Time to revise my predictions now that we are close to tip-off time for game #1.

1. Chicago
2. Toronto (+1)
3. Detroit (+1)
4. Boston (+1)
5. Washington (+1)
6. New Jersey (-4)
7. Cleveland
8. New York
9. Miami (+2)
10. Orlando
11. Milwaukee (-2)
12. Atlanta (+2)
13. Philadelphia (-1)
14. Charlotte (-1)
15. Indiana

I guess I’m reading too much about Shaq being in such great shape and now getting Ricky Davis to help while Wade is out I couldn’t leave Miami in 11th but I still think they are going to be a bust. For New Jersey, Kristic is still recovering and Carter is playing like a little girl again now that he has his contract renewed. Also, I can see Washington doing worse and Cleveland too. New York could be better as could Orlando and Milwaukee. Obviously Detroit could pass TO. Boston is not going to live up to expectations but still will do well.

Here are a few good articles about Iran. “Good” in the sense that they present the arguments for both sides of the attack vs. do not attack issue.

The do not attack argument fails on at least 3 points:

1. Iran is not Iraq. Therefore, you can’t point to the failure in Iraq as evidence for why there should be no attack against Iran. First, there was never any credible evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the West. Iran, on the other hand, is bragging of its efforts to develop a “peaceful” nuclear capability. The trouble is, Iran refuses to limit its uranium enrichment to peaceful levels. So, Iran definitely constitutes a threat whereas Iraq did not. Second, the attack against Iran would be an airwar and not an occupation. It would be designed to set back Iran’s nuclear program and could be repeated whenever the program progressed to the point where the threat reappeared. No dead US soldiers, no allied occupation, no occupation. Iran is not Iraq.

2. There is good reason to fear that Iran’s leadership would not be deterred by the concept of MAD - mutually assured destruction - which deterred the Soviet leadership from using nukes all through the cold war years. These religious fanatics might actually like the prospect of (a) bringing on Judgment Day via nuclear armaggedon, or (b) just reshuffling the deck through a nuclear exchange with the West in the hope that this time it gets dealt a better geopolitically strategic hand (especially when there’s always prospect (a) to fall back on).

3. Appeasment doesn’t prevent war, it just makes it worse when it happens. Weren’t we supposed to have learned this already from WW2? The best time to stop Hitler would have been when he reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of the peace treaty ending WW1. Yes it would have meant war but it would have been fought entirely in Germany, it would have been of short duration, and its outcome would have certain victory for the West. How many millions of lives would have been saved? How much misery prevented?

It’s a simple choice. Iran is a nuclear power or Iran is a smouldering ash heap. I don’t see how you get to any other alternative. The US will bomb Iran before Bush ends his term because it is too risky for him to leave it to the next President who may be Hilary Clinton. Guiliani would do it but he has to get elected first.

I’d rather take the consequences of bombing Iran then let them acquire the means of starting a new cold war.

‘Bionic’ nerve to bring damanged limbs and organs back to life
University of Manchester

Researchers will soon be able to replace damaged nerve cells with new ones converted from fat cells. Instead of talking nerves from an unaffected part of the body and grafting them into an injured limb, these new cells will be used to make the patient whole again. “The patient will not be able to tell that they had ever ‘lost’ their limb and will be able carry on exactly as they did before.”

In this latest bid at political correctness the sensibilities of radical muslims wins out over the desire of bereaved parents to know why their children died. Why do I say “radical” muslims? Because surely only a radical would be pleased by this spineless obeisance paid to a piece of cloth by those whose professional duty is to look below the surface for the truth. Well, the popular press has long since stopped acting like professionals.

Gov. Huckabee is running for the US Republican Presidential nomination. He won’t get it but he has a good idea. His idea is to eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes. He correctly points out that corporate income tax is really just a tax on the consumer because companies just treat tax as a cost of production and pass it along in the price charged to consumers. That’s not new but it’s not often spoken of - in fact it’s completely ignored by Canadian politicians who are deathly afraid of suggesting we reduce let alone eliminate corporate taxes.

But Huckabee also would eliminate personal income taxes as well. He points out that all the offshore capital now safely out of the reach of the tax authorities would come back into the economy. Even better, the deterrent income tax poses to increased productivity would be gone and the economy freed to run at full production.

So how does the government pay for itself? With a tax on consumption. His proposal is a 23% sales tax. It sounds bad but its better than an income tax. With no income tax the black market economy would service and end up paying the sales tax. A monthly “prebate” would compensate (in advance) poor individuals for the tax they would end up paying for living essentials. This would make it progressive as the poor would be exempt and those who can afford to spend a lot would pay a lot.

It also has the advantage of being open and immediate - in your face - so there would be continuous pressure on government to keep it at an absolute minimum.

Prime Minister Harper is a scholar who understands the lessons of history, especially with regard to Canadian politics. Conservatives by their nature are more prone to stand on principle than party loyalty. This is both a strength and a potential weakness if it is not kept within the parameters of effective collective action.

The time for MPs to express opposition to party policy is within the party caucus before a final decision is made. This must certainly be true of all confidence measures such as a vote on the budget for a Conservative government to survive. Once the decision is made, if a member is still unable to support it and votes against it, he effectively abandons the caucus and joins the opposition.

It is not Bill Casey’s opposition to the budget but the fact that he cast a vote to bring down the government over it that has resulted in his present predicament. For Harper to signal his acceptance of Casey’s ploy by welcoming him back into the caucus would risk the kind of division that have been the bane of conservative parties in the past.

The principle of caucus solidarity is essential to effective party leadership. Giving it up is far too high a price to pay for welcoming Casey back into caucus.

Ok, so I like to mess with poll numbers - and here’s another one. But I’m going to give up on the weekly Decima polls simply because they report them too often. This latest is from Ipsos-Reid, which I think is second to SES Research as the best polling firm. Nationally the results are 40-28-16-8-7 (CPC-Lib-NDP-BQ-Green). Running them through the UBC election forecaster gives us the following results:

CPC = 148
Lib = 95
BQ = 45
NDP = 19

So the Conservatives are within 7 seats of a majority. Someone last week said that you have to spot the Conservatives an additional 5% because of how well they run their campaigns. If that is true, and I suspect it is, then an election call in the next little while is going to give us a majority. Fingers crossed.

CBC reports that Stephane Dion is such a fervent supporter of the Kyoto Protocol that he named his dog “Koyoto”. I find it mind-boggling how the trash that emanates from CBC can pass for journalism in anyone’s eyes. The measure of Dion’s “support” for Koyoto is not what he calls his dog, its what he did, or did not do, as a minister of the previous Liberal government from 1993 to 2005, including a long stint as Environment Minister.

Dion and his party committed to reduce green house gas emissions by 20% but instead allowed them to rise by 30%. The UN said that this increase in pollution was the worst by any Koyoto signatory.
Some Canadians would prefer to be lied to by Liberals like Dion and CBC pseudo-journalists who mouth eco-friendly platitudes than be told the truth by Conservatives. They think it better to talk the talk than come up with a plan that can be implemented without ruining the economy and destroying the prosperity which allows us the luxury of directing our attention to environmental concerns.

If the NDP and Greens had their way Canada’s economy would be such a shambles that environmental concerns would disappear from public discourse replaced by desperate demands for the government to do something about unemployment and poverty. At least when the Liberals were in power they didn’t wreck the economy by trying to achieve Koyoto’s ruinatious targets. But why do some Canadians feel better by supporting a party that lies to them? Are these people really friends of the environment or archtypical hypocrites?

Prof. Cochrane makes some excellent points suggesting a visionary conservative platform is necessary to attract voters. Like I said in a previous post, if the voters want a Liberal government they will vote Liberal.