Canada And Crime

Eli Lehrer talks about an NDP plan to reduce gun ownership in the US. In the article he puts to sleep the myth of the peace-loving Canadian vs the gun-crazed American:

It's an easy bone for Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin to throw to his coalition partners, but it's a bad idea. While Canada has banned most handgun ownership since 1977, Canadians remain even more likely to hunt and shoot than their American counterparts. The NDP wants none of this: It proposes taking away vaguely defined "assault weapons" (this likely refers to hunting weapons, since private ownership of machine guns is already illegal in Canada) and lobbying U.S. state and federal governments to take away their own citizens' guns.

In addition to being awfully arrogant, this plan is ironic, since more crime probably flows from Canada to the U.S. than vice versa: The nation has an overall crime rate half again higher than the United States'. Toronto, once the safest large city in North America, now has more muggings, car thefts, and violent assaults per capita than New York City. All of Canada's major provinces would rank among the 20 most dangerous American states. Since American crime rates peaked in the early 1990s, crime has fallen in 48 American states and over 80 percent of America's major cities. Meanwhile, it has risen in six of Canada's ten major providences and seven of its ten largest cities. The reasons for this divide are complex, but it's notable that the United States imprisons wrongdoers at about five times Canada's rate and has about a quarter more police on a per-capita basis. Canada, meanwhile, can boast only of a national gun-registration database that cost 1,000 times more than originally projected.

This is all ironic given the campaign during the election. The Liberal and NDP campaigns spent a lot of effort in pushing the idea that the Conservatives would implement American style gun control (or lack thereof) and crime prevention methods. Scary! Fear!

Why did the media never question the Liberal and NDP candidates on these claims? And if the media is so concerned about getting to the truth why would they not allow an honest debate on the level of crime in our cities?

And today...

Well first off sorry I haven't been posting lately. Given the election and everything else going on in the world you'ld think I'ld be full of opinions I'ld love to share.

Anyways, I guess I'm in a funk or something which is probably something that most bloggers find themselves in once in a while. Blah blah blah...

So what can I say about the election? Not much I guess since the results didn't totally surprise me. I posted my predictions back in February and to tell you the truth I really didn't see a reason to update them since. My only real screw up in the whole thing was that 4 months ago, and one week ago, I didn't expect the Bloc to do so well.

I guess Quebecers can take the proud distinction of giving the Liberals the spanking they deserved (clapping of hands...). Ontario on the other hand (hissing and booing). I've lived in Ontario the last few years and this place is totally beyond comprehension for me. Short of the Liberal government killing off each families first born child, what exactly will it take for Ontarians to vote for someone other than the Liberals?

I'm convinced that native born Ontarians get secret cheques sent to them every year by the Liberal Party of Canada. I suspect the value of the cheques is probably anywhere's from about $400-600. Can I prove this. Well no. But if anything makes sense in this world it is the fact that Ontarians receive hush money from the Liberals.

Regardless we all knew we were going to have a minority government so for the pundits and media whores to tell us how shocking the results were can stuff it. Relax. Peter Manbridge on one of the CBC commercials refered to the election as the 'greatest event in modern Canadian history'. Really? It's an election Peter. We have one every couple of years. Drop the act. Peter should realize that we know how important he is to our lives. We would be hollow and shallow people without his guiding presense...

And for election coverage I watched CTV and it was very well done. The CBC induces my gag reflex so I've been avoiding it like the plague.

But like I said, the CTV coverage was really well done. It was funny when Martin left the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal after the vote was settled. The CTV guy on site tried to get a quote out of Martin who didn't say a word and just jumped into his limo. So the CTV guy is like 'Awe Mr. Martin at least smile for us. How about a wave. Come on.' At which point Martin flashes a wave and a smile. So the guy on site and the CTV panel in the studio all break out in cheers. Anyways you had to see it.

But all in all I would give the CTV coverage about a A-. I was quite impressed.

I'ld give the CBC a grade but I'ld probably get a call from their executives telling me how grades are unproductive and just cause low self-esteem among those being graded. They'ld probably give me a little speech about how grades are the means how our established patriarchical society oppresses women and minorities...

This Week's Poll

Who was the candidate that you most wished would have lost their seat?

Vote on the side panel to the right.

On Europe

[Via Absit Invidia]

David Frum takes Europe to task for it's anti-Americanism:

Where do we all go from here? I wish I knew. In 1917, Americans discovered that they could never be secure in freedom unless Europe was also secure and also free--and though Americans have sometimes forgotten that truth, they have never forgotten it for long. Do Europeans reciprocate? And will they back that reciprocation with anything more than words? I wish I knew the answer to that question too. But here is what I do know: For half a century, Americans accepted the risk of nuclear devastation to safeguard Europe. Then, by a very strange twist of fate, the first hostile blow on the soil of a NATO country fell--not on Germany or on Norway or on Turkey, but on the United States. Can Europeans honestly say that since 9/11, they have returned the United States even a portion of the help that Europe would have expected and received had the need been reversed? Can you not imagine why many in America would feel hurt and abandoned by Europe in our hour of grief and danger?

This article could just as well be directed at much of Canada. Not those of us who aren't scum sucking, ungrateful wretches of course...

I only make that last comment because Canada used to be a nation with a national conscience. I'm afraid that I can't say we have one anymore. I don't expect much more from most European nations but, loving my country as much as I do, I hate to see us throw away all the goodwill and respect that our country has earned this past century.

