Recent Terrorist Attempt.. the media response is laughably predictible.

Turn on CNN.  Or BBC.  Or CBC. 

And what do you see?

Well, initially, it was all about the concern with how this suspected terrorist got on the plane in the first place, the U.S. Government having to constantly explain that there was insufficient evidence to place the terrorist on the "no fly" list.

Gee.  Seems like just yesterday that we were all complaining about how unfair the "no fly" list was, and now, apparently, it's not broad enough.

Now, however, in the days following the fear, now that journalists can feel safe that THEIR family didn't lose anyone over the holidays, we are back to the suggestion that this was just some lone malcontent, and, as trumpeted in the Globe and Mail, "No Evidence Detroit Flight Incident Part of Larger Plot".

Note:  Not "attempted murder".  Not "Terrorist Attempt".  No, now it's a "flight incident".

And, while the story goes on to explain how an affluent family spawned a child who had visions of mass murder, the lead suggests "no cause to worry".  All is good. No one died.  This time.

The world, today, is truly messed up.  While the developed world lined up to agree to send money to places like, well, Yemen and the Sudan, many of their citizens are busy getting ready to martyr themselves by killing us.

Think about that for a minute.

And the media suggests, "no big deal, don't worry".. oh, and, by the way, its the CANADIANS who are the bastards of the world.

Pardon me for throwing up in my mouth just a little bit.

Canada.

Stop appologizing.

We and most of the developed world should be proud that not only do we have freedom for our citizens, but we open our doors to the people of those countries to come immigrate and share our freedom - which freedom some of those same people use against us to harm us. 

I am Canadian.

And I'm proud of it.

And for those who feel "shame" because we didn't do enough for terrorists in Afghanistan, for those who feel "shame" because we didn't buy into a deeply flawed and pointless effort to redistribute our wealth to countries spawning terrorists, well feel free to emmigrate.  To Yemen.  Or Sudan.  Or Afghanistan.  Their arms are open.  And when THEIR police happen to pick you up and ACTUALLY torture you.. well, I'm sure the tough guys at Amnesty International will intercede.

Richard Warman is a Wiener. (Thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada)

Well.  The Supreme Court did something right.  It's been a while.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered an early Christmas present to all of those who value freedom in Canada, and expanded the scope of the defence in libel cases, ruling that statements made "responsibly" on matters of public interest were protected from libel.  As reported by CBC News:

The Supreme Court said it examined laws in other countries with similar legal systems, such as the United Kingdom and Australia. It found that Canadian law was strict by comparison and did not give enough weight to the value of free expression.

Read that last sentence again.

"Canadian Law.. did not give enough weight to the value of free expression".

Really?

Well, to celebrate this modest expansion of liberty in a country which had been rolling down the road to smiley fascism for some time, I'm going to take advantage of the law today which didn't exist two days ago:

Richard Warman is a wiener.

There.

I feel better already.

Tell Telus to Go Screw Themselves

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

But, well, I have a blog, so, I'm going to use it to single out the most irritating group of assholes on earth, at least for today.

The Telus corporation.

I have fielded a host of phone calls over the last month or two with a view to having me "bundle" my services.

Ok.  So I bought into the first call, moving my long distance provider and internet provider to telus.  Of course, during the call, they promised me that my "new" internet would be a humming along at 15 mbps, only to call me later to advise me they couldn't do that in my area - AFTER I bought into their stupid "bundle" of goodies.

Well, two days ago, they call my home with yet more offers, now seeking to have us buy into their new television package.  Well, unknown to me, my wife took the call and told them we were happy with our cable provider and declined the offer.

Last night.. sure enough I get the call from these morons again.  My wife was gone, and they went to work trying to sell me on the t.v. package.  I told them I would talk to my wife and get back to them.. the salesman tells me that this offer is special and he's sure my wife would want me to make this deal.  I politely tell him "no", I don't change my cable without discussing it with my wife.  This pushy salesman then suggests that I call my wife on her "cell phone".  I hang up.  He calls back.  I hang up again. 

Well.  Five minutes ago, the guy calls again.

Ok.  Enough already.

I was going to move my cable to Telus, and now they can go screw themselves.  Shaw all the way.

And maybe I'll change my internet provider in the bargain.

So.  For what it's worth, I would strongly suggest you not deal with Telus.  For anything.  And if some East Indian guy happens to get on your phone tonight, well, tell him Rob says he can go f*ck himself.

And the Polls Close

So.

My poll has closed on the significance my readers put on the issue of Afghan detainees.

Admittedly less than scientific, and, to a great extent, polling the converted, nonetheless, the readers have spoken, and the results (after 216 votes):

What priority should the issue of Afghani detainees be given by Canadians?

It is the number one priority of our government. 7 (3%)
Second in priority after responding to economic issues. 7 (3%)
Third in priority after economic issues and environmental issues. 21 (9%)
What detainees? 181 (83%)

So, the readers speak.  We don't care.  We have other matters we are worried about, and it would be nice if our government spent a little more time worrying about Canadians.

I'm feeling a little left out, to be honest.

We're worried about Afghan terrorists, we're worried about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, we're worried about the Sudanese, even though they refuse to worry about themselves..  but, gosh, Canadians don't matter.









Votes so far: 216

My so-called "Liberal" Leanings..

Well.

Yesterday, I posted the notion that maybe we could stop falling all over ourselves to send money to India and China and so forth, and maybe, if we're going to something in response to the climate change issue, we do something at home that benefits "third world" conditions inside our own border.

The response I got was somewhat predictible.

The kool-aid drinker on the left assumes that anything I say, because it's under the banner of "Blogging Tory" must be a "..bunch of half-truths and outright lies to follow... (as per usual)...."

From the right, I get notions that I must be "Sybil", a split personality, turning "left", and, more pointedly,

"Great Idea! let's all send our money to the reserves like the Peguis in Manitoba or the Olympic torch blockaders in Ontario. Or maybe we'd just be better off to burn it to heat our homes."

See a pattern?

We live in a great country.

We have limitless opportunity. 

And we risk squandering it, turning ourselves into a "little America", by refusing to concede that, in Canada, we can do things differently.  We can govern by accomodation and assimilation of differing interests.  There are "win/win" opportunities if we look for them, but to do that, we have to open our minds and consider the possibility that we (left, right, whatever) might just not know everything about everything.  That the "other guy" might have a point or two if we considered it.

The polarization of our society is becoming endemic, not only in politics, but even in the press.  In the effort to compete for a shrinking media dollar because of massive increases in competition, our MSM panders to conflict.  They stoke it like a fire, from the left and right.  To sell papers, we have to piss someone off.

To get people to read my blog I have to piss people off.

It's funny, but I notice that the more angry I get and the more I tee off on someone, particularly the Liberal party of Canada, my readers numbers immediately spike.  Now I don't get paid, so, the only benefit of such a spike is to my ego.  However - if I'm selling papers, or advertising on t.v., or if I'm soliciting "votes"..  well, now we can see the tangible benefit of creating conflict.

And it hurts us all.

And so, to Powell Lucas, to Blame Crash, and to C_WTF..  consider for a moment what it might look like if we could take even one indian reserve in Canada, and convert it to a successful model of Canadian business.  Consider if the efforts of the Osoyoos Indian Band and their partners could become not an aberration, but a typical occurance.   For my "blue" friends, consider the tax savings.  Better yet, consider the investment opportunities.

I'm not saying it's easy.  But maybe instead of just complaining about what the "other guy' is doing wrong..  we might think a little bit about how to make positive change in our communities.

I'll tell you two things:

a) Spending billions of dollars on gun control isn't making any positive change; and
b) Passing manditory minimum sentences, with the millions and maybe billions which will be spent to house those "criminals" isn't making any postiive change.

Except maybe in the polling amongst your tried and true kool-aid drinkers that is.

People Suck.

I hate to say it, so close to Christmas and all, but, the problem at the end of the day with the whole Copenhagen thing is this:

People Suck.

I have deliberately tried to avoid, of late, getting into the whole debate about whether or not man-made climate change is a reality.  I tend to believe it is, but at the same time, virtually all scientists also agree that we are, at best, slowing an inevitable movement towards warming in any event.  Glaciers are going to melt and the polar ice caps are going to disappear - whether we are on this earth or not.  That's a given. 

The bigger problem is that, as we have seen in Copenhagen, mankind is cursed with the tendancy to look towards it's own self-interest.  China wants what China wants.. but then, so does Venezuela, and the Sudan, and the Philippines, and every other country.  There is a global movemement now seeking to move $100 billion to "developing countries", and you can bet two things:

a) Actual progress in impact on climate will be questionable; and
b) People will take advantage of it to their own benefit, and to hell with the climate and the developing world.

Doubts?

Well see this:

France Probes $230 Million Carbon Trading Fraud;

$7 Billion lost to Carbon Trading Fraud in European Union;

Danes Investigating Carbon Trading Fraud;

$60 Million Carbon Credit Fraud in UK;

7 Arrested in £38 Million UK Carbon Credit Fraud;


And think about this..  and this point is aimed at ys "good" conservatives as well as liberals.  We have third world country conditions in Canada.  Within 40 miles of where I write are two of the largest Indian Reserves in Canada, the Kainai and Piikani, and for many, conditions there rival anything you could imagine in any thrid world country in the world.

So just a thought before we embark on this pointless endeavor to send money outside of our borders from our own taxpayers..   perhaps it could be better spent here.

Just a thought.

The Copenhagen Gambit.. A Different Approach

Bopping around the blog world, over and over, you get lectured to by someone. 

"Let me tell you why I am smart and you are not."

I do it, we all do.  Even so-called "reasonable" discussion is premised upon telling someone else what they should think, and, by implication, suggesting that what they think is, well, wrong.

So.

On this, the morning after the failure of Copenhagen to secure any really binding commitment from anyone to do anything, I think I'll take a different tact.  Rather than suggest what I think and why you should think it, I will just tell you what I wonder about.  What I don't have answers to.

1.  I don't know the best course of action to respond to the issue of climate change.  While I have some sense that the increase of CO2 is affecting our planet, I still am not sure how much, and I'm not sure whether the zeal  for change of mainstream climate scientists has impacted on the veracity of their findings - or whether the result of honest findings has created their zeal for change;

2.  I don't know whether our country, having economic difficulty already, should further risk its economic welfare by making a stronger commitment to CO2 reduction which will ultimately fail anyway because of the refusal of the most substantial emitters to make verifiable commitments to reduce their emissions;

3. I don't know if the fundamental concept of Kyoto is sound.  The idea of having countries buy carbon credits, and then transferring that money to developing countries to allow them greater ability to improve their emission standards.  Maybe I'm ethnocentric, but, if we don't have complete faith in our own democratic leaders to do the right thing with our tax dollars, well, candidly, I am very nervous over sending money to India, China, Venezuela, and other developing countries.. to potentially have that money misused avoiding any actual constructive impact on the climate;

4.  Even if the plan is sound, it seems the same sorts of people who precipated the meltdown in our financial community, are at the helm of the climate credit brokering going on.. and already, we see reports of fraud and misuse.  I'm afraid of there being an AIG or a Golman Sachs controlling the distribution of billions of dollars of money intended to benefit people other than financial executives;

5.  Aside from the issue of climate, I am uncertain over the wisdom of broad world-wide commitments outside of the control and examination of the electorate.  If our government seeks to pass a law in our own country, it is subject to broad debate before the public in our Parliament - which, at least in theory, allows opposition parties and public scrutiny to shape the course of legislation in our best interests.  It seems to me that most of the planning in Kyoto and Copenhagen happens behind closed doors, and our government, and all governments, are empowered to enter into broad world commitments that may have serious impact on our welfare - without any public debate or discussion before the electorate.  I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

So.  There it is.  There are many, many people smarter than me that probably have the answers to some of these questions, and if you think you can point me to them, I'm more than interested to see it, and I think, probably, there are a lot of other Canadians who would love to be more confident in the answers to these questions as well..   but, well, there you have it.

Early Christmas Greetings!

An early wish to all readers and other bloggers for best wishes in the coming holiday season and for a happy and healthy 2010.

I've posted this sort of comment before, but I think it bears repeating, particularly in light of the recent "photoshopgate" stuff that's being bandied about, with questions of whether or not it's ok to suggest shooting people as a form of political satire.

I think with very few exceptions, those who show an active interest in politics, do so with the best of intentions.  They have a personal vision of sorts that they feel will make society healthier for the broad benefit of all.  They may disagree, sometimes very strongly and emotionally, but I think at their core, whether they are Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, or whatever - they have a wish to make society better.

And that has to be respected at least on a certain level.

The reality is that politics, while so very stupid, is also so very important, and one thing that I think raises western democracies (as imperfect as they are) with many other nations, is the ability to disagree without resort to violence, and to at least in theory, allow for broad unfettered discussion on matters of public interest.

To that extent, all bloggers and posters are participating in an amazing experiment in free speech and democracy.  There has been nothing like what we are doing here, on the internet, in the history of the world.  To be able to instantly reach out and communicate with people all over the globe, unfettered by the subtle and not-so-subtle hand of the state or even the owners of mainstream media is an amazing thing.

We should take a moment to look at that for the incredibly valuable thing that truly is.

And, at least at this moment, pause to respect all of those who care enough to sit at a keyboard and share their thoughts and ideas with us, even if we disagree with them to the core of our being.

Brasil Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Child to Be Reunited With His Parent

Welcome to Brazil.. It's Not All Copacabana..

So.

Add Brazil to the countries where you can never allow your spouse to take your child on a holiday, particularly if they have family in that country.  As we learned this past year, Japan's legal system has no respect for the interests of children in child custody matters and no respect for the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

You may have heard of the father who suffered a separation from his son when the child's mother, on the pretence of going on a holiday to visit family in Brasil, left the U.S. and never came back.  And it took five years for the father to finally convince the Brasil Court of Appeal, with the input and pressume of Hillary Clintron, to have the child returned to him after the mother died.

Well.

The Brazil Supreme Court today ruled the child, who has been kidnapped and kept from his father for five years, will be heard before the Court will consider allowing the father to have his child.  A child who has been kidnapped and kept from his father for five years is now going to be asked to give input.  Details of the storty are on MSNBC here.

As a family lawyer with 25 years in practice, I can tell you that this is Court mandated child abuse - to some degree at the behest of the United Nations who, in their misguided effort to "help" children, has passed a resolution that children are "entitled to be heard" in court matters affecting their welfare.

Imagine that.

A 10 year old child being asked, "Who do you love, your father or your grandparents?"

Of course Brazil is a "good" country, and the U.S. and Canada are "bad" countries, don't you know?  Brazil is one of these countries that we are supposed to be worried about and sending money to because we happen to have a functional economic system, and WE are allegedly ruining the world, don't you know?

Well, the picture above is borrowed from this blog.  Read the post and then ask yourself, "Is their problem an environmental issue, or, a self-created, half-assed banana republic government issue."

Screw Brazil.  That we should feel, in any way, embarassed of ourselves as a Nation compared to this banana republic is a joke. 

Canada, take pride, the real embarassment is the U.N. and the developing world.  There was a time where Canada and the U.S. were a "developing nation", long, long, after these other "developing" countries, and it is so clear why they continue to "develop" instead of actually "succeed".

“City chicken coops and tomato patches will get us only so far!”

Dear Abby: Clarifying the Global Warming Debate

Dear Abby;

I'm having a neighborhood problem.  Let me explain. 

Mr. Sudan lives next door to me.  His house is a mess.  He doesn't cut his lawn, his children regularly are being arrested for having loud parties, he has a burned out Pinto in the driveway and his wife is expecting her 9th child.  Mr. Sudan doesn't work - he's currently being subsidized by the other neighbors while he tries to get over an injury that happened to him a few years ago when he got in a fight with another neighbor, and we all chip in to buy the family groceries each month out of concern for his family.

On the other side of me lives Mr. Chang.  Mr. Chang is a little different, he doesn't socialize with the other neighbors, he has a huge 10 foot fence around his yard, and so we're not really sure what goes on at his home, but, we suspect be beats his wife and children.  We also are aware that he has his two brother's families living with him - so it seems there are about 25 people in his house.  However, as he's not bothering us, we don't bother him.

Next to Mr. Chang is Ms. Suzuki.  She lives alone, and is very concerned about the Sudan family.  She constantly is organizing block parties to raise more money for Mr. Sudan, however, as she explains, even though Mr. Chang and I give 95% of the money to Mr. Sudan to help buy groceries, that's only fair because, well, she's so busy organizing block parties that she doesn't earn as much money as we do.

Well.  Now comes the problem.

To keep our houses warm, everyone on the block has a fireplace.  I have a family of 5, and I burn wood to keep my home warm.  And next door, Mr. Chang, allegedly, has 25 people in his house, and he burns five times as much as I do (though we're not really sure because he won't show us his wood bills).  Ms. Suzuki burns a lot less, because she lives alone, and in any event, all of her bills are paid for by money she raises at her block parties, which, in turn, comes from Mr. Chang and I.  The problem?  Mr. Sudan says the smoke from our fireplaces is causing him repiratory distress, and so he's asking Mr. Chang and I to reduce our home temperatures and burn less wood.  He also wants us to tear down our fireplaces and build a solar heating unit- which is going to cost us a lot of money.

Oh.  And he wants us to pay for him to build a solar heating panel too. 

And he wants us to keep giving him grocery money.

To make matters worse, even though he burns almost as much wood as we do, he says because we make more money, it's only fair that he not be asked to reduce his wood burning, and in fact, because of the new child, he plans on burning more wood next year than either Mr. Chang or I.

So.  Mr. Chang and I have a discussion, and we want to know more about Mr. Sudan's illness.  He provides us reports from his doctors, and when Mr. Chang and I have questions, Ms. Suzuki starts yelling and screaming in the middle of the street calling Mr. Chang and I "deniers" and suggesting we don't care about our neighbors and we're solely resonsible for Mr. Sudan's illness.  When we suggest that maybe his smoking has also contributed to his problem, Ms. Suzuki just starts yelling and screaming again.  When we point out that the doctor's report appears to be manipulated and that the doctors (Dr. Gore and Dr. Jones) have lied in a few points of the report, Ms. Suzuki starts screaming again, and we're so embarassed that we just agree to try and help reduce our wood burning and replace our fireplaces.

So.  Now the real problem.

I don't mind helping Mr. Sudan, but:

a) He refuses to commit to do anything to help his own situation.  His plan is to keep smoking, to have four or five more children, and he doesn't seem likely to be looking for work soon, and while he is coughing a lot, we don't completely trust his doctors;

b) While Mr. Chang says he will reduce his wood burning and build a new solar heating unit, he won't let anyone into his home to prove it, and I'm worried that I'm the only one on the block reducing my heat;

c) Ms. Suzuki is now parking her VW van on my front lawn, with loud speakers telling the neighbors I'm killing Mr. Sudan's family, and is demanding that I sign an agreement to stop burning wood, to build a solar heating unit, to give MORE money to Mr. Sudan, and to actually give some money to also help Mr. Chang because while he makes as much money as me, with all his family there, he's a little stretched.

What should I do?

Signed,

Johnny Canuck.

Yet More Evidence of Tampering by "Climategate" Scientists

As if Copenhagen wasn't stupid enough already.

A report from just minutes ago, with The Daily Mail, suggesting further evidence that the office of the notorious Phil Jones (remember him - the guy who suggested he would destroy evidence to support his climate change position) engaged in selective data collection to support it's allegation of global warming.

According to the Daily Mail:

An explosive new claim that the Meteorological Office in Britain 'manipulated' climate change figures has come from a leading Russian think-tank founded by a former adviser to Vladimir Putin.



As the Copenhagen summit comes to a climax on Friday, it was alleged that Siberian weather statistics were selected in a way that masks evidence not showing global warming.


The think tank strongly disputes the use of data from the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change which were released in a bid to diffuse the recent row over hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia.


The emails were seized upon by global warming sceptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.


The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed the Hadley Centre used statistics from weather stations in Russian and Siberia that fitted its theory of global warming, while often ignoring those that did not.

So.
 
Al Gore lies.
 
Phil Jones advocates destroying evidence to hamper skeptics.
 
And now, it appears, Phil Jones' lab was selectively using (or ignoring) data, to bolster a claim that is forming the foundation of the IPCC and the whole Copenhagen conference.
 
Anyone else starting to feel a little like they've been had?

Al Gore. Liar. Any Questions?

Inventing the internet was much easier than fabricating climate change..

Copenhagen.

It's a wonderland, isn't it?

Following the now well publicized evidence regarding the appaling lack of scientific objectivity by the lynch-pin of the IPCC scientific community, Dr. Phil Jones, and allegations of misuse and outright fraud regarding the use of "carbon credits", today, we are treated to yet more evidence that gives us all more than enough reasons to distrust the "sky is falling" crew.

Al Gore admitted, today, that he is a liar. 

Oops.  Sorry, Al Gore admitted that he "misspoke" (greasy former politician word meaning "lied through my teeth").

As reported in the Times Online today:

Mr Gore told the Copenhagen summit meeting that the latest research suggested that the North Pole would be ice-free within five to seven years. The Times revealed that this was not the information provided to Mr Gore’s office by the climatologist Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California.


Dr Maslowski said that his projections suggested that the North Pole would be near ice-free, but that some ice would remain beyond 2020. He also denied providing the 75 per cent figure used by Mr Gore. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office,” he said.

The clarification said that Mr Gore “misspoke” on the polar ice prediction and that he meant that the cap would be nearly ice-free.

Hmm.   Kind of like Richard Nixon "misspoke" when he said, "I am not a crook".

History, fortunately, will look more kindly on Richard Nixon than it will on Al Gore.

Remember the historic quote from former Vice President Dan Quayle:

What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.

Little did he know that his words could well be considered prophetic, in describing the complete waste of space known as Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

Growing Pride With Canada's Position at Copenhagen

Sovereignty.

It means something.

I means that WE have the complete right to control what happens within our borders.  Not the U.N., not some tinpot dictator like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Canada controls Canada.

And our Government has an obligation to protect that sovereignty and to protect ALL of our citizens, including, whether David Suzuki likes it or not, those who are employed in the mining industry, in the forestry industry and in the petroleum industry.

And something that the "green" sorts never discuss is the cost, the real cost, of making token efforts at environmental change.  They make noise about "green industry" being the new economy.  Really?

What are the odds that, with transportation costs poised to sky-rocket for everything buring carbon, which includes trains, planes and automobiles - that we are going to secure profitable manufacturing jobs in Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon or Winnipeg?

Zero.

The "green economy" will be a boon for those areas who have ready access to large markets. 

Can you say Toronto and Southern Ontario.

Some things never change.

Our current government, fortunately, is a little more sophisticated that David Suzuki and Al Gore.  And, thankfully, so is Barack Obama.   They understand that eroding their own sovereignty, by committing to international treaties, which, in reality are one-way railroad jobs, where a very few developed countries, will mortgage their futures to benefit countries who have no demonstrated ability to properly govern their own people, and who refused (China and India) to commit to enforceable targets or processes for verification of those goals.

And the greens and the Liberals (for now because they aren't actually responsible - recall how they did nothing about Kyoto) nonetheless complain because Canada isn't winning popularity contests in Copenhagen.

The job of caring for a whole country is too important to pass it off to fakirs like Al Gore and his ilk.  The stakes are too high..  there are too many people out of work, and our economy is too fragile to make one-sided commitments.

Do you really think we should be sending billions of dollars from our country to India so that they can build one of the top carbon emitting coal burning energy plants in the world?  That's on tap under Kyoto transfers right now - as India continues to build coal burning facilities USING KYOTO MONEY.

The 16th largest carbon emitting source in the world will be built in India with Kyoto money.  Part of the Kyoto protocol which has, by some, become known as the "Green Carbon Offset Swindle".

I have no problem with our government seeking to find a middle ground to reduce pollution - but the idea of ceding our sovereignty and our economic well-being to the brain-trust at the U.N. is simply beyond ridiculous.

So, for "embarassing" Canada before the mindless do-gooders in Copenhagen, I say, well done Stephen Harper, and well done, Jim Prentice.

It's good to know someone is sticking up for Canada.

Big City Liberal has finally seen the light!!!

Who would have thought it?

Big City Liberal, M.J. Murphy, has finally seen the light and joined the "right", dissavowing himself of his former Liberal pretence.

See his most recent post here.

(I wonder if he'll think the "prank"of the Yes Men is quite as "wonderful" as he did yesterday?)

A Little Message to Spammers - Christianlouboutinmy.com

Well yesterday, as I'm sure other bloggers have dealt with (as I have before this) a few of my blogs were spammed by Christianlouboutinmy.com.

The obvious to begin with.

Resist any temptation you may have to visit this site, and, if you come across the site while looking for clothing or accessories, I would, for obvious reasons, suggest you resist any effort at doing business with them. 

Beyond that, I'm toying with the idea of perhaps filing suit against these clowns.  In the event that your site has been spammed by these guys, my thought is that perhaps filing civil claims suits in every jurisdiction where a site has been spammed might be an interesting experiment.  The law regading spamming, at least in Canada, is pretty thin, but it strikes me that there is an argument that they are missappropriating intellectual property (akin to "Passing Off"), they are creating a nuisance, they are "tresspassing" against property.

While it is difficult to predict the success of such a suit, if brought in civil claims, a basic argument can be laid before the Court, and on any given day, you may be successful.  Awards of costs may be made if you are unsuccessful, however, they are relatively modest in civil claims (small claims) courts in most jurisdictions.

So. 

If you have had this sort of headache and are tired of just deleting their offal, let me know and I'll provide my two cents to assist you in, if nothing else, giving these guys the headache of coming to Lethbridge, Alberta, and anywhere else in Canada where your blog may reside.

Something to think about regarding Copenhagen.. Canada is one of the "good" guys

So.

Things in Copenhagen are getting testy.

"Developing" countries, like say, China, India and the other G77, walked out yesterday, and are apparently in consternation because the "bad" countries, like Canada, aren't willing to mortgage their children's future to give yet more money to countries, like, oh, say China.  Nigeria, in particular, lead countires in a "boycott" yesterday continuing the tirade about how the "rich" need to give more to the "poor" which is really what this is all about.  Not much talk, really, about climate change - it's about money.  Who has it, and who wants it.

But this got me to thinking a little bit.

A couple of years ago, I had the good fortune to travel about Italy on a holiday.  I particularly enjoyed the ease with which I could travel from Naples to Rome to Venice to Trieste on their train system.  Easy, relativley inexpensive.  And for a moment I considered that Canada would be wise to do more of this - however, good sense prevailed as I realized the massive distances bewteen us make a similar undertaking unlikely to be a viable option.

And that got me to thinking about Kyoto.  Of the Top 10 "bad" countries, several of them, like Canada, have to contend with massive distances between different parts of the country.  Moving stuff and moving people requires energy.  And energy for transportation burns carbon.  I think you see where I'm going with this.

The usual suspects we see as the Top 10  Carbon Producers are as follows (with CO2 production in thousands of metric tons in brackets):

1. China (6,103,493)
2. United States (5,752,289)
3. Russia (1,564,669)
4. India (1,510,351)
5. Japan (1,293,409)
6. Germany (805,090)
7. United Kingdom (568,520)
8. Canada (544,680)
9. South Korea (475,248)
10 Italy (474,148)

Of course we also often hear about these numbers are even worse when we consider the numbers on a per capita basis.. and then the Liberals and the NDP start appologizing and criticizing our government (what, exactly did the Liberals do about Kyoto?).

Now I look at it a little differently.  As commented above, consider that a country like Canada, if it's moving its people and its "stuff" around, by definition is going to be burning a lot more carbon that, say, Japan or South Korea just because of distances.   And the picture becomes slightly different.

Consider this comparison of CO2 emission to land area, and the relative emission per square kilometer, and the list of "bad" counties becomes somewhat different (emission of thousand metric tons of carbon per square kilometer (C02/km) in brackets):

1. South Korea - 99,678 sq. miles (4.76783242 CO2/km)
2. Japan - 377,930 sq. miles (3.4223507 CO2/km)
3. United Kingdom - 242,900 sq. miles  (2.340551667 CO2/km)
4. Germany - 357,114 sq. miles  (2.254434158 CO2/km)
5. Italy - 301,336 sq. miles (1.573486075 CO2/km)
6. China - 9,596,961 sq. miles  (0.635981849 CO2/km)
7. United States - 9,629,091sq. miles  (0.597386503 CO2/km)
8. India - 3,287,263 sq. miles (0.45945548 Co2/km)
9. Canada - 9,984,670 sq. miles (0.054551628 C02/km)
10. Russia - 17,098,242 sq. miles (0.091510519 CO2/km)

Now - while we are number 9 on the new list, the reality is that if we compared our country to all other countries, we would be very, very low on the list in fact.

For example - let's look at two "good countires", including the big complainer yesterday, Nigeria:

Philippines:

- Number 47 on list of simple carbon emissions @ 68,328 thousand metric tons;
- Total Land Mass 300,000 sq. km;
- 0.22776 thousand metric tons of CO2/sq. km.
- OVER FOUR TIMES THAT OF CANADA

 Nigeria:

- Number 99 on list of simple carbon emissions @ 97,262 thousand metric tons;
- Total Land Mass 356,668.67 sq. km;
- 0.272695665 thousand metric tons of CO2/sq.km.
- FIVE TIMES THAT OF CANDA

So - it would appear, perhaps that we're not even in the top 100.

And this has no regard for our climate and the reality that to survive in Canada, we MUST burn natural gas or heating fuel of some type to survive in our winters (currently -31 degrees C. in Southern Alberta), which, if factored into this comparison, I would suggest would make countries like the Philippines and Nigeria look even less "noble" in the effort to reduce C02 emissions.

The Canadian tendancy to appologize, over and over again, has become tedious.

No one, least of all, the ardent evironmentalists in the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP, is doing anything to stick up for us. 

Have you noticed that of late? 

It's like every opportunity they get, they slag our country and are very quick to do a "Ooops, our bad", without looking at the very valid arguments in our favor.

To operate this country, to heat this country, requires significantly more energy than Japan.

This country, in addition, provides food, minerals, petroleum and other products that the world consumes.. yet, for our effort in providing it, we are castigated, again and again.

Well, I don't feel we have anything to feel guilty about, thank-you.

And for those who do, might I suggest turning your furnace off this week, and take a bicycle to work, like they can do in the Philippines and Nigeria.  Apples to apples, no?

A Somewhat MelancholyTrip into the Christmas Season

Best of the Season to all who might come across this little blog, whatever your political disposition.

Last evening was our local Bar Association Christmas party, and for the most part it was a very enjoyable event.  As I posted in a comment regarding yesterday's post here, I did enjoy the company and conversation of a couple of extremely decent lawyers who happen to be very strong Liberal party supporters.  And after a few drinks, as the evening wore on, it became apparent that there is much in common between us (and some matters of difference, clearly) and that decent, constructive conversation is in fact very possible between Conservatives and Liberals.

However - when I woke up today, I was struck with a certain melancholy.  And it had nothing to do with any fault of my companions - it had more to do with the state of politics in this country, and, perhaps, the world.   It should be, I think, more like our conversation last night.  Pointed, direct, but respectful and constructive.

And, sadly, it isn't.

As I drink my coffee and look at the news about Copenhagen and the Afghani detainee inquiry, it does strike me that much effort is being expected to "impose" one party's view on others, as opposed to creating some concensus.

Global warming is a pretty big issue.  One way or another. As is the rise of Islamic Extremism.  And they are strongly connected issues, when you think about it.

As I watched local village people in Bangladesh on television this morning, putting up mud walls to stop the sea from flooding thier villages, and viewed the reality that 20 million people in that country alone may be dispossessed if the sea levels rise even a few feet, I was struck by the potential for a massive world conflict arising - or perhaps struck by how the current conflict we see with Al Quaeda may be just a small sampling of the world to come.

The irresponsibility of world governments and the U.N. is staggering in this regard.

The Kyoto accord , with nothing approaching true democratic consensus of the actual citizens of the countries represented in the accord, adopted the very clear and obvious premise that there are, broadly speaking, two worlds.  The "bad" world, of industrialized and developed countires, represented more or less by the Northern continents and Australia.. and the "victim" world, being the less industrialized countries, who are being told in no uncertain terms that their difficulties are very much the "fault" of the "bad" countries.

Now let that sink in for a bit.

And consider, as I posted a few days ago, the Top 10 Countires who will, in theory, be harmed by any significant warming trend, one might also consider the predominant religion in those countries.

1 Somalia - Muslim
2 Haiti - Christian
3 Afghanistan - Muslim
4 Sierra Leonne - Muslim
5 Burundi - Christian
6 Guinea - Muslim
7 Rwanda - Christian
8 The Gambia - Muslim
9 Chad - Muslim
10 Nigeria - Muslim

This is not, for a moment, to suggest that "Muslim" should equate in any sense with Muslim extremists..  however, Al Queda is probably not doing a lot of recruiting in Vatican City - they recruit from Muslim's, obviously.   And there is no doubt that a great contributor to Muslim extremism is the personal difficulty of those it seeks to recruit.  And 20 million dispossessed citizens in Bangladesh, for example, seems like a pretty fertile ground to recruit terrorists from.
 
And when the U.N. is kind enough to put a target on the back of, oh, Canada, the U.S., Britain, France, et al., well, you can imagine where things are likely to lead.
 
Consider, for example, this report from Copenhagen yesterday:

The negotiations promise to be tense and heated, nonetheless. The developing world and the poorest countries argue that the rich countries, being primarily responsible for the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, should bear the cost of slowing the rate at which they are being added. The rich countries argue that emissions in many developing countries are soaring, and those countries must be responsible for reducing them. Plus, the rich countries aren't so rich any more, thanks to the recession.

Thank-you Kyoto and now Copenhagen for assuring that there is no "we" in the world, but rather, "us" and "them".

And keep in mind that, as massive as the American economy is, it is truly, built on a house of cards.  Huge deficits combine with an effort to inject even more money into health care..  makes it very unlikely that the U.S. is going to commit to the sort of financial injection being bandied about in Copenhagen.  And even if they did, as I've posted, the odds are better than not that the countries receiving the aid will piss it away, to corrupt governments and vague and unreliable "plans" for the monies' use.

So.

Stay tuned.

This could get messy.

Learning from Colonel Jessep

Col. Jessep: [contemptuously] You fuckin' people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.


There it is.

The Hollywood caricature of an "old dog" Colonel in the U.S. Marines explains to us exactly what the result of the Dziekanski inquiry will be, and the current charade in Ottawa over Afghani detainees.

We love an inquiry in Canada, don't we?

Our media jumps out of its somnolent slumber every time we have one, because, lazy jackasses that they are, the formation of an inquiry gives them free and easy work. No hunting for stories for the reporters covering those events.. they pick up their double double from Tim's, and, donut stuffed in face, they amble down to the inquiry and turn on their tape recorders.

And the "players" don't disappoint. Those same fat, greasy politicians and lawyers who couldn't protect themselves from a charging chipmunk, go on the offensive. They fashion public opinion to assure that, in the hindsight of 20/20 vision, they strip away the reality of the extreme difficulty that soldiers and police find themselves in, and Monday morning quarterbacks that they are, they convince the public and those conducting the inquires that the solutions are simple.

Of course, it's simple when YOU aren't the one standing a post in Kandahar. It's simple when you aren't dealing with deluded crack addicts and gang-bangers every day of the week, who act nice and cooperative, until they pull a gun from their pants and leave your children without a father.

Sure.

And, the amazing thing that these pompous windbags don't understand, is that by doing their dirty work in the way that they do, they actually increase the problem, they increase the sense from our military and from our police that polarizes them from the sensibilities of the general public.

They reinforce their sense of "us" versus "them".

The institutionalization of the "thin blue line".

Why is this?

Well. In some respects the RCMP inquiry and the games being played in Ottawa over the Afghani detainees are a good example.

Everyone wants a scape goat. And I hate to say it, but greasy lawyers are quite adept at taking a small issue and making it a big issue.

In ways that cause people to lose jobs and to be demoted.

We send a message through inquiries like this that "We want you until we need to throw you under a bus to make ourselves, by comparison, look sophisticated and intelligent - for political points. See us, WE are civilized, We understand that terrorists have rights, from the safety of our inquiry seats, let us tell you what YOU did wrong when the shit was hitting the fan."

And then we stand back and act all shocked when the realization hits us between the eyes that the same people we pay to carry guns, deep down, despise us.

They look at us, in a great respect, like Jack Nicholson looked at Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men."

The hypocrisy of the public sickens them. So, they do the job they feel trained to do, and when it goes sideways, they have no faith that their difficult circumstances will be fairly understood - no, they know better.

They know that the packs of rabid rats are out there with their teeth ready to sink into their throats, and they circle up and say whatever they think they need to say to protect themselves.

And I say - good on you.

What do you think these guys will do when society starts to break down.. and rest assured, one day, it will. Whether it's a serious global pandemic, or global bankruptcy, or "2012 Sun flares" or whatever, do you think our soldiers and police will appreciate the "lessons" they learned from our erudite liberal members of society.

Or, do you think, that just maybe, it will be payback time.

Obama's Nobel Prize.. Upon Further Reflection

I'm no big fan of Barack Obama.


I think he's not nearly as principled as he likes to pretend, and as I've posted before, I think the money flowing into the Democratic Party under his leadership is no less greasy and laden with strings than the money going to the Republican Party.

However - as I watched the news today and listened to commentary on his acceptance of the Nobel Prize - I had to begrudgingly see the merit in it.

Not for who he is, but for what he is.

A man of color, achieving the pinnacle of success in the most powerful democracy on earth.

While hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton tell African-Americans, "We can't because..", Barack Obama, by just being a black man who happened to get elected as President, has sent a resounding retort to all minorities, that, "Yes we can."

And that is worth the stupid Nobel Prize.

It's certainly worth more than anything that charlatan and opportunist Al Gore ever did.

I'm not naive. I don't think that, immediately, race problems vanished upon his achieving office - however, his election has put a serious dagger into the heart of all of those enablers, who truly demean visible minorities by playing upon their insecurities, by telling them over and over again that "It's not your fault".

Truly, the worst of them, the Al Sharpton's of the world, are the biggest racists in America. Because their message is clear, "You can't be more than you are, because of the color of your skin."

Barack Obama - side show hustler that he might be - has put a serious dent into this sort of "internal" racism, because his message is, "Bullshit. The opportunity is here. It might be more difficult for you, but it is here and you can achieve and be more than you are right now."

That message is worth a Nobel prize.

Not for who he is, but for what he is.

And 72% of Canadians Don't Want Harper to Ink a Deal in Copenhagen

Interesting.

A new poll released in the National Post today from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy suggests that 72% of Canadians are opposed to entering into an immediate commitment regarding climate change in Copenhagen.

According to the Centre, the poll suggests not that Canadians by and large believe the science is necessarily wrong - but rather, they are uncertain.

Could be they've got wind of the emails from Professor Phil Jones, the primary expert providing the IPCC findings on global warming when he wrote this:

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Now, the alarmists are correct.  His effort to hide information doesn't necessarily mean the science is wrong.  But it gives a person the right to scratch his head and say, "Hmmmm."

The bigger concern, as I've blogged of late - assuming the science is somewhat sound, the plan is a farce.  Taxing developed economies to transfer wealth to developing economies (beyond our already significant foreign aid commitments) is hardly a safe bet to effect any real change.

Also - as a Canadian, one might fairly ask why should we (I think it was -30C. yesterday) who have to heat our homes to keep from dying in the winter, be held to the same standards as, oh, say, Central America and Northern Africa.  At the same time as we power pivot irrigation systems and tractors to help feed the world, we are demonized for our industry and our effort - the implication being that we should return to the days of a horse and plow.  See how much wheat finds it's way to Darfur and the Sudan then.

Oh.  And let's add to the mix that, with a massively spread out population base, getting from point A to point B is much more difficult (and energy consuming) than it is, say, in Italy or France.  While light rail transit in Toronto or Vancouver might be a good response to the use of automobiles, the idea of building  a C-train in Williams Lake, British Columbia or Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan is less than practical.

Funny, however, how the needs of Canadians outside of the GTA don't seem to matter very much to certain politicians (..I'm not pointing fingers at the Liberal party.. but if the shoe fits..)

Oh No! The Ambassadors are angry.. not the Ambassadors

Oh. My. God.

The Ambassadors are angry.

Well, not Ambassadors, former Ambassadors. 

They are upset about how Richard Colvin has been treated.

Really?

Just how has he been treated?

Has he been called a liar?  No.
Has he been called incompetent? No.
Have his complaints resulted in any change to his employment status?  No.

They are upset, apparently, because the people who received his vague and unsubstantiated concerns, didn't do an immediate change in policy based upon HIS SAY SO.  Were detainees tortured under Afghan captors after being transferred?  Probably.

Did Canadian troops take demonstrated action where they became aware of it.  Clearly.

You know what?  Most diplomats amount to high priced call-girls.  They are sent to foreign countries to hang out, hobnob, and look good in a tux or an evening dress.  The carry messages from their pimps - the Federal government, but, really, they have no official powers or authority.. so, I suppose my response to their collective upset is, well, "so what"?

I shouldn't even be doing this post, I suppose - the whole affair is so "yesterday".  Our troops have done an admirable job in seeking to protect our interests and the interests of the Afghani people.  Many have given their lives in doing so - and while they most certainly have not done it perfectly, in a situation of conflict, who would?

By and large - if the sum total of this affair is that a handful of suspected terrorists, the kind of people who think nothing of killing and torturing hundreds and thousands of their fellow citizens, were tortured AT THE HANDS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE, well, I'll sleep fine tonight, thank-you.

Kyoto - throwing money to the wind? And will Copenhagen do the same?

Take a look at this map.

This is a map produced by the Mapelcroft group - an organization that provides and organizes information on global risk issues, from pandamics, to, in this case, countries at greatest risk of harm if global warming actually occurs.  Both at risk from direct harm, and, as importantly, at risk of not being able to respond appropriately to that harm.

This map shows counties, from low risk (yellow) to extreme risk (dark blue).

The "Top 10" countries at risk, according to the Maplecroft group, are:

1 Somalia -  Extreme

2 Haiti - Extreme
3 Afghanistan - Extreme
4 Sierra Leonne - Extreme
5 Burundi - Extreme
6 Guinea - Extreme
7 Rwanda - Extreme
8 The Gambia - Extreme
9 Chad - Extreme
10 Nigeria - Extreme

Look at the map again, and look at the list, and think about that for a moment.

These are the countries we are being asked to take responsibility for.  These are the counries that Kyoto, and now, Copenhagen, are seeking to redistribute wealth to.

I don't care how liberal and well intentioned you are, this is a serious, serious problem.

Ignore the issue of whether or not climate change theory has been proven to your satisfaction.  Simply assume that some sort of "Kyoto" plan will be arrived at in Copenhagen.

The "plan", if it follows predictions, it works like this:

a) Countries that have managed to establish relatively strong and stable governments, no surprise, find themselves with greater economic stability and prosperity;
b) Countries with greater economic prosperity, no surprise, burn more carbon.  They have cars, and heated homes, and dishwashers and televisions, and they eat energy to use those things and burn more carbon to create the energy and to power their relatively thriving businesses;
c) These countries, because of their "selfishness" in being politically and economically stable, "owe" it to countries like, oh, Somalia and Afghanistan, to pay them for their inability to respond to global warming;
d) In response, the plan is to divert money from "bad" countries, like Canada, the U.S., Britain, France, etc.. to the "good" countries, such as those listed above.
e) These "good" countries will then use that transferred wealth to adapt to global climate change, improving their own economies, and in the bargain, creating a happier world...

Err..  read point (e) once again.

Does that worry you?

It should.

Imagine if you will, a plan to pour billions of dollars into countires like Afghanistan and Somalia.

Imagine if you will, the odds of that money not finding it's way into some corrupt government pockets, and away from the people who actually need it.

The world is collectively beginning to give up on Afghanistan, and shows no collective will to even attempt to provide something approaching order and stability in Somalia.. yet, the plan is to transfer wealth to them to respond to climate change.

I have an idea.  How about no wealth unless your country has established a stable, non-religious based government system.  No money to theocracies.  No money to tinpot dictators.  No money to corrupt, lawless regimes.  At all.  Get your house together and then come to us with a plan.  And that plan will be contingent on responsible global participation as civilized members of the world society.

Something else to think about. Take a look at this list.  A list of the top 20 countries in the world for population growth.

1 United Arab Emirates
2 Niger
3 Kuwait
4 Yemen
5 Gaza Strip
6 Mayotte
7 Cook Islands
8 Burundi
9 Ethiopia
10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
11 Oman
12 Burkina Faso
13 Sao Tome and Principe
14 Madagascar
15 Benin
16 Western Sahara
17 Somalia
18 Rwanda
19 Comoros
20 Mali

See a pattern?

Here is the irony.  Out of a concern for preservation of the world's "natural state", we are doing our best to undermine the whole theory of evolution, upon which natural order of nature is based.  Namely, that those who adapt best to change, benefit from that adaptation, and those who adapt worst, well, don't.

We are going to be asked to divert billions of dollars to countries who are, by and large, doing their best to increase their own inability to respond to the risk of climate change every day.  For all we hear about the squalid conditions in Somalia and Rwanda, population growth continues unabated.

At some point, are we not entitled to say, "no".

We aren't going to throw money away at the feet of lawless regimes.

We are not going to help those who are doing little to reduce their own population growth where that growth has a much greater affect on their broad ability to manage their own social welfare than anything related to "climate change."

Or, as with Kyoto, will we pretend those problems don't exist.  Will we buy into a U.N which is more and more every day, becoming a tool of the "out of control" to impose their will and manipulate countries who are "in control" of their own welfare?  Will we engage in reverse Darwinism.  Weakening those who adapt to strengthen those who will not.

Copenhagen will fail.. an Inconvient Truth

Al Gore Killed This Bear. 

So.

Today begins the Copenhagen summit.  A meeting of 200 nations seeking to find consensus on global warming and to create a committed common effort towards answering that issue.

Out of the gate, I'm going to piss of many of my fellow conservatives, by stating that I do believe that we are impacting our environment, and that efforts need to be made to reduce the emissions of CO2 for the welfare of our planet.

Now, the rest of this post will probably piss off David Suzuki and Al Gore and the other Climate Change hucksters who have done a great disservice to their cause by doing two things:

a) Refusing to speak in a fashion devoid of hyperbole and threat, refusing to talk about scientific matters, "like scientists", acknowledging, openly and clearly the things they don't know.  Making "worst case" scenario threats, ad nauseum, until their "fire and brimstone" carries about as much scientific clout as a sermon from Jimmy Swaggert;

b) Refusing to have any discussion about "solutions" that don't involve a thinly veiled socialist agenda of redistribution of wealth from the greedy countries who don't deserve it (Canada) to the downtrodden countries who "are ill equipped to deal with a problem they didn't create" (to quote the NY Times).

I have little more to say on the first point - other than that the recent "email" scandal points to the clearest example of what's wrong with the climate change discussion.  If you are skeptical to begin with, the evangelical push from advocates that sounds like a sale of so much snake oil is hardly to bring you to the fold.

Better to see scientists - not publicity hogs like Al Gore - engaging the public and press in a scientific fashion. "We can't be certain of the impact, but the potential is significant."  "If we are right, the outcomes are serious, if we are wrong, well, we have reduced dependancy on middle-east oil, and have cleaned our planet."

The bigger problem, I think, is this so called "carbon tax" or whatever they want to call it today.  The notion of allowing CO2 emission to continue, unabated, as long as a "tax" is paid for that emission is next to ridiculous.  The theory is that such a move will induce reduction.  Really.  Maybe what it will do is just contribute to unemployment and passing on of the tax to consumers.  That's what business does, after all.  In response to a higher cost - it increases prices or reduces other costs (labor).

Great.  I'm sure the U.S. will be all over that.  I'm sure China will line up for a piece of that too.

Now - the bigger problem.  How, exactly, is the "tax money" going to be spent?  Who will decide who will get it, and how it will be used.

This is something that climate change advocates don't really discuss a whole lot.  Mostly because it's a farce, and they know it.

And excellent review of the problem was published in the Guardian, here.

As explained, the so-called "credit exchange" program is likely to facilitate the construction of a massive coal plant in India, anticipated to become the 16th highest emitter of CO2 in the world when completed.  How does that get Kyoto funding.  Because it's MORE efficient than their other coal plants.

Way to go Kyoto.

The other problem, also outlined in the guardian article, is the total lack of ability to fully police fraud and deception in those seeking to obtain the funds. 

Really?  A developing country improperly using foreign aid?  But, how can that be?

So, as Copenhagen commences, and as most commentators continue to suggest that re-distribution of wealth to developing countries is a cornerstone of the discussion, you can bet it will fail.

Even if such an agreement is reached, you can bet that countries like China will hardly be fully open to inspection and commitment to "follow the rules", as will the developing countires receiving the moola.  I suspect it will be a short period of time before Climate Bucks are found to be used to by weapons and to commit atrocties against a country's own people.. and it will fail.

Better to create hard targets with funds being used to advance climate change technology INSIDE the countries in question - a la Ed Stelmach's plan.  Tax it here, and then use it here.  And when THIS technology becomes useful, it is then exported to other countries.

But that's not what Copenhagen is about.  You see of the 200 odd nations there, the massive economies of China and the U.S. will be seen as a potential carcas to be divided amongst the rest of them.  And they will vote to "pay themselves from the public purse" so to speak. 

And so nothing will change.

And THAT, is an inconvient truth.

Liberal Insider Going to Jail.. Are We Suprised?

Uh.. Michael Ignatieff.

While you and Jack Layton fiddle, your party continues to burn.

In the continuing saga of the sponsorship scandal, former Liberal official Bênoit Corbeil was sentenced today to 15 months in jail and a $20,000 fine.  According to the report in the Globe and Mail today:

In a guilty plea earlier this year, Mr. Corbeil admitted that he signed off on six fake invoices worth $117,000 and organized a $50,000 kickback from a businessman who wanted to buy federal land to expand a quarry south of Montreal.


At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Corbeil's lawyer said the former Liberal official did not benefit financially from the fraud and the influence peddling. Lawyer Michel Grenier argued in favour of a conditional discharge for the two crimes, and left the door open to a fine and community work.

Mr. Corbeil testified at his sentencing hearing that the money derived from the $50,000 kickback was redistributed to then-Liberal bagman Joe Morselli, as well as two Liberal riding associations outside of Montreal, prior to the 1997 general election.

He added that the money from the six fake invoices was largely used by Mr. Morselli to organize two Liberal events in 1999 and 2000. The goal was to pack halls with supporters of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, whose loyalists were involved in internal fights with the supporters of then-finance minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Corbeil said the Liberal Party's Quebec wing was always short of money, and he said the fake invoices were used to obtain cash to pay for Liberal “volunteers” at party events and to organize matters like transportation.

Read that again.

This was clearly a broadly based effort within the Liberal Party of Canada, and in some respect, for the direct benefit of former PM Jean Chretien.

And yet.. this party, has the temerity to suggest they have the moral high ground in the current faux scandal over detainees in Afghanistan. 

Graft.

Influence peddling.

Fraud.

Fake invoices.

Fake "volunteers".

People paid to go to events to support Jean Chretien. 

The party who created the policy and the circumstances surrounding the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan.. then plays "shuck and jive" with the citizens of this country, and feigns outrage over the current government not having done more to correct what at least the Liberals suggest, was a flawed detainee policy that the Liberals orchestrated.

It's like the old saying about a lie needing to be big enough to be believed.

Beyond that, a leader, Michael Ignatieff, who openly supported the potential use of torture as long as it worked, suggesting that our current government is at fault because they may not have prevented torture by others.  Think about that for a moment...

Michael is o.k. with actually torturing suspects.
Michael is opposed to transferring those suspects to another if they might be tortured.

The depths of hypocricy, the depth of dishonesty, the complete gall of the leaders of this party throwing stones at anyone is beyond belief. 

Senate Does the Job that our So-Called Opposition Should Have

While the Liberal and NDP party are busy as little beavers making pointless accusations about terrorist detainees in Afghanistan, the Senate was busy picking up their slack, doing the work that Michael Ignatieff, in particular, refuses to do. Rejecting some of the manditory minimum sentences suggested by the Conservatives in Bill C-15.

As you might recall from my past posting, I have had some serious questions about the passage of Bill C-15, particularly regarding the issue of "manditory minimum" sentencing.  From my own point of view, the point of Bill C-15 is very much along the same lines as the Gun Registry program introduced by the Liberals.

Both Bill C-15 and the Gun Registry, are pieces of legislation that appeal to the ignorant.  They have nothing to back them up, but on the surface, they appease and please a certain part of the voting public - and that is why they are created.  Not to make us safer, not to reduce crime - but to "appear" to make us safer.

For a party whose supporters are so clearly opposed to the Gun Registry system, you would think that the "reason" behind that opposition would also come to bear when examing manditory minimum sentences.  Well, for this conservative it does.  Bad legislation is bad legislation - and I don't care if it comes from Liberals or Conservatives.

The galling thing in this case, however, was the absolute refusal of Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals to raise an eyebrow, let alone reasonably question this legislation.

Here we have a proposed amendment to our criminal code which will put Canadian citizens in jail, increasing our tax costs, in some cases for no particularly good reason.  In many cases, INCREASING the liklihood of those charged to commit further, and more serious, offences against the public. 

And Michael Ignatieff did nothing.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving Stephen Harper a free pass either - he knows this legislation is flawed, he knows it's a pointless effort to simply gather voter support - just as the gun registry was - and he pushed it forward anyway.

However - today my scorn is directed at Michael Ignatieff, and his opposition Liberals.  Considering just how frantic they are about this so-called Afghanistan "issue", one would think the welfare of Canadians would perhaps show up on their radar.

Guess not.  And why did Michael stand mute on this point?  My feelings today are the same as they were on June 5, 2009, when I posted..

..for tough guy Michael Ignatieff, the guy who was putting the Conservatives on "probation" to let this go, shows just where his principals lie. Whereever they can buy a vote - that's where.

Thankfully, the Senate, Liberals and Conservatives, did the work that Michael refused to do.  They rejected some of the manditory minimums.

Is there any doubt why Canadians are so soundly rejecting Ignatieff as a proposed "leader" of this Country?

To be a leader, Michael, you have to lead.

Taking a good, hard look at Obama's Decision

My post yesterday was, admittedly, a little flippant.  Giving a bit of a pat on the back to Stephen Harper, and suggesting that Barack Obama's political future is now questionable.

What I didn't do, however, was really look at that decision.  And ask myself, "why"?

The majority of Americans do not support the effort in Afghanistan.  Obama didn't put troops there, the easy thing would seem to cast blame towards George W. Bush for a misguided effort, to pull troops out, and to convert the "war" to an ongoing surgical effort to seek out terrorists and to attack and kill them on an "as needed" basis.

He would look wise and still hard on terrorism, and the U.S., in the midst of an economic crisis and deficit that makes Canada's government look like Warren Buffet, would let out a collective *sigh*.

So, then, why?

Well, I think I alluded to the answer yesterday.  Commenting on Carl Berstein's notion that money has infected Washington, making it sick.

AIG is still operating, the same greedy pigs who pushed the U.S. to the brink of bankruptcy, are, more or less, still working making good money, and again, we can ask "why"?

I think the answer to both questions are the same.

Back during the election, I suggested Obama was getting as much AIG money as McCain.  It turns out, more or less, the money wasn't going so much to him as to Democrats, and, they actually received more than the Republicans.  I guess AIG can read political wind better than they can read falling real estate prices.

From "Opensecrets.org":

Over time, AIG hasn't shown an especially partisan streak, splitting evenly the $9.3 million it has contributed since 1989. In the last election cycle, though, 68 percent of contributions associated with the company went to Democrats. Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee. President Obama and his rival in last year's election, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), are also high on the list of top recipients.

AIG has been a personal investment for lawmakers, too. Twenty-eight current members of Congress reported owning stock in AIG in 2007, worth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the richest members of Congress, was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million.

So. 

What does this have to do with Afghanistan?  Well, just as AIG was, apparently, "too big to fail", perhaps the war effort, and the defence companies supporting it, are "too big to fail", if you get my drift.

Also from Opensecrets.org:

2008 Election Cycle Contributions by the Defence Industry:

Total Contributions:  $23,716,058
From Individuals: $9,945,166
From PAC's: $13,770,892
Donations to Democrats: $12,169,983 (51%)
Donations to Republicans: $11,514,710 (49% )

What do we make of this?  Well, one thing about a corporation, it has no soul.  No emotion.  It is an artificial "person", whose sole purpose, truly, is to make profit for it's shareholders.  And, so, with that in mind, some pretty significant reality is disclosed by these numbers:

a) The large corporations, from the Investment Industry to the Defence Industry are spending significant money on political contributions;

b) They don't seem to show a preference for what "ideology" is receiving the benefit of those contributions.  The same industries are supporting the Democrats and Republicans, more or less equally.  In fact, the two industries that would most clearly, at first blush, seem to align with the "right", actually gave more money to the Democrats;

c) This money is flowing, clearly, not because of any political leanings of the CEO's, but because that money being paid creates real value to those industries.  They earn money because of those contributions.  Otherwise, they wouldn't make them.

So.  AIG is still running, and the War in Afghanistan is still going.

Any questions?

There is a "them" and "us", and it isnt' the "left" and "right".  Those are just convenient labels to distract us, like rubes at a three card monte game.  We cheer for our "team" and jeer the other "team", and get complicit in the game by pretending that ideology and party politics actually means something, when, really, it's all about who has the money to pull the strings.

Think about THAT for a moment.

Strange Days.. Obama is Getting Hawkish, and Harper Stands Firm on Troop Withdrawal

We live in interesting times.

Barack Obama announces not only that troops won't be "home for Christmas", but that a further 40,000 U.S. soldiers will be hitting the ground immediately in Afghanistan.

And Stephen Harper and Canada are not joining the plan for increased troops, in fact, Harper remains committed to the withdrawal of combat troops by 2011.

And the typically liberal press in Canada seems unsure as to how to deal with it.

Do we comment on Barack Obama "snubbing" Stephen Harper by not inviting him into the dance?  Does that make him more or less of a "neo-con"?   How can we put a negative spin on Harper standing firm on troop withdrawals.  To this point, they are more or less dumbfounded it appears.

The "hawk" Stephen Harper, the so-called "puppet" of George Bush's militaristic endeavors, is choosing to stay the course and prepare Canadian troops for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Good on him.  It's probably going to create some concern from the far right who have a vision of some sort of "nation building" in Afghanistan - some perfect world where we annihilate all the "bad guys" and come home as conquering heroes.

Problem is, it's not going to turn out that way - and, I fear, Barack Obama has just sowed the seeds of his demise.  A quick one term act is my prediction as the U.S. will find itself, no doubt, leaving Afghanistan in much the same state as it arrived.  With a more or less chaotic government and a broadly uncontrolled state, where power and money rule, and the poor continue to be abused, variously, by religious fanatics, drug lords, and corrupt politicians.

Why?  Well - there was a good interview on CNN last night (oddly enough they found time to pull themselves away from the "Tiger Woods" crisis to comment on the war) where an imbedded journalist made an excellent commentary on the probable failure of the American effort.

As he commented, the country requires stability.  And stability requires an "involved" population, and in that part of the world, a strong, capable and honest security force.  The difficulty, much of the population is illiterate and living in clear third-world conditions.  How then to transform disjointed, illiterate, and untrusting tribesmen into a modern, competent security force capable of policing the country and bringing their citizens the stability they need.

It's not going to happen.

And it's not for want of incredibly dedicated and brave soldiers from all over the world, particularly Canada.

It's simply that the task is beyond any realistic expectation of success.  For a good explanation of this "Unwinnable War", see the article by former U.S. Army Officer Andrew Basevich, "The War We Can't Win".

Sadly, the people of Afghanistan will have to evolve to a secure state - and that will probably take generations yet.

The only realistic course of action is to provide some humanitarian aid, to support improved infrastructure and education in that country, and to wait it out. 

Stephen Harper sees the reality of it. Unfortunately, Barack Obama doesn't - and it will probably limit his Presidency to one term, as the U.S. citizens do not take "losing" a war lightly.  Even when it was unwinnable in the first place.

The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice

Ok.. how does it go, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

Kez, on her blog, "Random Musings of a Tormented Mind", simply posted:

Just a little musical interlude because pretending I am 14 again without a care in the world takes me away, temporarily, from all the goings-on of the world.

I like that.  As I commented to Kez, last weekend, my wife and I attended "Pirate Radio", and I particularly enjoyed the soundtrack - full of 60's rock (betraying my age).  One of the tracks in the movie struck me with some whimsy, and in a somewhat meloncholy sense, I commented to my younger wife, about the sense of much of the 60's music of a world which was bounding with hope for a better future.. maybe somewhat naive, it's still a nice change from our current cynicism.  You know.. back when 79% of our citizens voted.

So, in that vein, I'm going to copy Kez's idea, shamelessly, and share a song that let's me pretend that the world is simpler and "nicer" than it really is.. from one of the greatest albums of all time.. "Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys:

The Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice

When the Stars Align.. in a Very Weird Sort of Way

Odd thing when the stars align to create a picture almost on their own, don't you think?

Last night, I can't sleep.  So I turn on the t.v., quite randomly, and turn the channel to the Craig Ferguson show. (You know, the English guy who used to be Drew Carey's boss).  Anyhow, his guest is Carl Bernstein, of all people. (You know, the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter in Washington, who broke the Watergate story with Bob Woodward). 

So.

Getting to my point.  During their short discussion, Bernstein posits that Congress in the U.S. is sick.  That the U.S. has serious problems to contend with, however, they are hamstrung by partisan back-biting, and by the need to constantly fund-raise that real progress can't happen.

Think about that for a moment.  Think about it in Canada.  Think about the recent Afghanistan hearings.  Did you ever get the impression, at any point in time, that anything was going on to help Canadians, even peripherally?  And my criticism isn't limited to the Liberals.  The Conservatives weren't exactly "opening their pockets", allowing for clear scrutiny over what did or didn't happen in Afghanistan. 

No - what was going on, and what continues to go on, is political partisanship, game-playing, by all parties concerned.  Everyone is angling for that extra vote, that extra seat - and the effort to win the game is the whole game.  The business of tending to the needs of the citizens is almost an after-thought.

More stars aligning.

I started a poll on this blog a couple weeks ago.  It's still there, the question being:

To what extent do you believe the Conservative Party of Canada is fundamentally different from the previous Progressive Conservative Party?

My own theory?  No - nothing is significantly different.  The party started with a daring idea, about a party which didn't simply seek to appease the needs of central Canada, but was bigger and better than that.  A party that sought the "right" answers, for all Canadians.

The result of the poll?

Well, almost 1/2 (47%) "Completely" dissagreed with my premise, and felt the party is fundamentally different.  Another 37% "Somewhat" disagreed with me, suggesting the party is somewhat different.  Only 15% agreed with my premise.

My take?  Well, who knows?  I see a budget that is grossly inflated.  I see a party meddling in business, funding bail-outs.  I see a party bending over backwards to appease Quebec, giving them "nation" status.  I see a party seeking to obtain government authority to spy on it's citizens without court oversight, and authority to share than information with other countries.  I see a party that has made clearly partisan efforts to undermine the effort to increase the reliance of political parties on private funding from special interest groups but seeking to take away public funding - almost pushing Canada to the brink of a policital crisis a year ago today.

And then more stars aligned.

I read the conservative blog, "Celestial Junk" this morning.  No shrinking violet, no closet Liberal this, CJ writes today:

I'm becoming ever more disheartened with the CPC. They have become just another party of Ottawa hacks where winning a majority becomes the holy grail ... where any principle, any previous stand, and any greater idea is sacrificed on the altar of pure politics. In my opinion, Stephen Harper has led the CPC into this style of skulduggery simply because he's willing to do anything ... and I mean anything, to get that magic majority.

I fear CJ may be right.
 
I fear that Carl Bernstein may be right.
 
I fear that the premise of my poll, regardless of the outcome, may be right.   
 
Canada is facing some real challenges, and I suspect those challenges will increase.  I see a massive problem on the horizon with Health Care, with support for our elderly, and I do not have great hope for a concerted, intelligent effort at finding solutions.
 
Witness the Afghanistan inquiry.  Is it really appreciably different from the Somalia inquiry under the Chretien government?  I don't think so.
 
For those Conservatives who suggest that the current party is "different" from the previous PC government - well, with all respect, I think you are either wishful thinkers, or are wearing party blinders.
 
This government, and all government, is caught up in the falacy that the "ends justify the means".  That "to do good, you must get elected."  And then once elected, "to do good, you must stay elected."  And over time, the "good" you seek to do, gets drowned out by the need to either get elected or stay elected.
 
And the citizens watch and become more disengaged.  Voter turnout, until quite recently, has been reasonably strong - between 70 and up to 79% in 1963.  More recently?

2000 - 61.2%
2004 - 60.9%
2006 - 64.7%
2008 - 58.8%

So.  Stephen Harper wins the past two elections,based upon dismal voter turnout.  Somewhat of a dubious honor, no?
 
We need a fundamental change in government, and Stephen Harper isn't giving it to us, unfortunately.  We don't need to keep stacking our Senate, our boards and our courts with partisan supporters.  We don't need to send out questionable "flyers" using free government mailouts attacking Liberals as implied anti-semites.  We don't need to use government funding as partisan photo-op events with embarassing giant cheques.
 
We need leaders.  We need a party willing to lose with it's convictions, as opposed to abandoning them to win.
 
We need a "different" sort of conservatism, and, sadly, the current incarnation of the CPC is not it.
 
Fortunate for us, I suppose, the Liberal party is worse.