Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« August 12, 2007 - August 18, 2007 |Main| August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007 »

Saturday, August 25, 2007

What’s Wrong With Undercover Surveilance?

Many in the media and other left-leaning organizations have been critical of the Sûreté du Québec for planting undercover officers inside a demonstration at last week’s meeting of Canadian, US and Mexican leaders in Montebello, Québec.  They accuse the police of intentionally trying to incite violence and of infringing on our right to peacefully protest.

To be sure, the Sûreté du Québec did a poor job with their undercover operation.  The fact that the planted officers stood out in the crowd and had their cover blown certainly speaks to that.  But to hear people saying the police are intentionally provoking violence or that they simply should not be using undercover officers at protests is ludicrous.

Why shouldn’t police plant undercover operatives at events that have a potential to turn violent?  It provides another opportunity to observe behaviour to control violent developments before they arise and perhaps offers a better chance to apprehend the offenders.  If the officers are only there to blend in and take action when events go beyond being a peaceful protest, then how are any rights to peaceful protest being curtailed?  Nobody has a right to conduct illegal violent protests, which are the ones that undercover police are trying to prevent.

Undercover operations are used all the time, and they range from simple local operations to catch petty thieves, all the way up to organized crime rings.  Department stores hire security guards to blend in with other shoppers to identify suspicious behaviour and catch suspected shoplifters.  Police forces use undercover officers over a period of many years infiltrate the highest levels of crime families.  It is a valuable tool that police forces must use to help protect the public, and it can and should be used at public gatherings that have potential to turn violent.

In today’s editorial in the ever-comical Toronto Star, they call for a probe into Québec police behaviour.  They ask stupid questions like “why did one of the officers have a rock in his hand in the first place?”  Perhaps the Star’s editors don’t understand that undercover operations require you to blend in with the crowd around you?  If some protesters carry rocks, so should some of the officers.

The act of conducting undercover operations should be expected, not investigated.  If the police are to be investigated, it should be for doing a poor job of going undercover.

Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.

Posted by Dave Hodson on August 25, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (170) | TrackBack

No Good Options

While some people on the left side of the aisle believe they can live with a nuclear armed Iran, this piece "A nuclear-armed Iran would not be good" reminds us that it is not okay to tolerate a nuke-armed theocratic regime in the region:

Posted by Winston on August 25, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack

Friday, August 24, 2007

We'll turn your kids into eco-activists!

Check out the cheap-shot ad on page 7 of the Sept. 3 issue ("Putin the Terrible") of Maclean's. The half-page blurb is supposed to promote enrolment at Bishop Strachan School for girls. It shows an aerial photo of an unidentified logging operation in which the trees are being mechanically harvested. The copy reads: "Send your daughter to B.S.S.  The world needs her."

Needs her to do what, exactly? Become a logger? I don't think so. I think we are supposed to believe that the world needs her to become an environmental activist, so that the sort of logging pictured can be stopped.

What a fly-by smear. Not only is logging one of the country's most important natural-resource industries (providing employment for tens of thousands of Canadians), but there is ample  evidence that logging in this country is now being carried out with much greater regard for the environment than it used to be. About the only ones griping about it these days are eco-zealots who believe that all logging in the "boreal forest" should grind to a halt.

Founded in 1867, B.S.S. bills itself as "Canada's oldest day and boarding school for girls." Perhaps it's getting senile.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 24, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack

More Thoughts on Iran

Winston, I appreciate the thoughtful response. You make some important points, let me tackle them one-by-one. I should say, though, that this that idea of being a US ally means "helping it all the way" is mistaken. On the contrary, restraining America from pursuing its worst policies is the best help of all. Had Tony Blair not joined the US in making the case for war with Iraq, he would have been doing the US a much bigger favor than encouraging them in their futile, destructive war. Moreoever, alliances work two ways--should they not be "helping us all the way" in avoiding war with Iran? Why is it only Canada that has to accommodate?

1) The negotiations between the EU and Iran have never, ever included the United States. After September 11, Iran helped in Afghanistan and made overtures towards the US. Bush, flush from toppling the Taliban, ruined this with his disastrous axis-of-evil speech, which ranks with the worst addresses any sitting American president has ever given. In that speech, Bush openly declared that regime change in Iran was the policy of the US, which, at the time, appeared strong and determined. If you were Iran, wouldn't you try and get the bomb? It offers the best chance of survival, doesn't it?

