Maybe it's time to join the Progressives..

Look at me..I'm "Progressive"!

Ok.

Before my fellow Blogging Tories seek to have me tarred and feathered, hear me out.

Firstly, I have to acknowledge that I have been blessed.

While I have worked very hard and taken significant risk to acquire an education and develop my own business, I have been able to enjoy a lifestyle which the vast majority of Canadians don't have. 

I have the ability to drive the new vehicle of my choosing, I go on European holidays, I literally want for nothing.  And I am truly thankful for that.

But here is the thing I'm discovering.  Am I really that much happier because I can holiday in Italy instead of going camping with my family in a local Provincial Park?  Is my life enjoyment really increased with the purchase of a new vehicle instead of just maintaining the vehicle that I already owned?

Not at all.

And life is relatively short.  I have "stuff", what I need, is "time".

So then. Suppose that those of us in the top 10 or 15% of the income earners in Canada think about this for a moment.

Work half as much, have much more time to, well, write blogs, read books, and spend time with family and friends.  To enjoy the limited time on this earth that we have.

So.. I'm proposing that we on the right side of the political spectrum take this to heart.

Become more "progressive".  Reduce greenhouse gas by not flying to holidays, by staying closer to home.  Spend less time working and volunteer to help your community.  Instead of buying more stuff, make do with what you have, reducing the waste of discarded old stuff and the packing of new stuff.

The kicker.

We will pay less tax.

And if a whole lot of us start paying less tax, well, a light just might go off in the minds of the progressive world who have gotten very used to the top 5% of income earners paying 40% of the total tax burden. 

We can then join the throngs of progressives who call for the faceless "them" to pay more to help the less advantaged.  Of course, if there are no more "them", and the people having to pay for government programs are really "us", well, it might be interesting to see just how "us" progressives might react to calls for things like National Daycare.

And it's not just about reducing our share of the tax pie.

This week we hear that 400 jobs are being lost with the closure of the Ford Windsor Engine Plant.  A few days earlier, we hear about 500 jobs being lost with the closure of the GM Transmission Plant in Windsor as well.

So, as we modify our lifestyles to enjoy more free time, and buying fewer new vehicles, we just might send a message to our union friends, that, well,gee whiz, those people who drive the new vehicles ARE actually helping people other than themselves..  and they might also have a light go off in their minds who have gotten used to people with higher incomes buying lots of stuff.

And maybe, just maybe, we will have a win/win situation.

We, on the right,will enjoy our lives just a little bit more.

And, at the same time, when the taps of commerce start to slow and the dollars collected by Ottawa start to shrivel, well, maybe people will start to understand that an economy isn't built on Liberal ideas of collecting more taxes to spend on things that Canadians, fundamentally, don't need.

Which I write as I sit at the kitchen table deciding not to go to work until 10:00am today..  making plans to come home and read a good book after lunch.

I figure, well, three hours of work this afternoon will probably result in another $200 or $300 in tax. 

I'd rather sit in the sun and read a book.

I'm working on re-reading "Brave New World". 

Wikipedia - Setting Them Straight

The Wikipedia hubbub - from Wikipedia:

On 16 July 2010, the Canadian government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 CF-18s for $16B (with all ancillary costs included) starting in 2016. Opposition Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff immediately called for the House of Commons defence committee to reconvene as soon as possible and examine the purchase, calling it a "secretive, unaccountable decision to proceed with this contract." Ignatieff has claimed they would put the sole-sourced contract on hold should they form the next government. The purchase announcement has created Canadian media speculation that, with the national opposition parties uniting against the sole-source contract, that this may bring down the minority Conservative government and force an election over the issue. The media have criticized the aircraft as being too short-ranged and far too complex for Canada's needs.[170][171][172][173][174][175] Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia characterized the purchase of the F-35 as a "pig in a poke" and stated that it is too expensive, short-ranged and unneeded.[176] Maj.-Gen. Tom Lawson has said that the F-35's stealth could be helpful in defending Canada's sovereignty as Russian bombers would be faced with an undetectable threshold.[177]

One might reasonably ask, "Why do we care what Michael Ignatieff thinks and what he speculates he might do - how is that appropriately included in an encyclopediac entry on the F-35?"

One might reasonably ask, "Why is there no reference in the "Canada" details to the fact that the development of the F-35 was contracted by the Liberal party under Jean Chretien?"

One might also add that "The Media have criticized the conduct of Michael Ignatieff and his Defence Critic, Ujjal Dosanjh for threatening to set aside the contract, referencing past errors of the Liberal government under Jean Chretien in cancelling an existing contract to replace the aging Sea King Helicopter fleet that ultimate cost Canadian taxpayers $500 million and resulted in delays such that 20 years later, the fleet has still not been replaced [1], suggesting that it evidences a willingness for the Liberal party to "make the same political mistakes over and over again". [2]

One might also add that the decision to buy the aircraft means Canadians can compete for contracts worth billions of dollars of work for the projected 3,000 F-35s to be built for the participating countries -- about two-thirds for the U.S. military, said Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose. Canada, as a partner with eight other countries under the U.S.-led partnership in the program, had already invested $168 million into the choice and development of fighters among competing designs. Industry Minister Tony Clement said 85 Canadian companies, research laboratories and universities have already done $350-million worth of contracts for development of the fighter.[3]

Chretien and Ignatieff: "Stupid and Stupider"

Time to send Ujjal Dosanjh and Michael Ignatieff on a short flight..


So, Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal Defence Critic, is all up in arms over the Harper government decision to proceed with the purchase of F-35 fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18 fleet.

Really?

They are angry that the contract was not put out to tender.

You don't say?

Some history on this issue is now in order, to fully understand that the safety of our military and our citizens, and how fiscal responsibility take  complete backseat to Liberal effort to do whatever it takes to seek power - including a willingness to show themselves as being complete hypocrites.

So - let's go back in time, shall we?

In 1963 the Canadian military and coast guard began use of the Sea King helicopter.  As one might suspect, by the late 1980's, they needed to be replaced, and as a result, after a review of three primary tenders, the Canadian government under Brian Mulroney entered into contracts to replace the Sea Kings with the EH-101.

Going into the 1993 Election, Jean Chretien, perhaps the greasiest Prime Minister in Canadian history, laughingly criticized the purchase, and after being elected, cancelled the contract outright.

Well.

As a result, the Canadian taxpayers were saddled with a $500,000,000.00 bill for breaching the contract, and we were left with a bunch of aged, dying helicopters.