As Quagmires Go...

... the US could use a few more of them.

While the media was gloating (yes gloating!) that Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army was going to take over Iraq and plunge it into chaos it seems the US military was kicking some serious ass:

Last week, Sheik al-Sadr surrendered. He called on what was left of his men to cease operations and said he may one day seek public office in a democratic Iraq.

Gen. Hertling said Mahdi's Army is defeated, according the Army's doctrinal definition of defeat. A few stragglers might be able to fire a rocket-propelled grenade, he said, but noted: "Do they have the capability of launching any kind of offensive operation? Absolutely not."

The division estimates it killed at least several thousand militia members.

I'm to lazy to check at the moment but I can't imagine the US lost more than 100 troops during the whole operation. And at least al-Sadr is starting to learn how democracy works. Public office? Please.

And it seems US policy towards al-Sadr has had a very profound effect on other tribal or religious leaders in the country. You don't hear of any leader of significance openly challenging the US now do you?

Terrorist nutjobs are still challenging the US but they sure as hell won't stand out on the streets and do it. Regardless they can be dealt with... one at a time.

Some Reading Material

Here are a few good articles, with some memorable quotes, I came across today:

Will The West Survive - Walter E. Williams:

My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell observes, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise." He adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Sowell adds that few people, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves for their plight. For the Muslim world, it's the West who's to blame.

Just Like Stalingrad - Bret Stephens:

Care for language is more than a concern for purity. When one describes President Bush as a fascist, what words remain for real fascists? When one describes Fallujah as Stalingrad-like, how can we express, in the words that remain to the language, what Stalingrad was like?
George Orwell wrote that the English language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." In taking care with language, we take care of ourselves.

Hawkisk Clothes Itch Doves - Jonah Goldberg:

Removing Saddam has had unforeseeable bad consequences, as well as some foreseeable ones. But it seems to me that liberals who now think we shouldn't have done it, solely because we didn't do it "just right," are falling prey to their own historic pie-in-the-skyism. There is no "just right" way to do things like this. If there were, we would have toppled Saddam with nerf bats.

Beinart is right that conservatives should do some hard thinking about our experience in Iraq. But no matter how cathartic it may be for liberals to sooth their consciences by saying this isn't the war they signed up for, this is the war we've got. And the shoulda-coulda-wouldas can wait until we win.

Saudi Terror: Some Killing, Some Lunch... - Gary Brecher:

The terrorists were trying to be very careful not to shoot Saudi Muslims, because they'd gotten a little slack, killed a few locals, and it turned out to be bad p.r. So what'd they do? Like any good people-person would do, they got the locals "involved in the process," which is how my asshole boss would say it: "We asked our brother Muslims, where are the Americans, and they showed us..." Now what's funny is that when the TV crews asked the locals about this, they all said, "What, me? Help terrorists? Why, that's crazy talk!" It all depends on who you believe. But put it this way: if you're a Muslim janitor working for American execs in the middle of the Iraq mess and the Gaza mess, and some Koran-quoting maniac with a Kalashnikov asks you where the Americans are, would you really get on your high horse and go, "No, I will never cooperate with terrorism! Avast, you villain!" Well, if you would, you should be teaching Sunday school somewhere. In fact I'm surprised you're still alive. Nature has a way of weeding out people like you.

Update @ 9:05am

Throwing Stones - Steven Stalinsky:

Ahmad Jarallah, editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa and noted critic of the Syrian regime, responded in an editorial: "Dr. Buthayna Shaban, who is 'revolted'... should be the last to express her revulsion — because the kinds of torture carried out in the prisons of the regime of which she is a part and in whose services she acts are too numerous to count. No atrocity surpasses the kinds of torment and torture [in the Syrian regime]... We have gone overboard in our talk of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal... None has dared acknowledge that the U.S. behaved properly in uncovering [this] scandal, for having sufficient courage to apologize. It could have remained silent, or denied it — as is the custom of some Arab regimes that torture, assassinate, bury alive, rip out fingernails, and dissolve [people] in pits of acid, and appear before the world like innocent children with angels' wings."

Martin And The Truth

Martin knows nothing when it comes to telling the truth and Jaeger has a good post about it here.

Brave In What Manner Exactly?

On Monday Kim Sun-il was be-headed by a group of savages in Iraq. The story itself isn't totally shocking to those of us aware of what the civilized world is up against.

I wonder though how do these savages manage to convince themselves that they are brave and valiant warriors? The brave do not mask their faces. Nor do they proceed to saw off the head of someone who cannot defend themselves.

And yet they love to get on camera and tell us how they, the 'holy warriors', are bravely doing God's work. If you are doing God's work is it really necessary to mask yourself? Will God not protect you? Are you not proud of what you do?

A brave man will look his advisary in the face. These men apparently will not. Unless of course their advisary happens to be hog-tied ready to be served up to your twisted version of God.

And I guess what really troubles me is the reaction out of the Muslim world to these barbarous acts. First we have the governments. They of course condemn the murders in the strongest of language. Then they proceed to tolerate if not outright encourage the murder of Jews, Infidels, Christians, or Muslims of another sect.

As for the people of the Arab world my opinions of them at the moment are not much better than those I have for their governments. If a Westerner sticks a camera in his or her face they will of course condemn such murders.

And then whenever a survey is done of Arab opinion, usually vast majorities support these terrorists. If they don't support the terrorists themselves they at least support the causes in which they claim to fight.