2) "what will de-legitimize the US and other western powers in the eyes of freedom loving people of the world is these useless "negotiations with evil people." How do negotiations with anybody de-legitimize the US? Did negotiations with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold war do so? Or did they make the US look peaceful and well-intentioned, and make the Soviet Union look stubborn and violent? Winston Churchill, FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon, Ronald Reagan--these men were no softies. But they never, ever refused to meet with the "evil empire," a far, far more poweful, threatening power than Iran.

3) Yes, even if the grand bargain doesn't work, I am ready to accept a nuclear-armed Iran, as I said in my post. You say "we simply can't risk" it, because it has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, uses cranes to hang its own people,  and wants Islam to rule the world. Of course, the Soviet Union and China killed millions of their own people between them, and we risked living with them (a strategy that proved correct). If we start bombing everyone who kills their own people, we have about 100 countries on our list. About Iran's calls to destroy Israel: these are very worrisome, I do not take them lightly. But what matter is what a country actually does, not what it says. And Iran has not invaded its neighbors (Iraq launched the Iran-Iraq war, not the other way around) nor sheltered Al-Qaeda members in large numbers. What it has done is help establish Hezbollah, which is terrible, but is not worth going to war over. It is, for them, a low-cost way to shore up their revolutionary credentials (see Daniel Byman's Deadly Connections on this), without fighting a war they are not prepared to fight.

4) Iran is not the "world banker of terrorism." The chief terrorist organization in the world, Al-Qaeda, has no state sponsor, which is why it is so difficult to destroy. Iran certainly supports terrorist organizations, but not ones that are trying to, and are remotely close to having the capabilities to, attack the United States. Moreover, your strategies to overthrow the regime from within are pure fantasy. Iran is not 1980s-era Poland. Because of the total lack of US credibility in the region, any Western attempts to reach the Iranian people over the heads of the government are futile. Witness, for example, no-takers for the US's $75 million earmarked for democratic groups within Iran. Finally, " the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to the threat to the existence of the Western civilization in which Canada is a prime member" (my italics)? Now Iran threatens the existence of all the West? Everybody? Sweden, Greenland, Switzerland? This shows an inability to distinguish between groups like Al-Qaeda, that are willing to risk suicide to attack the US, and those that aren't. It is threat inflation. It is apocalypic. The combined power of Western countries so dwarfs that of Iran (which isn't even the most powerful country in the weak region) it boggles the mind how one can be scared of it. It is like a giant being terrified of a mosquito.

5) "A free and nuclear-free Iran ensures a peaceful and prosperous middle east where terrorists won't be bred to fight the infidels with the Iranian money." First, if one strikes Iran, one is ensuring that Iran won't be free for at least the next 30 years. An attack by outsiders will rally Iranians around their government, as most nations do when they are attacked. It gives the regime an excuse to clamp down even harder (a lot harder) on its people. Elections? Forget about them. Secondly, a peaceful and prosperous middle east? Now the entire region will be rich if we just bomb some nuclear facilities? Suddenly the whole region is developed, capitalist and wealthy? And the whole region is peaceful? No more Palestinians fighting Israelis, no more civil war in Iraq, no more Syria sheltering Hamas members, no anything? Just a utopian peace? All we have to do is kill a few thousand people by bombing them. This is dangerous utopian thinking, and, like all utopian thinking that promises to bring world peace by killing some people, it will end in failure and bloodshed.

Winston, I appreciate your desire for freedom. But idealism must always be tempered by reality and a respect for the limitation of one's power. Al-Qaeda is our main enemy, and we should focus on them.

Posted by Jordan Michael Smith on August 24, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (83) | TrackBack

Re: Iran and Canada

Jordan's Piece on Iran made me write the following response which I believe was necessary since the WS readers need to know more about things they read and hear and it helps form a healthy debate over critical issues...

