The Shotgun Blog
« April 3, 2005 - April 9, 2005 |Main| April 17, 2005 - April 23, 2005 »
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Good Questions
Patrick Ruffini has, without knowing it, offered advice to the Conservatives on how to address scare tactics invoking the religious right;
The bottom line is this: conservative Christians have just as much right to play hardball as Harry Reid and Pat Leahy do in exploiting fear of the religious right. Why should Christians unilaterally disarm by being the only group to forced to check their fundamental beliefs at the door? Let a thousand flowers bloom -- and let's see who wins.[...]
What is it about politically-oriented Christians that elicits this peculiar line of attack? Why is it that so many believe that people of faith must be especially circumspect in how they express their views as compared with others? How can it be that once can "impose a theocracy" simply by speaking out? How come frankly stating one's beliefs is a healthy part of the public debate if you're anti-war, or pro-gun, or anti-death penalty, but if that belief has to do with the divinity of Jesus Christ, you are "imposing" your views and you must be silenced? Those who think that a couple of references to God will uniquely corrupt the body politic must have incredibly fickle minds.
In other words - take the offensive in defence of their Charter Rights.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 16, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
China playing with fire
What's the deal behind these riots in China?
Of course, they're sanctioned by the Communist government. This is the country that arrests peaceful Falun Gong members for doing Tai Chi, and brings out tanks to Tiananmen Square when students called for democracy. To think that these coordinated rampages are without ChiCom direction is naive.
But perhaps China has another motivation, besides chafing against its democratic rival to the East. Perhaps China is trying to direct growing popular political restlessness (this is one of many examples) away from its own corruption and cruelty, and towards an external foe, not unlike Arab dictatorships blaming Israel for any and every domestic woe.
Posted by Ezra Levant on April 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Safest Conservative MPs
Here is a list of the top 10 safest Conservative MPs as measured by their margin of victory in the 2004 General Election. These are the MPs that we need to do a lot of the supplemental campaign tour to bolster the parallel Leader's tour in the next election.
Kevin Sorenson - Crowfoot - 90.40%
Monte Solberg - Medicine Hat - 85.68%
Bob Mills - Red Deer - 84.20%
Leon Benoit - Vegreville-Wainwright - 84.05%
Ted Menzies- Macleod - 83.82%
Dale Johnston - Wetaskiwin - 83.80%
Rob Merrifield - Yellowhead - 83.24%
Myron Thompson - Wild Rose - 82.09%
Jason Kenney - Calgary Southeast - 76.96%
Brian Pallister - Portage-Lisgar - 73.09%
There are, of course, a lot of other 'safe' seats. These are just the top 10. Any margin of victory in excess of about 55% is generally 'safe', especially given the current Liberal meltdown.
[cross-posted to stephentaylor.ca]
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Bell Canada vs. Israel
Is Israel a country? Is Palestine? Depends on who you ask. If you ask Bell Canada, they'll give you a surprising answer.
Visit their international text messaging web page, and use the scroll-down menu near the bottom. You won't find Israel there -- but you'll find Palestine. Even though the international country code is Israel's -- 972.
Update: Is this just a case, as commenter Donald asks, of Bell not having an agreement with an Israeli cell phone company? Israel is one of the most cell-phone plentiful countries in the world; I'd be surprised. Still: Is Palestine a country?
Posted by Ezra Levant on April 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Reform Or Die
I believe it's time to start a pool on Kofi Annan's resignation.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 16, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
It was so funny that I forgot to laugh
Is it just me, or is Just For Laughs: Gags! the most painfully unfunny program on Canadian TV?
(They stole the idea for the show from Univision, a Mexican TV network. I saw a similar TV show on that network years ago.)
Posted by Rick Hiebert on April 16, 2005 in Media | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
To Paul with Love
Are you angry at the Liberal Party of Canada and want a way to express that angry even before you get a chance to do it at the ballot box, for their involvement in the sponsorship scandal? If so, I have a fun little idea for a mail in campaign, so that you the taxpayer, can show them just how angry you are over their behavior.
My idea for the mail in campaign, is to mail envelopes stuffed with monopoly money to Paul Martin's office.
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St.
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A2
Because we all know how much the Liberal party likes envelopes stuffed with money, so we might as well help them out and all send one. But don't forget to put a note in the envelope too, because you have to request something from them in return for your envelope stuffed with cash. From what we have been hearing, that's how things work inside of the Liberal machine.
So if you think this is a good idea and would also like to see the Prime Minister receive a boat load of envelopes stuffed with play money, you can help out by spreading the idea around. I simply don't have the means myself to get the message out to enough people to make the mail in campaign a success, so I'd appreciate all the help you can give. You could link this post at your own sites, or even get the MSM involved, every little bit will help. Thanks.
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Bob Matheson on April 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Friday, April 15, 2005
Running With A Bad Crowd
Scott Brison has been trying his best to fit in with his new friends.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 15, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Ukraine, Iraq, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan... China?
Could it be that the wave of democratic revolts circling the globe is hitting Red China? Could it be that increasing wealth, communications technology and the infectious nature of freedom and individuality will up-end the worlds largest, bloodiest fascist state?
It's worth asking, watching and hoping.
Posted by Ezra Levant on April 15, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Real obstacle to peace is Palestinian hate
The New York Sun ran this editorial today:
Our friends at the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies in Israel send along a report on anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian Authority. Among the items it mentions is an article published in the Hamas newspaper in Gaza, Al-Rissalah, on April 7. The article issued by the Islamic extremist terrorists was an attack on Pope John Paul II for - get this - being a Christian heretic. The pope's "terrific heresy"? He "absolved modern-day Jews from the guilt of having murdered Jesus." According to the Hamas newspaper, modern day Jews are "criminals like their ancestors." Another problem with the pope, according to the Hamas newspaper, was his attitude toward the Holocaust. His call for Christians to ask forgiveness was "a service to the Zionists" and "Pope John Paul II's worst crime," according to the Hamas newspaper. This is the environment in which elements of the American press and State Department focus on the obstacle to peace in the Middle East as being Prime Minister Sharon's decision to build some houses for Jews in an Israeli suburb four and a half miles from Jerusalem.