And I'm left here able to do nothing else but shake my head.

Why can't Arabs see that they have been and will continue to be the primary victims of this hatred that they allow to grow within their communities?

Whether it is Iraq, Algeria, etc... Muslims are targetted by this hatred. And the sad fact is that though most Arabs would accept if that hatred was projected outwards towards Israel, the US, or the West in general, it is Muslims who are the most defenceless against it. We can close our borders and wage war. What can a Muslim do when these fanatics come after them? Who will protect them? Their governments? Their neighbours?

Only In America

If there is one thing I admire about Americans; it is their ability to do things like this.

Simply amazing.

Coyne On Paul Martin

Go and read this so that you can end the day a little bit wiser.

This Weeks Poll

What would be the worst possible outcome of the election?

You'll find the poll on the sidebar to the right.

What Happened To Me?

I was sitting here thinking of a few things and I started to wonder what causes me to dislike certain political leaders, political parties, and global organizations.

Looking back, I used to be a proud member of Greenpeace. I remember hating Brian Mulrony but for the life of me I don't have the foggiest idea why. I used to hate the Catholic Church even though at the time I wouldn't have considered myself a Christian. I used to think gay marriage was a great idea. I used to think all war was evil. Heck I even liked Bill Clinton when he first appeared on the scene.

So what happened to me? How? When? Frankly I don't have the slightest idea.

I suspect that it started to happen around 1993 or 94. I remember disliking Bill Clinton around the time of the Lewinsky scandal and I remember bitching about the May Day parades they hold at UNB every year. That's not much for me to go on though.

In reading all the tributes to Ronald Reagan the last few weeks it seems that many people's political leanings have shifted due to a single event or the actions of a single person. Whether it was a certain war, social event, many people seem to shift quickly. Maybe I'm generalizing. Or maybe it is due to how people write these 'tribute' pieces that cause me to think their political leanings have changed quickly when in fact they haven't.

Regardless, it still doesn't answer the question of what caused me to change.

The best I can do is make educated guesses why my politics changed. I don't particularly favour any one of these over the other so don't get the impression that they are in some kind of order.

Here goes:

1) In 1994 I was 20 years old and like Winston Churchill liked to say as a person ages they naturally become more conservative. Perhaps I had conservative leanings all my life and it was just a matter of aging before they would dominate over my more liberal leanings. This reason of course removes all dependencies on myself or the world around me and hence I'm not particularly fond of it. Perhaps it really is this simple though.

2) In the mid-90s I started reading a lot of Greek classics. I was simply facinated by them. Up till that time I was certainly a history buff but more in the military sense, who fought who and who won. After reading the classics my analysis of history started to take a more cultural bent to it. Instead of seeing the rise and fall of the Greeks and then of the Romans I started to see it as the rise of Greek culture and its decimation through the ages to ourselves, their cultural progeny.

As Greece rose in power they sent colonists throughout the Mediterranian landing in many places like Italy, Spain, and North Africa. As Greece declined we see the rise of Rome who sent out its own colonists. As Rome declined we see the rise of its colonists in Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Regardless this entire process started by the Greeks ended up with me being here.

The fact that I am sitting here in Ottawa, Canada, can be traced straight back to the actions of the Greeks. Over two thousand years ago Greek republics and city-states existed which contained Senates where the activities of the state were discussed. These Senates voted on and put in place trading colonies. These in turn had to be defended causing these same Senates to then send out armies in their defense. And all through the ages it results in me being here. Now.

This point is getting a bit long so suffice it to say that at around this time I developed a much greater appreciation for my cultural heritage which I think has a great deal to do with my political opinions.

3) Moral relativism. I hate it.

I don't think I always did because when I was younger I probably used it plenty of times in trying to win an argument. Perhaps I still do and I'm unaware of it. Regardless, today I hold anyone who uses it with utter contempt. And since the left is quite fond of using moral relativism to win a debate it's only natural that I loath them and many of the things they believe in. As current examples you can use the 'George Bush is no better than Saddam' or the 'US is no better than the terrorists' phrases that anti-war folks like to throw around.

I HATE PEOPLE WHO SAY SHIT LIKE THIS! The moment someone says something like this I want to reach over and strangle them. I'm not kidding on this point. If I thought I could get away with it I probably would. I repeat I AM NOT KIDDING.

As far as I am concerned anyone who can say something like this is one or two genes away from being a monkey. Someone who is beyond contempt. When phrases like this are thrown out there every word that the person then utters becomes meaningless... the words of someone who is deranged.

Maybe this isn't fair since they may make many valid points aside from the relativistic crap. I may miss those valid points but it is simply how my brain is wired. Once they speak those magic words they might as well be a dog as far as I'm concerned because nothing they say is going to register in my head as being of any value.

4) Here is another simple one similar to #1... I started paying taxes in the mid-nineties. Sweet suffering what are they spending my money on! Nuff said.

5) My mother.

She raised three kids on her own. She had a low wage job, and not once did she take anything, charity or otherwise, from anyone. When I was younger I had no idea we were poor. I knew we weren't as well off as my friends but never did the thought that we were poor ever cross my mind. My mom was a magician when it came to hiding it. And being young I never cared to understand our money situation but when I got out to university and started having serious discussions with my mother about when we were growing up I suddenly realized how tough my mom had it.

