Flotilla Participants.. their deaths just more tools in the Hamas tool-box

How Hamas does it's business:  Civilian casualties?  The Cost of Doing Business.

Is it my imagination, or does the recent death of provocateurs at the hands of Israeli soldiers seem to be getting more indignation from the world than did the completely unprovoked act of war by North Korea when it torpedoed a South Korean warship killing 46 South Koreans?

Why is it that when an obvious nut job like Kim Jong-Il, who, by the way, holds a nuclear bomb in his pocket, starts killing citizens of other countries in international waters, it is a diplomatic incident, but when Israeli soldiers seek to enforce a blockade to prevent weapons coming to terrorists in Gaza, they are murderers because they defended themselves against attack by those on board the ship?

Lost in all this nonsense is the fact that no one was hurt on any other ship in the flotilla.  If the whole point was for Israeli soldiers to just attack and kill the participants - why stop at a few on one ship?  Why not sink them all?

Something smells.

Meanwhile, a quick look through the media of late confirms my suspicions about the "taste" of our media and of so-called human rights types:


Desmond Tutu:

Regarding Israel: “We, as Elders, condemn Israel utterly for this attack. The actions of the Israelis are inexcusable.”

Regarding North Korea: (crickets chirping)



UN human rights chief,  Navi Pillay:

Regarding Israel:  Pillay condemned Israel's use of military force as "disproportionate." The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights joined calls for an "immediate and credible" inquiry into the interception and urged Israel to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip. "We need to establish exactly what happened. However, nothing can justify the appalling outcome of this operation, which reportedly took place in international waters," Ms. Pillay said in a statement.

Regarding North Korea: (more crickets chirping)


Malcolm Smart - Director of Amnesty International:

Regarding Israel:  The Israeli action appears “out of all proportion to any threat posed” by the convoy, Amnesty International’s regional director Malcolm Smart said in an e-mailed statement.
 
Regarding North Korea: (yup.. **crickets**)
 

Kevin Neish - Canadian activist against all things capitalist, and participant in the flotilla of fools:

Regarding Israel: According to the Globe and Mail, in an interview last week, with a University of Victoria radio station, Mr. Neish said he and other activists were on the Greek island of Crete practising non-violent resistance techniques for an expected raid by Israeli soldiers.

Regarding North Korea: A Google search for "Kevin Neish" and "North Korea" came up, as expected, with:

Your search - "Kevin Neish" "North Korea" - did not match any documents.

(It is curious to note that Kevin Neish's father, Elgin Neish, was a big fan of the eastern bloc, being a Union Activist himself, he travelled to Moscow and China in 1952, coming back to Canada to extoll on the virtues of communism and the evils of the capitalist state.
 
Regarding pesky events like Stalinist purges and North Korean War Crimes, those were omitted, apparently, from his discussions - guess they were all "necessary evils" in seeking to afford power to the working class.)
 
As is becoming sadly predictable, "Human Rights Abuse" has become the largest weapon in the 21st century terrorist arsenal, and shills like Desmond Tutu just embolden them.
 
Once Kevin Neish finds himself back from Israel, I have a little test I would like him to try out - here's how it works:  

1.a) Go to Israel. b) Stand on a platform in a very public place, and hold over your head a placard with a caricature of Moses in clown makeup, with a caption saying, "Moses was a Clown"; c) Make notes on the public reaction.
 
2.a) Go to Gaza. b) Stand on a platform in a very public place, and hold over your head a placard with a caricature of Muhammad in clown makeup, with a caption saying, "Muhammad was a Clown"; c) Make notes on the public reaction.

After your body pieces are returned from Gaza, I think the point will be made as to where human rights are respected and where they are just convenient tools for Islamic extremists and their gullible advocates.

What's So Bad About Allowing Unfettered Access of Goods to Terrorists?

Note the "Peaceful" Protesters beating soldiers with metal poles

 and throwing one soldier off the ship.

Note the "Peaceful" Protesters throwing stun grenades and fire bombs.

Note the "Peaceful" Protester stabbing the Israeli soldier.

So.

The world is all busy and whatnot today, being smug and proud of standing up against Israel for enforcing the blockade of goods entering into Gaza and for condemning the deaths of the passengers on the ships trying to ignore the blockade.

The flotilla of fools, who had already made previous efforts to ignore the blockade, and who had lied about the results then, thought they would do it again - with tragic results.  What really happened?  Well, Israel suggests they were shot upon and found weapons in the boats..  and, true to form, before even leaving, known BC pain-in-the-ass, Kevin Neish, who was present on one of the boats, had already began to create his alibi explanation before the event even happened, telling the Georgia Straight:

“I am sure that within the 600 people, there is going to be spies and provocateurs,” he emphasized. “It is guaranteed.”

Time, perhaps, for some sober consideration of a couple of things.

Firstly, lets ignore what appears to be video evidence of violence by the passengers of the ship, without any prior guns being fired by any Israeli soldier.

Let's firstly, consider that the ships were, allegedly, carrying 5,000 tons of material in aid to Gaza.

Let's then consider that Israel, in fact, allows in 15,000 tons of aid into Gaza, every week.  Further, Israel offered to allow the aid the flotilla wished to bring to Gaza in through "normal channels".  That wasn't apparently good enough - and it seems quite clearly, that as with the acts of Hamas in Gaza in the past, where using hospitals and children as human shields for military activity, this recent venture has accomplished it's task - creating huge propaganda that the western media just loves to eat up.

Now think about this.

What is wrong with allowing unfettered access for transfer of goods to terrorist states?

Ask these people.

Trooper Larry Rudd

Rudd, 26, died last Monday after an improvised explosive device detonated during a resupply patrol near the village of Salavat, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar.

Col. Geoff Parker

A native of Oakville, Ont., Parker was killed May 18, in a suicide bombing

by the Taliban. Five American soldiers and 12 Afghan civilians were also killed during the attack.

Pte. Kevin McKay

 

Pte. Kevin McKay, known as Mickey to his friends, was killed on May 13 by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol southwest of Kandahar city.

Go ahead, ask the other 143 good and decent Canadians killed in Afghanistan by terrorists in Afghanistan since 2002.