The two, as Natan Sharansky has noted in The Case for Democracy, are not morally equivalent.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 14, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Why can't all the old people just die?
Marc Emery, leader of the B.C. Marijuana Party, has discovered how to boost his party's chances in future provincial elections. He wants to deny hospital care to aged seniors, who tend to be too "bigoted" to support his party.
In a recent local newspaper story....
(http://www.langleyadvance.com/issues05/042105/news/042105nn7.html)
...Mr. Emery is quoted as follows:
"....Emery does't like seniors' healthcare, either. He is advocating a system in which no tax money is spent on hospitalization of anyone over the age of 70.
'Old people are the biggest welfare recipients of our medical system," he said. "We spend far too much of our taxpayers' money on a rapidly growing population of old people. We're spending lots of money keeping _ many many millions of old people _ alive when it would be much more honourable to let them die in a dignified way.' "
I never thought that someone would advocate something like "The Fixed Period" as a formal political policy, but that is the sort of world we live in nowadays.
Hat tip: www.langleypolitics.com.
Posted by Rick Hiebert on April 14, 2005 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack
Ahenakew & Nelson
He's back.
It looks like the radical left's investment in the Aboriginal community is finally paying off. While aboriginal students across the country study the evil ways of Europeans, imbibing lefty saints like Foucault and Said, the Big Pimp Indians are laying the foundation of absurd logic and hatred that the left needs in place to perpetuate future generations of dissent. For anyone who has studied history, this should ring an ominous bell.[...]
I have watched for years now as the agit-prop side of the Aboriginal Rights industry - the young men and women emerging from higher education and ostensibly working for "their people" - has become more and more radical, going from demanding fulfillment of treaties, basic equality and the occasional roadblock, to an indymedia-inspired view of their universe, where race-based ideas and delusional conspiracy theories dominate, where flirtation with violence and disobedience is encouraged and any and all suffering is no longer an individual experience with the possibility of relief via individual initiative, but a communistic misery shared by all "minorities" at the hands of Europeans, capitalists, Jews, Neocons et all.
Read it all
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 14, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Keeping St.Boniface In Winnipeg
The Black Rod has been collecting federal sponsorship trivia - in Manitoba.
Canada's National Ukrainian Festival was given $30,000 in 2001. However an access-to-information request showed that the festival had actually been awarded $34,500 by Public Works Canada.Festival organizers were told that the other $4,500 was a commission to Compass Communications in Halifax. They were told to send a bill to Compass, but to make the bill out to Media/IDA in Montreal. The letter to the Ukrainian Festival was written by Pierre Tremblay, a very familiar name in the Adscam investigation.
Conservative MP Bill Casey asked the obvious question in the House of Commons:
"Does the minister have any idea at all why Public Works would tell a Manitoba organization to send this bill through one Liberal advertising agency in Nova Scotia and have it funnelled through another one in Montreal for an event in Manitoba to be paid for by Ottawa?
Did the government pay commissions to Media/IDA Vision in Montreal or did it pay commissions to Compass Communications in Halifax, or did it pay commissions to both of these Liberal advertising firms?"
He never got a straight answer. Nor has anyone.
Compass is owned by Tony Blom, a Liberal strategist who is also related to former Nova Scotia Liberal party president Gerald Blom.
Government records show it received $463,365 in commissions and more than $4.6 million for production costs related to events between 1998 and 2001.
The names Compass and Tremblay showed up again in documents surrounding sponsorship of the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg in 1999. Compass Communications billed $1.6 million in fees and commissions.
Objections were raised as to whether the sponsorship project met the government's own rules. "Pay it," said Tremblay, who overruled the naysayers.
NDP MP Pat Martin has invoices showing the Pan Am Games Society received $634,000. A letter dated May 1, 1999, from Games president Don MacKenzie to Blom indicates the group was expecting another $300,000 from Compass. He's still wondering where that money went.
"I believe this sponsorship program blew way out of control," said Pat Martin. "It appears to have turned into a cash cow. The abuse began immediately and the abuse extended it seems beyond Quebec's borders at least to Halifax and now to Winnipeg."
You can obtain a full copy of the article by email: The Black Rod.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 14, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Turncoat.ca
Citizens Against Turncoats like Scott Brison
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 14, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Toronto Star's Bizarre Feminist Theory
Torstar is really scraping the barrel this time. Aside from having Britney Spiers as their Star headline story this morning, their "Metro" commuter paper had an interesting - albiet contradictory - front page article on how political corruption is a man's game.
Another senior Liberal woman, who preferred to speak off the record, joked yesterday that the wrong demographic groups have become targets of scorn in the scandal. "It's not Quebec. It's not the Italians," she said. "It’s men."
No, really. They mean it.
A 1999 World Bank study matched up a so-called "corruption index," used in economic research, against an Intraparliamentary Union survey of women's representation in elected office. The results were clear: "The greater the representation of women in parliament, the lower the level of corruption." The title of the report was: Are Women Really the 'Fairer' Sex?
Dr. David Dollar, a World Bank research official who was one of the co-authors of that study, says the research presents a strong argument for getting more women into politics.
"Efforts to get greater female participation in government - aside from being warranted on equity grounds - are likely to have the spillover benefit of promoting cleaner government," Dollar said yesterday.
As evidenced, perhaps, by Kim Campbell, Judy Sgro, and the indomitable Anne McLellan - right hand to Paul Martin. Let's talk about Sgro for a moment, shall we?
The federal Liberal party has had trouble meeting its 25 per cent quota of female candidates in the past couple of elections and Martin actually put fewer women in cabinet proportionally than did Jean Chretien. There are currently eight women in Martin's cabinet. In January, immigration minister Judy Sgro was forced to resign over allegations of influence peddling from Brampton pizza store owner Harjit Singh.
Influence peddling. Sounds pretty corrupt to me. This article seems to be trying to make the point that more women are needed in office, but unless they are being tongue-in-cheek, they are contradicting themselves at every turn.
And why do we have a quota, by the way? Affirmative Action doesn't work, and just promotes the very racism/sexism/predjudice that it was designed to stamp out. If I'm better at the job than you are, I'll get the job. I don't want it just because I have a vagina. Women who have jobs solely on the basis of a vagina are prostitues. That's the only profession I can think of where having one is a true asset. And even that's up for debate (some other time). I have, in the past, made rather distressing points regarding sexual equality in the workplace, and the high cost of benefit paid to women versus men. Someone actually threatened to take my vagina away, because I didn't deserve it. Feminists. Ugh. Anyway...
Rosemary Speirs, chair of the organization Equal Voice, which advocates for more women in politics, says she doesn’t buy the argument that women are inherently more honest than men. "I don't think we're purer in any way," she says.
She must have met Judy Sgro. In any case, at least she's not afraid of being honest, just because that honesty goes against her dogma.
Personally, I don't think it's a boy/girl thing. It's power. Power breeds corruption - always has, always will. Our government has been allowed absolute power over every aspect of our lives, because we're too lazy to look out for ourselves. We gave them that power willingly, sheep that we are. Once we begin to assert ourselves again, and show the government that they work for us (and not the other way around), there will be less room for corruption. They will be too busy running the country according to the needs and wants of the people, that they won't have time for shady backroom dealings.
Posted by RightGirl on April 14, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
An American Blogger In Lebanon
Dear friends, colleagues, and fellow bloggers,Lebanon still has some deadly serious problems aside from just the Syrian dictatorship and the secret police. Hezabollah runs their own terrorist state-within-a-state in the southern suburbs of Beirut. I went down there yesterday and blogged about it - with photos - here.
It was, um, creepy to say the least.
Best regards from abroad,
Michael J. Totten
Beirut, Lebanon
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 14, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Likely Liberal Losers
[cross-posted to stephentaylor.ca]
I was going over some of the election data from last year so that I could get a better idea of how many seats the Liberals stand to lose given new polling data.
Here are the slimmest of Liberal victories from last year's General Election:
1. Liza Frulla - Minister of Heritage and Minister responsible for the status of women - She won the riding of Jeanne-Le Ber with a meager 0.38% margin of the popular vote over the Bloc Quebecois candidate. Her chief of staff John Welch allegedly was put on the Groupaction payroll by Jean Brault to organize for the Liberals in Quebec. Given the slim margin of her victory in 2004 and the new revelations concerning alleged corruption in her inner circle, Liza Frulla will surly lose her seat after the next election.
2. David Kilgour - Recent Liberal defector - He is currently the (independent) MP for Edmonton-Beaumont, the riding he won in 2004 by only 0.76% over the Conservative candidate Tim Uppal. Will Kilgour contest the nomination for the CPC or will he simply cross the floor over to the Tory ranks?
3. Rose-Marie Ur - Liberal MP - Her riding, Middlesex-Kent-Lambton provided her with a margin of less than 200 votes (or 0.84% of the popular vote) over Conservative Bev Shipley. Ur has been a Liberal MP since 1993 and now stands to lose her parliamentary status in the riding in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal.
4. Ethel Blondin-Andrew - Minister of State (Northern Development) - Liberal MP from the riding of Western Arctic won her riding by 1.00% of the popular vote. Depending on the fallout of the Sponsorship Scandal in the Northwest Territories, Blondin-Andrew stands to lose her seat to an NDP challenger.
5. Paul Macklin - Liberal MP - His riding of Northumberland-Quinte West was lost by the Conservative candidate Doug Galt by only 1.36% of the popular vote.
6. Jerry Pickard - Liberal MP - Has held the riding of Chatham-Kent-Essex since 1988. He won in 2004 by 2.33% of the popular vote. Given recent numbers from Ontario polls, Pickard may very well lose his seat this year.
7. Pierre Pettigrew - Minister of Foreign Affairs - Mr. Softpower himself has failed miserably pressuring Iran on the Kazemi case. Pettigrew represents the Quebec riding of Papineau and won it by a mere margin of 2.77% of the popular vote. The must-see-tv status of the Gomery inquiry in Quebec has made "Liberal" a lethal name for one's candidacy and Pettigrew is likely to lose in the next election.
8. Anne McLellan - Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - Landslide Anne won the last General Election by a slightly larger margin than she did in 2000. However, he margin of victory is still slim enough to warrant worry for the deputy PM. She is also losing Liberal friends in Alberta with the recent defection of David Kilgour. McLellan carried her riding of Edmonton Centre by 3.20% in 2004. A recent EKOS poll shows devastating effects of the Gomery inquiry on Alberta voters and while the Liberals may indeed lose the next election, McLellan may quite possibly lose her seat to the Conservative challenger.
9. Tony Ianno - Minister of State (Families and Caregivers) - Ianno won his riding of Trinity-Spadina by a mere 3.47% of the popular vote over the NDP candidate. The likely NDP candidate in the next election? None other than Olivia Chow.
10. Françoise Boivin - Liberal MP - Ms. Boivin won her Gatineau riding by 4.32%. Again, recent Quebec polling indicates a multiple point drop for the ruling Liberals since the Brault testimony publication ban was lifted.
The next General Election could come within weeks or months, however, most are saying that it will come this year. Will continuing testimony from the Gomery inquiry, due to end in early May, prompt the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc to cause the dissolution of Parliament or will the mounting brinksmanship accidentally trigger its collapse? One thing is for sure however: the Liberals stand to lose a number of seats and, quite potentially, their tenuous hold on power.
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 14, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The challenge
I don't mean to be the resident Cassandra but it is the nature of the conservative to be skeptical and generally pessimistic. So I note this (from Tom Brodbeck's Winnipeg Sun column) only as a caution to the euphoria that many conservatives (or that might be Conservatives) are displaying this week:
"The Conservatives won only 24 of 106 seats in Ontario last year. But more importantly, they got creamed in almost every other riding. There were only six of 75 Liberals ridings where the Tories even came within 2,000 votes. That's a large gap. "
I don't share Brodbeck's fatalism that the Conservatives will lose the next election or, if all goes well, just squeak by with a tight minority government. But I do share his sense of the enormity of the challenge the party faces in the next election.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 13, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Only the Liberals can save Canada, riiiight
Forehead slap! CP: Martin prepares to make national unity campaign theme, links Tories and Bloc. I'm not sure how this looks down east (probably different) but from here in the west it looks just plain dumb. Adscam is all about the Liberals financially profiting from the national unity issue; you know, faking Canadians out by pretending they were saving the country while instead lining the party's pockets.
Let's hope Paul Martin puts some kind of proposed sponsorship program in the Liberal Party Platform on unity. Yeah, that would be great for the country.
Posted by Kevin Steel on April 13, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack
Bimbo eruption
As Maz2 mentions in an earlier comment, Pat O'Brien is taking heat for his dumb blonde jokes. The London Liberal MP referred to Ontario caucus chair, Sarmite Bulte, as a "a walking ad for the dumb blond bimbo comment."
O'Brien has since apologized. But getting a lot less attention is the reason O'Brien lost his cool in the first place. After O'Brien, David Kilgour and several other MPs began talking of leaving the Grit caucus (Kilgour quit yesterday), Bulte commented thusly: "When the ship is sinking, the rats are running."
I'm sure Bulte is hardly a dumb, blonde bimbo—she is a lawyer, after all. But referring to your own party as a "sinking ship"? Not exactly the smartest political statement ever made.
Posted by Kevin Libin on April 13, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Forgotten Corner Of The World
The last reporter left in Afghanistan reports on Rumsfeld's surprise visit with the troops.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 13, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Junior Partner
US politicians are losing patience with Anne McLellan's game of smoke and incompetence. Mark Souder[R]; US Homeland Security committee;
"We were hoping that the Canadians were more advanced than apparently they are. We'd like to think that as an advanced Western nation, Canada is committed to devoting some resources to this," he told the Post in response to yesterday's report on security shortcomings documented by the border agents' union. "We would like to have Canada as a joint partner rather than a junior partner. But if you don't spend the money, you become a junior partner."[...]
He warned that if Canada didn't want the U.S. to take total responsibility for protection of the border, Canada needs to act on some basic security issues.
Anne McLellan, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, took issue with the contention that Canada isn't pulling its weight.
"We have invested over $9-billion in new funds to secure the safety of our citizens," Ms. McLellan says in the text of a statement prepared for an appearance at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence last night. "But we need to remember that this is an evolving process, and that there is still more work to do," the statement says.
9 billion? A couple of weeks ago, Frank McKenna told the New York Times it was "nearly 10" - maybe he was including the cost of promotional items and flags.
There are 62 land-border sites staffed by officers who do not have access to the CBSA computer databases, according to adossier of security problems chronicled by front-line border agents, presented behind closed doors to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence last week.Further, the computer database systems designed to warn border agents at land crossings about high-risk travellers are inadequate and contain a programming limitation consistently preventing officers from knowing if they are dealing with armed and dangerous fugitives or even terrorists on the FBI's top terror watch list, the dossier says.
"You can say you passed laws all you want, You can go to all the meetings but the bottom line is if your cotton-picking computer doesn't work, what good is it?" said Mr. Souder.
It may be time to create a new category for those countries who no longer fit neatly into the western or developing world constructs. "Otherworld Nation" may be appropriate - for nations who are struggling to emerge from fantasyland.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 13, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Handling of federalism, not Adscam is Liberal weakness
Winnipeg Sun editor John Gleeson says that the Liberals under Jean Chretien won re-election despite being scandal-ridden:
"... the Liberals were exposed as pirates raiding a foreign vessel called Canada, and Canadians in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, much of the Maritimes, most of Ontario and a good chunk of Winnipeg voted for them anyway."
It is true that Chretien won not once but twice after displaying incredible arrogance and corruption. So why are the polls showing a Conservative lead right now? Political Staples explains why, "The Prime Minister has proven himself to not be up to the job," by fumbling the federalism issue and that is "why Canadians reacted so quickly to the 'explosive testimony'." I think there is something to that and if the Conservatives are to win an anticipated Spring election (I'd say there is just a 50-50 chance of an election before the summer), they must exploit Martin's handling of paying off some provinces and not others and the perception that Ontario is getting a raw deal in paying Ottawa much more than it gets back in federal handouts. This puts the Conservatives in the awkward position of saying Ottawa should give more money (overall) to profligate provinces but it could be the election clincher for them. The fact is, as I describe in my book Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal, the former prime minister set the scandal bar so low that almost any wrong-doing does not rise to the level of outrageous ethical breach but instead is accepted as business as usual. Martin has a policy weakness on federalism and it is incumbent upon Harper to expose it and capture political ground over it.
