Description
Our opinions of and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.
Comments and suggestions can be sent to:
Dana - virtual_zero@hotmail.com
Bob - bobtheright@hotmail.com
Syndicate this site: Atom RSS
Latest Posts
The Stink Over Undercover Cops - Dana
On Chinese Goods - Dana
Tweaking The Template - Dana
If I Posted... - Dana
On Automobiles - Dana
The Grim Endpoint Of Public Healthcare - Dana
My Idea: Club His Sorry Ass - Dana
Robbed Again - Dana
Nothing To See Here - Dana
Finally Got Backlinks Working - Dana
Links
Our Sponsors
Miscellaneous
Privacy Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
There has been lots of talk about Iran's nuclear program lately and whether the Americans or Israelis are going to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons by bombing their reactor and related facilities. Some people are in favor of stopping the Iranians at all costs, while others seem to think that any attack by Israel against Iran would be totally wrong and lead to only more trouble.
Personally I think the doom and gloom crowd are over reacting, when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80's, much of the same thing went on then as it is now. Here are a couple reactions to the attack.
"This government has a great deal of sympathy for Israel, but we don't think such action serves the cause of peace in the area." - Claude Cheysson, French foreign minister
"Israel's sneak attack on a French built nuclear reactor near Baghdad was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression." - New York Times editorialMy two favorite parts are "we don't think such action serves the cause of peace in the area" and "inexcusable and short-sighted aggression", looking back on events these two couldn't have been more wrong about how much peace and security Israel was actually providing the rest of the world with by taking away Saddam's nuclear option.
Could the doom and gloom crowd be wrong again? I think so. Israel would again be doing the world a favor, whether all of us realize it or not. Stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons will only make the world a safer place in the long run, even if some people would call it "short-sighted aggression".
I was surfing for some P.J. O'Rourke writings today and I came across this speech he gave to the Cata Institute back in 1993.
Like most of his writings it is a must read. Some quotes:
This is because we believe in freedom. Freedom-what this country was established upon, what the Constitution was written to defend, what the Civil War was fought to perfect.Well said. This of course applies equally to Canada and the rest of the 'free world'.
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights - the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
...
You know. if government were a product, selling it would be illegal. Government is a health hazard. Governments have killed many more people than cigarettes or unbuckled seat belts ever have. Government contains impure ingredients-as anybody who's looked at Congress can tell you. On the basis of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises. I think we can say government practices deceptive advertising. And the merest glance at the federal budget is enough to convict the government of perjury, extortion, and fraud. There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Cato Institute's program in a nutshell: government should be against the law. Term limits aren't enough. We need jail.
Dependency is the greatest crime that a government can commit against its citizens. And here in Canada we see it all around us.
As an example, back home in PEI the government has been pressured to provide separate french elementary schools in areas with very small french populations. I'm not here to debate the wisdom of opening such schools since I'm basically neutral on the matter but I do want to comment on one of the most commonly sited reasons people gave for demanding them. One of the most common reasons was that being bilingual made getting a government job much easier.
Can you imagine? Parents preprogramming their children to be dependent on the good graces of their masters. Children raised in such a manner are going into the world with one strike already against them.
Now I don't mean to pick just on PEI but since I've spent most of my life there its my primary point of reference. When a problem exists somewhere, doesn't matter what, the first thing people turn to in order to solve the problem is the government. A government grant perhaps. How about ACOA funding? Lets give money to outsiders if they promise to give us jobs. There must be someone out there who will help us... the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
James Taranto of Best Of The Web Today makes a very good point concerning polls in the US that according to Al Gore state 'a clear majority of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction'.
Democratic spinners have used these poll results to say that a majority of Americans are unhappy with G.W.'s performance. Perhaps. But the people quoting such polls fail to tell us why a majority feels that America is headed in the wrong direction. As Taranto mentions:
If you think the country is going in the wrong direction because of Hollywood vulgarity and court-mandated same-sex marriage, you'll probably vote for Bush, the candidate who stands against these things.Very good point. I'm curious if the pollsters even collect such data and if so why the media fails to report on the specifics.
That Bush Dynasty is up to no good. We all know that they only run for public office so that they can control the global supply of oil. They of course use this to hurt children and kill little puppies.
Now they have just gone to far! John Kerry has an inside source that says G.W. Bush has a secret plan to hurt the Wisconsin milk industry.
Imagine the suffering once the Bush clan gains control of global milk production. Children malnourished. We will all be slaves!
We cannot let this happen. To prevent more American control of the global means of production I intend to write to Prime Minister Paul Martin demanding that a federal program be implemented that diversifies Canada's milk production. Let's be honest. Such a program would only cost $2-3 billion which would be a small price to pay to ensure America doesn't pull us closer within the American sphere-of-influence.
A cow in every home I say!
PS: Jesus, Kerry is an ass. Bush may hate children, poor people, minorities, whatever... but at least he isn't an ass.
Todays poll question at The Globe And Mail asks: Should the federal government introduce a short-term 'windfall tax' that redistributes some of Alberta's oil wealth to provinces in need?
Is this story in the news or are they just making up the poll questions as they go?
I'm curious since I havn't heard of it elsewhere.
And while we are on the subject why don't they ask questions as to why Ontario doesn't redistribute to 'needy provinces' it's income from auto manufacturing, high-tech industries, or the legal and corporate professions in Toronto?
Monday, September 27, 2004
When George W. Bush was asked about the up coming presidential campaign debate in Florida, on Thursday, he had this to say about his opponent, Sen. John Kerry.
"He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself,"That's pretty funny no matter who you are, well maybe not everybody will find it funny, but I sure do. John Kerry must be getting to the point where he is ready to pull his hair out when he hears stuff like this continually repeated.
Update @ 7:23
I guess John Kerry is going to pull his hair out after all, he's had enough of this crap already. Teresa, thinks this is a plot by Karl Rove to wreck John's sexy hair.
Update @ 8:57
Hold on there a second, Kerry has had a change of heart, he has been advised by by several aides that pulling his hair out will have a negative effect on the campaign. This is Kerry's final decision, maybe, at least until tomorrow.
I know I haven't written much lately but thankfully Bob has been keeping the ship afloat.
I just thought today that I'ld put up some reciprolinks to a few folks that have been kind enough to link to us:
The Diplomad
The Red Granger
Babbling Brooks
Looney Canuck
As for my lack of posting... well I've just been way to busy. Plus sick. Damn microscopic organisms. Damn them all!
Anyways the news these days pretty much explains itself.
CBS News is finished. And rightfully so I might add. How Dan Rather could respond to criticisms of his work in the way he did is enough to convict him. I have no other comment on the matter.
John Kerry... well where could one start. How about this: Could the Democrat's have possibly picked a worse candidate? At least with Al Sharpton they could have claimed it was all a bad joke that got out of control. Instead they nominated Al Gore 2.0 thinking things would be totally different this time around. Tsk tsk.
Now it wouldn't take a genious to figure out that I hope G.W. gets re-elected, but I could have picked better candidates that the last two Democratic nutjobs by choosing the two most colourful characters I could find on cereal boxes. Like seriously? Al Gore? John Kerry?
I don't claim to understand the 'left' or liberals in general but which neurons misfired that allowed these nominations to happen? Why are Democrat's letting the 'normal' candidates slip through their fingers? How about Dick Gephardt? He seems normal. Joe Lieberman?
Out of the 2-3 hundred million Americans out there, how many would look at Gore or Kerry and say: You know he's kind of like me.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
I've heard this joke before, but I find it very funny. So for those of you who have never seen it before, I'll post it for you. I found it over at The Kallini Brothers' blog.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth.I hoped you liked it.
She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time and never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your good friend Mary doing?”
She replied, “Mary is barely getting by.” She continued, “She barely has a 2.0 GPA,” adding, “and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies.” “But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn’t even show up for classes because she is too hung over.”
Her father then asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s Office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.” He continued, “That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without And Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party."
Friday, September 24, 2004
More proof of what you ask, more proof that Teresa Heinz Kerry is more than a little wacky. Wednesday, speaking at a Arizona fund-raiser Teresa Heinz Kerry said that she expects the Bush government to find Osama Bin Ladin before this fall's election.
"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month,"I guess all the Democratic strategists that thought it was a good idea to keep Heinz Kerry out of the spotlight failed, eh.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
I don't have too much to say about Paul Martin's comments at the United Nations about the current situation in the Sudan, just a little less talk and a lot more action would be nice. That's all I have to say for now.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
For those of you that aren't familiar with the names, Evan Wade Brown and Christopher Geoghegan, well they are the last two people to be charged with assault for attacking high profile politicians with cream pies to the face. Brown was charged for an attack on Jean Chertien in Charlottetown and Geoghegan was the latest to be sentenced, with an attack on Alberta's Ralph Klein.
Let's put aside the motives of the two attackers for a second, because for this story, it doesn't matter. Now try to imagine for a minute what I am about to run by you and see if you think it would be funny. Of course I think it would be funny or why else would I be taking the time to type it all out for you?
Let's start by picturing one or both of these two idiots outside the court house doing interviews with the media after they have been sentences for their crimes. They are rambling on about how cramming pies in the faces of high profile politicians should be an exceptable form of political protest and that they have done nothing wrong, also taking care along the way to add that the system was too hard on them, then... Wham! Somebody comes up from behide them and nails them with a big cream pie right in the kisser, wouldn't that be funny?
As you may have noticed I'm no big fan of politicians, so the point of this post is not to defend the trusted guardians of our great nation from cream pie attack, I just thought it would be funny if one or both of the idiots mentioned at the top of the post got nailed with cream pies as they were pleading their own cases in defence of their moronic actions. Just a thought, hope you enjoyed it.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
I heard a very touching story on the way home from work today on the radio, it concerned the success of the center in Vancouver where junkies can go to shoot up heroin and the like, in peace, safely away from the police and the dangers of the streets. It was heart warming, one of the junkies overdosed and because he was at the center, somebody noticed his condition and called a near by hospital and saved his life.
The problem I have with this story is the fact that this idiot was on the radio singing the praises of this center and how it changed his life. Changed his life how? Is he giving up drugs... NO, getting a job... NO, or maybe planning on making something of himself after his near death experience... NO, he was just happy he can get fucked up on drugs everyday without the police bothering him. How sweet, it warms the heart when people with no intensions of making any positive mark on society can freely sit around and shoot up heroin all day and there be no consequences for their actions.
Was this man forced to start doing drugs by some sercet government program? Was he tricked into his life of drug use and crime? People have to start taking responsibility for themselves, I know that most of the folks that use this service are down on their luck, but most of them have only themselves to blame for their current situation. This raises a very serious question, what do we as a country do with the hopeless dead-enders who have no intensions of getting their lives on track? Pamper or tough-love?
Monday, September 20, 2004
Kim Jong-il is one screwy little man, of course most of you already knew that about North Korea's dear leader, but I just have to repeat this story to you. I was reading the newspaper today and came across a bit of information about Kim Jong-il's first round of golf ever.
How did it turn out you ask? Well, as reported by North Korea's state run media, Kim was 38 under par on his first 18 holes, not bad at all. This feat, included 5 hole in ones, only 5 you say, he must have been a little quick at the bottom of his down swing, otherwise I would have expected 6 or 7. Bill Clinton liked to take the odd mulligan, but even he couldn't have even been anywhere near 38 under par.
How's that for propaganda? Kim can't even make up reasonable golf stories, 38 under par, this guy is a total wack job. On a par 72 course, Kim would have shot 34, if he was going to take it that far, why even leave any doubt , why not an 18? You know your country is in trouble when its leader is this delusional, it may be fun for him but everybody else can't take near as much pleasure in Kim as he does.
But if this story is true, I can't wait till the Presidents Cup next year, imagine the fire power that's going to be on the international team, Singh, Els, Goosen and Canada's own Mike Weir teaming up with the biggest gun of all, Kim Jong-il. They will be unstoppable, you think the Euros kicked the Americans ass, wait till Kim and Tiger square off in match play, Tiger won't now what hit him. 38 under par, what a retard!
Friday, September 17, 2004
The award goes to, Edward Furlong, who you say? He was the kid in Terminator 2, you remember now? Anyway, he got the award because of a jail break gone sour, I guess it wasn't really a jail break, he and some of his buddies decided to free some lobsters from a water tank at a supermarket and ended up getting arrested. Full story here
How or why would an semi-famous actor do such a thing, well for starters he's a vegetarian and a animal-rights supporter, but the key to the whole event was that he was drunk as arse. What a moron, who wastes a good drunk by going to the supermarket and getting arrested for trying to free lobsters from captivity? Better question, who goes with him? If me and boys are sitting around having a few beers and one of them comes up with this idea, I figure I'm going to take a pass on the afternoon's events, wouldn't you?
To further examine the day's events, what the hell were they going to do with the lobsters in the middle of the city? Set them free in the sewers or maybe all take a big piss at the same time and hope it sweeps the lobsters back into the ocean, or maybe this was a spur of the moment thing, we can only hope. Because if this act was premeditated, well Eddie, I don't know what to tell you, seek help maybe.
Isn't it funny how a lot of actors keep entertaining us even when they're not acting in the movies or plays, keep up the good work folks, because I love to be entertained, and there is nothing better then laughing at someone doing something this stupid.
[ Via Neale News ]
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A healthcare deal has been reached, I guess Paul Martin was telling the truth after all, when he said "We'll keep pissing your money away, every generation!", wait a sec, did I get that right?
For some more thought on the deal check out, The Monger, Occam's Carbuncle and Pol Spy.
You may have your own theories why Muslim countries are underdeveloped, from poor government to lack of education, but here is a different take from Farooq al-Mawdudi, that not as many people are willing to talk about as a cause of the problem.
"The Ulama have become the disease of Muslim society. They are the ones who stand in the way of Muslim scholars and intellectual who want to revive the intellectual tradition of Islam. Whenever a Muslim scholar raises a new controversial issue, the Ulama are the first ones to accuse him or her of attacking Islam itself. Any attempt to question the dominance of the Ulama is re-interpreted as an attack on Islam. Any attempt to question the outdated Figh (jurisprudence) of the Ulama is seen as an attack on Islam. How can Muslims ever develop if we have to face such opposition on a regular basis? Instead of intellectual development and original ideas, the Ulama have merely emphasized the ritualistic aspect of Islam.This in my opinion is a very important struggle within Islam, the struggle between progressive thinkers and the traditionalists. If the Middle East is ever going to modernize and catch up with the rest of the world, the progressives must win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people, otherwise I see no light at the end of the tunnel for all of the regions people, which would be very sad indeed.
What we need is a class of revolutionary thinkers, scholars and lay Muslim experts who have broken from the mold of the Ulama of the past. Rather than acting as the watchdog of the Muslim community, these Muslims intellectuals need to be brave enough to be able to re-think some of our most basic suppositions and adapt them to the needs of today. We cannot go on reproducing the same old legal codes from one thousand years ago."
In a BBC interview Koffi Annan claims that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Now I'm not quite sure what Koffi's background is (and I'm too lazy to figure it out) but it is probably safe to say that he has spent most of his life as a politician, lawyer, or beaurocrat. From the interview:
Kofi Annan (A): I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.Why did the interviewer not ask what clause in the UN Charter made the US invasion illegal? Oh I remember now... because THERE IS NONE!
Inteviewer (Q): So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
What kind of chance do you give Paul Martin coming through on his promise to fix healthcare for a generation?
Vote on the sidebar to the right.
You've really got to love the Internet. Bob and I created this site intending to bitch and complain about the goings on here in Canada. As happens to many blogs we can't always spend the amount of time that we would like looking for events that aren't already covered in some manner by the MSM. You know how it goes... wives, homes, kids, pets, etc... time is scarce.
Anyways, back to why I love the Internet. Michael at Confessions of a Hockey Fanatic (He's apparently a big Pittsburgh Penguins fan. Sad. Go to his site and send your condolences.) sent us a link to a story in The Varsity Online, the student paper at the University of Toronto. The story SAC paid for NY protest bus decribes how the Student's Administration Council funded 26 protestors on their trip to New York during the Republican National Convention.
Michael must have a 6th sense or something because I just watched the trailer for Brainwashing 101 a movie about bias found in American universities. The movie by Evan Coyne Maloney was actually very good. I especially enjoyed the interviews with the zombie-like economics professor and his run-in with the university administrator. That administrator was worse that Ben Stein's character in Farris Bueller's Day Off. Amusing.
Anyways watching that trailer had me cursing our university culture last night and then Michael sends us his link. I've always known that our Canadian universities lack just as much, if not more, a diversity of opinion but it subject is a total do-not-touch topic in our media.
I studied engineering at UNB (note my lack of spelling and grammer skills) and had to deal with this stuff whenever I ventured out of Head Hall which was the engineering building. Some of the more amusing stories is how whenever issues of the engineering paper The Pillar were distributed in any of the arts buildings someone would often throw them all in the garbage. Like please. The entire paper was dedicated to humour and current events in the engineering faculty.
Now the 'official' university newspaper The Brunswickan (or The Bumslickan as referred to in The Pillar) never had this problem because they of course didn't deviate from any rules defined by our politically correct culture. This week's editorial criticizes the Republican National Convention and says that the US should enforce it's 'separation of church and state' like France does. Allo? First off, the US Constitution contains no reference to a 'separation of church and state'. The Constitution states that the federal government cannot institute a 'national religion'. That's it. According to the American Constitution individual states could create and impose their own religions if they so chose. Details. As well the author fails to mention that France's wonderful policies are driving France straight into a civil war within 25 or so years. Great plan buddy.
I should mention that I worked for The Bumslickan for about 2 months. It could have been longer but how much time could I spend around such idiots before stabbing one of them in the neck with a #2 pencil. NOT LONG I TELL YOU! I did manage to get a few concert tickets out of them so it wasn't a total loss.
Anyways, our universities are today so devoid of diversity of opinion that it makes me shudder. While I was a student, Preston Manning of the now defunct Reform Party of Canada gave a speech at the university. There were actually university professors that let their students out early so that they could go and protest. What kind of message is that sending?
Anyways I'm babbling again. In short: universities suck, thanks for the link Michael, check out The Pillar, and watch Brainwashing 101.
PS: The Bumslickan still sucks.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Do you think it is wise for Canada to adopt Sharia law for Muslims who want to use it instead of the Canadian legal system? I for one would like to see a whole lot more discussion on the subject before any moves are made to adopt any part of Sharia law, not only are the legal rulings of Sharia law, not universal excepted among all Muslims, but the meaning of the term itself is not even in agreed upon by all Muslims.
In the Koran, Sharia means the "way" or "path", its originally meaning was how one came to understand the teachings of God. Here is the Koranic verse,
"We (God) gave you one religion, but We gave everyone his own Shari'a." (Sura 4:84)Also, Muhammad Said al-Ashmawi, a specialist in Islamic law at Cairo University gives his opinion on the meaning of the term Sharia.
"The term Shari'a, as used in the Qur'an, refers not to legal rules but rather to the path of Islam consisting of three streams, worship, ethical code and social intercourse."Islamic legal scholars only later changed the meaning of the term to meet today's version, so in effect, Sharia was not originally God's set of rulers and punishments for Islam's followers to live by, only a later development. Many liberal minded Islamists view Sharia law as dated and no longer of any use to the modern world, seeing as it was developed originally to deal with the problems of a thousand years ago, not today's.
Many Muslim clerics also don't put very much importance on Sharia law, they think it is much more important to understand the overall meaning of the Koran, not just following past rulings, that were based on conditions that no longer apply, knowing all this, then you start to understand why many non-Muslims and Muslims alike doubt whether adopting the Sharia is a good idea.
World renowned expert on Islam, Graham E. Fuller makes a similar point here, about how followers of Islam shouldn't focus on old customs, but focus on the universal values the Koran teaches.
"Islam is obviously a great deal more than law, and its spirit far transcends the jurisprudence of earlier centuries with which is no longer in tune."On top of the debate on how important Sharia law should be to Muslims, there is also the chance of Sharia law being used to oppress the spiritual and intellectual growth of Muslims as it has in the past. Add to that, the potential poor treatment women could endure under Sharia law and then one would wonder if Sharia law has a place in a progressive liberal society like Canada's.
It's nothing new for me to criticize European countries but sometimes the news out of the Old Continent truely frightens me.
Wesley Smith at the Weekly Standard is today talking about how the Dutch are now euthanizing children. He says:
For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of medical ethics in the Netherlands, this isn't at all shocking. Dutch doctors have been surreptitiously engaging in eugenic euthanasia of disabled babies for years, although it technically is illegal, since infants can't consent to be killed. Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, revealed how deeply pediatric euthanasia has already metastasized into Dutch neo natal medical practice: According to the report, doctors were killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.I've always feared Europe's willingness to accept radical social and economic philosophies or programs. If you look around the majority of totalitarian and tyranical movements in the world are based on models developed in Europe.
It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?
For decades the world recoiled in horror at the crimes the Nazi's commited. Volumn's were written trying to explain how Germans and other sympathetic Europeans could accept the rationale to 'purify the race' or to 'eliminate the weak'.
And today Europe is slowly marching down the same well-trodden path to disaster. Killing children? How does a society rationalize this? What mechanism controls a society that says you can kill children based on 'what they would want if they could communicate it'? Is it wise for the state to convince it's population that it is OK to till the innocent and defenseless?
Europeans are slowly learning that life is meaningless and without consequence. I pity the rest of the world when they, as a people, fully absorb these lessons.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Genocide, genocide, genocide, genocide, genocide. I don't know what all the fuss is about, it's not so hard to say the word genocide. Why is the Canadian government having such a hard time saying it? If genocide is not taking place in the Sudan, what would you call it? Full story here.
I just looked up the meaning of the word genocide in my trusty dictionary, here is what it says. Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination or removal of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Geez, that sounds an awful lot like what is going on in the Sudan to me.
The only reason that governments around the world are staying clear of the word genocide when it comes to the last 19 months in the Sudan, is because then they would be obligated to do something about the situation there, and God forbid if someone stepped up to the plate and stopped the violence in the region.
All the countries in the world, including Canada, that claimed it was their moral superiority that kept them out of the war in Iraq, should be ashamed of themselves for letting this atrocity take place under their watch. After the holocaust, and what happened in Serbia and Rwanda, its hard to believe that governments choose to sit on their hands and let stuff like this go on in the world.
Update @ 9:26
Robert McClelland has actually said something that I agree with 100%, if you want to know what he said, read his memo to Paul Martin. He's still an idiot thought, just wanted to make that clear, don't want anybody to think I've gone mad or anything.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
What price would you pay to hear one of Canada's Liberal politicians admit that our socialist healthcare system is a total wreck and that its not possible to fix it without major reconstruction, instead of just throwing more cash into the black hole?
Would you trade an arm, leg or give up your life savings or do you even care enough to give up anything to hear anybody involved with the government tell the truth about our broken down system of healthcare?
From James Taranto at Best Of The Web Today:
Of course, if you're free to call your government "tyrannical," it's a safe bet that it isn't.How true...
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Check out this story in the Bahrain Tribune, its pretty funny. The Syrians are accusing the United States of interfering in the affairs of Lebanon, yeah you read that right, the Syrians are accusing somebody of messing with the affairs of their dear neighbor Lebanon.
Isn't it the Syrians that have had large amounts of troops in Lebanon since the civil war in the 70's? Isn't it the Syrians who still have over 15000 troops still there? Are the Syrians concerned about the well being of the Lebanese or are they just concerned that somebody just might make them take their long life sucking tentacles from around the neck of Lebanon?
I would like to know what two fictional characters you would like to see team up to form a presidential ticket? I just came up with the idea, so I'll have to come up with one and leave it in the comments.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Well we got ourselves moved into our home this weekend and the place is starting to look liveable. Naturally the floor is covered with odds and ends but at least we can walk from room to room without to much trouble.
The first problem I am going to face as a homeowner is how to get rid of a hornets nest. I looked up at the front eaves last night and there to behold was their nest. Now the hornets haven't caused any grief yet but hornets are not really known for living in peaceful coexistance with their bi-pedal'd neighbours. So the nest must go...
I've come across several methods to get rid of the hornets. For my own amusement I've made up catchy names for each:
1) The Apocolypse Now Method: Take a large garbage can and start a fire in it. Slowly walk up to the nest, grab it, and throw it in! This method will surely result in a few bites but it apparently makes up for that due to the entertainment it provides the neighbourhood.
2) The Athlete's Method: Take a badmingon racket and slowly approach the nest. Take a deap breath and then start swinging like hell! Results will likely be similar to Method #1.
3) The Girly-Man's Method: Call pest-control.
4) The Handy-Man's Method: Go to Canadian Tire and by a can of 'hornet freeze' or whatever it is called and freeze the buggers. Using a product like Raid is included in this method.
5) The Carpenter's Method: By a can of expanding foam insulation and spray it into the entrance to the nest.
6) The Cheapskate's Method: Whack it with a stick or spray it with the hose.
7) The House-Wives Method: Mix some water with liquid dish detergent. Get a pressure hose and soak the nest. Apparently the soapy water causes them to drown.
I think my first attempt will involve hosing the nest and hoping it falls down. If that doesn't work I think I'll go for the Raid.
Wish me luck...
Saturday, September 04, 2004
I guess its pretty near time for George W. Bush to pull Osama Bin Laden out of the cooler. Remember all the conspiracy theories about how American forces captured him already but were only going to release the news of his capture just before the election, to guarantee a Bush win. Well, it turns out that the plan is rounding into shape even as I write this post. Read about the first stage of the plan here.
[ Via Neale News ]
Thursday, September 02, 2004
I was reading over at Right Wing News and came across a really funny guide that tells you all about the different types of protester there are, very funny. Check it out at Cooper for President. I repeat, VERY FUNNY!
Democrat Zell Miller had a few interesting things to say at the Republican convention, didn't he. Here are just a few of them.
"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator."
"What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny."
"No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy."
"Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than 20 weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside."Can anybody tell me why a Democratic senator would say such things about his own party and its nominee for president? Complete Miller transcript.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
I'm really getting sick of reading the guest commentary at The Globe And Mail.
Today we are honoured to be able to peruse Desmond Morton's latest offering Misunderestimating A Leader. He starts off with:
Republicans in New York this week are doing all they can to accentuate the positive on George W. Bush, their inevitable presidential candidate. Bravely nursing their badly twisted arms, the only two Republicans with bipartisan prestige, Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, delivered their carefully designed prose as if they meant it.Morton seems to be able to read minds when he says they 'delivered their carefully designed prose as if they meant it'. He of course is implying they neither of them truely meant the words they spoke. I guess the neo-con conspiracy must have threatened to kill off their families or something. Maybe those nasty Jews were involved somehow? For Morton to make such a claim without offering any proof is poor writing if there ever was any. I wonder if he lets his students write their history exams in such a manner?
He then proceeds to go on about how Guiliani compared G.W. Bush to Winston Churchill:
Mr. Bush, Americans were told, was "rock-solid" for the war; his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry, was actually guilty of changing his mind. In rock-simple analogy, George Bush was a war leader comparable to that robust British hero of an earlier generation, Winston S. Churchill.Now I've read many editorialists complain about Giuliani making this comparison between the two men. But when exactly was it stated that Bush equaled Churchill in any manner. Both speakers claimed that a leader 'like' Churchill was necessary today. At no point did they say Bush exceeded or equaled Churchill in any manner. The point was that between Bush and Kerry, Bush is more 'Churchillian' than Kerry is. But of course that has been lost on Morton since he was too busy hearing what he wanted to hear.
Giuliani made two references to Churchill in his speech:
They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.Where here does Morton hear Guiliani comparing Bush to Churchill? He says Churchill was 'an optimist' and that he had 'strong beliefs'. Is Morton claiming that Bush is neither of these things? It doesn't seem that he is but then there would be no point to his statement here then would it.
But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.
Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. President Bush has the courage of his convictions.
...
There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.
Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly.
Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire" while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.
Morton they gives us this original gem:
However, in September, 2004, it is hard to find evidence that George Bush has been a great success as a war leader.This of course is the usual blather that comes from anti-Bush writers but as usual no proof of any of this exists. Why exactly did they go to Iraq? Did he not listen to McCain's speech? McCain said:
The United States is bogged down in Iraq, with a deep deficit and a job-losing economy. The diversion of troops from Afghanistan means that a plausible war on terrorism is stalled and even in retreat.
Anger at the U.S. feeds the fanaticism that breeds terrorists. Having declared war on terrorism as a means to rally patriotic fervour and to secure greater presidential powers, President Bush now confesses that his war cannot be won — hardly a Churchillian strategy.
After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.Why does Morton not address this? Or was his hearing impaired by the usual complaints of the Left?
Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.
The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.
Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.
It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.
In short, Morton heard what he wanted to hear. And this guy teaches history? Sad.