It's a showdown at the O.K. Corral. Will Harper blink?

Lovely.

The Supreme Court of Canada has pulled out their hair with how our Government has participated in the infringement of Omar Khadr's rights.

They have suggested he was tortured by the use of sleep deprivation.

News flash.

Police forces across the country regularly use sleep deprivation to quesiton suspects.  I myself represented a YOUTH who was denied the ability to go to sleep while police questioned him, over and over again, throughout the night.  Leaving him to doze off, only to wake him again to continue questioning him.  All for a stolen car.  Not murder and terrorism, but a stolen car. And, when I challenged his statement on the basis that it was voluntary, well, our Court not only didn't suggest he was "tortured", they in fact, allowed the statement to be admitted as a "voluntary statement".

The Supreme Court was offended because a Youth was questioned alone.  Well, in the aforesaid case, so was my client.  Throughout his interrogation, he was alone without parent, lawyer, or other adult present.

The Supreme Court of Canada was once an august body, whom sought to prudenly capture the ideals of a country and perform their duty as a third arm of government, upholding the Rule of Law, which posits that all are equal before the law, including the government itself.  There was a time, as a law student, when I would relish the opportunity to read decisions from this Court, and feel proud to be entering a profession which was so noble and significant in the lives of our citizens.

Sadly, my respect, and my pride in my profession is not what it once was.

The days of the Supreme Court of Canada being prudent guardian of the Rule of Law and seeking to stand as a third arm of government have passed us.  Over and over the Supreme Court of Canada has exceeded it's mandate and has entered the rhelm of policy maker and legislator.  And they have done so with relish.

Shame on them.

Changes in the laws of our land have come fast and furious, leaving many with the mouths open and jaws dropped as what the court said was law a few years ago, is now fodder for the bird cage.

The rampant growth of "palm tree justice", where principals and existing jurisprudence take a backseat to "the flavor of the day" is now endemic in our judicial system, taking the lead from our highest Court.

And this decision on Khadr, while I am gratified did not go so far as some of the lower courts, to presume authority being vested in the Courts to dictate foreign policy and international relations, continues this mad effort which, I feel, embarasses all members of the profession of law.

While our Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have ironically whittled away rights of due process in our own country, in favor of "victims rights", in this instance, they have conveniently ignored the concerns of Omar Khadr's victims, being the medic he allegedly killed, and, in fact, being all of us who can no longer feel safe while we fly, and who are being asked to look about in suspicion at any large gathering, in order to secure "respect" for alleged terrorists.

The Supreme Court and many in our profession are suggesting that Stephen Harper had best bend to the clear will of the Supreme Court in seeking to repatriate Omar Khadr.

My proudest day will be when Stephen Harper does not blink.

When he stares down Beverley McLachlin, and says, "there's a new Sheriff in town" and we don't put up with terrorists and aren't afraid of even losing an election because we stood up against terrorism and fear.

Stephen Harper.. perhaps the ONLY sensible leader in the free world.

So.

Stephen Harper has been in the news lately, doing some admirable work in taking the lead in assisting Haiti, not only with their immediate needs, but in seeking to plan for long-term improvement of their dismal socio-economic situation which pre-dated the earthquake, and which contributed heavily to the carnage resulting from the earthquake.

And, while he took the lead, other so-called leaders just couldn't resist saying, "we want more", complaining yet again that Canada is not following the pack in seeking to hamper their economy to respond to climate issues in a manner that seems:

a) Unlikely to actually impact on climate; and
b) To be responding to a risk which is still poorly understood..  a risk which is "potential" and which, in some respects, promises to make our world an easier place to live - not a worse place.

And.. while the converted on either side may continue their partisan positions - that climate change can be completely ignored, or, that if we just send much more money to poorly governed countries, and, more importantly, to self-interested carbon brokers.. the world will be a perfect place.

But, finally, some sane and reasoned information from, *gasp*, client scientists of all things.

As reported Wednesday in Spiegal Online, climate scientists Richard Tol, Roger Pielke and Hans von Storch call for a reform of the IPCC and the resignation of its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.  The article reports:

The ideals of the IPCC are both worthwhile and hard to live up to. Academics have all of the foibles that are seen in every other profession. Politicians and advocates seek to politicize scientific advice, often preferring to hide behind "the science" rather than explain the normative choices behind tough decisions. Such factors make it important for scientific advisory institutions to have rigorous and transparent policies to ensure trust and the credibility of their work. The IPCC has failed in this respect.


The IPCC's shortfalls are illustrated with the behavior of Pachauri, its chair since 2002. In recent months, Pachauri has participated in overt political advocacy, such as by calling on people to eat less meat and on the United States government to pass a certain climate policy. He has endorsed 350 parts per million as the right target for the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, despite the IPCC offering no recommendation on such a target. Being a scientific advisor sometimes means recusing yourself from engaging in the political processes that you are advising. We expect no less from intelligence agencies advising the military and medical professionals advising governments on health and safety.

When the e-mails were stolen or leaked from the University of East Anglia, they revealed, among other things, the intent of IPCC authors to violate IPCC procedures. Pachauri first said that all was fine, then announced an investigation, and then cancelled it.

Now, while one of the favorite attacks on scientists questioning IPCC policy is that, somehow, they obtain funding from the U.S. government or Oil Interests or some such thing, we see, ironically, that the chairman of the IPCC himself showed grotesque misjudgment in creating a significant conflict of interest for himself:

The whole situation became more bizarre when it emerged from the investigations of Richard North that Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) has built a large research effort on Himalayan glaciers on the back of the error in the IPCC report. TERI is also the beneficiary of considerable sums from companies with a financial interest in climate policy, resulting from payments for Pachauri's advice or authority. Astoundingly, it appears that Pachauri has not broken any rules for the simple reason that there is no code of conduct governing conflicts of interest for IPCC participants and leaders.

Read that again.

The Chairman of the IPCC, received "considerable sums from companies with a financial interest in climate policy".

Really.

Now.

Here's the very hard part for conservatives.  Just because the IPCC has insufficient safeguards to prevent politicization of their findings and has no code of conduct, doesn't mean that the effort to understand human impact on climate should be ignored.

I think it is illustrative to consider the early failings of human understanding to understand the problem.

There was a time when people believed the earth was flat.  They were convinced of it.  And, as we now know, eventually, science made it clear that the earth was not flat, that it was not stationary, and that it revolved around the sun (not the other way around).

I would prefer to have been one of those open to people like Galileo who suggested I might want to question my assumptions

However - on the other hand, when people like Galileo made their original "fanastic" pronouncements, it was a challenge to the entrenched and established scientific community, such as it was at the time.

When Charles Darwin first published his "Origin of the Species" he was also initially derided by much of the "established" scientic community.

The point?

