Richard Colvin.. Politically Correct"Bandwagon Jumper".

Good article in the Globe and Mail today by Christie Blatchford - I certainly can't do better than her regarding her analysis of the Richard Colvin affair, so I simply encourage all to read it here.

The essence of the article is that Richard Colvin is another in a long list of political "bandwagon jumpers".

You know the type. They see a potential "scandal" brewing, and, scandals these days typically being of the "politically correct" variety, they jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible, and, with a little luck, they appear to be pulling the wagon, not just jumping on for the ride.

But Christie Blatchford gets it right.  Colvin wasn't concerned regarding "torture" of transferred detainees at the "operative time".  He was a "born again" convert, and when he saw matters brewing, he jumped in so quick that the Liberals and the NDP have been lionizing him as a "whistle blower".

I prefer Blatchfords characterization.

A "So-Called Whistle Blower".

Some of the major news events of our times so clearly epitomize this sort of "politically correct" induced furor, and this is no exception.

Remember Michael Vick?  The media were up in arms.. quickly jumping from the "disadvantaged African-American" bandwagon, to the "we love puppies" bandwagon.  And they all patted themselves on the back as they advocated for serious jail time for the football player because he abused animals.

Animal abuse is very politically incorrect you see.

The current effort regarding the Colvin affair is no less pathetic.

And it's a "two-fer" for sure.

You see, not only can we defend the terrorists.. (very de rigeur  these days), but we get bonus points for being "anti-torture", and sidle up to Amnesty International - feigning embarassment as a nation (even though we aren't alleged to have torured anyone).

Are you throwing up in your mouth just a little bit yet?

Ok.  So here's the thing.

Back in the day, when racists ruled, their ignorance was, well, based upon ignorance.  They made assumptions of people without consideration of the reality of those assumptions.  That's how stereotypes work.

Now, we have another growing ignorance in society, and it's "politically correct ignorant".  The same sort of ignorance, where people make decisions based upon the cover of the book, without considering the complexity of the reality.

You know..  let's ignore the reality of troops on the ground, fighting for their lives and the lives of their comrades, who have to make difficult and sometimes brutal decisions - without the luxury of stopping time and considering the impact and the propriety of those decisions from an armchair in Vancouver or Toronto.

Let's ignore the reality and make assumptions.  That because Rick Hillier is in the military, he is violent and abusive, and, therefore, when he carefully analyzes the Colvin memos and commens that they are completely without substance - we call him a liar. 

And when Richard Colvin, sidling up to Amnesty International, and complaining (mostly after the barn door had already been closed) against potential torture, provides us with absolutely NOTHING of substance to back up his "concerns", well, he must be right, he must be honest, because, he's talking against torture.

Reallllly?

Well, in my mind, there's only one way to describe those who attack Hillier and support Colvin.  They are the same sort of people who used to tell those "different" from them to drink from a different fountain and go to the back of the bus.

We call them bigots.

The Latest Afghanistan Debacle.. What We Have Learned

With all the political one-upsmanship going on, it's easy to dismiss the current Afghanistan hearings as a pointless farce.  In fact, no great friend of the PC Government, even Chantel Hebert of the Toronto Star reports today that the hearings are going nowhere.

As Hebert states this morning, the hearing is "is flying blind and about to run on empty."

I say, don't dismiss it so quickly.

There are some serious lessons to be learned here, which I suggest bear keeping in mind for future reference, as follows:

1.  In the current world construct, Muslim extremists have changed the face of war.  No longer will the dissaffected or the power hungry seek to don uniforms and seek to overcome their opposition by reference to Sun Tzu's "Art of War", they will, like cowardly rats, enmesh themselves within the general population and seek to win through a chaotic war of attrition.   You may kill a thousand of them, but if there are another thousand taking their place, eventually, you will tire and just give up.  That is their hope.  And if you don't give up, they are counting on the fat and happy population of the citizens picking up the tab for your labor to give up.

This is Afghanistan.  And their plan, ingenenious in it's simplicity as it is cowardly and without compassion or concern for their own citizens around them, has worked.  Soon, Canada, and other allies, will leave Afgahnistan, and it will likely revert, more or less, to the country it has been for centuries, and will still be for centuries to come.

2.  For those countries who might, in the future, consider providing military assistance to a country oppressed by a murderous regime, be warned.  You will not receive thanks or reward.  Your soldiers will die.  You will be forced to spend billions of dollars to  carry out your duty, and you will be second-guessed, by the Monday morning quarterbacks of the U.N., and Amnesty International, and desk-jockies at home, who will seek to criticize everything you have done - under the 20/20 vision of hindsight.  And the criticisms, while in truth most often being simple political stunts used to discredit the existing government, will still put the soldiers and their officers in the line of fire. 

The criticisms will come, mostly, from those who have never held a gun and been asked to kill another human being at the direction of their government, or watched their own close friends die, in some cases, feeling their last breath of life leaving them as they are held in your arms.

As with fighting a war against terrorists, you will see a politician as your friend today, and seeking to shoot you in the back tomorrow.  Because the battle to gain power knows no friends, and knows no decency.

3.  The message, clearly, is to ignore it.  When countries "over there" run into difficulty, when their citizens are being murdered for doing things like, oh, believing in a different god, for having the wrong colored skin, or for just being the wrong gender, the message is, turn away.  Forget about places like Somalia, and Bosnia, Darfur, and Afghanistan.  Put up strong walls around your own country - send them some token money for food and clean water - but forget about military assistance.  The price is too high, and the rewards too fleeting.

When fighting an enemy who will set up rocket launchers in children's schools and in hospitals, enemies who train their insane posse of misfits to cry "torture" at every opportunity, concepts of "human rights" and "civilian casualties" will be used as extremely effective tools to undermine our troops ability to effectively protect themselves or others, and, as we've seen, will be used to put them up to derision and ridicule.

Better to turn away.

4.  Finally, and most clearly, Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be the ultmate hypocrit.  The man who stood shoulder to shoulder with George W. Bush, cheering on his misplaced plan in Iraq, the man who said, there is a time and place for torture when necessary, is happy to turn his back on his own words and to attack those who put their own lives on the line to help others. 

Yes.. this hearing has been no trivial waste of time, and it's lessons should not be quickly dismissed.

So, as we move forward with these lessons in mind, we know NEVER to place our troops in a foreign country where terrorist rats are besieging their own citizens, and NEVER, EVER put any faith in anything that Michael Ignatieff writes, says, or does.

Lesson learned.

Afghanistan? I'll take the word of the man on the ground, thank-you.

From the Globe and Mail, reporting on General Rick Hillier's testimony today:

Mr. Hillier tore into Mr. Colvin’s assertion that most detainees handed over to the Afghans were innocent.

He described the detainees as “men who gave up after violent firefights where we had taken casualties ... men with explosive residue ... on their hands and gunshot residue all over their bodies.”

He said Mr. Colvin was off-base in asserting that most of the detainees were unlucky civilians caught by mistake. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” the former general said.

“We detained under violent actions people trying to kill our sons and daughters.”

He said that perhaps Canadian soldiers took the occasional innocent into custody, but insisted this was rare.

