Bodies of Taliban Militants Found in Pakistan

According to BBC news today, the bodies of 30 suspected Taliban Militants were discovered in the Swat Valley of Pakistan.

The article states that:

Witnesses said most of the victims had been shot, some several times. They were blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs, and dumped in fields or alleys.

Some "Inglorious Basterds" at work?

Really, shouldn't Jack Layton, and the newly-reformed Michael Ignatieff be demanding steps be taken against Pakistan. Or are those demands and reproachments reserved for our closest neighbor and our own government?

As Albertaardvark says.. "Brilliant"

I can't do much more than echo the comments of Albertaardvark this morning.

"Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant."

Stephen Harper appoints former NDP Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, to post as Canadian Ambassador to Washington.

Cue Michael Ignatieff picking up his jock strap from the floor.

"Inglorious Basterds".. historical fantasy, or modern metaphore?

I just viewed the new Tarantino movie, "Inglorious Basterds" last night.. and I was really struck by my own ambiguity in how to see the ultimate message of the movie. Without giving away the plot, essentially, there is a group of guerrilla Jewish-American soldiers who are dropped behind enemy lines in France and who go about, in a very Tarantino-like manner killing and scalping Nazi soldiers.. without compassion and without restraint.

As I discussed the movie afterwards with my wife, there was some ambiguity in my own mind as to the message of the movie. In some respects, it can be said to be an historically inaccurate Jewish-revenge movie regarding the atrocities of the Nazi's in the second world war.

However - in another respect, it struck me as a modern metaphor for the current struggle we are having, even people like Barack Obama are having - in coming to grips with our reaction to the mindless violence of terrorist extremism.

On the one hand, the "civilized" part of our nature rebels against the notion of an "eye for an eye" and so often we hear that if we resort to senseless violence and torture, we are hardly better than the terrorists we are fighting against.

On the other hand, as we see constant examples of the willingness of terrorists to use our own compassion against us, our own sense of due process and decency against us, by utilizing civilian shields as a battle tool, by now, apparently, distributing "suicide bomber" protocols suggesting they are seeking to prevent civilian casualties.. one, at least on my side of the political fence, finds themselves asking if we are unduly weakened in our fight against terror if we refuse to acknowledge "collateral damage" and that full rights of due process cannot be applied on the battle field.

As I left the movie, it struck me that if Tarantino had penned a script that had modern American and Israeli soldiers utilizing the same tactics against terrorist extremists, as were employed by the Nazi-killers in "Inglorious Basterds", the movie would never get released and would be mercilessly attacked by the left - especially the Sean Penn types in Hollywood who love to pick apart the country who ultimately provides them with their grossly excessive lifestyle.

So - I enjoyed the movie, I thought it was typical in many respects for a Tarantino movie, a la True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. However, if you go watch it, consider seeing it as a metaphor for the current conflict in addressing terrorist activity in the world.

And it becomes that much more enjoyable.

Aren't we lucky..

According to the Star today, the most recent Angus Reid poll shows:

When assessing Harper, 47 per cent brand him as secretive, 43 per cent believe he's arrogant, 43 per cent figure he's boring, 40 per cent think he's out of touch, 39 per cent say he's uncaring, and 38 per cent believe he is intelligent. There is a five-point increase in respondents who brand him boring and uncaring.

As for Ignatieff, 52 per cent of respondents believe he's intelligent, 40 per cent say he's arrogant — down five points since July, 37 per cent believe he's out of touch, 33 per cent think he's boring and 22 per cent consider him uncaring.

Barack Obama and friend William Ayers.. a little disturbing.

I came across this while reading "halls of macadamia" today. He tends to be a little bit "right" for even me, but his link to this examination of William Ayers is interesting, if not a little disturbing.

Is it a big deal, or a remnant of the past? Personally, I would have concerns associating with someone who help author a book advocating violence against my government, which was dedicated to, among others, the assassin of Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan.

Identification and Advocacy for the "Great Middle"

North America - most notably the U.S. and Canada - have been, in many respects, an amazingly successful social experiment in the removal of class and the potential of democracy.

The history of most major cultures in the world has been a history of class struggle, and without minimizing the incredible mistreatment of our original citizens, our aboriginal cultures, immigrants to our two countries were largely successful in creating a less stratified society and a broad and successful middle class.. to a great extent, directly related to our free democratic system that allowed the middle class to influence decisions as the highest levels to assure that they did not fall into the traps of domination by the aristocracy seen elsewhere.