First of all, it is really disappointing to see that a US ally such as Canada let the US go down its "destructive path" instead of helping it all the way. But the issue is not there, the core of Jordan's argument is that "a grand bargain" will somehow stop the Iranian regime in its hot pursuit of weapon related nuclear technology but he fails to tell us how he'd like to address the fact that Iranian regime's ultimate survival is going to be solely depended on nuclear weapons since it is facing several threats from the outside world, mainly US and other western powers and also from inside where majority of people are increasingly anti-regime and pro-freedom. A regime, as Jordan Michael Smith put it, is "weak, fearful and defensive" will not give up because if it does so, it will lose its iron-fist gained legitimacy among its own unhappy people more than ever. And it is also naive to think that they will be convinced to give up their nuclear ambitions since the mullahs know they can not match the conventional power of the coalition forces and therefore nuclear weapons will be the only answer to that growing threat.

I'd like to address some of the issues raised in Jordan's piece:

1- European union has been trying hard on the so-called "grand bargain" with the Iranians since 1997 through a process the EU dubbed "Critical Negotiations" and these negotiations collapsed in 2005 when the regime decided to go on with its nuclear program disregarding the demands of EU and IAEA to halt its enrichment program. FYI, Iran has already disregarded two serious UNSC resolutions to halt its nuke program which resulted in somewhat light sanctions against the regime and its cronies. Iran is going to step in Saddam's path to destruction and war by ignoring the UN resolutions. [+]

2- Jordan seems to be worried about the US losing its legitimacy further around the world if they would go to war with Iran. I disagree with that notion and I'd like to mention that, what will de-legitimize the US and other western powers in the eyes of freedom loving people of the world is these useless "negotiations with evil people". Indeed what the Iranian people love about Canada and the US is that these two governments have been doing their best not to trade with the regime and isolate that wicked regime at the international level.

3- Unlike Soviet Union and China, Iran doesn't have a powerful conventional military might that would protect its regime and also be a "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) factor. This means, as I mentioned above, that the Iranians have no option but to opt for nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Now, are we ready to accept a nuke-armed Iran? A regime that has, in many occasions, vowed to wipe Israel (an ally of Canada and the US) off the map. Ask yourself whether we're willing to let the mullahs do that thing once they have the bomb? One may argue that Soviets had vowed to do the same and they never did, but my response is that a regime that easily uses the cranes to hang people and calls on the world to convert to its own version of radical Islam should not be given that opportunity to begin with. We simply can't risk...

4- Instead of letting America go down in its fight against the world banker of terrorism, i.e Iran, we in Canada must help the Americans in their efforts against that tyrannical regime. One of the best ways to counter the Iranian threat is to help the people of Iran through any possible means. But if it ever comes down to "tactical strikes" against the regime, Canada must stand behind the United States since the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is a serious threat to the existence of the western civilization in which Canada is a prime member. But like I said, the best viable option to deal with the mullahs is to help embolden the people of Iran. Canada can help, for instance, by setting up a Persian language radio broadcast into Iran or by setting up funds helping the striking workers' families. Canada has a lot of potentials in helping free that country from tyranny. We haven't tried our options yet....

As someone who has lived all of his life in that country and seen the brutality of the regime first hand, I urge all westerners to realize that the threat posed by the Iranian theocracy is serious and dangerous and any negligence in dealing with this growing cancer will be catastrophic. A free and nuclear free Iran ensures a peaceful and prosperous middle-east where terrorists won't be bred to fight the infidels with the Iranian money. Iranian sponsored terrorism has been in motion since 1979 and it can be stopped if the west showed some resolve.

Cross-posted

Posted by Winston on August 24, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (89) | TrackBack

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Top three national disasters

The "101 People Who Are Screwing Up Canada" roll-call is now complete with the addition of the final three names to the list. They are: #3  Maurice Strong, #2 David Suzuki, and #1 Henry Morgentaler. What, no Michael Buble?!

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 23, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBack

Bones bounced

CORRECTION-UPDATE: Early media reports identified the expelled diplomat as Alan Bones. Today, we learn the person kicked out Sudan was actually Nuala Lawlor.

What exactly Alan Bones, Canada's top diplomat in Sudan, said or did to get himself kicked out of the African country is still a mystery. The official reason is "meddling in affairs," but no specifics have been offered.

I have just finished scouring Infomart news sources for the past decade, and came up with only one hit dealing with Bones and Darfur. The diplomat told CTV news on July 9, 2006:  "People in Darfur are still suffering. It is one of the largest United Nations humanitarian efforts in the world at the moment, and that is not going to end until security is re-established so the people in the camps in Darfur feel comfortable going home."