“Yes, we probably detained the occasional farmer – and whether they were farmers by day and Taliban by night, which is often the case, is something that is very difficult to discern.”

Mr. Hillier said Canada’s military found itself in a ferocious fight when it set up in Kandahar in March, 2006, to fight the Taliban.

“All the sudden in 2006, we found ourselves in the middle of a war ... we found ourselves up against a determined and tough enemy,” Mr. Hillier recalled.

Thank-you, General Hillier.  Now, will the Liberal Party of Canada return to being completely irrelevant.

The Red Cross (Crescent) Lays Down the Law..

Holy Cow!!!


The Toronto Star broke a hell of a headline today, "MacKay's office got Red Cross warnings about Afghan treatment".

Man. Peter MacKay must be sweating it now.

Unless you actually read the story. What, exactly, did the Red Cross warn Richard Colvin of, and what did he pass on to Peter MacKay's department, to warrant this scandalous headline?

Let’s break it down, shall we?

Two emails that reached MacKay's office outlined a litany of Red Cross concerns, including worries about the treatment of detainees, Canadian tardiness in reporting their detention to the international agency, lack of proper information to identify the prisoners and one pointed reminder of Canadian responsibility.


"Canada's responsibility does not cease just because they (prisoners) had been turned over to Afghan authorities," a Red Cross official is quoted as saying in a June 2, 2006, memo by Colvin.

Ok. So, uh, no suggestion at all that they have any indication of prisoners being tortured at Afghan hands.

I guess that comes later in the story... so, let's continue, shall we?

Colvin's emails detailed Red Cross frustrations over Canadian forces' failure to collect enough identifying information and delays in notifying the Red Cross of their transfer, which hampered the job of tracking detainees once they were handed over to Afghan authorities.


The June 2, 2006, email said that a Red Cross official stated: "When things get difficult, some authorities in Afghanistan get tougher and tougher."

The June 2 email says the Red Cross regrets it is unable to discuss the condition of detainees handed over to Afghan custody because that information is "confidential."

Oh. I see now. The Red Cross said the authorities in Afghanistan get "tougher" when things are difficult. I guess that happens when a bunch of psychotic zealots are bent on killing infidels... and women who read.

Still... I don't see the "smoking gun" allegation where Colvin says the Red Cross had, well, even allegations of torture, let alone, uh, evidence.

It must be coming...

What? So, the Red Cross is "worried" about detainees, but, apparently, never suggested there was any risk of torture, let alone evidence that some torture had occurred. And when actual condition of detainees was asked about, well, they were "unable" to discuss that because it was "confidential".

Neither email explicitly states the word torture, which may explain why the government insists it was never alerted to "credible" allegations of "torture."


Indeed, the June 2 email says the Red Cross regrets it is unable to discuss the condition of detainees handed over to Afghan custody because that information is "confidential."

Are. You. Serious?

So what's the hubbub about? Well, as the story goes on,

The Red Cross official said Afghan detainees including Canadian transfers were held in "unsavory conditions," which he then modified to "unsatisfactory conditions."

Oh. I see. The detainee’s prison conditions were "unsatisfactory". That's a hell of a long way from a credible suggestion that detainees were at risk of torture.

The email flagged how sometimes it took the Red Cross up to two months before it received any notification of a detainee transfer from the Canadian Forces.


Again, the Red Cross is never explicitly quoted using words like torture or mistreatment in regards to its concerns.

Let's not be coy, gentlemen... the emails don't even imply that the detainees were being tortured. The sum total of the Red Cross concerns was that they were not given sufficient information to identify detainees and were not given that information promptly enough.

I guess the soldiers were maybe too busy picking up body pieces of their fallen comrades after another gutless IED was laid under their transport. Our bad.

Of course, as the article points out that the Red Cross is above politics and is "the most direct and trusted of sources".

You remember the Red Cross, that's the group that agreed to Arab Countries flying the Red Crescent, but refused to admit Israel for nearly 60 years because they wanted to use the Star of David as their emblem, for obvious reasons.

Michael Ignatieff: The Last Word on the Afghan Issue

Today is the anniversary of the cowardly and insane murders of 164 innocent persons at Mumbai one year ago.  Once again, Muslim extremists, bent on establishing a world of their own warped vision of Islam, murdered and injured scores of innocent people for no purpose but to create fear and instability. The bodies of many of the dead hostages showed signs of torture or disfigurement.

And go ahead and look at the picture of one of these insane bastards:

Notice the clear uniform of the muslim terrorist..  the badge on his arm denoting "crazed follower of Allah", the flourescent green skin, the official black wrist watch of the Muslim Extremist Club.   Clearly, if this guy were walking down the street without his machine gun, we would all be able to pick him out of a crowd as someone who needs to be detained.

What?

You couldn't make that call?

You think in his cargo pants, t-shirt and back pack he looks just like any other college student walking the streets?  But... how can that be?  Clearly, when persons suspected of having involvement with Muslim extremists are detained for questioning, they are easily picked out of a crowd, no? 

Hmmm...

Now, imagine two scenarios.

In the first scenario, Richard Colvin is in charge of security at the Taj Mahal Hotel, where you are staying.  He has some suspicion that the guy above is up to no good, and, knowing of the importance of taking the high road with terrorism, while he could contact local police and have the man questioned, he is aware that there are allegatations that they abuse detainees.  So.  He has the man detained, and maintains him in the hotel office, while awaiting arrangements to have CSIS personal travel to India to question the man.

While he's doing this, all hell then brakes loose, and 164 persons are murdered.  164 families lose a loved one, and find out later that while Mr. Colvin was protecting the integrity of Canada's reputation, while he was assuring the detainee would not be harmed, their fathers, brothers, sisters, were tortured and then murdered.

In the second scenario, Richard Hillier detains the man.  He immediately contacs Indian police, they take in the suspect, and using only "coercive interrogation techniques" they derive the plan of the terrorists, and are sucsessful in preventing the murders.  However - in hindsight, it turns out that there are established Amnesty International reports that the Indian police have been known to torture and mistreat detainees.  An official judicial inquiry is called, and many human rights groups collectively shake their fingers at Canada and say, "you've let us down."

Which scenario will you live with?  Would it make any difference if it was your parent or sibling or child who was tortured and murdered?

This is the world we live in.  And I clearly over-simplify the point.  But so, too, does the current pack of dogs in Parliament from the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada.

However - thankfully, we have the much-heralded voice of intellect and reason to resolve the difficult question of balancing the needs of security and the rights of the detainee.  And on this point, I yield the floor to the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff, paraphrasing very slightly, his acceptance of torture "if it works", as reported in the U.K. periodical "Prospect", titled, appropriately, "If torture works..."

I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” (the suspect)—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded..  We must at least entertain the possibility that the operatives working on (the suspect) in our name are engaging not in gratuitous sadism but in the genuine belief that this form of torture—and it does qualify as such—makes all the difference.

Well said, Michael.  In difficult times, difficult decisions need be made.  And it's good to know you understand that.  Or did.

Canadian Spy Legislation Authorizes Release of Data to Foreign Governments Without Court Authority

No big deal.  Our government has the righ to demand personal data from ISP's, and, if they want, to do that on behalf of foreign governments WIHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSITE.

