Blogging Reflections

So here we are, three years and 538 blog entries later since I started this page on January 1, 2007. In that first entry, I noted the uniqueness of trying to blog about what was "beneath the surface" of the issues making news from an explicitly Christian perspective, recognizing that the Christian, political, and think-tank audiences I regularly interact with are very different. I thought it was worth the effort because it forced me to articulate perspectives on current issues (and the process of putting thoughts into words assists in clearer thinking) and in the process might be of use to some people.



I haven't really done much work trying to promote readership on this blog, yet its readership has steadily increased. Compared to many blogs, it is an irrelevantly sized readership yet the fact that (depending on the topic), 30-200 people will take the time to check out what is written is rewarding. I simply try to post regularly, put the link on my facebook page, and occasionally check the results out of curiosity. I am amused by the strange google searches that bring people to my page - my references to "nosius decipio", "whosever finds a wife finds a good thing", and "September 3,1572" proving to regularly bring people here. I also must admit to taking some pleasure that there are people on at least five continents who check this page regularly (and in the case of Asia, Africa, and South America, I have no idea who they are.) The only other criteria I have is that I never spend more than 30 minutes on my blog per day, a necessary discipline given how blogging can easily become a distracting sewer for time.

So whereto from here? I read a blog the other day on "the state of the blogosphere" (h/t Justin Taylor)which suggested that blogging was moving to a more establishment mode and that successful bloggers understood their audience. I suspect most who come to this page are looking for a few thoughtful reflective comments that help them make sense of the news. Most are not as interested in the subject material as I am, but somehow think that as a think-tanker whose writings have provided me somewhat of a publicly defined theological and philosophical perspective, they know where I am coming from and can weigh my comments accordingly. However, that by definition is a pretty small market.

For now, I will continue to blog, not so much because of my audience but rather because of the benefits it provides me. It is easy to be a passive reader of the news. Forcing yourself to publicly write something (that is not just a copy of what others have said) about what is going on forces an active interaction with what you read. I am also conscious that there is a small but increasing audience -- a fraction of whose identities I know but the bulk of whom are strangers -- who choose to make these reflections a part of their media intake. In a strange way, they have become friends - people I interact with in my mind (and occasionally through comments, both posted on the page and sometimes sent privately by email) - as I select and draft the entries.

So to my blog followers and friends, whoever you are and in whatever part of the world you live, let me wish you a blessed 2010. I look forward to continuing this interaction and hopefully it will at least provide a good use of the time you invest in checking this page.

Some Political Year-Enders...

No Election in 2010 - A few weeks ago I mused that prorogation made sense to me. It seems this morning that the Prime Minister thinks it makes sense as well. While the opposition may be outraged and Mr. Coyne may make eloquent (although somewhat debatable as it applies to the present case) arguments regarding the importance of Parliament in our democratic system,the bottom line is that Canadians are not enough engaged in these matters to be even outraged. It is not without reason that the news is leaking today, even as most of us and the media are focused on the announcement of the Olympic hockey team. Those who want to make principled arguments regarding the role of Parliament in holding a government accountable and how that is or is not working should probably best spend the next three months refining their strategy on how to attract the attentions of Canadians and try again after the Olympics. Right now, Canadians don't care about politics and the Conservatives will only increase in the polls by staying out of the news except for timely photo-ops. That of course, requires effective management on the issues of the day, but if "the trains run on time," 2010 will be a year without a Canadian federal election.

Why give awards for Newsmakers? - So Stephen Harper is Canada's newsmaker of the year according to CTV but Canwest and Global editors have him "edged out" by President Obama. This is an annual exercise I can't quite figure out. Why is it significant who made the news the most? Surely, what you make the news for is more of a matter of concern. And besides, isn't who (or what) makes the news reflect the judgment of editors as much as it does the contribution of the newsmaker?

The Trudeau Fan Club continues - I suppose the previous point came to mind after reading yesterday's column by Lawrence Martin (Jean Chretien's biographer) pumping Justin Trudeau as "the politician who can change things." I suppose Mr. Martin is free to do what he wants with the op-ed space provided him but that ranked up there as a puff piece as much as any I have seen in a bit. I suppose if Justin Trudeau can command a $10,000 speaking fee from Liberals as reported, he is someone we should keep an eye on but in the future, one hopes that Mr. Trudeau's media promoters would provide a bit more substance for their puffery than did Mr. Martin yesterday. But hey, it is the sort of thing that helps people become newsmakers of the year.