The further result?

Per Wikipedia:

By the mid 1990s each Sea King required over 30 man-hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time, a figure described by the Canadian Naval Officers Association as 'grossly disproportionate'.[15] Furthermore, the helicopters are unavailable for operations 40% of the time and due to the fact that the airframes are 10–15 years older than other Sea Kings flying in allied air forces, AIRCOM is frequently forced to have spare parts custom-made as Sikorsky's supplies are either overly expensive or no longer in production. AIRCOM's Sea Kings are now widely perceived as unreliable, outdated and expensive to maintain, by observers both inside and outside the Canadian Forces. On February 27, 2003, when HMCS Iroquois was deploying to the Arabian Sea, a Sea King crashed within moments of takeoff, and the picture of the helicopter lying on its side on the destroyer's landing pad was embarrassing.[16]. Late that year, the entire fleet was grounded (except for essential operations) for several weeks after two aircraft coincidentally lost power within a few days of each other.

So.  What was Jean Chretien to do?  Well, obviously, he had to replace the helicopters, which he did, however, the clear front-runner in the competition was the EH-101, which obviously, Chretien couldn't purchase for political reasons, and so his government stalled in dealing with the matter until finally deciding upon a replacement in 2004, the CH-148.

Unfortunately, for our armed forces, this Liberal decision was, as one might expect, seriously flawed, and the contract still, as of this date, has not been fulfilled, with the CH-148's not being delivered now until June of 2012 - the Canadian forces making do with interim replacements from the manufacturer until then.

Did we save money?

Nope.  In the end, we're paying more for fewer helicopters.  Well done Liberal Party of Canada.

Now.

Fast forward to now.

Jean Chretien (remember him?) enters into a Joint Strike Fighter program with the U.S. and numerous other allies - ostensibly, to save money through the joint development of a strike fighter jet program with our allies - and to also assure operational compatibility with our allies.

Seemed like a good idea in 2002 when we started paying hundreds of millions of dollars towards the joint project, confirmed in February of 2002 when Liberal Defence Minister Art Eggleton signed on the deal with U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Of course, that was then.

Now - as we continue to proceed with that project, and as Stephen Harper announces the acquisition of the replacement F-35's, Liberals demand that we avoid the contract and start over again with the tender and development process.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

As reported in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, current Liberal rancor over the decision of the government to replace the aging CF-18 Jets with the F-35 are "a bit disingenuous". 

As also point out in the Star Phoenix article, "by all accounts, Canadian companies have already benefited from the arrangement, having received $350 million in contracts from Canada's investment so far of $160 million in the project. This even though the first of the state-of-the-art fighters won't come off the assembly line for another couple of years, and Canada won't take possession of one until late this decade."

How are we doing with the CF-18's?

14 August 1996: Aircraft crashes on takeoff from Iqaluit, Northwest Territories. Pilot safely ejects.


26 May 2003: CF-18 crashes on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range during the annual international training exercise MAPLE FLAG; pilot (Captain Kevin Naismith) killed.


19 June 2004: Aircraft from CFB Cold Lake lost when it was unable to stop while at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Aircraft was salvaged and is back in service. Pilot ejected but was injured.


16 August 2005: Aircraft crashes during a training exercise near CFB Bagotville. Pilot safely ejects.


23 July 2010: A CF-18 (#188738) crashed while practicing an airshow routine at the Lethbridge County Airport. The pilot, Captain Brian Bews safely ejected.

So.

We need a replacement.

We have a good product that many of our allies have committed to acquiring, and which the Liberal government under Jean Chretien paid significant money to help develop - but which, now, Michael Ignatieff threatens to scuttle if he is elected.

Yeah, you read right.  Not having learned from the monumental example of rank stupidity and the worst of partisan game-playing with the Sea King debacle - now Jean Chretien's "heir apparent", Michael Ignatieff, is going to do the same thing again.

If we give him the chance.

The People v. "The Man"

Who is pulling your strings..?

Is there any question but that each of us, as individuals, feels just a little less important over time in the eyes of both our government and the people we do business with?

Let's eschew the labels of "right" and "left" for a moment.

Let's just accept each other's differences for the time being, and consider that maybe, just maybe, there is a common foe who is gaining great traction from the polarization of political viewpoints.

Let's just call this foe, "The Man" for want of a better description.  "The Man" is the collective of those who profit greatly from being able to control public opinion and motivate broad public action.

The Man is the broad power of a growing faceless government and a broad, faceless, corporate world where the individuals they do business with and the individuals they do business for (shareholders) are more or less pawns to do their bidding.

The Man is the entrenched power structure in our Universities, which exist not to serve the students attending them, nor the society who supports them - but supports the administration and the continued interest of the faculties to acquire and retain tenure.

We exist, as individuals, in the midst of large power structures who have very different interests from our own, yet, they have become quite adept in manipulating us to support them or argue with each other - resulting often in the same net result.

Yesterday, I read an article from former University of Ottawa physics professor, Denis Rancourt, which is worth a read, a link to his essay and his site is here.

To borrow a quote from Harold Pinter used in Rancourt's essay:

“[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”

No friend of the political right - Rancourt's writing is still worthy of consideration - not necessarily because you should accept it as true,  but that you should at least consider the possibility that there are forces around us that take great care to manipulate our emotions and our thoughts to serve their own interests.

That we should take great care in not believing everything that we are told.

Oddly enough, this morning,we see another glaring example of exactly the type of thing that Rancourt talks about - learning that the U.N. Climate Change reports have, yet again, been shown to have been exaggerated to serve their interests and the interests of the new robber barons, the climate change brokers.

From the Toronto Sun today:

The scientific accuracy of the United Nations' climate change reports are coming under fire again.


In a scandal that dates back to January and was dubbed Amazongate at the time, it has been confirmed that claims of the Amazon burning up due to climate change were sexed-up and pulled from activist literature.

The 2007 UN report on climate change, the one that has helped guide government efforts to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming, claimed that “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.” The real report, drawn from a website and paid for by pressure group the World Wildlife Fund, says something quite different.

While the UN reports are often described as scientific and peer-reviewed, this claim of the Amazon being at high risk originated on a website of a Brazilian advocacy group. The original claim read that “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

Now - before those of us on the "right" get too smug about this, consider also the reality of how broad power and influence granted to large corporations also allows them to manipulate and influence public perception.

Consider the reality that the financial industry purchased as much influence with Barack Obama as they did from George Bush.  Consider that the Democrats during the last election received more money from the defence industry than did the Republicans.

The point isn't that you should read this and conclude that climate change isn't real, or that big business is bad.. it's that you should consider that you should welcome any significant change in public policy with great caution - because the so-called "knowledge" behind the policy may be serving interests that have nothing to do with your own - as much as they may say different.

My Religion? Why, it's Jedi..

For those clamouring for how absolutely fundamental the need is for a mandatory long-form census, to assure the government has "accurate" information on our citizenry:

In Australia more than 70,000 people declared themselves members of the Jedi order in the 2001 census.

Over 53,000 people listed themselves as Jedi in New Zealand's 2001 census.

In England and Wales 390,127 people (almost 0.8%) stated their religion as Jedi on their 2001 Census forms, surpassing Sikhism, Judaism, and Buddhism, and making it the fourth largest reported religion in the country.

In the 2001 census, 21,000 Canadians put down their religion as Jedi Knight.

So.

My question.

Clearly, "Jedi" are a real, but significant minority in this Country - so why have previous governments done nothing to support their ability to secure their special cultural identity?

Why is the government not providing preferential hiring policies for Jedi members?

I mean, come on.

This census is serious stuff.

Isn't it?

Lies and Damn Lies..

Ok.

So, I will officially go on record that I find the government forcing me to divulge what I consider to be invasive and unnecessary information to be an offense to my personal liberty.

So much for the statement that there is "no evidence of anyone complaining of the census."  There is now, officially, ONE.  Me.

And in any event, if no one complained over offensive government policy, would that make it right?  I think not.

And there is the inconsistency in those opposing recent government conduct.

As long as the numbers support their position, they are all about "democracy", however, when they don't, well, they burn police cars and break windows.

Witness, for example, criticism of my post yesterday regarding pay equity, along the lines of, "91 out of the last 5,000 job postings by the federal government set out a requirement that applicants be from a particular demographic group."

Really?

So.

If only "91 out of 5,000 job postings" required that the applicant would not be considered unless they were caucasian males, would that make it acceptable because, well, it's not THAT MUCH racism?

While I have been very critical of the Harper government's efforts to "get tough on crime" as being misguided, their position on the census and their position in reviewing racially restrictive hiring policies, in and of itself, will assure my vote next election.

Because something might be helpful to someone isn't reason enough, in my mind, to justify the government forcing me, under threat of prosecution, to cooperate with them spying into my personal life.

Because racist policy is "well intentioned" doesn't make it any less racist.  It's just wrong.

What is your problem with Employment Equity?!?

Looking for a job with the Federal Government? Well, just to make it VERY CLEAR , their hiring process is subject to Federal legislation to assure that we can provide affirmative action to those who suffer the distinction of being historically discriminated against because of issues of race.

For all of you fortunate Caucasians (like me) who have not had to endure differential treatment based upon your appearance, because of the free ride you have been receiving during your life-time, it is a minor inconvenience to lose a minor amount of your historical privilege to allow for the operation of employment equity programs.

So.

To illustrate:

A.  Qualified Applicant under Employment Equity program:

B.  Unqualified Applicant under Employment Equity Program:

Confused..  well, you obviously must not be liberal enough to understand the obvious distinction between who should get a job and who shouldn't.

To clarify, the first applicant above is obviously struggling in society, because, as I'm sure you can tell- he is aboriginal.  Warren Cariou is a Metis author from Saskatchewan, and, as such, would be a qualified applicant for the Federal job posting.    Which is only fair.  I mean - look at him.  Would you hire him if the government didn't tell you you HAD to?

Now - clearly the second applicant is not disadvantaged.  You see, Sara Landriault  is a woman who remained in the home, outside of the workforce, while she raised her children.

Err..  maybe what they mean is she isn't "disadvantaged ENOUGH".  You see, depending upon the tides, the alignment of Jupiter and Mars, and the combined ERA of all Toronto Blue Jay starting pitchers,  sometimes women are entitled to preferential treatment and sometimes they aren't.

See?

Well.. it doesn't have to make sense to you - because as long as Michael Ignatieff and his party understands it, that's all you need to worry about.

Trust them.

Where are we going..?

I had the good pleasure to get away last weekend for a camping trip with my wife, her parents and my own parents.

And at the end of the day, when the sun went down, we engaged in some old-school social networking.  Around a warm fire, with coffee and good, honest conversation.


And it was fascinating.  Two couples a generation before me, from a totally different world than the world we see today.

Sweet Grass Hills

My father, growing up at the base of the Sweet Grass Hills on the Alberta/Montana border, 25 miles from the closest town, in a house with no electricity, with three rooms for his parents and four siblings.  Where "digital entertainment" was listening once a week to the "Grand Ole Opry" on an old battery powered radio.

Kubed, Slovenia

My wife's father, growing up in a small village in Kubed,Slovenia, just across the border from Trieste, Italy.  Also, growing up in extremely humble beginnings - his father a blacksmith, telling us of his childhood, hiding with his father behind a false rock wall when the Nazi's came to their town to take men and boys to be killed.

And I have been fortunate to have visited both of their childhood homes.

And seeing their humble surroundings, and listening to their tales, I am reminded of a world that in some respects I think has lost its way.

Certainly, it would be a mistake to suggest the world was a better place 50 or 60 years ago.  No one wishes to return to a world where western governments welcomed racism and women could not vote.

However - it would be a greater mistake to assume that we are above learning from our past.

A past when you knew your neighbors - not just next door, but 10 miles away - neighbors who wouldn't hesitate to offer you food or shelter when yours was lost, and for whom you would do the same in an instant.

A past where the concept of "entitlement" was unheard of.

And something that struck me very deeply - was the sense that with all of my education, and the luxury of a life that allows me to ponder and pontificate in a way that my parents and my wife's parents couldn't, I still have much to learn from them.

My wife's father showing compassion and concern for Omar Khadr - having seen how young men react  when pushed into armed conflict.

My own father and mother struggling to make ends meet while raising three boys, yet still questioning why parenting should be ceded to a government body just to make it "easier" for parents to make a living.  Making the observation that "of course people will support national daycare - why would you turn down something that makes your life easier?"  But then commenting on how that will further break down the community of family and neighbors that they experienced.

And it makes one think.

Education does not a wise man make.

Sometimes, the greatest lessons are learned through adversity and the greatest character is built during times of stress.

So - as we struggle to create a "Brave New World" where we are all happy and life is easy for all, one questions whether we will, in the bargain, kill the character that delivered this better world to us in the first place.

Whether we will create a society where the fabric is made of pleasant looking, but thin gossamer, compared to a past where the fabric was, perhaps, made of less attractive, but lasting, stuff.

More of the Pathetic "New" Progressives

"Kelly Pflug-Back.. the Dope of a New Generation.  The Ultimate "Poser"

There was a time when the counter-culture had a certain noble sensibility..  that I acknowledge I myself was caught up in, and to some degree, still am.  A sense of asking tough questions, of not just accepting the status quo, "just because"..  of not being afraid of standing up when being told to "sit down."

That day seems to have gone.. in favor of a spoiled, petulant group of undisciplined children.

Witness the most recent brat arrested on charges of damaging property during G20 summit demonstrations, Kelly Pflug-Back.

While the "progressive" brats rail on about the police and the temerity of their standing up against domestic terrorists, we find, yet again, a good example of a poster-child for the extreme progressives in our midst.

People who do not understand the idea of "freedom".

Their view is "freedom for me but not for you".

How dare you invest your savings into a Starbucks they say - I'm going to damage your property, because I want to.  And to hell with being accountable.

Oh.

And a little more on the Progressive Poster Child.

She was also arrested for assault while trying to accost an Olympic Torch Relay Runner.

More mayhem?  Apparently so..  according to "Digital Journal":

Last summer Pflug-Back was wanted for her part in the Hanlon Creek Business Park protests in Guelph, Ontario. Reporter Stephanie Dearing, Digital Journal, at the time reported that the young woman was suing the Guelph Police for defamation of character after the police released a press release about suspects who hand delivered and read a "threatening" letter to an unnamed person in the town. While she was not named in the statement Dearing reported that Pflug-Back said when the police issued the press release, it was harassment and that act infringed on their rights to freedom of speech. While she was never charged with a crime for the act she did not deny that she did deliver the letter in question.

Interesting.. this little brat is worried about how her "rights" were infringed.. yet, it is alleged she happily seeks to entrench on the rights of taxpayers and property owners not to have their property vandalized and for Olympic Relay Runners to be able to peaceably run down a public street without being accosted.

Go figure.

And just how is this lovely lady contributing to her society?  Well, according to the Guelph Mercury:

She (Pflug-Back) moved to Guelph after growing up in Norwood, where she started writing poetry that has since been published.

Pflug-Back has described herself in media interviews as a grassroots anti-poverty activist for Sense of Security, a Guelph organization that provides food, shelter and aid for people in need, as well as advocacy for people who need legal aid.

Really, writing poetry?  And, really, it's stunning stuff.  Michael Ondaatje had best be warned..

I'm sure the homeless will be comforted when the winter turns nasty, and their bellies are empty, as she hands them a few leaflets of your favorite works.

Here's the thing, you simple little twerp.

The money that it takes to create the social safety net in Canada comes from TAXPAYERS.

You know.. the bourgeois that you detest so much.

The people operating and shopping at tacky places like Starbucks.

And if you want to see how the homeless and the disadvantaged are really abused, go to a country where there is no functioning capitalist enterprise. Where there are not tax dollars collected to distribute to those in need.

Here in Canada, thanks to, yes, capitalism, we have businesses and working people who pay tax, and those tax dollars go to fund social assistance, and public housing, and medical care.

Because, what trolls like this women don't want to admit, is all of their posing and posturing, their tattoos and piercings, their sneers at "the man" don't feed the hungry and don't shelter the homeless. 

So, pardon me if I throw up in my mouth just a little bit when I read about what a "hero" she is for her "efforts".

Go back to writing your self-indulgent poetry.  At least that does no harm.

In for a penny.. more on the census and our Brave New World.

Trust the Government.. "It's for your own good!"

Well.

To look at my blogs you would think I'm losing sleep over the whole census thing.

Fact is, I'm not.

If I received the census, I would, dutifully complete it.  Because anything I don't want the state to know I'll just make up.  You know, I'm a multi-billionaire Alderaanian Jedi, handicapped because my "force" is not operating due to southern Albertan winds.

But then, I'm sure that won't concern any of my critics, because, if the census doesn't have enough data on physically able white Anglo-Saxon protestants, I'm sure no one will lose any sleep - and I guess if I miss out of some government goodies because I didn't "put my hand up", the so-called "progressive" crowd won't worry themselves about it.

No.

They are concerned that if certain disadvantaged groups aren't sufficiently represented, the government and others won't have sufficient information to help them.  Which I don't quite buy into - but lets assume they are correct.

The basic argument, which you hear far and wide, is that there are certain disadvantaged groups who are not likely to complete the census unless threatened with prosecution for failure to do so, and that would result in insufficient data to allow us to assist them.

Read that one more time.

To clarify, the conversation is something like this:

Progressive: "Here's a census form, please complete it so we know what sort of help to give you."

Citizen: "Uh, no."

Progressive: "But, if you don't, you may miss out on all sorts of government support (i.e. money)."

Citizen: "Uh, no.. I'm busy."

Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid?  That we should worry about someone who can't be bothered to complete a census to help themselves unless we threaten to prosecute them?

At what point, exactly, do we start to tell our citizens - "You want some help.. fine, but pitch in and do some lifting yourself?"

The more we treat people as "less than", the more they will rise to that expectation.

Only in a truly warped "progressive" state will we threaten your liberty, not because you have done anything to harm your neighbor, but because you haven't cooperated with government exploring your private lives.

I've said it before, but we are truly entering a "Brave New World".

Advice on Filling out the Long-Form Census

Ethnic Heritage?.. "Tera'nganbej neH jIH 'ach 'e' vIQIjlaH"

("I'm really only an Earthling, but that's a long story.)

With all the hubbub about the long form census, to show my openness to both sides of the issue, while the long form is not mandatory, I would encourage voluntary compliance.

With respect, however, to some of the difficult questions that may at first blush appear vague or arbitrary, I offer these hints:

a) "Ethnic or Cultural Origin"

I recommend either of these responses:

"Canadian".. or (my favorite)..  "African".  Scientists have made it clear that all human kind derives from Africa.  Hence we are all "African Canadians". 

Now - if you're wondering about whether or not you might also be aboriginal, seeing as there is no magic "aboriginal thermometer", I'm assuming to be sure you should only consider yourself an "Indian" if you have 100% Indian heritage (sorry Metis people).  Anything less than 100% means that, to avoid being arbitrary, 1% makes you Indian.

If you're not sure where your great, great, great, great grandparents were canoodling with, to be safe, assume you are aboriginal.

Or.

If you are a Scientologist, write in "Thetan".

Oh.  By the way.  Way to avoid discrimination by creating questionnaires that require us to be "racist".

b) Household Activities:

If most Canadians answered this honestly, I'm assuming that time spent caring for children would be close to zero.  Watching "Dancing with the Stars" while you're kid is downstairs on MySpace chatting with a 45 year old pedophile who is pretending to be 12 isn't actually "unpaid time caring for your child."   On the other hand, teachers being asked to engage in parental obligations in teaching children respect and decency when their parents have abandoned that responsibility, are engaging in "unpaid care of children", because in theory they are getting paid to educate our children - not to discipline and "parent" them.. so that sort of offsets the growing crop of useless "parents" in our midst.

c) Activities of Daily Living:

Do you suffer from a condition that limits your activities?  If you are over-weight, stupid, lazy, or just generally, sick and tired of the bullshit going on all around you so that you don't have the energy to jump up and do hand-springs around your home, you can consider yourself as suffering from a "condition" that regularly limits your abilities.

d) Languages:

I enjoy speaking pig latin in the home and at the office.  However - to offset the campaign in Quebec to skew the numbers, I recommend that everyone outside of Quebec indicate that they are fluent in French if they can understand the following:

Oui;
Non;
Merde.

This should assure that StatsCan properly reports that we are all now fully fluent in French, and, presumeably, can now stop funding any effort to assure continued fluency.

These have been just a few helpful hints.. if you have any other questions regarding the 40 page pile of crap, feel free to post here, and I'll provide the same thoughtful and helpful advice in response to your question that I exhibit above.

Or, if you wish to volunteer to help other census disabled Canadians by offering your own helpful hints, feel free to add to mine with your own post.

Of course, if after reading this, you consider the census is arbitrary, vague and stupid, and choose not to fill it out, well, I can only assume you are not from this world at all, and hence, the census wouldn't apply to you anyway.. (sorry Klingons).

Long Form Census - Warren Kinsella says "Good Job Stephen Harper?"

Stats Can Long Form "Believer" Exacts Revenge on Stephen Harper

Is there any Liberal ideologue who delights more in attacking Stephen Harper than Warren Kinsella?

So.

How odd then that as every stuff-shirt and academic attacks Stephen Harper's decision to make the long-form census voluntary as opposed to mandatory, Warren Kinsella comes to his aid.

Kinsella, while careful to not try and paint Stephen Harper as anything approaching principled or intelligent, clearly comes down in support of the decision to remove the obligation of Canadians to goose-step in line by being obligated to provide very personal information about themselves to the government Stazi, in his posts here and here.

Why?

Well, no one objects to basic census data - where you live, how many people are in your home, what their ages are.. basic stuff that gives government the data they need to provide adequate pro-rata funding for infrastructure and social funding.

However - what business is it of government WHO pays the rent in your home?

What business is it of government how much time you play with your children?

How much housework do you do?

40 pages.  40 pages of inane and intrusive questions that you would otherwise are forced to plod through under threat of conviction for a federal offense should you decline.

Why?

So that stuff-shirts and academics - most of the biggest complainers - can justify their existence which is premised on playing around with these stupid facts under the illusion that their heady analysis of these facts will lead us to utopia.

See my earlier post on "superstition", specifically the discussion on the works of Friedrich Hayek.

Social scientists, "progressive" academics, Liberal and NDP politicians - all put these facts in their rattles, or burn them as offerings, and then make broad societal pronouncements and predictions that if we just do THIS then our society will do THAT.

Problem is, they are deluding themselves.

And they are costing tax payers huge money.

And they are invading the privacy of Canadians to help them pay homage to their social pseudo-science in hopes of turning straw into gold.

Harper is right.

And Kinsella knows it, though it pains him to say so.

We need more career bureaucrats, academics and "progressive" politicians like we need Jivaro shrunken heads.

We are quickly learning, through great difficulty, that society will not be "organized" by the state.  Society will evolve, over time, in a manner that best serves it's needs.  And some superstitious chanting at the alter of "statistics" will not change that.

So.

Ask me how many people are in my home and what their ages are.

But when you ask me how much time I play with my kids, or whether I have loose floor tiles in my house.. be prepared to receive a big pile of stupid.

The New Fascism: Environuts

Fascism.

It's a term we through around like confetti on the blogs.

Most often, thrown around by liberals as a synonym for "conservatism", but, almost as often, used by conservatives to point out that the roots of German and Italian fascism were initially in socialist movements.

The problem is, it's mostly used as a short-hand sort of profanity, a term of vulgarity that allows the speaker to avoid really explaining why the term truly applies to whatever group they are using the term as a reference point for.

So.

I'll try to not just use it as more profanity, by first contextualizing what I think fascism is:

1) Firstly, it seems to me, the root of fascism is a disrespect for the concept of democracy, about allowing the majority to choose their course.  It seeks to put control in a central leader or group to impose decisions on the masses, "for their own good."

2) Secondly, it seeks to harness support for it's aims by seeking to "demonize" a common enemy, by making wild and completely false allegations to capitalize on a common fear of the populace it seeks to control.

So.

By definition, it isn't necessarily "right" or "left", and could be co-opted by either side of the political spectrum.

These past few weeks, the closest thing we see to true "fascists" in our midst are the environuts.  Those who have an agenda that they wish to impose upon others, and in order to do so, are happy to boldly lie to create a "common demon".

Most recently, the so-called "Rethink Alberta" ads who boldly state:

"The Tarsands are destroying an area twice the size of England."

Problem is.. that statement is an out-and-out lie.

The gross surface area of the oilsands development, in fact, is less than two tenths of one percent the size of England.  Perhaps the size of London.  The organization producing the videos and ads have since pulled the false ads under pressure regarding their admitted falsity, though they continue to exaggerate the comments saying now, the area is "about the size of England".


Beyond that - the comparison of a controlled industrial development in the tar sands, to the most damaging release of oil into the environment in world history, is so grossly exaggerated as to be virtually criminal.

Of course, that doesn't matter to a fascist..  you see the key is harnessing fear, not educating the population to make their own decisions.  But all is fair in fascist politics, because, "It's for your own good."



The CEO of the group putting out these ads?

Michael Marx, Executive Director, Corporate Ethics International and Business Ethics Network, received his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he taught Persuasion in the Communication Arts school and Organizational Behavior in the business school.

Really?

Color me shocked.

The Great Political Battle: Liberals vs. Liberals vs. Liberals

Better Days

Well.

This has not been a good month or so for Liberals.

Witness the relentless attack on them..   from other Liberals.

Let's go back a few weeks.

Shot#1:

Warren Kinsella, notorious Liberal insider, suggests there are "high level talks" between the Liberals and NDP about merging their parties, stating that "the reality is that we (Liberal Party of Canada) are in a bad position"..

Shot #2:

Kinsella's commentary is immediately followed by Michael Ignatieff referring to those comments as ridiculous and dismissing Kinsella as someone that he "has no relationship with."

Shot #3:

Kinsella fires back with an affidavit, swearing, under oath, that the Liberal Party of Canada President, Alfred Apps, told him in May about "high level discussions" within the Liberal Party regarding merger with the NDP..

Shot#4:

Not to allow the battle to be fought only on the Federal front, David Swann gets into the act, firing a volley from Ignatieff's flank - "Swann slams Ignatieff" - regarding Ignatieff's professed intention to impose a moratorium on oil shipments on the west coast (but oddly enough, not on the east coast).

Shot #5:

Following Swann's cannon fire on Ignatieff, almost immediately, Swann is caught by a shot from his own Liberal Party of Alberta President formally advising that he's had enough of David Swann:

Meanwhile, the Liberal Parties of Canada and Alberta burn to the ground.

And conservatives, everywhere, say, "Looks good on you".

**UPDATE**

You HAVE to check out this find by AlbertaArdvaark..  it explains.So.Much.

Watching the Media Watching Obama..

Philadelphia Polling Station on Voting Day..

Keith Olbermann says.. "What's the Big Deal?"

It will be interesting to watch the media watching Barack Obama as he attempts to side-step the growing scandal of directed race discrimination in the Department of Justice.

As his popularity continues to suffer in the face of his growing impotence to address the growing array of troubling issues in the U.S., he now has to face what could exhibit not simply an inability to do the job, but an act which threatens to disclose rank hypocrisy in his campaign of "Hope".

While so many (including myself) saw his election as a guiding light leading away from centuries of race difficulties in the United States - recent conduct of his administration threatens to disclose Barack Obama as a charlatan - someone who cynically chooses to preach of fundamental equality, but then, at the end of the day, discloses his true colors as someone who really has no commitment to equality at all.  And in the bargain, pushing race relations backwards years, maybe decades.

Amid growing disclosure that the White House directed members of their department of Justice, specifically, to withdraw a voter intimidation suit against Malik Zulu Shabazz, and generally, not to pursue remedies regarding allegations of offences by black persons against white persons - the leftish media continues to do their best to ignore the issue and, in fact, to portray those who ask for answers as right wing extremists - or worse, as racists.

Read the media reports - they suggest because no one came forward to complain about Shabazz or allege that they felt intimidated, there was no crime.  They say it is a manufactured story.

Really.

Now, watch this, if you can stomach it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Firstly, Olbermann is intentionally misleading his viewers, pretending that "dropped charges" don't exist.  Pretending that the decision to "do nothing" was not Obama's, but was Bush.

Here's the truth.

The Department of Justice under Bush DID determine that there would be no criminal charges brought.  However, they did bring a civil suit against those engaged in the intimidation.  However - Olbermann is fully aware - though he ignores it - that the Defendants, including Shabaz, did not defend against the suit, and the Department of Justice was in position to pursue civil sanctions against the Defendants.

And the Justice Department dropped an UNDEFENDED case.

And the allegation - not just by one disgruntled employee, but by now three named members of the Department of Justice - is that there was pressure put upon Department of Justice employees not to pursue matters in a "race neutral" fashion.

So.

Aside from the legal details of the case.

Imagine if you will, that you are a black person in a predominantly white community - where you already feel intimidated simply because of your race isolation.

Now imagine that you show up to cast your vote, and standing outside are these three "good ol' boys".

Now.

Assume they don't actually assault you - they just stand outside, maybe with a club in hand.

Now also - ask yourself - would you expect that voter to make a formal complaint in THAT community.

And, finally, ask yourself what Keith Olberman would have to say about these guys.

I'm sure he would suggest that "America is at far greater risk from the New Christy Minstrels" as he stated with regard to Shabaz and his pals.

And the Liberal Express Moves on.. to more stupid stuff.

"Elitism" is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who supposedly form an elite — a select group of people with, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

See: Michael Ignatieff

Today we hear that one of Michael's big ideas is that, to help us all, we need to, well, be like him. 

So much so that he proposes that the Canadian government pay for young people to go work abroad.

Really.

Because, gee..  seems to me with a growing federal deficit, with a myriad of social problems, sending kids to Germany and France to get a "worldly" experience maybe isn't a priority for our government.

But this is what we should expect from Michael Ignatieff, and, sadly, from the Liberal Party of Canada.

Ideas that illustrate the core of the Liberal persona - elitism.

That they are just a little bit better than the average Canadian.

Listen, Michael.

The world, right now, is a very competitive place.  I don't know if you've noticed (presumably you haven't) but the world has gone through a pretty serious financial problem, which has made employment a problem.

And many, many young people are finding it difficult to get themselves into University and then get themselves a job to help provide some financial stability for themselves.

So - maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here.. but maybe taking a year or so off to go "work abroad" isn't a priority for your average Canadian at this point in time.

But there's the rub.

"The average Canadian" doesn't matter to Michael and his vision of the Liberal party of Canada.

You know.. the philistines.. the rabble.. those who don't have the luxury of travelling to Venice and Berlin to "see the world".

Of course they NEED the rabble, the middle class..

They are the ones who get to PAY for the travel of the elite.

**Update**

Apparently part of the tour includes Michael Ignatieff knocking on doors looking for new work.

Barack Obama: "The Audacity of Hypocricy"

Why is the Department of Justice Protecting This Man?

"Audacity": - Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention. An act or instance of intrepidity or insolent heedlessness.

So.

Remember the U.S. Presidential Election?

Remember the theme, outlined in Barack Obama's tome, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream"?

Well.

His administration has "audacity", I'll give them that.

Apparently, in order to reclaim the American dream you have a black paramilitary group intimidate white voters, and when there is a complaint, you stifle the complaint by pressuring your Department of Justice to bury complaints of crimes by blacks against whites.

According to CBS News Today:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said today it has evidence of "possible unequal administration of justice" within the Justice Department, citing testimony that revealed widespread, "pervasive hostility" against discrimination and voter intimidation claims by whites.

As further reported in the same article:

In today's letter, by Chairman Gerald Reynolds, the commission said the "extraordinary" testimony by Adams "raises grave questions" about whether the lawyers and managers in the Department believe in "color-blind" enforcement of civil rights laws--"specifically, whether they should be enforced against all Americans equally and whether those protections apply with equal force to citizens of all races."


Reynolds cited testimony by Adams that a senior political deputy told staff that the Voting Section is "in the business of doing traditional civil rights work," that "cases are not going to be brought against black defendants (for) the benefit of white victims" and that the "Civil Rights Division wasn't going to be bringing them."

How about a new book, Barack?

"The Audacity of Hypocrisy: Thoughts on Hi-jacking the American Dream"?

"Broke Down Engine".. dedicated to Michael Ignatieff

Broke Down Engine.. ain't got no drivin' wheel

Every once in a while, the planets align just so, to send us a message.

And yesterday we received that message loud and clear.

The "Liberal Express" stalled.

Yes - Michael Ignatieff's grand gesture, his cross-Canada tour, to showcase his wisdom and wit, was left standing, dead, on the side of the road.

As poor Michael sits on the side of the road, his bus stalled, going nowhere, I dedicate this song to Michael - Peter Case singing Blind Willie McTell's, "Broke Down Engine."

Of course, Michael's "gal" is his naked lust for the Prime Minister's office, which makes one verse in the song, particularly poignant:

I went down in my praying ground, fell on my bended knees,

I ain't cryin' for no religion, Lord, give me back my good gal please.

If you want to sing along, here are all of the lyrics:

Broke Down Engine


Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no drivin' wheel,
Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no drivin' wheel.
You all been down and lonesome, you know just how a poor man feels.


Been shooting craps and gambling, momma, and I done got broke,
Been shooting craps and gambling, momma, and I done got broke,
I done pawned my pistol, baby, my best clothes been sold.


Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord,
Lordy, Lord.


I went down in my praying ground, fell on my bended knees,
I went down in my praying ground, fell on my bended knees,
I ain't cryin' for no religion, Lord, give me back my good gal please.


If you give me back my baby, I won't worry you no more,
Give me back my baby, I won't worry you no more,
Don't have to put her in my house, Lordy, just lead her to my door.


Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord,
Lordy, Lord.


Can't you hear me, baby, rappin' on your door?
Can't you hear me, baby, rappin' on your door?
Now you hear me tappin', tappin' across your floor.


Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no drive at all,
Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no drive at all.
What make me love my woman, she can really do the Georgia Crawl.


Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no whistle or bell,
Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no whistle or bell,
If you're a real hot momma, come take away Daddy's weeping spell.

The Road from Superstition

Friedrich Hayek.. the most important mind you may have never heard of.

Do you ever get a feeling that, when thinking about some topic, you are dangerously close to a realization of some importance, and then, like trying to grasp air, it is gone.

A couple weeks ago I was blogging about the ironic juxtaposition between liberal views of Darwinian evolution when applied to biology as opposed to being applied to society.

In the first, they are ardent supporters, in the second, they completely ignore it's application.  Because they don't like where it might lead them, easier to close their minds and say, "It has no relevance to society, it's a mere biological truth."  But they know better.

It's fascinating really.

But at the time, I didn't fully grasp the concept that was at the edges of my mind - and the blog sort of became more of an anti-liberal rant than capturing the point I think I saw but didn't articulate.

And, let's be honest.  Small "c" conservatives have had more than our own battles with knowledge and science as well - most currently, the battle between those who question the accuracy and outcomes of climate change theory, and those who just refuse to concede even the possibility that climate change could be influenced by our use of carbon burning technology.  It's one thing to learn about the science and question what it means exactly, and, further, what we should do about it.  It's another thing, however, to close our minds and say, "I choose not to believe, because I don't like where it might lead me."

But this post isn't really about evolution or climate change - it's about bigger, broader stuff.

It's about feeling comfortable letting go of preconceptions, and accepting fear of the unknown and "going there" anyway.

Better put - letting go of superstition. 

Most recently, I've come across an incredible mind that, I hate to admit, I hadn't heard of a month ago - Friedrich Hayek.

Now, to many, he is either the messiah of free market economy who lead Margaret Thatcher and Britain from failure, or he is the demon free market extremist who lead the U.S. to the recent economic meltdown.

But that really ignores the depth and importance of his writing.

In that regard, I recommend a quick read of the Boston Globe article, "Friedrich the Great", by Virginia Postrel.

In that article, she alludes to the depth of Hayek's thinking and it's continued relevance to 21st century political thought, and continues to open up expansive consideration of the reality that no one mind can adequately capture or control knowledge and information.  And those that do are doomed to fail in their efforts.

Far from a pure libertarian, Hayek supported the idea of social welfare, however, he warned that the control of an economy requires effort to also control citizens beyond the economy.  To simplify, that everything is everything.

And here is where I missed my mark.

Conservatives will often find commentary about Hayek to be uncomfortable because he is often referred to as having a "liberal" philosophy.  But here is the thing.

Current political discussion is often polarized between "liberal" and "conservative", when in reality, both camps can be fairly criticized for creating an overly simplified view of society and deceiving themselves into thinking that MORE government control, in some respect, will benefit society as a whole.  Liberals typically engaging in social engineering, Conservatives typically engaging in strong-arm efforts to reduce crime and "make us safer" through greater border security, engaging in foreign police efforts and the like.

And this is where Hayek's value lies. (From "Man Without Qualities"):

Hayek’s “spontaneous order” or “complexity” thesis argues that a socio-economic order in its complexity is not amenable to being centrally managed – knowledge is distributed across a multitude of agents and condenses in dynamic traditions, customs and practices. The complexity thesis is a skeptical position and argues that large-scale social planning can often be a leap of faith and thus a spurious claim to knowledge. Society is too complex, has too many variables, local and ephemeral, to offer a predictive science of politics and economics. It should be noted that this is not a blanket admonition against social change or social amelioration. The complexity thesis takes to task a global, often rationalistic style of thinking, that abstracts its recommendations from the minutiae of lived, contextualized experience.

And it would do us all well to think about that, for just a moment.

As Hayek points out - there is a difference between "science and pseudoscience" - as commented in Postrel's article:

Beginning with "The Sensory Order," he began to differentiate between "simple" sciences like physics, which study phenomena that can be explained by only a few variables, and "complex" sciences like biology, psychology, and economics, which depend on so many variables that precise predictions are impossible. "Hayek felt that many of his opponents, all claiming the mantle of science, were but pretenders to the throne," Caldwell writes. "He constantly encountered people who thought of themselves as objective scientists, people who held ideological views different from his and who immediately felt comfortable attributing their differences to the fact that, whereas they were scientists, he was an ideologue."

In other words.. be careful of what we think we "know" and be open to the understanding that, to the extent that we find ourselves committed to ideas and perceptions "just because", we are basically holding to superstition because of our fear of what we don't know.

And here is the stupid thing.  To consider that we can arm ourselves with some mantle of knowledge either by our own research or by relying upon others to advise us - to see society as some neatly compartmentalized machine where you can tinker with JUST the economy, or JUST gender issues, or JUST the environment - is to delude yourself.  It's the equivalent of throwing salt over your shoulder to ward off bad luck. 

And here is where I think that I missed the mark in my earlier post..

There is ignoring knowledge of the world around us.

And then there is believing that there are simple answers in "pseudo-science", like sociology and economics.

Both are different sides to the same coin.  

Misplaced belief.  Superstition.

My take is that, for want of a better word, "conservativism" needs to evolve, away from embracing simple answers, to being open to the reality of social complexity which, ultimately, requires a predominantly "free market"  - not only economically, but socially - to allow society to order itself in its own best interests.

It's about "Freedom" and "Restraint".

It's about "knowledge" and "superstition".

Personally?

I would prefer taking antibiotics to fight an infection as opposed to having someone sacrifice a chicken for me.

But that's just me.

Did you hear the one about the Liberal Elitist at the Calgary Stampede..?

What's that you said, son? 
Cowboy boots from...   Quebec?

So.

A swell-timer from Toronto walks into a Calgary Stampede breakfast, and shows off his cowboy boots made in Quebec and loudly exclaims.. "There are the best made boots in Canada."

A joke.?

Well.. yeah.

You see.. the dumbass Michael Ignatieff was a stone's throw from the Alberta Boot Company.

A Calgary business for over 30 years, making what I'm sure they would argue are "the best made boots in Canada."

But, whether they are or not, the point is, Michael, you don't engratiate yourself with an already unfriendly crowd, by coming into their house and pissing in their punch bowl.

Just sayin' pardner.

Taking Some Flack on my **gasp** criticism of Michaelle Jean and Adrienne Clarkson

David Johnston..

Clearly not qualified to be Governor General

Last week I posted that I thought the selection of David Johnson as Governor General was a good pick by Stephen Harper.  A pick of maturity - putting someone who has some demonstrated ability into that post - not simply a partisan hack and certainly not just "arm candy".

And that's when the critics came out.

You see, by suggesting that the previous appointments of Adrienne Clarkson and Michaelle Jean were made for the cynical reason of appeasing minorities and women, apparently that makes me sexist and racist.

Problem is, I'm right.

There was nothing, really, to recommend either previous appointment, other than their so-called ability to communicate on camera.

Michaelle Jean.

Her work history, before she become Governor General was this:

Jean became a reporter and broadcaster for Radio-Canada in 1988, hosting news and affairs programmes such as Actuel, Montréal ce soir, Virages, and Le Point. She then moved in 1995 to Réseau de l'information (RDI), Radio-Canada's all-news channel, in order to anchor Le Monde ce soir, l'Édition québécoise, Horizons francophones, Les Grands reportages, Le Journal RDI, and RDI à l'écoute. Four years later, she went to CBC to host The Passionate Eye and Rough Cuts. In 2004, she began to host her own show, Michaëlle, while continuing to anchor RDI's Grands reportages, as well as acting occasionally as anchor of Le Téléjournal.

She was a media personality in perhaps one of the most deficient and unaccountable media outlets in the Western World.

Where mediocrity rules.

This, apparently, made her "qualified" to be Governor General.

Ok.

So - she was a woman, of color.

And THAT makes her appropriate for the role? Well, I suppose she fit the shoes of her predecessor beautifully.

Adrienne Clarkson basically was Michaelle Jean, version 1. Another talking head on CBC - though at least Andrienne branched out and wrote romance novels.. and a book about marriage (ironically leading to her own divorce).

We don't honor women and people of color by expecting less.

You cannot tell me that we didn't have women with greater talent and greater ability than these two.

They were appointed because of their modest profile in Canada.

Their appointment, really, was an insult to women - because, at the end of the day, what the appointments suggested is that women just need to be able to look good on camera.
 
I happen to think women are about more than their appearance.
 
I guess that makes me sexist.
 

Omar Khadr: "Murder" and How Long is Enough?

Well.

Midstream in the sideshow of Omar Khadr and his trial, he has decided to fire his lawyer - a man who has been tirelessly advocating for him, who has taken perhaps one of the most thankless jobs in the United States of America.

I say, good for Lieutenant-Colonel Jon Jackson.

Oh.

And today is also the deadline for Stephen Harper to respond to the "demand" of the Supreme Court of Canada by detailing what efforts may be taken to "remedy the aborgation of (Omar's) rights they allege the government caused."

And it all raises and interesting and troubling question that is bigger than Omar Khadr.

Namely, assuming he did what they alleged he did - which is murder another human being - how long is enough time for him to serve?  Some commenters have assumed that others in Omar's shoes would have been released already if they were in a civilian court.

However  - such is not necessarily the case.

In Canada, the maximum sentence for murder my a youth is 10 years.

Omar Khadr has now been in jail for 8 years. 

If the Supreme Court of Canada has it's way, no doubt, Omar would be back in Toronto and on the streets today.

The problem is, Omar is in the United States of America.

In the United States, ignoring the special circumstances of Omar's case, there are 2,500 other persons who are actually serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes committed while they were under 18 years of age.

So.

He's being tried in the U.S.

He's a Canadian citizen.

Who's right?

Personally..  I'm not in too big a hurry to have Omar back in Canada.  He and his family turned their backs on Canada's commitment to acceptance of others and to peace.  Obviously, the Khadr family found that unacceptable and preferred to pursue a philosophy based upon "might is right".

So.. in a weird way, Omar got what he wanted. 

Rest well Omar in U.S. custody. 

Hopefully for a long time to come.