The Shotgun Blog
« April 10, 2005 - April 16, 2005 |Main| April 24, 2005 - April 30, 2005 »
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Warming Up To Ratzinger
Damn. Catholicism is looking better all the time.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 23, 2005 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More Money Than Brains
At Wizbang, Jay Tea has the latest developments in the saga of an American family struggling with an often fatal genetic defect known as "Rich Playboy Disease".
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 23, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
First "Sponsored" Judge Named
Everything you ever wanted to know about Quebec Superior Court Justice Claudette Tessier-Couture, but didn't know to ask....
...and the guy who promoted her.
More here. Talk show host and lawyer John Gormley tore the media a new one on Friday, on their coverage of this. He argues that the corruption isn't in the appointment of Liberal party supporting lawyers, but in what those individuals knew. If they had any knowledge of illegal activities, that's a big, big problem, and they have no business on the bench.
(I think it's also a problem if their pro bono work wasn't declared to Elections Canada as a party contribution.)
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 23, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The state of healthcare
On April 9, the Hamilton Spectator reported (sorry, the story is no longer on-line):
"Doctors are threatening to shut down one of the city's emergency rooms, saying they can no longer provide safe and efficient care.
Emergency physicians at Hamilton Health Sciences say as of July 1 they will only staff two of three emergency rooms unless severe understaffing and overcrowding is addressed."
So let me get this straight: because of overcrowding, officials overseeing the hospital system in Hamilton, Ont., is closing one-third of its emergency rooms. I'm sure this makes sense to a bureaucrat so I'd love to hear the explanation.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 23, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
With Friends Like Strong
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 23, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
In A Memo Marked "Secret"
CBC;
Documents released by the Arar Commission suggest former foreign affairs minister Bill Graham asked for Washington's help in staving off a public inquiry into the case.[...]
At the time, the federal government was resisting growing calls for a public inquiry into Arar's case and the previously secret memos indicate Graham hoped to find another way to deal with the pressure.
In December 2003, public pressure was mounting both in Ottawa and Washington to explain how U.S. officials had been able to send a Canadian citizen to a Syrian military prison.
In a memo marked 'secret' the director of Canada's Foreign Affairs Intelligence Division writes that Graham spoke directly with former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell about negotiating a protocol for handling future problematic security cases.
The memo says Graham pointed out to Powell that "agreeing to negotiate such a protocol would [provide] a way to deal with the pressure for a public inquiry in Canada and to turn the page of this issue."
Via Coyne who has more.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 23, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Latest sign of Martin's decline
[cross-posted to stephentaylor.ca]
Paul Martin is facing perhaps his most devastating setback yet: Bono is "annoyed" with the Liberal Prime Minister.
Paul Martin has previously drawn upon the powers of rock. He did so most notably during the Liberal convention of 2003 when Bono gave his blessing to the coronation of the new Prime Minister at the Liberal leadership convention.
But lately, Bono's been upset at Martin inaction on the dedication of 0.7% of Canada's GDP to foreign aid by 2015.
"It's a time for real leadership" -- Bono
Posted by Stephen Taylor on April 23, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Friday, April 22, 2005
Press Play
Trey Jackson has video of Austin Bay, Roger L. Simon and Claudia Rossett discussing the U.N. scandal on Kudlow & Company.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 22, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
He Knew He Put It Someplace
Missing sentence found!
"Anybody who is found to have known that people are kiting cheques, that people are falsifying invoices - me or anybody else - should resign...anybody who knew that kind of thing was going on and let it happen, they don't belong in public life." - Prime Minister Paul Martin Feb 15, 2004
Via M.K. Braaten
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 22, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Adscam And UNScam: The Stars Align
A very good Belmont Club post on Martin mentor Maurice Strong - now in the sights of the Oil-For-Food investigation, suggesting that his business dealings with the "star bagman of Koreagate suggests seriously odd judgment."
More, from the NY Sun. Volker is in trouble.
The next chapter in the United Nations crisis may erupt over U.N. investigator Paul Volcker's membership on the board of one of Canada's biggest companies, Power Corporation, since a past president of the firm, Canadian tycoon Maurice Strong, is now tied to the oil-for-food scandal.Also, following yesterday's reports of resignations of top investigators on Mr. Volcker's team, Washington officials revisited Secretary-General Annan's assertion that the team's report last month exonerated him. For the first time, the Bush administration hinted that it may cease support of Mr. Annan altogether.