I guess then I really started to judge social and welfare programs and the people who benefited from them based on my mother's example. I'm well aware of how brave and determined my mother must have been during those years but it seems now that I judge everybody on the standards that she set. Perhaps this isn't fair since she set the standard so high but once again that is how my brain works.

So thats it. I can't think of any other reasons. And like I said it may have been none of these or perhaps it was a combination of some of them that caused my opinions on things to change.

Whatever. I'm not sure it really matters either way.

I Still Hate The UN

Yesterday Kofi Annan told Security Council ambassadors that renewing US immunity from international prosecuation would undermine international law.

Simply put, thats pretty rich coming from our dear friend Kofi. Sudan sitting on the Human Rights Commission is, as far as Kofi is concerned, NOT in violation of international law. The fact that they are committing genocide as I write this apparently is apprently of no concern to the Human Rights Commission.

Regardless, I wonder if Annan understands the consequences of not renewing US immunity? Like many things at the UN, war crimes law is a wonderful thing to support, plus it allows you to claim the moral high ground and to claim to others that you care for the less fortunate.

Still though, the UN has to accept that any good it wants to do in the world can only be done through the barrel of a gun. We may not like this fact but it is a fact nonetheless. Getting back to Sudan, how exactly does the UN plan to end the genocide there unless they go in armed against the wishes of the government of Sudan? The past decade of 'dialogue' with the Sudanese government has failed to end the genocide leaving the souls of perhaps over 1 million people sacrificed due to UN in-action.

Could any of you UN supportors out there explain to me how this is a perfectly valid means for the UN to live up to its mandate?

The same goes for when the Taliban controlled Afganistan. How did the UNs public denunciations of the Taliban have any affect on the number of crimes they committed? Did the UN have any plan to end these crimes before the US invaded?

Same story regarding Saddam and Iraq. If the US didn't invade and Saddam remained in power, what plans did the UN have to prevent him from abusing his people?

I guess in its simpliest terms I don't understand when the UN assumes that dictators and thugs will live up to the standards that it tries to apply to democracies. OK, maybe that isn't fair statement. What I should say is that I don't understand how the UN expects to stand up to dictators and tyrants by requiring the people who do the dirty work to act like angels.

Take our police forces for example. As police, they are expected to live up to very high standards of personal conduct. But the fact remains that we give them special privilages/responsibilities we do not give to the general public. If we didn't we'ld have chaos on the streets.

While we don't allow citizens to kill when performing the duties of their job we do give that responsibility to our police. And we rightly do not hold police to the same standards as we do citizens or criminals when they must exercise that responsibility.

The list of responsibilities we bestow on our police forces that we do not extend to every citizen is endless. Most people would agree that as a whole this is a good thing and necessary to ensure the peace. They still agree with it even though they know that out there somewhere is a 'bad' cop.

Getting back to the UN, it is amazing that so many people assume good things can come by denying the US war crimes immunity. If it prevents some members of the US military from committing war crimes, how many lives will be saved? A couple of hundred? A thousand?

Since denying the immunity will prevent US military action for fear of politically motivated prosecutions, is that a high enough total knowing that you'll never be able to prevent another genocide again?

The UN has to learn that angels don't do the dirty work.

Jonah On The Geneva Convention

Jonah Goldberg's take on the Geneva Convention is right on the money.

Less Refugees - And Credit Goes To...

The number of refugees in the world has fallen to its lowest level in 10 years. Credit for the large numbers of refugess returning to Afganistan goes to:

"The phenomenal return of Afghans to their homeland over the past few years underscores the benefits of sustained international attention and support for the work of UNHCR and its partners," Lubbers said. "The impact is felt as far away as Europe, where the numbers of Afghan asylum seekers have plunged."

Hmmm... I seem to remember an imperialistic war, waged by a hegemonic power intent on securing central Asian oil. If I remember correctly they as well wanted to kill Afgani babies for the entertainment value in it. Oh well seems like we've encountered a few unintended side effects.

But how the UNHCR can take credit for the return of Afgan refugees is quite comical. The Afgani's are tough people and the presence of UNHCR employees probably wasn't a consideration when they decided to return to their homeland. I can just imagine, somewhere in the Pakistani badlands, a father of an Afgani family standing their with his wife, children, donkey, and several AK-47s... he just doesn't seem like the type who would give two figs about the UNHCR. Anyways... if it makes the do gooders at UNHCR feel good about their jobs then all the power to them.

Another interesting quote:

A key reason for the drop was the continued return of refugees to Afghanistan. More than half of the 1.1 million refugees repatriated last year returned to Afghanistan; large numbers of refugees also returned home to Angola, Burundi and Iraq.

Funny, more people are moving into Iraq than are moving out. Now I'm certainly not an expert in population studies but if people are moving to Iraq could it really be as bad as the left and their friends in the media are making it out to be? As the saying goes... people vote with their feet.

Damn Americans! Making countries safe for people to return to their homes. Have they no shame!

Why They Hate The Jews

[Via littlegreenfootballs]

David Wolpe has a great article on why people hate the Jews. He provides this quote from Konstantyn Jelenski, a Polish author:

Poles have never come out against Jews "because they are Jews" but because Jews are dirty, greedy, mendacious, because they wear ear-locks, speak jargon, do not want to assimilate, and also because they do assimilate, cease using their jargon, are nattily dressed, and want to be regarded as Poles. Because they lack culture and because they are overly cultured. Because they are superstitious, backward and ignorant, and because they are damnably capable, progressive, and ambitious. Because they have long, hooked noses, and because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them from "pure Poles." Because they crucified Christ and practice ritual murder and pore over the Talmud, and because they disdain their own religion and are atheists. Because they look wretched and sickly, and because they are tough and have their own fighting units and are full of Khutspah. Because they are bankers and capitalists and because they are Communists and agitators. But in no case because they are Jews.

Very revealing... and very true.

Unbiased Reporting

The recent Canadian Community Survey reports that gays in Canada make up about 1% of the poplulation.

Thats fine and dandy I guess but this from a Globe and Mail article on the subject reveals their inability to report things in a non-biased manner:

When a number is attached to a gay community, ideological battles emerge, said Michael Botnick, a lecturer on sociology at the University of British Columbia.

"Clearly, from a right-wing perspective, they'd like to see the numbers lower," he said. "From the more libertarian perspective, they'd like to see the numbers more accurate, or higher. So nobody's going to be satisfied."

This supposed expect on the subject says some people would like to see the numbers being 'more accurate, or higher'? Where do they find these idiots?

Find Me That Carpet!

Paul Martin's comment concerning how he could have swept the sponsorship scandal 'under the carpet' was probably his most confident and most self-assured moment of the debate. It was very revealing and it would look great repeated over and over as a 30 second commercial.

Oddly enough, that was the only thing he said all night that I actually believed.

Update @ 10:30pm

Marzi has some takes on the French debates of last night. Her runup of each candidates smile is classic.

Update Wednesday @ 6:43am

I don't think that Jack Layton did particularly bad during the debate, but if anyone up there looked like a used car salesman it was certainly him. And whats with that goofy smile of his anyways? Everytime the camera spun towards him I started to crack up. As scary as an NDP governement would be its surprising that I find their leader so funny.

Anyways, back to Paul Martin's comment concerning sweeping the sponsorship scandal 'under the carpet'. First off, I'm surprised that it hasn't become the single most repeated soundbite of the debate. Oh well. The repercusions of that comment are quite revealing though:

-If Martin has such faith in the Ethics Councelor, how exactly would he do this sweeping? Does he think the Ethics Councelor could be bought off or influenced in some manner?

- It of course implies that he feels all party members who know anything about the sponsorship scandal could be convinced to go along with any illegal scheme. It should be saying alot if a party leader knows his party would be so willing to sweep something 'under the carpet'.

- It also seems quite likely to me that if he thinks it would be so easy to sweep it 'under the carpet' it pretty much implies that he's swept something else under it. How else could it seem so easy to him unless he's had some experience at it?

Arg! I Hate Liberals!

[Via Nealenews]

First the Ontario Liberals raise our taxes after explicitly saying they wouldn't during the last provincial election. Bad enough that they raised taxes but by implementing a 'health levy' they were able to avoid the requirement that all tax increases be put to a provincial plebicite.

Now we find out that this money, so desperately needed by our health care system, is going to fix sewers!

Nearly $200-million brought in by Ontario's new health-care premium will be spent on sewer, water, wastewater and other programs, a move the Health Minister defended yesterday as necessary for improving Ontarians' well-being.

Health Minister George Smitherman said the government can't improve people's health "if Ontarians are drinking water that's unhealthy or continuing to breathe air that's problematic for them."

He said the water-care expenditures are included in the $2.4-billion that will be entering provincial coffers annually as a result of the new premium instituted in last month's budget.

All the funding will go toward improving health care, he added.

Now I'm all for clean water but to suggest that this is a 'health care system' related expense is a lot of smoke and mirrors. I haven't been a big fan of the Liberals for a very long time but its now come to the point where I don't believe a single word that comes out of their mouths.

For all those of you who wonder if the Liberals are sincere when they say they will shorten waiting lists for health care services... well I guess you now have your answer.

Advice To Liberals

After reading up on all the fear mongering the Liberals have been up to this past week I thought I'ld lend my sharp political mind to help the Liberals out in their campaign.

My first piece of advice is that as much as you may try to avoid the fact this election is about you. The credibility of your party is in shambles and ranting and raving about imaginary devils will not win this election for you.

The simple fact is that you've gone through the fear mongering routine for the past three elections and in every one of these elections the conservative parties in combination have polled equally with you. So if all your fear mongering would not have guarranted you a majority in the previous elections why do you think it will make a big difference this time. I'm sorry but that train left a long time ago.

My second piece of advice is to start reaching out to NDP voters as quickly as possible. With the merger of the conservative parties it is most likely that this election will show that our political environment is shifting back to its historical norm. That is, we'll have two large parties competing with each other and a few stragglers tagging along. This shift won't be complete in this election cycle but it probably will be after the next.

The next four years will probably see a dramatic fall in support for the Bloc. This is for the simple reason that Quebecors won't have anything to gain by doing so. As well a fall in NDP support can be expected as well. Basically there is no reason to believe that things are significantly different than they were before the PC Party split.

My final piece of advise is that the leadership of your party is out of control and must be reeled in. When a party leadership starts to publicly over-rule local nominations you are setting yourselves up for a lot of internal party conflict. Once the top of a party begins to ignore the people in the trenches bad things are soon to follow. Who exactly do you expect to put up those signs, drive people to the polls, etc... when you've shown that you look down at them and don't trust their judgement.

That's it for my advice to the Liberals. I'll try and give the Conservatives some pointers in the next few days.

Martin Raises The Stakes

With the polls getting worse for the Liberals in each passing week Paul Martin is getting desperate. Instead of addressing his record or explaining his new programs, he's hoping to win the election with some good old fashioned fear mongering:

The Liberal leader, after a one-day trip to Europe for the D-Day commemorations, cut short what was originally supposed to be a day off to do a series of media interviews.

Throughout the interviews, he repeated his message, sharpening the contrast between the parties by condemning Mr. Harper's apparent willingness to use the notwithstanding clause to legislate the traditional definition of marriage and his support for free votes on moral issues such as abortion.

"I don't believe that in today's multi-ethnic, multi-religious society Parliament should take away fundamental rights. When Stephen Harper says that the Charter is flawed, I say I fundamentally disagree with him," said Mr. Martin.

The Liberals also dispatched Mr. Cotler -- one of the country's pre-eminent human rights experts -- into the fray.

In a stinging attack of his own, Mr. Cotler said Mr. Harper has displayed "appalling ignorance" and an "utter disregard" for the Charter, and warned the Conservative leader will use every opportunity to "undermine the judiciary by stacking the (Supreme) Court with politicized choices."

Mr. Cotler said Mr. Harper is in effect proposing a "counter-revolution" of civil rights and said any attempt to use the notwithstanding clause would be "a moral failure of leadership."

Well this is all great print but what basis does any of this have with reality? The Liberals apparently believe that Parliament is subservient to the courts. And of course since the current arrangement benefits the Liberals this mistaken belief is obviously what they want to present to the average voter.

My question to the prospective voter is who can be trusted more, an elected body of our representatives, or judges appointed as political cronies? I'ld go with the elected representatives any day.

And why don't any of these idiot journalists interviewing Martin ever ask him how he intends to get rid of the 'democratic deficit' if he wants our MPs to be subservient to the courts? And once again if he is so concerned about reasserting the rights of Parliament why won't he let MPs vote on these issues? Does he not trust their judgement? Or is he just trying to pull one over on us?

Darfur

I'm bringing the War Nerd back for some insight into the war in Sudan:

This time it's Darfur, in Western Sudan--yup, that's right, a whole new front in the multi-war hell-on-Earth that goes by the name of "Sudan." Whenever there's a competition for worst place in the world, Sudan always makes the top five. It's got pretty much everything going for it, hellhole-wise. It's in Africa, and worse yet, the Sahel, where things are bad and getting worse even by African standards. It's an ex-British colony. It's connected at the top to the Middle East, and at the bottom to the Rift Valley, where there's always a massacre or two going. It's got the classic North/South, Muslim/Christian divide, and a mixed-up kind of racial divide, Arab/Black, to top that off.

...

So where does a bunch of mostly-black Northern Sudanese river-rats get off acting superior to the noble Dinka? I don't know, but they do. And with a lot of cash help from those Wahabbi morons in Saudi Arabia, who fund the whole miserable war, they're winning. The Northerners already starved and bombed the Dinka into surrender, and they're using the same tactics on the Fur right now.

It's an ugly way to make war. Basically it consists of putting a whole province under siege. Here it is in nice easy steps:

1. Arm the nomad militias so they outgun the farmers. The Sudan government sent 50,000 automatic rifles and machine guns to the Arab militias in Darfur. Also provide them with Army advisors and air support, and force them into effective cross-tribal alliances.

2. Block off entry for the foreign aid agencies, so nobody'll see what's about to happen. This is something the Sudan government has learned to do REAL well. They managed to almost wipe out the Dinka without a word from our democracy-loving government.It helps that southern and western Sudan are so hard to reach. Like I've said before, inland peoples are out of luck. Ask the Kurds.

3. Send the nomad militias in to burn the villages. Tell them they can have whatever they can grab, and rape anybody they happen to like the look of. Tell them to be sure to burn the village real thoroughly, so nobody can live there again. (Lots of Fur villages have been burned two, three, four times.)

4. Once the Fur are pushed off their land, squeeze them into concentration camps, with the militias coming in to rape and kill the inmates every few hours, just to keep them scared.

5. Keep all food away from them. This is the key technique. It's not an "atrocity" or an "excess," it's the whole point. Read up on ancient warfare if you need to see how sieges work. Even if you don't wipe out the whole tribe, you'll have killed or stunted the children, so you're changing the balance in your favor in the next round of fighting.

We're already well into stage 5 in Darfur now. The nomad militias, united in a government-sponsored organization called the Janjaweed (which isn't nearly as fun or Rastafarian as it sounds) now have 20,000 men with automatics, RPGs, and CAS from the Sudan air force. Not bad for a camel-mounted mobile rape squad.

The Fur are dying in big numbers, and run off their land in even bigger. Right now maybe 800,000 of them are on the run, stumbling around the desert or hunkered down in concentration camps hoping the Janjaweed cowboys don't feel like coming inside the wire for a little rapin' and killin' tonight.

You know, somehow I can't enjoy this one as much as I do most African wars. I guess I made the fatal mistake of rooting for the underdog here--the blacks, the Fur, the tall skinny folks. You think I'd know better. In the movies the underdog always wins. In Africa--never.

Once again people are getting massacred while the UN sheds a few crocodile tears. How Kofi Annan sleeps at night I'll never know.

What To Do About Israel

Fred has an interesting take on the Israeli-Palistinian situation:

Anyway, I’m willing to grant that Israelis are uniquely terrible folk, ‘bout like everybody else, and no end monstrous, and eat babies. Being as I am a simple-minded country boy, though, I keep thinking of simple-minded questions. Like, what exactly do we expect the Israelis to do? I mean, I know they’re terrible and all, but they’re there. Maybe a better question is what would you do if you were where they are. It’s easy to solve problems you don’t have from Cleveland.

Now, any discussion of what the Israelis ought to do bogs down in about three seconds into arguments about whether Israel should ever have been allowed to exist. That’s easy. No. Things would have been lots easier for almost everybody. But then, maybe the Apaches don’t think the United States should exist. Maybe the Dravidians think the Aryans should high-tail it back to Iran. The Mexicans want California back, which they stole by force of arms from the Indians, who probably want it back too.

Thing is, Israel does exist. Should and ought to have don’t matter. It’s like saying Aunt Penelope shouldn’t have married a drunk and had seven feeble-minded kids. But she did. You gotta deal with it.

...

Best I can tell, the Israelis have these choices:

1 March into the sea and drown. It would be a solution of sorts, but the smart money doesn’t like it.

2 Emigrate to Brighton Beach. If they had wanted to, they would have already, so they probably won’t. Leaving isn’t really a choice. Who would take more than some of them?

3 Give the land back and retreat to the borders of 1967. This sounds like a nice idea, from Cleveland. You know, like Mikey grabbed Billy’s ball on the playground, and he should give it back and learn to share and be all friends with Billy.

Maybe it would have worked, once. This isn’t once. There is too much bad blood. It doesn’t follow that because the Israelis do bad things, the Palestinians don’t. They blow up shopping malls.

Leaving aside territorial ambitions, which exist, returning the land would be dangerous on military grounds. For example, look at where the West Bank fits into what is today Israel, note the shape of what remains when they are removed, and reflect on the range of a .105 howitzer. If returning the land would guarantee that the Palestinians would live peacefully with the Israelis, and grow olives, and invite them to drumming circles, OK. But it ain’t likely. Everybody hates everybody else too much. If I were an Israeli, I wouldn’t risk it.

4 Kill all the Palestinians or, in the less brutal school of ethnic cleansing of, say, 1493, shove them into Jordan. I’ll get email disagreeing, but I don’t think, despite Sharon and Kahane and such, that the Israelis would go for the former, even if they could get away with it, which they in all likelihood couldn’t. Expulsion would be a lesser but a huge gamble. I wouldn’t do it.

5 Build that fool wall. I guess that’s what I would do. It’s a bad idea and probably won’t work, which distinguishes it slightly from bad ideas that certainly won’t work.

Well you can't say that he isn't original.

This One's For The Gipper

In honour of Ronald Reagan whose persistance and determination freed more people than any other man in history.

Reagan was president at a time when he could easily have continued the policies of those who came before him. But he knew there was evil in the world and instead of leaving it for someone else to confront he carried the burden. The world owes him a debt that can never be repaid.

God bless him and his family.

Update @ 9:13pm

He ended his farewell address in the same manner in which he lived his life:

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. ... And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

Update @ 9:23pm

A few select quotes courtesy of foxnews.com:

During a 1984 debate with Walter Mondale: "I'm not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

"You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans."

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

In testing the microphone for his weekly radio address, Reagan declared, ''My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today I've just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.''

"Above all we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

To wife Nancy after John Hinckley, Jr.'s 1981 assassination attempt: "Honey, I forgot to duck."

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."

"Politics is a very rewarding profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

A Good Conservative Platform Item

With things seemlingly improving for the Conservative Party during the last couple of weeks I've got an idea of something they should persue if they win the federal election.

That of course would be to start dismantling the bureaucratic infrastructure that has been built here in Canada of the last 10-15 years.

Why should this be part of their election platform: simply because it's cost is enormous and the benefits provided are in many cases neglible if not downright non-existent.

A few examples:

- The language police that were investigating Don Cherry earlier this year because of his 'visor' comments. These matters should be handled by the police, an organization that still believes in the rule of law and the need for proof before charges are made. Bureaucracies that monitor language are bound by no such rules and basically go after whoever they choose. Poof!
- The gun registry of course. It's cost is astronomical and its benefits are nil. I sent a letter to John Manley complaining about it last year and as a proof that the registry works he sited a case where some European character was charged with smuggling 20000 weapons into the country. I replied back that we had laws to prevent such things and the gun registry was in no way needed to press charges in that case. Gone!

I could go on forever here but I'm in a rush so I'll keep it short. I may post some in the comments section later if I'm ambitious.

Proportional Representation

The whole idea of proportional representation sucks! OK maybe it doesn't totally suck but I really think it's a bad idea for Canada. We as Canadians have enough people who rule over us who are not elected as it is. Bureaucrats, lobbyists, lawyers, courts, ... I don't think we should be adding to the list by 'nominating' individuals based on proportional results.

As well if it was based on a proportional system then who exactly would I call when I've got something to complain about in my local riding?

Jack Layton says that proportional representation would ensure more women would be parliamentarians. Wanting more woman in politics is of course a noble idea but I think the NDP would be the only party that thinks having unelected women legislators is the way to go. Stalin had a well representative government as well but I don't think that did a heck of a lot for women's rights.

Jack it's quite obvious that proportional representation is nothing more than a power grab on your part. Until you can give us real reasons why we would benefit from it I suggest you drop it as an election issue. I think Canadians have about as much interest in proportional representation as they do in getting kicked in the junk.

A Couple More Things

The next time some idiot trys to tell you that the Americans are destroying the environment by not signing the Kyoto Protocol, throw some of this at them. Its not that I'm willing to let the US off the hook when it comes to environmental issues but unless you live in a mud hut somewhere in Africa odds are you're being a total hypocrite if you blame the US for all our environmental woes.

And...

We're getting more proof that Stephen Harper is becoming more adept at dealing with the media than the old wort Paul Martin. From the interview:

"I'm quite disappointed that the other party leaders decided not to come to Normandy with me…it's a tremendous opportunity for us to repay a debt to those who gave up their lives for us. I'm actually surprised," Martin said.

"I thought that all of them would have undertaken it. I said, 'Look, come on with us, we'll fly over, we'll fly right back, we'll only miss a day. I would have thought they would have given up a day to commemorate Normandy but they've chosen not to and that's their choice."

Can Martin not shut off the cheap shot reflex for two minutes to say something worthwhile about the D-Day ceremonies. Instead he spews this crap.

But Harper, in a very calm and low key manner that I'm starting to like in him, responded:

Harper said Martin is "politicizing" the issue "in a dumb way."

"People don't want to see politicians over there, they want to see veterans," Harper said.

Harper said he gave up his seat to a veteran living in his riding. He said it would be hypocritical for him to attend "a political photo-op" after he criticized the government for initially including only 60 veterans as part of Canada's delegation.

The federal government later announced it will spend up to $3 million to help veterans attend Second World War commemorative ceremonies.

"I think we should have more veterans over there and fewer politicians," Harper said.

So there you have it. Harper gives his seat to a veteran from his riding and Paul Martin takes that as an opportunity for implying that Harper doesn't care about our veterans. Not only does Harper give a vet his seat but he doesn't use our vet's as political props either.

So Boring I Couldn't Come Up With A Title

Before you read the actual post here I'ld just like to say that I'm totally amazed at the amount of time Canadians spend talking about healthcare. I can't imagine a more boring subject being discussed so often by so many people. If you know of something that will out do healthcare in this area let me know.

Anyways on to the post...

CTV is reporting today that Americans are happier with the quality of their health care than Canadians are.

The headline is a bit much considering the results don't really indicate much of a difference, 42% of Americans vs 39% of Canadians view their health care as excellent. Its the same story on the negative end where 13% of Americans vs 10% of Canadians view their health care as poor.

So all in all it seems that Americans are just as happy with their health care system as Canadians are. This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense given all of the Liberal and NDP denunciations of the American health care system. According to the Liberals, if the Conservatives implement an American health system, we'll all die horrible deaths with those who are lucky enough to survive spending their days scouring the country in search of prescription drugs.

But really it's kind of sad that the health care debate for this election has reverted back to the usual talking points:

1) Conservatives will destroy healthcare,
2) Liberals won't fix it but at least they won't destroy it and
3) the NDP will throw so much money at health care that there wouldn't be a dime left over for anything else

It's sad in the sense that our health care system WILL have to change. The system cannot stay stagnant forever. And contrary to what the Liberals will tell you, throwning a few billion at it every couple of years will do nothing but patch up a few cracks, the substructure will still remain unsound.

And before you go, here is a little thought experiment for you: Amercians and Canadians spend roughly the same amount per capita on health care and seem to end up with similar satisfaction levels. If for the past 50 years, the health care systems of both countries were totally isolated from each other and the rest of the world, which country would be considered to have the better health care system today?

Long Sleeves!

Wonderful!

The news yesterday was that Ottawa's first case of West Nile Virus for 2004 has been confirmed. It may be nothing to get worked up about but the dead bird was found across the street from my apartment at Mooney's Bay, Ottawa's only real beach.

That as well may not be anything to get worked up about but as far as I'm aware Mooney's Bay is the only place were the ladies enjoy one of their hard fought civil rights. That of course is going topless in public.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one to lurk around the beach checking out the women, but doesn't this now qualify as being a restriction on people's civil rights as defined our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

One of the key suggestions given by the government to protect ourselves from West Nile is to wear plenty of clothing including long sleeves. This naturally puts a damper on the whole 'topless at the beach' idea. Normally if a situation exists that prevents people from enjoying their rights the government jumps all over itself to institute some program to fix it. It seems to me that the government isn't doing enough to ensure women have the ability to enjoy their rights when ever and where ever they choose.

I must say I'm very disappointed in our elected representatives for not addressing this issue. Pesticides should have been sprayed in lethal doses all over Ottawa long before this outrage was allowed to happen.

Where's the government when you need it!

Note to fiancee: Don't take this little rant too seriously.

I Need A New Job

The latest news out of acedemia:

According to a new study, the length of time spent driving translates into the size of the "spare tire" around your waist.

Even more than income, education, gender or ethnicity, the effect of time spent behind the wheel can be seen on the scale, says the study.

This little gem of wisdom comes courtesy of research conducted at UBC over the last two years. Now I'm not one to complain (OK I am but that's beside the point) but is it really necessary that my hard earned tax dollars help pay for this kind of stuff?

If these researchers wanted to study this on their own time, and with their own funding, then good for them. But we pay the salaries of these people! Please, oh please, do something useful with your time!

Anyways as long as we're going to be paying for this stuff I think that I've gotten into the wrong kind of work. What I need is a project that spans two years where the final results could be slapped together by a dim-witted 15 year old the night before they are to be published.

Imagine the free time you'ld have!