A Must Read

This is a great article about the effects of turning law-abiding citizens into criminals.

As a gun owner I suppose that I am just biased but for the life of me I cannot understand the logic of those who think we will be safer with an unarmed citizenry.

This Stuff Just Drives Me Batty

I was sick of the US presidential campaign several weeks ago but the list of annoying tactics by anti-Bush folks keeps growing and it totally freaks me out.

First off, The Drudge Report has been hijacked and replaced with a parody site complete with a lot of typical lefty complaints (archive here). The US is fascist. Osama is an American stoodge. Idiots.

I've also received a bunch of scam email from a group running a website caled www.yesbushcan.com The first email claimed that they had documents and they wanted people's help in proving that they were fake. Then from the same group I received:

A week ago, we sent you an email asking for help debunking anti-Bush documents. After receiving hundreds of responses, it become clear that all the documents were actually real: the Bush/Cheney DUIs, the Ken Lay letters, and even the bin Laden memo.

...

We also received hundreds of emails from concerned bloggers that eloquently expressed the problems with the Bush administration. And as we traveled across America campaigning for Bush, we learned more than we wanted to know about Bush's policies. We came to see that this administration is a catastrophe for most people.

As a result, we are abandoning our support of Bush and officially endorsing John Kerry for President.

Can you believe this shit. I can't get over how the left continuously claim that everyone is against them. The CIA. The media. Nazi-republicans. I used to think that I just had disagreements with folks that I'ld consider 'lefty'. Now I'm more and more starting to think that they are simply paranoid and/or delusional.

You people are sad. I have received nothing like this from anyone supporting George Bush. None. Only one side seems to be resorting to these tactics. It also seems that they also support John Kerry.

The left is continuing down the same well worn path first walked by Lenin, Stalin, and all those that supported them. Anything to win. At any cost.

Whatever.

PS: Did you notice my witty little Halloween reference in the title to this post? Happy Halloween everyone!

Illusions

Rebecca Hagelin writes:

He was a brutal dictator, a crazed man, the personification of evil.

He massacred, brutalized, tortured and mutilated more people than you and I will ever meet in our lifetime. His victims were political opponents, people of faith, average citizens on the street, innocent men, women and children. He victimized anyone he chose to -- for any reason.

He invaded neighboring countries, raping and murdering along the way. He threatened to destroy others.

He was, himself, a weapon of mass destruction.

The world began to notice his atrocities. Decent people in many countries said it was time to stop the madman.

Yet, many liberal religious leaders in America said that to intervene would be a mistake -- to confront a madman in another land would be wrong.

Take for instance, the arguments of Ernest Fremont Tittle of the Methodist World Peace Commission:

In a world that is suffering from injustice piled upon injustice, the immediate overcoming of evil may be impossible. There may be no escape from the wages of sin. The question then is, what course, if faithfully followed, would eventually lead to a better state of affairs? War, I am convinced, is not the answer. War can overcome a dictator; it cannot rid the world of dictatorship. It can stop an aggressor; it cannot put an end to aggression. On the contrary, it can only provide new soil for the growth of dictatorship and aggression.

When America and her allies finally did defeat the madman, instability filled the region. While the victims rejoiced at being free, those who supported the madman created havoc and mayhem. The religious leaders shook their heads at the "liberation," pointing to the mayhem as proof they had been right.

Yet, in the months that followed the liberation, mass graves containing the beaten and starved bodies of civilians were found. Torture chambers were discovered. Diaries and records of unspeakable atrocities against the innocent surfaced. Horrific stories of brutality from survivors struck the hearts of even the hardest of men.

Eventually the world began to ask, "Why didn't we intervene sooner? Why did we let evil reign for so long?"

Who was this madman? Hitler.

We still ask ourselves, "Why didn't we intervene sooner?"

The left always claims to care about the suffering of others. How many people will they let die in order that they prove their point?

Or alternatively: Is avoiding war more important than saving lives? A pacifist would believe so and their position would be valid since they are, or course, pacifists. The 'left' in general are not pacifists so my question is valid.

Terror Video

Well the terror video that ABC was trying to hold back until after the election has been released. You can see it here.

These terrorists are just as confused as Democrats are. First he goes on about decades of oppression and tyrany. He blames the US of course. Then he proceeds to blame Bush and Cheney for all the conflict. I guess no one expected any of these guys to be masters of logic but they could at least try couldn't they?

At least we know where they get their talking points. Democrats/leftists/Europeans blame G.W. Bush for all the problems between the US and the Arab world but every time one of these idiots goes on tape they always refer to decades of suffering at the hands of the US. Either that or the reconquest of Spain 500 freaking years ago.

Anyways, vote Kerry. Azzam the American would!

And My Vote Goes To...

I was reading David Warren's Letter to USA, III and he makes a good point:

So let me say this to any moderate, mainstream, swing-vote, American readers I may have. The people who hate you are telling you to vote for Kerry and Edwards. I love you, and I say: Vote for Bush!

Now anyone who has read my posts over the months knows who I'd want the average American to vote for. But I'm not going to say it. If any American out there gives a damn about what I think of their election they are crazy. Perhaps very wise... nope, crazy will do.

