Well the move to Movable Type has come to a sad end. The laptop I was hosting on has just about kicked the bucket. The fan was getting way to loud plus the hard drive has starting to make some very disturbing sounds. So until I can find somewhere else to host the blog this is where we can be found.
Which all in all isn't such a bad thing. First off my high speed internet service is provided by work, and since it is a test bed for applications, service isn't guarranteed. Kind of sucks but its free so I'm not going to complain.
Plus I guess blogger isn't all that bad. The lack of catagories kind of sucks. Plus as much as I appreciate Haloscan's free commenting service it generally blows compared to Movable Type comments. Oh well.
Welcome back to the original canadiancomment.
Our opinions and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.
Why They Died
Usually ScrappleFace is split-your-sides-funny but this post is actually quite moving:
Hamas Leader Rantisi Dies of Natural Causes
Hamas, the Palestinian social services agency, announced today that its recently-appointed leader Abdel Azziz Rantisi died this weekend of natural causes.
Mr. Rantisi apparently perished from the same disease which took the life of his predecessor, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin less than one month ago.
"The autopsy showed that Abdel Azziz Rantisi died of a virulent, contagious kind of cancer that destroys the mind, and by natural cause-and-effect, the body," said an unnamed Palestinian coroner. "Although you may have read that Rantisi and Yassin died from Israeli missile attacks, that was just the coup de grace. The condition that really killed them is like HIV. You don't die of HIV, you die from something else because you have AIDS. These men died of missile attacks, but the attacks were caused by the wasting disease that infected their minds and hearts."
Who Should Be Appeasing Who?
David Warren has a great article about the hardening of public opinion in the US over the last two years in response to Islamic extremism. He concludes with:
As David suggests the policies of Israel and the US should be transformed so that the regimes and peoples of the Middle East are forced to answer the question: What are you going to do for us?
Appeasement is a two-way street. Until now, it has generally been assumed that the U.S. must do the appeasing, and that Arabs and their allies are supposed to be appeased. It is this basic formula that not only the Bush administration, but the U.S. at large has grown sick of. They get nothing for their appeasements but more grief; just as Israel received no benefits -- only more blown-up buses -- when she wasn't killing Yassin or Rantisi.Naturally I think he makes a very good point. The debate about how to deal with the problems of the Middle East are always framed in the context of what must we do to address their concerns or beliefs. This of course defaults the moral high ground to the individuals who, at least in my opinion, are the cause of most of the Middle East's problems to begin with.
Everything else being equal, you might as well smite your mortal enemies. The trick, after all, is to make them appease you.
As David suggests the policies of Israel and the US should be transformed so that the regimes and peoples of the Middle East are forced to answer the question: What are you going to do for us?
In Honour Of Pat Tillman
Pat Tillman was killed yesterday while serving as a ranger in Afganistan. OpinionJournal reprinted this article today in his memory.
I wish that all those who sacrifice their careers, time with their families, or perhaps even their lives by joining the military could be so honoured. But many of them don't join the military to see their name in print. They do it because it calls them and because they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to make the world a better place. God bless them all.
I wish that all those who sacrifice their careers, time with their families, or perhaps even their lives by joining the military could be so honoured. But many of them don't join the military to see their name in print. They do it because it calls them and because they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to make the world a better place. God bless them all.
Too Much Control
[Via Nealenews]
It really bugs me out when I see our government trying to exert more and more control over our daily lives.
The latest example of this is that the B.C. Education Ministry have orders home schooling parents to stop using faith based materials.
Why would the ministry do this for any other reason in that they could? What relevance is it what material is used by a stay at home parent? The point of an education is to teach the child and provide for them a future in the working world. I would extend this responsibility to the education boards across this country as well. But it most definitely is not the responsibility of our education boards to dicate what is taught in our homes.
Canada has a serious problem with it's government, professional institutions, and social agencies, trying to dictate to everyday Canadians what they are allowed to believe, profess, or teach to their children.
Fasicm... not yet. But the base instinct to control others is the same.
It really bugs me out when I see our government trying to exert more and more control over our daily lives.
The latest example of this is that the B.C. Education Ministry have orders home schooling parents to stop using faith based materials.
Why would the ministry do this for any other reason in that they could? What relevance is it what material is used by a stay at home parent? The point of an education is to teach the child and provide for them a future in the working world. I would extend this responsibility to the education boards across this country as well. But it most definitely is not the responsibility of our education boards to dicate what is taught in our homes.
Canada has a serious problem with it's government, professional institutions, and social agencies, trying to dictate to everyday Canadians what they are allowed to believe, profess, or teach to their children.
Fasicm... not yet. But the base instinct to control others is the same.
Is This The Smoking Gun?
Paul Martin of the Lying Liberal Party of Canada has been directly tied to influence peddling today in the Adscam hearings. Chuck Guite told the committee that Mr. Martin's office called him specifically requesting that certain companies be considered for the Adscam contracts.
Back in February Paul Martin said:
Guite said today that Paul Martin's office called him saying the Paul wanted specific companies to be considered for the contracts. One of these companies, Earnscliffe, is stacked with former and current Martin advisors.
So short of Mr. Martin himself coming out and admitting he played the system how much more proof does the Canadian public need before they conclude that we've been governed by a bunch of crooks the last 15 years? The polls in the next couple of weeks we be very telling. Maybe Canadians won't have learned a thing? Time will tell.
Back in February Paul Martin said:
Anybody who is found to have known that people are kiting cheques, that people are falsifying invoices - me or anybody else - should resign.So am I wasting my time if I sit in front of the TV all night tonight waiting for Martin's press conference announcing his resignation? Ah screw it... I'll stick to the playoffs.
...
Anybody who knew that kind of thing was going on and let it happen, they don't belong in public life.
Guite said today that Paul Martin's office called him saying the Paul wanted specific companies to be considered for the contracts. One of these companies, Earnscliffe, is stacked with former and current Martin advisors.
So short of Mr. Martin himself coming out and admitting he played the system how much more proof does the Canadian public need before they conclude that we've been governed by a bunch of crooks the last 15 years? The polls in the next couple of weeks we be very telling. Maybe Canadians won't have learned a thing? Time will tell.
Willing To Pay More
According to Dalton McGuinty it appears that I am willing to pay more for government services. This is news to me.
My first question is where are these so called 'townhall' meetings that he has been having? I can't count the number of times I've read in the papers that a particular government has been given the go-ahead to raise my taxes or to change social policy by whoever it is that attends these meetings.
I've never been invited. I've never seen a notice for one either.
The second question is should governments be creating policy based on the comments received at these meetings? More to the point, do governments use the meetings to formulate policy or to provide justification for a policy that they know the general public will be against? My hunch is the latter
is the case.
Regardless, if the McGuinty government wants me to believe that people want to pay more for government services then at least use the fees that are collected for their intended purpose. If he wants me to pay more for registering my car then ensure me that the increased fee will be applied to improving our highways or other transportation infrastructure. Don't tell me that the increase covers the real cost of the service and then throw my added money into general revenue. Same goes for health care. If a government wants to implement user fees for health services then prove to me that the added revenue will be applied to health care. Is that asking for to much?
Mr. McGuinty just tell me that you are raising my taxes. Don't do it by stealth or by telling me the idea came from some townhall meeting. And if you are so noble as to be responding to the people's wishes at these townhall meetings why not do it right and put these increased fees to a plebisite? I suspect that would be a bit too democratic wouldn't it?
My first question is where are these so called 'townhall' meetings that he has been having? I can't count the number of times I've read in the papers that a particular government has been given the go-ahead to raise my taxes or to change social policy by whoever it is that attends these meetings.
I've never been invited. I've never seen a notice for one either.
The second question is should governments be creating policy based on the comments received at these meetings? More to the point, do governments use the meetings to formulate policy or to provide justification for a policy that they know the general public will be against? My hunch is the latter
is the case.
Regardless, if the McGuinty government wants me to believe that people want to pay more for government services then at least use the fees that are collected for their intended purpose. If he wants me to pay more for registering my car then ensure me that the increased fee will be applied to improving our highways or other transportation infrastructure. Don't tell me that the increase covers the real cost of the service and then throw my added money into general revenue. Same goes for health care. If a government wants to implement user fees for health services then prove to me that the added revenue will be applied to health care. Is that asking for to much?
Mr. McGuinty just tell me that you are raising my taxes. Don't do it by stealth or by telling me the idea came from some townhall meeting. And if you are so noble as to be responding to the people's wishes at these townhall meetings why not do it right and put these increased fees to a plebisite? I suspect that would be a bit too democratic wouldn't it?
This Guy Is Too Much
[Via Best of the Web Today]
Sometimes John Kerry totally baffles me. Not a big job I know but still. After all of Kerry's rantings about G.W. Bush's performance with the American economy he comes up with this doozy.
During Kerry's interview with Tim Russert last weekend Russert asked if he would pledge to not seek re-election in 2008 if he failed to create the 10 million jobs that he has promised. Kerry's reply:
Sometimes John Kerry totally baffles me. Not a big job I know but still. After all of Kerry's rantings about G.W. Bush's performance with the American economy he comes up with this doozy.
During Kerry's interview with Tim Russert last weekend Russert asked if he would pledge to not seek re-election in 2008 if he failed to create the 10 million jobs that he has promised. Kerry's reply:
Well, it would depend on the circumstances. If I don't [succeed] because there's a war or something terrible happens, of course I'm not going to make that pledge.I never saw the interview but if I was Russert I probably would have fallen out of my chair.
2000 Years Hence
I think far into the future, after America's preeminence has faded into history, historians will surely look back and say that Victor Davis Hanson was the most eloquent and insightful commentator of our times. Very few individuals throughout history have been remembered, not because of their leadership or feats of battle, but because of how they described their times and the events that defined them. Victor Davis Hanson will surely be one of these people.
His latest story So Lucky To Have Them celebrates the sacrifices of the American soldier and the task that history has placed in their hands:
His latest story So Lucky To Have Them celebrates the sacrifices of the American soldier and the task that history has placed in their hands:
No, instead let us think today only of American soldiers and the cause for which they fight. Never has America fielded more skilled warriors or sent them into battle for a better cause—the security of thousands of Americans at home and the promise of something better for millions abroad. Any scarred veteran of a past age—a Macedonian, Roman, Ottoman, Russian or Englishman—would warn us that even an imperialist does not go into the Balkans, Afghanistan, or the Mesopotamia for lucre. These are not nice places and their perennially murderous and internecine clans historically unite only to turn on the invader. Yet into precisely these desolate realms the Americans have gone to rid the world of Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein, the latter all in their own singular ways worthy successors to the spirit of a Hitler or Stalin, their evil inferior only by magnitude rather than intent. Seeking not tribute or oil, our soldiers have deposed such monsters and in their place implanted the seeds of democracy—and succeeded entirely due to their own skill and élan rather than the uniform support and attention of us at home who sent them.Someone should convince G.W. Bush to read a piece like this for his next state of the union address.
How many times did prominent Washingtonians assure us that the Balkans were our graveyard, that the peaks of Afghanistan would be our Little Big Horn, or that Iraq is a modern Sicilian Expedition?
And how many other ignorant elites assured us of secret Afghan pipelines and Enron’s designs on the Iraqi oilfields? The more banal truth all along was such battlefields held no profit, but rather much danger—that was trumped in every case by the skill and courage of the American soldier, mostly to silence back home. I reckon that for the ultimate health and safety of this nation one American Marine in Fallujah is worth more than the entire 9-11 board of inquiry in Washington—and I would prefer a single American officer to a hundred of those grandees who assure us that what we are doing is either wrong or impossible.
...
No, despite all the chaos in Washington, these are not bad, but rather noble times, among the best I think in our history. So let us remember the famous words of Virgil – indeed perhaps the most moving in all of Latin literature:
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit
“The day will come when even this ordeal will be a sweet thing to remember.”
And so it shall be when it is all said and done.
Totalitarianism In Canada
Check out Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism by Raymond J. de Souza a priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston. He concludes with:
There are no restrictions on freedom of worship in Canada today. Canadians can practice their faith unmolested by the state. But increasingly, full participation in civil, commercial, and professional life is requiring that religiously grounded beliefs be left at the door. The threat is coming not only from courts and legislatures, but from tribunals, regulatory bodies, and professional associations. The gay marriage issue has attracted most of the attention. But the threat to religious liberty reaches much farther. It reaches toward everything, as in “totality.”
Two Down...
Yassin... scratch. Al-Rantisi... scratch. Arafat...
Update @ 3:33pm
The Palestinian Authority responds to the assasination with:
Apparently Hamas and Hizbullah and the PLO are finally getting the war they've been calling for and they don't like the way the Israeli's are fighting it. That's mint.
Update @ 3:33pm
The Palestinian Authority responds to the assasination with:
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this Israeli crime and state terror," he said.The communists certainly trained these smucks pretty well. But how exactly does Israel killing a man who has declared war against them make the Israeli's the terrorists. Classic. Lenin would be proud.
"It is evident now to the world that the Palestinian people need international protection more than ever," Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters.
Apparently Hamas and Hizbullah and the PLO are finally getting the war they've been calling for and they don't like the way the Israeli's are fighting it. That's mint.
Housing Is Not A Right
Native leaders in Manitoba are blaming the federal government for a lack of affordable housing.
This is fairly typical here in Canada. I'ld like to make clear that it is not the governments responsibility to provide housing for people. In other words, housing is not a right that people are entitled to. And though the article specifically deals with native housing, it applies to all Canadians who believe they are entitled to a roof over their heads.
Rights are guarrantees that do not put a burden on your fellow citizens. Subsidized housing of course does put such a burden on other citizens simply due to the added tax required to fulfill this right.
This is a problem in the Western world in general where the definition of rights has morphed to include all those things required to live comfortably. Over the course of the last hundred years rights have expanded to include; the right to work, the right to housing, the right to affordable food, the right to... well you get the point. Unfortunately these rights impose a cost on society which our previous rights did not. Rights used to include; the freedom of moment, the freedom from unlawful imprisonment, the right to property, etc... Notice how none of these rights impose any cost or abligation on others.
In regards to native housing in particular I would ask... before Europeans arrived here did people demand that the village chief build their shelter for them? Most definitely not. Natives today have the knowhow and skill to build their own homes today. All they need is the motivation to do it themselves. Natives today who feel they are stigmatized in todays Canada will not benefit if the government provides housing for them.
My own opinion is that most problems native communities face today is due to the communities being to dependent on government. The government should be the last resort when dealing with problems within society. And why is that? Because the government, any government, does a poor job of anything it touches.
My best advise for natives can be found in this previous post:
This is fairly typical here in Canada. I'ld like to make clear that it is not the governments responsibility to provide housing for people. In other words, housing is not a right that people are entitled to. And though the article specifically deals with native housing, it applies to all Canadians who believe they are entitled to a roof over their heads.
Rights are guarrantees that do not put a burden on your fellow citizens. Subsidized housing of course does put such a burden on other citizens simply due to the added tax required to fulfill this right.
This is a problem in the Western world in general where the definition of rights has morphed to include all those things required to live comfortably. Over the course of the last hundred years rights have expanded to include; the right to work, the right to housing, the right to affordable food, the right to... well you get the point. Unfortunately these rights impose a cost on society which our previous rights did not. Rights used to include; the freedom of moment, the freedom from unlawful imprisonment, the right to property, etc... Notice how none of these rights impose any cost or abligation on others.
In regards to native housing in particular I would ask... before Europeans arrived here did people demand that the village chief build their shelter for them? Most definitely not. Natives today have the knowhow and skill to build their own homes today. All they need is the motivation to do it themselves. Natives today who feel they are stigmatized in todays Canada will not benefit if the government provides housing for them.
My own opinion is that most problems native communities face today is due to the communities being to dependent on government. The government should be the last resort when dealing with problems within society. And why is that? Because the government, any government, does a poor job of anything it touches.
My best advise for natives can be found in this previous post:
...
We will have to become individuals, making the kind of life we want for ourselves without apology or recrimination or conceit. And then one day, the stigma will look absurd for its distance from reality.
The Greatest Canadian?
Do you see any problem with voting for any of these people as being the greatest Canadian ever:
John Cabot
Jacques Cartier
Samuel de Champlain
Given that these guys weren't born here and hardly spent much of their lives here I can't see how we'ld call them Canadian. I'm sure there are many others since I only checked under last names being with 'c'.
Plus how would some of the Indian chiefs (ie. Crowfoot, Poundmaker, etc...) who were lied to and had their people starved feel about being on the greatest Canadian list?
John Cabot
Jacques Cartier
Samuel de Champlain
Given that these guys weren't born here and hardly spent much of their lives here I can't see how we'ld call them Canadian. I'm sure there are many others since I only checked under last names being with 'c'.
Plus how would some of the Indian chiefs (ie. Crowfoot, Poundmaker, etc...) who were lied to and had their people starved feel about being on the greatest Canadian list?
Hell's Bells
The U.S. marines are having some fun in Fallujah.
Hoping to provoke a fight the marines are blaring AC/DC and Jimi Hendrix tunes into the city. As well if you're trying to provoke a fight a few insults are in order:
Hoping to provoke a fight the marines are blaring AC/DC and Jimi Hendrix tunes into the city. As well if you're trying to provoke a fight a few insults are in order:
Unable to advance farther into the city, an Army psychological operations team hopes a mix of heavy metal and insults shouted in Arabic — including, “You shoot like a goat herder” — will draw gunmen to step forward and attack.Heck if you've got to be there you might as well have a little fun.
...
At night, the psychological operations unit attached to the Marine battalion here sends out messages from a loudspeaker mounted on an armored Humvee. On Thursday night, the crew and its Arabic-language interpreter taunted fighters, saying, “May all the ambulances in Fallujah have enough fuel to pick up the bodies of the mujahadeen.”
The message was specially timed for an attack moments later by an AC-130 gunship that pounded targets in the city.
What's Up With T.O.
Toronto gets more demented with each passing week. Yesterday people mourning the death of Gary McLean scattered when a man approached the group and opened fire.
The reason for the shooting wasn't given.
This gets me thinking about how I always get a kick out of people who claim that we Canadians are so different from Americans. One of the primary reasons they always give is that we have lower crime rates. Did they ever consider that higher crime rates naturally exist in large urban centers?
Toronto is proof that we Canadians and the great southern horde are more alike then they care to admin.
Update @ 3:55pm
This tragedy doesn't change the fact that the Leafs suck. They're going down baby!
The reason for the shooting wasn't given.
This gets me thinking about how I always get a kick out of people who claim that we Canadians are so different from Americans. One of the primary reasons they always give is that we have lower crime rates. Did they ever consider that higher crime rates naturally exist in large urban centers?
Toronto is proof that we Canadians and the great southern horde are more alike then they care to admin.
Update @ 3:55pm
This tragedy doesn't change the fact that the Leafs suck. They're going down baby!
Down For The Count
All I can say is we need more people in Canada like this woman:
A hooded, knife-wielding teen got more than he bargained for last night when the 60-year old woman he tried to rob at an east-end ATM unleashed a barrage of fists that left the would-be thief dazed and unmasked.This lady deserves an award or something.
The victim, who was attending a CIBC ATM machine at Victoria Park Ave. and Sheppard Ave. E. at about 9:30 p.m., was grabbed from behind. Her attacker brandished an 8-inch butcher knife.
But the victim quickly turned into the aggressor, according to police. She fought back so fiercely that she ripped the bandana off the attacker's face before falling to the floor. Her attacker fled.
The woman received only minor injuries.
Wackier Than I Thought
The BBC describes a humorous little problem the French and the Americans had in Afganistan. Apparently a French commander had the codename homard (lobster in English) which caused some confusion since the name sounds like Omar, as in Mullah Omar.
Anyways that isn't the most bizarre part of the story. They conclude with:
Anyways that isn't the most bizarre part of the story. They conclude with:
Lobsters were among the many things the former Taleban regime banned, which included recorded music, shorts and kites.The Taliban banned lobsters? What the bloody hell? I knew the Taliban were nuts but banning lobsters? What does Allah have against lobsters anyways?
Things May Finally Change
The U.S. administration has endorced Arial Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank.
When you think about it this may be the first time that things will truely change on the ground since '73. Instead of leaving the Palestinians in a state of delusional hope about the right of return new facts are being created on the ground in the Holy Land.
Will Palestinians be happy about these new facts? Probably not. But nothing was ever going to come of the status-quo. That was quite obvious.
Will the Israeli's be demonized? Probably. Will the U.S. for supporting Sharon's plan? Probably. And of course it may all come to nothing if Sharon's plan is rejected by the Israeli government.
Regardless, why will things change? Simply because the Palestinians don't have an option anymore. During the peace talks of the 90's they could always resort to terror to try and increase their bargaining position. That of course lead to an Israeli response and the subsequent breakdown of any talks.
This time it is different. This time the Israeli's are acting unilaterally. With the wall in place they will be able to leave the territories and the Palestinians will be able to sort out their problems for themselves. Soon there will be no Israeli boogieman to blame anymore.
When you think about it this may be the first time that things will truely change on the ground since '73. Instead of leaving the Palestinians in a state of delusional hope about the right of return new facts are being created on the ground in the Holy Land.
Will Palestinians be happy about these new facts? Probably not. But nothing was ever going to come of the status-quo. That was quite obvious.
Will the Israeli's be demonized? Probably. Will the U.S. for supporting Sharon's plan? Probably. And of course it may all come to nothing if Sharon's plan is rejected by the Israeli government.
Regardless, why will things change? Simply because the Palestinians don't have an option anymore. During the peace talks of the 90's they could always resort to terror to try and increase their bargaining position. That of course lead to an Israeli response and the subsequent breakdown of any talks.
This time it is different. This time the Israeli's are acting unilaterally. With the wall in place they will be able to leave the territories and the Palestinians will be able to sort out their problems for themselves. Soon there will be no Israeli boogieman to blame anymore.
Great Advice
Shelby Steele has some great advice in a piece concerning gay marriage. The article is a response to a previous one by Andrew Sullivan. In comparing the gay rights struggle to that of blacks over the last couple of decades he says:
Read the entire article to get the quote in its full context.
We blacks won our civil rights decades ago, but we still face stigma. And we, too, keep making the mistake of thinking that we can overcome stigmatization as inferiors by fighting for civil rights. But it doesn't work. We will have to become individuals, making the kind of life we want for ourselves without apology or recrimination or conceit. And then one day, the stigma will look absurd for its distance from reality.... the stigma will look absurd for its distance from reality. I don't think I've ever seen it stated more clearly or passionately. This should be the mantra to live by for any group of people who feel they are stigmatized in some way by society.
Read the entire article to get the quote in its full context.
A Sacrifice It Will Be
Moqtada al-Sadr says:
Regardless, the U.S. should take this guy out in a 'blaze of glory' if that is his choice. People of position within Iraq must understand that power cannot be allowed to be taken by force or by the threat of force. Satisfying al-Sadr's request will be good insurance against the next al-Sadr wannabe.
Plus in general it would probably be good for the U.S. to once and a while 'go loopy' while in Iraq. The American military is to predictable in how they deal with trouble makers. First they ignore him for a while, then the try to shut him up, then they negotiate, and then they start shooting. This is obviously no good for a number of reasons. People hungry for power or prestige know this and use it to their advantage. Plus the Western media is even more predictable and provide a wonderful means of spreading their message... whatever it may be.
The next time someone pulls a stunt like al-Sadr the U.S. should go ballistic, guns blazing, and no negotiating. That way the next al-Sadr will think twice before stirring up trouble. I'm not suggest they do this everytime of course, just for the sake of argument, every fourth of fifth trouble maker would do just fine.
We all know that if the U.S. had just gone in, grabbed or killed al-Sadr, everyone would have forgotten about him by now. Us in the West would never even have known his name.
"I fear only God. I am ready to sacrifice my blood for this country."Well I hope his dreams come true. This fool is attempting nothing but a power grab after being ignored by other Shiite clerics and by the Iraqi governing authority. Men looking for power are not ready to sacrifice their lives. It's difficult to enjoy your new found power when you're six feet under after all.
Regardless, the U.S. should take this guy out in a 'blaze of glory' if that is his choice. People of position within Iraq must understand that power cannot be allowed to be taken by force or by the threat of force. Satisfying al-Sadr's request will be good insurance against the next al-Sadr wannabe.
Plus in general it would probably be good for the U.S. to once and a while 'go loopy' while in Iraq. The American military is to predictable in how they deal with trouble makers. First they ignore him for a while, then the try to shut him up, then they negotiate, and then they start shooting. This is obviously no good for a number of reasons. People hungry for power or prestige know this and use it to their advantage. Plus the Western media is even more predictable and provide a wonderful means of spreading their message... whatever it may be.
The next time someone pulls a stunt like al-Sadr the U.S. should go ballistic, guns blazing, and no negotiating. That way the next al-Sadr will think twice before stirring up trouble. I'm not suggest they do this everytime of course, just for the sake of argument, every fourth of fifth trouble maker would do just fine.
We all know that if the U.S. had just gone in, grabbed or killed al-Sadr, everyone would have forgotten about him by now. Us in the West would never even have known his name.
Still Waiting
David at Tainted Glass makes a good observation:
Of course if an attack had taken place the CBC (Communist Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) would have blamed Israel because of their assasination of Yassin. I wonder why the CBC won't do a report about why things have been so quiet the last 3 weeks? Are they afraid to acknowledge that Israel did the right thing?
Yassin, leader of the terrorist group Hamas, was killed on March 22nd. By tomorrow, we will be celebrating the 3 week anniversary of his demise.Well put.
Why is this notable? There hasn't been a single successful retaliation suicide bombing.
Remember, the Palestinians were calling for blood, to show Israel how wrong it was to go about killing innocent terrorist leaders. Everyone around the world expected that Israel would pay a price for daring to strike at the heart of its enemies. However, no price has been paid as of yet.
...
The message to take home from this is that terrorism can be fought, as long as you have the resolve to take the necessary measures.
Of course if an attack had taken place the CBC (
Loving Those Scare Quotes
Nothing irks me more than scare quotes in a article. Quotes used to denote:
1) a direct quote from a source,
2) to indicate slang,
3) or to denote a common term for something that was difficult to put into writing.
Today though journalists use quotes to:
1) provide emphasis,
2) to indicate doubt,
3) or to invert meaning.
Often I really have no idea why the quotes are there. Anyways...
My favourite quotes of today are:
UN aid mission 'to visit Sudan'
From this article:
1) a direct quote from a source,
2) to indicate slang,
3) or to denote a common term for something that was difficult to put into writing.
Today though journalists use quotes to:
1) provide emphasis,
2) to indicate doubt,
3) or to invert meaning.
Often I really have no idea why the quotes are there. Anyways...
My favourite quotes of today are:
UN aid mission 'to visit Sudan'
From this article:
Some 670,000 people have fled "ethnic cleansing" by Arab militias in Darfur but remain in Sudan, with little aid.Chinese hostages in Iraq 'freed'
Quagmire In Iraq
Amir Taheri provides some details on the quagmire in Iraq:
The people of Iraq have just prepared the draft of what is by far the most democratic constitution anywhere in the Arab world. A large number of newspapers have emerged along with more than two dozen political parties representing the widest spectrum of political opinion that the Muslim world has seen.Life there surely isn't perfect but only a year after the invasion the country is already further ahead than it was 20 years ago. Those damn Americans!
One may like or dislike some or even all the members of the Iraq Governing Council and/or their politics. But the fact remains that, together, they represent the most broadly based governing elite anywhere in the Muslim world today.
Predictions that any elections in Iraq would be won either by Islamist radicals or the pan-Arabists addicted to despotism have not been borne out by facts. In every one of the municipal elections that have been held in 17 Iraqi cities so far, victory has gone to democratic and secularist parties and personalities. This has also been the case in elections held by professional associations representing medical, legal, and commercial constituencies. A string of opinion polls, including some financed by those opposed to the liberation, show clear majorities in favor of democratization.
There is also some good news on other fronts in Iraq.
The educational system is back to capacity after more than 20 years with a record number of schoolchildren and university students.
The derelict infrastructure left by Saddam has been partly repaired, ensuring a majority of Iraqis with regular supplies of clean water and electricity for the first time since 1980.
Almost all hospitals have reopened while hundreds of Iraqi doctors have returned from exile to help rebuild the healthcare system.
The economy is also on the mend with at least 200,000 new jobs created in the past 12 months, half of them in the renascent government ministries. Iraq's post-liberation currency, the dinar, has gained almost 65 percent in value compared to its predecessor a year ago. By ending a system of command economy, Iraq is opening itself to outside investment. For the first time in more than 50 years foreign capital is flowing into Iraq reversing a trend of capital flight that had accelerated during the last years of Saddam's rule.
The vital oil industry is making a full comeback. Last month, Iraq managed to produce its full OPEC quota of crude oil for the first time since 1979.
Four government ministries are already under exclusive Iraqi control, indicating the ability of Iraqi technocrats and administrative personnel to replace the occupation authorities faster than anyone had envisaged.
Work on rebuilding some of the 4,000 villages destroyed by Saddam Hussein as part of his ethnic-cleansing strategy, has started. This is especially impressive in the southeast were Saddam had ordered the draining of the marshes that had been home to the Marsh Arabs for 1,000 years.
Killing Senators
The Telegraph is reporting that FBI files, linking John Kerry to some nasty anti-war groups in the 70s, have been stolen from the home of Gerald Nicosia. It is unknown who stole the documents at this time but what is interesting is what the documents contained.
According to Nicosia the documents allegedly prove that Kerry attended a meeting of VVAW in which the tactic of assassinating pro-war senators was discussed:
Kerry states that he 'doesn't remember attending' the meeting. Perhaps he doesn't remember. If I attended a meeting somewhere and the subject of assassinating national leaders was discussed I'm damned sure I'ld have some recollection of it.
According to Nicosia the documents allegedly prove that Kerry attended a meeting of VVAW in which the tactic of assassinating pro-war senators was discussed:
Combing through the papers, Mr Nicosia found the startling document, dating from November 1971. It said that Mr Kerry took part in the VVAW meeting in Kansas, at which the assassination of pro-war senators was openly discussed before being rejected as a tactic.Is this the kind of man that Democrats think should be leading America? Even if Kerry didn't support the idea himself it makes you wonder about the kinds of friends Kerry keeps.
Kerry states that he 'doesn't remember attending' the meeting. Perhaps he doesn't remember. If I attended a meeting somewhere and the subject of assassinating national leaders was discussed I'm damned sure I'ld have some recollection of it.
That's It?
The White House has released the presidential briefing that got so much attention during Condolezza Rice's testimony at the 9/11 commission.
And what does the briefing tell us... nothing new in fact. If this is the best that the Democratic members of the commission can come up with then they are in pretty desparate shape. I'm convinced that Den Biste only brought the memo up so that he could hear Condi say 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' which was the title of the memo. But once again, everyone knew that Bin Laden wanted to strike the US so this isn't really news. The memo begins with:
Anyways, I won't hold my breath for the 'Bush knew' crowd to shut up. No amount of reasoning or proof would make a difference to them anyways.
Update @ 9:28am
A Globe and Mail headline reads Bush told of specific al-Qaeda threat. The specific threat that lead to this headline is:
And what does the briefing tell us... nothing new in fact. If this is the best that the Democratic members of the commission can come up with then they are in pretty desparate shape. I'm convinced that Den Biste only brought the memo up so that he could hear Condi say 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' which was the title of the memo. But once again, everyone knew that Bin Laden wanted to strike the US so this isn't really news. The memo begins with:
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."The report doesn't get much more specific after that. So basically after all the grand-standing at the commission we are back to square one. Bush didn't know any more than the rest of us. Is it actually news that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US? Nope. Does it surprise you that he would want to hijack an airliner? Nope, that's one of terrorism's favourite acts. Does it surpirse you that Al Qaeda had operatives in the US? If it did you are naive.
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
Anyways, I won't hold my breath for the 'Bush knew' crowd to shut up. No amount of reasoning or proof would make a difference to them anyways.
Update @ 9:28am
A Globe and Mail headline reads Bush told of specific al-Qaeda threat. The specific threat that lead to this headline is:
U.S. President George W. Bush was told more than a month before the Sept. 11 attacks that al-Qaeda had reached America's shores, had a support system in place for its operatives and that the FBI had detected suspicious activity that might involve a hijacking plot.That's specific?
Latest Finds
Here's a few of the blogs I've started reading lately:
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Four Right Wing Wackos
Dissecting Leftism
JustOneMinute
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Four Right Wing Wackos
Dissecting Leftism
JustOneMinute
Watching Condi
Well being sick does have its benefits. Such as today I get to watch Condi Rice give her testimony to the 9/11 commission.
I'll post my observations here during the day.
Update @ 10:03am
Richard Ben-Veniste is giving Condi a hard time and she hasn't even attempted to answer his question yet. He basically wants to know what information she passed onto the President before 9/11. He says 'Isn't it a fact that we were... warned about possible attacks against this country'. He gets her to name the title of a paper titled "bin Laden plans attacks inside the United States" then tries to cut her off immediately after she says it. The putz is trying to create a sound clip for the media. This guy is an idiot.
Off topic @ 10:23am
News flash out of Ottawa:
Who are these fools in the audience at the commission? Everytime someone says something harsh to Condi or says that Iraq was a mistake the audience claps. It's very odd.
Update @ 12:02pm
Well that was quick. I got sidetracked by work. Anyways, all in all nothing big or unexpected was said. Oh well I didn't really expect her to go ballistic on anyone anyways.
I'll post my observations here during the day.
Update @ 10:03am
Richard Ben-Veniste is giving Condi a hard time and she hasn't even attempted to answer his question yet. He basically wants to know what information she passed onto the President before 9/11. He says 'Isn't it a fact that we were... warned about possible attacks against this country'. He gets her to name the title of a paper titled "bin Laden plans attacks inside the United States" then tries to cut her off immediately after she says it. The putz is trying to create a sound clip for the media. This guy is an idiot.
Off topic @ 10:23am
News flash out of Ottawa:
Hang on to any of the new Province of Newfoundland quarters.Update @ 10:58am
If you have them, they may be worth much more than 25 cents.
The Canadian Mint announced today that it is recalling all of the
Newfoundland quarters that are part of its program featuring quarters from
each province.
"We are recalling all the new Newfoundland quarters that were recently
issued," Canadian Mint Undersecretary Jack Shackleford said Monday.
"This action is being taken after numerous reports that new quarters will
not work in parking meters, toll booths, vending machines, pay phones, or
other coin-operated devices."
The quarters were issued in the order in which the various Provinces
joined Canada and have been a tremendous success among coin collectors
worldwide.
"The problem lies in the unique design of the Newfoundland quarter which
was created by a Newfoundland graduate," Shackleford said.
"Apparently, the duct tape holding the two dimes and the nickel together
keeps jamming the coin-operated devices."
Who are these fools in the audience at the commission? Everytime someone says something harsh to Condi or says that Iraq was a mistake the audience claps. It's very odd.
Update @ 12:02pm
Well that was quick. I got sidetracked by work. Anyways, all in all nothing big or unexpected was said. Oh well I didn't really expect her to go ballistic on anyone anyways.
Is Kerry More Hawkist Than Bush?
John Laughland at The Spectator claims that a Kerry administration will be more likely to wage war than a re-elected Bush administration. It seems even the conservatives across the pond are mentally deficient.
When I read articles like this I have a tendency to think that the author doesn't really believe what they have written. I really have no idea how sincere Laughland is but it seems to me that he is just trying to make some sort of profound observation by putting together all the pieces that only manage to be obvious to him.
He writes:
Regardless, no American who is serious about a strong national defense will abandon a Republican president for a Democratic one. Won't happen. Perhaps some traditional Republicans will abandon G.W. for other reasons but you can rest assured that they won't be going out and voting for Kerry.
Most astonishingly Laughland not once questions Kerry's sincerity in the various statements he attributes to him. I wonder if Kerry would be trying to prop up his credentials by being tough on national defense? It is an election year so it would make sense in order to help him win a few of those swing voters. Naw... that's too far fetched.
When I read articles like this I have a tendency to think that the author doesn't really believe what they have written. I really have no idea how sincere Laughland is but it seems to me that he is just trying to make some sort of profound observation by putting together all the pieces that only manage to be obvious to him.
He writes:
Serious neocons, indeed, might be calculating that the bungling Bush is now more of a liability than an asset for their desire to remodel the Middle East, and to consolidate America’s unchallenged military power in the world. Kerry might be just what they need, in order to draw the sting of that left-wing anti-Americanism around the world, and in the US itself, which inspires so much antiwar feeling today. The Kosovo war showed that a war for human rights and against oppression, fought by a slick Democrat, plays far better with world public opinion than all that red-neck bull about dangers to national security. It will be far easier for President Kerry to fight new wars than for the mistrusted and discredited Bush. So to those who think that the election of a Democratic president will put an end to American militarism, I say, ‘You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.’He may be right, perhaps some neocons may be wanting to dump Bush. It frankly doesn't make a lot of sense but anything is possible. First he makes the assumption that the so-called 'neocons' want to do nothing but fight wars. Even the conservative is of the opinion that the creepy neocons are war crazy. It's almost like the ultimate conspiracy theory: those tricky 'neocons' dumping Bush and co-opting Kerry just so they can continue their own personal jihad against the world.
Regardless, no American who is serious about a strong national defense will abandon a Republican president for a Democratic one. Won't happen. Perhaps some traditional Republicans will abandon G.W. for other reasons but you can rest assured that they won't be going out and voting for Kerry.
Most astonishingly Laughland not once questions Kerry's sincerity in the various statements he attributes to him. I wonder if Kerry would be trying to prop up his credentials by being tough on national defense? It is an election year so it would make sense in order to help him win a few of those swing voters. Naw... that's too far fetched.
Just Another Day
First off here are two great posts courtesy of little green footballs:
About Those Mosques
Kofi Annan Springs Into Action
What else... well courtesy of Best Of The Web Today, John Kerry still doesn't know if he's coming or going:
Arab leaders, and their populations in general view kindness and generosity (at least by nations) as a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve. This belief certainly isn't the fault of individual Arabs. The problem of course is due to it being a necessary condition to ensure their property and/or lives are safe. When you live in a bad environment you will probably develop some bad habits. We over eat and take up smoking. They will kill you for stealing a chicken. This isn't a criticism. Just a statement of fact.
Also Moqtada al-Sadr has gone international by warning Kuwait that it must end its cooperation with the U.S. military. What's up with this character anyways? Is his army of 12-14 year olds going to storm the Kuwaiti border? What a putz? Is that a cruise missle I hear?
Here in Canada our nature loving natives, the Innu of Quebec in this case, have resorted to cariboo carnage in order to enhance their position in a land claim dispute with the government of Newfoundland. Go figure.
Anyways on a more cheerful note frequent ejaculation may reduce the risk of cancer. Given the choice between this and chemotherapy... well lets just say that if you currently work in a chemo ward you should probably be working on your resume.
This story could also pose a bit of a legal problem here Canada. In Canada a person can be held legally responsible for activities that may increase the cancer risk to the people around them. Smoking in public being the most obvious example. I wonder if a husband will be able to sue his wife for not 'filling his perscription' if you know what I mean?
About Those Mosques
Kofi Annan Springs Into Action
What else... well courtesy of Best Of The Web Today, John Kerry still doesn't know if he's coming or going:
Kerry, speaking to about 17 reporters from political battleground states on both sides of the matter, said he supported the tariffs because "under the circumstances, it was an important grabbing-air moment."We have U.S. forces in Iraq going all out:
"I wouldn't re-impose them, but I would have let them play out the way they were promised," he said. "Once you put them in place, people have expectations. ... And if you, all of a sudden, upset that, you're really wreaking havoc in the market."
"We will attack to destroy the al-Mahdi Army," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search) told reporters. "Those attacks will be deliberate, precise and they will be successful."I'm particularly pleased to see this since, as I've stated elsewhere on canadiancomment, I believe that U.S. forces must at times be ruthless and overwhelming. This is necessary because, as others have detailed much better than I could hope to do, Arab culture currently respects power and strength. This is often at odds with efforts by the West in general because we have a tendency to think that if we are kind and generous in our dealings with Arabs that they will appreicate our efforts and deal with us on a give-and-take basis. This simply put is fooey.
He said U.S. forces were trying to hunt down members of the al-Mahdi Army in the mainly Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City (search) in Baghdad, and he called on al-Sadr to surrender.
"If he wants to calm the situation ... he can turn himself in to a local Iraqi police station and he can face justice," Kimmitt said.
Arab leaders, and their populations in general view kindness and generosity (at least by nations) as a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve. This belief certainly isn't the fault of individual Arabs. The problem of course is due to it being a necessary condition to ensure their property and/or lives are safe. When you live in a bad environment you will probably develop some bad habits. We over eat and take up smoking. They will kill you for stealing a chicken. This isn't a criticism. Just a statement of fact.
Also Moqtada al-Sadr has gone international by warning Kuwait that it must end its cooperation with the U.S. military. What's up with this character anyways? Is his army of 12-14 year olds going to storm the Kuwaiti border? What a putz? Is that a cruise missle I hear?
Here in Canada our nature loving natives, the Innu of Quebec in this case, have resorted to cariboo carnage in order to enhance their position in a land claim dispute with the government of Newfoundland. Go figure.
Anyways on a more cheerful note frequent ejaculation may reduce the risk of cancer. Given the choice between this and chemotherapy... well lets just say that if you currently work in a chemo ward you should probably be working on your resume.
This story could also pose a bit of a legal problem here Canada. In Canada a person can be held legally responsible for activities that may increase the cancer risk to the people around them. Smoking in public being the most obvious example. I wonder if a husband will be able to sue his wife for not 'filling his perscription' if you know what I mean?
Who's To Blame For The Rwandan Genocide?
I have been generally sympathetic to Romeo Dallaire's leadership of the U.N. mission in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994. Unfortunately he's gone off the deep end with these comments yesterday:
If Dallaire wanted to say that the West was morally responsible for the genocide then I may not object so much to his statement. I'm still not of the opinion that the West is morally responsible for the crimes, any more than I'ld place moral blame on the Chinese, Indians, or Brazilians. Still moral responsibility is not the topic here, criminal responsibility is.
So what legal statute is Dallaire referring to? Last I checked there are no legal precidents or statutes that make Western nations criminally responsible for deaths that occur in non-Western nations. Did the U.N. pass a law making the West the global policeman? Sneaky bastards... didn't even bother to tell us I guess.
Anyways, didn't 'world opinion' just recently oppose the removal of our favorite dictator Saddam Hussein? The U.N. certainly opposed it. Maybe the U.S. should add Sudan to its global empire? They don't want to be responsible for the genocide occuring there now do they?
If people think that George W. Bush's 'pre-emptive' foreign policy is throwing international relations out of wack then I'ld like to know what they think of this.
"The international community didn't give one damn for Rwandans because Rwanda was a country of no strategic importance," General Romeo Dallaire told a conference in Kigali marking the 10th anniversary of the slaughter.Of course someone should be held responsible for the crimes that occured but don't you think it should be those who held the machetees and machine guns? How about those who armed one of the groups? Blame France for that one. Sorry about that... I just couldn't help myself.
"It's up to Rwanda not to let others forget they are criminally responsible for the genocide," he said, singling out France, Britain and the United States.
"The genocide was brutal, criminal and disgusting and continued for 100 days under the eyes of the international community."
If Dallaire wanted to say that the West was morally responsible for the genocide then I may not object so much to his statement. I'm still not of the opinion that the West is morally responsible for the crimes, any more than I'ld place moral blame on the Chinese, Indians, or Brazilians. Still moral responsibility is not the topic here, criminal responsibility is.
So what legal statute is Dallaire referring to? Last I checked there are no legal precidents or statutes that make Western nations criminally responsible for deaths that occur in non-Western nations. Did the U.N. pass a law making the West the global policeman? Sneaky bastards... didn't even bother to tell us I guess.
Anyways, didn't 'world opinion' just recently oppose the removal of our favorite dictator Saddam Hussein? The U.N. certainly opposed it. Maybe the U.S. should add Sudan to its global empire? They don't want to be responsible for the genocide occuring there now do they?
If people think that George W. Bush's 'pre-emptive' foreign policy is throwing international relations out of wack then I'ld like to know what they think of this.
Anxiously Waiting
I just sent in a subscription to the Western Standard this morning. Yippee!
Now if they'ld just hurry the hell up and get my first issue to me I'ld be all set. I'm sick at home today and could use the entertainment.
Now if they'ld just hurry the hell up and get my first issue to me I'ld be all set. I'm sick at home today and could use the entertainment.
Morissette Is An Idiot
I simply don't know what to make of Morisette's nude suit incident.
She apparently did the whole bit in protest of censorship of some sorts. Like really?
Her first beef is that some media outlets are censoring nudity? Well if she was protesting about media censorship of nudity then what the hell was up with the suit? Way to go out there on a limb Alanis. How bold. How daring. Pathetic.
Her second beef is that some American radio stations have 'forced' her to remove the word asshole from one of her songs. And why 'forced'? I would imagine that the situation was more of a 'remove the word or we don't play it' scenario. That is not being 'forced'.
In the end they must have been pretty rough with her because she did remove the word. Now what is really the problem with this I don't know. Do the radio stations not have the right to play what they want? Since when did all radio stations have to have open access anyways? In the end though the cash was more important to her than censorship.
Way to play it safe Alanis.
She apparently did the whole bit in protest of censorship of some sorts. Like really?
Her first beef is that some media outlets are censoring nudity? Well if she was protesting about media censorship of nudity then what the hell was up with the suit? Way to go out there on a limb Alanis. How bold. How daring. Pathetic.
Her second beef is that some American radio stations have 'forced' her to remove the word asshole from one of her songs. And why 'forced'? I would imagine that the situation was more of a 'remove the word or we don't play it' scenario. That is not being 'forced'.
In the end they must have been pretty rough with her because she did remove the word. Now what is really the problem with this I don't know. Do the radio stations not have the right to play what they want? Since when did all radio stations have to have open access anyways? In the end though the cash was more important to her than censorship.
Way to play it safe Alanis.
Missing Response
The Globe And Mail poll question today:
Does it trouble you that Bob Dylan has lent his face and his music to a Victoria's Secret advertisement?Possible answers include Yes, and No. A third choice should have been: Who Gives A Flying F#@k!
Jordan Gets Tough On Terror
A Jordanian military court has sentenced 8 men to death for the murder of Laurence Foley a U.S. aid worker in 2002:
I know that Jordan and Turkey have their problems, but given the regional environment they find themselves, they allow a significant amount of freedom in regards to speech and political rights. Its a safe bet to make that Arab nations based on the political models of Jordan or Turkey would most likely not be a threat to the West or to each other.
Arab people must realize that support or tolerance of terrorist organizations is essentially a short term political calculation made by their leaders. If only other peoples within the Arab world could recognize that any short term gain by their leaders (from terror) ensures long term pain themselves.
Terror doesn't discriminate.
Jordan's military court has convicted eight Muslim militants and sentenced them to death for the 2002 killing of a U.S. aid official in a terror conspiracy linked to al-Qaida.Jordan, along with Turkey, definitely have my respect. These two countries stand out among other Muslim nations in combatting terror. It seems the leaders of these countries, along with their people, appreciate the fact that if terror is tolerated it will someday come back to haunt them.
The court also gave jail terms ranging from six to 15 years for two other men convicted in the conspiracy, which began with the killing of Laurence Foley, 60, an Amman-based administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Foley was shot to death outside his Amman home on Oct. 28, 2002.
I know that Jordan and Turkey have their problems, but given the regional environment they find themselves, they allow a significant amount of freedom in regards to speech and political rights. Its a safe bet to make that Arab nations based on the political models of Jordan or Turkey would most likely not be a threat to the West or to each other.
Arab people must realize that support or tolerance of terrorist organizations is essentially a short term political calculation made by their leaders. If only other peoples within the Arab world could recognize that any short term gain by their leaders (from terror) ensures long term pain themselves.
Terror doesn't discriminate.
Never In Canada?
A Jewish elementary school was set alight last night in Montreal. Notes left at the site indicate that Muslim radicals were likely behind the fire:
There is an undercurrent of hate flowing in our culture and ignoring it will not make it go away. Or do most Canadians think they will remain safe if it is only directed at a particular portion of our society?
The notes denounced recent attacks against Palestinians, including the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Islamic Hamas movement, and threatened further attacks.Many Canadians have this naive view that the types of religious attacks we see occuring around the world could never happen here. What will it take to make Canadians realize we are only a few short steps away from experiencing such terrible things first hand?
"Our goal was only to sound the alarm without causing deaths. . .but this is just a beginning. If your crimes continue in the Middle East, our attacks will continue,'' the letter reads.
There is an undercurrent of hate flowing in our culture and ignoring it will not make it go away. Or do most Canadians think they will remain safe if it is only directed at a particular portion of our society?
The Next Two Weeks Could Determine Iraqs Future
With Fallujah surrounded and U.S. administrators declaring an Iraqi cleric an outlaw the next couple of weeks could very well determine the future of Iraq if not the entire War On Terror.
The main point that Islamic radicals have been trying to make is that if you make the Americans bleed enough that they'll go back home. The problem is of course that in this case, it is not a viable option for the Americans. In Mogadishu nothing was directly as stake. Same goes for Lebanon or any of the other examples where Islamic radicals attacked Americans.
Whether you agree with the American invasion or not, it must be accepted that if Iraq was to desend into a fundamentalist pit, the future of the West becomes that much bleaker.
If the American public demands a retreat from Iraq, the War On Terror is lost. It is really that simple. If Iraq falls, America goes home leaving others to pick up the fight. Unfortunately in this case there is no one else to pick up the fight.
America must prove that it will fight. Not just fight, but to be ruthless with those who opposes it.
The people who cheered the charred bodies last week, who celebrated their deaths, must know what it is like to be on the wrong side of history. These people have for too long benefitted from American generosity, whether delivering food, building hospitals, whatever. If the people of Falujah wish to
oppose America in Iraq, they must suffer because of it.
It may seem harsh but if America does not prove its resolve and fast, it may just lose the War On Terror. That is something I simply don't want to contemplate.
The main point that Islamic radicals have been trying to make is that if you make the Americans bleed enough that they'll go back home. The problem is of course that in this case, it is not a viable option for the Americans. In Mogadishu nothing was directly as stake. Same goes for Lebanon or any of the other examples where Islamic radicals attacked Americans.
Whether you agree with the American invasion or not, it must be accepted that if Iraq was to desend into a fundamentalist pit, the future of the West becomes that much bleaker.
If the American public demands a retreat from Iraq, the War On Terror is lost. It is really that simple. If Iraq falls, America goes home leaving others to pick up the fight. Unfortunately in this case there is no one else to pick up the fight.
America must prove that it will fight. Not just fight, but to be ruthless with those who opposes it.
The people who cheered the charred bodies last week, who celebrated their deaths, must know what it is like to be on the wrong side of history. These people have for too long benefitted from American generosity, whether delivering food, building hospitals, whatever. If the people of Falujah wish to
oppose America in Iraq, they must suffer because of it.
It may seem harsh but if America does not prove its resolve and fast, it may just lose the War On Terror. That is something I simply don't want to contemplate.
The Easy Route
Mark Steyn does a good take on the sorry state of many of our social critics.
Steyn takes Beaton to task for his play Follow My Leader, an anti-Bush/Blair rant featuring the soon to be classic "We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus". Steyn says:
Basically, they are very selective against whom they insult. In Europe, for example, you'ld get the impression that America is run by a bunch of backward religious nuts. On the other hand of course you have fundamentalist Muslims within Europe who in some cases openly state that the implementation of Sharia Law in Europe is their goal. Yet hardly a wimper is heard. There are no plays in Britain about religious Muslims (let alone fundamentalist ones). And yet Beaton can attract a crowd while mocking the oh so religious G.W. Bush.
Maybe I'm not connecting here. But as far as I'm concerned if you are worried about G.W. forcing his religion on you, you're out of your mind.
I remember reading the comments section on another blog awhile back and someone stated they wouldn't vote for the new Conservative Party because he didn't want religion to be forced on him. Like what planet was this guy living on? I would be terribly surprised if there was even one instance in this persons adult life when Christianity was 'forced' upon him. Did he actually believe this would happen? Was his statement just some reflexive response ingrained by two many years reading the Toronto Star?
Some people seem to feel that Christianity is some sort of evil that must be destroyed. These same people of course encourage other religions in the name of diversity and multicuturalism. These people are either dim-witted or dangerous. I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Steyn takes Beaton to task for his play Follow My Leader, an anti-Bush/Blair rant featuring the soon to be classic "We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus". Steyn says:
The contours of our epic clash of civilisations are clear now: Christians are a cheap laugh and in ontrol of the Bush Administration, Jews are sinister and in control of the Bush Administration, and Muslims... whoa, best not to mention them, man. You don't want to be Islamophobic. You can sing "We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus" because there are no "fundamentalist Christians" within 20 miles of the Birmingham Rep - or at least none that is going to be waiting for you at the stage door. "We're Sending You A Schoolgirl Bomb From Allah" might attract notice from a livelier crowd. If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.This gets to something that has always driven me batty about the 'left' or so-called social progressives.
Basically, they are very selective against whom they insult. In Europe, for example, you'ld get the impression that America is run by a bunch of backward religious nuts. On the other hand of course you have fundamentalist Muslims within Europe who in some cases openly state that the implementation of Sharia Law in Europe is their goal. Yet hardly a wimper is heard. There are no plays in Britain about religious Muslims (let alone fundamentalist ones). And yet Beaton can attract a crowd while mocking the oh so religious G.W. Bush.
Maybe I'm not connecting here. But as far as I'm concerned if you are worried about G.W. forcing his religion on you, you're out of your mind.
I remember reading the comments section on another blog awhile back and someone stated they wouldn't vote for the new Conservative Party because he didn't want religion to be forced on him. Like what planet was this guy living on? I would be terribly surprised if there was even one instance in this persons adult life when Christianity was 'forced' upon him. Did he actually believe this would happen? Was his statement just some reflexive response ingrained by two many years reading the Toronto Star?
Some people seem to feel that Christianity is some sort of evil that must be destroyed. These same people of course encourage other religions in the name of diversity and multicuturalism. These people are either dim-witted or dangerous. I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Kerry Vs The Pope
John Kerry's stance on abortion is building up into a full out confrontation with the Catholic Church:
This is simply another instance of Kerry spinning his beliefs so that they are more acceptable to a large portion of the American public. He is incapable of making a principled stand on any moral issues of our day. Note to Mr. Kerry: Abortion has nothing to do with religion.
The real kicker in all of this is:
I really hope something comes of this. It will make one of the biggest political stories in years.
If Kerry thinks he can take on the Church and win, that's proof enough that this presidential campaign has inflated his head.
Priests and bishops across America are being urged by members to refuse Communion to the first Catholic to run for the presidency since John F. Kennedy. The sanction would be imposed until Mr Kerry abandoned his permissive views on abortion and other issues such as gay marriages.In typical Kerry fashion he tries to defuse the situation:
The campaign - which has the explicit blessing of the Vatican - is gathering force and, with Holy Week drawing near, Mr Kerry's aides have been forced to visit churches before allowing him to attend Mass. Rome has become increasingly concerned about the possibility of an avowedly Catholic president who is both pro-choice and approves of gay civil unions.
Mr Kerry has described himself as a "believing and practising Catholic" who is "personally" against abortion, but believes in a strong separation of Church and State.What exactly does 'the separation of Church and State' have to do with his position on abortion? There are many people who are non-religious who are opposed to abortion.
This is simply another instance of Kerry spinning his beliefs so that they are more acceptable to a large portion of the American public. He is incapable of making a principled stand on any moral issues of our day. Note to Mr. Kerry: Abortion has nothing to do with religion.
The real kicker in all of this is:
Within the Kerry campaign there are rumours that Mr Kerry may yet decide to confront his challengers head-on. One aide was reported last week to be searching for a Church with a hostile priest.They have to be kidding? Confronting the Church? It is quite possible that not only have Democrats lost their minds but they've also lost their 'political' minds. Do they actually think that confronting the Church will rally anyone to his cause? People who already reject faith surely will rally behind him but he's already got their support pretty much wrapped up.
According to rumour, Mr Kerry would attend Mass knowing that he would be refused Communion in the full glare of the media. Sympathetic Catholics would then be expected to rally to his cause.
I really hope something comes of this. It will make one of the biggest political stories in years.
If Kerry thinks he can take on the Church and win, that's proof enough that this presidential campaign has inflated his head.
The Ego's On These Guys
I'm really irked by this quote from the Paul Martin integrity ad:
I know that we basically live in a one party state here in Canada but I really don't care to be reminded of it by the P.M. of all people.
... because people have got to believe that there is integrity in government otherwise the whole system will come tumbling down...No Paul, if people lose integrity in government it's 'your' government that will come crumbling down. The 'system' will survive and will be better off without you.
I know that we basically live in a one party state here in Canada but I really don't care to be reminded of it by the P.M. of all people.
My Last Post Concerning the 9/11 Commission
If I hear any more on the 9/11 commission down in the U.S. I think I'm going to puke. I'm all for listening to spin and all but I've officially had enough.
I just watched a segment on the CBC with some Clintonite hack and not once did the host ask why the Clinton's didn't act against Al Qaeda. They had all the plans in the world and for some reason its all G.W.'s fault that there was no follow through.
I promise this is my last post on this topic. In summary, Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qaeda.
Georgie had 8 months. Should he have done something in those 8 months. Well hind sight being 20-20 of course. But anyone in the Clinton adminstration who claims they did their jobs... well its just to ridiculous to listen to anymore.
I just watched a segment on the CBC with some Clintonite hack and not once did the host ask why the Clinton's didn't act against Al Qaeda. They had all the plans in the world and for some reason its all G.W.'s fault that there was no follow through.
I promise this is my last post on this topic. In summary, Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al Qaeda.
Georgie had 8 months. Should he have done something in those 8 months. Well hind sight being 20-20 of course. But anyone in the Clinton adminstration who claims they did their jobs... well its just to ridiculous to listen to anymore.
Changed The Blog Again
Well I've made more changes to the blog in the hope of it working a bit better.
I've changed things so that tables aren't used for rendering everything. When I first put up canadiancomment It was like I had found a hammer and went looking for nails. The whole stinking site was rendered with tables which not only made the downloads significantly larger but it prevented the page from being rendered until it was totally downloaded.
Anyways, I'm hoping that since I'm now using CSS that the page will now come up quicker for our visitors. Anyways I hope it still looks OK and if you find anything that acts weird/strange/unusual please let me know.
I nearly had a heartattack making these changes. I spent a couple of hours getting the style sheet set up just right on a test blog so that I could see all the changes before applying them to canadiancomment. Anyways, I had moved the style sheet to my canadiancomment directory instead of copying it. Well I rebuilt canadiancomment and it over wrote the new style sheet with the default template. I though I had just wasted a couple hours of my life. I looked in the cache of my other computer and thank God it was in there. A grown man in tears is not a pretty site.
The primary benefit to the changes is that canadiancomment should look more consistant between different browsers. The previous implementation of canadiancomment looked fine on IE but on Mozilla and Opera it didn't render quite as well. I'm sure that Mozilla and Opera are more standards complient but that's beside the point.
Now if I can just figure out how to get word wrap/break to work on Mozilla I'll be all set.
I've changed things so that tables aren't used for rendering everything. When I first put up canadiancomment It was like I had found a hammer and went looking for nails. The whole stinking site was rendered with tables which not only made the downloads significantly larger but it prevented the page from being rendered until it was totally downloaded.
Anyways, I'm hoping that since I'm now using CSS that the page will now come up quicker for our visitors. Anyways I hope it still looks OK and if you find anything that acts weird/strange/unusual please let me know.
I nearly had a heartattack making these changes. I spent a couple of hours getting the style sheet set up just right on a test blog so that I could see all the changes before applying them to canadiancomment. Anyways, I had moved the style sheet to my canadiancomment directory instead of copying it. Well I rebuilt canadiancomment and it over wrote the new style sheet with the default template. I though I had just wasted a couple hours of my life. I looked in the cache of my other computer and thank God it was in there. A grown man in tears is not a pretty site.
The primary benefit to the changes is that canadiancomment should look more consistant between different browsers. The previous implementation of canadiancomment looked fine on IE but on Mozilla and Opera it didn't render quite as well. I'm sure that Mozilla and Opera are more standards complient but that's beside the point.
Now if I can just figure out how to get word wrap/break to work on Mozilla I'll be all set.
The War Rages On
With all the commotion concerning the War On Terror we've had to deal with, a few things are coming into focus. Primarily that Europe may finally be seeing the threat that they are up against.
The latest attempt to blow up a commuter train this week proves that the people of Spain cannot bargain with terrorists. There is only one choice and that is to fight.
The problem with Europe of course is that it is fighting a defensive war while America of course is on the offensive.
The last few weeks in Europe included the Madrid bombings, arrests throughout many European countries, and many bombing attempts that were prevented only due to shit luck. The European response:
Europe though is to sophisticated to fight back. Europe will sit there and take everything the terrorists can throw at them. All in the hope that the terrorists will in time see the error of their ways... or until America wins the fight.
Canada has been lucky so far. How much longer can our luck hold out?
The latest attempt to blow up a commuter train this week proves that the people of Spain cannot bargain with terrorists. There is only one choice and that is to fight.
The problem with Europe of course is that it is fighting a defensive war while America of course is on the offensive.
The last few weeks in Europe included the Madrid bombings, arrests throughout many European countries, and many bombing attempts that were prevented only due to shit luck. The European response:
The EU declaration signed by the 25 leaders of current and future member states invokes a "solidarity clause" that commits all to "act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if one of them is the victim of a terrorist attack. They shall mobilise all the instruments at their disposal, including military resources".They can increase security all they want but Europeans will eventually run out of luck. More bombings can only be expected.
"The callous and cowardly attacks served as a terrible reminder of the threat posed by terrorism to our society," read the declaration, drafted by Irish officials. "No country in the world can consider itself immune. Terrorism can only be defeated by solidarity and collective action."
...
The 50-odd measures agreed yesterday include much stricter security on ferries and ports to bring them in line with airports. At the moment cars are loaded on to ferries without even a cursory search.
Europe though is to sophisticated to fight back. Europe will sit there and take everything the terrorists can throw at them. All in the hope that the terrorists will in time see the error of their ways... or until America wins the fight.
Canada has been lucky so far. How much longer can our luck hold out?
9/11 Commission
[Via Let It Bleed]
Ann Coulter does 9/11 Commission's job by summing up the events that led to 9/11:
Ann Coulter does 9/11 Commission's job by summing up the events that led to 9/11:
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.She concludes with:
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.
What a surprise.
$40 Gift Card
My fiancee's parents were kind enough to give me a gift certificate to Chapters for my birthday. Sweet! They're the nicest and most fabulistic folks in the world.
That noise you hear is me sucking up to my fiancee's parents...
Anyways...
So the question is what book(s) should I get with it? The one I have in mind is C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea by Victor Reppert. Other than that though I'm drawing a blank.
Any suggestions?
That noise you hear is me sucking up to my fiancee's parents...
Anyways...
So the question is what book(s) should I get with it? The one I have in mind is C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea by Victor Reppert. Other than that though I'm drawing a blank.
Any suggestions?
Required Reading
It you read anything the next couple of days I suggest you check these out from Eject! Eject! Eject!:
Chapter One: And A Miracle Occurs...
Chapter Two: It's A Trap!
Chapter One: And A Miracle Occurs...
Chapter Two: It's A Trap!
You've Got To Wonder What's Going On At The EU
[Via The Telegraph - EU 'covered up' attacks on Jews by young Muslims]
The summary to the EU study concerning racism and xenophobia states:
The summary to the EU study concerning racism and xenophobia states:
The largest group of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic activities appears to be young, disaffected white Europeans...Buried in the report it states:
Traditionally, anti-Semitic groups on the extreme Right played a part in stirring opinion...
The percentage attributable to the extreme Right was only nine per cent in 2002.Now if we could just figure out who committed the other 91% of the attacks...
Some Moral Clarity In The Senate
[Via Segac's World I Know]
Well thank God not everyone in our government hasn't been infected by the PC bug.
On March 30th Senator David Tkachuk spoke regarding the Israeli assasination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin:
Well thank God not everyone in our government hasn't been infected by the PC bug.
On March 30th Senator David Tkachuk spoke regarding the Israeli assasination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin:
What is of great concern to me is that we are starting to see a pattern of equivocation emerge. I fail to see how an equivocating position is good for Canadians as we witness the escalation of violence and the mounting death toll on both sides of the war. When one of Canada's ministers suggests that Israel behaved contrary to its obligations, I suggest this government is getting closer to condoning terrorist actions. When our media repeatedly defines Sheik Yassin as a spiritual leader, I disagree. I suggest that this bolsters terrorism itself. The "spiritualism" of Yassin would be considered a blasphemy by the Christian standards that I uphold, and I would suggest that the faith and values of Canada's other religions would not condone acts of extermination, something that Yassin's organization, the Hamas, holds as its mandate.
...
Honourable senators, I know how many have asked these questions, but I want to add my voice to the chorus: Who started these forms of terrorist violence? How long until we declare terrorism unacceptable? This war between Israelis and Palestinians is not merely a battle over land; it is a war between the future of civil society and a future without one.
On Thursday, March 25, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution that condemned Israel for killing the Hamas leader, Sheikh Yassin. While the UN clearly condemned the actions of Israel with regard to Yassin, it also clearly condones the continued terrorist actions and past actions by the Hamas since these actions were not addressed in the resolution. Some countries in favour of the resolution included China, France, Russia and Pakistan, while Britain, Germany and Romania abstained.
Honourable senators, in closing I agree with Prime Minister Martin in that on one hand, Israel does a have a right to defend its sovereignty. It is unfortunate that Mr. Martin is not sure whether he believes it himself.
Good Luck
In Muslims 'must not denounce other Muslims' the Telegraph reports that Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad isn't to fond of cooperating with British authorities:
Muslims have a unique way of life. Co-operating with the authorities against any other Muslims, that is an act of apostasy in Islam.And of course the usual disclaimer:
Having said that, Muslims in Britain have the right to defend themselves, but without the use of violence.Of course.