Outside of the normal news sources, I found some other mentions, including this quote of his from the Legion Magazine in March 2006: "We're dealing with a very complicated situation here. There was a longstanding and truly horrible civil war that had devastating consequences for the south. I mean, it's devoid of infrastructure and several generations have lost their livelihoods, their education, their families. And so it's really important for the international community to be seen to be consolidating the peace now that the parties have agreed to put down their arms."

There doesn't appear to be anything controversial in either utterance. So, whatever Bones said or did, it was clearly out of the public eye. Here's hoping he saved some lives in the process.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 23, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Taiwanese, Hakka and the kowtow

Vancouver Sun: Taiwanese stars take the stage

I love this headline. Why? Because according to Beijing's barbarians in business suits--the Chinese Communist Party--there is no such thing as a "Taiwanese." So the Sun has either purposefully or inadvertently committed a very political act in defense of democracy by using "Taiwanese." From Chapter 2 of Forbidden Nation: A History of Taiwan by Jonathan Manthorpe;

Mainland China's rulers like to consider their "Taiwan compatriots," as they are usually called in the Beijing-controlled official media, as merely wayward sons and daughters of China, cast into the wilderness by a quirk of history and now misguided and deceived by nefarious, self-seeking rulers. There is therefore no such thing as "Taiwanese" in Beijing's view.

The Sun story talks about the ethnic Hakka.

[The Hakka] worked very hard -- especially the women, says Wu, gaining a reputation and spirit of "hard-neckedness" and earned a foothold in the economy. But their culture almost disappeared under martial law, only kept alive in private homes by people like Lo's grandmother.

In the same chapter [2] of Forbidden Nation, there is a good paragraph on the Hakka, which should fill in a few of the gaps for you.

The Hakka, whose name means "guests" and who were treated as an untouchable caste, came originally from northern Henan province. They were driven south in a pogrom around 419 A.D., and sought temporary sanctuary in the mountains of Fujian and Guangdong provinces. But they were forbidden to own land and their sons were prohibited from taking the imperial examinations that were the route to advancement for other Chinese families. It is understandable, then, that the Hakka were in the forefront of the substantial overseas Chinese migration in Southeast Asia during the period of civil chaos and famine in the twelfth century. The Hakka’s second class status—evident in China and on Taiwan to this day—has created a fiercely independent and ambitious community. Some mainstream Han Chinese note ruefully that in the early 1990s the three predominantly ethnic Chinese states—China, Taiwan and Singapore—were all led by Hakka. There was Deng Xiaoping, the paramount leader of China, Le K’uan Yew, the founding father and in retirement the hidden guiding hand of Singapore; and Lee Teng-hui, the president of Taiwan.

And approximately two pages later in Forbidden Nation, there is another paragraph which I consider a good description of the "kowtow," which Canada still performs today by accepting the One China policy, though it is slightly less enthusiastically performed by the Harper government than it was by the Liberals under Chretien and Martin;

Some historians argue that the vassal state system was profoundly different from the aggressive imperialism then beginning to reach out from Europe. Rather it was an expression of Chinese cultural certainty. In order to benefit from the patronage of the Middle Kingdom, foreign potentates had to accept and acknowledge the universal supremacy of the emperor of China. Vassals were required to pay tribute and perform the kowtow—kneeling three times and prostrating themselves nine times before the emperor or his empty throne—in order to receive the blessings of trade and diplomatic relations. Today, Communist Party cadres in tailored suits have superceded mandarins in costumes of imperial silk, and the ceremonies of supplication have moved from the Forbidden City across the road to Mao Zedong’s Great Hall of the People, but little else has changed. The foreign diplomats, investors, merchants, bankers, and opportunistic carpetbaggers  who now flock to Beijing are presented with the same choice. Accept China’s terms or be frozen out of its market and future potential. Now, of course, an essential tribute to Beijing exacts concerns Taiwan. Diplomatic relations with Beijing, and all they promise, will not be accepted from any nation that maintains formal ties with Taiwan. Over the last half-century few nations and no internationally significant ones have balked at making that kowtow.

Vancouver Sun, no kowtow. Kewl.

Posted by Kevin Steel on August 23, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

A Sad Day

Unfortunately two other Van-Doos troopers have been killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan.