Ray on the Radio

Last night I did a short interview on Calgary's CHQR770 regarding Cardus's recent study on the A Canadian Culture of Generosity and our 29to42 campaign. For those who are interested, you can access the clip on CHQR's website - simply enter December 29, 2009 at 6 p.m. and go to the 47:00 minute mark - the interview runs from 47:00 to 42:40.

If you have not yet signed the 29to42 manifesto, please go to the 29to42 website to do so.

Spending 2009 with Calvin

My 2009 readings have included Bruce Gordon's Life of Calvin, Joel Beeke's Soul of Life: Piety of John Calvin; and W. Stanford Reid's John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World , not to mention commemorative articles and editions of virtually every one of the religious and church magazines I read. While my good intentions of systematically re-reading the Institutes only lasted a few months (and just into Book II), there was plenty of opportunity to dig into Calvin's own writings for various projects and it struck me today that I probably have spent more time on Calvin this year than on any other individual historical person in any other year of my life. I might claim Time magazine's listing of "new Calvinism: as one of the ten ideas changing the world right now as reason for this focus, but most readers of this page know that is really not the case.

This observation came as I do some overdue filing and re-skim of a few of the pieces that I have marked for safekeeping. Included in these are the articles I wrote for Christian Renewal covering the Calvin500 conference in Geneva this past summer. Given that CR is not an on-line magazine, I have posted these articles on my issuu page so they are available on-line.





So what have I learned about or from this focus on Calvin? The articles referenced above contain my reflections on the Geneva conference which place his contribution in historical and theological perspective. I have also gained a greater appreciation for the broader brush strokes of history. In many cases,it was helpful to mentally connect the dots between Calvin and the contemporary author's present position in order to properly understand the appreciation or critique that was being directed Calvin's way. By dealing with several of these in short succession, one also is reminded that no individual has control of their own ideas once they are put into the public. Even among those who would consider themselves heirs of Calvin, there is considerable diversity of opinion on contemporary and historical issues, and it would be folly for each of us to recruit Calvin to our cause. Debates take place in a particular context and circumstance.

But beyond reminding me of the importance of context and method in assessing and applying ideas, having spent 2009 with Calvin provides a timely reminder of the importance of simple obedience in service of God. John Calvin was surely aware of the significance of his ideas during his own time, but I am certain he would not have imagined the place he would have in history. Neither did he set out to make for himself such a place. He simply lived his life, dealing with the issues of his day in the way he best could, and it was the kind dealings of providence that utilized His contribution for such historic influence. As we enter a new year, good advice to take to heart.

Describing the Indescribable

In his Christmas Day sermon, Pastor Overduin focused on the adjectives in the Christmas story. Consider the difference between the angels having said to the shepherds "Behold I bring you tidings of joy to men" as opposed to what we read in Luke 2:10: "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all men." In the course of describing the goodness, greatness, and comprehensiveness of God's love as expressed in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus, Pastor Overduin quoted I Peter 1:8 which speaks of "joy unspeakable."

I have been pondering the adjectives "unspeakable" which appears three times in the KJV: II Corinthians 9:15, II Corinthians 12:4, and I Peter 1:8. I did a quick check on e-sword this morning and was surprised to find that in the original Greek, each of the words translated as "unspeakable" is different. Strong's concordance uses the terms "not expounded in full", "inexpressible" or "unsaid" for the second, and "not spoken out" or "unutterable" for the third.

There is something about the message of the gospel that is quite indescribable or unspeakable, even though we of necessity resort to words to try and express it. Yes "the word made flesh" has come, a miracle indeed that should never cease to amaze us. Pastor Overduin spoke of watching a 90+ member of one of his previous congregations read the Christmas story from a children's Bible and be reduced to tears in amazement at the story with which he was so familiar. Tears, music, inadequate words, just the emotion in your own soul when you try to imagine that " scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8).

Wishing you a Blessed Christmas

From our household to yours, we wish you a most blessed Christmas.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Montreal Gazette urges Giving

and in the process, quotes Cardus' recent study.

What can be done to stimulate more giving? The C.D. Howe Institute, in a recent study, proposed a more generous tax credit for gifts. There may be some merit to that: Cardus, a Christian think tank, says donations in British Columbia increased five per cent after a small increase was enacted there. In 2007 Alberta increased its charitable tax credit sharply, and donors in that province gave $596 on average that year.