To no suprise, political success in our respective countries has essentially fallen to those parties who have been most able to identify and attract this "great middle", and the recent about-face in the U.S. has shown this most dramatically.

The great success of the Republican party has been its ability to do two things:

a) To assure funding of their machine, by maintaining a comfortable relationship with big business;
b) To assure votes, by wrestling identification of a party of the "great middle" away from the Democratic Party, whom they have branded as a party of "progressive" policies detrimental to the interests of the working man.

This delicate balance is the cornerstone of success of a modern democratic party - and when the balance is lost, the party will fall. Such is the case with the Republican party. They have become addicted to the "crack" of big business money and have lost their relationship, their identification with the "average guy". And Barack Obama has capitalized upon that like no Democrat since Kennedy.

In Canada - we are in a sort of stasis. A balancing. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been able to clearly stake their territory in the centre of this Country.. and who learns that lesson quickest, and best, will no doubt be the first to capture a majority.

Where are the weak links?

For the Liberals - it's probably on environmental policy. As Stephane Dion learned too late, it is one thing for Canadians to say, "the environment is important", but it's another thing to ask already stressed middle Canadians to reach into their pocket and pay to change it. As I discovered during a small debate last election, my conservative leanings were extremely unpopular, until I focussed on two or three audience members and asked a pointed question, "Would it concern YOU, if I told you you might lose a job and your friend might lose a job, but it would help the environment just a very little bit?" Turns out it did.

For the Conservatives, it's probably health care. Canadians are justifiably nervous about their health care. They can see, first hand, how a predominantly private care system treats the middle class in the U.S., and fear of $1,000.00 per month health care insurance creates a great sense of unease with a government that they still feel they don't truly know - and, for all of Stephen Harper's strength's, exuding warmth and trust is not one of them.

Personally - I think that the Conservatives will probably succeed next election, as the Liberals picked exactly the wrong sort of leader to identify with that middle. A man who is an academic, who lived outside of Canada for a good portion of his life, who attended private schools, who has a past suggestive of being dismissive of those "lesser" than he is.

Whether the Conservatives will take advantage of that mistake will be the million dollar question.

A Grit Idea I can Support

This past Christmas season, I challenged Liberal Blogger James Curran to a friendly competition to encourage Liberal and Conservative readers to step up to do something for a good cause in their community.. and he took up the friendly challenge.

Today, James, in his blog highlights the courage and drive of Lise Jolicoeur, in her effort to not only beat ovarian cancer in her own life, but to generate attention and support for Ovarian Cancer Canada. As James writes, she is a genuine hero - and I would encourage readers to connect to James' blog and donate to Lise's cause. I stepped up and I would encourage you to do the same, and for other bloggers to consider posting a link to James' site:

Fight Ovarian Cancer: Support a Real Live Hero

Go ahead - it will feel good to do something other than complain about the "other guys".

Senator Idol (or is that Idle?)

Ok. Lots of hubbub here about the plan for the Prime Minister to make more Senate appointments.

The arguments:

a) He said he wouldn't, now he is;
b) The Provinces won't hold elections, so what's he to do?
c) If he doesn't appoint SOMEONE the house is short Senators and even Liberal Senators are complaining about the vacancies.

So then, (this is why I should get one of these Senate seats) I've got the ideal solution.

Senator Idol.

Yeah - you hold auditions around the country in places like, oh, Quesnel, Vulcan, Kindersley, Portage la Prairie, Thunder Bay, Sherbrook, Glace Bay, etc.. and a panel of 3 judges, including, say, Warren Kinsella (Randy), Ezra Levant (Simon) and Audrey McLaughlin (Paula), select 100 Canadians from the group.

Then - we drop them in an isolated area in the middle of Nunavut, with adequate supplies and shelter to keep them from having to eat eachother, posting video cameras on them 24/7. Each week, they will be given a random "Canadian" task (beer chugging, shooting moose, snow shoe racing, hockey fights, etc.) After each show, every week, the Canadian public gets rid of 10 of them (or less if any should be eaten by polar bears, which would be like a "wild card" vote) - until the last 10 are left, out of which the Stephen Harper selects the 9 appointees in a final gala episode where we recap all of the zany and touching moments of the previous 9 weeks..