[..]
Yesterday the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde, a Republican of Illinois, wrote a letter to Mr. Volcker, urging him to investigate issues that were raised by last week's federal indictments, which until now have not been explored by the Volcker committee.
According to a top researcher at the Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, the Bush administration might drop its support of Mr. Annan in the coming months. "It is looking increasingly likely that the Bush administration may express no confidence in the secretary-general, as the situation continues to deteriorate for Kofi Annan," he told the Sun. Mr. Gardiner yesterday urged Mr. Volcker to resign following Mr. Parton's departure.
Mr. Gardiner said that the investigators' resignations "undermine the credibility" of the committee, and that Mr. Volcker's continued leadership seems "untenable" as a result. The resignations "cast a huge shadow on Mr. Volcker's ability to continue as chairman of the inquiry committee," Mr. Gardiner said.
News of Mr. Volcker's spot on the board of Power Corporation first surfaced soon after the former chairman of the Federal Reserve was nominated by Mr. Annan to head the Independent Inquiry Committee last year.
At that time, a possible conflict of interest involved the Power Corporation's ties to the French bank BNP, which handled oil-for-food accounts, and to the French oil company Total, which also profited from oil-for-food business.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 22, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Feel free to add to the list
Who will the next Leader of the Opposition be?
Surely no one closely tied to the Chretien days would dare now. An outsider, then? An ex-premier perchance? A caretaker? A charismatic figure? Someone from the CBC wing of the Party? Perhaps a dinosaur from the Trudeau days? A (shudder) Trudeau?
Or will Martin toil sadly on?
Posted by Alan Rockwell on April 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Changing the subject
In the upcoming issue of the Western Standard (out Monday), Mark Steyn notes—in reacting to Ontario's still-moderate support for the Liberals in light of all the ugly revelations—that the Liberal slide will inevitably reverse there, since:
"The minute an election’s declared, the CBC and the Toronto Star will come on side and we’ll stop getting features on Adscam and start getting in-depth investigations on Tory plans to bring back back-street abortions and mandatory readings of Leviticus in gay bath-houses."
Before, actually. This morning, on CBC's The Current, (you can hear the show here after they archive it later today or tomorrow), former Scud Stud Arthur Kent had Tory MP Jason Kenny on the show to quiz him about Martin's talk last night. Among the questions:
- You can see it "oozing out of his pores" that Stephen Harper wants power, but Canadians "clearly" don't know enough about the Conservative party yet. How can they be justified in forcing an election?
- If the Conservatives force an election, surely the Bloc Quebecois will sweep Quebec. How would the Tories feel about triggering the potential break-up of our country?
- What's the party's position on abortion?
Left unasked, were dozens of good, but challenging questions that Kent could have asked about the possibility of the Tory's going for an election (eg: How can you justify it, when polls apparently say Canadians don't want one?). Wonder why Kent didn't go for those?
This is, of course, the same Arthur Kent who has been rumoured to be a potential future Liberal candidate for years now. Though I'm sure his political affiliations had nothing to do with it.
Posted by Kevin Libin on April 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
"Let the facts come out"
National Post: Martin's office linked to contract
Posted by Kevin Steel on April 22, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
My Heart Will Go On
(From www.lecornichon.qc.ca)
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 22, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Missing Sentence
Considering the mea sorta culpa nature of Paul Martin's speech last night, did anyone notice what he didn't say?
I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say...
Here is the phrase missing from the speech:
I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. If Judge Gomery finds that I am guilty of wrongdoing or negligence in the awarding of contracts, or was involved in any cover-up, I shall resign. And then the people of Canada will have their say...
There. That sounds much better.
I wonder why it wasn't included?
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 22, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Reaction to Harper speech
The Liberals and their media allies appear ready to spin Stephen Harper's response to Prime Minister Paul Martin's speech as unduly harsh, even downright negative. They will turn his criticism of the government against him and criticicize Harper for going negative when Martin was attempting to address the nation to avoid (in the words of one Liberal I talked to today) a constitutional crisis. Anyway, these were the thoughts I was having re-reading Harper's speech when I received an email from a Liberal strategist:
"Harper said "If this parliament is not working today, it is because the government has not made it work, because the government has no vision for the nation, because Mr. Martin is consumed by the image of corruption, crippled by dithering instead of deciding." Is this the best your man can do? Attack, attack, attack. Canadians don't like American style negative attacks and neither do they find Martin's "dithering" an issue although it is for National Post editorial writers and the Conservative spin machine. Harper better find something he likes about Canada as much as he hates the Liberals because he will never get elected until he does."
No doubt that the MSM will parrot that ridiculous "American-style negative attack" line. I thought Harper's response was thoughtful, accurate and as complete a rebuttal as a leader of the opposition could do. But that might not be enough if the MSM choses to focus on the fact that Harper is criticizing the government rather than focusing on the substance of that criticism. Harper should score points with these lines, but I doubt that they'll make many stories:
"Let's be under no illusion. However the partisan politics of the next election play out, the Liberal Party of Canada has done tremendous damage to this country's institutions, particularly in Quebec. Never forget that the sponsorship scandal is not a Quebec scandal. It is a Liberal scandal that took place in Quebec, a Liberal scandal that took place in Quebec in the name of Canada and in the name of national unity."
If the media quotes this line at any length it is because they figured out how to spin it not just as an American-style negative attack but as anti-Quebec, too.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Quebec Charter of Rights, Updated
HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS1 . Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. 2. Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance. 3. Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. 4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation. 5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life 6. Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law. 7. A person's home is inviolable. 8. No one may enter upon the property of another or take anything therefrom without his express or implied consent. 9. Every person has a right to non-disclosure of confidential information. 10. Every person has a right to a job at Wal-Mart
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Buying Time
It does not matter what the immediate reaction is to Martin's speech. Memories are short. For those who may have been persuaded to give him the benefit of the doubt - there is plenty more to come at Gomery, and new revelations of corruption will now be placed against the backdrop of a worried, weak Prime Minister pleading for time.
There are two words that can replace "wait for Gomery" with a sense of visceral urgency, and they should be used by the opposition benches as early and as often as possible. Those two words are paper shredders.
"Canadians cannot afford the luxury of leaving this government in control of the paper shredders.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More reaction to the speech
I must have at least 30 emails in my inbox from Conservative MPs, strategists, staffers and local riding officials, and a few conservative think tank types and journalists. Seems that the reaction is 60% positive (for the CPC), 20% negative and 20% wait-and-see. Three more responses of note from each camp:
The negative: "They gone done it to us again."
The positive: "Martin's speech had the air about it of answering the question "When did you stop beating your wife?""
The wait-and-see: "... It doesn't matter what we think of PM's speech or even what people who viewed it thought. All that matters is the media spin tomorrow."
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
"I guess we should give him another chance . . ."
The phrase heard at millions of Ontario dinner tables this evening.
Posted by Kevin Libin on April 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack
Disaster
It seems to me that PM Martin put the final nail in his coffin tonight. Be reciting the Scott Brison talking points he offered nothing new expect for the opportunity for all three Opposition Leaders a national platform. MPs Harper and Duceppe took the opportunity and delivered great speeches. MP Layton may have cost himself his job today by selling his soul to the Liberal devil.
By having all of the Opposition Leaders come out after and answer questions it made the Prime Minister look weak and too scared to come out of hiding.
Tragic mistake.
Posted by Greg Staples on April 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
More conservative reaction
I just got this from another Conservative, this one a strategist:
"Martin was phoney-baloney and everyone can tell. The hand thing was soooooo practised. His pauses too precisely timed and unreal. No one, no one, no one is going to believe this ... We have another six months to ready for the election and then we'll kick their a--."
And this from a Conservative activist at the constituency level in southwestern Ontario:
"We can win this. It's time for Harper to find an agenda and hammer away at it for a year like Harris did in 95."
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Conservative reaction to Martin speech
I just got this email from a staffer for a Conservative MP:
"We all know that this will fool Ontarians so the only question is: will Quebec fall for Martin's act of contrition?"
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Martin's speech
So Prime Minister Paul Martin didn't take my advice but he did do something bold -- promising to call an election within 30 days of the release of Mr. Justice John Gomery's report expected late this year. By then 1) people will either have forgotten about Adscam or will have tire of it, 2) Martin and his Liberal government will have a record to run on and 3) Martin will probably be exonerated by Justice Gomery's report. Martin also makes it virtually impossible for the opposition to force an election -- they'll look like schmucks if they do.