Such a change would be a step worthy of consideration at the federal level. The combined federal and provincial tax credit is already high in Quebec, at 49.4 per cent on a $1,000 gift. Real change in giving patterns will depend more on attitudes than on tax breaks.

This desirable revolution in good works can start with you. Almost everyone can find room, in their holiday-time budget, for a modest gift to an accredited charity or charitable institution, or a private kindness to someone less fortunate. The recipient won't be the only one who feels better.

If you have not yet had the chance, check out our 29to42 website, sign the manifesto, and help us change the numbers.

"When It's Always Winter, Never Christmas"

The place of religion in our pluralist society can be a challenging one, particularly when the requirements of a particular faith run counter to prevalent cultural values. Charles Moore has a column in the British Guardian regarding a court case in which the definition of being a Jew, established in the book of Deuteronomy, was recently ruled by the British Supreme Court to be a violation of the Race Relations Act. (h/t to my colleague for bringing this article to my attention.) The article elegantly concludes:

"...(i)f you really do see religion as the problem in society, you are pulling out the threads which have until now held our culture together. You are undermining the largest single motive for providing schooling, nursing, child care and help for the old and poor. You are turning this country into a colder place, where it is "always winter, but never Christmas".

Today's National Post contains an op-ed on the ongoing Christian Horizons case and concludes similarly:

What is at stake here is not simply justice for Christian Horizons, but also the very future of Godly work in Ontario. It is not everyone who seeks to spend their career changing adult diapers and herding groups of developmentally disabled adults around parks, museums and hospitals. Often, it is a special kind of person-- who takes divine inspiration to help the less fortunate. It is therefore wrong to claim -- as Ms. Heintz and her supporters do -- that the work Christian Horizons does can be separated from religious faith and morality.

If you don't believe us, then just try to staff all of Christian Horizons' homes with people who don't care a whit about religion. If Ms. Heintz wins, that's just what the province of Ontario is going to have to do

.

Our time is one in which the public role of religion is being rethought. A decade ago there was a seeming consensus that religion was a private good. Most acknowledged that religious folk did more good than harm and were quite prepared to tolerate them, as long as they kept their religious talk and behaviour totally in the private realm. In the post 9/11 era, I fear that many now view religion as a public bad.

The private to public change is one to be celebrated. Private beliefs have public consequences. The notion that religion can be segregated to prayer closets and churches, mosques, and synagogues is thankfully discredited. What still has to happen is a broadened awareness that we all are religious and that the real debate is about how people of different faiths (including the dominant secular faith) live peacably together.

The religion is good to religion is bad change is obviously one that I do not celebrate. Although those with a secular hubris are quite prepared to relegate "freedom of religion" as a lesser value right than other rights that the exercise of free religion sometimes bumps into, this violates the very basis of our society. True -- some of the questions raised by religion (such as the cases cited in the articles above and one could add many other examples including sharia law into that mix) are difficult ones in which solomonic wisdom is required to carefully bound the spheres of religion and civic frames and the differing standards of behavior that govern each. But simply because religion raises difficult questions, that does not mean we should turn our courts into a Richard Dawkins fan club as if religion poisons everything.

It is encouraging to see articles in the mainstream media that acknowledge the public good that flows from religion, even in the context of cases where religious values are being tested by the courts for their perceived intolerance. However, this is a conversation that is only beginning and the challenges of sorting through these issues only promise to be come more complicated and difficult in the decade to come.

Copenhagen Consequences

It appears that yesterday's agreement is more of a save-face document than a prescription for concrete action, with the delegates at the conference simply agreeing to "take note" of the accord. The lack of fanfare and relatively obscure coverage of this agreement (it is buried on the websites or ranks only subdued coverage on the website of major newspapers - ironically pushed down by a major snowstorm on North America's eastern seaboard) after weeks of seemingly saturation coverage and build-up probably tell us all we need to know about this non-agreement.

Norm Spector's blog this morning insightfully spells out some of the significant domestic political consequences of this agreement. Jean Charest gambled that there would be a deal and tried to strengthen his hand by pre-emptively striking out against Alberta, expecting to gain leverage in the interprovincial talks that would've followed to implement the deal. Now that there is no deal, this gambit will come back to bite him and make Quebec's position(which Calgary Herald readers were told by Licia Corbella this morning, has tooth-fairy like characteristics) in Confederation. Mr. Spector wryly notes that any aspirations Mr. Charest might have had of replacing Mr. Harper as the the next Conservative leader and Prime Minister have also taken a huge hit.

