My Summer Hiatus

Well as some of you know I'll be getting married in PEI at the end of the month. I'll be leaving tomorrow and will be back in the middle of August a brand new man. This of course means that I will be on a blogging hiatus for a short while. I may post a few things while back home but I wouldn't count on it.

As well once we return we will be moving into our new home which will probably keep my postings to a minimum. I'm sure most of you have gone through this at some point. No phone. No computer. Usual routine I guess.

Naturally, I expect to come back and see that Bob has kept things in good order. This means of course that I don't want to return and find that Bob has turned canadiancomment into a porn site or that he's peddling Viagra or some such thing. Remember Bob, a hundred hits a day does not count if they've come here to see a picture of your ass.

Anyways, take care, have a great summer, and God Bless.

Nice List

[Via Dissecting Leftism]

Here is a good vs bad list that I enjoyed:

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad.

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad.

Clinton allows UN weapons inspectors to be kicked out of Iraq - good... Bush does not allow UN weapons inspectors to search Iraq for eternity - bad.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad.

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad.

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad.

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad.

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad.

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Clinton recession continues after 9/11 during Bush administration - bad.

Clinton refuses Sudan's three offers to take custody of Bin Laden - good... Bush fails to capture Bin Laden instantly while searching the twisted labyrinth of underground caves in the no-mans land of Afghanistan - bad.

Clinton bombs an empty tent in Afghanistan - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad.

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... Not all Iraq's WMDs found - bad.

George Tenet 's CIA screws up for eight years of Clinton administration - good... George Tenet dismissed after screwing up under Bush - bad.

Milosevic in custody (but not convicted of anything years later) - good... Saddam in custody - bad.

I don't know what to make of the 'No mass graves found in Serbia' item but its a good list nonetheless. Maybe the author is just being technical since the mass graves were actually in Kosovo.

Canadian Media

Sometimes I just sit here and shake my head.

First we have CHOI-FM being banned in Quebec for, heaven forbid, saying mean things.

Today we have the great honour of watching al-Jazeera thanks to the kind souls at the CRTC. I'm sure their children's programming is top-notch.

Saddly though us Canadians apparently aren't ready for the likes of FOXNews. All those snappy ads and American commentators could potentially lead us Canadians down a dark and terrible path.

And people wonder why I criticize the government so much.

A Return To The Way It Was

Lawrence F. Kaplan responds to John Kerry's claim that he will 'make American normal again':

After eight years of micro-initiatives, school uniforms, soccer moms, and books about the end of history and the obsolescence of war, Americans have been drowning in history since September 11. Unpleasant as all this may be, it also points to a rather glaring defect in the argument for a return to normalcy: No matter how much we might wish to take a holiday from history, history probably has other plans.

...

So here we are again, as if nothing has been remembered and nothing learned. Or maybe not. With an eye to the presidential election--and a Kerry victory--a debate has emerged among Washington foreign policy types. On one side, The Weekly Standard's Robert Kagan and a number of Kerry aides insist that, regardless of who wins the election, continuity will be the order of the day. In this telling, for all his complaints about the Bush team's "arrogant" response to the war on terror and America's bind in Iraq, Kerry won't have much room to maneuver when it comes to these and other issues. Bush, after all, entered office pledging a "humble" foreign policy but quickly discovered that humility doesn't provide an adequate response to the challenges that America faces abroad. On the other side, the Bush team and Kerry himself predict a fundamental break--an impression that Kerry's well-chronicled distaste for democracy promotion and his flat out declaration this week that "I am against the war" in Iraq has only encouraged. Which camp is right? To paraphrase a memorable Trotsky quotation, Americans may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is definitely interested in them. As much as we might wish for a return to normalcy, the other side gets the final say.

History is a bitch. Ain't that the truth?

Don't Expect Any Gratitude

The Philippine's have decided to withdraw their peacekeepers from Iraq in order to save the life of Angelo de la Cruz. I can't imagine the difficulty that the leader must have in making such a decision. If the troops stay, the hostage will be killed and whoever made the decision will be seen to be responsible. If the troops go home you have proven that your country cannot stand up for what is right.

The lesson in all of this should be quite clear to the US. That is, don't expect payback or support because of your past deeds. The United States sacrificed thousands of lives freeing the Philippines from Japan during WWII. The US didn't have to do this. They could have just as easily bypassed the Philippines and let the Japanese continue to butcher the Philippine population. But they didn't. Perhaps it was because of national honour or simply because their national conscience wouldn't let them allow the massacres to continue.

I often support the US in many areas especially when it comes to US actions in places like the Balkans, Afganistan, or Iraq. I support the US in these instances for the simple reason that I believe the US is doing what is morally right. And in the grand scheme of things I've often looked down upon people who do not reciprocate when someone else has sacrificed for them. This applies to both personal interactions and interactions between nations.

I think this way because without past US actions I suspect that I quite literally would not be here. During WWI my great-grandfather fought alongside the British. Without US involvement how long would WWI have gone on? Would my great-grandfather have survived another one or two years? It is hard to say. His brother was killed so how can I be sure his fate would have been any different?

During WWII my grandfather and most of his brothers were involved in the war. My grandfathers brother can home a broken man after being identified 4 years after the war ended in a monestary in Italy. He rarely if ever talked to anyone for his remaining 40 years. Would my grandfather have survived a different fate if the US didn't enter the war? Once again it is hard to say.

So I support the US because in many ways I am grateful. Do I wish they had entered the world wars sooner? Certainly. Do I hold a grudge against them because of this. Absolutely not. Because in the end they did the right thing even though the reasons for staying out of both world wars were just as compelling as those for entering them.

I am grateful.

But I have also come to accept that any nation that expects others to return past favours is kidding itself. In many ways this is probably one of the reasons many people consider Americans to be naive. Expecting others to return favours is a very simplistic world view because it simply ignores all evidence to the contrary.

So my advice to Americans is that you shouldn't expect others to step up and accept their responsibilities. I truly see your country as a force for good in world but don't expect others to show gratitude for things you have done. Though you may have earned praise don't expect any.

I admire your beliefs and view of the world but from this day forward I will not criticize those who abandon you. I don't expect anything better from them. What they do is determined by human nature and no amount of moralizing will change that.

America, in many ways you are alone. You are one of the few countries in the world that will sacrifice blood and treasure for others and I dread the day that you decide such sacrifices are not worth the trouble but if you do... I won't hold it against you.

Groupthink

William Safire discusses the Senate Intelligence Committee's report:

THE salient news in the Senate Intelligence Committee report is this: All you have been hearing about 'he lied to us' and 'they cooked the books' is a lot of partisan nonsense.

The 511-page Senate report concluded this: Nobody in the White House or the Pentagon pressured the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to change an intelligence analysis to conform to the judgment that the world would be a safer place with the monstrous Saddam Hussein overthrown.

Ah, second-guessers say, but what about 'groupthink'? Before Gulf War I, the consensus held that Saddam was five to 10 years away from producing a nuclear bomb, but when we went in, we discovered that his weapons of mass destruction were less than six months away.

The group then switched. When Saddam later obstructed United Nations inspectors - forgoing US$100 billion (S$171 billion) in oil sales to keep out prying eyes - groupthinkers logically concluded that the 'Butcher of Baghdad' had been hiding weapons. Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat who is privy to secret intelligence, spoke for the group in late 2002: 'Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America now.'

Today, as Election Day approaches, groupthink has swung back again, to this: Saddam not only had no terror weapons, but he had also little or nothing to do with Al-Qaeda - therefore, our liberation of Iraq was a waste of lives and money.

As he says, those opposed to the invasion of Iraq have been all over the map when it comes to how much they value the material supplied by the US intelligence community. Their opinion of the material obviously depends on what is politically expedient at any given moment. He also adds:

Consider the official pressure to get with the latest groupthink: The 9/11 commission staff assured us recently that repeated contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (including the presence in Baghdad and Kurdistan by the reigning terrorist, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi), 'did not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship'.

This week, the Senate Intelligence Committee chimed in, saying these contacts 'did not add up to an established formal relationship'.

Think about that. Do today's groupthinkers believe that Osama bin Laden would sit down with Saddam in front of the world's cameras to sign a mutual assistance pact, establishing a formal relationship? Terrorists and rogue states do not work that way. Mass killers collaborate informally, without a photo op, even secretly.

As I've said before those who claim that Saddam had no connection to terrorists should make clear to everyone what they would require in order to admit that some sort of connection existed. This wouldn't prevent people from second guessing the past but at least it would provide us with a frame of reference for future disputes.

Who Are The Experts Anyways?

With all the talk we've had to deal with over the last year concerning intelligence failures or distortions of the truth I've found one aspect of this debate truly amusing. What I find so amusing is that the media seems to take as fact whatever is spoken by those investigating these failures.

Intelligence gathering due to it's very nature is a very unreliable art. It is subject to conjecture and plane guesswork. In fact piecing together a reasonable picture often relies on using past experience to try and separate fact from fiction. In regards to Iraq and WMD, or the events of 9/11, all of the expected flaws of intelligence gathering can be seen. A lack of specific details (which are rarely if ever available) required that assumptions be made. Any work on this topic by John Keegan can be particularly enlightening when it comes to how rare good intelligence actually is. Intelligence In War is particularly relevant.

In general though the media will present anyone as an 'intelligence expect' when in fact there is no such thing. There are only men and women who are exceptionally good at 'making puzzles'. Whether the story involves Joe Wilson or Robin Butler we must accept that these men are doing no more than what the actual intelligence gatherers did in the first place. They are trying to put together an complete picture with conflicting and contradictory pieces of information.

Now I'm not saying that investigating how intelligence decisions were made is a bad idea. Far from it. Investigating past results is the only way that an intelligence gathering organization can be measured. It cannot be done in real-time since that would affect the quality of it's work. So that leaves us with political hacks and appointees telling us about the quality of the intelligence and/or the motivation behind those producing it.

And I understand quite well that 95% of the media coverage of intelligence activities is purely politically motivated. Because lets be realistic... who wants to read about the 20000 documents, the 4000 intercepted phone calls, or the 1000 meetings with shady and unknown individuals, that are required to paint an intelligence picture about a country such as Hussein's Iraq?

I guess what saddens me most about the constant coverage of the intelligence activites is not that mistakes were made by the community. It doesn't bother me for the simple fact that I've read enough to know that intelligence is more often wrong than it is right. What really bothers me is that one side of the debate has used this opportunity to score political points and to deflect criticism from themselves. The Democratic Party in the US, and most other anti-US groups around the world, know that they cannot possibly present a morally coherent argument against US actions. So instead of presenting their morals to the scrutiny of others they try to change the debate.

That is the real loss in all of this. One side of political spectrum has lost its morals. They know it but can't quite come to terms with it.

How Is This Possible?

[Via Nealenews]

Gunman Opens Fire Downtown:

A gunman opened fire on a group of young people downtown last night, hitting three before fleeing down Colonel By Drive.

Witnesses at the scene, near the Elephant and Castle restaurant at the Rideau Centre, told police the man had what appeared to be an automatic weapon -- possibly an Uzi.

Police say none of the three sustained life-threatening injuries. As of late last night, the gunman remained at large.

Don't we have a gun registry that is supposed to prevent these kinds of things? Every once and a while I get the sneaking suspicion that the media just makes stuff up...

Lets Have This Discussion Again

I wrote this post yesterday suggesting that the Conservative Party did not need to change much of it's platform in order to appeal to Canadian voters.

In the comments to the post a lot valid points were made which brought up a few things I would like to address.

1)

Based on the comments there is very little agreement about how to define 'social issues' in this country. Perhaps I'm totally out in left field here. Or perhaps people are just nit-picking. I'm not sure.

Regardless, as Alan points out in one of his comments, whether a topic is a social, property, or economic (Any others?) issue depends on what your predetermined view on the issue is. This of course makes it very difficult for two opposing views to converge on a compromise position. As Alan says in regards to abortion:

To me, the most difficult of the so-called "social" issues is abortion, because inherent in the debate is the question of how to characterize the issue in the first place. If you think it's a social issue, you're probably pro-choice. Pro-life people ultimately see abortion as a crime against an individual and therefore not a matter suited to settlement via the ebb and flow of popular sentiment.

So my question is: Is it possible to change how a person classifies an issue be it social, property, or economic? The response to this would of course affect how a party presents its platform. In my view the Conservative Party allows others to define the issues which naturally puts them on the defensive when presenting their views.

Anyways from now on when I refer to 'social conservatives' I am referring to people who in a general sense view social policies from a traditional and/or religious vantagepoint. That is still a definition filled with holes but I figure its good enough.

2)

Many people have also suggested in the comments that the socially conservative wing of the Conservative Party of Canada should basically hush up so that the Conservative Party can win an election and form a government.

People who are making such suggestions are basically saying that social conservatives should vote for the Conservative Party yet expect nothing in return. They want social conservatives to vote Conservative so that they can have lower taxes, less government involvement in their lives, etc... for themselves. But what exactly are they offering someone who is a social conservative? As far as I can tell, nothing.

Nobody has made the case why social conservatives should vote for the Conservative Party if the decision is that the party will not represent them or their interests.

3)

A different view of point #2 is that people are suggesting that the social conservatives should shut up so that the Conservative Party could win an election at which point they would be rewarded for their support. Perhaps this would make political sense but it is far from being morally honest or in the long term interest of our democracy.

Now I'm sure someone will say that the point it irrelevant because that is how politics works in the first place. Perhaps. But what guarantee do social conservatives have that their support would be rewarded. A common complaint that many people raised against the PC Party led by Brian Mulroney was that social conservatives were not given a voice in the party. Are some people suggesting that this scenario won't repeat itself?

4)

Another train of thought I see in this discussion and in the media in general is that many people, who would probably be better classified as libertarians, feel that no party with a significant membership of social conservatives will ever again be elected in Canada. In a sense it seems some people would like a national alternative to the Liberals that was basically socially liberal and economically conservative. This is in many ways an attractive proposition which in principle I would probably support.

But in order for this to work this party would have to convince social conservatives that it deserves their support. Personally I don't think this would be very difficult. Most social conservatives in my view don't wish to impose their views on others, they just want to ensure that their government will leave them alone and will not be hostile to them. These requirements are perfectly compatible with a more libertarian type of government.

So where does all this leave us? Heck I don't know. If I did I'ld be leading a political party wouldn't I?

But I do know that my interests are not best served by winning one election. They are best served by creating an atmosphere where the majority of Canadians see the value in implementing and living by conservative principles. These principles are self reliance, independence from the government, optimism, confidence in our culture, and respect for each other. Having Canadians believe in these things is more important than winning an election.

Update @ 7:20pm

Check out Andrew Coyne's post concerning the past election. I'm in total agreement with Andrew's analysis. Also check out this revealing comment left by Miles Jenkins:

As a footnote to this statement, consider the following tantalizing number: 16,803. That’s the minimum number of Liberal votes in the election which, had they been Conservative, would have made Stephen Harper PM.

The Liberals finished 35 seats ahead of the Conservatives (considering Chuck Cadman a Conservative). The aggregate margin of victory in the 18 closest Liberal-first, Conservative-second ridings (13 in Ontario, 3 in the West, 2 in the Maritimes) was 33,570 votes. Divide by 2 and add 18 and you get the number of swing votes that sadly went unswung - less than one-eighth of one percent of the 13.5 million votes cast!

16,803 - a miserable Argo-crowd’s worth of backsliders to be set right before the next election. So put away those cyanide pills and razor blades, Conservatives!

Miles is one sharp fellow.

AIDs Research

AIDs research is quite expensive which is why most AIDs drugs have predominately been developed in western countries. Lately the west had been taking quite the beating from the UN and various NGOs for not embracing the idea of giving free drugs to countries affected by the disease.

Cicada provides us this quote from Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell:

Without intellectual property rights, "you would have exactly the same number of drugs that has been discovered in the Soviet Union in the past 50 years, which I think is about one," he said.

Those damn capitalists! Creating things that people need. If only we all lived in socialist countries where we were all able to die a slow and painful death everything would be great. Capitalists always ruin everything.

The Wall Is Dangerous?

Marwan Bishara has a nice little rant about the American and Israeli responses to the International Court of Justice's ruling on the wall Israel is building to separate itself from the Palestinians:

This made the international court's ruling more pertinent and gave the Palestinians renewed hope. The court demanded that Israel cease its breaches of international law, dismantle the wall in its entirety and compensate the residents for all damages.

The Palestinians' sigh of relief turned quickly into a stare of disbelief as they watched American officials dismiss the landmark decision, following Israel's outright rejection of it.

The Bush administration is promising to veto any resolution by the UN Security Council based on the court's opinion. In other words, what the dissenting American judge couldn't do on the international court, where the other 14 members voted in support of the ruling, the United States intends to do in the United Nations.

Such an irresponsible step would alienate what's left of America's friends and allies and render the United States morally responsible for future escalation of bloodshed in Palestine. Washington would also harm Israel's long-term interest by helping Ariel Sharon transform occupation into irreversible apartheid.

So how is this a 'landmark' decision? The court has no jurisdiction. And no mandate. It produced an opinion and a completely expected one at that. That is it. As I mentioned here the court is headed by a Chinese appointee. But if Ms Bishara was so concerned about an 'occupation' perhaps she would care to take the head of this 'holier than thou' court to task. I personally won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Also Ms Bishara's shock that the US would veto any resolution resulting for the courts ruling it a bit much. Her shock that the US responded predictably to the courts ruling (which was never in doubt) is a bit disingenuous. Is she actually surprised by the American response?

And yet throughout her entire article she not once mentions the PLO and any of their responsibilities. How about Hamas? No comment? I totally understand why she would care to ignore such 'little details' as exploding buses and bombed schools but she could at least let up on the 'shock' she felt because some people care to disagree with the courts ruling.

Now I'll be the first one to say that the path that the wall takes may not always be politically wise but why exactly is it that Israel must bare so much grief about the route the wall takes? Israel was invaded three times by hostile forces intent on destroying the country. The Palestinians supported these invasions each and every time. And what price should they pay for their actions?

Or does the new 'international law' say that a country may take part in as many wars of agression as it wishes and expect no negative repercusions if it loses?

Is that a recipe for world peace or total anarchy?

Some Reading Material For Today

Cosby's Message Stings, As It Should - Star Parker
Bush Rightly Shuns NAACP - Armstrong Williams
Sex Matters - James Q. Wilson
The Ayatollah Of Anti-Americanism - Bruce Thornton

Alberta Is Debt Free

[Via Stephen Taylor]

Well Alberta is now debt free. It is kind of like a catch-22 though since the more money Alberta has in it's coffers the more money Ottawa is going to suck out and spew out over the rest of the country.

Still Ralph Klein makes a good point:

"Alberta is the first debt-free province in Canada. Let those words sink in for a minute. It’s quite an achievement!

"To put it in context, consider that the federal government currently has a debt of more than $500 billion, and debt and interest payments each year of more than $35 billion. That means the federal government's single largest program is debt!"

It is depressing as hell to think that the government spends more on debt interest than any other program.

I wonder if socialists in this country see that their demand for increased government spending only results in the government making interest payments to 'fat cat capitalists' or alternatively results in higher taxes imposed on the average Canadian family.

Regardless their policies benefit those they claim to hate (capitalists) and harm those they claim to care for (average Canadians).

kerrywatch.org

I was entering a comment into HaloScan.com today and an ad for kerrywatch.org came up. I love their tag line:

The mission of KerryWatch.org is to hold the mainstream media accountable for their insidious efforts to redefine and undermine John Kerry. Their distortions creep into our nation's political discourse and affect elections.

Not anymore. We are watching

I love lefties. 'insidious efforts'. Funny.

I wonder though how the media is 'redefining' John Kerry. I didn't realize that Kerry had defined himself. I say that because you obviously can't be 'redefined' unless you've been defined. Since Kerry is all over the map on every issue he's ever spoken publicly about I'm not quite sure where the mainstream media would start.

Oh well. It's still a funny read. To bad I can't leave them comments.

Another Quiz

Which ethical philosopher are you?

I got:

Aquinas (1225 or '27-1274)

- All life has a purpose
- Meeting this purpose allows one to be happy.
- Happiness is to be found in the love of God.
- God's grace providing entrance into heaven creates the highest form of human happiness.
- Short of heaven, a person can achieve a more limited form of happiness through a life of virtue and friendship.
- Morality is not determined by the arbitrary will of God.
- Morality is derived from human nature and the activities that are objectively suited to it.
- The difference between right and wrong can be appreciated through the use of reason and reflection.
- Religious reflection may supplement the use of reason and reflection to determine right from wrong.
- Societies must enact laws to ensure the correct application of moral reasoning.
- Human nature is good because God made it good.

I'm actually quite surprised by this.

This Weeks Poll

What sentence should Saddam Hussein receive?

Please vote on the sidebar to the right.

Results for previous polls can be found here.

Goldberg On Cosby

Jonah Goldberg comments on Bill Cosby's remarks these last few weeks concerning black's dependence on the American governement:

Leftists, both white and black, have always warned that poor blacks would starve if government stopped "helping" them — or they'd turn to crime, riot, spontaneously combust, whatever. Personally, I've always found the notion condescending and racist that blacks would turn animal without the domesticating influence of government spoon-feeding.

Racist or not, the reverse has largely proved true. After Bill Clinton signed welfare reform, for example, poor black women didn't starve, they didn't go wilding — they got jobs. By contrast, government "help" coincided with almost unrelenting growth in family break-up and violence among low-income blacks. We can argue about how much government aid helped the black middle class, but that is irrelevant to Cosby's point. For some irreducible number of blacks, government help simply cannot solve the problem.

...

Conservatives have long argued that the best thing for the black community is, in the late Pat Moynihan's celebrated (though misunderstood) phrase, a policy of "benign neglect." Most people faced with the choice of sinking or swimming will swim. And there's no reason to believe, conservatives argued, that blacks wouldn't swim like anybody else if they had to.

I'm glad to see that Bill Cosby hasn't backed down from his original statements.

La Shawn expands on Cosby's comments here and here.

Moore On The Working Class

From The Last Amazon, the latest addition to our blogroll, we have this great quote about Michael Moore's film Roger And Me:

Inspite of the raves, one of the things that rubbed me the wrong way is how Moore mocked the "little" people in his film who were just doing their job. I was brought up to believe that work had value and no matter what you did, be it cleaning toilets or cleaning floors, you did it to the best of your ability. A self-appointed champion of the working class has no business mocking the working class at work.

Lots of great stuff over there. Check it out.

Media Bias

[Via Nealenews]

Orson Scott Card writes on the difference between liberal and conservative media bias.

Conservatives Should Be Less 'conservative'?

The National Post today tells us that Stephen Harper's next move should be to make the Conservative Party of Canada less 'conservative' at least when it comes to social policies:

The fact is that Canada is a socially liberal nation: If he hopes to win in the future, Mr. Harper will need to leave no doubt about his party's positions on issues such as abortion and gay rights -- perhaps even going so far as embracing gay marriage as a means to take the bigot card away from the Liberals. At the very least, Mr. Harper must make it perfectly clear that the more extreme members of his caucus -- the Cheryl Gallants and Randy Whites of this world -- are firmly on the party's margins.

Do the writers at the Post have no sense of history? What lead to the splitting of the old Progressive Conservative Party? Eh? The fact that social conservatives did not have a home there is what split the PC Party apart. So why does the Post think silencing their voices now will lead to different results?

And the idea that the Conservative Party should embrace gay marriage in order to 'take the bigot card away from the Liberals' is laughable. Do the writers think the Liberal Party would then just say 'Oh yeah the Conservatives are nice guys now, go ahead and vote for them since they aren't scary anymore.'? The Liberal's of course would just raise the bar to another level. Gay marriage itself is an issue where the Liberal's pulled this stunt. They were against it, and I will note were elected while being against it, until they decided to use it as a wedge issue.

So this suggestion by the Post is obsurd both by the facts that first you CAN be elected and be against gay marriage, and second that the Liberal's will NOT stop calling conservatives bigots and racists.

The Post has jumped on the bandwagon by saying the Conservative Party of Canada failed during the past election. Sure alot of people were expecting a Conservative Party minority government but so what? The party won 99 seats and probably would have won plenty more if Ontarians didn't get a case of the worries at the last minute. Does this suggest that the Conservative Party should radically alter its platform? I personally don't see how anyone can make the case that they should.

Ontario just a few years ago was a conservative powerhouse so to speak. Why can't it be again? As well, being from the Maritimes, I can tell you that Maritimers will vote for 'conservative' issues when presented with the option. Quebec will probably be a harder nut to crack so I'll leave Quebec for someone more qualified to comment on the region. Anyways...

The Conservative Party should not change course now. How old is the party again? Less than a year. Give it time. The members of the party should go to Parliament and do their jobs. Be consistant and honest. Don't talk down to people. Don't propose to do anything rash when in power but don't hide your convictions either.

The Conservative Party led in the polls for much of the election campaign. Just because they didn't win as many seats as the pundits expected does not mean a radical overhaul of party policy is necessary.

And finally, why does the Post think another liberal party under a conservative banner would be good for Canada? I voted for the Conservative Party in the last election because that party met more of my needs as a citizen then any of the others. If the Conservative Party of Canada emulates the Liberals why does the Post think I will vote for them?

The Passive French

Yesterday in Paris:

Police said the gang of six set upon the 23-year-old woman on a suburban train north of Paris and grabbed her backpack where they found identity papers that showed an address in the capital's well-to-do 16th district. “There are only Jews in the 16th,” one of the group of attackers is alleged to have said.

The young woman, who was not identified, is not Jewish and no longer lives in the district, police said.

The gang then pushed her and cut her hair “to keep a souvenir,” police said. The attackers opened her shirt, reportedly with a knife, before drawing swastikas on her stomach with a marking pen. The 13-month-old infant fell from its stroller in the melee. Neither the mother nor infant was seriously hurt, police said.

Other passengers watched but did nothing, police reported

Police described the gang as ages 15 to 20 and said some appeared to be of Muslim North African origin.

The attack occurred a day after President Jacques Chirac denounced mounting racial intolerance in France, calling for drastic change “at the risk of indifference and passivity.”

Yeah... everything over there is just fine.

Class Warfare

Robert Tracinski gives us a clear picture of how the Democratic Party uses class warfare to it's benefit in US politics.

Replace the Democratic Party with Canada's Liberal or NDP parties and you'd have a nice description of Canadian politics as well.

Sign This

[Via Nealenews]

Kasra Nejatian of Queen's University has created a petition hoping that it may lead to charges against Michael Moore for violating our Elections Act:

As far as Kasra Nejatian, a 21-year-old Queen's University student, is concerned, Mr. Moore broke the law. Specifically, the Canada Elections Act, which states "[no] person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate" unless the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

Mr. Nejatian has set up a Web site, chargemoore.com and is asking Canadians to sign his petition -- which he wants to present to Elections Canada, along with a formal complaint. Should Elections Canada pursue the complaint against Mr. Moore, it would be the first time a non-Canadian would be charged under the Elections Act.

"I was tired of this guy going around and telling Canadians about a topic which he knows nothing about," Mr. Nejatian said yesterday. "This guy's propaganda is bad enough in the U.S., but at least there he's not breaking the law. He broke the law here."

Check it out and add your signature at chargemoore.com.

In The World Today

George Will has written a nice piece about the 'left' and its failure to deliver its message to Middle America:

An interesting addition to this canon is "What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America." Its author, Thomas Frank, argues that his native Kansas -- like the nation, only more so -- votes self-destructively, meaning conservatively, because social issues such as abortion distract it from economic self-interest, as the left understands that.

Frank is a formidable controversialist -- imagine Michael Moore with a trained brain and an intellectual conscience. Frank has a coherent theory of contemporary politics and expresses it with a verve born of indignation. His carelessness about facts is mild by contemporary standards, or lack thereof, concerning the ethics of controversy.

He says "the pre-eminent question of our times" is why people misunderstand "their fundamental interests." But Frank ignores this question: Why does the left disparage what everyday people consider their fundamental interests?

He says the left has been battered by "the Great Backlash" of people of modest means against their obvious benefactor and wise definer of their interests, the Democratic Party. The cultural backlash has been, he believes, craftily manufactured by rich people with the only motives the left understands -- money motives. The aim of the rich is to manipulate people of modest means, making them angry about abortion and other social issues so that they will vote for Republicans who will cut taxes on the rich.

This has always been one of my major frustrations when arguing with 'lefties'. They can't seem to accept that perfectly sane people may disagree with their viewpoint of the world. If you disagree with them then you of course must be either mentally deficient, racist, etc...

It has pretty much gotten to the point that whenever I start to argue with a 'lefty' I just mock them and make jokes about every point they make. Cause lets be honest 1) they generally could care less about facts and/or history and 2) they are often the most humourless people you'll ever meet.

Also today the UN has ruled that Israel's barrier is illegal:

Reading the ruling, Court President Shi Jiuyong of China said the court was not convinced the barrier's construction was the only means to achieve Israel's aim of protecting its people from suicide attacks.

The construction of the wall created a fait accompli which could become permanent, it added.

"It would be tantamount to de facto annexation," Mr Shi said.

The irony in having someone appointed by China to head the court is a bit much. A comedian couldn't come up with this stuff. As well having Mr Shi being so concerned about 'de facto annexation' just adds to the whole song and dance. Tibet? Anyone? Is it the 'annexation' that is the problem to Mr Shi or the 'de facto' part?

And how exactly is the construction of the wall 'contrary' to international law? Law must be applied consistantly, if it isn't, then it isn't law that is being applied but instead political prejudices. The wall between US and Mexico? India and Bengladesh? The Balkan's is littered with towns with walls separating the inhabitants. Why aren't these 'contrary' to international law?

And check out J.J.'s work at Filibuster Cartoons. This take on John Kerry and John Edwards is mint.

Also as I mentioned yesterday France is opposing sanctions that have been proposed against Sudan. Via Instapundit.com we now find out that France has the largest oil concession granted in the country. I can't say I'm totally surprised.

And you know I was planning to go downtown this weekend but I think I'm going to have to change my plans. I live in Ottawa and given all the 'no blood for oil' protestors expected downtown protesting at the French embassy driving will probably be a nightmare. Oh wait a minute that would make sense and the last thing most anti-war protestors want to do is make sense.

No need to worry then. The roads will be fine.

Update @ 2:18pm

Via Mader Blog we learn that Europe has it's own 'apartheid wall':

The fence is located in a Spanish enclave in northwestern Africa, the coastal city of Ceuta just across the Straits of Gibraltar from Spain. Unknown to most of the world, when Spain handed over most of northern Morocco to the newly independent kingdom in 1956, Spain retained Ceuta and Melilla (about 250 kilometers further east) - thus that the European Union is present in Africa as well. Poverty-stricken Moroccans attempting to cross into Ceuta, from where they will then be able to work anywhere in Europe because of the EU's no-checkpoints policy, are stopped in their tracks by the eight-meter-high, double layer fence. Funding for the fence, some 60 million Euros, came from European Union coffers.

Where is the outrage?

VDH On Civilization Vs Trivia

Victor Davis Hanson is at his best once again:

There is a great divide unfolding between the engine of history and the dumbfounded spectators who are apparently furious at what is going on before their eyes. Mr. Bush's flight suit, Abu Ghraib, claims of "no al Qaeda-Saddam ties," Joe Wilson, and still more come and go while millions a world away inch toward consensual government and civilization.

For over a year now, we have witnessed a level of invective not seen since the summer of 1864 — much of it the result of a dying 60's generation's last gasps of lost self-importance. Instead of the "innocent" Rosenbergs and "framed" Alger Hiss we now get the whisk-the-bin-Laden-family-out-of-the-country conspiracy. Michael Moore is a poor substitute for the upfront buffoonery of Abbie Hoffman.

The oil pipeline in Afghanistan that we allegedly went to war over doesn't exist. Brave Americans died to rout al Qaeda, end the fascist Taliban, and free Afghanistan for a good and legitimate man like a Hamid Karzai to oversee elections. It was politically unwise and idealistic — not smart and cynical — for Mr. Bush to gamble his presidency on getting rid of fascists in Iraq. There really was a tie between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein — just as Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton once believed and Mr. Putin and Mr. Allawi now remind us. The United States really did plan to put Iraqi oil under Iraqi democratic supervision for the first time in the country's history. And it did.

This war — like all wars — is a terrible thing; but far, far worse are the mass murder of 3,000 innocents and the explosion of a city block in Manhattan, a ghoulish Islamic fascism and unfettered global terrorism, and 30 years of unchecked Baathist mass murder. So for myself, I prefer to be on the side of people like the Kurds, Elie Wiesel, Hamid Karzai, and Iyad Allawi rather than the idiotocrats like Jacques Chirac, Ralph (the Israelis are "puppeteers") Nader, Michael Moore, and Billy Crystal.

Sometimes life's choices really are that simple.

Well Of Course They Do

France Opposes UN Sudan Sanctions.

What Media Bias?

Given all the media coverage telling us that G.W. Bush lied about WMD I'm surprised that this hasn't been getting more coverage in the major media outlets:

The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday.

The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said.

I suppose the only way we could convince some people that Saddam was up to no good was if the materials were found with a sign saying: 'Caution: Nuclear Materials Required To Build Dirty Nuclear Weapons As Requested By President Saddam Hussein To Fulfill Agreements Signed Between Himself And Terror Organizations. Refer To Document H4.AB For Authorizations. Terror Cells Awaiting Delivery Of Nuclear Devices Via Federal Express To New York City.'

It's funny how the media loses interest in a story when the evidence starts to contradict what they've been preaching to us for so long.

Oh well.

Bias At The BBC

I found these two paragraphs from this BBC story quite revealing:

But some, including the editorial page of the conservative National Post newspaper, have argued that the pair should have known what they were getting into when they signed up for the US Army, and should be sent home to face justice.

...

But south of the border, right-wing commentators such as Bill O'Reilly of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News TV network have seized on the case, even calling for a boycott of Canadian goods if the pair are not extradited quickly.

Why is it so important to point out that The National Post is 'conservative' and that Fox News TV is owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Why don't their own reporters get such disclaimers? Why shouldn't this from a story concerning Israel:

But there is little sign that Israel is set to be more open about its nuclear activities, the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says.

Instead read:

But there is little sign that Israel is set to be more open about its nuclear activities, the BBC's, Britain's leftwing and anti-Israeli public broadcaster, diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says.

Just wondering.

Iraqi Heros

When a nation has men willing to fight and sacrifice their lives for others you know it's future will be bright:

A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if he does not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion.

The threats revealed the deep anger many Iraqis, including insurgent groups, feel toward foreign fighters, whom many consider as illegitimate a presence here as the 160,000 U.S. and other coalition troops.

In a videotape sent to the al-Arabiya television station, a group calling itself the “Salvation Movement,” questioned how Mr. al-Zarqawi could use Islam to justify the killing of innocent civilians, the targeting of government officials and the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners.

“He must leave Iraq immediately, he and his followers and everyone who gives shelter to him and his criminal actions,” a man said on the video.

...

“We swear to Allah that we have started preparing ... to capture him and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people.” the man said. “This is the last warning. If you don't stop, we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do."

These men should make Iraqis proud.

Our Legal System

During the election campaign the Liberal and NPD parties told us that our judicial system was beyond dispute. The courts are always right and should not be questioned.

Appropriately our infalliable legal system steps up to the plate and gives us this ruling:

An Ontario couple have been sentenced to nine months in jail for keeping their two adopted sons chained in cages over a 13-year period when they were not in school.

The couple – the boys' 42-year-old biological aunt and her 52-year-old husband – pleaded guilty in January to two counts each of assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and failing to provide the necessities of life.

Ontario Court Judge Donald Halikowski condemned the couples' behaviour Monday, but said there was no evidence that the couple were sadists.

“Both accused share equal responsibility as parents,” he said before handing down the sentence. “Both failed.”

They failed? What exactly does this Mr. Halikowski mean by 'failed'? Not sadists? Then what exactly are we to call these two parents? Mis-informed? They didn't read the latest material on child rearing?

The courts are all-knowing... please.

We Must Have A Bureaucracy For This

frozen in montreal makes a good point regarding Micheal Moore. Since he has claimed he wanted his film to influence the recent Canadian election it only makes sense that the Canadian government go after him.

I'm not sure that we have any particular laws about foreigners influencing our elections but I find it hard to imagine any country NOT having laws to prevent it. So in sort... where is the bureaucracy when you need it?

Perhaps since the bureaucracy got the election result it wanted...

Sovereignty In Iraq

Margaret Wente's take on the new Iraqi government:

Nobody would claim that Iraq is a peaceable kingdom. But the Western media are obsessed with bombs and bullets. Meantime, at least 37 municipalities have held peaceable elections. Not one has elected a former Baathist. Hard-line Islamist groups have drawn fewer votes than the Green Party did in Canada.

In one town I visited last fall, they held the election in the school. They wrote all the candidates' names on a big chalkboard for everyone to see. The ballot box was made of glass. Everybody put their ballots into the box, then watched as they were taken out and tallied on the chalkboard until the box was empty. Three hundred people voted, and at the end, they cheered.

Today, perhaps as you read this, Saddam Hussein is being arraigned before an Iraqi judge. This summer, the new Iraqi soccer team will salute the new Iraqi flag at the Olympics. (In London, the team beat a team of anti-war British MPs in a friendly game, 15-0.) National elections will be held within months. Throughout the country, people are gathering in tribal councils, mosques and clubs to discuss their political future.

Don't bother telling any of this to Michael Moore, or his legions of smart fans. They don't want to know. It would spoil their fun.

How heartless can you be by wanting the Iraqi people to fail? Are a few political points worth it? Mr. Moore...?