal to its number of Senators and Congressmen, plus 3 for D.C., for a total of 538, requiring 270 to win – it is extremely handy for those of us watching the election on television.

Since we cannot know the popular vote total until all ballots are counted nationwide, the state-by-state results, assuming proper restraint is used in projecting the winner (Tom Brokaw, call your office), can give us an early indication of who will be the next President of the United States. This year, we can divide states into three major categories.

First, there are “Go To Bed” states. That is, if Democratic Sen. Barack Obama wins any one of these, you can say goodnight to your loved ones (and perhaps to the North American Free Trade Agreement, but that’s another story) and get some sleep. This category includes Ohio, with 20 Electoral College votes, and Florida, with 27. These are points that Republican Sen. John McCain likely cannot make up elsewhere on his path to 270, so the loss of either state would signal the end of the election.

Also worthy of “GTB” status is Missouri. Although the Show-Me State has only 11 Electoral College votes, it is a bellwether, having backed the winner of every presidential election for the past 100 years, with the exception of 1956. And, not for nothing, if McCain cannot capture this mostly conservative state in the center of the country, it means he is having a really bad night.

Conversely, if McCain wins Pennsylvania, make popcorn – we might be up for awhile. With 21 Electoral College votes, this Democratic stronghold has been inching toward the GOP this season, aided by unkind remarks about its citizens from Obama and Rep. John Murtha. Another “Make Popcorn” state is Iowa, with 7 Electoral College votes. The Hawkeye State was supposed to be safe for Obama, but he has felt the need to campaign there in the closing days. The unexpected pick-up of either of these states would buffer McCain against losses elsewhere in the country.

Finally, there are “Put On Your Pyjamas” states (if people wear pyjamas anymore). If McCain loses one of these, things look grim, but hang in for a bit. These include Virginia (13 EC votes), Georgia (15), and North Carolina (15) in the South. Out west, as later polls come in, look at Colorado (9). As for Nevada (5), if McCain loses there, put on your pyjamas and drink some warm milk. But by that time, we will likely know what happened in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, so we will either be snacking or snoring.

If the above analysis seems too tidy to be true, try this twist: Suppose McCain pulls an upset in Pennsylvania but loses Ohio? In that case, when you say your prayers before bed, thank the Good Lord that democracy can be so exciting.

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.