Did you read my post yesterday about "1984" and about the idea of the "superstate"?

Bill C-47

Section 16(2)  A designated person shall ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function


(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;

(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction;

Oh, and if you're not already nervous, be aware that the Canadian Immigration Service will now be sharing biometric information with other foreign authorities as well..you know, fingerprints, eye scans, that sort of thing.

George Orwell would be proud of them following his work so closely.

And, meanwhile, the reduction of our personal liberties.. oh, and continued unemployment and economic stress continue to take a back seat to concern for detainees two years ago.

Just in case you are keeping score;

Canadian Citizens: No Support at All
Foreign Nationals: Full Force Effort

Nice to know my tax dollars are going to a good cause.. we would hate to waste them on needy Canadians.

Who is speaking up for Canadians?

Well.

The circus in Ottawa continues.

The Liberals and NDP continue to bark like a pack of dogs about Afghan detainee abuse BY OTHER COUNTRIES, as the Conservative government continues on its way to  impose police state legislation on Canadian citizens.

And when the person who is directly suggested to be responsible for fielding Richard Colvin's concerns, namely, David Mulroney, is brought to respond to the information suggested by Colvin, the NDP and Liberals are obviously happy to hear from him too, aren't they?

Well, apparently not.

This was the response of the NDP:

"We never asked for him. This wasn't on our agenda," said NDP MP Paul Dewar.

No, I guess not.  This isn't about "truth" and this isn't about what is right and wrong.  It is the only thing the hapless Liberals and NDP can do to stem the tide of the Conservative juggernaut that's rolling in Canada.

Rolling out questionable, even fascist, legislation like Bill C-47.

Uh, Michael.. a little help?

While its all well and fine for the Liberals and NDP to stand up for the Taliban, I guess I have one question:

Who is speaking up for Canadians?

Time to Re-Read "1984"

Have you ever read George Orwell's "1984"? If you haven't, please do. If you have, maybe read it again.

There are certain themes in Orwell's disturbing piece of fiction that grow incrementally in our current society, and for people who value individual freedom, they are more than a little disconcerting.

The European Union wasn't created until 1993, and built upon the existing European Economic Community, and even that organization didn't exist until 1958. Yet, in 1949, George Orwell wrote about the creation of broad "superstates" eroding existing national borders and identities.

Think about that as we see the collective action of the world economic powers in response to the recent economic crisis.

More upsetting is the notion of a government, slowly, but surely, imposing its imprint upon our lives "for our own good." As more and more of our freedoms are taken from us, at each step of the way we are told it is "for our own good."

We need laws against cigarette advertising "for our own good."

We need seatbelt laws and helmet laws "for our own good."

We need to control access of U.S. media into Canada, "for our own good."

We need to prevent some people from offending other people "for our own good."

We need to allow the police to randomly arrest us, without cause, "for our own good."

We need to prevent those accused of crimes from fully questioning those who have laid complaints "for our own good."

We need to take property away from people charged with crimes before they are allowed to question their guilt, "for our own good."

And, now, we need to allow the government to conscript private business to "spy" on our citizens and to report their findings to the government, "for our own good."

Already, I am getting the usual suggestions of paranoia - however, ask yourself this:

When is the last time you saw the government REDUCE the degree to which they impact on your freedom to do what you want?

By definition, any new law is a restriction on your freedom. And there are many, many excellent reasons for proper government to do this - however, every year, from our municipal government right up to the level of international treaties (can you say Kyoto?) we see more and more regulation (i.e. government control) over what we, as citizens do in our daily lives.

Every year, government enacts more and more NEW statutes, and expands on existing statutes, and very seldom, do they reduce the number of those statutes or the size of existing statutes. What this means, very clearly, is that today you are subject to massive amounts of government control that our grandparents never would have even conceived of.

And yet, year in and year out, we let it pass with nary a notice... after all, it is all "for our own good."

And, like sheep, our citizens, and most disturbingly, our Liberal opposition, sits back and watches the current Conservative government put forth a new law this week, seeking to compel internet service providers to spy on all of us, and report back to government their findings. Warrantless interception of what you are looking at or reading on the internet. The very real equivalent of listening to your phone calls and opening your mail without your knowledge will be happening in Canada if citizens do not say, "enough".

Yes - it's all conducted under the very real and very important effort to battle child sexual abuse - however, that almost makes it worse, because no one wants to be labeled "weak on crime" or, worse, as a "child porn pervert" themselves. So. We watch it happen. And we say nothing. Because it's "for our own good."

Where is Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn on this point?  Or is freedom only important when it's being threatened by people who don't "look and act like US"?

Bill C-47 - Questioning My Member of Parliament

Following up on my last posting, I have made a very pointed request to my local MP seeking his opposition to Bill C-47, as follows:

(To Rick Casson, Conservative MP)

Mr. Casson;


I am a member of the Federal Conservative Party of Canada, and have also financially contributed to the party.

As a member of the party and as a person who has voted for the party and for the Reform Party before that I have some serious reservations over the introduction of Bill C-47, "An Act regulating telecommunication facilities to support investigations".

My experience as a lawyer shows me that once the state obtains license or authority to impose upon our liberty to prevent crime, there is a growing tendency for the state to expand that authority. Since beginning the practice of law in 1985, I have seen our fundamental freedoms shrinking more and more, and in particular, in the area of criminal law, I have noticed increased dismissal in our legislation and in our judiciary for the fundamental presumptions of innocence of those accused of crimes and in the authority granted for the state to intrude upon our fundamental freedoms in the cause of making a “safer society”.

This week it is my understanding that the Conservatives will seek to introduce Bill C-47, directing Internet Service Providers to report those suspected of accessing Child Pornography on the internet. I have three great concerns over his effort:

a) Firstly, I have to ask who will define what “child pornography” is, and will that include paintings of nude cherubs by Raphael or naked baby bathtub pictures? And will ISP’s, in order to assure compliance, be forced to err on the side of caution and be reporting all sorts of law-abiding Canadians for further investigation by our government?;

b) Secondly, as alluded to above, I have great suspicion that once the state is allowed license to use ISP’s to spy on Canadians for the purposes of seeking out users of child pornography, there will be an almost certain expansion in years to come for the state to require those ISP’s to report on other issues that the government believes pose threats to our welfare, and I have great concern for expansion of state intrusion into our privacy for “our own good”;

c) Finally, I have to ask how this relates to the most pressing concern of our citizens, our ballooning federal budget and our need to address economic and environmental issues which are clearly much larger priorities for our citizens. While the opposition to child pornography is, at first glance, one of those issues guaranteed to motivate the emotional appeal of your base – upon further examination, this conservative believes it is an effort that will likely result in expanded government and increased government expenditure.

While I respect our Prime Minister greatly and have, as indicated, given my support for you and our current government, I have to be candid and would hope that you will reconsider giving your support to this particular piece of legislation.

Thank-you for your consideration of my concerns.

Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Harvie

I would urge other Conservatives (and Liberals) to do likewise.  As it stands, only the NDP is questioning the wisdom of allowing for this effort in the absense of judicial oversight.