On a related note I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that The Globe And Mail endorses Kerry/Edwards. First off, why write an editorial stating the obvious? Second, how many dozens of pages would the rag dedicate to a 'bug out session' if American papers starting endorcing candidates in one of our elections? They'd have polls, 'man on the street' interviews, etc... I was bitter when Bono and Michael Moore came up here and told us how to vote. The nerve!

Anyways, will it be the end of the world if Kerry/Edwards wins? No. Will it be the end of the world if Bush/Cheney wins? Contrary to what 48% of Americans and 98% of non-Americans think... once again no.

History moves on and no matter who sleeps in the White House, Islamic Fascism will have to be confronted. Either now or in the near future. History does not care in the least who is the American President or what the average European thinks. History marchs on. Relentlessly.

Anyone who has given any thought to the matter knows that Kerry/Edwards are not serious about confronting the issue. This is not a complaint on my behalf, just a statement of fact. And though I dread the thought, I can understand how people would want to drift back to the 'decade that history forgot'. The war is not real to them. And why exactly should it be any different?

If a majority of the American public choose to not deal with the problem then the world will be forced to deal with it again sometime in the future. America chooses. Today or tomorrow. And if Americans decide that they have had enough then so be it. It is their choice to make.

I just hope that as Americans you accept the fact that history has put a huge hurdle in front of your country. America is the giant. And no matter what your intentions there will be people who will condemn everything you are or do. You either choose to deal with these people now or you will be forced to deal with them later. The choice is yours.

I'll simply end with a bit of a speech Tony Blair gave to the American people:

We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind--black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different--to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.

That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.

And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go...

I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happy, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me? And why us? And why America?"

And the only answer is, "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."

Islamic Fascism will not be brought down with conferences, condemnations, or harsh words. I just hope it is confronted during my lifetime and not that of my children. I don't want my children to have to hear these same words spoken by a different British Prime Minister.

I end with:

Thomas Paine: "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my children may have peace."

John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Vote your heart.

Only The UN?

Every time I hear someone fret about the future of Afganistan and Iraq they always imply that only the UN can provide the framework for a safe and prosperous future. The US blew it! Of course since Afganistan's recent election went better than anyone could have dreamed the story has kind of fallen off of the radar screen.

But since it hasn't happened yet, Iraq's upcoming election is still something that people can use to beat the US over the head with. According to Kofi Annan and all his fellow travellers only he and his cronies can make the Iraqi elections legitimate. Given the UNs track record though I can't figure out how Kofi's brain doesn't bleed when he gets in front of a camera to explain to us how only the UN can make the Iraqi elections legitimate.

Contrary to what 'the left' would have us believe the UN's track record when it comes to implementing elections is atrocious. Could any of you UN apologists out there explain to me how the UNs record in this regard is better than that of the US?

I just can't for the life of me understand how Iraq would be better off with more UN involvement. The UN were willing accomplices with the regime of Saddam Hussein in the decade long rape of Iraq beginning in 1991. Why do some people think the UN would truely be able to help the country now?

[Via Best Of The Web Today]

Reasons Why Our Government Makes Me Sick #2

This requires no explaination.

[Via Nealenews]

They Have No Idea

These boneheads have no idea what is in store for them.

If I knew the Black Watch was coming after me I'ld dig a very deep hole. That way I'ld be sure my feet weren't sticking out when they bury my ass.

New Life

I was watching a video over at Protest Warrior today where some guys went to a 'morning' show holding a bunch of signs reading 'Don't Believe The Liberal Media'. The one thing I noticed was that whenever the camera was on them the sign shot up in the air. For some reason I found it totally comical cause it was always on cue.

This somehow got me to wondering about how the Internet has given new breath to the conservative cause. Most people think that the Internet has allowed conversatives to network and work out new policies and beliefs. That is certainly true but I think they are overlooking the most important contribution the Internet has made to conservatives. That contribution is that conservatives, at least in the US, are now funnier than liberals.

Perhaps I am too young to remember politics before the Internet but I do remember how conservatives were thought to be boring, prudish, and stuck-up. That is definitely not the case anymore. Liberals and their ideas are NOT funny nor are they open to compromise.

Look at the last few Presidents that Republicans and Democrats have elected. Clinton was not funny. John Kerry and Al Gore are not funny. They try. My God do they try, but did any of them ever say anything that was off the cuff and had you splitting your sides? They haven't. I'm not sure if that is because they take themselves too seriously or if they've been taken in by the politically correct mindset that they are too afraid to say anything controversial.

Why the difference? Tough to say I guess but I think it has something to do with how liberal ideas have become calcified and stale. There is no discussion on their end. They peddle fear and jealousy. Conservatives only care about the rich. They are racist. They hate women.

Well I'm not rich. I have friends of numerous racial/cultural backgrounds. I'm married to a beautiful woman who I'd give my life for.

And yet I consider myself a conservative.

I also found myself reading a story about people who turned out for a GOP rally. The author noted the 'babes' and all the young folks who came out in support of G.W. Bush. Polls in the US also show that the youth vote tilts Republican.

Why? I think it has a lot to do with humour. Liberals and their beliefs are under attack from the likes of cartoons and puppet shows. Liberals CANNOT make a movie like Team America: World Police.

I read liberal blogs all day and I rarely find much to laugh at. Their stupidity perhaps. Not much else.

So my advise to conservatives, especially Canadian conservatives is: laugh at yourselves. Most of all: laugh at liberals. The simple fact is that preaching the end of the world is not going to win votes and no amount of complaining is going to win an election.

The Liberals won the last Canadian election for one simple reason. Fear. With all the strikes they had against them they still won by making people afraid of the CPC. Hate me for saying it but the simple fact is that most people don't pay much attention to politics. They have better things to do with their time. They vote with a minimum of understanding of the issues and on what their gut tells them.

Voters aren't afraid of politicians who are funny. Changing the gut feeling of the 'average joe' will make liberal fear tactics useless and self-defeating.

Learn the lesson guys.

As a closing note I'm sorry if this post is all over the map. After reading it I'm starting to think that it doesn't make any sense. My original thought still stands: the Internet has allowed American conservatives to become funnier and more diverse than their liberal counterparts.

Update @ 10:43am

This article by David Gelernter touches on this topic.

Awesome

Did I ever mention that Victor Davis Hanson is brilliant? I really don't know how to put into words how simple, consise, and profound his writing is.

His latest piece What Would Patton Say About The Present War? is an adaptation of a lecture he gave back in June. In it he attempts to assertain what George Patton, the famous WWII general, would have to say about the War On Terror. He ends his lecture with:

Finally, like Thucydides, Patton appreciated that the emotions that sophisticated people sometimes think are so unimportant—such as fear, pride, and honor—in fact are what drive us humans, and therefore must be addressed in any total war. We chuckle at his attention to dress, protocol, medals, speeches, and theatrics; but this obsession was not vanity as much as acceptance that soldiers are proud and sensitive beings, and must be rewarded and punished in visible ways, war being the essence of human emotion. By the same token, military operations are more than just ground taken and held, but powerfully symbolic, conveying to third-parties either hope or dejection when they see armies routed from the battlefield.

Today, millions in the Islamic world are watching the West struggle against Islamic fascism. Perhaps deep down inside they prefer, logically and with some idealism, to live under Western-style freedom and democratic auspices. And yet nationalism, pride, religion, and ethnic solidarity war with reason, combining to produce far greater resentment against a powerful, Western America, even when it brings the very freedom that the Arabs for decades have said they wished. A modern Patton would not be bothered by such inconsistency, but rather have made sure that he had not only defeated the terrorists and their supporters, but had done so in such damaging fashion that none in the Middle East might find such a repugnant cause at all romantic, bringing as it did utter ruin as the wage of the wrath of the United States.

Patton, who was both learned and yet not smug about the power of the primordial emotions, understood perfectly the irrational nature of warfare, and the effect that utter defeat or glorious victory have upon an otherwise rational people. No wonder he hated war defined as a purely bureaucratic enterprise or a purely material and industrial challenge, inasmuch as neither can change the hearts of men that need to be changed, usually increase the body count, and rarely lead to lasting peace. We should remember wild-eyed George Patton in our Fallujahs to come.

As always go and read the whole thing.

How The Left Wins An Argument

Via Captain's Quarters we find The Daily Recycler who gives us this example of how the left presents it's case against Paul O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans.

All Democrats should be ashamed of how they have and how they continue to treat these men.

Can Someone Please Explain This

What the heck is up with Jesse?


[Via Nealenews]

Update @ 7:00pm

Does the fact that he has apparently lost his sanity in any way explain his endorsement of John Kerry?

Joy Oh Joy

Well environmentalists around the world are all giddy now that Russia has passed into law the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

For anyone out there who actually thinks the Kyoto Protocal will make any difference whatsoever to our environment over the next 100 years please answer me one question: Do you actually think Russia will live up to it's obligations under the protocol?

Also under the protocol, leading industrial nations are required to cut their emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Which countries if any will fulfill this obligation?

My answers to these questions would be nope and none. I feel very confident that in time I'll be proven right.

Coordinates Anyone?

From littlegreenfootballs we have a link to a video of Magdi Ahmad Hussein who is a member of an Islamist political party in Egypt.

This guy is totally messed up and as far as I'm concerned should be a legitimate target in the War on Terror. If he wants to go on a tirade like this then fine. I just hope he doesn't complain to me when a cruise missle comes through his livingroom window and interrupts the lastest episode of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.

Way To Much Time On Their Hands

I've always felt that an organization that produces alot of feel good and frivolous fluff probably has more employees than it actually needs. This more often than not can be best seen in government run programs.

The latest example I can come up with concerning this is how the Royal Canadian Mint produces more stinking commemorative coins than I could ever keep track of. It seems to me that the mint has so many employees that many of them have nothing to do but dream up ideas for new coins. Let me ask you this: When was the last time that you pulled a bunch of quarters out of your pocket and managed to find two that were the same? Anyways.

I especially get burned by things like the new commemorative coin with the red poppy painted on one side. The coin is supposed to pay homage to our war veterans. John McCallum says:

We owe our veterans a debt we can never repay and the Mint is to be congratulated for having the technical ingenuity to produce a coloured coin.

...

This will serve to remind all Canadians every day of the importance of supporting the Legion's Poppy and Remembrance Campaign.

You gotta love Canada. Not only do we have the 'technical ingenuity' to put paint on metal, but this is how our Veteran Affairs Minister shows our gratitude to those who gave their lives for us.

Mr. McCallum if you want to help repay the 'debt we can never repay' how about trying some of these:

- Properly fund our military.
- Provide our troops equipment which doesn't put their lives at risk. See here and here.
- Provide basic equipment to our current troops.
- Have a Veterans Affairs Minister than can tell the difference between Vimy Ridge, one of our nations most defining moments, and Vichy France which was the French government that collaborated with the Nazis. This means you Mr. McCallum.
- Have a Prime Minister that has the slightest understanding of Canadian military history.

Nothing annoys me more than to have politicians give hollow political gestures and then tell us how these gestures show how much they care. I honestly don't think our Liberal government could care less about our military. I could be wrong. I don't think I am. But I could be.

This Weeks Poll Question

In lieu of putting the weekly poll on the sidebar I've decided it is much easier for myself just to ask the question in a post and to let people discuss/vote in the comments. Updating the blogspot template is a pain since I have to modify the code for the poll to match canadiancomment's layout.

So anyways here is this weeks poll question:

How many of his own people would a dictator/tyrant have to kill before you supported another country's desire to remove the dictator/tyrant from power using military force?

Valid answers to the question can range from 1 to infinity (i.e. never under any circumstances).

I think people rationalizing their answer to this question is probably the most interesting aspect of it.

Get The Goods

The latest edition of the Red Ensign Standard can be found at myrick.

Positive proof that the resistance lives on!

Reasons Why Our Government Makes Me Sick #1

I think I'm going to make my complaints about our federal government a recurring item here at canadiancomment.

Starting at #1 we have KATELAND_62 over at The Last Amazon pointing out to us that our tax dollars are being used to produce hate literature for Palestinian school children. The original story from Frontpage Magazine tells us:

However, Palestinian children learn from their new schoolbooks that the Palestinian Arab entity is the sovereign state in the region, encompassing Israeli regions, cities and sites which are presented as part of the Palestinian Arab State. Israeli territory is referred to as “the lands of 1948” or “the Green Line”

The new Palestinian school books describe the Middle East conflict as “a confrontation between “Zionism backed by Imperialism” – and its victims – the Palestinians. Not one word is mentioned in these new textbooks about the UN Partition Resolution of 1947 or about the invasion of the nascent state of Israel by seven Arab nations on the day of Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.

And how do the new textbooks of the Palestinian Authority explain the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem in 1948 to a new generation of Palestinian Youth? As nothing less than the “outcome of a premeditated plan by Zionism and British Imperialism to expel the Palestinian Arabs from their land”.

KATELAND_62 decided to check out the Canadian International Developement Agency website (the agency that provided the funding for the textbooks) and found this noble mission statement:

Reflecting Canadian Values: Canada's role in the world—including CIDA's work in the West Bank and Gaza—reflects the Canadian values of a free and open society that respects and celebrates its diversity, and strives for the universal realization of human rights and a high standard of living for all.

Let's just say that I am not amused to know my tax dollars are used to fund this stuff. Hello Canada? Any concerns?

I Had To Do It

Sometimes an article just seems so petty and stupid that I just can't let it go. Garth Woolsey's blast about Don Cherry being in the CBC's The Ten Greatest Canadians contest was certainly one such article. Would I consider Cherry the greatest Canadian of all time? Not likely. World I vote for him just to piss off the suits over at the CBC. Damn right.

Anyways I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Star to let off some steam. Here goes:

Dear Editor:

Garth Woolsey's article 'Cherry among ten greatest Canadians?' was a bit on the harsh side don't you think? If I didn't have any more common sense I'ld consider filing a complaint with the CRTC about Woolsey's comments. Since he seems to take such great offense at Don Cherry's 'outrageous and often insensitive comments' I would suggest that Woolsey refrain from calling Canadians 'a nation of shallow, narrow-minded, beer-swilling, puck-chasing hosers'.

That comment was highly insensitive and as a Canadian the CRTC should make it a priority that I not be exposed to such slander.

But on a more serious note I'ld just like to mention that Cherry recently opened the Rose Cherry Home For Kids. It appears that the construction workers refused their pay out of respect for Cherry and his work. I'm curious to know if those construction workers are the 'shallow, narrow-minded, beer-swilling, puck-chasing hosers' Woolsey was referring to?

Regards.

It seems like a valid question.

I Ditto What Bob Said

As Bob mentioned a few posts back he and I are not exactly fans of the United Nations. Our reasons may vary but in general I think it is quite possibly the greatest force for evil in the world today. Bob can agree or disagree if he wishes.

Anyways, today I was looking for something to totally ruin my day so I decided to head to the United Nations website. I was especially happy to see that the UN now greets it's visitors with the motto 'Welcome to the UN. It's your world.' Gee thanks. Often mottos don't make any sense when promoting products but I'm not quite sure what 'It's your world' is supposed to mean in this case.

They even have a link to a section called Secretary-General: Off the Cuff. Here is Kofi 'on the fly':

I think, let me put it this way, the Prime Minister indicated that the elections and the stabilization of Iraq will be in the interest of the Iraqis and the UK government. I would go further; I would say that attempts to stabilize Iraq will be in the interest of the entire international community. And that's why I've indicated that any government with capacity and ability to help should do what they can to help stabilize Iraq so that they can get on with their lives. And I indicated that security is absolutely essential for us to carry on reconstruction and all the wonderful plans we have for Iraq.

...

Obviously, the more countries that participate in these operations, the stronger the message that goes out that the whole international community is engaged and agreed on the project. But of course it is up to individual governments to decide when to participate or not to participate in these operations. But I would hope more governments would – for example, we tried to raise a brigade to protect UN [civilians in Iraq]; we haven't done very well. And it's the same governments who are asking me to send in my civilian staff who are not going to give any troops to protect them.

Oh Sweet Jesus! I can't believe that my tax dollars have indirectly paid for the webserver that hosts this stuff. Off the cuff! I am quite speechless. I also like how the title to this drivel is 'Secretary-General's press encounter with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair'. A 'press encounter'? What the hell is that? It makes it sound like that they double booked the conference room at the Marriott.

One last thing that I'll link to is this article New head of UN anti-terrorism office outlines comprehensive battle plan. A battle plan from the UN? Are they serious? In the article they refer to terrorism as 'the scourge'. Pretty tough languange but considering that the UN can't even define what a terrorist is I guess we should take it with a grain of salt. After all those guys who blow up babies and women on buses and at public markets have perfectly reasonable reasons to do what they do. Don't they? Oh never mind.

OCCAM Does The Law

From OCCAM'S CARBUNCLE we have this classic quote concerning modern Canadian law:

...

Not that we already had ancient common law doctrines or aspects of the criminal law to deal with rogue pets and their owners. The Liberals have the unique faculty of seeing every issue through the prism of the last five minutes or so.

Right on.

As well, what exactly is a 'carbuncle' anyways? Please tell me it isn't some sort of phallic reference.

Just Doing Their Jobs

[Via Belmont Club]

Canadian soldiers serving in Kabul discovered a old Soviet ammunition dump just outside of Camp Julien. From the story:

"These bunkers have been known for two years but no one bothered to check them," said Maj. Hynes.

"To me, that's incompetence."

"To me it's criminal," said Sgt. Power, who works with the major in training the ANA.

I've never seen anything like it. The feeling is that AMF soldiers were selling access to the dump or permitting friends to enter it.

Littered with burned out Soviet military vehicles, the whole area is a junk pile strewn with every sort of live ammunition, fuses, unexploded shells, rockets, etc., all supposedly under the authority of Belgian troops (at the moment), who ignored it.

In the midst of examining the bunkers and taking photos, a Swedish UN guy, a French major and a German colonel arrived to make a fuss and order the Canadians to leave. The French major insisted his government had a deal with the Afghan government for the area, and ISAF had no business being there.

This cut little ice with Maj. Hynes, who is responsible -- not to the commander of Camp Julien, Col. Jim Ellis -- but to the ANA, which has now moved in to secure the site.

The French major was clearly bluffing, hadn't checked the bunkers and got a classic Canadian roasting from Maj. Hynes -- who was supported by a German general who was also appalled at the laxity.

"Now we've stirred up the hornet's nest," grinned Maj. Hynes. "Good. Now we may get some action."

"I feel foolish that for eight days we've been watching our front, when at our back all this was going on and nobody cared," said Sgt. Mazerolle.

Is it just me or does it seem that everytime we hear of military personal from France, Germany, or Sweden that they are in some manner covering their asses from some scam or screw-up? Sergeant Mike Mazerolle and Major Hynes have potentially saved many lives. At the very least they have put an end to some shadey dealings.

As they suggest over at Belmont Club:

Somehow I think someone missed the point. There is probably some perfectly plausible reason why a Swedish UN functionary, a French major and a German Colonel -- one civilian, two officers, three nationalities, none of who would be in the same chain of command -- should show up at precisely the moment a Canadian officer discovers a large number of surface to surface missiles lying around unguarded, but it escapes me.

Very good question.

Update @ 7:59pm:

Dennis over at Counterfactual points out that some members of the Canadian Forces think Peter Worthington has, as a minimum, stretched the truth on this story. One individual indicates that some of Worthington's details are most definintely wrong but that there is 'far more' to this than has been reported. Hmmm...

Them's Fighting Words...

Send in the subs!

[Via Nealenews]

Human Rights Again

In a previous post I complained about the lack of distinctions people now make between what is a 'right' and what is an 'obligation'.

Roger Scruton in a piece for The Spectator nicely sums up my concerns from a British standpoint:

Under the influence of socialist planning and statist theories of the law, another idea of rights has been imported into modern systems of justice — the idea of rights not as freedoms but as claims. My right to something, in this view, is not a freedom that others must respect, but a claim that they must fulfil. Of course, rights in contract and tort are like this. But that is because they arise from positive relations between people — relations which create those rights from the raw stuff of human action, but which do not create them universally, for the very reason that they arise from the history of the particular case. To suppose that there are ‘natural’ and therefore ‘human’ rights which are also claims against others is to make a large and dangerous assumption, one that would certainly not have been upheld by Locke or Kant or the founding fathers of the American constitution. To think of human rights in this way is to fill the world with vague and unfulfillable obligations, and therefore with vast and irresoluble conflicts.

I appreciate how he describes these changes and how they lead to 'vast and irresoluble conflicts'. Conflict is what I am concerned about. Once a group of people feel that others are not doing enough to ensure their rights are being fulfilled they are likely to become angry and possibly violent.

This only makes sense. If I feel that I am entitled to be paid by my employer for work performed I am liable to be upset if they decide they have better things to do with their money. I think most people would agree that I would be justified in being upset.

So what happens when the majority of people begin to think that their rights are dependent on a minority that can financially provide them? How many 'rights' will be created before those who provide them are crushed under the burden? What happens as a result?

Do the 'providers' become violent in frustration or do the beneficiaries when their 'rights' begin to go unfulfilled?

O'Rourke Gives G.W. Pointers

P.J. is giving talking points to G.W. Bush for his campaign. My favourites:

(7) You say that we won the war, but we're losing the peace because Iraq is so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq?

(10) You say I didn't have a plan for the post-war problem of Iraq? I say we blew the place to bits--what's the problem?

(11) Yes, blowing a place to bits leaves a mess behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars. A mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons. A mess that can't systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its own citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us!

(12) Saddam Hussein was reduced to the Unabomber--Ted Kaczynski--a nutcase hiding in the sticks. Sure, the terrorism by his supporters is frightening. Hence, its name, "terrorism." Killing innocent people by surprise is not called "a thousand points of light." But, as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. The minute somebody sets off a suicide bomb, you can be sure that person doesn't have "career prospects." And no matter how horrendous a terrorist attack is, it's still conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force.

(15) Senator Kerry, you say you were in favor of threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using force was wrong. The technical term for this in political science is "bullshit."

Indeed.

Damn Europeans

Damn Europeans! I don't mean all of them but by God it seems like a lot of them have come off of their hinges. Today we have Steyn writing in the Irish times about Europeans misconceptions about the US. Over at The Shape of Days we have a required fisking of a Markos Zuniga column in The Guardian. And to end off we have this column by Carol Gould over at Frontpage Magazine. Gould starts off with:

Here is the background scenario: Exactly one month ago today, I was traveling on a London bus when a well-dressed woman boarded with her equally-respectable son in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, ‘I beg your pardon, I didn’t mean to bang into you.’ This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman -- let’s call her Lady E -- that resembled a verbal assault by a brownshirt against a hapless Jewish pedestrian in 1933. The American -- call her Mrs. A -- sat down and cowered as the tirade continued: ‘I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people all deserve to die in another 9/11. You are destroying the world.’ Mrs A fought back: ‘I personally am NOT destroying the world.’ This only provoked Lady E more, and as the bus driver and passengers laughed, she screamed into the American’s face ‘I wish every one of you would leave this country and not set foot in it ever again,’ and Mrs A began to wince, crying. ‘Thank you for ruining my day and my trip.’ At this point Lady E lunged at the American and began to shake her. I jumped up and shouted at the top of my voice for the driver to stop and for her to leave the woman alone, prompting Lady E to come over to me and grab me. ‘Another bloody American accent! You come here and think you can strut about, well, you are scum.’ Thankfully, the woman next to me pushed her away. I left the bus as the American woman sat sobbing.

Did I imagine this? No. Was the Englishwoman a crazy? No.

A few weeks before, I had attended a party at which I was lambasted, intimidated and mocked by a group of people I had known for some twenty-odd years. It reminded me of a comment made to me by an American expatriate shortly after 9/11: ‘Now I know what the Jews felt like in pre-war Germany.’

Frankly, I don’t like what is happening in Britain and am shocked and dismayed at the level to which anti-Americanism has peaked in recent months. Does anyone say ‘George W Bush’ or ‘Donald Rumsfeld’ or Dick Cheney’ when they fly into these tirades? No. In fact, the visceral, hurtful and in-your-face America-hatred goes back long before the days of the Bush 43 regime. When Bill Clinton was in the White House I attended a Human Rights Conference at my local synagogue in St John’s Wood. During the tea break I asked a man at one of the booths for a leaflet. Instead of welcoming me and asking for a donation, he had detected my accent and duly launched into a loud and red-faced screeching session about the evils of the American Empire and of the ‘Naziism’ and ‘Fascism’ promulgated by the United States. A black man came over and began shouting about America having ‘invented slavery’ and soon a delicate elderly lady joined the fray to bellow about the Zionists running America (did she mean Robert Rubin, Dennis Ross, Sandy Berger -- after all, it was the pre-Wolfowitz/Perle time zone) and the ‘genocides’ perpetrated by Americans since the days of William Penn. I remember wondering why I had ventured out on a Sunday to be with like-minded people concerned about human rights issues, only to be reduced to a gibbering jelly as the ugly, strident and deeply uncivil crowd soon grew around me. (Remember what it was like being surrounded in the school playground at recess by all the bullies?) The English are not known for public displays of fury except perhaps at soccer matches, but there is something about an American accent that brings out their pent-up rage.

There are many days now where I simply can't stand to read what passes for commentary. I used to love the Internet because it allowed me to find thought provoking columns from all viewpoints making me think in ways I never had before.

And yet for the last several months I find that I actually dread my daily search for reading material. I have always tried to find material from both the left and right viewpoints. As you can guess I tend to agree with views from the right but not to long ago there was a time that I could read views from the left and feel better for doing it. I learned a bit and as a minimum I gained an understanding of how the mind of the left works.

And today... I just feel like I can't do it anymore.

As an example let's compare the writings of Glenn Reynolds and Markos Moulitsas being published at The Guardian.

Notice that Glenn doesn't need to use phrases such as 'bastion of rightwing lunacy', 'Rightwing Noise Machine', and 'mindless drones'. He doesn't have to because that doesn't appear to be his intent. His first article tried to explain to his readers 'the American South'. He didn't do it in glowing terms, just a calm and simple discription of how he see's the American electorate. His second article simply tries to correct European views of what an American conservative is. He mentions Hillary Clinton without insulting her. Disagree with him if you wish but you would be hard pressed to find his tone angry, condescending, or rude.

Markos on the other hand writes in a totally different tone. His first article (The Shape of Days fisking here) complains about rightwing control of the American media. Really. Even though every poll of journalists in American shows a astonding amount of support for liberal causes/candidates/positions. Irrelevent I guess. He also goes on to explain how Al Gore was the victim of character assasination by the rightwing media. And I guess G.W. Bush has gotten a total pass? No Bush=Hitler commericals? Irrelevent. He then proceeds to tell us how important his blog is and how it reaches so many people. In fact it gets double the number of hits that FoxNews.com receives. This seems to be totally contradictory to his statements about rightwing control of the public discourse but that either doesn't fit into his equation or it isn't relevent.

His second article (The Shape of Days fisking here) is totally one sided brushing off leftwing actions while condemning rightwing actions. Highjacking conference calls, flooding online polls, and sending preformed letters to newspapers. It's all OK I guess if you are from the proper political persuasion.

His third article (The Shape of Days fisking here) proceeds to tell us how angry G.W. Bush is. Once again, Bush is all bad while Kerry is a steady alternative. None of this is news of course. Markos is just preaching to the choir ensuring they hear what they want to hear.

Markos offers nothing to a European reader that they don't already have. Republicans are evil, stupid, and corrupt. Anger and nothing else. Glen, as far as I'm concerned, tries to provide a window into the American mind.

So what am I to do. I can't read such hateful stuff. Steyn may be rude at times but at least he tries to be funny. The left makes no attempt at humour. They are angry and they want us to know it.

I just can't read it anymore.

Its Not Everyday...

... that I am in total agreement with a columnist of the Toronto Star. Slinger (What ever happened to first AND last names?) agrees with me that the 'Canadian Tire Guy' deserves to be punished for his holier-than-thou attitude. As Slinger (there's that stupid ass'd name again) says:

If that guy from the Canadian Tire commercials shows up while you're doing something really tricky around the house like building stairs so you don't have to shinny up a rope to get to the second floor and you don't have the tools you need to do it — all you have is a piece of sandpaper — and he smirks and goes and gets the right tool, which he just happens to have — "This'll do the trick" — it's okay to punch him in the mouth. The supercilious bastard. It's time somebody did.

Anyways, I have to say that I spend many a happy weekend hanging out at Canadian Tire. Yes hanging out. It rocks. But I swear the next time I come to the head of an isle and I see that stupid smirk of the 'Canadian Tire Guy' on some stupid video stuck on repeat I swear to God that the TV and everything in the isle is going to be torn to pieces by me and one of those cordless tablesaw/toothbrush/drill combo's the 'Canadian Tire Guy' is so proud of.

The Low Bandwidth Version

Well my internet provider is shutting down and I'll be out of a webserver to store the graphics and style sheet used for canadiancomment. I don't know when service will be terminated but when it is, canadiancomment may start looking really funky.

I am in the process of setting up a high speed service here at the new house but because we are out of the city it may take awhile. Due to work I need high speed access for both uploads and downloads so I'm going to have to go with a point-to-point radio link from Storm Internet. This requires a site survery, antenna installation, blah blah blah... Hopefully I can be up and running within a week or two. Since we moved I've been running on a 56k dialup and it hurts. Once you go to high speed anything less feels like you're been thrown back into the stone age.

Anyways, hopefully canadiancomment won't be affected by any of this but I can't make any promises.

I've heard alot of good things about Storm Internet but if any of you know of any weak spots they may have let me know.

Later.

Afganistan Begins It's Journey

On Saturday the spread of democracy continued as Afganistan held it's first election in decades. The vote was initially at risk due to problems with ink that was supposed to indicate that a person had already voted. Reports stated that the ink could be washed off which may have led to repeat voting.

Today though many of the candidates that were planning to boycott the election have backed down and agreed to allow a UN monitoring body to investigate. For those unfamiliar with Afganistan's recent history this in and of itself is a very promising developement. The candidates have submitted their authority to the popular will instead of to guns and intimidation.

So what does the future hold for Afganistan? Lord knows. But for a country that has been so traumatized over the last 30 years it seems that they have embraced the idea of democratic representation. Afganistan is, a probably will be for a very long time, a nomadic and tribal society. But five years ago no one would have been able to predict that an election would be held in Afganistan this weekend. And no one would have predicted that it would occur with as little violence and intimidation as has been reported.

So congratulations to all Afgani's. Your children and your grand-children will surely thank you for what you have done this weekend.

The Trans-Atlantic Divide

[Via National Review Online]

The New Criterion has a great article on European-US relations. Gulliver's travails: The U.S. in the post-Cold-War world provides some insight into European-American relations especially since 9-11. Good read.

[Via Nealenews]

Relating to European-American relations, Iraqi intelligence officials released documents that claims Saddam tried to bride his way out of the sanctions regime:

Saddam Hussein believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Pretty damning stuff. Add this to all of the corruption in the Iraqi oil-for-food program and we begin to have a damning portrait of the motives of France and the UN.

I wonder why this isn't worth some headlines at the CBC and BBC?

Oh I guess I am mistaken. I just found a BBC story about France denying any dealings with Saddam's regime. No real surprise there.

What Is A Person To Do?

Well I worked from home today and I was unlikely enough to watch the throne speech. Unlikely in the sense that I hate listening to politicians but watching them is like watching a car crash... I can't help but sneak a look. Sick. Politics too.

So listening to Addrien Clarkson read the speech made me throw up my hands in frustration. What is a person to do if they believe in a conservative/libertarian view of the world? The government is going to solve all of our problems. All of them. What can a person do if they want a government that for its throne speech says 'Most is pretty good. We'll stay out of your way. See you next year. Now go to'er.'

The government is going to create jobs for us. Gee thanks. They'll keep us healthy. Mighty appreciated. They'll solve all of our social problems. Good luck with that. They'll make the life of our native population wonderful and comfortable. Yeah just what they need. They'll save the environment. Hmmm... They'll put young people to work saving the world. Summer vacation... sweet. They'll help ensure peace throughtout the world. I've heard that one before.

I just want a government that let's people achieve their own potential. I don't want a government that treats us like children who require their good graces to get through life.

That's all.

Steyn On Conservativism

Mark Steyn gives us another classic on the strength of the 'conservative' world view. Some quotes:

But the way Kerry’s campaigning on cultural issues gives you the real clue to the dominant forces in American life: he talks up his Catholicism; on abortion, he says he ‘personally believes’ life begins at conception, it’s just that as a Democrat he can’t find it in him to legislate according to his principles; everywhere he goes he gets photographed brandishing guns, even guns that he, as an effete Massachusetts panty-waist, has voted to ban; he boasts to hunting magazines about his favourite assault rifle — at least until the legality of his ownership of such a weapon is called into question. This is how a big-government, anti-globalisation, socialised-healthcare, Francophiliac Democrat has to campaign in America: pro-guns, pro-God, deeply evasive on abortion. In almost any other Western nation, none of these things would matter.

...

The real divide is between the neocons (for want of a better term) and the ‘assertive nationalists’ — that’s to say, those who think we ought to bomb rogue states, smash their regimes and rebuild them as democratic societies, and those who think we ought to bomb rogue states, smash their regimes, and then leave them to stew in their own juices, with a reminder that if the next thug is foolish enough to catch Washington’s eye, then (as Arnie says) ‘Ah’ll be back!’ This difference can seem like a big deal — those who think we need to win their hearts and minds vs those who think they’re mostly heartless and mindless, so who cares? But in truth it’s only a difference of degree.

And the closer:

If I wasn’t a conservative before 9/11, I’d certainly be one now. On one side I see decayed, self-absorbed passivity: citizens reduced to junkies with government as the pusher. On the other stand the gun-crazies, the religious Right, the home-schoolers, the flat-taxers and all the rest: you don’t have to agree with them on everything to appreciate that, in a new war which not all of the West will survive, they have an advantage over the Swedes and Belgians. A self-reliant conservative citizenry is a better bet than the subjects of an overbearing state.

In which not all of the West will survive? Yikes. Steyn certainly anticipates the present war with Islamic Facism to be a long term conflict lasting decades. And for the most part I agree with him. Any form of totalitarianism ceases to exist only after it has been unquestionably defeated and discredited. I simply believe that 'the West', outside of conservative circles, doesn't have the stomach to apply this remedy. The alternative to the conservative position it to lay low, play defense, and hope this new form of totalitarianism burns itself out.

Who is right? Well only time will tell. History though suggests a betting man would put his money on the conservative position. People who oppose the conservative position have to convince me that either history is wrong or that this present conflict is profoundly different with past conflicts with totalitarians. I haven't been convinced yet.

The Debate That Wasn't

Well since everyone is telling us their opinions on the Kerry/Bush debate last night I might as well add my thoughts to the discourse.

So what did I think? Well let's just say that the key factor for me was that my satellite service changed the channel assignments the night before last. Why is that important? Well, about half an hour into the debate I found myself updating my channel lists with the new channels. Lame.

This was the sorriest excuse for a debate that I've ever seen. One and a half hours of free campaign time. So what did we find out last night? Well, G.W. isn't a good public speaker. Thanks. Kerry believes that his positions are consistent. Of course he does.

Anyways, from what I did see of the debate I would have to give the slightest of advantages to Kerry. He seemed to be on offence for most of the time I was tuned in. But I have to add that Lehrer seemed to throw Kerry nothing but softballs all night. His questions seemed to ensure that Bush was always responding to an accusation and on the defensive. Kerry on the other hand has been all over the map on many foreign policy issues and Lehrer's questions didn't force Kerry to respond to these inconsistencies.

So I can't say that I'm disappointed in the debate because the format pretty much insured it wouldn't amount to much. My expectations were low and they lived up to them. Good work guys.