Oh yeah.  You can't.  I suppose you'll have to, instead, go ask their wives and children, their brothers and sisters, their parents - ask them, "What's so bad about allowing unfettered access of goods to terrorists?"

Dennis Hopper has passed.. one of a vanishing breed.

Dennis Hopper died on Saturday, at the age of 74.

The world is a little less interesting for this loss.

Little by little, we find a world bereft of "real" men.  Not in the sense of being macho caricatures - but in the sense of men who wore their hearts on their sleeves - who stood up and said, "I am who I am."

We are drawn to these people, people like Dennis Hopper, Hunter S. Thompson, and Lenny Bruce, because we are starved for people who are real, who are "genuine".

Ironically, Dennis Hopper's first film was, "Rebel Without a Cause".

Think about that title for just a moment.

Rebels without a cause.

Dennis Hopper's life, strange and dysfunctional at times as it was, embodied that notion - of living a life as a rebel.  Making his mark the way he chose to make it, but not to make a statement, not for some "cause". 

Just because.

And sometimes, that's enough.

In this time of "politically correct" speak, we need more Dennis Hoppers, not fewer.  As much as we enjoy patting ourselves on the back for criticizing those who dare to break outside the mold, who make mistakes in life, jumping on the bandwagon to attack and wag our fingers at those who we discover to be "imperfect", the reality is that we love rebels and we still need them.

Because the rebels are the only ones who create real art.  Who challenge us to look at the world around us and ourselves - not as we wish we were, but as we are.

Without Dennis Hoppers and, today perhaps, Marshall Mathers, we are on a road to become little more than a "Generation of Swine".

Indeed.

Rest in peace, brother, rest in peace.

Paint by numbers..

Remember paint by number sets as a kid.. 

Paint a picture with these numbers:

6.1% - the growth of the Canadian economy during the first quarter;

5.1% - the optomistic growth rates economists expected to see in Canada;

3% - the U.S. growth rate under an expanded Obama government;

1999 - the last year that the Canadian economy grew this quickly;

7 - the number of consecutive months the Canadian economy has shown growth;

5.4% - the growth of investment in Canadian house building last quarter;

4 - the number of consecutive quarters showing gains in home building investment in Canada;

0 - positive ideas put forth by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff

Once you finish the picture, you will find that the Conservatives continue to enjoy a 12% lead over the Liberals under Michel Ignatieff.  All of his so-called "scandals", from his efforts to color Canadians as "war criminals", from his efforts to manufacture fear that abortion rights are being impacted, from his efforts to first cast Helena Guergis as a criminal and then as a martyr.. all following one of the most difficult economic periods in recent Canadian history -  have left a picture of Michael Ignatieff as a sad clown.

Is there a worse leader in Canada?

Oh.

Sorry - I forget about David Swann.

Makes you scratch your head and go hmmmm..

Question:

Why would anyone intentionally exaggerate the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere, and then champion a "solution" that wouldn't actually reduce the C02 being produced?

Indeed.

Why?

Hey Michael.. do you like apples?

As reported by CTV Today:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives are opening a sizable gap over the flagging Liberals under Michael Ignatieff, a new poll suggests.


The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey gives the Conservatives a nine-point lead nationally, with the support of 36 per cent of decided respondents, compared with 27 per cent for the Liberals.

That's all.
 
Now.. talk amongst yourselves.

The Alberta PC Party.. dancin' with the gal what brung me.

Well.

We're having some interesting discussion here lately - mostly people angry with me for dismissing the Wild Rose Alliance, and, more pointedly I suppose, angry with the PC Government in Alberta and expressing that through their disagreement with me.

But.


Not one single comment on a policy suggestion on the part of the WRA that is distinct from the current government.

Which is fine, I guess.

Everyone is entitled to vote for whoever they want to, for what ever reason.. I mean, maybe they just like the name better, maybe they are just tired of everything being ok, and think that, maybe, things could be even better (Aardvark?) with a change.

I just saw what happened Federally, with the Conservative split, and if it happens Provincially, I suppose I'll get by, the world won't come to an end for me, but it would be a shame. 

I'll admit, I tend to be "conservative" in the sense that when I think things are ok, I'm not in a hurry to change course to see if they could be "better".

But - back in the day, while I was in University days I voted Liberal.

And when I started working and realized about just how much tax was being paid, and saw, as a lawyer, what a lack of personal responsibility did to people, I decided that being conservative was a better choice.

And when Bryan Mulroney tried to jam Meech Lake down our throats, I stopped that and voted Reform.

No one "deserves" my vote.

If I felt that the PC party was fundamentally broken, or if they took even one course of action that I found indefensible, I wouldn't support them - but I would have to have at least modest faith that who I was going to vote for would do things better.
 
And things would have to be bad enough that I was willing to take the risk of bringing in a Liberal government.
 
So.
 
I'm not suggesting that people vote PC because "I say so".  Who the hell am I to tell you what to do?
 
I just watch how people vote and why they vote the way they do, and I guess all I hope is that when people park a vote where ever they do, it's with some forethought.
 
That they've asked themselves why they don't support the current government - not based upon some media-induced soundbites, not because of some emotional response to a down turn in the economy, but because of something they have seriously thought about and looked into with enough depth to assure that they aren't "selling the cow for a handful of beans".
 
And, if after some consideration, they DO feel the need for a change - they then take a good hard look at the alternatives, and ask "what are they actually offering me?"
 
Maybe one day I'll get on the Wild Rose bandwagon, but, for me, it's going to take more than some unsettled sense that we "need a change", and I'm going to have to be offered something more than "Vote for us, we'll figure it out as we go."  And right now, at this time, the Wild Rose isn't offering me anything of substance.
 
And, color me stupid if you like, but I like Ed Stelmach.  Of all the politicians I have had the opportunity to talk to, to meet, I have never met a man whom I felt was more genuine and more committed to do his best for his constituents.
 
I moved from Vancouver back to Alberta in 1985.
 
I started my own business about 7 years later.
 
And in that time, I have never looked at any other Province with envy.  I have always considered myself fortunate to live in Alberta, and to have a Conservative government.
 
And for me, personally, they've never done me wrong.  Yes, as I posted, there are things they do that I disagree with, that I argue with at policy meetings and so forth, but, in the big picture, I feel I've been treated pretty well by my government.
 
So.  Win or lose, for now I'm dancin' with the gal who brung me.  Danielle may be a pretty one, but the lady who has been there for me is the PC Party of Alberta.

Danielle Smith.. what do YOU think about her "new clothes"?

"The Empress's New Clothes"

Well.

Yesterday, I point out that things are going pretty well in this part of Canada (Alberta), and, at the same time, dare to suggest that those who complain and clamor for a change of government are, perhaps, the new "Liberal-right" - namely, those who ignore their good fortune and instead, see their glasses as half-empty whenever possible.

And, true to form, the critics come out of the woodwork, making more vague and non-specific attacks on the current Alberta government (PC=Big Government).

One post I found interesting was basically a recitation of the fable of the emperor's new clothes, from a poster, "Is the Grass Greener", which I think was, perhaps, worth some examination. The suggestion was that our Premier is wearing no clothes, and I'm one of the villagers who refuse to tell him so.

Curious.

This blog has been accused, variously, of supporting right-wing fascism, and left-wing socialism.

This blogger has not only criticized the Alberta government, but it has posted actual correspondence with our Minister of Culture, Lindsay Blackett questioning the failure of the Alberta Government to strengthen the right of free speech in the face of our Human Rights Commission.

This blogger has criticized the government for being overly generous with the ATA and cow-towing to teacher demands.

On the federal side, while I hold a Conservative membership and have donated to the party, this blogger has criticized the government, strongly, for its current "Tough on Crime" efforts.

This blogger has criticized the government for it's failure to take the high road on Senate reform.

This blogger has criticized the government for providing funding to faith-based private organizations.

Yes, IGG, I've used the same story before..  but here is the thing.
No problem here questioning government that I support.

Question for those who take issue - which is their democratic right, and which, honestly, makes this whole blogging-thing more interesting.  I hate sites which do nothing but pat each other on the back as they simply attack their common-foe.

Have you paused to question the party you support?

Can you point me to your own posts where you have, publicly, asked questions of the Wild Rose Alliance?
I've shown you my hand, now, if you can, show me yours.

Because IGG is exactly right.  The worst thing in politics is when we just drink the kool-aid we are served from the party we support - and simply circle our partisan wagons.  At that point, elections become little more than sporting events where we support our team and jeer and boo the others.

Show me I'm completely wrong to vote PC.  I have an open mind, obviously.

My current thoughts on Danielle Smith and her party?  If you want to lead, you have to have some place to go.

My concern is simply this:

The Wild Rose is a party of complaint offering nothing of substance to warrant me considering parking my vote there for even a minute.

Meanwhile, however, the polls make it very clear that they have enough support to clearly create a split-right vote situation, which provides a wide opening for the Liberals to take many more seats and perhaps allow a clearly left orientation to invade Alberta politics.

In Lethbridge East, for example, but for the former Alliance party we would clearly have a Conservative MLA today.

We don't.

We have Bridget Pastoor.

Now, AG, and BR, and you-all, if you're good with a bunch of Liberals in the legislature, well, fine - I'm guessing you're not.

And at the end of the day, I kick myself in the ass for voting Reform federally for the same reasons. I haven't seen anything from Stephen Harper that signifies anything demonstrably better than the government under Brian Mulroney, and yet, to get from there to here, we handed the keys to the Liberal Party of Canada to do what they wished with our country.

I'm not looking for an Alberta repeat.

Certainly not in support of a party without a plan.
 
So.  Here's the challenge.  Point me to substantive changes suggested by the Wild Rose Alliance.
 
And, if you can, point me to where you have offered up constructive criticism of your leader, Danielle Smith.
 
Or, in fact, are YOU the villager who is telling her how resplendent she is in her new robes, when in fact, it is her *ss out hanging in the wind.

G8/G20 Protestors? Release the Hounds!

Kelly McParland, in her editorial in today's National Post comments on the lengths to which our government seems to feel obligated to effectively shut down Toronto to provide adequate security for the upcoming G8/G20 summit.

As she rightly points out, the lengths to which we are going is truly mind-bending.

A summary of her commentary in the closing of her editorial is as follows:

Why bother bringing in a pack of foreign heavies to a hermetically sealed city, where they can spend their time looking at one another in an underground convention centre when not being whisked by police convoy to fenced-off hotels. Stephen Harper thinks this is a good way to give “Internationally Protected Persons” a taste of the real Canada?

Sounds more like a taste of paranoia run wild.

My take is a little different.  In response to her commentary about "paranoia run wild", I would suggest perhaps we pause to consider:

- why is it that Mahmound Ahmadinejad can appear and speak his own psychotic and inflammatory views at Columbia University and, more recently, at the United Nations in New York City, without any need to shut down the University, without need to close down 1st Avenue or move people out of their apartments or hotels in the area?

- why is it that Christopher Hitchens can appear on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, on CNN, and elsewhere, famously attacking religion generally, but specifically attacking Christians like Jerry Falwell (the day after Falwell's death, Hitchens stated, "the empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality"), Sister Mother Teresa (referring to her as a "fanatic, a fundamentalist and a fraud"), and the Pope (writing that "his whole career has the stench of evil - a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel."), with no network seeking to censor his opinions?

Think about it.

No throngs of violent rioting protesters in downtown New York, blowing up banks, creating mayhem in response to the speech of a man who once stated that Jews should be wiped from the face of the earth.

No one is suggesting that we can't allow Christopher Hitchens on television or risk murder.

It's because we have created a society of tolerance - but a tolerance which has created boundaries to protect those who seek to do harm to others.  We are so afraid of being compared to past regimes of intolerance - the Adolph Hitler's and the Joseph Stalin's, that we bend over backwards to allow for repeated and ongoing assaults upon those who, typically, do the right thing.

When a thousand protesters decide to go on a rampage, and damage property, assault peace officers and other innocent persons - fearing the political response if we respond to such a rampage with appropriate force, we shut down our cities in fear of them - and in the bargain, embolden them with the not-so-subtle message that we will tolerate group violence and terrorism.

When a particularly insecure pocket of religious belief says, in so many words, "Our belief is so fragile, so lacking in foundation, that we will not tolerate criticism, and will react with violence to those who question our beliefs", we censor our programming and criticise the victims, suggesting THEY be more tolerant.

When our troops and other innocents are being murdered abroad by those same fanatics, we criticize the efforts taken to respond to the murderers and smugly "take the moral high ground" and label our troops as "war criminals", from the sinecures of our Universities and Colleges - places where the "real world" is far, far away from where they get to attack and criticize those who actually put their lives on the line, and actually lose their lives, so that little toadies like  Michael Byers can spout off philosophically about how respect and tolerance is a simple one-way street.  Necessary for us, but optional for them.

No, Kelly, the problem isn't that our Government is paranoid.  As the saying goes, "You're only paranoid if they're not out to get you."

They are out to get us.  Those who see freedom as a tool to harm others.  Who use freedom as a tool to attack and a weapon to prevent appropriate response.

I say, "bring it on".  Loosen up the security, and, if the protesters decide to break the law..  release the hounds.

Read My Lips: No Changes to Abortion in Canada

I've been dumping a little bit on Stephen Harper of late, being somewhat concerned with the influence of conservatives with an agenda to blur the separation between Church and State.

This past Friday, however, my concerns were somewhat lessened, when, in response to a Conservative private members bill to criminalize the act of "coercing" someone to have an abortion, the Prime Minister made his position on the issue unequivocal.  According to Friday's Globe and Mail the Prime Minister made his position clear:

“I generally don't comment on private member's legislation,” the Prime Minister said. “But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.”

It's not the first time he's done this to the somewhat misguided religious right, a strong base in the former Reform and still a not insignificant support of the current Conservative party.

In 2008 he also blocked a private member's bill from Conservative MP Ken Epp seeking to create a new offense of killing a fetus if a pregnant woman was murdered.

Contrary to the sordid and sad efforts of Michael Ignatieff and the loud, but diminishing extreme left, Harper is not seeking to imprint his own personal view of abortion on our country. 

And he's not seeking to imprint his own personal view of abortion through the G8 and G20 either. 

You heard me.

I didn't stutter.

There is a world of difference between opposing someone exercising their freedom to choose abortion and asking someone else to pay for it.  Yes, I know the liberal psycho-babble about there being no choice without paid access - well, cry me a river.

We are living in a world where the sad reality of the bottom line is starting to crash down, hard, on those who thought it was a fiction.  We watch, paralyzed, as Greece teeters on the precipice of bankruptcy and as the world economy struggles to manage their own debt-ridden finances and at the same time, try to fashion some effective response to Greece's generations of fiscal irresponsibility.

The "bottom line" is real.  Ignoring it has consequences.  And, in recognizing the "bottom line", real decisions will have to be made, and they will not be popular and will have consequences themselves.

Our Prime Minister has suggested that Canada will stand to assist women and children in developing nations.  Not just philosophically, but with real dollars.  To provide medicine, to provide food, to provide clean water.. but to Michael Ignatieff and his ilk, that doesn't cut it.  They would prefer to provide nothing, apparently, than to not add to the mix funding to allow women to obtain abortions.

Well, on this point, I support the Prime Minister 100%.

And if it doesn't buy more votes in the GTA, well, that only solidifies my support for the Prime Minister.

And I think if more Canadians thought about it in terms of their own personal bottom line, they might change their tune.   Food and water, without abortions on the side?

I can live with that, and so can thousands, perhaps millons, of women and children.

Clean.. and Dirty.. You Choose

Irony.

I think there is a natural sort of Order to things, where hypocrisy eventually reveals itself.

Recall the televangelists, Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart's fall from grace.

Well, more recently, we see a new "fall from grace".

Recall Obama's pre-election comment:

Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed he would break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive" oil if he is elected U.S. president, making a reference widely understood to be Alberta's oil sand development.

Question for Barack, James Cameron, and their fellow critics of Alberta oil:

Is this your "dirty" oil?

Northern Alberta post-mining tailing pool after reclamation

And THIS must be your "clean" oil:

Louisiana Beach Post-BP Oil Spill

Seems to me that Mr. Obama's decision to open up the U.S. shores to wide-scale drilling after a previous 20-year moratorium wasn't such a good plan.  And it seems to me that, perhaps, Ed Stelmach's "dirty" Alberta oil is looking pretty good by comparison.

The Dilberts, The Wallys and the Pointy-heads

Dilbert: "Wally, can you give me a hand, I'm tired."

I enjoy Dilbert.

I think, broadly speaking, most people do.

Why?

Because they identify with him.  He is the everyman.  He is the big middle of society who does their jobs, and suffers from being in between the Wallys and the Pointy-heads. 

You know the Wallys.  They are the ones who blame everyone else for their problems, demand to be taken care of for doing very little of anything, leaving the heavy lifting, always, for the Dilberts.

And you know the Pointy-heads.  They are the ones who also blame everyone else for their problems, and, as well, the problems of the Wallys.  They are actually the most dangerous, because they are in charge.  They gather together with other Pointy-heads, and they dream up new and stupid ways of doing things - making it even MORE difficult for the Dilberts to do their job, while, typically, asking little or nothing from the Wallys.

The saddest part is that the only people doing any real work, the only people making the business run, are the Dilberts.  And because they have integrity and a sense of personal responsibility, they come to work on time, they seldom call in sick, and, as a result, the Point-heads and the Wallys take advantage of the Dilberts - and, so often, actually complain about the Dilberts, having the gall to suggest that the Dilberts need to do still more.

Perhaps it's time to say, "enough".

Perhaps it's time to start the Dilbert party.

You know, a party to represent the interests of the people who do things right, and who stops paying inordinate attention and concern for those who don't.

Who's with me?

Sorry.. what was I thinking?  The Dilberts are too busy working to spend time in their workday to read blogs.

Commence with the complaining of the Wallys and the Pointy-heads.

Wally: "Dilbert, I find your comments offensive. 

Now stop complaining and take care of me.

Pointy-head: "Dilbert, the Offence Police hereby fine you $100 for offending Wally.  Now get back to work.  Wally, let's go for coffee and complain about Dilbert.  Coffee is on Dilbert.

No help for the needy.. unless it's the "right" help.

Canada.. State Controlled Speech Continues

Justice Dougald McDermid: “I’d like to avoid getting my picture on the front page of the Toronto Star again.”

Word of advice..  if you want to avoid being scrutinized, stop doing stupid things that put you up to scrutiny.

It's almost becoming the norm, in Canada.

The state, either government, or in this case, the judiciary, telling Canadians what they can and can't say, what they can and can't read or see.. "for their own good."

In this case, Justice Dougald McDermid extended a publication ban on the details of court proceedings relating to the murder of 8-year-old Tori Stafford.


On May 20, 2009, police charged Michael Thomas Rafferty, 28, with first degree murder and Terri-Lyne McClintic, 18, with being an accessory to murder (in addition to lesser charges) in the abduction and suspected murder of Tori. Ontario Provincial Police indicated that Tori's mother, Tara McDonald, was familiar with McClintic.
 
Is Justice being done in this case? Well, you don't know.  Because Justice McDermid has said so.
 
The hallmark of democracy is open and free debate and discussion.  And such is the case even where the right to a fair trial of an accused may also be at stake.  Back when the Supreme Court of Canada was a place of respect where they understood that their decisions were weighty and affected the very underpinnings of our freedoms, Justice Anontio Lamar in the case of Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. recognized this, and stated that:

“freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is now recognized as a paramount value in Canadian society.”

In that case the Court declined to support a publication ban, finding that while the right to a fair trial was important, it had to be weighed against the right of the freedom of the press and that, in his opinion, the system of justice was not so fragile as to be threatened by such open expression.

Little, by little, by little.. we blithely discard our recognition of the importance of an open and free society.. in favor of the Utopian promise of the nanny state where THEY will dole out such information and expression as is best for us.

Be concerned Canada.  Be very concerned.

The Truth about the GM Bailout..

With thanks to Captain Capitalism..   the "loan payback" explained properly.





FYI.. here is the scoop on the scam "loan repayment".

Also - as for their company coming around.. well, they posted a $4.3 billion loss in the last half of 2009.

And Barack Obama is getting read to shovel another $800 million to GM.

Can you say, "Good money after bad?"

The Conservative Construct - Self-Discipline

Irony.

Yesterday, I posted a sort of navel-gazing suggestion that sometimes a little bit of humility and self examination is necessary, in lieu of the usual round of criticism of liberal ideology.

And I posted a somewhat altered "Peanuts" strip, suggesting that every once in a while, we should ask ourselves, "Has It Ever Occurred To You That You Might Be Wrong?"

In other words, the mark of an ideologue is that they can't conceive of the weakness in their argument.  And in politics, a refusal to concede your weaknesses is basically an act of immaturity, saying, "I don't care if I'm wrong, it's what I believe." 

So.  Anyhow.

In the midst of this philosophical meandering, in walks CWTF.  And ignoring, or perhaps not understanding, the message, he makes my point for me.  And suggests I review a study suggesting atheist Liberals have higher IQ's.

Alright, I'll bite.  I read the article - really a bit of facile fluff, but it raises a larger issue.  Namely, that sometimes, more important than intelligence is "maturity" or, perhaps, "wisdom".

And I would recommend, for his consideration, this study, by Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman, which suggests that, as a measure of achievement, self-discipline is much more significant than mere IQ.

If you read the article summarizing the study, basically, it established that there was a "whopping
.67 correlation between self-discipline and final GPA, compared to a .32 correlation for IQ."

In other words, the ability to exert self-discipline and delayed gratification is twice as significant in academic achievement than is IQ.

Interesting, I think.

How does that, perhaps, apply to political issues?

Well, I would suggest that self-discipline can be loosely equated with self-reliance -which is typically a more conservative attribute than liberal.  Delayed gratification, and the concept that the we shouldn't look to someone else to deliver our needs and wants to us is the foundation of conservative political thought.

The idea that we shouldn't have to rely upon our own resources, that reliance on the state is to be fostered and encouraged, is a typically liberal construct.  See the national daycare proposals of Michael Ignatieff and his lackey Ken Dryden.

So.

You may be right, CWTF.  Perhaps there is a 6 or 12 point IQ difference typically between conservatives and liberals.  But, I daresay, the standard that is more likely to secure success, is not mere IQ, but self-discipline. 

You know.  Self-reliance, independence.

Conservatism.

Something worth thinking about..

I'm a parent.

And as a parent, you sometimes offer up your children your "wisdoms" as best you can, to give them guidance as they embark upon this thing called "life".

One thing I have tried to instill in my children is the ability to be self-aware.  To look to their own contribution to any problem they might encounter, before they seek to blame others.  It's something I have learned as a Divorce lawyer, and have (hopefully) learned to apply to myself.

If the first thing we do in conflict is to ask, "What could I do differently?", the chances of a positive outcome are increased significantly.  If I constantly look to blame others, and give them the responsibility for outcomes, I'm more likely to be angry and feel disempowered - because I'm giving power to others, and not assuming responsibility myself.

Why make this observation on a political blog?

Well, because a good part of what we do, and what anyone interested in political matters does, is to criticize and blame those they don't agree with.  And at least every one in a while, it is probably appropriate to look inward, and say, "What am I, or what is the party I support, doing wrong that could be done better?"

And yesterday, in the Calgary Herald, I read an interesting article referred to me by a friend, which suggested that our choice of political support has a direct relationship to our personalities.

That liberals tend to be more empathetic, and less pragmatic.

That conservatives tend to be more pragmatic, and less empathetic.

And rather than argue that point, it perhaps is worthwhile to look inward and say, honestly, if we feel that to be a reasonable observation.   If all of us did some of that, perhaps we would all be better off.  More self-reflection and a little less blame.

As the article points out, too much of either position is a bad thing. Too much empathy and too little pragmatism leads us to a society where accountability is greatly lacking and lack of focus eventually leads to anarchy.  Conversely, too much pragmatism and too little empathy leads us to  heartless society, which eventually leads to something approaching Nazi Germany.

The ideal is a sensible balance.

As the article points out in it's conclusion:

while their political opponents might think otherwise, the fact that a conservative concern with order and a liberal urge toward empathy have persisted as human personality traits for millennia means both are useful, he says.

"The fact that the variation still exists, from an evolutionary perspective, it means that neither one is right on its own, you really need both to balance out an effective society," Hirsh says.

"Most political ideologues think that if you can just get rid of the other side, everything would be perfect, but from an evolutionary perspective, that doesn't quite make sense. If there really was one optimal solution that was better than the other, then that would have survived and everything else would have perished."

So, conservatives, ask yourself.. am I empathetic enough?

It's something worth thinking about.

The Problem with Social "Science"

Editor of the Calgary Herald

Well..

The Calgary Herald is reporting today on studies that they suggest show "Consistent Benefits of Early Daycare".

I'm sure that Michael Ignatieff and his fellow "Village" who want to raise our children will be delighted.

The problem is, the title of the article is a lie.

The study doesn't show anything of the sort.

The study was in no way a comparison of children in daycare homes v. parent care homes.  In fact, 90% of the children spent time in daycare of some sort.  So, kudos to the Calgary Herald for making their ignorance apparent before the article even starts.

What the study shows is a marginal improvement in scholastic performance for children at the age of 15 when they had been in high quality daycare, compared to poorer quality daycare.

Really?  Amazing.  And how many millions of dollars went to fund that study.

Worse, the study appears to ignore other obvious realities.

Namely, that higher quality daycare costs more money.
So, one might posit, that higher income families produce higher performing children.

Beyond that, there is a direct correlation between levels of income and levels of education.
So, one might posit, that parents with higher levels of education produce higher performing children.

But there is more.

Some studies suggest that children with higher levels of physical activity, perform higher academically as well.  And, it would be no stretch to suggest that children from higher income families have more access to involvement in regular physical activities.

Other studies provide strong correlations between the impact of parental absence (single-parent families) and poor academic performance - and it would be no surprise to find that children in lower quality daycare would tend to come from single parent families, compared to intact, two parent families.

And, I'm sure, studies would also show that higher levels of income tend to result in lower levels of malnutrition and poor health care.. and, following up on that reality, it might also be reasonably assumed that healthy children perform better in school as well.

The not-so-subtle message inherent in all of these studies?  If everyone had everything they needed, their children would do better.

Which is true.

But, sadly, we live in the real world.

Where some families are going to do somewhat better than other families, economically, and as such, so will their children.  Not their children's faults - but, there you have it.  We live in the real world where not everyone has the same advantages as everyone else. 

They had a country where they didn't have that problem, however, I think it was called the Soviet Union.

Didn't work out so well.

Apparently, their aristocracy actually fled to Canada.

I think the family name was "Ignatieff".

Not in Canada? Pity.

Love or hate his position, wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a few more Canadian policitians speak this directly. (c/o CJ, who in turn borrowed from SDA)

Conservatives.. we aren't a front for the religious right, ARE WE?

This intersection troubles me..

Well.

Color me troubled.

Today I find out that our Conservative government, in the midst of battling the constant barage of allegations that we are bible-thumping extremists, with Jerry Falwell types in waiting just until we can obtain a majority government, are providing over $800,000.00 to two Christian organizations.

Now - don't get me wrong.  I consider myself a Christian.  I am constantly amazed with the ease with which we tollerate attacks upon Christian faith - but bristle at the slightest negative commentary towards other faiths.

However - I think religion is personal.  It's between me and my God - and the government should have no part, supporting or opposing my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

In response to this, I have written to my local MP, Rick Casson, seeking his advice as to what the basis of this funding was.

I'll keep you all posted as to what advice I receive - or, if I don't receive any, I'll let you know about that too.

My email:

Mr. Casson;


I am a member of the Conservative Party and a supporter of our government and our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

It has recently come to my attention that at this time of budget restraint, we have providing significant funding to some faith based organizations, including the following:

Chakam School of the Bible Inc. - $357,146
Wycliffe Bible Translators - $495,600

It would strike me that in this time of fiscal restraint, and in a time where we, as Conservatives, are often being portrayed as intolerant and narrow-minded, it is incumbent upon our Government to be quite circumspect when deciding what groups do or do not receive government funding for their projects. I question how the concept of the separation of church and state, and the aim of fiscal responsibility are addressed by providing over $800,000.00 to two clearly faith-based organizations.

Your advice as to the basis upon which this funding was provided would be greatly appreciated.

Robert G. Harvie

Send an old man to Jail.. so WE can sleep at night.

Kwang Soo Kim.. paying to sooth OUR conscience.

Welcome to Canada.. the land where you can go to jail so that the rest of our community can feel suitably politically correct.

Today we learn that shop keeper Kwang Soo Kim has been charged with manslaughter resulting from the death of Geraldine Beardy.  Beardy, who was shoplifting in Kim's convenience store, was confronted by Kim and, allegedly, struck once with an object, before she fled.

Five days later, she died in hospital.

Beardy was clearly a troubled 29 year old woman, and was reported as having "struggled with alcohol use", according to a comment by a family friend.

The whole thing is rather tragic.  Beardy was one of many aboriginal people in Canada who struggle to overcome difficult life circumstances, and Kim was a shopkeeper struggling to make a living in a country where he spoke little English and where police protection against shoplifters is scant and ineffective.

The bigger tragedy, however, as those of us in the justice system see, over and over and over again, is that prosecution decisions are no longer made based upon the best judgment of prosecutors and police - they are made for political reasons to respond to the broad demands of society that we properly address incidents on a case by case basis to appease the broader society's sense of "rightness".

In this case, Kim has been charged with manslaughter.

To sustain a conviction, the prosecution will have to prove that Kim meant to cause Beard's death, or to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause her death.

Does anyone believe that this was Kim's intent?  Better question: do we care?

Beyond that, the Criminal Code of Canada provides that you can use "reasonable force" in protecting your own property, and while it doesn't define "reasonable force", keep in mind that Kim was 62 years old, Beard was 29 and she had two other persons with her at the time - who quite possibly were all intoxicated based upon narratives regarding Beard's conduct in the period preceding her death.

If you confront a much younger person in the company of two others, and swing a stick or bat at them to protect your property, is that "reasonable"?

And, recall, that it wasn't for two days after the incident that Beard found herself in hospital - and so who knows how many times she may have been assaulted or may have stumbled down a flight of stairs or into a wall while intoxicated in that intervening period.

This charge is truly ludicrous.  While I've given up trying to predict what judges in Canada will do - I can tell you any right thinking judge will acquit Kim in a second. 

The reality of this tragedy is that it is a direct example of the sickening veneer of "political correctness" that has so infected our society generally and our justice system in particular.

We all want to see ourselves as being people who "understand and are supportive" of aboriginal peoples, and when incidents like this occur, we cry crocodile tears over the woman's death, and then ask that Kim be made an example of - killing a woman over a can of spam.

But we don't ACTUALLY want to go to an Indian reserve and view the circumstances that give rise to these circumstances, let alone actually meet and interact with any aboriginal people in difficulty, or, gasp, spend our own dollars to address why so many aboriginal people struggle to survive in a country of affluence.

Worse, aboriginal leaders all over the country are happy to spend band money to benefit themselves and their relatives, and their lawyers and accountants, while, really, at the end doing little to help their people.

But, we can ignore that.  We can watch Avatar, or the much better version, "Dances With Wolves", and after eating our popcorn, we can tuck ourselves in our own beds feeling good about ourselves because of our sympathy for the aboriginal characters in the movies and our disdain for the villains.

And we can sleep at night, knowing that Kwang Soo Kim, will be going to trial to atone for our sins.

Sleep well, Canada.

David Swann is Sad

Please vote for Me

So.

David Swann is now suggesting that the Alberta taxpayers should shell out $50.00 to each Albertan who votes.  According to the CBC, this is part of his plan to "clean up Government and make it more accountable and responsive."

I see.

Really this is a desperate plan for the Liberal party to buy votes with your tax dollars instead of appointing a leader and developing a platform to speak to Albertans.

Trying to be a little bit non-partisan, the PC Party in Alberta is clearly the party of the status quo for the most part.  Certainly, every party evolves and changes somewhat over time, but the PC Party of Alberta, in principal, is the same party today that it was 20 years ago.

David Swann suggests that people don't vote because "they have disengaged from politics, that they don't trust anybody, that the political process stinks in Alberta, that they're tired of the culture of cronyism that we've talked about."

I think that, for the most part, it's because people are, broadly speaking, content with government and see no reason to get off their couches and get involved. 

Otherwise, the alternative is much too damning for the Liberal party for David Swann to want to admit.

Which would be this - that Albertans ARE profoundly unhappy with the current state of politics, but that the Liberal party of Alberta and their current leader are so inept that people would prefer to make do with their misery than to even consider walking down the street to cast a vote for David Swann.

David, my comment regarding this latest effort..  "there are some sad things known to man, but ain't too much sadder than, the tears of a clown."

I have a dream.. of children, black and white, being educated as to how they ARE NOT equal.

"Good morning children..  will all black children please go to THEIR bus."

Well.

I love Canada.  I really do.  Especially after watching CNN today and seeing just how stupid things are in other countries, like, say, the United States of America.

Consider this story.

Last week Dicken Elementary School arranged for a field trip for children to visit with a literal rocket scientist to provide them motivation to see the possibilities of working hard to study science.

Nice idea, no?

Well, here's the rub.

The scientist was black.

Ok.. before you all start yelling "racist", let me finish. 

His race, in my opinion, was more or less irrelevant, and, I'm sure, it would also have been irrelevant to the children- merely a man who worked hard and succeeded. However, the "do-gooder" types couldn't just leave it at that.

No - what happened is that only black children were allowed to attend the field trip.  And when some white children voiced their displeasure with being excluded, they were castigated by their principal for being "insensitive".

Really.

And, to illustrate the problem here, I have to quote the letter written by principal Mike Madison in response to some complaints over his conduct:

“In hindsight, this field trip could have been approached and arranged in a better way," Madison wrote. "But as I reflect upon the look of excitement, enthusiasm and energy that I saw in these children’s eyes as they stood in the presence of a renowned African American rocket scientist in a very successful position, it gave the kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them.

“It was not a wasted venture for I know one day they might want to aspire to be the first astronaut or scientist standing on the Planet Mars.

“I also think it’s important that you know that I have talked to the children who did not go on the field trip, and I think they have a better understanding of the purpose of the AA Lunch Bunch now, as I hope you do. I’m sorry if any kids were upset by the field trip or my discussion afterwards with them, and I have let them know that.

“The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community.”

Seems reasonable, no?

Well, if I were a black child who was doing fine without being identified as somehow handicapped, I think I might be a little insulted. Particularly when some paternalistic ass gets all condescending and says, "EVEN YOU" could succeed.

Really.  Even me?  Even a black child can succeed?

Well, thank Mike - because I hadn't noticed that the President of the United States was a black man - so thanks for pointing out that EVEN A BLACK CHILD can succeed - because until you made a point to split up the black and the white children in class, and put us on the "black kid bus", I had no idea, being a simple, backward black child that I had this potential. Thanks.  I feel much better.

Oh. And thanks for dressing down the white kids who, apparently, think that color shouldn't matter when an opportunity arises for children to visit with a brilliant scientist.  I'm sure letting them know that color IS relevant when it comes to how we treat each other was appropriate.

Of course I feel a little bit bad for that one kid who was just "a little bit black" so he couldn't go.  But hey, that's what happens when we allow interracial marriage.

And it's good to know that the "intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students". That's just in fact what they did.

I'm sure George Wallace, when he was Governor of Alabama, would have heartily supported this justification.

Segregation is acceptable - as long as your intentions are good.

Yes.. parents, feel confident in the Liberal plan to have schools impart values on our children.

It truly "takes a village" to encourage racism.

Supporting Francophone Supreme Court Justices?

Bill C 232..  la première nomination  

Ok.

So, I admit, I was pretty offended initially with Bill C-232, supported by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, proposing that no one could be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada unless they could pass a bi-lingual proficiency qualification.

Seems to be pretty clearly aimed at alienating Western Canada and shamelessly courting favor in Quebec, non?

But, after some consideration, it struck me that perhaps we in the West should re-examine this.

Firstly, one of the worst Supreme Court appointments in history has come from the West, Beverley McLachlin.

Secondly, if we look closely, we will realize that, in fact, hard-core Quebecois are amongst the most conservative and, frankly, least tolerant citizens we have in Canada.

Recall Premier Duplessis, who famously denied a liquor license to a Jehovah's Witness, Frank Roncarelli, quite obviously, because he was a well known supporter of the church.

In fact, if we examine some history, we will see that truly, the roots of the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec nationalist movement, are completely intolerant, event fascist.

Recall Jacques Parizeau and his ludicrous rant,blaming the "ethnic vote" for the loss of the sovereignty vote in 1995, and, far from being a lone wolf, being supported by fellow PQ members, including Yves Michaud most notably.

Go back a little bit farther.  Recall Lionel Groulx, widely credited as being one of the earliest academics providing support for the Quebecois movement - who advocated as far back as the 1920's for Quebec independence, premised on the establishment of a Roman Catholic theocracy, with views that were much more stridently anti-Semitic than anything ever suggested by Parizeau.

I'm quite certain that, at it's core, a Supreme Court laden with Quebecois appointments wouldn't be all that supportive of same-sex marriage, abortion, or, for that matter, broadened federal authority of any type.

Frankly, the most hard-core right wing zealots should suggest that Bill C-232 doesn't go far enough - and that, in fact, we should restrict appointments to residents of Quebec entirely.

Of course, for those of us who are more "liberal" minded, concentrating francophone authority in our highest court, might not be so attractive.

It Takes a Village.. to Kidnap a Child

We have a nice boring little town.. and I get paid to keep it that way!

Well.

Just when I think the Canadian Judicial System is the most asinine thing going, I read about their counterparts south of the border, and I appreciate how pathetic and irresponsible things COULD be.

Remember Hillary Clinton's little tome, "It Takes A Village".

Her theory, and current progressive theory, is that children cannot be raised by their parents alone...  that it, to borrow a phrase, "takes a village" to raise a child.

Really?

Well, as we see in the state of Oregon, it takes a village to kidnap a child.

Just about two years ago, 12 year old Noah Kirkman travelled to Oregon to visit with his step-father for the summer of 2009.  After his mother divorced his step-father, as is common in Canadian law, after developing a parenting relationship with Noah during their marriage, his step-father was awarded visitation rights to Noah, and like parents should do, Noah's mother apparently engendered a cooperative relationship with her former spouse and travelled to Oregon, leaving Noah to spend the summer with his step-father.

See Noah's story here.

Problem is, Noah has ADHD.  And Noah was noticed by local police in the community of Oakridge, Oregon (pop. 3000) as being different, you know... "not from here".  He road a bike without a helmet, and was playing in an area where he wasn't permitted.

This, apparently, led to a referral to children's services in Oregon, which, shortly, after, resulted in Noah being apprehended from his Stepfather, and, worse, refused return to his mother who (*gasp*) is a marijuana legalization advocate.

Now.

To complete the picture.

Judge Kip (really) Leonard was an elected Judge before being appointed to the Circuit Cout in the state of Oregon, and he has been in charge of this case, and has made it known that he doesn't care if the President of the United States says to return the child - Noah isn't going anywhere unless he says so.

(Why do I picture Kip Leonard as Brian Dennehy in "First Blood" telling John Rambo that "Oakridge is a pretty boring little town and he gets paid to keep it that way"?)

Little problem for Kip, however, and it's called the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and as outlined in Article 1:

The objects of the present Convention are -

a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and

b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in other Contracting States.

Now.  I am a family lawyer - however, I'm pretty sure any 10 year old child could understand this.  An Order granted in Canada is to be respected in the United States.  Even in some one-horse town with a red-neck half-wit Judge named Kip.  Noah's mother has custody in Canada, and the child, if found to be improperly cared for by his step-father, should have been returned to his mother.  At a minimum, the proper jurisdiction to rule on Noah's welfare was Canada, not Oakridge, Oregon.  Noah lived in Canada, was a Canadian resident, and any questions regarding his welfare were best resolved in Canada.

Fundamental family law for dummies.

Apparently, however, Kip doesn't care.

Kip is a "law and order" kind of guy.  As long as the "law" and the "order" are HIS kind of law and order.  Pesky things like international treaties are just nuisances to be ignored.

Kip gets paid to keep Oakridge a "boring little town" and allowing children to live with mothers who think marijuana should be legalized apparently threatens his view of his "village" I suppose.

Now - in the interests of full disclosure, Kip is a good-ole Republican.  He's probably a big fan of the former President, G.W. Bush, I'm sure.

However - the problem and the point goes beyond party lines.

The state could as easily remove your children for teaching them the "wrong religious" ideas as it could for teaching them the wrong marijuana ideas.

The authority of the state is not something to be welcomed into our personal lives.  And notions of "villages" raising our children should make all of us a little nervous, whether you happen to be small 'l' liberal or small 'c' conservative.

Think about that, for a moment, as Michael Ignatieff goes on tour asking for your permission to have the state raise all of our children.

Gary McPherson - a truly great Albertan, has died.

I was saddened this morning to hear that Dr. Gary McPherson passed away this past Saturday at the age of 63.

Most Albertans know Gary as a tireless advocate for the disabled - being afflicted with polio since he was 9 years old, Gary went on to become very involved in provincial politics, running for the leadership of the Alberta PC Party in 2006.

While Dr. McPherson was best known for his involvement with the PC Party, his devotion to the Province and particularly to advocating on behalf of the disabled transcended party lines, being named to the Order of Canada for his efforts in 2003.

His passing is truly a loss to the Province, however, his example is an inspiration to all Albertans which will certainly live on.  For more information regarding Dr. McPherson and his efforts, see his website at http://www.garymcpherson.com/.

Congratulations..

Marcy after escaping the Rock

My blog, means I can divert my focus from political garbage to personal stuff if I feel like it.. and this morning I feel like it.

Yesterday, my wife Marcy, "Escaped from Alcatraz".. swimming from the Rock to the mainland and then going on to complete the "Escape from Alcatraz" triathlon.

Color me proud of her today.

Marcy coming into the finishing line (note the Canadian flag.. go Canada!)