Merry Christmas!

Well folks it's that time of year when I hit the road and return to the Motherland. Oh God please let it be warmer than Ottawa!

Anyways, I'll be on hiatus until January so before I left I thought I better wish you all a Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.

God bless.

The Problem With Canadian Conservatism

There has been a long running debate over the last decade trying to explain and resolve the problem with conservatism here in Canada. Greg Staples has been trying to stir the debate. As has Mark Steyn.

As Mark and Greg point out, conservatives in Canada can't come to terms with each other and create an agenda. Preston Manning was able to do this. Deficit reductions are his legacy. He framed the debate and never relented until his goals were met.

Who plays this role in conservative circles today? I like Stephen Harper as a politician but he does not fill this role. I'm not sure if that is because of a choice he has made or otherwise. That is another debate though.

Canadian conservatism needs to define a small set of goals and harp on them constantly until they are met. Canadian conservatism does nothing but complain about... everything. I personally consider myself to be conservative and I'll be the first to admit that we do nothing but complain. Read through the postings here at The Shotgun or any of the other Canadian conservative/libertarian sites and there is nothing but complaining. There is no plan.

Conservative politicians refuse to define the agenda and because of this get clobbered in the press galleries. Conservatives have allowed themselves to be defined as the 'radicals' when it comes to the gay-marriage debate. How is this possible? Radical for preferring the status-quo? This is a failure of Canadian conservatives and no one else.

So what is my solution to all of this? Simple... define 3 or 4 issues that must be addressed based on conservative/libertarian principles. All else is off the table. End of freaking story. And what if the national media doesn't want to discuss these 3 or 4 issues? Then take them to the local media. If you have 80 conservative MPs discussing an issue on their local news broadcasts it won't be long before it becomes a national concern.

So what should these 3 or 4 issues be. Well naturally I've got those too:

1) Lower taxes for the middle class.
2) A parallel private health care system.
3) Regional control over resources.

Why did I pick these? I picked them because I personally feel very strongly about them. But as well, I think these issues can be clearly defined so that they appeal to individual voters.

Go into any coffee shop and discuss these issues with people and you'll see what I mean. Ask them about the tax take on their last paycheck. What do you think their response will be? Huh? Ask Maritimers what they think of the federal governments involvement in the fisheries? Albertans and oil? Prairie folks and their farms? What kind of response will you get?

Ask people what they think knowing that only Canada and Cuba allow a government monopoly over health care. The response? Come on, this is easy.

Conservatives of all stripes, both politicians and average folk, need to force these issues onto the national agenda. Writing letters to newspapers. Politicians giving press conferences. Getting the issues in the local paper.

A non-stop marketing blitz pushed by thousands. Liberals do it. The NDP do it as well.

So why can't conservatives?

Anyways, my choices for top issues are mine alone. The opinions of others may differ. Regardless, key issues must be defined and everyone will have to get behind this clunker and start pushing.

It's either that or we all continue to be stuck here.

Update @ 9:23pm

I was going to leave the post at that but I've decided I have a little project for everyone. That project is to select the three issues that should define the Canadian conservative agenda for the next couple of years. The rules to the game are simple:

1) The issue must not be a guaranteed loser.
2) The issue must not split conservative and libertarian opinion.

Two rules. That's it. NOW GET TO IT!

Update @ 10:04pm

Apparently Greg's post was in response to a big fuss here between Norman Spector and Kathy Straidle. Bob has the roundup here. It's amazing how much a person can miss by being 'off-line' for a few days.

crossposted at The Shotgun

Is Dr. Phil Evil?

The lead story at TNR today is that Dr. Phil is evil. The lead to the article asks: 'Is Phil McGraw destroying America?' Yikes.

I can't say that I know anything about Dr. Phil but I've noticed that alot of people totally loath the guy. I saw his show a couple of times and both shows were about the 'real desparate housewives'. The show seemed pretty typical of the daytime talk shows modeled on Oprah Winphrey's program.

So since I'm totally clueless in this regard can someone please explain to me what Dr. Phil did that was so terrible?

Thanks.

On Bush

Razi Azmi, a Pakistani journalist, explains why he is 'soft on Bush'. He ends with:

The world is now a much safer and a much more democratic place. Thanks to the unipolar world with America as the sole superpower, democracy is advancing while dictatorships are receding. Dictators who roamed with a swagger now scurry for cover. Disenfranchised people now feel empowered, from Afghanistan to Georgia, and from Iraq to Ukraine. Bush’s band of neo-cons is succeeding where his more illustrious predecessors failed; they act where others balked.

Bush is not a threat to any democratic dispensation anywhere in the world. If he has made the world a trifle unsafe for thugs and dictators, he is to be commended. In any case, he will be gone sooner than we think. But terrorism in the name of Islam, which now stalks the world, is an unprecedented development in terms of magnitude, intensity, scope and danger. I can definitely live with Bush as US president — or as the world’s sole policeman — for eight years or longer, but would hate to spend even eight days under the Taliban’s theocracy, Saddam’s dictatorship or a regime of Ayatollahs. I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of people everywhere feel the same way.

[Via Davids Medienkritik]

Predicting The Future

Here is a great quote from Michael Chrichton concerning our ability to predict the future:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horses**t? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS . . . None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100.

Indeed.

[Via Instapundit]

Who Occupies You?

A great quote from one of David Warren's Arab correspondents:

If one has been occupied for some time by the Saud family, or the Assad family, or the Mubarak family, let alone the Hussein family, one begins rather to envy the sort of people who get to be occupied by the Bush family.

I suspect that there are a lot of Arabs out there that would agree.

Twisted Politics?

A good article on Social Security privatization which is currently being discussed in the US.

Most of the authors points apply to Canada as well:

Today, we refer to Social Security as an "entitlement." In the 1930's, however, that was not the case. It was thought of as social insurance. The difference is significant.

In the 1930's, relatively few people lived significantly past the retirement age of 65. In those days, it would have been foolhardy to save enough to last until you were 80. But if everyone contributed to a collective pool, then we could insure that the few who lived long past retirement would not be destitute.

Since the 1930's, longevity has increased by more than a decade. However, the Social Security retirement age has been raised only a few years. As a result, Social Security no longer represents insurance for the unusually long-lived. It is now an "entitlement" for everyone.

I don't particularly agree with the authors final conclusion but it is plenty valid.

Canada is going to have to make some radical changes at some point in the future to many of our social security programs. Like the author, you can't deny that providing need to the truely destitute is the right thing to do. It just irks me something terrible when I see people retiring in their fifties and early sixties so that they can play golf for 15 years. I don't mind the golf but knowing that my taxes are paying for their green fees just doesn't seem right.

This Explains My Brother Then

A study out of France suggests that left-handed people may be more violent than those who are right-handed.

It's kind of hard to say how reliable the study is but their reasoning kind of makes sense.

My younger brother is left-handed but I'll leave it at that.

Hoping For The Best

According to CTV two of our famous Snowbirds collided near Moose Jaw.

I saw the Snowbirds fly during a Canada Day celebration back as a kid on PEI and I haven't forgotten it to this day. The Snowbirds take great risks every day for the simple pleasure of creating these memorable moments that most of us will never forget.

My thoughts and prayers go out to each and every one of them.

Mommy!

It would be a lot of fun trying to explain this to some kids.

Couldn't they have at least taken the Santa outfits off before they went at it. Christmas spirit guys! Get with the program.

On the up side, it would have been an awesome sight to see a paddy-wagon full of roughed up Santas.

[Via Nealenews]

Break Out The Whip

Well the fury should be coming from the federal government any time now. Private clinics in British Columbia are being asked to perform operations:

Private clinics on Vancouver Island are being asked to submit bids to perform operations normally done at public hospitals, a Vancouver Island Health Authority spokesman said on Thursday.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority is expecting to spend $2.1 million to perform more than 2,000 surgeries and 500 procedures at private clinics on Vancouver Island by next April, said authority spokesman Dr. Glen Lowther.

The health authority does not believe the call for more private surgeries will contribute to an erosion of Canada's public health care system, he said.

So where is Paul Martin on his white horse? He must save us from this shameful disregard of Canadian sensibilities. These people must be forced to wait until the public system can perform these operations regardless of how long it takes. That's the Canadian way isn't it?

Where is the outrage? Indeed.

As Usual

Here is this weeks obligatory VDH quote:

But gut-check time is coming for Europe, with its own rising unassimilated immigrant populations, rogue mosques entirely bent on destroying the West, declining birth rate and rising entitlements, the Turkish question, and a foreign policy whose appeasement of Arab regimes won it only a brief lull and plenty of humiliation. The radical Muslim world of the madrassas hates the United States because it is liberal and powerful; but it utterly despises Europe because it is even more liberal and far weaker, earning the continent not fear, but contempt.

The real question is whether there is any Demosthenes left in Europe, who will soberly but firmly demand assimilation and integration of all immigrants, an end to mosque radicalism, even-handedness in the Middle East, no more subsidies to terrorists like Hamas, a toughness rather than opportunist profiteering with the likes of Assad and the Iranian theocracy — and make it clear that states that aid and abet terrorists in Europe due so to their great peril.

So will the old Ents awaken, or will they slumber on, muttering nonsense to themselves, lost in past grandeur and utterly clueless about the dangers on their borders?

Stay tuned — it is one of the most fascinating sagas of our time.

Like last week, and the week before, I'm in total agreement.

She Could Melt Your Heart

My wife sent this to me today:

Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. "Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks,"will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"

Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"

"Osama Bin Laden," she says.

"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.

"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little."; "And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."

Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found pride. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"

"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."

What a sweetie.

Sweet Progress

In the 'not quite what they had in mind' department we have Iranian students heckling the Iranian president:

Students chanted "Shame on you" and "Where are your promised freedoms?" to express their frustration with the failure of Iran's reform movement.

A visibly-shaken Khatami defended his record and criticised the powerful hardliners who have closed newspapers and jailed dissidents.

He asked students to stop heckling and accused his critics of intolerance.

...

But student leader Abdollah Momeni complained that there was is no difference between the president and the authoritarians who thwarted his reform programme.

"Students are very disappointed because they paid a heavy price for supporting Khatami, but in return they got nothing," he is quoted as saying by Reuters.

A statement distributed by one pro-reform student group at the meeting said: "Unfortunately what Khatami sees as his tolerance was his extreme weakness towards the opponents of democracy".

In tribute to these fine young men and women I'm putting up a permanent link to the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran. I should have put this up long ago.

Is This The Solution?

William Saletan over at Slate writes on what may be an acceptable solution on the subject of stem-cell research. He provides two solutions to the stem-cell debate. The second, I would be opposed to under any circumstances:

The distinction Hurlbut wants to draw and exploit is between a whole embryo and its parts. He quotes Thomas Aquinas to the effect that an animal's life resides in its wholeness. "A living being is more than the sum of its parts," he argues. But while humanity may lie in the whole, utility may lie in the parts. As Hurlbut puts it in his presentation paper, "Incompletely constituted or severed from the whole, subsystems with partial trajectories of development may temporarily proceed forward with a certain biological momentum." In other words, the parts of an embryo—or the parts that normally would become an embryo—might produce stem cells, even if, to avoid the moral problem, we kept these parts incomplete or severed.

How could we create functioning parts of an embryo without the whole? By turning off one of the genes that guide embryo formation. Hurlbut's first choice is the human equivalent of cdx2, the gene in mice that directs the formation of the placenta. Without cdx2, the embryonic mouse cells divide but fail to take the shape of a mouse. The plan would be to follow the recipe for cloning—put the nucleus of a body cell into a gutted egg cell—but turn off cdx2. Then, once the cell begins to divide, reactivate the gene, too late to organize the embryo but early enough to make stem cells.

Hurlbut in this case is basically trying to pull an ethical or theological trick. I can't imagine this idea in any way resolving the debate. And anyways... like ick!

The first proposal seems like it would be much more acceptable to all sides of the debate:

The first, by Drs. Donald Landry and Howard Zucker of Columbia University, proposes that we take stem cells from embryos at the same point at which we take organs from children and adults: right after they die. All we have to do is agree on the point at which an embryo is dead. Landry suggests that this point is "the irreversible arrest of cell division," which conveniently applies to huge numbers of embryos frozen in IVF clinics. With further study, he argues, we can clarify the signs of irreversible arrest, which will tell us when it's kosher to start yanking stem cells. He cites an experiment in which stem cells from arrested frog embryos were injected into normal frog embryos. Twenty-five percent of the cells began to divide again and were absorbed into the new embryos.

Without going to deep into the proposal, on the face of it, it seems quite reasonable. It is basically an extension of our current 'organ donor' laws which we have come to accept. Any thoughts on this? I'll give it a bit more thought over the next few days and see what I come up with.

I should mention that over the long term I really have fears about where our knowledge of genetics could lead us. Are we ready to create the 'brave new man'? What won't we screen for or modify in order to 'improve' the lives of our children? Teenagers already get plastic surgery with the consent of their parents and lets be realistic here: most people will go to some scarey extremes in order to help their children. How far will tomorrow's parents go?

Regardless of the long term considerations, have Landry and Zucker provided a viable solution to the stem-cell debate as it is currently argued?

crossposted to The Shotgun

Surprise!

Gun control doesn't work. Nuff said. Britain is rethinking it's laws after they've created a disaster by preventing people from defending themselves when in their own homes.

Britain has created an environment where defending oneself at home can lead to fines and possible time in prison. Now I don't know about you but if I wake up to find someone in my home the last thing I want to be do is take some time to consider the legal ramifications of my actions. Such laws are one of the greatest intrusions into our liberties. The ability to defend oneself, especially in our own homes, is one of the pillars of our society. Without it, nothing else really matters.

The state cannot defend you in such instances. We know it. And the government knows it.

As this story shows, Europe is becoming more dangerous that America due to what many people believe is Europe's efforts to disarm it's population. In Britain, in particular, the government wants you to be a victim. By creating such a legal environment they actively encourage people to hide in their homes in fear of their surroundings.

Canada hopefully won't go as far down the path of victimhood as Britain has. Our first step back to sanity may come soon with a group of Liberal backbenchers planning to scrap the gun registry.

It can't come soon enough.

Clear Thinking In Canada

[Via NORMAN'S SPECTATOR]

In 'Big Brother Knows What's Best' news we have:

And what about logic? In Canada, tobacco products are freely sold, even though they are noxious and a major cause of cancers. Alcohol is also freely sold, even though it can lead to countless diseases. And now Parliament intends to decriminalize the use of pot, which can be harmful to teenagers. The country's leaders, meanwhile, are all worked up about Oreo cookies. This is more than illogical — it's ridiculous!

I believe this quote is from an article by Lysiane Gagnon but I don't have a subscription (and I don't plan on getting on) to The Globe And Mail so I can't be sure.

On Evil

David Warren writes in The Demons:

What we see on the streets of Ottawa, instead, is an almost pure fanaticism -- that radical spirit of alienation that ultimately motivates the Jihadis, too. This nihilism is the splinter in the heart of our modernity; it rejects everything; it proposes, finally, nothing in its place. It is the devil himself speaking out of his void, leading finally to the silence of Iago.

To understand it, we must look into the very faces contorted with rage, and the mouths uttering the vilest obscenities. The evil is not coming from outside them: it is instead welling from the void within.

And yet the tragedy of these people -- whose fanaticism puts them beyond the pale of give-and-take in party politics, and whose views, should they spread, would take the whole democratic order down with them -- is that they know even less about themselves than they know about the world they condemn. They are angry, but finally they don't know why.

They don't believe in evil, as a category; yet it haunts them externally on every side: "Bush" being only the straw man of the moment. And unlike the actual Mr. Bush, they do not believe in grace, either. They see evil everywhere. They rail, and they rail.

David raises a very good question: Are those capable of equating George Bush with Adolf Hitler evil? Or alternatively: Are those who feel no joy in the fact that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are no longer in power evil?

In asking this question I don't mean evil in the 'torturing of cute puppies' sense. I mean evil in the sense that their actions lead to evil prevailing when principled and moral action could prevent it. As the saying goes the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.

And as David says, there are principled and rational reasons to oppose many of George Bush's foreign policies. Why then did the protestors we saw in Ottawa this week not voice them?

Is ignoring an evil deed as bad as commiting one?

crossposted at The Shotgun

You Gotta Love Google

As impressive as the Internet is, sometimes it leaves you just shaking your head. My case in point are the 'Ads by Google' you'll find in the sidebar.

Since I put them up most of the ads have been related to political or social matters. Normally it contains ads for newpapers, articles people have published, and other such stuff.

Anyways, after I put up this post complaining about CIBC all the ads are for CIBC and other banking related sites.

Should this not be considered bad 'netiquette'?

ROP Indeed

No comment.

It's Now Official

When something is put in writing we like to say that 'it is official'. Well I'm disappointed to say that The Netherlands has officially declared itself to be a sick society. According to the article:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

The parent's wishes 'most likely would be considered'! Oh my God! I can't believe that a debate is even needed about such a thing. How can these people are considering allowing unelected bureaucrats to determine whether their children are 'fit to live'?

Any country that would allow their government to determine whether their children live or die is beyond reproach. I'm totally speechless...

Anyone out there from the Netherlands? What's wrong with you?

I'm going to go and cry for a while.

[Via The Weekly Standard]

Update @ 2:16pm

For more on this check out The Diplomad.

Not What It Used To Be

Throughout history art has been a defining feature of all civilizations. Sculptures, painting, and buildings, are some of the only things that remain of the great civilizations and cultures of the past. Michealangelo, Raffaello, da Vinci, and Rembrandt each left a defining mark on history. Because of their work, they will be forever remembered as exceptional people of history.

Many people complain about modern art and how it doesn't compare to the passion and dedication exhibited in the works of the past. To resolve this debate once and for all I present you with... this. I'm not an art aficionado but this just makes it look like the modern world isn't even trying.

crossposted at The Shotgun

Look At The Moonbats!

[Via The Times of Winnipeg]

And people like this wonder why I make fun of them. How clueless can they possibly be.

I used to get mad at people like this. Not anymore! Rude jokes and insults are much more fun.

Great Britain Is Messed Up

The Telegraph editorial today talks about how Britains are now working for the government instead of for themselves. This really caught my attention:

Not only is the public sector in the grip of the unions, with high rates of absenteeism (Tube staff were recently awarded 52 days a year holiday by Ken Livingstone), but incentives do not work in the way they do in the private sector. There is no profit motive injecting dynamism into the workplace and no proper accountability. As for humble taxpayers, they have no choice but to pay up and accept what they are given.

52 days vacation? What the bloody hell? I most definitely got into the wrong line of work.

The Telegraph also has this story about the divergent lifestyles between London and New York:

Then a mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, had the courage to endorse the idea and stake his political credibility on it. Then a tirelessly dedicated police chief put the idea into practice, even though it meant flying in the face of all the liberal received wisdom about softly-softly justice and not "criminalising" people who had committed minor offences, blah-blah-blah.

You will have noticed that this is precisely the opposite of what is happening here. Try ringing the police to tell them about an act of vandalism that is going on before your eyes and you will be treated with scarcely concealed ridicule: we've got more important things to worry about than some kids smashing up a building site. Never mind that the kids who have got away with that are likely to conclude that they can get away with pretty much anything.

Now New Yorkers have their city back and we are losing ours. And yesterday's horrific news showed the extent to which we are all in this together, from the derelict council estates in Tower Hamlets to millionaires' row in Chelsea. When I spoke to Bratton a couple of years ago, his proudest boast was that they had brought normal social life back to Harlem.

Most of the population used to stay in at night up there, he said. They just left the streets to the bad guys with their guns and their drug turf wars. But now, there were restaurants and night clubs and movie theatres where ordinary decent people went for a good time in the evening. They have been freed from fear all the way from the Battery to the top of Park Avenue. When is it our turn?

And Europeans have the nerve to say their cities are so much safer than American ones. Yeah right.

Kathy On Canada/US Relations

Kathy Shaidle from RelapsedCatholic.com has a good take (free registration required) on Canada/US relations:

This morning, news of Mr. Bush's imminent landing was dwarfed on newspaper front pages by the announced winner of The Greatest Canadian contest: Tommy Douglas, the prairie politician who's the grandfather of that socialized health-care system I mentioned before.

Waiting time in a Montreal emergency ward is more than 36 hours, MRI machines are practically illegal, and World War II veterans get hip replacements two years after diagnosis (assuming they haven't died in the interim) – but, hey, free Canadian health care is the greatest thing in the world! A government entitlement that stinks . That's our proudest accomplishment.

Most Canadians will mutter good riddance when the president flies away. The sooner he goes back to his "horrible country" – the one that protects us (because our underfunded military can't) and invents the cool stuff we can't afford (because our taxes are so high) and produces people with energy, vision and pride – the sooner we can go back to feeling superior.

Go read it all.

Wash My Mouth With Soap

I dread having to say this it but it seems that Allan Rock is talking common sense these days:

During an annual debate on the question of Palestine, Mr. Rock said Canada will vote Wednesday against two key resolutions on which it has abstained in the past, lining up with the United States, often the only major power to defend Israel at the United Nations.

"We believe that the time has come, especially given the renewed hope for the peace process, to evaluate the efforts that all of us make at the United Nations to determine if they could be redirected towards more constructive outcomes," Mr. Rock said.

...

Mr. Rock said General Assembly resolutions on the Middle East are "often divisive and lack in balance" because they condemn Israeli violence but play down attacks against Israeli civilians.

"References to Israeli security needs are often overlooked in the General Assembly. Repeatedly emphasizing Israel's responsibility under international law obscures equally important responsibilities of other parties to the conflict."

It is nice to see that Canada is finally standing up for fairness and common sense when it comes to UN resolutions against Israel. Israel isn't perfect and in no way deserves a free pass when it comes to it's actions. The UN though must realize that it won't be able to recover it's reputation until the one sided comdemnations of Israel stop.

The UN appears to be coming apart at the seams. There are calls for Kofi Annan's resignation, Canada is finally starting to show that it has a backbone, the Security Council looks like it will receive a makeover, and the oil-for-food investigations continue.

I wonder if these are indications that the UN cares enough to try and save itself? Or perhaps these are final gasps before it becomes totally irrelevant? It will certainly be an interesting couple of months for Kofi and the gang.

crossposted at The Shotgun