We have an "elected" Senate, we actually make CBC useful and, *gasp*, interesting.. and we get our Senate seats filled in a truly non-partisan fashion without a Constitutional amendment or the expense of another election process.

(Yes, Mr. Harper, you can contact me via this website should you wish to simply appoint me now, based upon my demonstrated brilliance in resolving this thorny issue.)

While waiting for nuclear batteries..

My last week purchase.. 5.7 liters of "I don't really need it, but it will piss off David Suzuki."

How to sell a Prius to a Conservative

Put one of these batteries in them.

Will sell like hotcakes.

You have an Option, Mr. Harper (Part II)

Ok. I recently sent more money to the Conservative party. I've blogged quite clearly that I think Michael Ignatieff is a boorish opportunist more concerned with stoking his own ego than serving the country. I am a "Blogging Tory", and have voted Conservative and Reform before that.

That being said - today I read in the Globe that Prime Minister Harper is planning on making nine more appointments to the Senate before Parliament reconvenes.

During the last round of Senate appointments, the excuse was that the Country was at risk of being over-thrown by a coup lead by the illegitimate coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc. Now - as the Conservatives appear to be gaining ground in Quebec, and as some polls have them surging ahead of the Liberals, there appears to be no immenent threat of the Conservatives losing power - so, what gives?

I think I made my point last time around, and, probably can do no better than to simply re-print my post made then:

Mr. Harper - You have an option, sir!

The current report of our PM making 18 senate appointments brings to mind the fall of the Liberals in the 1984 election under John Turner... Following up on a raft of Liberal patronage appointments, Mulroney looked into the eyes of John Turner during their debate, and this exchange followed:
"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir--to say 'no'--and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."


Though Mulroney may not have lived up to his own words, the words themselves ring true today. Mr. Prime Miniser, you have an option sir. You do not have to make those appointments.. you can do something much more profound. You can look to the Canadian people and say, "No, today it will not be business as usual in Ottawa. I will not make these appointments, and I will simply follow my convictions to await elected representatives to those positions.. and if I fail, I fail with the honour of my convictions."

You have an option, sir.

Senator Edward Kennedy has passed..

What can be said in the passing of Ted Kennedy? Certainly, he was a committed, if somewhat erratic, advocate of the liberal cause throughout his life. He was a somewhat flawed idealist - never ceasing to advocate for liberal sensibilities, seldom showing the Machiavellian pragmatism that President Bill Clinton appeared to borrow from Ted's brother, John.

In the days following the passing of an iconic politician, so often we hear over-stated acclaim for their accomplishments, and I would prefer not to go down that road. While most commentary on the passing of Edward Kennedy references his tireless effort to improve health care in the U.S., few will point out that the United States had a universal health care mandate proposed by a President much earlier than Barack Obama.

In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon sought to establish a Universal Health Care package for the United States, however, he was stymied in his lack of support from the Democratic party, most notably, the refusal of support from the Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. Senator Kennedy later acknowledged his failure to support that bill as the biggest mistake of his political career.

However - what cannot be denied, is that the Kennedy brothers, Joseph, John, Robert and Edward, gave the country their all. The Kennedy family was hardly in need of politics as a "career" - being a family of wealth and power, yet, beginning with the eldest brother, Joseph who was killed while volunteering for a dangerous mission in World War II, through John and Robert who were assassinated, to, finally, Edward, who died while serving as Senator for the state of Massachusetts, the Kennedy brothers never shrank from their obligation to help make their world just a little bit better.

Conservative politicians and commentators may say what they will about their differences in politics, however, what must be said is that the Kennedy brothers, including Edward, gave everything they had for their country.

And that is a legacy that cannot be denied, and which we could all emulate, conservative, liberal or otherwise. So, in that vein, on this day, I would pass this message on to fellow conservatives.

Before you offer a quick shot at the late Senator, and raise the spectre of Mary Jo Kopechne, ask yourself this fundamental question:

What have I done to make my world a better place?

Government Appealing Order to Repatriate Omar Khadr - Well Done

Today the government has announced that it will be appealing the split decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, ordering the government to seek return of alleged terrorist and murderer Omar Khadr. The matter is now destined to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada - though, sadly, I wouldn't expect much from this group of progressive reformers.

Omar is the spawn of the terrorist Khadr family. Originally from Egypt, the Khadr family obtained Canadian citizenship and then used that citizenship to obtain health care when injured in their terrorist activitites. We are, as we speak, picking up the tab on health care for Karim Khadr, paralyzed after being shot in a shoot-out with Pakistani authorities.

There was only one member of that family who dissavowed their terrorist agenda, Omar's brother, Abdurahman Khadr.

And here is the grotesque irony.

While the Liberal opposition is all in bed with the Khadr family, pounding the table to demand return of Omar to Canada, when they were in power in 1998 and 1999, Abdurahman begged the Canadian government to help him return to Canada and escape his terrorist family in Pakistan - and the government of the day turned a blind eye to THAT Canadian citizen.

According to the report in CBC news here, Abdurahman brought his family's terrorist connections to the attention of the Canadian embassy in Islamabad, Pakistand, and sought their assistance to help him escape. They ignored him, the CBC report stating:

Abdurahman Khadr says that he tried to run away from his father and al-Qaeda numerous times in 1998 and 1999. He claims that he went to the Canadian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan and begged them to help him return to Canada. He says they refused to help him.

"I told them my father is not living a Canadian life, "Ardurahman says. "We don't have any education, you know. We're not living as a Canadian family. I can't take this life anymore. He has connections to bad people. And I just want to get out of here."

"I didn't tell them who exactly. Well he has connections to al-Qaeda, to Osama, to all those people. They weren't concerned about that."

In fact, the Canadian government was already well aware of Ahmed Said Khadr's connection to al-Qaeda. His name appeared with that of Osama bin Laden on a list of top al-Qaeda terror suspects issued by the United Nations in 1999.

After he was turned away from the Canadian Embassy in Islamabad. Abdurahman had to go home to face his father. "My dad told me, if you ever betray Islam or if you ever sell out on us for anyone else, I will be the one to kill you. If you do something wrong, in Islam law, you're supposed to be killed. Before anyone else, I'll kill you."

It is so clear now, it's almost laughable.

On and on we hear the Liberal opposition complaining that the Government has an obligation to return the terrorist and murderer Omar Khadr to Canada.

What they don't support, apparently, is the return of children of terrorists being threatened to be killed if they don't join their parents and brothers in terrorism. They don't support the return of Canadian citizens who are wrongly jailed in terrorist regimes, such as Hossein Derakhshan who has been detained in Iran since November 1, 2008.

No - former champion of anti-terrorism, Michael Ignatieff, the man who supported indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, who supported "coercive interrogation", who wrote about the need to sometimes adopt the "lesser evil" to combat terrorism, is now an avowed and dedicated supporter of terrorist Omar Khadr.

Even with the darling of the "progressive" movement, Barack Obama, in power, the LPC still feels that Omar cannot be trusted to the American judicial system.

Too bad they didn't have the same compassion for his brother.

Perhaps our Children's Future is Important Enough to Avoid Politics as Usual, No?

"Politics as Usual" in this country, and as we can see, south of the border, is about supporting "our team" and attacking the "other team", regardless of the merits of what either team actually has to say. Which is fine, I guess, for a sport.. but when the stakes are higher, maybe we have to do better.

We see it every day, in the speeches of our leaders, in the debates in Parliament, and we definitely see it in the blog world.

I'll start out my comments, firstly, by admitting something that so many bloggers won't. I have only a small idea of what I'm talking about. What I don't know about climate change theory could fill Texas Stadium. And, that being said, as pathetic as my own knowledge is, I continue to read and try to learn more about the theory - which is more than I can say for most politicians and most bloggers I've read online in the past year or so.

So - starting out with that caveat, that my knowledge is limited, but is growing, I will offer the following perhaps only marginally qualified commentary:

a) It appears to me that current climate change debate has less to do with expanding the scope of our knowledge, and more to do with scientists, politicians and bloggers supporting their "camps". When is the last time you read something that didn't START with a premise. That wasn't designed to SELL YOU on an idea, as opposed to just give you some information in an even-handed manner?

b) Related to the foregoing, I have an increasingly uneasy feeling, born out by my own thirst for improving my knowledge, that the potential effects of global warming are being over-stated. Thomas Schelling (Nobel Prize winning economist and former advisor to Jimmy Carter) recently gave an interview where he suggested that "It's a tough sell. You probably have to find a way to exaggerate the threat." Going on to explain that when the impact is most likely to be on third world interests, it's not likely to motivate change in North America, so there is a certain moral acceptance in allowing for an exaggeration of the potential impact on us in North America and in other areas of the world who would, otherwise, be unlikely to modify their current behaviors.

As an example, quite often we are told that increased temperatures are likely to increase heat-related deaths. What we are not told at the same time, according to my own reading, is that it is also likely to result in many more lives saved who would otherwise be lost to death caused by cold. We were told the seas would rise and flood most of our major cities.. now we are told that the seas would rise, at most, one foot. Problematic, but not catastrophic.

c) if we ACCEPT at least the potential that the science of anthropomorphic climate change is born out, are we truly embarking on the best course of action in seeking to impose "Kyoto-like" strategies?

Kyoto, as many have pointed out, is perhaps veiled tool of income re-distribution, and may have marginal relevance to true climate change.

Consider, perhaps, these comments of Bjorn Lomborg, danish political scientist, often referred to as a "Climate change heretic":

"Saying that Kyoto and feel-good measures are rotten ideas is different from saying that we should ignore the problem. Doing nothing would be wrong. We shouldn't throw ourselves headlong into poor solutions. But it would be just as bad to stick our heads into the sand.

The solution in the long run is to stop using fossil fuels altogether. To get there requires not just goodwill but smart economics. We need to make it cost-effective to cut emissions.

This requires us to have much better technologies, not only for solar and wind but also for carbon capture and energy conservation. I propose that our generational challenge should be for every nation to commit to spending 0.05 percent of its GDP researching and developing non-carbon-emitting energy technologies. The cost would be $25 billion, increasing R&D by ten times. Yet it would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol and possibly a hundred times cheaper than a Kyoto II.

Every nation must do its bit, with richer nations paying the larger share. Instead of crushing innovation and enterprise for the good of the planet, we could realize a low-carbon, high-income future.

This blog isn't about telling you climate change theory is wrong - as, in fact, my own opinion is that there is probably something to it - this blog is about telling you to take off your team colors, and educate yourself. Read more, challenge your own current assumptions. Go read some of the "other" team's playbook. Open your mind.

The stake are too high for "politics as usual".

Why I hate Alberta, by JerryMacGP.

Daveberta, on his blog, had an interesting discussion going about why the Liberals the NDP seem so completely hopeless in Alberta. And for a refreshing change, here was a non-Conservative, who didn't provide an opinion blaming Albertans, or the Conservatives, but rather suggested that the political left in Alberta had best re-design their strategy if they wish to get out of political wilderness.

Almost like it was planted, there was a commentary making it abundantly clear just why Dave's comments were appropriate and why the Liberals and NDP are so completely dismal. They hate our Province.

JerryMacGP said...
I think the point being missed by many, Dave C. included, is that many of the key features of Alberta culture that are seen as part of the province's narrative are themselves anti-progressive and reactionary. The "git-'er-dun" approach to worklife, which allows employers to keep their workers on the job long past what would be acceptable anywhere else in Canada, and thumbs its nose at workplace health & safety, employment standards, and so on; laughable environmental regulation and wildlife protection; the myth of self-sufficiency that keeps us from truly creating and enhancing co-operative public interest enterprises.

If many leftists (myself included) lack pride in Alberta, is it any wonder? This province's political culture is the laughingstock of North America; and the mentality of the "typical" Albertan is summed up by "the rules don't apply to me". This is why as a transplanted Nova Scotian (although born in Ottawa) who has lived here for over 20 years, I still refuse to allow myself to be identified as Albertan.

What is to be proud of? Tailings ponds in Fort Mac? Useless government MLAs that are nothing more than trained seals? A health minister that acts like a bull in a china shop? Hah!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:44:00 PM

Isn't this the sort of simmering impression most Albertans take from how the Liberals and NDP have approached elections in this Province? "You are a laughingstock, Alberta", "Individual initiative is just codespeak for selfishness Alberta". Thanks for the insult, now, if you don't mind, I'll go vote for someone who isn't insulting me, who has pride in this Province, and who thinks that this Province, for all its flaws, is still the greatest Province in this Country to live in.

Oh. And before someone else says it. Why are you living here for 20 years if you hate it so, JerryMac? Trust us, no one will miss your whining socialist mewling if you trundle on back to Nova Scotia.

buh bye.

This Conservative is not happy Obama is failing.

At a time when many Conservatives seem to be enjoying the struggles of Barak Obama, even within his own party, this conservative is troubled by what passes for politics south of the border.

Health Care, as I've opined before, is a sleeping monster. It may well be that western health care is the "Three Mile Island" of our generation. If you think that is an over-statement of concern, perhaps consider the commentary made regarding the Three Mile Island disaster that "operators were overwhelmed with information, much of it irrelevant, misleading or incorrect."

Sound at all like current health care discussion.

There is no question that the advances in medicine and health care generally have created exponential improvement in the ability to respond to our health concerns. The difficulty, however, is that with increased numbers of seniors, who are, living longer and more productively than a generation ago, and with the increased costs of delivery generally, there is a perfect storm brewing on the horizon where costs at some point bringing the system to a "meltdown".

While we spend massive ammounts of time and effort responding to "climate change" which has at best, only theoretical future impact, we seem to have no clear discussion on the need to respond to changes in health care delivery required, and, when it does come to a head (as per the current U.S. experience) it deteriorates into partisan or ideological game playing and turf-protection, at the expense of honest discussion and reasoned development of new policy.

While we may currently smuggly watch the U.S. mired in the midst of their current debate, we will no doubt soon find ourselves in the midst of the same dillema, and one hopes that all parties might find ways of engaging in productive discussions on a point which is so fundamental to the well-being of all of us.

So. No, I don't relish the nightmare that Obama is in the midst of, and I am embarrassed by the lengths to which so-called thinking "conservatives" have gone in the U.S. to lie and mislead to simply create political capital.

Megan wants a murderer?

So - today it's announced that Calgary resident, Ryan Jenkins, is on the run after being suspected of murdering his ex-wife, Jasmine Fiore. Apparently, so-called millionaire Ryan Jenkins married her in a quickie Las Vegas wedding, two days after they met - and shortly after, they split up and were annulled.

In addition to having some money in his wallet, apparently Ryan also had some celeberity status, having been a contestant on VH1 garbage program, "Megan Wants A Millionaire" -you know, one of those contestants that millions of women imagine themselves marrying, their own fantasy "prince charming".

Well, this prince charming allegedly killed Ms. Fiore, took out her teeth, cut her fingers off, stuffed her in a suitcase, and then thew her in a dumpster.

Isn't true love bliss?

There is sort of a sad and tragic point here, and I suppose it's that there is no free lunch, there is no easy road to happiness.. and those in society who think there is may find themselves in tragic circumstance. When your idea of "Mr. Right" is premised on a hot car and a thick bank account, and not much more, well, maybe the your standards need to be modified.

Oh, and if your career aspiration is being a swimsuit model, if your "personal improvement" amounts to a new set of fake breasts, well, the "bait" that you're throwing out there to find your Mr. Right should also be reconsidered.

Ironically enough, these reality television programs are perhaps the canary in the coalmine signalling a loss of reality. Our children are growing up watching this garbage, experiencing a media barrage of messages and images neither us nor our parents ever had to contend with, which tells us that our worth is based upon how much money we have, what designer clothes we wear, and how perfect our physique is.

Even so-called "serious" news has become a ridiculous spectacle buying in to the misguided notion that money and fame equate with contribution to society.

Witness CNN's recent coverage of "Michael Jackson, all day every day", garnering, minute for minute, massively more coverage than the passing of Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy combined.

In the death of Jasmine Fiore is a message that is perhaps deeper and more troubling than the superficial and sensationalist commentary that will be used to sell advertising space on Nancy Grace or such other vapid commentary which will certainly follow this story for the next several hundred hours on CNN or MSNBC.

Voting Day in Afghanistan! Wishing all Afghani people well in their evolution towards true democracy..

Well, it's voting day in Afghanistan, and while the fascist religious zealots of the Taliban are doing their best to disrupt the election, the election is in fact proceeding.

Cynics will point out that in many areas, the vote turnout is poor with many being afraid of violence should they exercise their vote, however, the fact that a vote is taking place at all is cause to celebrate.

As has been said, the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and one voter believing in their right of self-determination is better than none, and a hundred is a hundred times better than that.

The problems of Afghanistan cannot be solved overnight, or perhaps even in our generation, but the thousand mile journey of their country to develop a population believing in the fundamental right of democracy has commenced and continues today.

Those who brave the threats to mark their "X" are heroes today and are setting the course for a better tomorrow for their children and a better world for all of us.

Well done.

Going to the polls? Again?

So - Michael Ignatieff gave a non-denial in response to an "un-named" source in the party who stated the Liberals were planning a fall election according to a CP article here.

Really.

I don't know about you, but personally, I don't see any great need for an election, other than to serve Michael Ignatieff's hunger to become the big man on Campus.

While the Conservatives have introduced some pretty questionable policy of late (increasing the drive to a Canadian police state), Ignatieff kept his mouth shut when he could have spoken up, and instead, over the past year, he's been a one-trick pony, bitterly complaining about Harper's responsibility for the massive budget deficit and the growth of unemployment.

I've said it before, but he can't have it both ways - if he's going to blame Harper for the downside, he's left himself wide open to be seen as tacitly crediting Harper with the upside - now that our economy leads western democracies out of recession.

So - now Michael wants to have an election, apparently - no doubt because by this time next year the economy will truly be on the mend, and his gun will then clearly be shooting blanks - so, spin the wheel I guess. I mean, while an election will cost us $300 million, well, it's not your money, is it Michael?

What will his platform be? Apparently improving isotope production - following up on the disaster created by his Liberal predecessors at Chalk River, inherited by the Harper Conservatives - who are now doing the right thing in telling them to shut down until they've cleaned up.

Oh yeah, and he wants to fix employment insurance. Yes, a driving source of concern for all Canadians right now... Michael, what we need are jobs, not more bureaucracy to tell us how to give money from those working to those who aren't.

As the U.S. mires in it's massive budget deficit, with an already lame-duck President fiddling while the country burns under the so-called "debate" over health care, in Canada, the ship is on course.

I don't see a need for an election. Most Canadians feel likewise, and when you push that vote, Michael, be prepared to pay the consequence.

Indeed.

Her name was Lola, she was a show girl...

So, "Lola", the spurned lover of a wealthy Quebec businessman is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada after being turned down in her claim for alimony and division of assets from the Quebec courts, according to an article in the Star today.

You may have heard of her, she's the woman receiving only $35,000.00 per month for her two children - and, obviously having difficulty getting by on that, went to Court seeking $50,000.00 per month additional alimony. You know, for milk money.

Problem is, while Lola and her sugar-daddy lived together for seven years, they were never married. And under Quebec law, unlike the pablum being served up throughout the rest of Canada as family law, you are not entitled to alimony or division of assets unless you are, yes, "married".

I don't often compliment what goes on in Quebec, in this case, I take my hat off to their legislature and their judiciary. In the recent decision of the Quebec Superior Court, Judge Carole Hallee ruled that:

"..there wasn't evidence unmarried partners were being discriminated against, and that to recognize all couples in a relationship of permanence as "married" would deny people the choice not to marry."

Read that again, if you missed it.

In Quebec, the Courts understand that whether or not we marry is a "choice". Certainly, nose-wiper advocates like Lola's lawyer, Anne-France Goldwater, argue that, well, Lola wanted to get married, but her sugar-daddy refused.

Really.

Well, Lola, maybe you should have thought of that before you made babies with him. Seems to me, at some point, you had a choice to have sexual relations, you had a choice to decide to live with him or not, and ultimately, you should be more than satisfied that you're receiving grossly excessive child support for your children.

In what can only be described as a comment of her own incredible stupidity, in justifying this continued crusade, her lawyer's comment was, "In this case she has no right to ask for anything, so what this case is about is the right to ask."

Uh, Annie.. to begin with, she had a right to ask not to have sex. To say, "no". Didn't she? She had a right to ask her boyfriend to marry her before she had yet another child, or leave him. Didn't she? At what point, exactly, do we begin to expect something more from ourselves and our neighbors. At what point is there a discussion of personal responsibility for our own welfare?

There is an illness in this Country whose symptoms include an expectation that everyone else is responsible for our own stupid life decisions. Good on Quebec and Judge Hallee for saying, "non".

Perhaps the time has come for some national realization that if we expect less of our citizens, we will get less from our citizens. The thought arises that if we not only condone, but in fact reward a lack of personal responsibility, we should expect people to be less responsible. Doesn't that make a modicum of sense? So - if we tell our daughters, "Don't seek to set your own course in life, don't demand more of the men you get involved with, don't worry about the results of uncommitted sexual relationships," we will, in fact, find more women like Lola.

Think about that. A country full of "Lolas".

Going to Greece to meet a true Canadian..

This morning's two-fer. Following up on my last post, I have to give props to someone my son and I met in Athens, Fighter Pilot Captain Forrest Rock, currently serving in Afghanistan.

One evening, as my son and I went up on the roof-top patio of our hotel to enjoy the night time view of the Acropolis, we met up with a guy in the elevator, who after a brief conversation introduced himself to us as Forrest Rock. Shortly into the conversation, Captain Rock (real name) advised he was on leave, visiting with his girlfriend in Athens, and was returning to Afghanistan the following day.

We had a great evening, visiting with him, talking politics, rugby and Greece, and I was struck by his sincerity and depth of understanding about what the Canadian military are dealing with in Afghanistan. In many respects, we saw very much eye to eye - and his most significant frustration with his mission was the difficulty he had with the apparent demand of the Canadian public and the media, for fast easy answers to the complex difficulties in Afghanistan.

When I suggested there was, in my mind, a "fast food" mentality evident that everyone wants answers to be guaranteed, simple and quick - he locked on to that immediately. His comment is that what they are doing will not create solutions today or tommorow, but they will sow the seeds, hopefully, for the Afghan people to create a freer society in the years and decades to come.

His comments to me about experiencing the loss of friends in that conflict still resonate as I write this.. it's a reality that those of us not having to serve in a forward area never have to contemplate, less experience, and I think it behooves all of us who discuss or write on that issue to truly consider that reality. We have great Canadians, as we speak, putting their lives on the line in conflict. And it's not easy and it's not clean - and answers to that conflict are not likely to come quickly or easily. If those who risk losing their lives understand this and have patience, perhaps those of us who risk nothing might also have patience as well.

Oh. And maybe think twice about the rights of "due process" accorded to enemy combatants who are doing their best to kill our soldiers. At least consider that reality that even Barack Obama understands.

That's something that many so-called "progressive" political types fail to acknowledge over and over again. Answers to the great societal problems cannot always be delivered by spending more money, or creating new legislation - sometimes answers to problems are best dealt with on an evolutionary basis. Making a small change here and there.. and allowing the broader society to catch up, to make their own solutions. It might not be delivered on a platter with fries..

Back from Greece.. great to visit, better to be back!

My two readers may have noticed my absence over the last two weeks, occasioned as a result of a summer holiday trip taken to Greece with my son, Doug.

It is truly an amazing and awe-inspiring experience to have the good fortune to be able to travel to somewhere like that, to stand on the Acropolis of Athens, to look up at the Parthenon and to realize this this structure has stood for millenia, 500 years before Christ. Greece truly is the cradle of modern civilization, in particular, being the birthplace of our modern concept of democracy.

Over the course of two weeks, my son and I visited Athens, Mykonos and Santorini, and enjoyed immensely the food and culture of Greece, spending time driving around the islands in particular, visiting towns and villages, some wonderful beaches, and just drinking in the beauty of the country as much as possible in our short visit.

What really struck me, however, was the joy I felt in returning to Canada. Maybe it was just the exhaustion of travel, however, when I sensed our descent into Calgary, I was truly happy. Happy to be home. To a country where we take for granted our strong infrastructure, our moderate system of government, our truly blessed standard of living. To a country where the hated G.S.T. is 5%, as opposed to the Greek V.A.T. of 19%. I kid you not.. 19%.. though it's lower for food (4.5%).

Curiously, the current Greek government is headed by the New Democracy party, which, in Greece, is a centre-right party - which has been described as "liberal conservative".. successful in the past two elections. Think about that.. they have an NDP, who is really an amalgam of the Liberal and Conservative parties. Ironic, isn't it?

Last night I was watching some television (CBC..gasp) and saw an interview between Gene Simmons of Kiss and George Stroumboulopoulos and the comment that struck me from Gene Simmons was his compliment paid to Canada, that we are a culture that the world should emulate, that we, as Canadians, "have it going on".

While one might question the source of that wisdom, I still think it rings true. I think that while Greece may be the cradle of early western civilization, Canada may well be setting the tone for modern western civilization - if we don't mess it up by going out of our way to fix the things that aren't broken.