While the Copenhagen talks may not have achieved the binding agreement regarding the environment that activists were hoping for (although with the close of the Copenhagen chapter, the start of the next chapter is only beginning), it does have consequences on the Canadian political environment. The national unity file has become a bit more complicated once again.

Friday Findings....

A few links unconnected items that caught my eye....

It's not just what you do; it is also what you keep others from doing. Ken Boesenkool, in a debate with Andrew Coyne at the Manning Conference last March and again in a debate with Terrance Corcoran at Civitas last May, argued in defence of the Harper government that their accomplishments should be considered not simply in terms of what they are able to achieve with their (minority) government, but what being in government keeps the opposition from implementing. Paul Wells in his Maclean's column today makes a variant of the same point.

The gap between what his government did and what a Liberal government would do is Harper’s game. It is a game of inches, and often it is so full of contradictions and retreats that it is impossible to take the right measure of its effect. It relies on time. Every year he is in power, he puts a little more distance between the real Canada and the one the Liberals wanted. Every year he can do that, and stay popular enough to keep going, is a year he shifts public opinion, just a few degrees, toward his way of thinking and away from his opponents. And 2010 will be the fifth year in a row Harper has managed to keep pursuing that game of inches.

Inside the Coalition Negotiations.I have never met NDP strategist Brian Topp but he seems to me to be a decent and bright guy. I have found his Globe and Mail blogto be generally insightful, rational, and informed and it is one I regularly stay on top off. A few weeks ago (see entries for November 29 through December 4)he compiled a lengthy insiders account of the coalition negotiations that took place a year ago, at which he had a seat at the table. Well worth a read for those who wonder how things political work behind the scenes.

Comment in the Wall Street Journal. In today's WSJ, Jonathan Fitzgerald has an article regarding evangelicals and intellectual life. In it, he positively references Comment, Cardus' thought journal. I presume most who check this page are familiar with Comment but if you are not, check it out. It is available on-line (free) and by subscription (which gets you four fine print copies per year as well.) Although my name appears on the masthead and I make a small contribution, the day-to-day work of publishing of Comment is really the work of Gideon Strauss, Dan Postma, and Alissa Wilkinson. They are a fine group of colleagues, all very competent but also fun to work with, and this reference is just an external validation of the fine work that they do. Congrats to them on another great year!

National Unity - Canadian Style

So the governments of Ontario and Quebec have gone to Copenhagen to criticize the federal government's position on climate change and to paint Alberta as environmental bad boys. It will come as no surprise that the Alberta talk radio crowd was not impressed, with many references to the $5,000 or so net contribution per capita that Albertans provide to the federal purse, with both Quebec and Ontario currently "on the dole" receiving payments as "have-not" status.

I only listened for a short time as I was driving yesterday and in part, am inclined to dismiss talk radio rants for what they are. Today a rant against Ontario; tomorrow against those who are cruel to cats; the day after some other headline-making cause. A somewhat useful tool for keeping up with what people are discussing around the water cooler on a given day but hardly a reliable guide in thinking through issues and what really matters in the long run. If talk radio determined how most of us think about the issues when we are forced to take a position, such as at election time, the country would look quite different than it presently does. It's really more about entertainment than any policy thinking to be taken too seriously.

Still, I will admit to being troubled by the Ontario-Quebec tactic at Copenhagen and that not simply because I disagree on the politics of this issue. For almost twenty years now, we have had a federal political party - the Bloc Quebecois - who have run without any interest in who forms the government. They are quite clear by running only 75 candidates that they will never form the government. They are running and receiving a plurality of votes from Quebecers on the single proposition that they can get a better deal for Quebecers than a party that looks at issues through a national lens. In the last federal election, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams urged Newfoundlanders to vote against the Conservatives simply because of their policy on the inter provincial transfer agreement.

If Canada is nothing more than a series of provinces each negotiating their best local deal without any regard for its impact on the country as a whole, then our survival is a precarious proposition. This did not start this week nor are short term self-serving pronouncements by provincial governments attempting to strengthen their negotiating hand to be taken too over seriously, but it is part of a disturbing trend -- the consequences of which may be far more serious than any of us are presently contemplating.