Overall it was a good speech -- that is, it will achieve would it needs to -- because Martin appeared quite upset with the "unjustifiable mess." The media will jump on board and report that Martin is serious about getting to the bottom of Adscam. He definitely scores points with voters by reminding them of all the things he has done to appear to be concerned about millions of dollars being squandered (cancelling the sponsorship program on his first day in office, calling the inquiry, calling for the RCMP to investigate illegal activities, etc...). But the central question remains: what did Paul Martin know about Adscam and if he didn't know anything, considering that he was the finance minister and a minister from the province in which the scandal occured, why didn't he? Was Martin, too, corrupt or was he incompetent?
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Shop Talk
Just got home from a day in the paint booth. The radio there is tuned to classic rock - it was nice to be insulated from news for a few hours. Insulated from Adscam, though, I was not. It was a topic of discussion on the shop floor.
Here's an observation that should make Liberal party operatives' blood run cold - some of these guys didn't bother to vote in the last election. Most don't follow currrent events. At lunch, the TV is turned to Speedvision much of the time.
They're following Adscam.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
If I were advising Martin about tonight's speech
I know that I often appear to be the resident Cassandra around here warning against pre-mature euphoria for Conservative Party fortunes but I do think Conservatives have the upper-hand right now. That said I think Martin could get the upper hand by being spectacularly bold and signal strength by announcing that he will call an election immediately after the Gomery Commission of Inquiry is finished questioning witnesses in late May. Ronald Reagan said if one brings up one's own weaknesses, you are never on the defensive. Martin would project rare strength and decisiveness, appear unafraid and thus signal that he did nothing wrong or has nothing to hide, end Liberal infighting, and end the constant speculation about elections which must hurt Liberals and distract them from their agenda. Martin could then focus on passing those bills he wants to run on and credibly tell the country that he has, at least some, accomplishments. At this point it must appear to Martin that he has nothing to lose. Such a bold move would throw federal politics for a loop which is to his advantage considering that as things stand now the Liberals appear in free fall; even if they are not, the appearance of being a crumbling party is damaging over time. Of course because such a move would be bold and decisive, he won't do it, but this would be my advice to the prime minister if I was one of his advisors.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Mr. Dithers to address the democratic deficit?
Greg Weston on the buzz around Ottawa about Martin's campaign speech tonight:
This immediately touched off great speculation among the parliamentary media that Martin might be going on live television to call a snap election...
The other theory being floated around media circles well into the cocktail hour last night was that Martin would suddenly prorogue Parliament, ending the current legislative session and shutting down the Commons possibly until the fall...
The only problem with this scenario, according to parliamentary experts we contacted, is that without the Commons in session to approve appropriations, the government would run out of money by July.
What a way to celebrate Canada Day.
Posted by Kevin Steel on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Company He Keeps
From a profile of Maurice Strong.
Co-chaired a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, convened in co-operation with United Nations Development Programme in 1997 on DPRK's food and agriculture situation; also have undertaken special political missions for Government of Canada, particularly at the time of Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau, including a special mission undertaken with Canada's co-operation for the Government of Cuba to advise the Government of Vietnam on its energy situation following its take-over of South Vietnam.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Good luck to Brent Colbert
Fellow Blogging Tory Brent Colbert is throwing is hat into the ring and will attempting to gain the Conservative Party of Canada nomination for the Halton riding.
Are there any others who are going to run?
Posted by Greg Staples on April 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Martin Addresses Nation
"It has been rumored that we have stolen money from the Canadian people for our own nefarious purposes. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any money and I don't know why we stole it." |
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 21, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Sponsoring A Few Judges?
I'm so tired of feeling like a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, it's not about to go away for some time. As Andrew Coyne puts it, the birdies are starting to sing, and it's getting uglier and uglier
Benoit Corbeil, fingered by Jean Brault as one of the more importunate Liberal bagmen hitting him up for funds, has begun to talk. In an interview with Radio-Canada he "denies" Brault's charges, even as he concedes he did ask him for $50,000 -- $15K of it in cash -- to pay off various Liberal operatives.More important, he says the same shadowy network of senior Liberals controlled both the raising of funds for the party and the awarding of government contracts. And he states unequivocally that everyone in the Quebec wing of the party knew about it. Everyone.
And then there's this shocking (ie completely unshocking) allegation: The same network controlled the appointment of judges. During the 2000 elections, the party had a stable of about 20 big- time Montreal lawyers working for them for free. Or perhaps, not quite for free: Several of them were subsequently rewarded with judicial appointments. The same practice applied, he says, with regard to accountants and engineers -- and, of course, advertising agencies -- all of them "volunteering" their services to the party in hopes of winning contracts.