Our thoughts and prayers with the family and friends of these selfless individuals who sacrificed their lives to make our world a better one.

Posted by Winston on August 22, 2007 in Current Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (104) | TrackBack

Quebec intellectuals: Tell Yvonne Ridley to piss off

An open letter from a variety of Quebec thinkers asking the Islamic Congress of Canada (lead by All Israeli’s over the age of 18 are valid terrorist targets Mohamed Elmasry) to dissociate themselves with radical islamist Yvonne Ridley:

“Yvonne Ridley is coming to Montreal and Toronto this September at the invitation of the Islamic Congress of Canada. A British journalist captured by the Taliban in 2001, Yvonne Ridley converted to Islam and took up the faith and cause of her abductors. Her case is strangely evocative of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’.

“A commentator for Britain’s Islam Channel, where she is responsible for political issues, she is a founder and frequent candidate for the Respect Party, a deviant coalition of leftists, fundamentalist Muslims and Islamists. Yvonne Ridley supports, in its essence and entirety, the ideological program of radical Islam and defends even today the very Taliban against which the Canadian Forces is fighting a just and necessary combat.

“Ridley is also the London correspondent for a new television channel created by the Iranian regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Press TV. The channel offers, according to Ridley, ‘…a different perspective from conventional media”. The Internet site of this channel has a section called “Analyses,” where one can find insinuations that the British government orchestrated the recent car bomb attacks on London and Glasgow in order to tarnish the image of Muslims in Great Britain. Ridley claims that she can say what she wants on Press TV.

“Why do the Iranian governmental authorities not stop her from lionizing Abu Hamza al-Masri, the openly Jihadist Imam at London’s Finsbury Park Mosque who Ridley called ‘quite sweet really’. Al-Masri is a fervent partisan of Al-Qaeda and has been detained by British police.

“Why do the Iranian authorities not reprimand her for calling on the British Muslim community to stop co-operating with the police in any security investigation? Why don’t they reproach her for having called Chechan Shamil Basayev, who perpetrated the horrific Beslan school massacre, a ‘martyr’?

“Why do the Iranians not oppose her eulogies to suicide bombers? Why are they not vexed that this ‘journalist’ expresses open sympathy for notorious terrorists, like Jordanian Abu Musad al-Zarqawi?

“Why? Because Yvonne Ridley plays the game for the enemies of the West and the friends of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

“We, the undersigned demand that the Islamic Congress of Canada publicly disassociate itself from Yvonne Ridley and manifest clearly to the Canadian and Quebec public its refusal to offer any form of support — direct or indirect — for Islamist terrorism.” (The Suburban)

Yvonne Ridley was here in Canada before speaking at the Muslim youth conference held in Calgary this past May. She has noted on the broom that her trips to Canada have always been productive and worthwhile. So Yvonne if you come around again take note that I’m not the only Canadian around who thinks you suck.

(c/p Dust my Broom)

Posted by Darcey on August 22, 2007 in Religion | Permalink | Comments (65) | TrackBack

Forget Viagra

Daily Mail: World's oldest father has 21st child at 90. So what's your secret, Nanu Ram Jogi?

Mr Jogi, who attributes his remarkable virility to daily walks and plenty of meat, said: "I eat all kinds of meat-- rabbits, lamb, chicken and wild animals."

What's that collective gulp I hear? Nothing, just PETA members swallowing their tongues. Okay everybody, conga line! "You don't win friends with salad! You don't win friends with salad!"

Posted by Kevin Steel on August 22, 2007 in Science | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack

Just keep repeating...

...that Canada has the best health care in the world.

Posted by Ezra Levant on August 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBack

Ammo against amnio

This is important: Lifesite reports today that a new study by a British doctor finds that pregnant women's use of amniocentesis results in the death by miscarriage of three healthy babies for every case of Down Syndrome detected (cases which invariably up with an abortion, of course). In other words, three healthy unborn babies die so that one unhealthy unborn baby can be killed.

There's always been something powerfully repellent about the "search-and-destroy" nature of amnio. Now, the stink is even worse.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 22, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack

Muffin man at the UN

Claudia Rosett in NRO: Ban the Old Ways--U.N. ethics test. about the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Quite simply, the UNDP is, for most practical purposes, morphing from a development agency into a species of highly privileged rogue state — operating, it seems, outside any jurisdiction.

Okay, all that scandal stuff aside, I know what you're thinking after reading Rosett's article: the Ethics Director of the United Nations is a Canadian? Why, er, yes, Robert Benson, or Robert F. Benson if you prefer. He was deputy ethics commissioner, working under Liberal lapdog Howard Wilson and then Bernie Shapiro, briefly keeping the seat of commissioner warm after Shapiro shuffled off. You're forgiven for not knowing about Benson's appointment at the UN on May 7. I can't seem to find a single story in the Canadian media mentioning it. Who appointed him? I can't figure that out either. Was it Ban Ki-moon? How did Benson come to the UN's attention? What is known about him? Well, let me cite an April 3 column in the Ottawa Citizen by Deirdre McMurdy, written after Benson temporarily succeeded Sharpiro, entitled: "Do you know the muffin man? Interim ethics czar a man of few receipts"

Fortunately, Robert Benson, a 29-year legal veteran of the federal government who's been the deputy ethics commissioner since 2004, was on hand to step into the breach.

None of us know terribly much about Mr. Benson except for the fact he doesn't seem to have much of a taste for baked goods: In 2005-06, he filed an expense report for an exceedingly modest $5 for a "meeting with client" at Treats Bakery, which means they probably had to split the tea biscuit in half and share the cup of coffee.

It's only worrisome because, as we all know, muffins and ethics go hand-in-hand.

Posted by Kevin Steel on August 22, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Parking solutions

Bourque links to this story, about a system that provides motorists real-time information on available parking spaces. My wife and I were in Geneva recently, and we noticed that the city has just such a system in place, using electronic reader boards at various locations to list available spots at four (as I recall) downtown parkades. Just thought I'd mention it.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 22, 2007 in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Stelmach's big slide

The Globe and Mail reports today that support for the Stelmach government in Alberta has fallen 22 points since January. No wonder the folks at the new Wildrose Party of Alberta are so upbeat about their prospects.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 22, 2007 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (76) | TrackBack

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Iran and Canada

Is the US going to bomb Iran? This is a question I think most people should be asking. I happen to think George Bush will not bomb Iran, but that if Rudy Guliani is elected president, he will. This is all conjecture; nobody outside of the administration is sure what is going inside Bush's head, obviously. But Canada must still prepare for the possible. So: what should, and what will, Canada do if the US bombs Iran?

Interviewing David Harris of the Canadian Coalition of Democracies for an article I wrote a few months ago on why Canada should up the sanctions against Iran, I asked him his opinion. He was very clear: the West must stand together, and Canada should support the US in any attack on Iran.

I couldn't disagree more. I think any attack on Iran would have catastrophic, perhaps permanent, effects on America's legitimacy as a leader in the eyes of the world. Why should the US care what the world thinks? Well, because it needs the support of allies to give its actions legitimacy and bear some of its burden (think of France, Germany and Russia teaming up to block UN approval of the Iraq invasion). The more people hate the US, the harder this is to get.

More importantly, I think Iran is weak, fearful, defensive, and can be convinced, in a grand bargain, to give up its quest for nuclear weapons. But, even failing that, I think the world can live with a nuclear Iran. People might ask themselves how such a thing is possible. To that question I would say: look back on the debates over Mao's China (who threatened to use Nukes on America) and the Soviet Union being permitted to get nuclear weapons. The arguments are almost identical. And in both cases, China and the Soviet Union were contained (the latter doesn't even exist anymore). If those massive powers can be contained, a third-rate, poor, internally divided country like Iran can be, too. Canada should let America go down its own, destructive path if it comes to it. Let's hope it doesn't.

Posted by Jordan Michael Smith on August 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (133) | TrackBack

Details, details

Today's Victoria Times Colonist reports: "Two Victoria women are exploring the possibility of opening a co-operative brothel whose profits would help fund programs for addicted and impoverished women selling sex on city streets."

But, of course, there's just one little problem with the idea: brothels are illegal-- a fact the story finally points out in paragraph seven. Other than that trifling matter, I'm sure the community will rally 'round this fabulous idea [inject sarcasm here].

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 21, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (52) | TrackBack

Bush-Harper; A Quick Overview

Bush_harper

President Bush met with PM Harper:

Posted by Winston on August 21, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (81) | TrackBack

The son also philosophizes

His brother Justin is in politics now, but Alexandre Trudeau also apparently wants some of the spotlight, and so has written a new foreword to his famous father Pierre's 1960 book, Two Innocents in China. As the Calgary Sun's Paul Jackson sees it today, Alexandre shows himself to be a worthy member of the Trudeau temple of moral relativism, naivety, and outright stupidity.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 21, 2007 in Books | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack

Monday, August 20, 2007

Sacrifice & Valor

Our thoughts and prayers with the family and friends of Quebec's Royal 22nd Regiment's Pte. Simon Longtin who was unfortunately killed in Afghanistan by a roadside bomb planted by Taliban.

And his comrades want the public to learn more about what they do in that corner of the world.

Posted by Winston on August 20, 2007 in Canadian Politics, Current Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack

Garbage in, garbage out

Don't you just love the intelligent, thoughtful questions that pollsters pose?

Angus Reid's latest on-line poll question asks whether I will vote for Stephen Harper in the next federal election.

Well, Angus, thanks for asking, but even though I may vote for the Conservative Party of Canada's candidate in my suburban Vancouver riding, I will assuredly not be voting for Mr. Harper, who will be seeking election in a seat several hundred miles east of where I live.

So, my truthful and accurate answer to your question would be to click the NO box -- an answer that you will no doubt interpret as being anti-Conservative. And then, of course, you'll be wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 20, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack

Poverty equals violence?

There's something deeply disturbing about this particular story, which tells of a six-year-old aboriginal boy who was drowned by three other aboriginal youngsters at the Pauingassi reserve in Manitoba. And it's not just the tragic tale which is at the heart of the story.

The problem is evident in this paragraph: "We allow kids to grow up in extreme poverty," says Elsie Flett, head of the First Nations of Southern Manitoba Child and Family Services Authority. "Why are we then surprised when these kids become violent? Society has really been very violent towards them."

Not so fast, Ms. Flett. First, there's your disheartening and demeaning assumption that a life of poverty will automatically lead to a life of violence. This is determinist claptrap. Second, there's your assertion that "society" is inflicting violence on the children, presumably by keeping them impoverished.

This is such an ill-defined accusation that it's difficult to examine. Does she mean society as represented by the band structure? By the reserve system? By aboriginal society in general? Or, perhaps, by the outside world? Regardless of which entity she is blaming, she is stretching the definition of violence in the same way that Marxist class warriors, for example, do in asserting that capitalism inflicts violence on the working class.

So what is Flett's solution? More personal responsibility? Better parenting? Fewer one-parent families? Band-governance reform? An end to the welfare mentality that has so many reserves in its thrall? Tougher controls on drugs and alcohol? Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. Flett's answer is, not surprisingly, to shirk personal responsibility and to look to Ottawa for all the answers:  "Who is interviewing Stephen Harper and his government?" Flett asked in an interview. "Who is saying, 'What are you doing about Pauingassi'?"

I say: Who is interviewing band leaders and asking them, "What are you doing about Pauingassi?"

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 20, 2007 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (64) | TrackBack

The continuing Kyoto crisis, part X

Via Kate and the National Review comes news of this new and rigorous scientific study that concludes the earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC has claimed.

Message to Al Gore: Your movie has now been completely, absolutely and thoroughly debunked. Do the responsible thing and pull it from circulation.

Message to the msm: It's now officially OK for you to start covering the other side of the climate-change story. Go ahead. Do it. It won't hurt.

Message to all climate-change hysterics: Shut up.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 20, 2007 in Science | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Any Comments, Questions?!?

Islamist2_2 Islamist1_2

These two photos were taken in Dundas Sq. Toronto on 18th of August 07. I have seen these people doing this several times and they may have the right to do so and their right to preach Islam is probably protected by freedom of speech. But I have a few questions for those of you who may know the answer:

Who is paying for these free Korans? Who may tell them to go out and preach about the Wahhabi sect of Islam in the heart of the city of Toronto? What are they pursuing by trying to "advertise" for the religion of peace?

I am curious to know. Ain't you?

Cross-posted

Posted by Winston on August 19, 2007 in Canadian Politics, Current Affairs, Religion | Permalink | Comments (128) | TrackBack