That we MUST be open to understanding and question, and at the same time, we must be cautious in the face of a politicized multinational organization with it's own interests to not put our own welfare at risk simply to "follow the crowd".

Those who dismiss the mistakes of the IPCC scientists and find no concern with Phil Jones' willingess to destroy and hide information, differ very little from those who refused to consider the world might not be flat.

But so do those who refuse to consider the possibility that climate change may be impacted by humans with a negative consequence to our own welfare.

I prefer a leader like Stephen Harper who says, "Yes, but..."

Right now, he IS the leader of the free world, and I'll sleep comfortable knowing that his response is not blind acceptance or refusal of suggestions regarding climate change.

More Intolerance from those who suggest Conservatives are, well, Intolerant

So.

I was visiting Daveberta, and was pleased to see a group actually wondering what the Wild Rose Party was all about.  In his blog, "Does Policy Matter", Dave enters into some discussion about what "substance" there is to the Wild Rose Alliance.

Well, about time, perhaps.. but that really wasn't what caught my interest.

What really caught my interest was a series of attacks on Rob Anderson (of whom I'm no great fan) because, gasp, he's Mormon.

And here is the really greasy and disgusting part of the series of posts.  Not only does it appear that to a bunch of gutless anonymous posters, it is acceptable to ridicule and question someone's faith, when their faith has never been brought to bear in their job, but, we then see some ignorant effort to try and tar the PC Party with that effort.

See the comment by B.B. Kingly:

"I would never vote for the Wildrose Alliance in a million years. The party is ideological, obssessed with creating division, and the evidence is pretty clear it has become a political front for a small number of greedy Calgary oilmen to stage a well financed coup. And Danielle Smith is essentially a comparatively sane version of Ezra Levant.


But if the best smear the anonymous PC/Public Affairs Bureau/Tom Olsen wankocracy can come up with is: "Watch out for the evil Mormon conspiracy," then all hope is lost. The Wildrose Alliance will win the next election, and it will win because the wankocracy -- with all the money and government resources at their disposal -- thinks Albertans are as inept and retarded as they are."

And then, after criticising the PC Party for attacking someone's religion, he then goes on to attack Stockwell Day for his beliefs as a Pentacostal Christian.

The rub, well, I guess it's best set out in my response:

Nice effort B.B.Kingly.


So, now you are suggesting the Alberta Government's response to the WRA is an attack on their faith? A good part of my PC Board for my local constituency is Mormon, and I'm pretty sure their faith isn't an issue in my constituency or anywhere else that matters in the PC Party.

So, I'm left to surmise that, firstly, YOU, B.B., are either a Liberal or NDP supporter, using the crudest form of deception to try and equate what some dingbat says here with the PC Party.

Now, if you had made even half an effort to examine who exactly was attacking another person's faith, well, you would have perhaps clicked on the link to the one non-anonymous poster, Merlin Durken, who actually made the post.

Then, you would be led to his sad little blog, "Exploitation Retainer Services".

And there you would read his bizarre plan to combat capitalism and consumerism by "feeding corporate capitalists everywhere a little of their own medicine."

Well.

Hardly some advocate of the PC Party, clearly.

One would, safely, suggest he is probably a supporter of the Liberal Party or more likely yet, the NDP Party.

So.

If you're going to slam a political party based upon the rantings of their unhinged supporters, at least use what modicum of intellect you have to figure out who said what, and then, you would no doubt, be attacking the NDP Party of Alberta.

I guess so much for "tolerance" coming from the left side of the political spectrum.

And isn't that the ultimate irony.  That for all we continually hear about how devoid of decency and morality the "right" side of the spectrum is, so often we see examples of deceit and intolerance coming from those who are our harshest critics.

Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

Prudent Compassion

Well.

After leading much of the developed world in stepping up to help Haiti, and getting almost universal praise for his effort, compared to the Liberal response to the Indonesian tsunami disaster in 2004, it was almost a given that someone would say, "not good enough Mr. Harper."

And, true to form, Marie Andree Chouinard, with Le Devoir, suggests that the refusal of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to "open the doors" to immigrants from Haiti is "frankly detestable", as reported in the Globe and Mail today.

In response to criticism, primarily from Quebec, Kenney responded that the Canadian government must be consistent in its immigration policies for victims of natural disaster in foreign countries - a point with which rational, but compassionate Canadians, certainly cannot take issue with.

And this is the point, isn't it?

Canada is able to step in to help others, primarily because we are a prudent and (relatively) well managed democracy.  And that requires that even during periods of great tragedy, our government act in a manner which is prudent - not purely emotional.

It's called "leadership".

The Conservatives have already shown that they have the ability to respond quickly and decisively in response to a neighbor's tragedy.  However, to maintain that ability requires continued prudent management at home, and, as Kenney also points out, consistency in how we treat other immigration applicants.

Surely, the starving and besieged citizens of Somalia or Darfur have little appreciable difference in their circumstances from those in Haiti.  So, contrary to the simple and mindless rant of Chouinard, "consistency IS justice".  To suggest otherwise is just, as I suggested yesterday, "politics for dummies" yet again.

Our government requires a soul; it requires that it stand for something.  And while it has a ways to go, it's response to Haiti and it's leadership in suggesting the development of a social welfare agenda for the G8 shows that there are ideals being followed that go beyond feeding the "McDonald's" mentality of so many of us, who see the point of government as doing little more than "giving us more for less". 

Prudent Compassion.  There could be worse things to stand for.

Meanwhile,  let Chouinard and her compatriots at Le Devoir continue to complain and trumpet their "Quebec first" agenda, even as her province, collectively, is the largest "aid" recipient in Canada, year in and year out..  but then "prudence" has never been the strong point of the Quebec separatist agenda, so why start now?

Politics for Dummies.. Literally.

So.

Here I am.

A member of the Conservative Party of Canada.

A financial supporter, donating funds to the party.

A member of the P.C. Party of Alberta.

And, as a Conservative, I nonetheless suggest that the prorogue of Parliament, while not perhaps the most critical issue before the Canadian public, was, nonetheless, a bad idea.  That it suggests an unwillingness for our government to answer questions they don't deem "important" enough or "worthy" of debate. 

My point being that the hallmark of democracy is the right of those who disagree with us, to engage in vigorous debate, even when we find their objections "unworthy".

And.. as I express this opinion, I suppose in my way suggesting a conservative "mea culpa", what sort of response to I get - from non-Conservatives?

Mostly, what I get is more argument and criticism not only of Conservatives, but of my own opinions. 

This is truly politics for dummies.  There are those out there, no matter what you say, if you are not "one of them", your opinions are worthless.  Even when you agree with them.

Is there anything more symptomatic of what is truly wrong with politics and political discourse, than those who are so simple, so bereft of an operating intellect, so truly twisted by some xenophobic hatred of those who differ from them, that they can't even accept when you are agreeing with them?