Scroll down into his comments section for the English translation of the interview.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Strong Stepping Down
Maurice Strong is stepping down from his UN post.
Maurice Strong, a long-time Canadian businessman and currently the top UN envoy for North Korea, will suspend his work for the United Nations while investigators look into his ties to a South Korean businessman accused in the UN oil-for-food scandal in Iraq.
Previous SDA posts here and here.
The Sri Lankans would like to talk to him, too.
Even as the association of Canadian Maurice Strong with "Koreagate Man" Tungsun Park was coming under world limelight, Sri Lankans were starting to demand answers about where the $425 million promised by Canada to tsunami victims is.
Four months after the tsunami hit, Sri Lankans still don't have their money. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin rushed to the scene for a weeklong photo op. Generous Canadians donated record amounts of money on line.The Canadian government promised to match dollar for dollar, donations from the public. But the promised mega millions never arrived.
According to veteran newsman Garth Pritchard, in Sri Lanka in the aftermath of last December's tsunami, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is allegedly holding the $425-million.
Kofi Annan's special envoy to Korea Maurice Strong, also a senior advisor to Prime Minister Paul Martin, was the founding president of CIDA.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Purple Serge
I'm holding out hope that this is a hoax.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ernst & Herle
Brent Colbert notices a seeming similarity between Ottawa and small rural towns - everyone has the same postal code.
update - QOTD
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Volcker Whitewash
If you've been holding forth the benefit of the doubt towards Paul Volcker's investigation into the UN oil-for-food scheme, you may officially yank it now. Roger Simon reports that two of the three lead investigators have resigned - "Robert Parton (senior investigative counsel) and Miranda Duncan (deputy counsel) have resigned because information was not being followed up by the Volcker Committee!!! "
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
China and North Korea
Reading Michael Ledeen's summary of recent news gives the feeling of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s -- everybody knows that the system is untenable. Thank God it's George W. Bush and not John Kerry at the helm of the West.
Posted by Ezra Levant on April 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
State of the Confederation
Full panic mode has set in.
PM Martin will be fundamentally addressing the let-me-be-clear nation tomorrow at 7:45 PM come hell or high-water.
Here is the CTV story.
With all signs pointing to the Liberal minority government's defeat as soon as May 19, Prime Minister Paul Martin is set to address the nation Thursday night to discuss the sponsorship program and the paralysis in Parliament.
Mike Duffy reports that the Liberals are concerned that they have not been able to get their message out through the tradtional media and the want to go over their heads directly to the Canadian people. Looks like they are going to ask the voters to wait until the Gomery report is tabled in the fall. In short he is pleading for his political career.
He also reports that the Opposition Parties are tabelling a non-confidence motion in the Public Accounts Committee. The Opposition Parties hold the majority on this panel so it will pass and be brought to the House on May 2nd.
570 News is reporting that PM Martin will not be disolving Parliament.
Here is a link to the announcement on the PMO site. Notice that it is closed to the media. Wouldn't want to face any tough questions eh?
This post may get long so I will update it over on PoliticalStaples
Posted by Greg Staples on April 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Tory Fundraiser
Have you ever heard of the Blogging Tories (They're the ones Richard McLelland calls the Blogging Whories - crackpot). Anyway, they've started a pre-campaign funding drive for the Conservative Party.
From Angry in the Great White North:
The Blogging Tories have undertaken a challenge to raise $10,000 for the Conservative Party by the end of the month. Don at All Things Canadian says "There are about 80 members of the Blogging Tories so if each of us can raise on average $125 we reach the goal." We're up to the challenge! Help us reach that goal in 4 easy steps!
1. Click on over to the Conservative Party donation page
2. Donate as much as you like
3. Report back here the amount that you donated in this post's comments section. (comments can remain anonymous)
4. Vote Conservative in the next election!
The Liberals are going to lie and lie about us again during the next election campaign. Let's arm our party with the resources it needs to fight back and form responsible government.
I have just donated $25.
Posted by RightGirl on April 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
He Can't Be Serious?
The Adscam story just keeps getting better and better doesn't it? Yesterday, Alfonso Gagliano predicted that Canada would be split apart due to the Gomery Inquiry.
It isn't the outrage over his and Chretien's antics that he figures will be the cause of a Quebec vote to separate but the fact that an inquiry has been held at all that will be the reason:
Alfonso Gagliano is predicting the end of Canada after Quebec separatists win the next referendum in the province -- and the country will have Paul Martin and his inquiry to blame.