Conservatives - Are We For Freedom or Not. Let's Make Up Our Minds

Well.

If the Conservative government has it's way, everyone who is reading this will be reported by their ISP to the Federal Government for further investigation.

Today our Conservative Party of Canada seeks to introduce a bill to require Internet Service Providers to "Snoop" on their users, reporting those who appear to be accessing child pornography.

Yes.  The same Conservatives who rant and rail about "freedom of speech" and the need to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, now want to effectively create a big brother to watch what you, and everyone else on the Internet in Canada, is watching.

And they are doing it under the most compelling of arguments, to prevent the abuse of children.

While the cause may be laudable, I think that we, as "conservatives" should be leary of this sort of "big brother" effort by our government. 

This, for me, is a big issue.  A major issue.  This is a "gun registry" and "universal daycare" kind of issue. 

Think about it for a moment.  Someone in government wants the right to know what websites you are watching, and they are going to legislate for ISP's to be compelled to act as their own little "thought police".   And, you may say, well, so what?  I'm not watching child porn, so what do I care.

Well.. who decides what "child porn" is, to begin with?  And if you are an ISP, you want to err on the side of caution, I would think.  Better to report too much than too little, if you don't want to be charged yourself for failure to comply.

For example, will we be free to view images of Raphael's "The Triumph of Galatea", pictured above?  This masterpiece of painter Raffaello Sanzio, clearly depicts the child nudity in the midst of adult sexuality.  Under the new PC bill, you will be well advised to put a block in for the painter Raphael.  Ok, you may say, never mind. 

Beyond that, once the government has obtained license to invade your privacy to prevent a social "wrong", they will, history shows us, expand than license.  Witness roadside checkstops.  Our courts determined that impaired driving was such a risk to our welfare, that the minor infringement of our freedoms inherent in a stop without probable cause was a reasonable infrindgment.  Well, now what?  Well, now we have seatbelt check stops.  No suggestion that people are being flung out of their cars injuring or killing innocent bystanders - it's all an economic argument. That your right to put your own life at risk, because of the cost of treating your injury, is now grounds to allow the police to arbitrarily detain you.

So.  Once the government has license to require ISP's to report naked children on the internet (burn your baby bathtub photos), well, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump, to assure that we aren't involved in terrorism, no?  That's a pretty big deal, isn't it?  So if you happen to be criticizing the government or supporting the cause of the Palestinians, or maybe just accessing an Islamic website, well, the government might need the ISP's to report about that too.  Beyond that?  Well, maybe they want to know about who is selling what on EBay and Kijiji, because, well, there are tax evaders there.. 

The problem is, they will get no opposition on this (or very little) because the Liberals and NDP want to control your thoughts even more than the Conservatives.

I would suggest you contact your PC MP and advise them you have great concerns over this, and may choose not to support their government shoudl this legislation move ahead. 

Be consistent, conservatives. If you don't want the governmen censoring what you say, you had better stand against a government sensoring what you can see and read.

It is truly that serious.

Danielle Smith Announces a Pointless Task Force to Gain Political Points

Well, I'm relieved.

Danielle Smith yesterday announced the formation of a "task force" to examine MLA salaries and benefits.

And the two "experts" heading the task force are Link Byfield and Mark Dyrholm.

You remember them. 

Link was the force behind the completely failed Alberta Report - he couldn't sell a conservative magazine in Western Canada, and when the magazine went under, he left his employees high and dry while directing funds towards his political agenda. 

Mark was the fellow leadership candidate for the WRA who suggested that climate change issues are irrelevant and that we should reconsider our place in confederation.

I'm sure that they will, however, produce a very unbiased and open-minded report..err.. maybe not..

"I think what we are looking for is does it pass the reasonable person test?" Smith said. "And I think when you look at all of the different ways in which MLAs, cabinet ministers and the premier are being compensated, I don't think at the moment it does pass the reasonable person test."

Here's the smell test.

Do you, as an Albertan, have the sense that the best and the brightest are seeking out office in our Province?

Do you, as an Albertan, feel that it's time to lower the bar of how we value our MLA's? 

Our current total budget for ALL MLA compensation, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP's and Independants, is $16,905,000.00

Our total Provincial Budget is $36,375,000,000.00

Do the math.  The total percentage of our budget devoted to MLA compensation is .0046%

So.  If we pay our MLA's absolutely nothing, we can save about .0046% in our budget.

This is the priority for Danielle Smith.  Not education (of which the WRA has no strategy to speak of), not health care (of which the WRA has no strategy to speak of).  No - the priority for Danielle Smith, apparently, is looking into MLA compensation.  Why?  Not to help Albertans.  But to, no doubt, score political points.  To make noise about how MLA's have been getting raises, while other Albertans don't.

A "different" sort of politics?  Guess not.

But hey, I'm already planning on what to do with the .0046% of taxes I'm going to save when the MLA's salaries are cut to zero.

Whoo hoo..!

Liberal Party of Canada Leaps to Defence of Taliban Terrorists

Well.

After much hand-wringing and threats of litigation and so forth from many Liberals in Canada over the flyers mailed out by the Conservatives depicting the Liberals as not being supportive of Israel's right to defend itself, well, they continue to take positions which will hardly hold them in high esteem of Canadian Jewish communities, but now leaping to the aid of Taliban terrorists.

Taking a page from the Al Quaeda operations manual, the Liberals are doing their best to:

Spread rumors and write statements that instigate people against the enemy (Canada).

Richard Colvin has made his reports based upon suspicion, in the complete absense of any clear corroberation.  None.  However - based upon the one substantiated discovery of Afghan mistreatment of prisoners, our government, under Stephen Harper, in 2007, amended the prisoner transfer protocol, and after that, even according to Colvin, there was no suggestions of continued improper transfer of prisoners.

Problem solved.  Move on.

No.  Not according to the Liberal Party of Canada.  Even as the problem has been resolved, and as Taliban continue to kill and injure innocent civilians and our own Canada troops, the Liberal Party of Canada is doing it's best to further the Islamic extremist cause by wanting to spend time and taxpayer dollars in establishing an "official inquiry" in to the whole issue, to discredit the effort to combat terrorism, and to, in the bargain, empower Islamic extremists by further weakening our defence.

Typical.

But I have three questions:

1) Colvin's first report of concern was brought to light in April of 2006, very shortly after Prime Minister Stephen Harper came into power.  Concerns regarding treatment of Afghan prisoners, by that point, clearly related to established protocol under the previous Liberal government, and as early as 2002, Liberal Defence Minister Art Eggleton was being called upon to explain his government's transfer of detainees to American forces.  In other words, if there were problems with prisoner transfer protocols, those clearly originated under the Liberal government.  Why is no one asking about THAT?

2) Under the topic of Liberals in Glass Houses throwing more stones.. perhaps we might let our recollection go back to 1993 and the brutal beating death of a Somali teenager at the hands of two Canadian soldiers participating in humanitarian efforts in Somalia.   In response, an inquiry was in fact, called, however, you may also recall Jean Chretien's quashing of the Somalia Inquiry.  A good summary of the Liberal response, taken from the Canadian Encyclopedia is here:

the Liberal government’s angry reaction to the report seems to stack the deck against real reform. The most controversial move came last January, when then-Defence Minister Doug Young decided to end the inquiry’s hearings at a time when the commissioners insisted they would have no chance to hear critical witnesses or probe some of the most fundamental questions in the whole affair. And although Conservative senators vowed to hold hearings into what the Somalia inquiry did not have time to consider - the torture-killing of Somali teenager Shidane Arone - Liberal senators quashed their bid well before the June 2 election call.


Last week (July 4, 1997), the government - bolstered by polls showing that Canadians have generally lost interest in the Somalia debacle - adopted a combative stance. "There is no coverup," declared Prime Minister Jean Chrétien as he emerged from his weekly caucus meeting. Defence Minister Art Eggleton rejected outright the inquiry’s 2,000-page report, instead attacking the integrity of commissioner Peter Desbarats, former dean of the University of Western Ontario’s journalism program, who has signed a contract to write a book about the inquiry. "There is no evidence of a conspiracy," Eggleton told reporters. And, he added, "this happened four years ago. The time for pointing fingers is past."

Well.  I think that makes abundant sense.  We have dealt with the concerns in 2007, and "the time for pointing fingers is past."

c) Finally - the penultimate question.  Where is the so-called leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff?  I can tell you where he is.  Hiding.  Because as soon as this gutless wonder shows his face, he is going to be asked to explain his article written at precisely the same time that Colvin intially raised his concerns, in April of 2006, when Ignatieff, in the U.K. periodical "Prospect", said:

I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded. Indeed, Mark Bowden points to a Time report in March 2003 that Sheikh Mohammed had “given US interrogators the names and descriptions of about a dozen key al Qaeda operatives believed to be plotting terrorist attacks.” We must at least entertain the possibility that the operatives working on Sheikh Mohammed in our name are engaging not in gratuitous sadism but in the genuine belief that this form of torture—and it does qualify as such—makes all the difference.

The hypocricy of the Liberals knows no bounds.  They treat Canadians as if they are all incapable of either reading or recalling the very substanital reality that the Liberal Party of Canada is a party without soul or honesty.

Faux Scandal #31 - Liberals Seek Inquiry into Prisoner Torture in Afghanistan

Well.

So the ankle-biting continues today as we see that relying upon one man, Richard Colvin, who has no first hand evidence whatseover, the Liberals are demanding an inquiry into allegations Canadian soldiers were complicit, not in torturing prisoners, but in not assuring that prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities were not tortured.

Richard Colvin: "according to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured."

I see. 

Firstly - do you really think that today, in Canada, the average Canadian gives half a freaking care about what did or didn't happen to Taliban terrorists at the hands of Afghan authorities? 

While the tragedy of September 11, 2001 may have faded somewhat from memory, the images of the savage, cowardly terrorists killing innocents in Mumbai a year ago this month are still relatively fresh in our minds, where extremist Islamic terrorists killed at least 173 people and wounded at least 308.

For those of you who would like to treat terrorists like garden-variety shoplifters and impaired drivers in Canadian courts, here is a visual reminder of the aftermath of Mumbai.

Those murdered and injured were not "soldiers" and they most certainly were not psychotic, insane, terrorists bent on killing anyone not of their faith to create their vision of heaven on earth. 

So - let's start with that.  Let's start with the stark realization that what we are talking about is whether or not we have been gentle enough with these terrorists after we detain them.

From there, let's have a quick look at a captured Al Quaeda terrorist manual, which advises those detained:

Lesson Eighteen


PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS


IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:


1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brother’s defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother’s family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge.[These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

In other words, first thing you do is complain of torture and keep complaining, even as you are brought to Court.  Remember the names, make it sound believable.  So..  when you see a couple of bruises on a terrorist in custody, consider that they have already been trained to tell you they were tortured.
Another Al Quaeda training manual discovered by military personel reports that:

The main mission for which the Military Organization is

responsible is the overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with
an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:


1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the
installations, and the neighbors.


2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.

3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.


4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.


5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.


6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality,
and sin; not a vital target.


7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital
economic centers.


8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.

Aside from clarifying for those who missed the point on September 11, 2001, and on November 26, 2008, the raison d'etre of these thugs is to kill us.  To destroy our "places of amusement".  To "assassinate foreign tourists".  And, the most applicable for Mr. Colvin,

5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.

So.  While I'm sure it is not intentional, there is a very real probability that Richard Colvin, and now, the Liberal Party of Canada, in fact, is a direct participant in facilitating the advice and direction to Islamic terrorists.  Make sure we take seriously the suggestion that they are being tortured, do undermine the effort of those who oppose them.

Alright - so the first point is, there are serious, serious doubts as to whether or not torture actually occurred.  While there are some indications of some injury to prisoners, as pointed out by Peter McKay, people get beat up in our own jails in Canada.  Beyond that, one might ask, is there any evidence of amputated limbs?  Any suggestion of prisoners having their eyeballs pulled out?  Holes in their hands from power drills being forced through them?  Apparently this is how torture really is supposed to take place, according to another discovered Al Quaeda "how to" book.  (Again, just in case you find yourself thinking compasionately about these monsters.)

Now.  Let's suppose that, after being captured by Canadian troops, prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities WERE mistreated.

So what?

To begin with, it's their country.  What are we supposed to do with them?  Kill them all?  Ship them back to North America, where we KNOW the liberal left hates Guantanamo.  I suppose we could house every single terrorist detained in Canadian prisons at the cost of you and I, the Canadian taxpayer.

I prefer to hand them over to their own people, and let nature take it's course, if you know what I mean.

And this then brings us back to the point this post started with. 

We don't care.

Canadians don't care.

We have bigger issues to deal with and the Liberal Party of Canada cannot seem to grasp the need to deal with issues that MATTER to Canadians.  They prefer to manufacture faux scandals, one after the other, which does little but to highlight the absense of any reason to consider them as a valid alternative to the Conservative Party. 

The tacit message of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Job well done Mr. Harper, the only things we can find to complain about, really, are issues of little consequence to the country.  So - keep up the good work.

Breaking News: Stephen Harper is Running the Country

While Canadians from Goose Bay to Nanaimo wait glued to their radios seeking information from Joe Volpe and Irwin Cotler about "flyergate", this just in:

Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, is actually running the country and all is well.

Now back to your manufactured scandal, care of the Liberal Party of Canada.

"Hypocrite" [ˈhɪpəkrɪt] n. (also "Joe Volpe") a person who pretends to be what he is not.

So.

Today we read that Joe Volpe is up in arms because the Conservatives dared to point out the inconsistencies in the Liberal response to violence against Israel. After a Conservative mail out to largely Jewish communities pointed out Michael Ignatieff's assertion that Israel was committing "war crimes", and reminding voters about Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj "musing" about delisting Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, good old Joe Volpe came out swinging, referring to the mail out as:

"the most scandalous and scurrilous misuse I’ve ever seen of parliamentary privilege and taxpayers’ dollars."

Well, just wait a minute Joe.

Firstly, if we want to talk about misuse of taxpayer dollars, why don't we recall your own receipt of the "Teddy" award, by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, for the most egregious example of misuse of taxpayer dollars in 2006? Details of the award can be found here.. but, as just an example of "scandalous and scurrilous misuse" of taxpayers’ dollars, according the CTF:

Volpe and his staff earned the award by racking up more than $60,000 in travel and hospitality bills in just a few short months at the expense of taxpayers.


Some of the lavish dining expenses include:


•Treating friends to a dinner on March 21, 2005 that cost $507.39.
•Just a few hours later, they ate again at an Italian restaurant for $80.14.
•Spending $138 on pizza for two one night, and $207 a few nights later on pizza for three.

Oh. But wait. There's more. Let's also not forget Joe Volpe, the recipient of $108,000.00 in donations from American drug manufacturer Apotex Inc., avoiding donation limits by it being divided into $5,400.00 individual donations from Apotex executives' and their children, including two 11 year old twins, who just happened to apparently have a great desire to break their piggybank and donate $5,400.00 to good old Joe Volpe.

For a couple chuckles at Volpe's expense see this site: http://www.youthforvolpe.blogspot.com

At what point will these Liberal Party side-show barkers get the idea that throwing stones in their massively shattered glass house is counter-productive? They have so abused the taxpayers of this country, that every time they open their greasy mouths, they simply remind us of why Canadians voted them out in the first place.

Notice one thing though. 

While Joe Volpe is fully of bombast and moral indignation.. the one thing he does not say is that the statements in the flyer are untrue.

The PC Party needs to be "right", right now.

I refuse to become an ideologue. While I may support the PC party, today, my vote is malleable, depending upon what I personally believe to be in the best interests of my Province, based upon a consideration of all of the facts, and not based upon blind allegiance to a party or even an ideology. I believe in people.. I don't believe in "isms".


So, as we debate Alberta politics of late, I decided to sit down and have coffee with a very intelligent and well-informed PC supporter and former MLA who also happens to, at present, support Danielle Smith. Unlike some, this gentleman has given her support in a quiet, studied way - and while he could clearly make serious waves if he made his support public, he has made it very clear that he will not do that. Look up "class" in the dictionary and you will see his picture.

His concern, clearly, is that the party has moved too far from its right-of-centre identity. That it has, perhaps, become too much of a "populist" party, seeking to be all things to all people. And I fear he is exactly right.

After some serious conversation, where I learned a great deal about politics in this Province, we did come to some common understanding and concern - and it was basically this:

a) The PC Party as it stands, needs to re-establish itself as a clearly conservative party;

b) The WR Alliance is providing a very clear message to the party of where things may go should the party not "get the point";

However - after some further discussion, we came to some further common ground:

c) The WR Alliance is not in a position and will not be in a position to actually govern this Province come next election; and

d) If the Liberals ever get a clue, and dump David Swann in favor of a more center-friendly leader, eschewing the NDP hangers-on, there is a great potential for a right-sided vote split, allowing the Liberal party of Alberta to establish a government.

Thus is the dilemma.

And there is no easy answer.

Well, maybe there is one... Mr. Stelmach, it's time to be bold.

Ignatieff's New Strategists. Change. Hope? Change?Nope.

Michael Ignatieff..  Double Agent

Clearly Michael Igntieff is running scared.  After getting pasted in the recent bi-elections, he's cleaning house and appointing "new" strategists.  Or so he says.

The strategists?  Former Chretien era strategist Peter Donolo is now Ignatieff's Chief of Staff, and is bringing along more of the same old, same old.

This is Ignatieff's grand response to the stumbling, bumbling Liberal Party of Canada's need to re-invent itself?  Going backwards?

Seriously.

It's like he WANTS to lose.

Every time he does something inane and stupid, and it's almost a daily occurance, I suggest in gest that he is actually a small "c" conservative recruited by his former idol, George W. Bush, to unhinge and destroy the Liberal Party of Canada.

Friday we see that after firing his former staff he did keep one anchor around his ankle, Warren Kinsella.

Ok.  My past gests have perhaps become legitimate.  Clearly Michael Ignatieff DOES intend on destroying the Liberal Party's fortunes.

Well done Michael, well done.

Mr. Stelmach.. "Be Bold"

And now.. with a degree of difficulty of 3.3, the "Swann" dive.

Ok.. so think about this for a moment. The only valid debate going on in this Province today is between conservatives and conservatives.

And the tenor of the debate? "Are we conservative enough?"

Lost in all of this, the lame and obscure Dr. David Swann. In the midst of the H1N1 stress, in the midst of admitted growing pains with the new centralized health authority, the Liberal leader who happens to be a doctor is irrelevant.

And that's not a quote from a conservative point of view. That is a quote from longtime Calgary Liberal organizer Donn Lovett. As reported in the Calgary Herald,

A prominent provincial Liberal strategist who has spearheaded successful election campaigns for the Grits says the party is completely "irrelevant" in Alberta, mired in "a culture of losing" and needing to overhaul leader David Swann.

So. Think about that Alberta PC Party if you feel at all timid about making budgetary changes in the face of what will, no doubt, be a loud braying response from unions and "friends of medicare". The only opposition you face is saying you aren't being tough enough.

My message to my Premier - "Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."

Hey bloggers and readers.. how about a little effort?

Yesterday I had some good thoughts on my blog.. though some readers I think missed the point.


I'll try to be clearer.

I happen to support the PC party at this point in Alberta. There are a bundle of reasons, some of which I share from time to time. And I happen not to support he WRA alliance. I have shared some of those reasons as well.

But here is the thing. What irritates me in political discussion isn't when people disagree with me. I mean, who the hell am I to suggest anyone should follow my lead. And beyond that, my own voting record since reaching adulthood about an eon ago, has been pretty chaotic. Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Reform, Conservative.. so, who I vote for today, may not look anything like who I vote for tomorrow.

No, what irritates me, what I hate, are two things:

a) That half or more of our citizens who are blessed with the ability to select their leaders, don't vote at all; and

b) That of those who do vote, for many, the decision is based upon about as much forethought as choosing between McDonalds and Burger King. Maybe less.

Hidden amongst my own current bias yesterday was the suggestion that whoever you vote for, do it with your eyes open. Make decisions not simply based upon some emotional reaction to your own current circumstance, but asking yourself the serious decision, "Why am I really voting for (whoever) and why am I not voting for (whoever else)."

Do a little research.

The people you select change your lives, and not always for the better.

If you have a sense that your pissed off about utility deregulation, well, ask yourself why, and maybe look into the facts about your neighbors, both in Canada and outside of Canada.

If you have a sense that you think health care is being miss-handled, again, look into it. What are our waiting times, how do they compare to other jurisdictions? How much do we spend as a percentage of our GDP compared to, say, B.C., or Washington State, or France. Be aware.

And then, if that person or party isn't the current person in power, so you're looking elsewhere, ask them, "What are you going to do about health care, or utilities, or whatever.." And make sure you get an answer than responds to your concerns. And if it does, and it happens not to be whoever I'm voting for on that day, well, good for you.

Because at the end of the day, in many ways, your vote is the most valuable asset you will ever own.

So don't waste it.

While the Liberals Were Cooking Up Their Latest Scandal

Quick follow-up on yesterday's post.

While the Liberals were quickly manufacturing another "scandal", there were four bi-elections in on Monday, in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and British Columbia, in which three of them sent some very distressing messages to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The result?

A Conservative victory in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivieredu-Loup, where popular local mayor Bernard Genereux won by 1,500 votes to give the Tories their first win in the region in 16 years.

A further Conservative victory in regaining the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, which had been held by an independent, Bill Casey

And while the Conservatives didn't win in Hochelaga, the seat remaining with the Bloc, while the Liberals outvoted the NDP in Hochelaga by a proportion of 19 to one in 2000, they ran third behind Jack Layton's candidate on Monday. In total, the NDP won 20 per cent of the vote against 14 per cent for the Liberals.

According to the Toronto Star, queries regarding the results to spokespersons for Ignatieff were unanswered.

But hey, you should ask him about MP Dykstra and his blackberry, there he'll give you an earful.

Well done, Michael Ignatieff, well done.

The Conservative Party of Canada.. is the difference nothing more than removing the word "Progressive" from the Party Name?

I'm curious about this.

In a discussion yesterday with another blogger, I offered my opinion that voting Reform some time ago accomplished very little but giving Jean Chrétien an extended opportunity to stack our Senate and our Judiciary... and sneak a few dollars to his pals in Quebec in the bargain.

Am I wrong?

Is there a qualitative difference between the current result of that Reform experiment - the Conservative Party of Canada, and its predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada?

I don't see it. We still don't have an elected Senate. We don't have fixed election dates. We're doing pretty much the same things the previous PC Government did, just with a different name.

So what was the point? Don't get me wrong, I'm not ABOUT to support the LPC and their newest boondoggle, National Daycare... but, well, I'm wondering if there was anything really accomplished. And if there wasn't, is that necessarily a bad thing?

Your thoughts would be valued, so mark your ballot on my poll and drop a few lines if you feel inclined.

The Most Recent Liberal Effort

I hate to say it, but two relatively decent Liberal bloggers are reporting today on the most recent Conservative "scandal" - that St. Catherine's MP Rick Dykstra was photographed looking at his blackberry during a Remembrance Day ceremony yesterday. The suggestion is that this sort of disrespect will not go unnoticed at election time.


Ok. For those of you keeping score at home, the current Liberal platform-in-waiting, the response to the needs of Canadians currently struggling through the world-wide recession is as follows:

a) We will not use large cheques as photo opportunities for government funding;

b) We will not allow any government supported sports program to use an emblem that has a "C" on it with the colors red and blue, because that looks too much like a Conservative logo, and if fact, we will seek to rename our country, "Borealia", one of the original names considered for this country, to avoid any further confusion with the Conservative Party of Canada;

c) We will assure that no MP uses a blackberry during any public event;

d) We will not take communion if we are not Catholic, and if we do take communion, we damn sure will make certain that someone verifies the eating of the communion wafer by photograph (uh.. we're not sure how to manage both (c) and (d), but we'll figure it out.); and

e) We will support an elected Senate as appointing anyone from within your own party's supporters is truly scandalous.

It is widely expected that item (e) will be soundly voted down in caucus as not being applicable to the Liberal Party of Canada as all of THEIR supporters will be even-handed and as such, appointments of Liberals will benefit Canadians while appointments from any other party's supporters would clearly bring society into ruin.

So.

That's it.

That's the sum total of what the Liberal's plan is to help Canadians.

I'll bet those out of work autoworkers in Ontario feel better already.

Do You Believe in Fairies? Or the Liberal Gun Registry?

Well now.


Today we read that 61% of Canadians outside of Quebec do not believe the gun registry makes any difference in reducing gun crime, according to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll last week, reported here.

In a totally separate poll, it was found that in responding to societal issues, 61% of Canadians outside of Quebec prefer to deal with those issues in a pragmatic, common-sense fashion, where 39% would prefer to respond in a knee-jerk, hysterical fashion, regardless of the cost and the consequences.

Interesting.

Now. For anyone who might read this and actually support this incredible waste of money, and the most significant reason I finally gave up ever voting Liberal during my lifetime, I would ask:

On what basis has it been suggested to you that someone registering their gun is less likely to use it in a crime?

The answer is easy. No such suggestion is ever made, because it isn't true. Gun registry advocates will talk about anecdotal and sort of aspirational reasons to have the registry - you know, that police will be able to know if firearms exist in a home during a domestic altercation.. that they will be able to track down owners when they find the gun after it's been used in a crime...etc., etc... but they never suggest that the registry will reduce crime. Yet, 39% of Canadians outside of Quebec, and most of those in Quebec, think it will.

Scratch that. They WISH it would.

And that is the reason we have spent billions of dollars on the gun registry.

A wish.

And as Parliament has finally revisited the efficacy of the registry system, those supporting the registry are, as one would predict, hysterical and making their best effort to influence Canadians not to let it go.

It reminds me of another story you may have heard:

Her voice was so low that at first he could not make out what she said. Then he made it out. She was saying that she thought she could get well again if children believed in fairies.

 Peter flung out his arms. There were no children there, and it was night time; but he addressed all who might be dreaming of the Neverland, and who were therefore nearer to him than you think: boys and girls in their nighties, and naked papooses in their baskets hung from trees.

"Do you believe?" he cried.

Tink sat up in bed almost briskly to listen to her fate.

She fancied she heard answers in the affirmative, and then again she wasn't sure.

"What do you think?" she asked Peter.

"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."

Many clapped.

Some didn't.

A few beasts hissed.

The clapping stopped suddenly; as if countless mothers had rushed to their nurseries to see what on earth was happening; but already Tink was saved. First her voice grew strong, then she popped out of bed, then she was flashing through the room more merry and impudent than ever. She never thought of thanking those who believed, but she would have like to get at the ones who had hissed.

This is the mantra of gun control advocates, "no, we can't show you that the gun registry will help, but if you just believe, if you just clap your hands, the fairy won't die."



Sorry Tink. You're done for.

Wild Rose Alliance.. an Alliance with Big Oil?

So.

The Wild Rose Alliance is a "grassroots" party.

They are a party of the "average joe" in Alberta.

There are not a party simply on the "big oil dole".

Uh....

Wildrose leader goes after support of Calgary oilpatch in bid to take on Tories



(CP) –  Nov. 9, 2009 (3 hours ago)

CALGARY — The leader of Alberta's burgeoning Wildrose Alliance party is going after the province's powerful oilpatch for support

In a breakfast speech to about 200 of the industry's key players, Danielle Smith promised that her party would make changes to the province's royalty framework.

Royalties have been a lightning rod for discontent in the Calgary business community since Premier Ed Stelmach reworked them two years ago.

Jim Davidson, who heads the Calgary investment firm FirstEnergy, organized the breakfast.

He says he wanted to introduce Smith to the "downtown core" and he suggests that the sellout crowd is a strong sign that business leaders are willing to listen to alternatives to the Stelmach government.

Stelmach survived his party's leadership review on the weekend with a 77 per cent approval rating, but Smith says he's still out of touch with the average Albertan.

Uh.. yeah.  The "average" Albertan.
 