And here's the irony.

The typical expression of hatred for conservatives is that they are "intollerant".

Funny, that, isn't it?

Well Done, Canada.

During the Canadians for Haiti telethon, including the French-language telethon Canadians donated some $20 million towards Haitian relief.

This should be compared to the U.S. effort which raised apporoximately $60 million.

While the notion of reaching out to help someone in need isn't a competition, I think it is still worthy to note that a population of some 33 million people in Canada donated about 1/3 of the amount of the United States with a population of some 308 million.

Well done, Canada.

Pat yourself on the back for reaching out to help a neighbor in need.

Searching for Liberty.. With Dignity

When I first started this blog, some two years ago, I didn't actually put a lot of thought into the name I would give it.  I knew that what I was looking for in politics wasn't so crass as just lower taxes, or the pursuit of capitalism.. it was something deeper.  Without actually giving it too much though, I decided upon "Searching for Liberty."

I think I realized that I didn't have "the answer", and that my blog would be more of a search for myself than an education of anyone reading it.. and the feeling I had was that I wanted was not material benefit, but "liberty".

Well, today I'm continuing to read, "Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists", and today's chapter really struck a chord, and helped, perhaps, explain my blog's title, and, perhaps, what many of us are searching for in our disjointed political environment.

Her suggestion is that what motivates all people, from liberals to conservatives and from Christian crusaders to Muslim extremists, is a search for "liberty" with "dignity".

She points out that Muslim terrorists, statistically, come from comfortable families and are generally reasonably well educated.  As such, the terrorist response does not come from those living in squalor, rebelling against those who have something they want.  Osama Bin Laden, living a fugitive life for some time, moving from cave to cave in Northern Afghanistan and Pakistan comes from the incredibly wealthy bin Laden family.  A family owning not only one of the largest construction companies in the Islamic world, but, reportedly, also owning major stakes in Boeing and Microsoft.  Not only wealthy, but powerful as well, with direct connection to the Saudi royal family.

Few people in this world held more financial security and more potential political power than Osama bin Laden, yet, he threw it away to live a pauper's life, pursuing jihad against western interests.

Closer to home, she points out that voters in places like Kansas and Oklahoma, who are often most negatively impacted by Republican economic policy, are those who are the most ardent "red states" supporting the Republicans.

Why?

Because our freedom and our dignity cannot be "bought".   Because in the deepest parts of our souls, what we share, as conservatives and liberals, is a desire for freedom and dignity.  Not just for ourselves, but, at our noblest moments, for everyone.

Sure, there are sociopaths who probably have no conception of others, but for the rest of us, it is not just our own personal well-being that we strive for, but the well-being of our children, and, in fact, of our society as a whole. 

None of us would knowingly relish the "perfect" existence of wealth and independence if the price were the subjugation of another. 

Now - liberals may read this and argue, "Conservatives have no conscience, they pursue their mindless quest for wealth at the expense of environment and those less fortunate."  In response, conservatives will say, "Liberals have no soul, they wish to take what is not theirs and give it to themselves and others, and, in the long run, they will hurt the less fortunate because as business suffers, so to does the tax base and society's ability to pay for education, health care and other needed social programs."

However - I believe that there are some fundamental truths to liberals and conservatives alike.  That if any of us are offered a sort of Faustian bargain of personal well-being, trading another person's liberty and dignity for it - we would not do it.  None of us. 

This isn't to say we don't rationalize or ignore the things we don't want to see or acknowledge.  We are often willfully blind to the ways in which our society hurts those who are weak or at risk, we say, "It isn't my doing", as if that's a complete answer, or we blame others, "The big corporations".

Look at almost every single major source of disagreement in politics today and you will see a struggle over liberty and dignity.

Global warming?

Advocates of the theory point to how big business, particulary oil interests, are harming our planet, and in the bargain, ourselves and others, ignoring the freedom and the dignity of everyone but themselves.  Dignity?  In the sense that to have dignity requires that we be "recognized", and "heard".  Advocates look to the IPCC and the scores of scientists supporting their position, and say, "Even when millions of us, around the world, speak up - they don't listen.  We aren't being respected, we aren't being "heard".

What about opponents of global warming theory?

Well, they feel their freedom and dignity is being offended as well.  They feel they haven't been consulted, as voters, that governments have surrendered their sovereignty to elite groups of scientists, who have coupled their environmental agenda with a complex and poorly explained economic agenda that "Gives my hard earned tax dollars to some other country to use in a way that I have no control over."  They also feel they aren't being "heard", and, further, that their freedom is being taken away to just pursue their own livleihood.  Real jobs are at risk of being lost in places like Fort McMurray, and Edmonton and Calgary, and they are the sacrificial lambs for people like David Suzuki and Al Gore.  They feel that they don't matter, that their own very real freedom and liberty is at stake.

Couple this last concern with the now infamous hacked emails.  Scientists  basically saying,

"Those opposing our point of view are not worthy of questioning us.  Better we hide the contrary evidence than have to listen to their stupid and ignorant questions."

Sound like someone else we know?

Perhaps, Stephen Harper in response to the Afghan detainee inquiry?

Are "Ideals" a Dirty Word for a Conservative?

Well.

My post yesterday elicited some heated response.  Apparently, if Ralph was in power, I'd be drummed out of the Alberta P.C. Party.  Apparently, any ham-fisted "nation building" attempted by the United States where they prop up some despot, leading to violence being returned against them (can you say Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden?) is justified by referring to the Iron Curtain and the excesses of communism.

Here's a hint as to how you can tell when someone has nothing to support their argument:  They offer nothing, other than to point to someone else who is worse.

They hide behind a flag and suggest you are unpatriotic, that you don't love your own country.
I'm very proud to be Canadian.

And in fact, I believe that Canada is so far ahead of the curve relative to the United States that it is almost laughable.

Internationally, we have never sought to nation-build in the American sense of the word, and economically, we already have a health care system that provides reasonable care for all, without having to cripple our economy to do it.  We certainly significant work to attend to the needs of a system in difficulty, however, the point is we have a system in place, and improving that system is hardly going to lead to the ignorant partisan excesses that we're seeing in the U.S. with their "death panels" and whatnot..

Our tax rates are now relatively comparable, and our post-secondary education exceeds most American standards, with the exception of the most elite schools that the vast majority of Americans will never be able to even consider attending anyway.

Our banking system is fundamentally sound, and our judicial system is, with all it's warts, much less interventionist in business, in the sense that Canadian business does not nearly require the attention to tort liability as is the case in the U.S.

Fundamentally, I prefer my own country, Canada, to the United States.

We are a country of the 21st century, while they are slowly realizing that they are a country of the 19th century, not in the sense of their techonological innovation or even their economic power, but in the sense of how they relate to the world around them.  They are the last of the great imperialist nations.  Except they aren't planting their flag on foreign soil, they seek to plant Exxon and Union Carbide. 

I will, however, give the United States credit for one significant advantage.  Where the U.S. has it over Canada, is the notion of a national "ideal".

Americans believe in their country in a way that Canadians do not. Words like "freedom" and "liberty" in the U.S. resonate like a national religion.. and this is the shortcoming of Canadian political reality. We are hungry for something to believe in - an ideal to unite us. 

That was the point, actually, of my blog.. not to tear down the U.S., but to say, "we need something to believe in."

Sadly, so much of Canadian political reality is based upon little but material benefit.  Conservatives see much of their job as retain control of individual financial autonomy, and Liberals and NDP see much of their job as spreading the wealth around.  At it's core, so much of our politics is premised on who gets what tax dollars.

And, as most people, even hardline conservatives know - materialism is a hollow religion.  Attaining material wealth does not fill the soul.  Which we are now seeing.  As women are being admitted to the work force in numbers and attaining levels of income unheard of just two generations ago, they are also finding that the "gold ring" they worked so hard to grasp is plastic.

That's my point.

At my heart, I still feel that part of the picture we need to work to attain is to encourage individual responsibility, to reduce our expectations on the state to deliver our needs in a financial sense, and a respect to individual liberty which we often give lip service to.. but we need something more.  At our core, we need a leader, we need a party, that we can believe in.

That's my point.

You may say that I'm a dreamer..  but I'm betting that I'm not the only one.

And the Bizzaro World of Canadian Politics Continues

Ideas and Ideals.

Are they just empty rhetoric?  Have we become so cynical that our society has become an ongoing fight of dog-eat-dog, where the establishment of control to do things "our way" is more important than the bigger concepts of "right" and "wrong"?

I don't think so.

I think that people still aspire to something more.  I think that deep down, while it may not be on par with the adscam fiasco, the recent prorogation has, at a minimum, "rubbed us wrong", and recent rallies, while perhaps overblown by a media searching for relevance and an opposition doing much the same, I still think represents a real sense of dissappointment in a government that many people feel is better than that.

And, thankfully, the government has shown some glimmers of honor.  As posted Friday, the rapid response to the Haitian crisis, more or less devoid of cynical photo-ops and even continaining some bi-partisan effort at just helping people in need has shown us that government does, occasionally, do things just because they are the "right thing to do".

And, today, we see more well-thoughout and compassionate effort by our government.

As reported in the Toronto Sun, today, Canada has taken a lead in moving to the next, more arduous and in many respects, more important effort to rebuild Haiti into something more than it was before the earthquake.

No military imposition of "western ideals" this, the Canadian government is hosting a meeting of other countries and NGO's,with a view to setting a path for Haiti's recovery in the long term.  According to the report:

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said the gathering of nations will not be a "pledging conference" but an initial, critical step forward on the long road to Haiti's recovery.

"Together with the government of Haiti, we need to roll up our sleeves and begin to lay the groundwork for the enormous task ahead," Cannon said during a briefing with reporters Sunday. "My objectives for this meeting are simple but necessary: We need to arrive at a common understanding and commitment on certain basic principles of responsibility, accountability and long-term engagement."

Fourteen countries, including the U.S., France, Japan and Mexico, will participate in the conference along with international financial institutions and non-government organizations such as the Red Cross, Oxfam and Care Canada. Cannon hopes participants will define a "road map" for long-term tasks that lie ahead.

So, the Canadian government, even while in minority, shows some positive leadership, not only in Canada, but on the international stage as well.  And, meanwhile, the opposition continues to see their options only in terms of political pragmatism.  Getting "points" to try and wrest power from the Conservatives.

Perhaps the most offensive words current in the English language should not be racial or sexist epithets, but the words "pragmatism" and "power".

As we have seen, the American notion of their "manifest destiny" to democratize the world, where it serves their own self-interest, is dying and, hopefully, will soon be dead.  Far from making the world a safer, better place, the self-interested effort at nation building has done nothing but alienate so many countries from what was once a beacon of hope in the world - the American dream of freedom and independance. 

We can hardly count the ways in which American interventionism and self-interested foreign policy has done little but, in all liklihood, feed the virulent anti-Americanism the world over.  The list of dictators and terrorists the United States has helped give power to is long and pathetic. 

Chile - Gen. Augusto Pinochet -  1973-1990  - 3000 murdered. 400,000 tortured.


Argentina - Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla - 1976-1981 - 30,000 murdered.
Indonesia - Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide
500,000 dead after 1965 coup; 100,000-230,000 dead in East Timor; more, more, more.

Guatemala - Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-

Iran - The Shah of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris

Egypt - Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today

Iraq - Saddam Hussein

Nicaragua - Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979

Paraguay - Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989

Bolivia - Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-

Angola - Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989

Zaire - Mobutu

Saudi Arabia - Saud family

Panama - Noriega was US-supported for years

Haiti - Papa Doc, Baby Doc

Dominican Republic - Trujillo, a military dictator for 32 years with US support for most of that time; Belaguer, Trujillo's protege, installed after US Marines intervened to put down an attempt to restore the democratically elected government of Juan Bosch 1930-61, 1965-78

El Salvador - support of terrorists and guerillas 1980s

Cuba - Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro

Brazil - Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67

Uzbekistan - Kamirov "The Boiler", $150M from the Bush administration for an air base. 1965-67

Afghanistan - helped fund, train and establish Osama Bin Laden as a leader of Muslim extremism while opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, only to have Al Qaeda become the most dangerous organization to world peace in our generation.

Well done, U.S. of A.

Such is what happens when honor and principle take a back seat to "pragmatism" and "power".

Prime Minister Harper.. doing one thing right.

My concern over the current meanderings of the Conservative Party have been apparent.  I'm not about to vote Liberal by any means, but I have been very concerned that the Conservative Party is at risk of losing it's tenuous hold on government, primarily because it is losing it's soul and its decency - the moral convictions that Conservatives suggests so loudly they hold and Liberals lack.

But principles are not demonstrated by statements of good intention - they are demonstrated by principled actions.

And, on this point, the Harper government must be given credit for it's immediate, unconditional and effective response to the Haitian earthquake tragedy.

Haiti is a country of marginal political relevance to Canada, or anyone else, which probably accounts for the relative ease with which much of the developed world has ignored it's peoples problems for so long.  Haiti doesn't hold oil reserves, it isn't ever apt to be a trading partner of any significance, yet, for no other reason that I can divine other than it is the "right thing to do", the Harper government has jumped in with both feet to commit money and personnel assistance to the stricken Haitian people.

THIS is the soul that we expect of government..  not mindless charity to all, not helping those who could, but refuse, to help themselves, not simply helping those who are worthwhile, strategically, to help - but helping our fellow human beings when decency requires it.