(Cross-posted at Sobering Thoughts)
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 12, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Aviator
I remember some time ago seeing a list of "conservative movies" in the National Review. I suggest that The Aviator be added to the list. I must admit that I was late in seeing this film due to the fact that I am typically suspicious of Academy Award-nominated pictures and doubly suspicious of anything starring Leonardo DiCaprio. I did, however, come out of the theatre with a renewed optimism about the cinema. The film was brilliant. It wasn’t brilliant because of the acting. Albeit good, DiCaprio’s portrayal of Howard Hughes’ eccentricity, which bordered on insanity, was a little over the top. It was brilliant for many other reasons but the one that stood out for me was the story itself – the story of Howard Hughes.
However eccentric, Hughes’ life epitomized the struggle for freedom, creativity fostered by free enterprise, and the accomplishments of the human ego. His immense contributions to aviation (and the cinema) were a result Hughes’ need to satisfy his ego without much regard for people who stood in his way. As he cut through red tape, fought corrupt government intrusion and industry competitors who relied on their "friends in Washington" for prosperity, Hughes reminded me of Hank Rearden, owner of Rearden Steel, in Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged. My favourite scene occurs at the home of his girlfriend Catherine Hepburn’s parents. Hepburn’s aristocratic family members, who proudly announce that they are socialists, make light of Hughes’ industrial initiatives while declaring; "we don’t care about money around here." "That’s because you’ve always had it", responds Hughes before he walks out of the room.
Two thumbs up for Martin Scorsese.
Posted by Michael Dabioch on April 12, 2005 in Film | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
This isn't a competition
Warren Kinsella is dredging up Stevie Cameron's accusations against Mulroney's government.
"You want greed? You want corruption? You want kick-backs and toll-gating and all that?"
Um, no. That's what we don't want.
I wish folks would get it straight.
Posted by Kevin Libin on April 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (65) | TrackBack
Freedom of religion & SSM
According to the Speaker of the House of Commons, we'll have to wait and see if Liberal promises about protecting clergy from being forced to commit SSMs is worth the paper the legislation is written on. Today Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) rose on a point of order:
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your judgment, your ruling and your response to what I believe is a problem with Bill C-38 in clause 3, and with the consent of our justice critic I read part of that clause there. It simply says: 'It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.' The authorization to solemnize marriage is really a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and it is implying that somehow it is a federal responsibility. I am asking whether this clause should be in the bill and I would like to receive a response from the Chair whether in fact it is indicated that it is ultra vires, that it is unconstitutional andtherefore should not be in the bill. I would like your ruling in respect of that so that this clause could be removed from the bill.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin knows that the Speaker does not make rulings on matters of law, parliamentary law perhaps, but not on the law of the Constitution or on other laws that affect us. The question of the interpretation of the section of the bill is one that would be determined by a court if the bill in fact becomes law.
In other words, Liberals are making promises they can't keep. I wonder whether Prime Minister Paul Martin and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler are including this provision of C-38 fairly confident that it will be overturned by the courts as a violation of the Charter rights of homosexual couples.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 12, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
World's Longest Unguarded Sieve
If you're like me, and get a sense that border surveillance on the US-Canadian prairies is more illusion than reality, you're not wrong.;
A scathing new report by the union representing Canada's customs agents suggests bad policy and slow police response have turned the country's border into a sieve easily exploited by criminals.The leaked document, which was prepared last week for a Senate committee reviewing security at entry points across the country, reiterates longstanding union demands for an armed presence at the border. Appended to the report is a list, compiled by the Canada Border Services Agency, of 116 ports of entry and distances to the nearest law enforcement detachments.
Nearly half are at least 25 kilometres away, with most rural ports located 50 kilometres or more from the closest police station.
"It stands to reason that distance between a police detachment to a customs port is not a perfect marker for police response time," the Customs Excise Union report acknowledges.
"But it does highlight challenges posed by distance and, in some examples, clearly illustrates that even if a police cruiser could travel at high speed with its siren on, response times are beyond minutes and span into hours."
There's a reason he chose the words "even if".
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 12, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Put Iran on notice
"Such a demand does not conform with Iranian laws or international regulations," the spokesman for Iran's judges, Jamal Karimirad, told reporters Tuesday.
"Kazemi was an Iranian citizen. Although she also had Canadian nationality, under Iran's laws, an additional citizenship doesn't negate her Iranian nationality. Therefore, Iran's judiciary is competent to carry out the investigation," Mr. Karimirad said.
No surprise here. The farce continues. Now, how will Canada react this time? After two years of this cat-and-mouse game, will the Liberals finally take more concrete action? So far their behaviour has reminded me of the caricatured Hans Blix dealing with Kim Jong-il in the movie Team America: "If you don't stop I'll.....I'll...I'll.... write you a letter!!!!!"
The most oft-cited excuse for not taking action on this file has been "What else can we do?" That's basically what Pierre Pettigrew told me when I asked him about this a few weeks ago.
Fine. Let's admit that we are not going to see justice for Kazemi's family. Iran doesn't want it -- never did -- and we've done all we can, at least diplomatically. So we need a Plan B.
The first thing Canada should do is recall its ambassador to Iran, this time for a little longer than a couple of weeks or months. Secondly, we should kick out Iran's ambassador to Canada. He is not welcome here. Then, Canada should dedicate itself to the project of fundamental reform of the United Nations, publicly stating the Kazemi case as the reason we were spurred to action. Heck, maybe no one will lisen -- or even care. But it would at least be pro-active, and bring more attention to the case. Iran has shown time and again it does not deserve to sit at the table of civilized nations.
Posted by Adam Daifallah on April 12, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
An Open Letter to Liberals from Prime Minister Paul Martin
Last night, the prime minister sent an open letter to his Liberal Party supporters in order to express his innocence in the AdScam affair. Fortunately for us, a high-level source placed in the Prime Minister's Office was able to obtain a rough draft of the letter, reproduced below:
Dear Sucker: Dear Liberal friend:
In recent days, testimony at the Gomery Commission has destroyed any and all credibility we ever had
has captured a great deal of public attention. It has also given rise
to allegations about the Liberal Party itself and, by extension, me
all of us who are members. I felt it was important to write you on this
subject and share my perspective and my pride in all of you as gullible morons Liberals and activists ...
Continue reading "An Open Letter" at BumfOnline
Posted by Rob Huck on April 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
This one makes sense
Ipsos-Reid has released a poll today that is not quite a damaging as the EKOS poll yesterday. However, since the polling data actually makes more sense the Opposition Parties may rely on it more.
Conservative: 30%
Liberal: 27%
NDP: 19%
Bloc Quebecois: 12%
Green: 7%
CTV has a story here and you can see all the recents polls here
Posted by Greg Staples on April 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Newest Blogging Tory
The newest blogging tory is Andrew Scheer, Conservative MP for Regina-Qu'Appelle.
Welcome to the blogroll Andrew!
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack
Pay Attention, Dave
Further to the Ahenekew hate speech trial;
The UN Development Project has released its 2004 report on Arab development. It finds that a good portion of the blame for the Arab world's lack of progress lies in the creation of Israel 57 years ago, and in the support by the U.S. for Israel's existence since then (our presence in Iraq hasn't helped either). That's right -- 300 million Arabs live under oppression because 5 million Israeli Jews live in freedom, supported by the U.S.
First Nations anti-Semitics ought to take their cue from the UN. Frame your position a bit diffferently, and instead of criminal charges, you'll receive agency funding and an international audience.
Read the rest.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 12, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Monday, April 11, 2005
Red Ensign Standard
Sue, from Turning 30 and a half, has hoisted the 19th edition of the famed Red Ensign Standard.
Posted by Rob Huck on April 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gomery: "Open A Window"
The way things are going, Justice Gomery is going to have to start checking his witnesses for Smoking Firearms Acquisition Certificates.
(Former Groupaction Marketing employee Alain)Renaud testified that Guite often said contracts would be approved only after getting the green light from the country's highest political office.
"He (Guite) said, 'We'll look at the project, present this to the (public works) minister and it has to go through the prime minister's office' and that's how it worked," Renaud said during his second day on the stand.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 11, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Selective Tsunami
I hesitate to add even one more Post on the consequences of the Gomery Inquiry and the latest Ekos poll. I just couldn't resist the alliterative sound of the title. But more seriously I would suggest commenters respond to the Posts already on The Shotgun and limit comments on this one to the narrowly defined political tsunami I see approaching. The choice of the word "Selective" refers to the elimination of only Liberals in its surge across the country.
I predict an election on 25 June 2005. This date is based on the majority of the evidence having been given in the Gomery Inquiry by 20 May 2005, and no more publication bans being imposed.
Everyone is aware of similar poitical tsunamis occurring in Alberta when Social Credit displaced the United Farmers of Alberta in the thirties, and when Peter Lougheed's Tories displaced Social Credit, what is it, thirty odd years ago. The things you are hearing fom the MSM and polls I say are far too restrained compared to what you will hear in the coming days.
It is difficult to sustain political anger for long. Stephen Harper is a very aware individual. "Strike while the iron is hot" and "Make hay while the sun shines" will tell him to act "While the bloom is on the rose". (I am without shame)
I hope some technical wizard out there in blog land can "calendarize" this post so that is unearthed out of the archives on 26 June 2005. If I am wrong it will be because the election will come sooner than I have predicted.
Posted by Bob Wood on April 11, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Slow down there boys
Some conservatives are extremely excited about the latest Ekos poll (reported on by the Toronto Star here) which shows the Conservatives with a double-digit lead over the Liberals nationally. Several things to think about.
* It's only one poll.
* The poll reflects respondents' intention of how they would vote if an election were held today. The election is not being held today.
* The numbers come at the worst possible moment for the Liberals and may (probably) exaggerate the depth of their fall and/or the height of the Conservative increase.
* Just 15% of respondents said having an election now would be a good idea compared to 62% who said to wait until the Gomery Commission of Inquiry issues its report later this year and 21% who said the issue is not important enough to call an election over. This signals 1) an open-mindedness about Adscam that the Liberals can use to their favour and 2) the issue really is just not registering with the vast majority of Canadians.
*As I note in my book Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal (introduction by WS publisher Ezra Levant) the Liberals over the past decade often seem vulnerable because of scandal but always pull it off. I argue in my book that Chretien set the bar so low that subsequent scandals would not register the outrage necessary to have the country want to oust him from office ("All parties do it" or "They they go again").
Conservatives must develop a strategy to overcome the cynical and disgusted voter who is so turned off by the Liberals that he (or she) stays home rather than vote to defeat the Liberal government. Looking at the declining percentage of eligible voters who took part in each election from 1993 to 2004 it seems that the Chretien strategy (Martin benefited in 2004 from Chretien's influence on politics) of driving voters out of the political process seems to have paid dividends; many of those disgusted voters should have voted for a Liberal alternative. (I don't believe that the disunity on the right can explain non-voting.) The Ekos poll results are good news but we should beware premature euphoria.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 11, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (52) | TrackBack
Good News From Iraq
Chrenkoff's latest roundup of good news from Iraq is out.
Drudge is also headlining a New York Times (free registration required) piece suggesting the US is starting to look at winding down the military presence.
Two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the American-led military campaign in Iraq is making enough progress in fighting insurgents and training Iraqi security forces to allow the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year, senior commanders and Pentagon officials say.Senior American officers are wary of declaring success too soon against an insurgency they say still has perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core fighters, plentiful financing and the ability to change tactics quickly to carry out deadly attacks. But there is a consensus emerging among these top officers and other senior defense officials about several positive developing trends, although each carries a cautionary note.
Huh. Some occupiers they turned out to be.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 11, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Apparently We Did Go To War
Public Works Minister Scott Brison defended Sunday the scandal-ridden Liberal sponsorship program as Canada's war effort against Quebec separatists, dismissing those who used it for personal or political financial gain as a "few war profiteers" who should be severely punished.
There were profiteers in Canada's war effort," he said on CTV's Question Period. "That doesn't mean the war effort of Canadians was bad.
They call it war - I call it good money after bad. War? That's rich. Like the war on drugs? The war on terror, even? We were fighting a province with a bunch of people who don't want to be here, and who are costing us a fortune by staying within the country (not counting the Adscam money). Wouldn't it be better all around if we just let them go? Okay, maybe not an option, given that they own most of the hydroelectricity on the eastern seabord, but were billboards and concerts really going to save our country? That's hardly what I'd call a war. More like a carnival gone very, very wrong.
Brison also promised that if the Liberal party "inappropriately" received any funds from the program, as has been alleged in testimony to the Gomery inquiry, the money will be repaid to Canadians and those involved will be punished.
Let me break that one down into a couple of key points. It will be tough to prove that the Liberals received any money, seeing as they did everything in cash, like a bunch of cheap prohibition-era gangsters. So he's making promises the Liberals likely won't have to keep. It's a nice political bluff that makes them look honorable. And as for punishing those involved... how high are they willing to go? It seems that the current government would be more than happy to make Jean Chretien the scapegoat, but are they willing to risk their current leader, the ex-Finance Minister?
Well, they may not have to bother.
Canada's minority Liberal government is heading for defeat at the hands of the Conservatives after more than 11 years in power, according to a new poll released on Monday.
The EKOS poll, taken after revelations last week of kickbacks to the Liberal Party, showed support for the Conservatives at 36.2 percent, compared with 25 percent for the Liberals -- their lowest showing since taking office in 1993.
The Toronto Star, which commissioned the poll, said this suggested a late June election. The Liberals lost their majority in Parliament in the last election, in June 2004. [I am inclined to trust this poll, if for no other reason than Torstar is generally in support of the Liberal government, and I commend them for reporting news that they really didn't want to hear in the first place - RG]
The newspaper, which commissioned the survey, quoted EKOS pollster Frank Graves as describing a breathtaking shift in what had been a stagnant and listless political landscape.
Breathtaking. According to some of the reports I read this morning on my way to work, the Liberals have lost the confidence of the Ontario voters, which has always been their sure-fire powerhouse. If they lose Ontario, the lose the "war". We may not have to prove that money went astray. All we have to do is keep the thought in mind as we're walking to the ballot box. And we could be walking there as early as June or July.
Cross posted to Girl on the Right.
Posted by RightGirl on April 11, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
More on the poll
The numbers are indeed astounding. The Conservatives are even beating the Liberals in Quebec.
Take a look at the poll breakdown here:
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Collapse
Ekos has released a new poll today with data from after the release of the Jean Brault testimony. The results are devistating to the Liberals.
Conservatives: 36%
Liberals: 25%
NDP: 21%
Bloc Quebecois: 13%
Looks like the electorate have spoken and they are demanding an election. This Parliament may not last the week.
When Ipsos-Reid released their poll I estimated that the Liberal would lose 22 seats in Ontario. The results above blow this out of the water.
Posted by Greg Staples on April 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
To go or not to go?
This is the question that Stephen Harper faced late last night when he received the latest EKOS polling numbers.
From the Toronto Star no less:
Stephen Harper would become PM if vote held today
Liberals in freefall after devastating Gomery testimony
The pollster found that only 25 per cent of respondents nationwide would vote today for the Liberals, compared to 36.2 per cent for the Conservatives.
In Ontario, the Conservatives now lead with 40 per cent of the vote. The Liberals are at 33 per cent.
Stephen Harper will undoubtedly ask himself whether the time is right for Canadians to go to the polls or whether the testimony is only about to get worse. If Harper starts with such a large margin, the election will be his to lose. However, whether you're wearing partisan blinders or not, it is difficult to see how the Conservatives could lose such a margin given the latest damning testimony coming from the Gomery commission.
The Bloc is ready to go. Will Stephen Harper support their non-confidence motion that is surely coming soon?
[cross-posted to stephentaylor.ca]
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Stupid bloggers get in way of real journalism
The Financial Times reports on the fact that British blogs may finally hit the big time with the election being held there May 5. Only the first two paragraphs are available online for free but they do not set a positive tone:
"This will be a blogging election: bloggers, already a political and media force in the US, will have real visibility in the UK for the first time. Will that be a good thing? Yes - if you think politics should be even more personal than they already are. Blogging is a child of the confessional age: that time which has brought Big Brother, Jerry Springer and I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here.
Stephen Coleman, professor of internet studies at the Oxford Internet Institute and the country's expert on blogospheric intercourse, thinks bloggers will flourish and will be of three kinds: one, political wonks whose pitch will be that 'you can't trust anybody, except me'; two, candidates and their aides who do blogs to show they are in touch with the emotions of ordinary people and find the fuss and flummery of politics as tedious as the next voter; and three, journalists or would-be journalists who write what they can't in reports or columns, or do not have reports and columns in which to say anything."
