The Youth Vote

I am totally baffled by the entire campaign waged by the media and our government encouraging young people to vote. I find the concern people express for low voter turnout, especially among youth, amusing at best and politically manipulative at worst.

Now simply having a few commericals encouraging people to vote are fine... its just that I start to worry when the CBC starts doing 'specials' on the subject. Once the CBC has a show on a subject its only a matter of time before a bunch of do-gooders start lobbying for government money to solve the problem.

So is there a problem? Well the 'evil conservative political operator' in me says no. That's because as Winston Churchill said:

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conversative, has no brains.

I'm sure most of us would agree that Winnie had it right on the mark. So the 'evil conservative political operator' in me thinks the Conservative Party should do everything possible to suppress the 'youth vote'. I'm not talking about violence or anything like that. Maybe some light mocking on voting day... 'Hey loser what are you doing here? Don't you have a girlfriend or something? Are you a total loser? What's wrong with you?...' That sort of thing.

This tendency of the young voting more left can be seen by where our political parties lay on the spectrum and how much they go on about the youth vote. There is a direct co-relation.

Is low voter turnout really a problem? Well some people think it obviously is. I really get a kick out of the shows where they interview the, oh so very rare, disgruntled youth voter. The first thing out of their mouths is always something like 'Dude... none of the parties address the issuses that concern me'. What issues concern them? Usually the first one they mention is the cost of education. Note to 'idiot youth voter': your education is free you twit! Plus you're university education is a total steal unless of course you take 'english, arts in general, or basket-weaving' then your on your own. Considering how much of his schooling is covered by someone other than themselves I find it astonishing that they claim no one cares about this issue. JACKASS!

Most of the other issues that concern youth voters involve pimples, BO, and getting a date for the prom. What can a national political leader do about these issues? Nothing!

You spoiled little brats think the world revolves around you. Well you know what? It doesn't. Not a flying !/3@). Grow up already. The only person who thinks your opinion matters is your mother and that's only on the good days.

My suggestion to young voters is to go and talk to your parents and grand-parents about voting. I'm sure most of them has lots of experience with the process.

Some will tell you that a politician never delivers on their promises. This may be an exageration but you'ld be astonished by how many people believe it. Plus your family will be able to tell how politicians only want to get into office so that they can funnel some cash and business towards their family and friends. Your family will also be able to tell you about every vote that they ever wasted which in most cases will have been all of them.

Listen long and hard and maybe you'll decide to be like the rest of us where politicians promise to address our concerns and then after we vote for them they turn around and stab us in the back.

Maybe the kiddies are onto something?

What's Online

What else have we found online today. Well via Nealenews we have Why Hollywood Hates Christians. We also have They Had It Made describing a plot between the Liberals and Joe Clark's pals to rig the election results of 2000. My belief that Clark was a closet Liberal is being proven correct. This is a huge story though... whether it has legs or not we'll have to see.

We also have this reminding us that Stephen Harper is the only 'normal' person out there running for PM.

For those who doubt that the media is biased in their coverage of the news then check this out.

Also Bill Cosby rocks the boat and I love it.

Goodbye World

P.J. O'Rourke tells us how the world would look if America became isolationist:

...

America will enjoy cleaner air and less traffic congestion as oil goes to $200 a barrel due to chaos in the Middle East. A U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East will cause chaos, of course. Then again, a U.S. intervention in the Middle East has caused chaos already. And, during those periods of history when the U.S. was neither intervening in nor withdrawing from the Middle East, there was . . . chaos. The situation is akin to the famous complaint women have against men: failure to acknowledge that not every problem can be fixed. Sometimes the best thing is just a little sympathy. America had everyone's sympathy after the World Trade towers were attacked. We can get that sympathy back if we limit our foreign policy objectives to whining.

...

One thing to whine about will be the fate of Israel. Without American safeguards that nation is certain to be militarily attacked. To judge by previous Israeli wars, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, the result will be serious headaches for Israelis as the Knesset furiously debates the status of Jewish settlements outside Damascus and on the west bank of the Euphrates.

...

The threat of nuclear proliferation will abate as dangerous stockpiles of atomic weapons are quickly used up. The loss of life will be regrettable. But this will be counterbalanced by the welcome disappearance of long-standing international flashpoints when the India-Pakistan border is vaporized, Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud, and whatever is left of the Korean Peninsula becomes reunited.

P.J. kicks ass.

Childish Views

Charles Moore has an interesting article about his perceptions of America during his childhood and how the process that created those perceptions is still at work today:

The BBC did not preach to me about the Soviet threat with the same ardour that it preached about racial prejudice. I therefore thought that America was very violent and very backward, and I could never quite understand why such a country was by far the most powerful in the world. If I asked people why, they would say, "Oh well, it's because it's so rich," as if wealth were something that simply descended upon you without the contribution of human effort. As a result, I understood very little about America.

Today, we are presented with a similar narrative - so powerful that I find that 90 per cent of people here believe it, even those who think of themselves as conservative. The narrative is that America is bullying and naive about the outside world. It is very keen on killing people. George W Bush is taken to embody these characteristics, since he wears cowboy boots and is inarticulate and prays a lot. (Fine for Muslims to pray, not for Christians.)

There are good Americans who, again, come from the north-east and never talk about religion. You can tell they are good because they are not "unilateralist". Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, is, ex officio, a good American. But the bad Americans, with guns and money and a white God, are in charge.

Is That A Cliff I See Approaching?

The NDPs first campaign pledge was that if elected they would raise our taxes. Not exactly a vote getter even in the Great Socialist North.

The NDP never to be outdone by the pledges of the other political parties have outdone even themselves today. In another brilliant show of political gamesmenship they've pledged to make it easier for Quebec politicos to split the country apart.

A week ago I thought that Jack Layton was a smart political operator. That has totally gone out the window with his performance over the past week.

First the tax increase. Note to all you socialists out there: DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE GOING TO RAISE THEIR TAXES. Nobody wants to pay more taxes. Alot of people think it is OK if OTHER people pay higher taxes just don't give them any reason to think you are eyeing their wallet. Stalin wouldn't have been stupid enough to think that would make people love him.

Now he proposes to eliminate the federal Clarity Act. Exactly who's vote does he hope to gain by this position? Someone worked up enough by the Clarity Act to support this position is not going to vote for the NDP. They already have a party to represent their interests... its called the Bloc.

And really is anyone, even in Quebec, opposed to the Clarity Act? Even if you are a separatist I can't imagine why you'ld care about it. I'm just an anglo though so what would I know?

Who's The Nazi?

We all know how the sweeties over at Moveon.org love calling Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc... Nazis.

Who looks more like a Nazi to you?

This man?


Or this man?

NDP Reverts To It's Old Ways

Jack Layton today unveiled the NDPs platform during a stop in Toronto. The article title in The Globe And Mail seems a bit harsh though. Is it necessary for 'moderate' to be put in scare quotes? Why not just 'NDP's platform heavy on taxes'? Anyways I'm drifting here.

I'm actually quite surprised that the NDP came out with a platform that was so tax heavy. The NDP has spent the last couple of years trying to convince people that the party would be fiscally responsible. In a strict sense, raising taxes in and of itself, does not prove that you are fiscally irresponsible but it will be very hard for the NDP to convince the public of it regardless. In short if you raise taxes you obviously don't know how to handle the nations money. It may not be fair but most people would instinctively agree with that statement.

So what have the NDP accomplished with their platform? Not much as far as I can tell. An election platform for a party that has no real chance of winning should accomplish one simple goal... to allow the party to play the spoiler and/or to win as many seats as possible. This basically means that though your 'base' may not be large you intend to 'steal' as many votes as possible from the larger parties that have a more established base.

I guess I could give credit to the NDP for being upfront about raising taxes. In a sense it is quite refreshing. But the sceptic in me says that though the NDP are telling me that they'll raise my taxes 'just a little bit' that they may be trying to pull one over on me. Though I was too young when the provincial NDP parties came to power in Ontario and BC I suspect that they didn't go out of their way to warn people that they intended to economically ruin their provincial economies.

The NDP has to shake the past that its provincial parties has given it. This budget won't do that. I suspect that national support for the NDP has just fallen a few percentage points.

Healthcare And Politics

Jeffrey Simpson has a nice roundup of how Canada's obsession with healthcare is affecting our budgets and the political process.

Election Analysis Of Ottawa South

Well since the election has officially been called I figure it would be a good idea to give a rundown of the situation in my home riding of Ottawa South.