Part of the attraction of "conservative" politics is the perception that it is a party of principle, that it's policies are based upon something more than political expediency - that field has been more than completely captured by the Liberal Party of Canada.  However - it is one thing to state you are a party of principle - it's another thing to demonstrate those principles.

Without question, Canadians have recognized the decency of the Conservative response to the Haitian crisis, and without question, Canadians have been, at best, neutral to the prorogation, and, more and more, hostile to the prorogation - read recent polls.

While a party of principle should not govern based upon the polls, nonetheless, I would suggest that, over the long haul, it will be the party who best demonstrates that it does govern on principle which will succed at the polls.

Are we, as Conservatives, up to such a challenge?

The failure of Liberalism and the Lesson Conservatives had best Learn

"Liberalism" as a concept, is a failure.

That doesn't mean that a Liberal government cannot succeed in an election, but, as a concept, as something to "believe in", it has left us with nothing.  It is a concept without soul and without nobility.

Now - as conservatives, we had best not be too quick to pat ourselves on the back, as we are slowly sinking towards the same abyss. 

Who are we, really?

Are we pure capitalists?  Do we believe that three free market will answer all ills?  Certainly that can't be the case, as we've seen with stunning clarity in the past few years, left to their own devises, unrestrained capitalism is an ugly animal which may even consume itself in the end.

Are we pure libertarians?  Do we believe that the absense of control will deliver the best societal outcome?  Well, clearly that can't be it either.  The absence of control is anarchy, and without some function to maintain order, society cannot progress and succeed.

Are we closet theocrats?  Do we, deep down, seek to impose upon others our views of "moral principal" as detailed in "our" theology, presumeably Christianity?

Are we simply anti-progressive?  Believing that everyting worth doing has already been done, and that the best course of society is to stop any forward movement at all.  Or, better yet, to return to the "good old days", you know, when slavery was acceptible, when medical care and education was for the wealthy, when women could not vote?

Are we some amalgamation of all of the foregoing?  And where is the place for helping those who can't help themselves, and if the answer is "Christianity", well, where is the place for respect for other's beliefs?

Or, are we like Liberals.  Are we really devoid of any real soul ourselves, hiding beneath a thin veneer of "principle" which we just use as a helpful tool to establish control.  Perhaps both Liberals and Conservatives are, in truth, followers of Thomas Hobbes, who believe that the natural state of man is that of the animal kingdom - "nasty brutish and short" and that for society to succeed we need to submit to utter and complete control of a central government.  Where separation of powers, and the concept of constitutional democracy are in fact counter-productive.

It cannot be so.

I think in our hearts, as conservatives (ignoring those on the extremes who may believe in the "every man for himself" concept) we know better.  We have a sense that society requires a social conscience to lead it, that progress, in a studied and modest context, is not only accepted, but necessary, and that individual freedom and initiative within that framework is the foundation of successful society.  And, surrounding all of that, a moral foundation - not a "christian" foundation - but a moral foundation based upon broad concepts of mutual respect is necessary for all of it to work.

And while the Liberal party and "liberalism" in general has foundered in abandoning concepts of morality, in favor of some soul-less academic "rationalism", I think there is room for conservatism to flourish and to in fact dominate political philosophy.

But - it requires a soul.

It requires that we "stand" for something.

And our party more than ever has to be clear, that "principles" are more than tools to sell at an election.

That if we make a promise, we have to stand behind that promise, regardless of the consequences.  The arguments of political expediency, that, for example, "we HAVE to stack the senate, because if we don't, the Liberals will", will eventually doom us to the same dismall, souless existance of the Liberal party.

That we need to be honest and accept our failings - even again at the risk of losing power.  We should never hide or run from public scrutiny.  The recent use of prorogation and the failure to fully and openly respond to the Afghan detainee issue has demeaned our party.

Resist the impulse towards partisan acceptance of everything we do being "right" and everythign they do being "wrong". 

Stephen Harper.. "be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid".

Nude Republican Coverboy Takes Ted Kennedy's Seat from the Democrats

Sign of the apocalypse?

A world gone mad?

The pundits are out in full force today trying to make sense of the election yesterday of Scott Brown as Massachusetts' first Republican senator since 1972. 

I would suggest, perhaps, it is a result of what happens to a dream deferred.

A Dream Deferred

by Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up

like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore--

And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over--

like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags

like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

Barack Obama asked America to "believe".

He offered them "hope".

He gave them a dream.

And then he delivered the same cynical, pork barrelling, political game playing that Americans have been served for decades.  He doled out taxpayer dollars as bribes to support his disjointed health care plan, he dithered back and forth on how he was going to deal with Guantanamo detainees, and then he significantly increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan.

I would urge the Republicans and conservatives in general not to see this as an endorsement of the right.. but to see this as a message that the electorate is getting angry with the status quo. 

Most certainly, this vote was a result of a dream that has started to "stink like rotten meat".

$738,845.03 per day is the Taxpayer Tab for the Liberals to be "Relevant"

Michael's Ego: $753,845.03 per day

Well, with thanks to Big City Liberal.. he points us to blogger "The Scott Ross" who does some superficial math to suggest that what the prorogue is costing taxpayers.

Now - don't get me wrong.  As I've said before, I don't think the prorogue was appropriate and I'm hardly proud of the effort of the Conservative government to avoid the ongoing nattering about the Afghan detainee issue.

But, that being said, I am indebted to the Scott Ross for bringing something to our attention - which is this.

According to his number, ignoring the Senate for the moment because they aren't really an active participant in this issue, the cost to Canadian taxpayers of this pointless and neverending Afghan detainee rant is:

$753,845.03 per day.

$753,845.03 per day for the Liberal Party of Canada to try and be relevant.

Keep in mind, everyone acknowledges that while the Conservative party didn't jump and change established Liberal policy regarding detainee transfer at the first whimper of a Taliban terrorist, they did, back in 2007, change their policy and since then there are no allegations of improper detainee transfers.

Also, keep in mind, that we are dealing with actions in a forward area, where real terrorists are killing real Canadian soldiers, reporters and civilians.

But.. be that as it may, what we are talking about now is second-guessing a policy that the Liberal government established, and which, in due course, was changed.

So then, why the debate and discussion?

Simple.

It allows the Liberal party to desperately cling to some shred of relevance.

It may not be much, but it's all they have.

And it's only costing you and me $753,845.03 per day.

After all.. isnt' Michael Ignatieff's effort to be king worth it?

The Discussion of MLA salaries..

Have I got a Deal for you..!

In my post yesterday on the changing budget in Alberta, one topic that arose (as it often does) was that of MLA salaries.  After I pointed out that they are often used by unions as a sort of foil to convince the public that they aren't being fairly dealt with - even when the bare statistics make it abundantly clear that civil service pay is more than fair in Alberta - Lee Harding posted a resonse from the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation suggesting that while MLA salaries may be a drop in the bucket, when they are raised by the MLA's themselves, the public service uses that to compare to their own meagre salary increases - hence the call for an independant public body to review MLA compensation.

My response?

Lee.. in theory, you are correct, and I would also support a public review process - provided, however, that there is some contextual framework provided to guide them.

I note on the first page of the CTF site, they mention that Alberta MLA's get paid more than two provinces. That's an interesting commentary, and one that I think says something that it doesn't intend.

What has been, for some time, the richest province in Canada pays its MLA's the third worst (although my own review suggests we're about middle of the pack actually).

This isn't just a moral embarassment, it's a practical failure as well.

In a province which, even now, pays salaries to managers and consultants better than most other provinces, we, as taxpayers, are required to "recruit" our MLA's as any other employer.

And when we are paying much lower than the "going rate" for first rate talent, the results are going to be showing.. for all political parties.

At the same time, our teachers and nurses are amongst the best paid in Canada. So - then, why look to MLA's for their lead? Because, mostly, their unions are greedy.  Never satisfied, they use the rhetoric of MLA pay raises to try and gain public sympathy, but a strong government can easily look to the stats, make them public, and let the public see the ATA for the side-show carnies that they are.

So. Lee - yes, set up an independant body, however, give a contextual framework, such as say, provincial court judges salaries, on average, in the two contiguous provinces, perhaps general practictioner medical doctors - and some other valued professionals whose salaries can be fairly assertained.

Also - don't forget, that an MLA salary is perhaps for one four year period. As such, you should be prepared to pay more again for someone either giving up a career or putting one on hold to take this on.

Otherwise, you will get a selection of people who are either strongly committed to the job regardless of finances, which may not be good if they are ideologues who are on a "crusade" of some kind.. or, people who do not have careers that are particularly valuable because of their questionable skill-set..
 
In other words..  I could sell you a truck for $100..  but do you have any faith it could do the job?

The Buffet is "Over".. and some are having difficulty pushing themselves away from the table

So.

Ted Morton, Albera's new finance minister, says "the buffet is over".

That deficit financing and use of savings to balance the budget is coming to an end.

And, as we expect, the usual suspects are unhappy.  Civil service and students have created their "Join Together" project complaining, bitterly, of a government they will suggest is destroying our "social fabric" to use their rhetoric.  Problem is, Albertans know better.  They have grown wise to the reality that our government has gone above and beyond in it's financial commitment to education and health care.  And they also understand that tough times require some unpleasant medicine.

And, oddly enough, their efforts are just the tonic that the Stelmach government needs.  The suggestion of the PC Government as a government of profligate public spending is hurting the party at the polls, and an organized protest by the "usual suspects" is quite certain to reduce that perception in the Alberta voting public.

And while we will, no doubt, hear over and over again about the "huge MLA pay raises", the reality is that more and more, Albertans also see that argument as just so much more smoke and mirrors - realizing that, in fact, our MLA's are clearly "middle of the road" in the MLA pay scale in Canada, and that the "champagne and caviar" portion of the budget is, in fact, the salaries of those who will be protesting.

So.

Thank you "Join Together".

We appreciate your endorsement of the Stelmach government to all conservatives in Alberta.

Canada.. land of the free, and the home of the FAT

Daddy, can we stop at McDonald's on the way home from kindergarten?

Well.

Yesterday, there was an interesting interchange between myself and CWTF regarding the development of the "Brave New World" in Ontario.  Me of the opinion that the more that government "helps" us by removing our burdens (child raising) the more we actually harm the broader society, and CWTF, apparently, of the position that universal daycare is a hell of an idea.

Well, today the media is abuzz with data being released by StatsCan which is anticipated to tell us what we already know.

We're fat.

Sorry to those school administrators who may be offended by my use of the term "fat" and for any children who may read this blog and be exposed to this sort of offensive language (I have a colleague who recently had to attend a school, because her child called another child "fat". The principal looked at the parent rather pointedly, and demanded, "Where does your child hear language like that?")


And sorry to the "Council on Size and Weight Discrimination", but, being fat hurts us all, and hurts the fat people the most.  So, pardon me if I "discriminate" and tell fat people - "get your shit together, you're not "rubenesque", you're not "stocky", you don't have "big bones", you are FAT. 
 
Pardon me if I don't want to sit next to a 500 lb. person on an airplane, or that I am offended that they assume they are entitled to two seats for the price of one.

As repored in Canada.com today:

..between 1978-79 and 2004, rates of overweight and obese adolescents aged 12 to 17 more than doubled, from 14 per cent to 29 per cent; their obesity rate tripled, from three per cent to nine per cent.

We should be appalled and, in our zeal to look out "for the children", we should be up in arms.


But, of course that's not how our Brave New World works.

Our "progressive" movement is premised upon telling everyone that "they're fine, just the way they are" and that if they are tired or just lazy, "the government will pick up the slack."

Remember my post on the "McDonald Effect".

"McDonald's Effect" - n. the tendancy of citizens to look to their government to deliver upon their wants and desireds with minimal effort and minimal expense on their own part. To expect to be able to approach a "drive through window" and have a government representative immediatley deliver whatever they want upon demand.

So. Minimal effort = minimal calories burned = fat Canada.

No calories going to be burned in Quebec or Ontario running after chidren aged 4 and over anyway. 

Now - in making these criticisms, I'm also criticising myself.  I'm overweight.  But I'm not asking for special treatment, and I'm swimming 1.5 hours three times a week, and when my pals comment on my waistline, I don't get defensive, I say, "yup.. I'm working on it." 

Why should we care?

Well, aside from just being concerned for our fellow human beings having productive and healthy lives, it costs the ever-strained health care system billions of dollars.

One the most prevalent illnesses arising as a result of obesity is diabetes.  According to a report of the Canadian Diabetes Association referenced in the Vancouver Sun today:

The economic burden of diabetes is calculated to be about $12.2 billion next year, and the cost is expected to rise by another $4.7 billion by 2020. The direct financial burden on the health-care system includes the cost of hospitalizations, visits to general physicians and specialists, and medication. Indirect costs were calculated to include the loss of economic output due to illness, long-term disability or premature death.
 

Here's the curious thing, though.  Read the article referred to above.  Look at it carefully.  In the article, even though it points out the stagerring cost of diabetes on our economy, and refers to the connection between diabetes and obesity, what does the Candian Diabetes Association want the Federal Governemnt to do?

Is it asking to expand the physical education curriculum in our schools?

Is it asking to provide incentives to encourage fitness?

Nope.

Not in our Brave New World.

It just asks the government to pay for more of the costs to those suffering diabetes.

It asked the government to roll down that drive-through window, and hand the insulin and the test strips out the window.. right after the double Big Mac and superfries.

The Liberal March to Dystopia.. their effort at the "Brave New World"

Remember the Kyoto Accord?

This is the treaty that the Liberal government committed Canada to, based upon uncertain science and which even they refused to comply with after making the commitment.

Remember the Gun Registry?

To refresh your memory, let me take you back to May of 2006, when the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, was able to examine the registry in some detail.  As reported in Canada.com here:

The former Liberal government hid more than $60 million in unexpected costs from Parliament, left no written record of important decisions taken by officials, and may have broken numerous contracting rules in its handling of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser has found.


The Canadian Firearms Program, which the Conservatives are expected to start dismantling, perhaps as early as today, has incurred $87.3 million in startup costs since 2002 three times the budgeted amount for a computer system that does not yet work, Fraser revealed in her long-awaited report.

She found that Parliament was "misinformed" about the true costs of the registry. Of the computer startup costs, $60.8 million $39 million in 2002-03 and $21.8 million in 2003-04 was not brought to Parliament for proper approval in contravention of the government's own accounting policies.

"Had these costs been properly recorded, the Canadian Firearms Centre would have had to seek additional funds (from Parliament) or would have overspent the authorized cap on its spending," Fraser said in her opening remarks to reporters. "We consider this a serious matter for Parliament's attention, because the ability of the House of Commons to approve government spending is fundamental to Parliament's control of the public purse."

The kicker?  After being rather deceptive and underhanded in how they implimented the registry, it doesn't work.  As also pointed out in the same article referred to above:

The auditor general's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety.


"The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms," the report said.

This sort of thing is the modus operandi of the Liberal Party of Canada. Bad policy, implimented in a manner than accentuates tax-payer waste, and which, at the end of the day, doesn't even do the job.

Now, back to the present.  Remember Ken Dryden?  He of the "National Daycare Program"?  Well, thankfully, the Liberal Party of Canada hasn't been able to foist another expensive, but badly conceived, program on Canadians.. but that hasn't stopped Liberals (in Ontario) from starting the stupid work in their own province.

Premier Dalton McGuinty is announcing today that the Ontario government will be implimenting full-time kindergarten for 4 and 5 year old children starting in September. 

So.

Two more years parents will not have the burden of actually raising their children.  And the cost.  Well, he's suggesting it will cost Ontario taxpayers $1.5 billion (yes as in a THOUSAND million) dollars.  While Ontario is already running a $24.7 billion deficit.

The reaction of the school boards?

"This is one of the most ill-conceived and badly thought-through programs the province has ever announced," said Irene Atkinson, trustee for Park-dale-High Park in the Toronto District School Board. "When I hear the province has $1.5-billion to introduce this new vote-getting program, I'm appalled. You should pay your basic fundamental bills before introducing something like this."

So - if a Liberal government is telling you the cost will be $1.5 billion, you can safely assume it will be double that.  A $3 billion boondoggle. 

And the kicker.

It will hurt families, it will hurt children, and, in the long run, it will hurt society.  As children become more and more removed from their "community", which includes their families and neighborhoods, the glue, the bond, that creates a sense of commonality between us also breaks.  Interaction between people loses its humanity and we further evolve a society that is based upon minimum expectations and government regulation - as opposed to the intangeable but very valuable sense of "community" that is created in the home.

But don't take my word for it.

As I blogged some time ago, studies show that universal daycare hurts children and families:

Have a look at a recent study (2008) by Michael Baker (University of Toronto), Jonathan Gruber, (MIT) and Kevin Milligan (University of British Columbia), entitled "Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being". The thrust of the study? That while there clearly are advantages to the workforce by assisting in women entering the work force, the results of the Quebec experiment are not proving to be good for their children. According to the Gruber study looking at the impact of increased use of daycare:

"..we uncover evidence that children are worse off in a variety of behavioral and health dimensions, ranging from aggression to motor-social skills to illness. Our analysis also suggests that the new childcare program led to more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse parental health, and lower-quality parental relationships.

So.  This is Dalton's "Brave New World".

And, if the Liberal Party of Canada manages to succeed in their effort to play "three card monte" with Canadians, distracting us from their social agenda by creating pseudo-issues like the Afghan detainees and a one month break in Ottawa during the Olympics..  well, this will be the world shared by all of us.

I understand the ministry overseeing the program will be called the "Central Ontario Hatchery and Conditioning Centre".

Proroguing Parliament.. nothing to be proud of, but at least we're not led by George Costanza.

The Timeless Art of Seduction

I think the prorogation stunt was just that.

A stunt.

Seeking, clearly, to deflect the criticism against the Conservatives for the Afghan detainee issue.

While I'm a Conservative, and have donated money to the party, I'm not going to swallow the kool-aid others are and suggest that prorogation was a good idea, or even an honourable idea.

Where are the guts that Conservatives need to steer us through difficult times?  At it's worst, the detainee issue is still no issue at all.  At it's worst, the government received some indication of mistreatment, and made a judgement call that there was "insufficient" evidence to warrant a change in policy until, in fact, the policy changed.  So, rather than delay the inevitable, stand up, answer the questions, make it clear that morning-after criticism, monday-morning quarterbacking is all nice and fine when you don't actually have to step on the field yourself.

And then sling it back at the Liberal and NDP ignoramuses.  Where will detainees be without us?  Without Americans?  Without the Brits?  While mental midgets like Warren Kinsella are playing fast and loose with the reputation of our armed forces, suggesting that we don't know that they aren't engaging in Abu Ghraib-type of conduct, the reality is that people like Omar Khadr should thank their lucky stars that the Western forces are there.. and once they are gone, rest assured, Afghan security forces will not worry about U.N. protocols and Amnesty International. 

That being said, for the Conservatives, the good news is that what the prorogation has done is allow the Liberals to display their total ineptitude for all to see.

First, on their official party website, they make fun of Harper being on "holidays", ignorant of the reality that, while Harper is actually at work, their fearless leader is, actually, ON HOLIDAYS. 

Ooops.

But it gets better.

Now the Liberals have rolled out their attack ads, again, complaining about Harper's prorogue of Parliament.

Notice, however, the glaring absense of two things:

a) Where is Michael Ignatieff?  We see Harper on CBC, looking comfortable discussing the situation, while Peter Mansbridge, good Liberal that he is, tries to shake him up - and fails.  We see Michael being interviewed by... no one.  While Harper may be on leave, Ignatieff is, in fact, missing in action;

b) Where is the Liberal policy in the alternative?  What we have learned since the last election is that, essentially, Michael Ignatieff and the current incarnation of the Liberal Party of Canada have no plan at all.  They are like a tape recording of an attack dog.  They make lots of noise, but, offer us nothing.

So.  When you see the next Liberal Ad, you may have a vague sense of unease that you can't quite put your finger on.  To assist, let me translate the Liberalese:

"We are really unhappy because Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister.  And while the economy continues to slowly rebound, and while the country continues under his leadership to experience what one might expect under a Conservative government - to proceed in slow and steady fashion to improve under the initiative of ITS CITIZENS, we really have nothing major to complain about.  So unfortunately, we have to make mountains of mole-hills.  Worrying about a bunch of lying terrorists.  Worrying about a month off during the Olympics.  And, worse, we have nothing better to ad.  No great policy to grasp the imagination of the voters, we are the Seinfeld of politics.  A party about nothing."

Congratulations to Co-National Champions, Boise State and Alabama

Well, after last night's NCAA football game between Alabama and Texas, we were left with co-national champions, being Boise State and Alabama.

Well, not according to the SEC boot-licking BCS polls, however, everyone in North America who isn't making a dime on college football acknowledged, unanimously, that the two best teams in the Nation are Boise State and Alabama.

After the game, Alabama's coach, Nick Saban, in jubilation said:

"We just want to thank everyone affiliated with the BCS program for assuring that we wouldn't be tested against Boise State.  While Texas was a good team, we were very worried about being "Utah'd" in a national championship game, so our hats are off to the BCS organizers for assuring that the misplaced aura of superiority continues for the big conferences, particularly the SEC."

When asked if he would consider an early season match-up between his Crimson Tide and the Broncos next season, Saben's response was direct:

"Are you crazy?  There is a reason that major programs don't play Boise State.. just go ask Oregon and Oklahoma."

In a related story, after being advised that his Texas Longhorns had retained their previous BCS ranking at #2, notwithstanding a loss which exposed his team as well, "average", Texas coach, Mack Brown could only shake his head and laugh.

Barack Obama.. let the profiling begin!

Curious.

Apparently, the pragmatist in Obama has won out over the idealist.

As reported in the Globe and Mail this week:

The U.S. government announced new security measures on Sunday requiring increased screening of individuals travelling into the country from Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – countries deemed to be “state sponsors of terrorism.”


But the new rule will also apply to anyone travelling to U.S. destinations on a passport from those countries, meaning that Canadians with dual citizenship or landed immigrant status could be singled out for scrutiny no matter how long they have lived in their adopted homeland.

Curious that the "great hope" of the progressive movement has taken this step before the "knuckle-dragging" conservatives in Canada.

And what is your response Michael Ignatieff?

**crickets chirping**

Al Gore is Killing the Manatee (oh, and a few hundred people, but, well, the homeless and the poor aren't as cute, now, are they?)

Why do you want to kill us, Al Gore?

The Indian Express today reporting on cold waves in India:

The cold waves have disturbed normal life for the sixth consecutive day and the death toll due to the extreme harsh weather is now reported to be over 195.

Around 31 more deaths were reported from the various districts in Uttar Pradesh with Agra recording a temperature of 5.4 degree Celsius, the coldest in the state.

WBKO News today:

At least four deaths across Tennessee have been tied to bitterly cold weather.

BBC News Yesterday:

Global warming dominates the headlines, but in the UK the cold of winter is much more hazardous to health - especially for the elderly and the sick.

For every degree the temperature drops below 18C, deaths in the UK go up by nearly 1.5%.

Oh.. and if you're worried about Polar Bears?  What about the Manitees? From CFNEWS 13:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute announced they recovered a record 429 manatee carcassess in state waters in 2009.

Officials said the cold temperatures at the beginning of the year could explain in part the record number of deaths.

Biologists documented a record high of 56 deaths related to cold stress in 2009, more than double the five-year average

Yes.. according to Science Daily, even minor drops in temperature pose a risk to Manatee.

So.  Why do you want to kill them, Al Gore? 

What did a Manatee ever do to you, you heartless bastard?

An example of what the strong do, when the going gets tough.

Email today from our Premier:

Hello [name withheld],


During difficult economic times, it is important to stick together and help each other out. It is the Alberta way. We did it during the Depression in the 1930s and we did it during the dark days of the National Energy Program.

You may have heard that two of our MLAs recently decided to leave our party. Of course, I was disappointed when I heard they had decided to leave the PC team. But their departure will not deflect us from our goal of leading Canada out of its recession, and ensuring Albertans have the brightest future possible.

The remaining 68 MLAs in our strong majority government caucus are focused on the task of growing the Alberta economy, making Alberta the most competitive jurisdiction in North America and returning this province to a surplus position in three years, while protecting services for the least fortunate.

And when the recession is over, unlike any other jurisdiction in Canada, Alberta will not be passing debt onto the next generation.

The coming year will be difficult but we have never shied away from hard work. And Alberta will very soon be leading the country in economic growth again, thanks to you.

Sincerely,


Ed Stelmach
Premier of Alberta

Happy New Year.. and here's to some new ideas.

With thanks to James Curran for bringing this new party to my attention, there is a fledgling party in Canada seeking your vote - the "United Party", their website is here.

According to their header, they are seeking to be "Fiscally Responsible.  Socially Progressive.  Environmentally Sustainable.

Ok.

So far.

But give me more.

As you move farther into the site they profess:

The United Party of Canada exists because we see a need to renew the union that Canada represents, a union that emerged from the founding cultures of the First Nations, French, British and others to include all those that came after the Confederation of 1867.

We believe that the evolution of politics in Canada has brought us to the point where a new party, the United Party of Canada, is the only means to offer Canada a new direction for the 21st Century. We believe that this party can attract supporters from all parties and those voters who have not participated in any recent elections.

The current political parties do not represent the Canadian people, but only exist to attain power in order to preserve their own self interest.

The United Party of Canada has come into existence to bring all the regions and all the people of Canada together to form a union that will bring the interests and opinions of all Canadians to the forefront of Canadian politics.

Who do we represent?

We represent all Canadians no matter who they are or what their situation is. Today's political climate caters towards the vocal minorities and the political elite, the United Party of Canada will change that culture to include all Canadians!

On this broad statement, they have my support.  Too often party politics is focussed on "winning" as opposed to bringing the best solutions to Canada's issues.  Policy is brought forth that is pointless and possibly damaging because it attracts votes (see the "get tough" Conservative criminal efforts of late, and things like gun control and national daycare from the Liberals), or, worse, good policy is not brought forward because it doesn't capture votes. Codling of small, but vocal, special interest groups is the rule as opposed to the exception.  The average Canadian ends up being taken for granted.

Sadly, however, I fear there is something lacking.  There is a suggestion in the site of lowering taxes, however, the implication is that seniors taxes will be lowered, that student tuition will be done away with.. and that sounds suspiciously like shifting the tax burden to business and to the already over-taxed middle.

I guess time will tell, but cudos for this group looking to think a little "outside the box".