Indeed.

So.. Off to Red Deer. And Don't Call Me a Hero.

U.N. Security Counsel Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced this morning that with the situation in Okotoks having become much more severe, U.N. Security forces will be re-deployed from Somalia later this week, to deal with the throngs of Alberta refugees who have been seen making their way slowly along the TransCanada Highway towards their destination in Gull Lake, Saskatchewan.

Notwithstanding that our Province is in the midst of Armageddon, awash with mass hysteria, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... I'm going to bravely walk outside my door this morning and drive myself to Red Deer for the Progressive Conservative Annual General Meeting.

Don't say I'm a hero. Yes, I know that the Province of Alberta is, no doubt, the most frightening place on earth to live today. I realize that our health care system is in a shambles (oh, I won't be blogging on Monday morning because I'm going in to a radiology clinic to obtain a routine echocardiogram as a follow up to a medical I had with my family doctor a couple weeks ago) and that crime is rampant (I wonder if CBC Radio will be doing another program on how Alberta is leading all provinces in grappling with violent crime in Canada as they did Wednesday?)

No, notwithstanding the risks of going out alone in Alberta, as your trusted blogger, I'm putting my life on the line, as I owe it to my readers to risk everything to report on just how bad it truly is all over this Province. Should I survive the trek, with laptop in hand, I'll let you know how the meeting goes.

Pray for me.

Shooting Down the Long Gun Registry

Well.

20 Liberal and NDP MP's have broken ranks and voted to support the Conservative motion to abolish the long gun registry yesterday, resulting in the motion being approved in commons to now go to committee for study.

I say to those Liberal and NDP MP's, well done. There are, apparently, some MP's who THINK when they vote.

Why would they do this? Well, curiously enough, while listening to CBC Radio yesterday morning there was an excellent discussion regarding the gun registry, including two experts on youth violence. Their opinion? That there is absolutely nothing in any serious study to suggest that the gun registry would have any impact on reducing violence. No such studies even exist. And that the reason there isn't any such, according to them, is that there is nothing in the existing body of knowledge that would even suggest that such a study would be worth entertaining. The speakers were unanimous that $2 billion dollars would be much better spent in programs that current studies have already shown can be effective in reducing violence, particularly in early intervention with young people.

Mia Dauvergne, senior analyst with Statistics Canada provided information that there is no indication that since the gun registry gun crimes have reduced - in fact, the suggestion is they have increased somewhat. Moreover, if one has regard to the article by Simon Fraser University and U.B.C. professors, Gary Mauser and W.T. Stanbury, we can see that registry proponents have misused statistics that do exist to mislead the public - and that, in fact, again, they point out:

Even criminologists who do not support firearm ownership agree (albeit sometimes reluctantly) that no solid evidence can be found to support restricting access to firearm ownership among the general public (Jacobs, 2002; Kleck 1997; Mauser and Maki, 2003). This is reassuring news since the best available research suggests that access to firearms does not increase overall suicide, homicide, or accident rates (Kleck, 1997; Lott, 2003).

And they go on to conclude:

As long as advocates of “gun control” continue to ignore the significant body of academic research that conflicts with their own orthodoxy, Canada’s gun laws will continue to be an ineffective way to save lives.

Again, on CBC yesterday, University of Ottawa Professor of Criminology Irv Waller, author of "Less Law- More Order" also reiterated the clear opinion that the Gun Registry is really a boondoggle which will have no measurable affect upon gun crime - with the money being much better used to address social programs to reduce violence, such as those employed in Boston to spectacular results.

Oh. And a pat on the back to Alberta, which was suggested to be the most innovative province in Canada in establishing programs to reduce violence in our communities. Creating a cohesive relationship between communities and between agencies in those communities, including police and social services is said to be the model of addressing violence in our streets.

When University Professors in the field of criminology seem aligned with Conservatives, you would hope more Liberal and NDP MP's will begin to understand just how stupid Allan Rock was when he introduced the massive waste of taxpayer dollars called the Gun Registry.

Today, for the first time in a while, I'm proud to be supporting the Conservative Party of Canada, and, I have to say, I also have a grudging respect for those Liberal and NDP MP's who showed the right stuff in standing beside them to stop this pointless waste of dollars.

Of course, the only thing better than fixing a mistake is preventing it from happening in the first place - note to Liberal and NDP MP's - take another look at Universal Daycare.

H1N1 - was invented by Ed Stelmach and Ron Liepert

Calls for resignation of our health minister, Ron Liepert were echoing in Edmonton as the Liberals and the NDP did their best to take advantage of a difficult health issue to make political points. To hear them, one might assume that the H1N1 was created by the PC Party of Alberta.

Well, let me point out a couple of things, that one might think, David Swann, being a doctor, might have some passing knowledge of.

Well, to begin with, Alberta has received significantly less vaccine that originally anticipated, and has been required to re-jig it's program on the fly in response to that shortfall.

So - it must be that rotten federal Conservative government no? Well, that's the problem according to the federal NDP and Liberals. The Conservatives dropped the ball. Just ask them.

Problem is, well, the Conservatives also were caught off guard when anticipated supplies didn't materialize, again, requiring a re-adjustment on the fly regarding dispersal of the vaccine. The reality?

Roll-out of the vaccine was delayed when the cultures of H1N1 needed to make the vaccine produced low yields and was further delayed when manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline was forced to turn over part of its production to produce pure, or unadjuvanted, vaccine for pregnant women. Most of the vaccine being distributed in Canada is a mix of vaccine and a cocktail of additives — called an adjuvant — that multiplies its effectiveness.

Huh. So there just isn't enough to go around. And that's the fault of... well, no one. Guess what, fellow citizens, not everything can be guaranteed to be delivered in 5 minutes out of the drive-through window of your local McDonalds. Sometimes, there is only so much we can do.

Unless you are Michael Ignatieff or Jack Layton.

But then, I ask myself, wasn't there a plan in place during the decades of Liberal government’s stewardship of the health care of Canadians? Wasn't there already an established protocol for administration of large-scale vaccines in the face of a pandemic? Certainly the Liberals had an established plan of attack already, didn't they?

Well - if they didn't, why not? If perfection is the order of the day for federal Liberals, why weren't THEY perfect?

The reality is that, as made very clear in the World Health Organization's report on "Whole of Society Pandemic Readiness", a proper response requires broad-based cooperation, from the local community level to the international relations between nations.

And making political points does not advance that cause.

Instead of trying their best to get on the front page, and playing cheap political parlor-games like demanding "resignations", what should be happening is leaders, true leaders, offer their hand and say, "how can we help?"

That appears to be too much to expect from our politicians at this time of broad societal insecurity regarding the welfare of all of our citizens. That appears to be too much to expect from a medical doctor, who, last I understood, was required to take an oath saying, primum non nocere- a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm."

Now.. to be fair, would be expect more from a Conservative government in opposition?  Sadly, I fear not.  I think the illness of politics in western democracy is not party-specific, but infects the body politic as a whole.  Now, thankfully, it appears that the H1N1 is probably not the killer it could be.  But, if it was, what might we expect from politicians then?  Something to think about as this current situation could be a dress rehearsal for something much worse.