Well the chart below gives the results from the election of 2000.

The NDP is fielding Monia Mazigh wife of Maher Arar who spent a year in a Syrian prison because of suspicions that he was in some manner connected to al-Qaeda. Either way I seriously doubt that her running will have any significant effect on the level of NDP support in the riding. Still, given that Paul Martin has taken the federal Liberal Party slightly left in relation to the policies of Jean Chretien, I suspect NDP support here will increase in proportion with that of the national party.

NDP 2004 % = 15%

I suspect that support to other 'frindge' parties will trend along the lines seen in 2000. Sorry to anyone included in this total, no insult is intended.

Other 2004 % = 3%

The remainder of the vote will be split between the Liberals and the Conservatives so the analysis of these two parties will be done together since anything that will affect one obviously has an effect on the other.

The totals from 2000 had Liberal support at 51% with the Canadian Alliance/ Progressive Conservative merged total being 40%. The most significant change in 2004 will of course be that the two 'conservative' parties here in Canada have now merged. I suspect that this won't have a significant effect in and of itself to affect the combined support for the new Conservative party. I say this because I suspect that the merged party would tend to attract a few more supporters. The principle of 'they have a hope' appling here. I figure that this would ammount to 1% or less of the total electorate. This slight increase though would probably be offset by some of the 'progressive' members of the old Progressive Conservative party moving to the Liberal or NDP camp.

The second change to have a major effect on the race in Ottawa South is that John Manley will not be running in 2004. Now I am personally very conservative in my politics but even I'll admit that John Manley wasn't all bad; in many ways I actually liked the guy. Regardless I suspect that many other closet conservatives felt the same way. The loss of John Manley will probably affect Liberal support in Ottawa South with a loss in the range of 2-4%. Four percent may seem high but it will be impossible to replace Manley's name recognition.

The third change to have a significant impact here in Ottawa South is that the Liberal nominee is David McGuinty, brother of Ontarians favorite Liberal, Premier Donald McGuinty. As many of you are probably aware, the provicial Liberals have just raised taxes here by a significant amount. This naturally does not bode well here for David. Kind of like putting on a 'deer suit' and then going for a jog in the woods. Not good.

So how do I see it all shaking out in Ottawa South. Well given the problems the federal Liberals have been having, plus the major factors affecting Ottawa South that I've mentioned, I feel comfortable predicting that the Conservatives will claim the seat for Ottawa South.

Conservatives 2004 % = 45%
Liberals 2004 % = 37%

Of course this can all change will major developements on either the local or national scenes in the weeks to come. But I suspect that with the Liberals getting squeezed from both the 'right' and the 'left', a change in Ottawa South is quite possible if not outright likely. Remember that if the Liberals shed 3-4 percent from its left and right leaning bases of support, the race will become a statistical dead heat.

The only real unknown that I see in my analysis is that NDP support may not increase as I suspect. If a significant number of NDP supporters vote Liberal solely to prevent a Conservative win than that of course would change the dynamics of the race. I'll feel a bit more confident with my NDP numbers in a week or two. There is a general feeling out there that NDP support is bound to increase in 2004. Jack Layton has done a good job sounding like a reasonable politician but the key is if he can keep it up. If the NDP reverts to its old habits then things could quickly unravel for them.

Anyways, that's it for today.

Good luck to all the canadidates... now release the hounds!

Now He's Insulting Cop Killers

Don Cherry is at it again. And this time he's gone too far. On Wednesday, Cherry called a cop killer 'a little creep' causing outrage and concern among CBCs executives. To clarify the situation for the huddled masses the CBC released the following statement:

This senseless tragedy has been a source of profound sadness for us all, and Don Cherry was very passionate about this in his segment on last night's Coach's Corner. Given the passion of the statements made last night, we want to confirm to our audience our shared belief in the presumption of 'innocence until proven guilty.'

Thanks for clearing that up for us. From Don's comments I thought the 'innocent until proven guilty 'thingy ma jib' had been tossed out the window. Thank heavens that's been cleared up.

I'ld also like to know where the CBC got the idea that it was necessary that they remind us that they still believe in a fair trial? And what's with the scare quotes around the 'innocence until proven guilty'? Was that in the original statement or was it added later?

Idiots!

More Like Europeans?

I always get a kick out of how many people in Canadian politics keep pushing the 'compassionate' European model of social organization.

Due to France's wonderful social security system their elderly are commiting suicide at an alarming rate:

The French government is to punish families who fail to keep in touch with elderly relatives after being shamed by statistics which reveal that its suicide rate among its pensioners is the highest in Europe.

In a country that prides itself on traditional Catholic family values, elderly people left to fend for themselves are committing suicide at a rate of 62 a week, according to the figures released last week.

Under French law, adult offspring are already required to provide for ageing parents who do not have the means to look after themselves. Article 207 of the Civil Code states that children have a legal obligation to "honour and respect" their parents, as well as pay them an allowance and provide or fund a home for them. A judge may set the sum, with non-payers facing prison or a fine.

If a country has to pass laws that 'force' people to care for their parents then what long term prospects does it have? Apparently the people of France aren't as socially compassionate and caring as they would like us to believe.

Picking Your Pockets

The Ontario budget has come down today. My choice for best sound bite of the day goes to Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton for this gem referring to the new health premium tax:

This is a tax which will hit every modest and middle-income family. The government is literally picking the pockets of the wrong people.

I would have thought that picking the pockets of anybody would be wrong. At least he doesn't beat around the bush. And at least Hampton is clear on where he stands and what he would do if his party won.

The Liberals on the other hand just broke every election promise they made last year. Now I'll admit that most governments fail to live up to some of their election promises... but ALL of them... in ONE year? Amazing.

Putting It In Perspective

[Via Canadians are smug... via Baldilocks]

And some people say the West has gone soft...

The 800 odd US military deaths suffered since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom a year ago are less than the number who died in the Slapton Sands D-Day training exercise in 1944.

No wonder bin Laden and his ilk think they can scare us into surrendering.

We're All Screwed

A co-worker of mine has been sending me articles about the 'oil peak' for the last couple of weeks. I'm been brushing him off as best as I could simply because I'm been so busy and plus the last thing I need is another reason to think we're all screwed.

Regardless my responses up to now have been the usual. Oil supply will diminish slowly and society will have the opportunity to make gradual changes to a more varied energy supply. Blah blah blah... more oil fields will be discovered so there is no need to worry about an oil shortage any time soon.

Anyways, I'm just bought a house and trying to determine a term for the mortgage got me thinking about the likelihood of the shit hitting the fan anytime in the next couple of years. Reading a few of these articles totally got me bummed out. Many of them are somewhat conspiratorial but put all together a few good points are made.

As an example. If radical Islamists really wanted to stick it to the world they would simply direct all their energies trying to toople The House of Saud. One well aimed shot and the world would be totally... well you know what I want to say. If Prince Abdullah was killed tonight we would wake up to a totally different world. First off, equity markets would fall faster than Wiley E. Coyote off of a cliff. If you think want happened in India yesterday was something you would be in for a surprise.

Add to this the added tensions due to countries trying to secure other supplies and we've got ourselves a very volitile world. China would most likely immediately try to grab supplies in central Asia and in the South China Sea. Of course Japan won't sit around waiting to be starved. There are so many other potential conflicts possible it isn't worth pointing them all out.

Plus the third world would be totally out on a limb. Most developement in the third world over the last decade has been due to developement of heavy industry and manufacturing both heavily dependent on cheap and stable supplies of oil. At least in the West we would still be able to spend more on energy and still be able to eat. The third world wouldn't have the luxury of making that choice.

Anyways every day gives me another reason to suspect the world is one tiny event from going ape-shit.

Thanks Tom. Much appreciated.

Guns Fall Quiet?

So the guns have fallen quiet have they? According to Antonia Zerbisias they have.

Did she ever consider that some of us have shit to do? I'm getting married, just bought a house, and plus the weather is fit enough to allow me to spend some time enjoying the outdoors. I'm not sure about the other Canadian bloggers she is referring to but I have most certainly not lost faith.

Quite frankly I am sick and tired of repeating the same arguments justifying both the war in Iraq and the general war on terror. I still believe that both of these wars must be fought and more importantly that they both must be won.

Zerisias says:

No, the war party is over. There is nothing to celebrate any more. (Not that there ever was.) President George W. Bush's folly is a bloody, costly, tragic, world-dividing disaster that has led to more acts of terrorism by more groups.

Where does she get off? More acts of terror? A recent study said that the last year had fewer terror attacks than any year since 1969. I guess those kind of details don't really matter though. Why would they when you can quote some American journalists who are critical of G.W.'s policies? I'm not sure what the quotes are supposed to prove but if it pleases Zerisias that some other journalists share her views than good for her.

Regardless, she can continue to spew the same tired arguments all she wants. I've got stuff to do and I'm not going to point out the flaws in her arguments over, and over, and over again.

Plus I guess that since she is a 'professional' writer that only she must be entitled to her 'oh so valued' opinion. Note to Antonia... we have jobs! I've gotta work 8-9 hours a day as it is. I can't spend the rest of my day responding to the same tired arguments from the likes of her.

When the status of the war in Iraq changes then I may find it worth blogging about. As it stands, the country is moving along quite in line with my expectations. Some people aren't happy in Iraq. Surprise! As it stands the U.S. forces are knocking off militants at a brisk pace.

Anyways Antonia we are still here. Just because some of us have other things to do doesn't reflect in the least on our opinions of the war.

Update:

I've never actually read any of Zerbisia's articles before but now I see what everyone finds so amusing about her. The exagerated language she uses is quite comical. I especially liked her comment about little green footballs:

Probably the most venomous of all is Charles Johnson. His site (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com) is the toilet in which all sorts of misinformation and malice about Arabs and, in particular, Palestinians are dumped. Anybody who writes favourably — or even in a half-balanced manner — about them is slimed.

The fact that she says this in an article dedicated to doing the same to those she disagrees with is... well beyond belief for someone who considers themselves a professional.

Previous Poll Results

Who was the candidate that you most wished would have lost their seat?
What would be the worst possible outcome of the election?
Who is in the greatest need of being mentally commited?
Where does Joe Clark live?
Who is the cause of all the problems in the Middle East?
How do you react when the weekly poll doesn't change for 4 straight weeks?
When you see or hear a news story do you trust that it is accurate?
Who will you be voting for in the upcoming federal election?
How evil is the Liberal Party of Canada?

Life In Iraq

[Via Andrew Sullivan]

This is too good not to reprint word for word. From Iraq The Model:

My young cousin is a religious Sunni who goes to the mosque and listens to the cleric there every Friday and believes whatever he says, as he’s still young. My uncle always teased his son about this but never prohibited him from doing that. We were talking about different stuff; the kids’ needs, clerics, Americans and the increase in the average income of most Iraqis. My uncle had some unusual sense of humor that didn’t fit quite well in his somewhat religious family. He winked at me and turned to his son and asked him "What do you think of the Americans?" His son answered, "They are occupiers". "So you think we should fight them?" his father asked. Ibrahim said "No, but I don’t like them". My uncle said, pretending to change the subject "Do you like your new computer that no one shares with you?" "Yes of course dad". "Ok, are you satisfied with the satellite dish receiver we have or do you need a better one?" "This one is fine but I heard there’s a better one that gets more channels" "ok I’ll get you that next week". Then he said, "Is there anything else you’d like to have son?" "No dad I have all that I need". "Ok but how about a car?" Ibrahim was astounded and said "Really? a..a CAR.. for me!?". "Of course for you! I’m too old to drive now and my eyes are not that well and you are the older son. So whom else would it be for!?" "Oh, dad that will be great! When will that happen?" "Just finish you’re exams and you’ll have it". "I will dad". "Are you happy now son?" "Yes dad, sure I am!" "Then why do you hate the Americans you son of a b***h!? I couldn’t get you a bicycle a year ago, I could hardly feed you and your brothers and sisters. You didn’t know what an apple or a banana tasted like, I couldn’t buy you a damned Pepsi bottle except in occasions, and now you can have all that you wish, and a car of your own! Who do you think made that possible!?" My cousin’s face turned red and didn’t answer as we laughed and I said "What do you think Ibrahim?" He said, "Well it’s true but it’s our money. They are not giving us a charity" and I said "Of course it’s our money, so let’s forget the Billions of dollars they are giving to rebuild Iraq and the efforts they are doing to cut down our debts and lets talk about our money. Why didn’t your father, I, my brothers and all the Iraqis have anything worth mentioning before the Americans came?" He said, "Because Saddam used it to buy weapons and build palaces". "There you have it Ibrahim, but Americans are not touching our money. Can you tell me who’s better; the ‘occupiers’ who are helping us or the ‘patriot’ who did all that you know to us?" He said in a faint voice "They are better than Saddam but still they are not Muslims". "So do you want them to be Muslims?" "I wish they were." "Will you fight them to that?" he said, "No, of course not. I don’t like fighting." We didn’t want to pressure and embarrass him further and didn’t go further, as he’s still young but he’s smart and good-natured and will get it soon.

derbradio

John Derbyshire reads the news at NRO. Very good stuff.

40 Reasons For Gun Control

Very amusing...

CBC Bias

After all the footage that the CBC has given the anti-US protests and violence that has occured under Moktada al-Sard's watch, why did they not consider this news worthy?

Several Shiite leaders acknowledged that they had delayed issuing their statement until there were clear signs that public opinion among Shiites had moved strongly against Mr. Sadr. Reports in the past two weeks have spoken of a shadowy death squad calling itself the Thulfiqar Army shooting dead at least seven of Mr. Sadr's militiamen in Najaf, and several thousand people attended an anti-Sadr protest meeting outside the Imam Ali shrine in the city on Friday, according to several of the meeting's participants.

Mr. Mahdi, from the Sciri group, which is close to Ayatollah Sistani, was blunt about Mr. Sadr's decline in popularity. "He's 100 percent isolated across most of the southern provinces; he's even isolated in Najaf," he said. "The people there regard him as having taken them hostage." He said Mr. Sadr had also been criticized by his most powerful religious backer, Grand Ayatollah Kazem Hossein Haeri, based in the Iranian city of Qum, who had urged Mr. Sadr to pull his militiamen out of Najaf and Karbala and to stop storing weapons in mosques.

...

In near 100-degree heat in the late afternoon, few of the Shiite speakers stirred much enthusiasm. But the strongest murmurings of the meeting came when Taqlif al-Faroun, a tribal leader from Najaf, said Shiites should give the American forces a green light to go after Mr. Sadr in the holy cities. "Najaf is not Mecca," he said. "The Americans don't want to go into the shrines. They want to get rid of criminals and thieves. So what if they enter the city?" Across the roof, dozens of men responded approvingly. "Yes, yes!", they said.

Of course this doesn't fit with the quagmire script they've been running with for the last year.

Just Some Odds'n Ends

Well I finally got my first copy of The Western Standard yesterday. I must say that I was very impressed. It had a good variety of material from national, international, culture, business... a bit of everything. Plus I was pleased that it didn't focus exclusively on Western Canadian issues. Us Islanders from the east coast shouldn't feel left out now should we?

So what else is new? Well the Communist Canadian Broadcasting Corporation still sucks. I was watching today and Neil MacDonald was referring to 'Bush's adventure in Iraq' which I thought was odd language to be used by a reporter. I can't say I'm totally surprised though.

As well I got to catch CBCs 24 hour coverage of the torture situation and George Bush's interviews on Arab television. Once again Neil MacDonald took liberties to tell us what he thought G.W. was thinking during the interview. Once again odd language to be used by a reporter.

I am really getting a kick how the CBC is painting the torture revelations in Iraq to be somehow G.W.'s fault. Maybe they are just following the lead other international media outlets but either way it seems terribly slanted. When Canadian soldiers had killed the Somali a back during the nineties I don't remember them in any way trying to blame Chrietien for it. Once again though I'm not totally surprised.

Plus I love how the media keeps reminding us how outraged the Arab world is about the torture photos. I don't give a flying f@$> what the Arab world thinks! This may sound harsh but it's about time that the Arab world worries about what we think. Until then they can kiss any sympathy from me goodbye. A culture that encourages the subjugation of its women, holds fundraisers for suicide bombers, and names city streets after people who kill innocent people, has not earned my sympathy or concern.

During WW2, we bombed Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, etc... into piles of rubble. Would I have felt sympathy for the individual women and children killed in the bombings? Yes. Would I have worried about how it affected their opinion of us. Absolutely freaking not! Same goes for the individual soldiers during WW2. Were some German soldiers executed after they had surrendered. Of course some were. Were some tortured. Yes again. Did any of that invalidate our efforts during WW2? Not in the least. A few men and women are not the measure of an entire civilization.

The same goes for Iraq. You don't have to agree with the reasons for the US invasion but it is plenty clear that Saddam Huissein and his regime were the bad guys. Were there good men who worked for his regime. Definitely. That such people surely existed doesn't mean the regime was good.

Anyways, enough of that.

So what else has been going on? Well In DC has a great post on the pro-abortion protests that took place a few weeks ago. I can easily say that nothing has disgusted me more than this post in quite a long time. I don't care what your position is in regards to abortion, if you don't find this stuff troubling then you are quite simply a total ass.

Another Diplomatic Letter

The BBC is reporting that 50 former US diplomats have written to George W. Bush critical of his support for Arial Sharon and his plan to withdraw from the territories.

This is quite amusing considering that many of the former diplomats that wrote a similar to Tony Blair critical of his Iraq and Israeli/Palistinian positions have turned out to be paid by Arab governments or other Arab interests.

Regardless, I hardly consider this news to begin with. How is a letter from former diplomats considered newsworthy. I'm sure you could find just as many former diplomats supportive of George W. Bush's policies but the BBC doesn't consider that newsworthy and I can imagine that it wouldn't print the text of such a letter.

The letter repeats the same tired lines typically critical of Israel:

We also are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.

This plan defies UN Security Council resolutions calling for Israel's return of occupied territories.

You have placed US diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position

It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

It flouts UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so.

The authors of this letter of course ignore the fact that Bill Clinton had talks with Arafat discussing all of these matters and Arafat responded with the second intifada. Does history not mean anything to these people? They also give us this piece of wisdom:

A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East - even in Iraq.

Once again Clinton couldn't have been more fair to Arab interests and look where that got them.

What's Happened To Spain?

I'm not too sure what happened to the strong and proud Spaniard but it seems that they are few and far between these days. After the Madrid bombings of March 11th, many including myself concluded that Spain had surrendered in the face of terrorism.

Then after the Spaniards started making arrests we had the April 3rd bombing that took the life of Francisco Javier Toronteras when he and other officers surrounded the apartment where many of the suspects were hiding. Once again this is pretty standard when dealing with terrorists but at least it seemed as if the Spanish were serious.

But the lack of Spanish outrage to this is beyond explanation to me:

But just before sunrise on Monday, April 19, something happened that raised the possibility that Madrid and Europe generally are center stage in the war on terror. Unknown intruders broke into the cemetery where the policeman Torronteras was interred. With a pick-axe, they pried open the crypt where his body lay, smashing the plaque on which memorial verses had been written by his family. They removed the coffin, wheeled it 500 meters away on a hand truck, opened it, chopped off the left hand, doused the corpse with gasoline, and lit it on fire.

What is wrong with you bloody people?!

Interpreting Islam

I'm not up to writing anything tonight so I'll just point you to this interview of Bernard Lewis in The Atlantic.

In The 'You've Got To Be Kidding' Department

Muslims in Spain have appealed to the Vatican to be allowed to pray in the what was once the Great Mosque Of Cordoba.

Thats all fine I guess but how seriously would a Jewish request to pray in The Dome Of The Rock in Jeruselam be taken?

Make Your Vote Count

In an attempt to piss off the CBC many of my favourite blogs are encouraging people to vote for Don Cherry as 'The Greatest Canadian'.

So do you bit and go here to vote.

Why Do Liberals Hate Christians?

[Via NealeNews]

Steven McKinnon, Liberal spokesman says that the Liberals are only trying to bring to everyone's attention to the 'socially conservative views' of the Conservative party. The Liberals asked in a recent survey:

Would you be more or less likely to vote for the Conservative/Alliance if you knew it had been taken over by Evangelical Christians?

I'ld like to know how he justifies such a question?

As well it gives me the willies to know that federal parties conduct polls in such a way. The Liberals are basically trying to determine what will have the most traction with the public. Once they find out what will win them votes they don't have to debate the issues anymore. Just start spewing out what the pollsters suggest and be damned with the truth or the issues.

Who Would Have Known

A headline in The Globe and Mail today reads Higher Education Pays Off For Women, U.S. Study Reveals.

And as crazy as it sounds there are Canadian 'academics' who say the same is true in Canada. Be gone with you!

As a researcher or scientist do you think you would get any satisfaction out of this most profound and unexpected finding? Would your professional career be fulfilling if you spend your time proving what is obvious to anyone of 10 years of age? Just curious.