In a telephone interview from Florida, the former Chretien cabinet minister and Quebec lieutenant called Martin and his election team "a bunch of amateurs" in last year's election and suggested that Transport Minister Jean Lapierre may have acted improperly as a lobbyist before returning to federal politics in 2004.
Gagliano said Martin has badly damaged the Liberal party in Quebec and predicts the Bloc Quebecois will sweep the province's 75 seats in an upcoming election.
He says the separatist party's big win will boost the fortunes of the Parti Quebecois.
"(Quebec Premier Jean) Charest has problems. Well, the next provincial election, unless there is a miracle, the PQ will win and they will call a referendum right away," said Gagliano. "And 'goodbye Canada.'
"This is the end -- thanks to Paul Martin's leadership."
...
"I think the first mistake Paul Martin made was calling the inquiry on his own party. Imagine if there had been a Gomery inquiry into the Mulroney years, or any political party. This is a very politically-driven inquiry," said Gagliano.
He said it's too late to turn the Liberal party's fortunes around in Quebec: "The damage has been done for the next 10 years. The Liberal party of Canada will have a tough time in Quebec. I mean, that is the only federalist party that can face the separatists."
Well isn't that rich? He appears to be suggesting that in order to maintain Canadian unity, the federal government should turn a blind eye to whatever corruption Chretien and Gagliano determine is necessary to save the country. Is it possible that the only thing holding the country together is the federal government lining the pockets of Chretien and his friends?
The irony of it all that Chretien has indirectly justified the scandal as a means of maintaining national unity. Does anyone think Chretien would care if it did just the opposite?
crossposted to canadiancomment
Posted by Dana on April 20, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
For the past week, I have been making my way through Byron York's Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. One of the main things I noticed straight away - and it is especially relevent in our pre-election frenzy here in Canada - is that it is a veritable "what not to do" for any election. In outlining the tactics (or antics might be a better word) of MoveOn.org, George Soros, Michael Moore et al, York makes the point that they were "preaching to the choir". Money was raised and used to make ads and movies geared towards those who had already decided to vote for Kerry. It was a giant Democratic circle jerk, with very little chance of persuading the red-staters to change their minds. Being very left coast and left brained, they were content to pat each other on the back, and think that that would be enough to win the election.
Is what we're doing in the blogosphere any different? My own site, Girl on the Right, is right-minded, and read by other right-minded individuals. Likewise The Western Standard/The Shotgun. It is by us, for us. In the end, whose minds are we changing? Are we really making any difference to the Liberally-biased political landscape in Canada? I would strongly recommend that anyone who plans to be involved in what promises to be a very mucky election campaign should pick up this book and give it at least a perfunctionary read.
For example, Michael Moore touted his Farenheit 9/11 as being the biggest movie in America, and actually believed (publicly, anyway) that it would turn the political tide in the Democrat's favor. Not only did the tides not turn, but the dollar value of his film, versus the very conservative Passion of the Christ, were truly telling. The numbers are broken down, in comparison, in the book. However, if Canada had been allowed to vote in the 2004 Presidential election, Kerry would have won. Which says something about us, as well.
I'm a little more than halfway through the book. I should have finished it by now, but I no longer read political books before going to bed. Gets me too riled up to sleep.
Cross posted to Girl on the Right.
Posted by RightGirl on April 20, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
What on earth are you doing?
The Globe and Mail article referenced in Kate's post below opens with
"The independent inquiry into the United Nations oil-for-food program is seeking information about the connections of prominent Canadian businessman and UN adviser Maurice Strong..."
That reminded me of something. While I was researching an article on the oil-for-food program for the Western Standard, a friend of the magazine had pointed me to Strong's book, Where On Earth Are We Going?, copyright 2000, and told me to look in the Curriculum Vitae at the back. I didn't get a hold of the book at that time, but I have it now. I see that Strong was on the board of something called the TOTAL Foundation, which was set up in 1992 by TOTAL Oil--as the website states--"following the United Nations Conference in Rio de Janeiro...". I don't know how long Strong was on the board, or when he left, but he's not on the board now.
The Power Corporation of Canada--controlled by Paul Desmarais Jr. and Andre Desmarais--had the largest single interest in TOTAL through their Swiss holding company Pargesa. Since Strong had once headed up Power Corp, I found this little connection interesting. Indeed a small world after all.
Posted by Kevin Steel on April 20, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
File under obvious
...Paul Martin's decision to launch the sponsorship inquiry could cost him his job as prime minister, a Toronto Liberal MP said Wednesday. John McKay's comments came after former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano blamed Martin for damage to the Liberal party in Quebec from testimony at the inquiry into the program.
Actually you can rephrase this that the Liberal decision to run a money laundering scheme in Quebec (more to the point - getting caught) could cost PM Martin his job. But that is just semantics. I love this as well.
...``The prime minister took the politically courageous thing to do,'' he said on his way into a Liberal caucus meeting. ``He presumably could have buried this whole thing, but he chose not to, and it may cost him his prime ministership.
When did doing your job, or at maximum being ethical become courageous? Besides, like PM Martin has a choice after the Auditor General's report.
Posted by Greg Staples on April 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Open That Door Right Now Young Liberal
Andrew Coyne is reporting that the earlier reports that were denied by the Liberals were true after all. Well, that fits a pattern, doesn't it?
And yes, it does appear that the Liberals have put off passing the budget implementation bill until then, notwithstanding earlier denials. Wonderful: a government that is too afraid to put any bills before the House, for fear they might come to a vote. They've more or less barricaded themselves in their offices.
Coyne has lots of juicy stuff today, including the identity of Kinsella's "mystery caller".
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Media Polls As Political Propoganda
Blog chatter on the CBC's selective poll reporting makes it to the Toronto Sun;
Did you know that an Environics Research poll released last week found that a startling 73% of Canadians surveyed believe Prime Minister Paul Martin is either "very responsible" or "somewhat responsible" for AdScam?
Yes, actually. Most people who surf blogs did.
But you wouldn't know any of this from the highly selective reporting of this poll last week by the CBC, which commissioned it, and by other media, who, incredibly, portrayed it as a positive finding for Martin. (For alerting me to this controversy, I'm indebted to blogger "Michael" of Winnipeg, who first wrote about it Sunday on his website, bluemapleleaf.blogspot. com.)
Kudos to Nealenews, who is headlining the article at the moment. The CBC has been skewing their reporting (or lack of it) so heavily for the Liberals, you'd almost wonder if they have something to hide.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in Media | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
More Maurice
Claudia Rosett has Canadian content for today's WSJ Opinion Journal;
In the course of telling the press on Monday that he "cannot recall a single instance" of contact or discussion with officials responsible for the scandal- plagued Oil for Food program, Mr. Strong did confirm that he has been friendly for years and had a business relationship back in 1997 with a Korean, Tongsun Park. Mr. Park achieved prominence in the 1970s as the go-between who shuttled hundreds of thousands in bribes from the regime of former South Korean dictator Park Chung-Hee to assorted members of the U.S. Congress, in the scandal that became known as Koreagate.Even if Mr. Strong had the best of intentions, his decision as a high-ranking U.N. official to be involved in any business relationship with the star bag man of Koreagate suggests seriously odd judgment. That should have been obvious even before U.S. federal prosecutors charged Mr. Park last week with accepting some $2 million from Saddam Hussein to convey yet more millions to two (so-far unnamed) high-ranking U.N. officials in an effort to shape the 1996-2003 Oil for Food program to facilitate Saddam's sanctions-busting embezzlement of billions meant for the people of Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds notices that the "Canadian scandals ... do seem to overlap with the oil-for-food scandals".
It's almost as if they all knew each other.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 20, 2005 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Foreign policy review
Two things about the Martin government's foreign policy statement (it was recently down-graded from review status to mere statement status). First, and this is merely a rhetorical question, why does it take so long to come up with policies on how to conduct foreign policy? Really, just follow the prime minister's principles. Oh, never mind; dithering is a principle in Martin's Ottawa. Second, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies's reaction is worth reading:
While we welcome a statement on foreign policy priorities from the government, we believe that actions speak louder than lofty declarations," said Alastair Gordon, President of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD). "The foreign policy of this government since Paul Martin became Prime Minister 18 months ago has consistently abandoned our natural democratic allies in Taiwan, Lebanon, Israel, India, Africa and the United States, and submitted to the will of tyrannies and terrorist organizations including Syria, China, Sudan, Iran, Tamil Tigers, Hamas and others who seek to crush the voice of democracy."
"Released six months late in the midst of the Gomery inquiry, and on the eve of a possible election, we hope that Canadians are seeing the real plans of this government, and not simply a well-timed campaign distraction," added Gordon."The Liberal government's vision for Canada is that of a soft power, handing out foreign aid to unaccountable dictators and undemocratic organizations, including the UN," said Naresh Raghubeer, Executive Director of CCD. "Sadly, we see no commitment to ending corruption in failed and fragile states or to linking foreign aid to conditions that end dependency, including a free and open media, accountable and transparent governments, a functional judiciary, and free and fair elections.""Unless there is a dramatic change from the past 18 months, Paul Martin's foreign policy does not serve the interests of our economy, jobs, security, stability or freedom, and certainly does not reward democratic reform around the world," added Raghubeer. "Canadians need to ask whose interests are being served by these foreign policy actions."
The CCD press release also includes a backgrounder on Canadian foreign policy under the Martin government up to this point. It is not an inspiring list of "accomplishments." But still, the fact that there were numerous initiatives (bone-headed, to be sure) over the past 18 months is proof that Canada can conduct a foreign policy without bureaucrats from at least four federal departments developing a statement of vague ideals and even vaguer promises. What Canada needs is not a statement reiterating mostly old, undelivered Liberal foreign policy programs but common sense and the political will to follow through.
Here, in its entirety, would be my foreign policy review/statement if the prime minister had asked me to do it: Stop funding dictatorships, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and insulting our democratic allies and vital trading partners.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 19, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Al Jazeera Silenced In Iran
The Iranian authorities have shut down the Tehran offices of al-Jazeera, accusing the broadcaster of inflaming ethnic riots in the south of the country.[...]
The Arabic news network was first to report the unrest in Iran's south-west Khuzestan province near the Iraq border, which has led to 200 arrests over the past few days. The unrest was also discussed on al-Jazeera's talkshows, prompting a government investigation into its coverage.
"We suspended its activity in Iran to investigate the network's role in unrest in Ahvaz," Mohammad Khoshvaght of the culture and Islamic guidance ministry told state television.
"We expect the network to respect Iran's national integrity and security. If it is proved that al-Jazeera committed a crime, it will be prosecuted."
No word on whether the Calgary Police were in on the bust.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 19, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
AWOL
If he ever gets tired of politics, Monte Solberg has a future in standup.
"The Prime Minister has entered the witness protection program so let me try a question for the finance minister."
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 19, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Benedict XVI
It is safe to assume that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, er, Pope Benedict XVI (that will take some getting use to) is not a South Park conservative. But doubtless in the minds of the media he is conservative, even a hard-line conservative, sometimes an ultra-conservative. Jonathan V. Last at the Daily Standard has typical examples of the coverage of the new pope by the herd of independent minds (aka the MSM) and wonders: "The media clichés are already hardening around Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, just hours after becoming Pope Benedict XVI. Will they brook any dissent from the caricature they're drawing?" Probably not.
Posted by Paul Tuns on April 19, 2005 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Secrets To Immortality
I'll be back later. I'm going out to get myself a plate of alfreido, a big ass pecan pie - and butter tarts. Lots of butter tarts.
The new analysis found that obesity - being extremely overweight - is indisputably lethal. But like several recent smaller studies, it found that people who are modestly overweight actually have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight.
I know it's a long shot, but you know - if there's just a slight chance an extra five pounds means I'll have a a lower risk of death, where's the harm?
Last year, the CDC issued a study that said being overweight causes 400,000 deaths a year and would soon overtake tobacco as the top U.S. killer. After scientists inside and outside the agency questioned the figure, the CDC admitted making a calculation error and lowered its estimate three months ago to 365,000.CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said because of the uncertainty in calculating the health effects of being overweight, the CDC is not going to use the brand- new figure of 25,814 in its public awareness campaigns and is not going to scale back its fight against obesity.
"There's absolutely no question that obesity is a major public health concern of this country," she said. Gerberding said the CDC will work to improve methods for calculating the consequences of obesity.
Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said she is not convinced the new estimate is right.
"I think it's likely there has been a weakening of the mortality effect due to improved treatments for obesity," she said. "But I think this magnitude is surprising and requires corroboration."
It reminds me of a news report I heard over radio last summer, announcing that men who quit smoking by the age of 50 cut their "cut their risk of death" by a whopping 50%.
All my life, I've assumed "risk of death" to be 100%. it makes me wonder why more men don't take up cigarettes, just so they can quit and double their chance at immortality.
Posted by Kate McMillan on April 19, 2005 in Food and Drink | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack