Perhaps with the UN’s many commemorative days, weeks, etc., etc., they also have a “Rapporteurs‘ Week”. If so, last week might have been it.

First there was the story mentioned in my last post, about Rapporteur de Schutter,  who was investigating Canada’s food distribution. Now another of the rapporteurs, James Anaya, is in the news. He is suggesting that, amongst other things, Mt. Rushmore should be given to Native Americans. Fair enough.

This assertion quickly made it onto Bill O’Reilly’s “Dumbest Things of the Week”. While acknowledging the historical wrongs done to Natives, O’Reilly and his panelists couldn’t resist subjecting that proposal to some typically pithy commentary. It was debated further here.

Readers may judge for themselves the UN’s ability to prioritize. Suffice it to say that, Europeans having wiped out what might pass for indigenous peoples on their continent centuries ago, they are free to poke around elsewhere. Fortunately, they have to problems of their own to occupy them.

   

 Prime Minister Harper was criticized for saying, in the 2004 election campaign, that there were institutions that would counteract a Conservative government. If memory serves, he mentioned the judiciary and the Senate specifically. He might also have included international organizations and agreements.

This came to mind the other day with a story that the UN was planning to investigate Canada regarding her “food supply issues”. We can expect the imminent visit of the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter. If you made up that name and title you couldn’t have done better. There are, no doubt, hundreds more where he came from. They must rank close behind beer and chocolate amongst Belgium’s most expensive exports.

So it is that, in a remarkable feat of focus and prioritization, the UN is investigating snags in Canada’s food distribution system rather than say, problems in sub-Saharan Africa. That provided Bob Rae the opportunity to get on his soapbox and blame “Harper government cuts” for the prospective UN visit.

As tempting as it might be to impugn the high-minded motives of UN officials like M. de Schutter, we’ll set the specifics of this case aside. More troubling is the general pattern of behavior characterized by de Schutter and Rae, namely the affinity of “progressive” politicians for fine-sounding international agreements and un-elected technocrats from international agencies. They are, after all, cut from the same cloth.

It is awfully convenient for those of Rae’s ilk, when they cannot get a mandate from Canadians to implement their political agenda, to reach out – in the name of internationalism – to extra-national agencies for support. Similarly, when they don’t dare reveal certain policy directions domestically they can enter into international agreements, or simply make international pronouncements, while claiming they will not be binding on Canada. So why enter into them then? In reality, this is often like stashing a card up your sleeve to retrieve it at an opportune moment.

I experienced the effect of this during my sojourn in Ottawa.  In policy discussions with officials, one would frequently hear the comment “that contravenes the spirit of” such and such an obscure agreement, ruling or statement made years before and known only to them and the international bureaucratic community. The fact that it was the elected government of Canada, at least one or two steps of democratic legitimacy closer to the public, seeking to implement the policy seemed to get lost much of the time.

So it is that Leftish politicians and activists seek to bind Canada in myriad international entanglements, in cooperation with their like-minded confreres overseas. More importantly perhaps is that Canadian judges have made a habit of alluding to these international “commitments” when ruling on domestic legislation. As they have “read in” certain things into the constitution, so have they used aspects of international agreements to overrule or modify domestic legislation.

Ironically, much of the Left has been vocal in its opposition to internationalism of a different kind, namely economic agreements. Their enthusiasm for extra-national control in areas such as social policy and environment evaporates when it comes to externally-imposed fiscal austerity. The Euro-left, for example, seems to have re-discovered nationalism in the face of the EU’s financial strictures.

Internationalism can cut both ways. The main problem with it is the erosion of national sovereignty and the binding decisions made by unelected officials, between cocktails parties in distant capitals. Limited international governance should be a corollary to limited national and local government. The further removed from the individual citizen, the less democratic legitimacy. Local through national representatives are at least directly elected.  Not so officials in Brussels, Geneva or New York.

The Harper government has tended to pursue individual trade agreements they believe are in Canada’s best interest, while shying away from sweeping international undertakings of uncertain scope and impact to Canada. This is prudent. Unelected officials like Monsieur de Schutter seem all too eager to stick their nose into our business. Don’t call us, we’ll call you Olivier.

   

All indications are that the PCs have won a majority government. Blue Tories across the province and across the country will be feeling the pain.  Pollsters may want to take down their shingles for a while until the dust settles.

First popular vote numbers show the government at 44%, Wildrose at 34%. It appears the left-of-centre vote has collapsed and gone to the PCs, at least in southern and rural Alberta.

Get used to those letters – “PC” – because the word “conservative” will likely be in short supply for a few years yet. It’s hard not to overstate the negatives of this result, with Canada’s economic engine sliding ominously to the left.

The role of the media in this result will surely float to the top of the barrels of sour grapes over the coming days. Better leave it at that, rather than write something that will be regretted later.

   

There are so many layers to the CBC debate that  I can’t resist adding some (more)comment. I feel a little bad singling out Jonathan Kay for criticism – because I agree with many of his views – but the CBC is such a hot button for many taxpayers that it simply screamed out for rebuttal. Full disclosure, and perhaps I should have made this clear last time – I know Jonathan Kay personally and he was my editor at the National Post for several years, while MrK and I were still able to write more frequently.

It’s what Jonathan describes as a commonly held view of the CBC’s role: the “creation and sustenance” of a “coast-to-coast identity” that I keep coming back to. As discussed in my last entry, the identity created by the CBC is one that many Canadians feel does not reflect them and their views.

But what of the broader question of whether such an identity needs “creation” in the first place? I think there is a strong argument to be made that Canadian identity is formed organically through our individual and shared experiences. I would argue that, every day, Jonathan Kay is building this identity, as much or more than anyone at the CBC. So are the private television networks, CTV and Global, not to mention Sunmedia.

That commerciality is somehow incompatible with identity building simply doesn’t follow. Is the little-watched CTV Newsnet any less Canadian than the little-watched CBC Newsworld? A model of national identity that depends on a group of elite arbiters at a public broadcaster in Toronto seems, again, incongruous with the age of instant networking. Come to think of it, CBC’s centralized arbitration of culture and identity didn’t work that well in its heyday 30 or 40 years ago. Did traditional fiddling or church music become less meaningful to people just because CBC executives decided to cancel Don Messer and Hymn Sing?

The second part of what JK gives as typical justifications for tax-subsidy of CBC is the “support of homegrown artists and intellectuals”. You get into deep water on this one pretty quickly. It’s the latter that he defends specifically in his piece.

This is odd. The fact that he wrote a well-researched, provocative book should speak for itself. Sure, it would be nice to get extra recognition on a tax-subsidized network, but is it necessary or even desirable? Call me a contrarian, but I don’t see the point of seeking affirmation from what Matt Gurney calls a “self-styled elite”, nor do I see any attraction at being part of some kind of pan-Canadian collection of intellectuals. What litmus tests would my ideas and conduct have to pass and what “incorrect” positions would I have to drop or soften to gain favour? Again, the ability in the digital age to interact with sympathetic, sharp, original thinkers spontaneously – without application of any ideological yardsticks – seems much more preferable.

I needn’t remind readers that the new conservative movement in Canada, which began in the mid-1980′s, arose completely outside of, and essentially in opposition to the pre-existing “Canadian consensus”. In fact, the “right-thinkers” of the political establishment and commentariat went through a kind of mini 12-step process over the years with regard to the new conservatism. It went something like: first ignoring it – then surprise – then virulent,  vehement opposition – then smouldering contempt and/or ongoing derangement. Notice that, unlike other psychological processes, with much of the establishment has been no ultimate stage like “acceptance” or “resignation”.

It’s probably no exaggeration to say that many conservatives wear the contempt of the old establishment like a badge of honour. Our ideas, like Jonathan Kay’s work, stand on their own merit. It would be nice to have our ideas subsidized by others, especially our opponents, but let’s not stoop to that.

   

Maybe it was just an over-indulgence of lamb chops at Easter, but I could have sworn that the National Post featured one or two opinion pieces last week defending the CBC. The impetus was a story that, due to the cuts to the broadcaster’s budget, CBC Radio One might have to run ads. Shocking.

Jonathan Kay used this to not only defend the Mother Corp, but to stand up for what he termed intellectual elitism. Kay starts off on the wrong foot. He quotes a New Zealand study saying that most developed countries have public broadcasters – the U.S. is an “outlier”. Suffice it to say that numbers do not equal truth. One could just as easily argue that public broadcasting is an archaic hold-over from the statist “consensus” of the last century, and that it lingers on in these countries.

Kay goes on to list what he calls the “usual” justifications for tax-paid broadcasting – “creation and sustenance of a coast-to-coast identity, and support for homegrown artists and intellectuals”. Presumably he agrees with this – and with the CBC’s role in supporting what he terms “good old-fashioned intellectual elitism”. This opinion appears to have been positively influenced by the CBC granting him a full-length interview after the publication of his recent book. He goes on to caricature commercial AM radio as what one might sum up as defecation, demagoguery and the horizontal mambo.

In response, Matt Gurney wrote a (not surprisingly) rather soft rebuke of his Post colleague where he, among other things, countered Kay’s depiction of commercial AM. Gurney’s strongest point is that if “the intellectual elites won’t pay up to save a service they value, they are neither intellectual nor as elite as they perceive themselves to be.” Bravo.

He makes an interesting additional point that niche advertisers would actually seek out CBC radio’s audience. This is certainly corroborated by my experience listening to private classical music broadcasters. There are many such stations that combine advertising with pledge drives where the “elite” can pony up to support their choice.

Kay’s model of elite broadcasting is hardly, to use a favourite term of the Left, “sustainable” in the 21st century. Taxing the Booboisie to fund the elite programming you want – just because you can – just doesn’t jive with an age where almost everyone can access content on the internet. There just about any group, for better or worse, can build its own “network” spontaneously, without having to tax others for the privilege.

The political dimension is, in my mind, where the CBC adds insult to injury, but is something that Kay gives short shrift. He states that “populist conservative voices such as Rex Murphy, Don Cherry and Kevin O’Leary” are “now a big part of CBC’s public face”. He similarly maintains that CBC has “changed a lot” in recent years. Must be a different CBC than the one I listen to.

Forgetting for a moment that Cherry has been targeted by the aforementioned intellectual elite as an antediluvian knuckle-dragger, the “public face” comment reminds me of the time an editor at the Globe and Mail told me, as proof of their objectivity, that they “featured Preston Manning and Gwyn Morgan”. As if a couple of articles a year, like Cherry’s eight minutes a week, counts against the establishment torrent.

The fact is that CBC has a viewpoint and it is certainly not conservative. Using the oft-repeated mantra of the Left, that “less than 40% of Canadians” vote Conservative, one wonders how CBC would be transformed if its editorial and opinion positions approached 40% conservative. It would be unrecognizable.

But that is what one would expect from a tax-funded broadcaster, something approaching representation of a cross-section of Canada. Many (most?) Canadian taxpayers do not see themselves reflected by the CBC, which is certainly one source of common dissatisfaction. The “coast-to-coast” identity created by the broadcaster might represent our urban intelligentsia or perhaps fit from one coast of the 416 to the other.

Its flagship shows like As it Happens and Sunday Edition have that comfy, early Eighties feel, if you’re into that. Like they were set in red aspic. A case in point was last week’s episode of Sunday Edition, which included a feature called God I’m Angry, a “look at faithful indignation, the connection between fury and belief”. Subtly enough, that was played on Easter Sunday.

Readers may recall that, some years ago, Sunday Edition‘s host Michael Enright was embroiled in a controversy. It seems he referred to the Catholic Church as “the greatest criminal organization outside of the mafia.” Last Sunday’s show was perhaps mild by comparison, and the show’s supporters might point out that the report covered ALL religions, not just Christianity. Remarkably, a church-affiliated college later conferred an honorary degree on Enright.

CBC listeners over the last few weeks will have witnessed the rather unfortunate, repeated reporting of the budget cuts to the corporation. Apparently this is a major news item. This is interspersed with calls for listeners to write in with their reaction to the cuts, notes that are then read on-air. Of course chat like this occurs around the water cooler when cuts happen in the private sector, but those people can’t broadcast nationally. This very personalized coverage on CBC accompanies reports on the broader federal cuts: e.g. cuts to food inspectors will result in innocent deaths, and reduction in border security will see terrorists infiltrating Canada.

What remains then is the question whether tax dollars should fund a broadcaster as much ignorant of as it is hostile to a large segment of Canadians. If the U.S. is an indication, networks like NPR (which still receives tax dollars) and MSNBC on cable TV survive to represent views similar to CBC. Canadians must continue to question whether such views deserve to be subsidized by taxpayers. Is such subsidy consistent with a free society in the 21st century? Jonathan Kay concedes that a pledge drive for CBC would have little success. What does that tell you?

   

With the number of words written about the federal government’s omnibus crime bill, which is about to pass into law, there might be an argument for mandatory maximums in journalism. Certainly the debate over mandatory minimum sentences has been exhaustive and, at times, exhausting.

Opponents of the legislation have argued that mandatory minimums “don’t work”, that they are too expensive to enforce, etc. They essentially boil down to a set of utilitarian arguments and/or cost-benefit analyses. My belief is that these arguments miss the point of the debate, which is why conservatives and liberals, “experts” and laymen often seem to be talking past each other on these issues. Nevertheless, let’s examine some of them.

When people say mandatory minimums “don’t work”, I assume they mean that they don’t modify criminal behaviour, don’t diminish recidivism, etc. Jonathan Kay, for example wrote that they wouldn’t “reduce drug use or improve public safety”.  We’ll forego the intuitive argument that one more criminal behind bars is one less threatening the public.  The assumption must be that there is a virtually endless supply of thugs stepping up to take their place. Or, better put, there is enough of a revolving door in the penal system to keep a fairly constant number of criminals on the street. Fair enough.

Then there is the limited resources argument. Again, quoting Kay: “Even as things stand, prosecutors can only prosecute about 10% of their caseload … C-10 may push that number into single digits.” This was echoed in coverage of the provinces’ unwillingness to foot the bill for the new legislation. Regarding the latter, some commentators rightly asked what other provisions of the constitution the provinces might agree to suspend – as it is, in many cases, their constitutional obligation to pay for incarceration. More cynical observers wondered why this should be the first time certain provinces cared about the cost of anything. Regarding case backlogs, my suspicion is that the legal system is bogged down in myriad trivialities and nuisance cases. Would it not be possible to prioritize based on the most violent and egregious crimes?

Others argue that violent crime statistics are on the decrease (although this is disputed), so “what’s all the fuss about”? This is one variant of the cost-benefit argument. The “social cost” of this insignificant amount of crime is so small that there is no benefit to harsh penalties.

Here are some words of rebuttal. The last argument reveals one aspect of the yawning chasm between “Left” and “Right” in the crime debate. The absolute number of crimes, or criminals, has absolutely nothing to do with what an appropriate punishment might be. Ironically, the “decreasing crime” gambit partly undermines the “limited resources” one. Confused yet?

Secondly, it reveals a common view of the Left that I mentioned in my last post – the treatment of crime as some kind of sociological experiment, and society as a laboratory. This view pays lip service to victims and violent crime – “Of course we’re ALL concerned about …” – but in reality focuses almost exclusively on the criminal. In fact, this approach could be called “beyond victims” because it only kicks into gear after the crime has been committed. It bears mentioning that the criminal-centric approach is of course steeped in the Left’s belief that much crime originates due to social inequity, economic pressures, etc. Hence the aforementioned desire for state intervention to “cure” this social ill.

To traditionalists, I hesitate even to use the word conservative because this transcends ideology, crime and punishment are seen as completely different phenomena. Crime, regardless of the individual’s circumstance, is seen as a conscious act for which the individual must bear responsibility. Punishment is a simple reflection of justice being done. Action brings reaction. Justice has not been done the victim, and by extension society, until the “debt” has been paid.

Again, the bias on the other side (although they usually deny it) is to very quickly skip over this uncomfortable phase. They want to jump right on to the rehabilitation part. They want to debate statistics and round up the usual group of criminologists.

Traditionalists, by contrast, will insist on a just punishment as the first order of business. Rehabilitation is fine and necessary, but the very public censure and sentencing must come first. This does not even address more traditional concepts like public shaming and restitution to the victim and/or their families, which generally stick in the collective craw of the Left.

A significant part of the public understands this concept of justice at the gut level, while the “experts” almost by definition do not. Even some skeptics of mandatory sentencing admit this. Matt Gurney recognizes the gap between the public and “legal insiders” in determining what constitutes “harsh” sentencing. He goes on to say: “… what the public feels is not (irrelevant) when dealing with public safety (No kidding!). Even if legal experts would prefer to keep the administration of criminal justice “in the family,” they ignore public sentiment at their peril — if the public believes the courts are going too easy on criminals, they’ll support efforts like mandatory minimums regardless of whether they are objectively a good idea.”

And that is the nub of it. Much of the public believes the “system”, the legal echo chamber, is too soft on criminals. And there is no lack of evidence for this. Stephen Taylor gave just one example - a Quebec cyber-predator, who preyed on 285 young girls, was sentenced to … wait for it … two years in prison. Prosecutors had asked for five years. This is the type of sentence that causes the public to lose faith in the judiciary.

Finally, I want to refute Jonathan Kay’s contention that the government’s position is “intellectually bankrupt”. He drew part of his analysis from attending a meeting of just the kind of experts we’ve been talking about (although it did include a former victims-rights advocate). He believes the government’s position constitutes a “complete divorce between policy-making that affects millions of people, and real-life research and experiences offered by men such as Messrs. Simmons, Oscapella and Sullivan (the experts); that it is based on neither “evidence (nor) expertise”. Well, what about the “real-life-experiences” of those who disagree? None of the expert analysis negates the right of victims and the public to demand a minimum level of punishment for specific crimes, nor contradicts victims’ and society’s organic sense of justice.

   

Two recent articles highlight the perplexing, but also frightening worldview of the Left when it comes to guns and criminality. One article concerns the recent vote to eliminate the gun registry in the Canadian Parliament, the second described judicial push-back on mandatory minimums for gun crimes.

The arguments around the registry are well-known. One might tersely sum up the conservative position as follows: the registry was a sweeping punishment of the many for the crimes of (literally) a tiny, unhinged minority. The corollary was that the anti-criminality argument fell down simply due to the fact that criminals don’t register their weapons. Duh.

The other article features a judge challenging the mandatory minimum sentence for a gun play incident on the grounds that it contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Admittedly, the case in question is marginal, suggesting that either the law was a touch too broad, or that the individual was charged with the wrong offence. In any case, veterans of the political arm of government will recognize the use of “the Charter” as the frequent and often first refuge of public officials who disagree with government policy. More on mandatory minimums in a subsequent post.

While conservatives are asked to justify a certain liberality toward guns in general, Left-liberals are rarely asked to justify their position. If one is sufficiently anti-gun to support restrictions on everyone’s freedom, how can one propose comparative leniency for those who ACTUALLY USE guns in crimes? The usual response is a solemn declaration that liberals are really serious about violent crime but, nudge-nudge wink-wink, we know how that’s worked out in practice.

Believe it or not, there is a philosophical consistency in these positions. Both penalizing the peaceful citizenry, who just want to be left alone, and coddling criminals have the same underlying assumption; namely, that an activist state is the best solution to any problem.

If one is a reflexive statist then setting up a large bureaucracy to impose intrusive infringements on everyone’s freedom makes perfect sense. The fact that most on the Left are also “icked-out” by guns certainly plays a part too.

Similarly when that previously suspect citizen, who up to then has perhaps only been guilty of thought crimes, actually commits a violent act – that changes everything. All of a sudden, the whole apparatus of the state swings into action, treating crime and punishment as some kind of sociological experiment; the criminal caught up in the great sweep of history, the victim of immutable social forces.

So it is that society becomes some sort of great laboratory presided over by the legal trifecta – politicians, lawyers and judges. Again, the logical consistency, such as it is, in the Left’s position on guns, etc., is in a sense a functional one: whatever the “problem”, the solution is increased intervention and interference by the state.

Statist “solutions” then, except in a very few areas (like the use of recreational drugs) trumps personal liberty. It is also worth remembering that it’s the process of these solutions, the lumbering engagement of the state, that is ultimately very much in the economic interest of the legal arbiters. Let’s not even think how many people are extremely well paid to do all that interventionist busy work. It’s too depressing.

   

Anyone born after 1960 has their own views about following the Baby Boomers through their self-obsessed, self-declared “journey”. The pervasiveness of their music, fashion and politics has been much documented. Some of us have been following this from their real adolescence, through a second adolescence to, I guess, the inevitable second childhood.

Nowhere is this more in evidence than in Florida, where the first Boomers are making themselves at home. What differentiates these retirement newcomers from the older retirees is fairly obvious. The older crew will be familiar to most readers. They look pretty much like your grandparents. The folds, creases and wrinkles are pretty much where you expect them to be, as are the distended, and gravity-affected body parts. The Sunbelt uniform is there too, the ill-fitting golf shirts and Bermudas.

The new-comer Boomers are something else altogether. Imagine the aforementioned physiology trussed up in Spandex and Lycra and you’ll get the idea. That’s not to say that the younger crew doesn’t display a higher level of fitness; by-and-large it does. It’s just that there is also ample evidence of artificial enhancement.

Not that this should come as a surprise. It’s just when you see the effect, the very taut skin along the female jaw line for example, that you can’t help but be taken aback. To paraphrase my sister, somebody had to graduate at the bottom of plastic surgery school. The worst results, ranging somewhere from the surgery scene in Brazil to Jack Nicholson’s Joker, are something to behold.

Another emerging subculture are the geriatric Easy Riders, perching their ample girth on late-model Harleys. It’s not quite a Python sketch, but it’s really something.

You’ve likely seen them on summer highways up north – grey-white pony tail, short black helmet with comm-link to their “old lady” behind, holding on for all she’s worth. Wonder if the septuagenarian bikers still call them “old ladies”? The sleek two-wheel cycle-trailer rounds out the picture.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Enterprising marketers will already be taking note. There’s a free-spending demographic there, ripe for the picking.

So post-Boomers steel yourselves. Get ready for the increased onslaught of ads- the little blue pills, the cartilage-restorers, hearing aids, the “Clapper”, you name it. If there’s a silver lining, those Boomers may be inventing a much more liveable version of retirement than our parents and grandparents knew; and we may actually live to enjoy it.

   

The departure of Andrew Coyne from Maclean’s no doubt rippled through the magazine’s subscribers, although to the time-challenged adults in this household, it took some weeks to even register. Meanwhile, I’d noticed opinion pieces by Emma Teitel appearing near the front of the magazine.

One on the Occupy Movement, was interesting enough, despite being weighed down by the first person singular. In subsequent weeks, as the absence of Coyne and Barbara Amiel seemed frequently to be filled by Ms. Teitel, my interest was piqued.

Teitel appeared to be a literate young woman and the fact that someone as detached as yours truly hadn’t heard of her really meant nothing. Oddly, the most powerful search engines of the 21st century turned up very little. One older Maclean’s piece was repeated here. I managed, through Linkedin, to find a short personal profile: BA (Arts) 2011 from the University of King’s College (Halifax), member of the Young Alexandra Society, current situation described as “Editorial Intern” at MacLean’s. Fair enough.

Though some might view this choice by Maclean’s management as idiosyncratic, Lord knows the Canadian commentariat could use some younging up. Is it just me, or does it seem like Jeffrey Simpson has been writing a national column for 70 years? Similarly, the average age of the Montreal Gazette sports page appears to be well over 65. One of its retired ranks still regularly contributes, while its sage brags that he broke in as a cub reporter in 1954, when he was 28. With similar longevity, if someone like Ms. Teitel could actually break in there, they’d be reporting on the Habs well into the 2070′s.

Given a 1000-word national pulpit, it’s of no small interest to see what a twenty-something might do with it. Recently, she ran headlong into the Republican primary, with unfortunately predictable results.

The headline – “Uniting under the Bigotry Umbrella” – pretty much sums it up. These other quotes round out the analysis: (of religious Republicans) “we may worship different gods but don’t worry, we feel the same way about gays, Muslims and the environment”; (who advocate) “wholesale discrimination and the advancement of a religious agenda, to the detriment of civil liberties”. What she called “everyone’s favourite travelling circus” was last week embroiled in the “God-fearing” Palmetto State (sic). She also refers to these Republicans being prejudiced against “the ‘secular liberal agenda’”. The over-used quotation marks imply of course that secular liberalism is some kind of mythical political creature.

It is quite remarkable that someone so young would have assimilated and strung together so many over-used anti-religious and anti-Republican brickbats. The conventional wisdom has long derided conservative Christians’ apparent obsession with the private conduct of others. Ms. Teitel seems to echo the corollary, that morality she disagrees with should be banned from public discourse, or at the least loudly ridiculed. Take that you “God-fearers”.

Fortunately, people of varied religious backgrounds continue to fight for their rights in the Public Square. Given the opportunity provided Ms. Teitel, it might be refreshing if a national magazine hired a youngster from that side of the debate too.