Monday Evening Links

Assorted reading material to close out your day...

- Aaron Wherry nicely highlights the proud Con/Lib bipartisan tradition of proclaiming a "first step" toward dealing with climate change. But it's worth noting that the phrase figures to be a particular favourite for the Cons due to the implication that virtually no progress has been made so far, suggesting that we shouldn't expect to reach a destination anytime soon.

- Andrew Potter's Canadian Business article on inequality is well worth a read:

While we are not living in anything like the original Gilded Age, rising inequality is not a myth, either. The good news about inequality in the United States and Canada is that, unlike inequalities of yore, where kings and aristocrats enriched themselves largely by confiscating wealth from the masses, it is not coming at the expense of those lower down the pay scale. The poor are not being economically impoverished — in fact, they are doing better in absolute terms than ever before. It is just that the very rich are running away from the rest of us. The bad news is that unchecked and runaway inequality, regardless of absolute income levels, and regardless of its causes, has unhealthy consequences that get worse as the chasm between rich and poor grows.

This is why the argument over inequality matters. The stakes are significant, and huge questions of public policy — including the shape of the tax system, the size and scope of social programs, and the priorities of the government — hinge on whether we care to rein in the widening divide between society’s most and least fortunate.

- John Ivison is at least somewhat skeptical of the Cons' current spin on a North American security perimeter. But do we really want to see the issue as merely a matter of political communication rather than one with serious substantive effects?

- Finally, Scott Taylor nicely calls out Peter MacKay for claiming to be the lone clairvoyant who can foresee exactly what F-35s will wind up costing:

Following that dog-and-pony show and some brief discussions with American industry officials, MacKay held a teleconference with Canadian journalists. Along with his counterpart, Industry Minister Tony Clement, MacKay told his selected reporters that the Conservative government is convinced the planned acquisition of 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will be on time and on budget.

Such a ridiculous claim would be laughable were it not for the fact that, with an initial price tag of $9 billion and another estimated $7 billion in lifetime maintenance costs, the project will be the most expensive military purchase in our nation’s history.
...
When questioned about the cost overruns with the Cyclones and Chinooks, Ross admitted only that "in-service support estimation is very hard."

To support this argument, Ross pointed out to the parliamentarians: "We all drive cars . . . but who can tell me what the cost of gas will be next week?"

Apparently, MacKay can.

In fact, MacKay can assure us the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters — a developmental aircraft that is experiencing all sorts of technical teething troubles, a jet we will not officially contract to purchase until 2013 at the earliest and will not take delivery of until 2016 and plan to fly until 2050 — will absolutely be on time and on budget.

That’s unbelievable!

Monday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- Scott Taylor nicely explains the Cons' insistence on buying F-35s rather than look at less expensive and more effective alternatives for Canada's actual defence needs:

Amid the chest poking and bellowing over aircraft capability, cost effectiveness and sole-source bids, one lone voice of reason has sung a totally different tune. Always one to march to his own drummer, the Rideau Institute’s Steven Staples posed the question: why does the replacement for our manned CF-18 fighters have to be a piloted aircraft?

Perhaps the Pentagon subscribes to Staples’ newsletter as it has announced that the U.S. air force plans to have more than one-third of their aircraft be of the un-manned variety by 2020.

Not known for such progressive thinking, Hawn, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, will shout repeatedly to anyone who will listen that Canada needs a piloted fighter — and he should know because he is a former fighter pilot.

No doubt, prior to World War I, many a former cavalryman bellowed to all and sundry that horses will always have a place on the modern battlefield.

- And Paul Wells has another cost-saving proposal based on the Cons' latest excuse to trumpet the F-35s:

Emirates Airlines Flight 201 was a combination of problems. One problem had already been solved: NORAD needed the pilot of Flight 201 to be co-operative—but he already was. Another problem couldn’t be solved at all: who was going to get that explosive out of the cargo hold, if there was any there?

For neither problem is an F-35 “the right equipment.” In fact it’s entirely useless. Or nearly: it does make some people feel better. And by “some people,” I mean “Dimitri Soudas.” Do taxpayers need to spend $16 billion to make Dimitri Soudas feel better? Perhaps. He’s a nice guy. But perhaps he can be made to feel better for cheaper.

I nominate Omar Khadr.
...
I propose that Omar Khadr be put in charge of security for all flights operating in Canadian airspace. This would be simple enough. Put a desk with a telephone in his cell. At intervals, inform him that there is an airliner somewhere carrying suspicious cargo. On these occasions, Khadr’s keepers would glower at him and say, “If anything happens to that flight, you’re in BIG trouble, Buster!”

The phone on the desk in the cell need not even be connected to anything. Omar Khadr couldn’t sort through airborne cargo or coerce an already willing pilot any more than a fifth-generation stealth multi-role fighter could. But he would be more than $15.9 billion cheaper. That’s enough for another GST cut. Everyone wins.

- Meanwhile, the Cons are continuing their campaign as proxies for the Republicans who aren't directly represented on the international stage, this time by attacking both the desirability and likelihood of nuclear stockpile reductions.

- Finally, I'd think the debate is far from settled as to whether the U.S. Democrats could have in fact improved their political position by doing more. But William Saletan (via Aaron Wherry) is at least right about this much if there actually was a tradeoff to be made between passing health care reform and 2010 election results:

But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election. I realize that sounds crazy. We’ve become so obsessed with who wins or loses in politics that we’ve forgotten what the winning and losing are about. Partisans fixate on punishing their enemies in the next campaign. Reporters, in the name of objectivity, refuse to judge anything but the Election Day score card. Politicians rationalize their self-preservation by imagining themselves as dynasty builders. They think this is the big picture.

They’re wrong. The big picture isn’t about winning or keeping power. It’s about using it.