A Reflection on Humility

From today's devotion in 365 Days with Calvin (although the author of the concluding meditations from which this is drawn is Dr. Joel Beeke:

Humility is the mother of submission and acceptance of guilt. Humbled people are not easily offended but often admit they are far worse than their critics make them out to be. The critic only sees their outward appearance, but they themselves know something of the wretchedness of their own wicked heart. Let us remember two things: first, no matter how we are criticized, we are never criticized as much as our sin merits, even if we are innocent of the accusation leveled against us. Second, if we have Christ, who, being innocent, suffered more for our sake than we will ever suffer for his sake, we have more than enough to cope with any trial (I Cor 10,13; 2 Cor 4:7-12). Drink deeply of the love of Christ, find your delight in the triune God, and you will conquer pessimism and be able to love your critic. (Ps. 37:4)

What isn't Being Reported About Copenhagen.....

Regular readers will by now know that while I do believe the environment is an issue we ought to take seriously, I consider much of what is dominating the news today to be a hyperbolic political reaction (that is amounting to some sort of secular religious cause) to the cause du jour. So yes, I am a bit sceptical and quite tired all the Copenhagen coverage which is seeming just a tad over the top.

That said, there are a few items which I have tripped across in the past few days which do not seem to attracting the news coverage I would think fair-minded journalists would give...

Organizational Chaos - It would appear, based on the blog entry of a 21 year old Trent Student who is in Copenhagen, that thousands of people who registered for the conference are not being let in. I must admit to admiring her gracious tone - I am not so sure that if I had registered for a conference, paid my airfare and other costs to travel across an ocean to be there, I would be as mild as she is in describing this "Failure in Organization."

Inconvenient Truths - It is getting a bit of play but hardly the headlines it deserves when Al Gore makes false claims in his Copenhagen speech. Gore reportedly said: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Dr. Maslowski has called him on this, with Gore's defence being based on a "ballpark figure" related in a private conversation several years ago. So much for "fresh" models.

While not quite on the same point, I would recommend Don Martin's column today as providing a useful background for the dangerous games that various short-sighted Canadian politicos are playing with this issue. Even Jeffrey Simpson is acknowledging the complicated politics that surround the implementation of any deal.

Prorogation? Makes Sense to Me....

I hadn't really considered the option but this morning's speculation that the Conservatives will prorogue Parliament in January to come back after the Olympics with a new throne speech and budget makes eminent sense to me.

The benefits are obvious. The columns referenced above list some of them:

- Parliamentary committees are dissolved and the Afghan issue, among others, will not be raised in any sustained manner again until March;
- Five new Senators can be appointed after January 2nd which will give the Conservatives a majority in that House. It takes a prorogation to change Senate committees and once the majority is obtained, the government will want to utilize that benefit on committee makeup;
- It gives the government time to get lots of photo-ops during the Olympics and makes the opposition fight for news coverage.

I would add a few reasons not listed.

- It buys several months for the economy to gain momentum, for more progress to be made on the various stimulus projects;
- It allows the government to quietly change track on some initiatives / lines of defense that are not proving as successful as they first thought;
- It allows for a throne speech with a more comprehensive framework (probably a new signature platform piece or two) to define the narrative and brand for this government leading into the next election;
- It would allow for a major cabinet shuffle with ministers having time to master their new portfolios before facing the House.

The downside for prorogation is that the bills in process all die, however that isn't really that big of a deal. Usually in a new session, there is agreement to fast forward certain bills to whatever stage they were previously at. All in all, makes a lot of sense.

Refreshed by Sabbath Rest

In the year-end busyness of the past few weeks, I have had little time to slow down. My frenetic schedule ended, however, on Saturday morning with a flight home and I had the delight of a weekend of rest and refreshment which wakes me this Monday morning looking at the challenges of the upcoming with a renewed sense of energy and calling.

Such personal anecdote is really not warranting of blog commentary, except as a segue to reflect on the importance of Sabbath rest in a society where Sabbath is too often misunderstood. Sabbath is not only ceasing from allowing the concerns that occupy our minds the other six days of the week to occupy our minds. It also involves filling our thoughts filling our minds and hearts with matters that will cause us to "delight in the Lord" (Isaiah 58:13-14 being particularly relevant here.)

Yesterday we were blessed by a morning worship service that used the prophecy of Haggai 2:7-9 to focus our minds on Advent good news; a Bible Study that focused on the account of Paul's final journey coming to a dramatic end on the island of Malta; an afternoon service that focused on the doctrine of Effectual Grace, using the account of Thomas in John 20 as illustrative of this biblical teaching, and an evening of a shared meal, fellowship, and singing together with two families from our congregation.

There is much in each of these that deserves elaboration, but Pastor Overduin's afteroon sermon concluded with five truths regarding the doctrine of Effectual Grace (usually called Irresistible Grace to fit the acronym TULIP, but as the sermon pointed out, this sometimes leads to mistaken conclusions.)

1. This doctrine does not diminish human responsibility.
2. This doctrine does not conflict with our will. "We are not brought kicking and screaming into the kingdom nor will anyone be able to say, 'I wanted to be there but was passed by.'"
3. This doctrine does not mean that no one resists God's calling. Acts 7 and Hebrews 3, among other passages, shows that men do resist the means of grace. Irresistible grace explains how that resistance is overcome by the Holy Spirit.
4. This doctrine is what the Risen Saviour is especially about. "The reason for hope for lost sinners is that Jesus lives!"
5. God is pleased to use us as His agents in the His ministry of Irresistible Grace.

It was a busy Sunday (but not too busy to add to the list above an hour's nap and three chapters of reading) but a refreshing one in which body, mind, and soul were filled with stimulating and pleasant nourishment which wakes me up better equipped to face the week ahead.

Preparing for Worship

Tim Challies had an excellent entry yesterday regarding preparation for worship.

(W)hile a pastor bears great responsibility in preparing for and delivering the Word of God each Sunday, the listener shares in the responsibility. The church has no place for an audience. We are all to be involved in the preaching, even as listeners. We may drive home on Sunday muttering about the pastor’s lack of preparation after a less-than-engaging sermon, but how often do we drive away reflecting on our own lack of preparation? How often should we trace our lack of learning or our lack of engagement right back to our own lack of preparation?

Read the whole article here.

Politics of Climate Change

Paul Wells made an interesting point on Power Play last night, which I had intuited before but never put into words quite as he did. Quite apart from one's views on climate change science, the decisions to be made by the government in connection to what may be agreed to in Copenhagen are likely to be more influenced by the politics of the matter.

Adapting Wells' arguments, there are four basic categories of voter attitudes relating to this issue:

The True Believer - They buy all of the science, are convinced that unless radical action is taken now, the world as we know it will soon change, and are prepared to make this the ballot question for their voting. Very few of them ever have or ever will vote Conservative.

The Ethical Believer - They don't really follow the issue carefully but generally buy the fact that something needs to be done, do not want Canada to be a bad global citizen, and are prepared to make some sacrifices.

The Skeptical Believer - They don't follow the issue carefully either but are not all that convinced by what they have heard, are ok with the government doing something but not at the expense of the economy or anything disproportionate, and are likely to cast their ballot on some other question in the next election.

The Climate Change Denier - They disbelieve the science (and are emboldened in their convictions by ClimateGate), think the entire Copenhagen conference (as Kyoto that preceded it) amounts to a bunch of hypocritical hooey, and if they could, would punish any government that gets caught up in the global hysteria.

One can play with the numbers from various polls, but the vast majority of the electorate is in the middle two categories. The bottom line is that by tying themselves to signing an agreement in Copenhagen only if the Americans do, and then tying our targets along to the American targets (something that is politically possible now that Obama is President instead of Bush), the Harper Conservatives have aligned themselves with three of the four groups of voter positions and neutralized the environment as an election issue. The Liberals, on the other hand, having mistakenly (from an electoral perspective - if it is their honest convictions and they were prepared to lose the last election on principle, I commend them for their nobility, although I frankly don't beleive it) fought the last election on the environment thinking CAnadians were ready for a Green Shift, remain positioned to appeal only to the true believers (for whose loyalty they will have to fight on this issue with the NDP and Greens) and a few of the Ethical Believers.

Whatever one might think of the ethics or principles that underly the Conservatives position on this difficult file, they seem to be figured out how to turn what was a liablity into an asset in terms of the politics of the issue.

Harper Trades and is ready to Deal, the Libs are in tough, and the courts get one right!

Several items of political interest that deserve at least passing notice....

Harper's Visit to the Far East - While critics have suggested that over the first four years of the Harper administration, it was neglecting China, the fact remains that Canada- China trade has remained substantial and I understand from skimming the various articles on my weekend plane-rides, even increasing (although I can't presently find on-line data to verify these newspaper claims and don't have time to do thorough research.) Whether they are increasing or remaining stable is secondary to my main point: Canada has been more pointed in its critique of Chinese human rights over recent years, so much so that the Chinese PM did "rebuke" Canada for its take on the Chinese, but still has maintained trade. To his credit, PM Harper made clear that while he was encouraging trade with China, he would not remain silent on the human rights file. A good thing, me thinks.

Copenhagen - Which brings us to a similar challenge facing the PM in Copenhagen. It is clear that the Conservatives have not governed fully in tune with the media and -- if the polls are to be believed, mainstream -- opinion but so far have managed to stay ahead of this. Now we read that PM Harper is pushing for a deal in Copenhagen. The key to this is that the only deal in Copenhagen that Harper will sign I am sure is one that also contains signatures from the US and Chinese governments. Whatever one thinks of the climate change issue -- and the Climate-gate controversy is only polarizing those views further -- most on either side would agree that an international deal that includes the commitments of the US and China is of an entirely different nature and import than one that does not include their sign-on. Is this an issue like trade with China where in the long-term the PM's tactics may pay off politically as well?

Liberal Infighting - Saturday's Star column by Angelo Perischilli contained remarkable allegations of Liberal infighting and mutiny planning. While they all have been denied since, and this morning's papers contains various columns of denials, they do speak to the challenges that face the Liberal party. There is discontent in every party, especially one which is down in the polls, and the corners of Ottawa restaurants have overheard candour not typically shared in caucus meetings. It is, however, the lack of a clear articulated plan going forward that will always increase the discontent. The Liberals have spent the past year focused replacing the Conservatives asap, anticipating they were one Harper misstep away from office. Harper misstepped a few times and they did not capitalize and then Ignatieff misstepped with his "Your time is up Mr Harper" pronouncement in September. Having now recognized that to be a misstep, Ignatieff is trying to reorganize and develop a new narrative for the Liberal troops to rally around. Until that narrative is complete, there will be lots of dark mutterings and questions about different ways of proceedings. It's simply an inevitable part of the equation at this stage in the Liberal life. Simply confirms that being the Leader of the Opposition is the most difficult job in politics.

The Courts Get One Right - Last weeks decision on Stephen Boissoin setting aside a human rights tribunal decision that limited Boissoin's right of free speech on sexual orientation is a major victory on this matter. Having been disappointed on this issue by Human Rights Tribunals, governments that inappropriately intervened, and legislatures that failed to act in a timely manner to deal with an obvious misuse of the legislation by the tribunals, it is encouraging to see the courts make the right decision on this matter. Kudos to those who persevered on the right side of this most important issue.

Taking Note - Jonathan Wellum Moving On....

One of the privileges of my job is the opportunity to meet with interesting people. I write this from my hotel room just outside of Los Angeles, where I have spent the past two days with fifty leaders in Christian education from across North America, discussing issues related to our Education project.

I notice that Jonathan Wellum, one of Cardus' Senior Fellows, announced yesterday that he is moving on from his current position as CEO and Chief Investment Officer of AIC to form his own investment company. I have come to value Jonathan's wise counsel and insights on various matters and am most thankful, as he noted to the G&M reporter, that in this next stage of his career, he hopes to continue providing his commentary and insight on current developments in the economic world. We will all benefit from his considered perspectives.

Understanding Youth Culture

My present airplane reading is Christian Smith's new book entitled Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. I am only a few chapters in but have found some of the data and analysis to be very insightful, albeit quite troubling when you begin to ponder the implications.

A sampling of what I mean taken from page 52:

(I)t is difficult for emerging adults-- lacking access or appeal to any real moral reference point independent of their own subjective perceptions, socialization, and experience -- to see how commonly binding moral judgments might be rationally justified or moral disagreements adjudicated. All that human beings finally have, they assume, is each person's experience, and different people see different things different ways, so the best anyone can do is obey civil laws and not hurt one another. (Exactly what moral principles deserve to be institutionalized in law and why is often an opaque matter beyond their ability to explain; but in true pragmatic fashion, figuring that out doesn't matter as much, for many, as simply knowing what in fact is the law and working with it.) In the end, few emerging adults are equipped to make and explain broadly applicable, reasoned moral judgments. What they do instead is either form their own strong "opinions" and keep to themselves or dismiss such concerns as impossible and simply do their best to live up to the beliefs they learned as they were raised.

Still on Hiatus

My intentions to blog are noble, but my time is scarce. So for at least the next week or so, entries on this page will continue to be more sporadic than regular.