Could the paper be more condescending? Only they, those benighted with regular gigs in the print media or lucky enough to have a television spot, should be commenting on elections. Their attitude is "we'll hear from the plebs on election day and that is enough." It does not appear that the MSM in the UK is likely to learn anything from what has happened in the United States with several of the better blogs affecting how newspapers and television news responded to certain stories; the UK media seems entirely uninterested in taking their lead from the non-anointed.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 10, 2005 in Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Liberal dominoes falling
[cross-posted to stephentaylor.ca]
In the next step of the erosion of the Liberal brand, Manitoba Liberals are the latest to consider changing their name to distance themselves from their federal counterparts. While the Brault testimony was still under wraps and only available to the political class, reporters, and those of us in the blogosphere, I speculated that it might represent the first step in the bankruptcy of the Liberal brand in Canada. Will the Liberals become the new political pariah in Canada? The Alberta Liberals have already had serious discussions concerning the changing of their name and the abandonment of the brand. Now Manitoba's Liberals seem to be considering the same. Is this just another sign of things to come?
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 10, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Auditing The Auditors
MK Braaten watched Scott Brison on Question Period this morning. So did I. Unlike me, though, he actually took him up on his offer to look at the Liberal Party audits posted on their website. Here's just a teaser;
I have analyzed the so called 'audits' that the firms have recently performed on the Liberals books. The Liberals hired public accounting firms PriceWaterHouseCooopers and Deloitte to conduct these engagements. As a result of analyzing these statements what I found is quite interesting. The engagements focused on the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party's finances and also the Federal Liberals finances. Deloitte was in charge of the Quebec wing and PWC conducted the engagement on the federal Liberal party's finances. In fact, these engagements are not audits but simply an analysis of parts of the Liberals finances that they asked the firm to analyze.[...]
The nature of this engagement is so the Liberal party of Canada can tell Canadians that it has had its books 'audited' by an external auditor. The recent sponsorship scandal has been linked to the Liberal party and its finances. However, in this engagement report, Deloitte writes that the report only analyses encashed contributions from - and disbursements made to advertising and communications agencies. More specifically, this engagement is only analyzing the parts of the Liberals finances that the Liberals asked them to analyze at the discretion of the party,and nothing more. By using the accounting data provided by the Liberals, Deloitte only compared the payments made and received in the books to the amounts deposited and removed from the bank accounts that they were given access to by the Liberal party. Likewise, the report only analyzes the information of four bank accounts, at a single bank, which were provided at the discretion of the Quebec wing.
He's been kind enough to flesh out the piece with with the donation figures to registered political parties by the Samson Belair/ Deloitte & Touche folks.
A must read, and a fabulous tip if you're a hungry journalist.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 10, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Liberal Multicultural Coalition Craters Over Same-Sex
Here's how the Ottawa Sun begain its account of yesterday's successful rally against same-sex marriage: "United
against gay marriage, thousands of multicultural voices prayed, chanted
and sang together on Parliament Hill yesterday. From Muslims to Sikhs,
Coptic Christians to Chinese Catholics, an estimated 15,000 people
cheered speakers who vowed to fight the Liberal government's
redefinition of what they call a God-given union no secular government
has the right to change."
Stephen Harper gave a rousing speech targeting his message right at traditional Liberal ethnic voters who are upset over same-sex marriage:
"The Liberal Party of Paul Martin has declared war on the values of New Canadians. Liberals may talk about protecting minorities but undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country."
Notice the image in this picture of an elderly Sikh gentleman holding a pro-marriage sign from the Knights of Columbus. Now that's multiculturalism.
Posted by Joe McCartney on April 10, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (63) | TrackBack
British Polls Shift
"American abroad" New Sisyphus says margins are closing between Tony Blair's Labour Party and the Tories in the just announced British election - plus;
" astonishing news is the continued rise of the fanatically pro-European Union Liberal Democrats, a party which, in our estimation, is absolutely astonishing in its ability to be wrong on just about every important issue of the day, foreign or domestic. "
He then says the unthinkable.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 10, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Harmony In The Workplace
When assigned to cover a war zone, you'd hope that the colleagues watching your back aren't carrying knives.
h/t The Corner.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 10, 2005 in Media | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Connecting The Dollars
Months ago Canadian bloggers began digging through the Elections Canada database and discovered that a numbered company was the largest contributor to the party. Jay Currie asked; "Who is 55555 Inc.? Why did it/they give the Liberal Party $2,974,341.20? What did they get in return.?"
Mike Brock produced a chart.
Previously, Chuck Guite testified that he recalled that he had a telephone conversation with Terrie O'Leary who told him that "Paul would prefer (Earnscliffe)" for advertising contracts. Earnscliffe is an advertising/consulting firm which has very close ties with Paul Martin and was a large supporter in his leadership bid. In return, Earnscliffe's owners David Herle and John Webster, who are also the national Liberal Co-chairs, donated nearly 3 million dollars to the Liberal party through a container company #55555 Inc. In total, Earnscliffe has earned over $6 Million dollars in government contracts under Martin's watch. The question remains is whether Martin deliberately diverted contracts toward Earnscliffe, which is operated by Liberal party members, who then diverted money through #55555 Inc and back to the Liberal party. A phantom company with no previous history turned out to be the largest contributor towards the Liberal party in 2003; this definitely seems odd. Why else would a container company, whose financial statements are not public, donate millions of dollars to the Liberals? Similarly, Groupaction was given millions of dollars in contracts and was used as a container company. Government contract money would be 'washed' through Groupaction before it was illegally returned to the Liberal party disguised as donations. When Martin was running for leadership, Shelia Copps dared Martin to reveal who donated to his leadership campaign. Mr. Martin responded that the money was in a 'blind trust' and he did not know who contributed. Why the secrecy?
Discussion of this numbered company has arisen previously - without doing a lot of surfing around, it seems to me that the explanation given was that it represented the surplus from Paul Martin's leadership campaign.
Now, here's a question I can't answer - perhaps readers can. What are the reporting procedures on donations to party leadership campaigns? Someone have Sheila Copps' phone number?
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 10, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
2008
James suggests; "Keep your eye on Rudi".
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 10, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack