The Shotgun Blog
« August 19, 2007 - August 25, 2007 |Main| September 2, 2007 - September 8, 2007 »
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Letter Bombs
A Lebanese immigrant to Canada has been charged with sending letter bombs in Ontario, after being arrested with three bombs in his car and Toronto Police say:
"[...] the suspect is a landed immigrant from Lebanon with a Canadian passport, but police do not believe the crimes were motivated by religion or politics.
There is absolutely no pattern as far as any religion, ideology or nationality, [...]"
I am stunned!
Posted by Winston on September 1, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (76) | TrackBack
Terrorist Returns to Canada
On continuation of my post on Rwandans implicated in the genocide, is the story of Jamal Akkal. Except in this story, Jamal Akkal didn't have to sneak back into Canada, we let him right back in.
The Gazan born, naturalized Canadian citizen, Jamal Akkal, was convicted four years ago of planning to attack Jewish targets in North America. It is believed that he was working with Hamas to co-ordinate these attacks.
Okay. Why are we letting him back into the country? A convicted terrorist? Oh wait I know, because he's a Canadian. I'm getting a little frustrated with these situations. It's like my post from yesterday, it's the same reason why we aren't getting rid of murderers who sneak into this country. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, or offend them. We all need to wise up.
Posted by Leah Dowe on September 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
Hurricane rate has declined
Al Gore is coming to Victoria at the end of the month. If he's lucky, the city will be hit by a typhoon and it'll give him something to talk about. He sure can't talk about the calamitous hurricane seasons his myth-u-mentary film predicted for the Atlantic region, because they simply didn't materialize.
This year's season, for example, has been described as coming in like a lion and out like a lamb. In fact, hurricanes have materialized at only half the current rate so far this season. Last year? There were 17% fewer hurricanes than averge. Inconvient truths, eh?
Here's a solid, year-old column from Down Under that does a good job of deflating Gore's hot-air balloon.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on September 1, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Liberals Are Traitors
From e-zine, No Apologies ($, but it might be available in audio at that site for no charge.) [h/t to Benny and Bessy]:
Bernard Goldberg's latest book, "Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right," ultimately lacks the courage to say what needs to be said: Liberals are traitors.
Goldberg's basic thesis is that liberals have abandoned the core principles of men such as FDR and JFK, while the Republicans have lost their courage.
His assessment of Republicans is spot on.
Republicans are wimps. At least some of them are.
But on the other salient point he is wrong - fundamentally wrong. Liberals aren't just "loony" or "stupid." These are all adjectives he uses to describe the principal players in mainstream liberalism. And neither is liberalism just "becoming increasingly irrelevant," as he asserts. I wish Goldberg were right about that. I wish liberalism were irrelevant - if that were true, we wouldn't have to worry so much about what 2008 might have in store.
But liberalism's problem is much more systemic then Goldberg lets on, and his book lacks the courage to state what his evidence uncovers.
Liberals are traitors - at least the self-conscious ones are. And it is not because they hate Bush or disagree with the Iraq war. Their treason stems from their behavior - from the way they go around telling everyone that they hate Bush and disagree with the war - even to the extent that they sympathize with and give material aid to the enemy. ...
Liberal perfidy is deliberate, and it is dangerous.
It is one thing to disagree with the policies of one's government. After all, no democracy can be a democracy without the balance of a loyal opposition. However, when the rhetoric and behavior of that opposition is no longer in keeping with the principles of loyalty - when it turns to sympathy and material aid for the enemy and strident and arrogant criticism of your own government - then that opposition has turned to treason.
This is what self-conscious liberals are doing in the name of their civil rights. They have become traitors to the cause of freedom and democracy, and unless something is done about it, it won't be the enemy abroad that will be our undoing. It will be the traitors from within.
Posted by EclectEcon on September 1, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Victim-Beggar Complex
There are several reasons why I voted for Steven Harper, most having to do with fiscal issues and disappointment in Paul Martin’s leadership. However one not mentioned within my immediate blogging circle is that most conservative governments temporarily disrupt the victim-beggar complex. The socialist equivalent of the military-industrial complex, the victim beggar complex essentially writes its own tickets by proclaiming impending doom for specific minority groups in hopes of obtaining government money. They claim to exist because of injustice and to not fund them would be to perpetuate the injustice.
Complaints from social activists are typically grounded in fact – most native reserves are in terrible shape, domestic abuse is unacceptably common (I say this as someone who has had family work with Women’s House and the Children’s Aid Society – so many stories …), many black children grow up in an unhealthy environment while many Canadians outside the chic urban centers aren’t exactly “enlightened” about gay rights.
However, social activists exploit these injustices by brow-beating politicians and society into funding high-level “projects”. Most activists seem to follow the same template when shaking down the government –
Shock & Awe Drama
Activists must first make their mark with ostentatious displays of melodrama. Techniques include ambushing politicians during televised events, blocking public communication and staging inflammatory rallies. It’s no mistake that such methods were also used by some of the greatest revolutionaries in history, from Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr. So what’s the distinction? That’s a bit of a grey area – as the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (Earlier this year, I got into a nasty argument on Jack’s Newswatch with some anti-Mandela supporters of MP Rob Anders). Ultimately, the distinction can be made in hindsight – if the activists follow the path of events described below then they probably aren’t Gandhi material.
Demonstrate Historical Injustice
Provide impromptu history lessons (real and imagined) showcasing the irrefutable nobility of the target group before the “mainstream” destroyed everything. Again, much of the ad-hoc history is grounded in fact so the trick is to simply edit out the grey areas. For instance, it is permissible to discuss how, until 1960, natives were not even allowed suffrage without sacrificing their treaty claims. European-led genocides like the extinction of the Beothuk tribe (killed by both attrition and disease) in Newfoundland are also fair game. However, the conquest of natives by natives, like the Huron’s decimation by the Iroquois, is strictly off limits. One group must be absolute victims for the victim-beggar complex to work.
Silence the Opposition
Dissident voices from outside the target groups are simply dismissed as homophobes, sexists, racists, or whatever accusation fits. Inevitably, some of the opposition to the activism will be rooted in disdain for the target group, but far more often the dissidence is against the activists themselves and the way they choose to frame the issue. Blurring this distinction is essential to making sure non-sympathetic outsiders don’t spoil the scheme.
This approach can be applied even when the community group isn’t purely political. Last year, Toronto City Council. stripped the Caribbean Cultural Committee (CCC) of their yearly funding for Caribana, citing that the CCC –ritually plagued by financial difficulties- did not file proper financial statements for 2005. Despite the fact that the funding was awarded to another Caribbean planning committee (and one with a strong track record) community activists affiliated with the CCC nonetheless attacked city council and its liason, Joe Mihevc, as racists who supported black exploitation.
Internal dissidence leads to accusations of “self-hatred”, in that to oppose the activist group is to oppose the entire demographic of its clients. Much like a mad preacher presents his authority as being congruent with God’s will, the mad activist claims to speak for all natives/gays/etc. Of course, none of these leaders are democratically elected outside the confines of their groups, but this fact is disregarded. Those gays who don’t want to flamboyantly march in the streets are dismissed self-hating gays who want to stay in the closet. Blacks who don’t want young criminals on the streets and extended welfare programs are accused of wanting to be white. Women who don’t agree with the more radical tenets of feminism are condemned as old fashioned. In all cases, the internal dissidents aren’t considered “real” representatives of their group.
Apply for the Program
No matter that the question was, the answer is always “more government money”. The details are window dressing. Free market be damned. Never mind self-reliance.
Administer the Program
Administration is the fun part. Once the government transfers huge sums of money, the bureaucracy starts to take shape. First an internal structure is solidified within the group and then office space is setup. The amount of actual progress made for the client group varies greatly but one can always be sure that the bureaucracy is well fed. An outside observer would quickly note that the Jane-Finch corridor is still a hell-hole of high unemployment, drug addiction among natives is still epidemic and open homophobia is still pervasive. The typical activist response amounts to “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and this is true – however Government money is often dispensed without any concrete targets.
For instance, a community group may receive $500,000 to setup a job program but neither the group nor the government provides any benchmark to determine whether funding should continue (e.g. 30 or more clients obtaining full time employment after the first 6 months of operation). Meanwhile, less scrupulous members in the group “expense” the money away on dinners, entertaining and even getting their nails done (yes, I actually came across the latter while investigating one community group).
Of course, the victim-beggar complex operates cyclically rather than sequentially. There mere existence of injustice is used as justification for the group to exist, which provides extra incentive for ineffectiveness once the funding is obtained. Thus, the juggernaut of social “correction” rolls on, daring anyone to challenge its legitimacy …
…. Until a conservative government comes into power. Although, not always hostile to community concerns, conservative governments are nonetheless branded as 100% redneck and hostile to activist schemes (as mentioned before, this will be spun into an accusation of overall bigotry). While some good works may fall by the wayside (and I have not encountered any evidence of this happening with the current government) the rest of the country gets a much-needed break and a government committed to strengthening the economy for the benefit of all rather than funneling tax dollars to the loudest few.
Cross-posted at Cynics Unlimited
Posted by Cynapse on August 31, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Gandhi would weep
Hi folks. I appreciate the invitation and since I'm up to my eyeballs in a couple of projects (anyone else have a honeydew list?) I don't have time to write up a brand new piece so I'm "borrowing" one of my older piece from my blog but it's one I enjoyed writing and received positive comments on. I hope you enjoy it too.
Gandhi would weep...
I’ve been thinking about protests, in part because of remarks on a thread at Jack’s Newswatch where Lindsay said Canada isn’t accustomed to protests. In my reply to Lindsay, I said that I didn’t have a problem with protests but I did have a problem with violent, disruptive, vandalism type protests. That seemed an incomplete answer to me and thus my thoughts.
Are Canadians unaccustomed to protests? I wouldn’t say so. If anything, we’re sick and tired of protests. After all, we’ve been putting up with the antics of protesters for decades. Where did GreenPeace, the granddaddy of enviro-activist groups, start off? Why, in Vancouver, of course, back in 1971. By my count, that’s more than three decades of protests.
Quick quiz #1.... why did Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace and it’s president for nine years, abandon Greenpeace in 1986?
We’ve had numerous protests over the years, up to and including several violent protests which attracted international attention... like the 1997 APEC Summit in Vancouver and the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec. Then there’s the always popular native blockades, like Oka (1990), Gustafson Lake, Ipperwash and Burnt Church (1995) and, of course, Caledonia (2006 and still going).
Quick quiz #2... how many people died as a result of the native blockades at Oka? How many of you actually know the answer without using the Internet to find out?
Protests supposedly serve to get attention. That’s the whole purpose- to highlight whatever particular problem or perceived injustice. It is not, contrary to popular rumour, a way to find a solution and most protesters really don’t want a solution. They protest for attention so if they get a solution, they would have to find something else to protest.
The two tenets of cynicism are this:
1) No matter what they tell you, they’re not telling you the whole truth.
2) No matter what they’re talking about, they’re talking about money.
Use these two statements like a filter to cut through all the bullshit.
What is the purpose of getting attention? Simple: as an aid to fundraising.
Why do I object to outrageous protests? Well, it’s like this... if someone is legitimately seeking a solution to injustice, they don’t want to upset the very people who they’re lobbying for solutions. They don’t seek to embarrass anyone. They don’t destroy things. They make their points passively, intellectually and adamantly.
Many protesters refer to Mahatma Gandhi as their inspiration. Gandhi said "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen to be civil, implies discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice." Truth be told, Gandhi would quickly disavow himself from today’s protesters who defile the principles which Gandhi espoused. The problem is most protesters don’t know anything more about Gandhi than his name and most aren’t smart enough to spell that. They seize upon the expression “civil disobedience” and use it to justify their excesses.
Gandhi had specific principles which he adhered to strictly in his protest for the independence of his nation. Can you imagine the protesters of our generations adhering to such principles?
1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing, he will endure assaults from the opponent, but must never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
Read through these principles and think of almost any of today’s protests. Are today’s protesters honouring Gandhi? I don’t think so.
During a recent pre-Olympic event, APC protesters disrupted a children’s choir by chanting and cursing before rushing and attacking police. Prior to the event, the police seized a bag filled with bottles which they observed a male dropping into a garbage can. Some were filled with paint. Others were filled with urine. The APC denied knowledge of same.
Gandhi would weep.
-Mac
#1 Moore says Greenpeace had achieved most of it’s original goals and had evolved into a fund raising platform than an environmental concern.
#2 Three... One police officer (31-year-old Corporal Marcel Lemay of SQ) and two indirectly attributed to the crisis (one from a heart attack after confrontation and other supposedly from reaction to tear gas).
Posted by Enigmac on August 31, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack
Every breath you take
Found via the Drudge Report, SanLuisObispo.com: FBI surveillance: It's come a long way
"As with most information systems, the greatest threat to the DCS 3000 would come from the inside," the FBI said. "Since they have access to the system at various levels, users could damage, alter or erase data and destroy system hardware and software. They could also use the information gathered by it for profit by passing on the collected information or by alerting those being monitored.
That's not too reassuring. A more in depth article on the surveillance, Wired via MediaChannel: Point, Click… Eavesdrop: How the FBI Wiretap Net Operates
I wonder what CSIS is using? Browsing around, I ended up at the Security Intelligence Review Committee's website, watchdog of CSIS. In this (pdf) 2005-06 annual report on page 15, there's a chapter called "Review of CSIS’s electronic-surveillance and information-gathering techniques" that wasn't particularly helpful on this question. Maybe there's a CSIS agent out there who can fill me in via Comments. (Note: on all it's web pages, SIRC has added a link on the bottom of the left hand column that takes you to a variation of its site where you can read it translated into Canada's other official language, Arabic. I can't help but wonder if Devanagari readers feel left out.)
As noted at the top, I found the SanLuisObispo.com link at Drudge. Here's a profile of Matt the Hat in New York Mag: Watching Matt Drudge
It’s late Sunday night, and I turn on his weekly radio show in the room. Drudge is on his favorite theme, surveillance cameras everywhere, his belief that Google wants to spy on us and pass it all on to the government.
Have a great long weekend. And remember, I'll be watching you.
Posted by Kevin Steel on August 31, 2007 in Media | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Murderers Hiding in Canada?
It looks like Canada has become a destination for accused genocide masterminds. Five men are currently wanted for events related to the Rwandan genocide. Rwandan prosecutors, however, believe that as many as hundreds of people who were involved in the genocide could be living in Canada. It is believed that they entered the country using false names and claiming to be refugees.
Federal officials (of course) declined to comment on the accusations.
Posted by Leah Dowe on August 31, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Diana: heroine or celebrity?
As we are reading the adoring press coverage about the late Princess Diana this weekend, it would be good to consider how much of a heroine she really was.
Shortly after Diana's death, Ted Byfield wrote a column in the Report magazines that remains well worth considering when thinking of Diana's legacy. Snippets of the column, which I couldn't find complete online, offer some food for thought:
....Answering the question of did Diana deserve to be idolised, Byfield points out that the Pope had hugged AIDS victims long before Diana appeared. Byfield comments, after listing what she did, that "lending your name to various politically correct causes and being photographed in support of them does not really make you into a Joan of Arc. Dying in a booze-caused car wreck after dining at the Ritz with an international playboy lover does not quite equate with being burned at the stake. . . There must be better explanations for the idolisation of Diana".
Byfield makes a comment which echoes
that of other perceptive Christian-oriented commentators
"People need heroes and the 'me' generation isn't very good
at producing them. So they have to settle for celebrities
instead, a very different phenomenon. Diana is not another
Madam Curie or an Edith Cavell: she is another Elvis Presley
or Marilyn Monroe, revered not for what they actually did
but for what they stood for, chiefly defiance of convention
and moral authority." ....
Posted by Rick Hiebert on August 31, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Choose Your Poision on October 10!
Ontario will go to the polls on October 10, and voters will get the opportunity to choose how much we would like to increase government waste. Unfortunately, there just doesn’t seem to be any conservatives running in this election. It appears every candidate for Premier is proposing to increase spending and government size, and the choice given to voters is simply a matter of degree.
The Ontario Green Party
First, we have Frank de Jong of the Green Party. They’ve got some crazy policy platforms that really make your head spin. Most notable and nutty has to be their proposal to make capital gains on the sale of your residence taxable; basically removing the only tax free gain we Canadians have left! That would sure put the breaks on our housing market and the general mobility of the population.
Home equity — he calls it capital gains — that individuals build up on homes would revert to the community to pay for services, he says. [de Jong] says his house has appreciated in value by $100,000 over 10 years. That’s money he says belongs to the community.
Imagine you purchased your home 10 years ago for $200,000, and today it has appreciated to $300,000. A fairly typical scenario to be sure. Due to a change in circumstances, you need to relocate and would like to purchase a similar house in a different town. Unfortunately, de Jong won’t let you trade your $300K house for another, since you need to cough up the capital gains taxes on the $100K so-called “profit” you made on your current house.
Vote Green? Not a chance!
The Ontario NDP
That brings us to Howard Hampton and the NDP. Surf on over to their party’s Ontario website, and you won’t find the words “tax cut” anywhere. What you will find are all sorts of policy statements that sound rather expensive, with no mention of how they plan to pay for them. Of course, I think I can guess how they plan to pay for them!
The NDP will invest in schools, health care, municipalities and just about everything else you can possibly think of. If it costs money, the NDP plans to support it. The problem is it’s our money they plan to spend to do it!
Vote NDP? You’ve got to be kidding!
The Ontario Liberal Party
Up next, is Dalton “I won’t raise your taxes” McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals. Say, whatever happened to that no tax increase promise he made in the last election campaign anyway?
The Liberals haven’t released their official platform for the coming election yet, so we don’t know exactly what their plans are. However, McGuinty set the world record for promise breaking the last time out, so would it really matter what he said his plans are?
If his recent actions are any indication of his future behaviour, McGuinty plans to spend our tax dollars like a drunken sailor. Whether it’s funding every special interest group under the sun, or shovelling out grant money to groups who don’t even ask for it, Dalton can be seen wherever tax dollars are being wasted.
Vote Liberal? Yeah, right!
Ontario Progressive Conservative Party
Finally, we have John Tory of the Ontario PC Party. To listen to the Liberals describe John Tory, you would think he was a cross between Ebenezer Scrooge and the Grinch. They’re working hard to brand John Tory as the second coming of Mike Harris! It’s ironic that John Tory is nothing like Mike Harris, and would probably do better in the coming election if acted more like the character the Liberals are making him out to be.
Today, John Tory released his platform for the coming election. He talks about plans to scrap McGuinty’s health tax over the coming years, and he talks about finding efficiencies in the Government bureaucracy. That’s all well and good, but the numbers he proposed in his fiscal plan still call for some significant increases in government spending over the coming years.
Vote PC? I guess. I suppose it’s better than the other options.
No matter who wins on October 10, Ontarians shouldn’t expect to see much tax relief over the next four years. All things considered, Tory will likely waste less of my hard-earned tax dollars than the other choices available. Unlike McGuinty, at least Tory hasn’t been proven to be an untrustworthy liar.
On October 10th, I’m voting for John Tory. But I’m not particularly thrilled about it!
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on August 30, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack
Free-market guys
CP: Liberals half-way to election victory but need more substance: party pollster
Liberals can win the next federal election, but only if they come up with clear policy alternatives, some fresh ideas, new faces and a simple message, the party's pollster said Thursday.
So that's what they need! I couldn't put my finger on it so, many thanks to Michael Marzolini. Let's put a positive spin on Marzolini's interpretation;
the Liberals have no clear policy alternatives, no fresh ideas, the same old faces, and a confusing message. Here's part of that confusing message: Toronto Star: Liberals eye economy as election issue:
Less than a year ago, the federal Liberals believed they would be fighting the next election on the environment, but many now say the economy could be the sleeper issue, particularly in Ontario.
. . . "I see nothing in these free-market guys," Ignatieff said. "For them, the government is always the problem. And Canadians have always thought that government can be the solution."
So, Michael, you're going to fight the Conservatives . . . attacking Dalton McGuinty? Maybe by pointing out the negative economic impact of fighting climate change? You're going to nail Harper on all the manufacturing jobs lost, mostly to China which are in part the result of pro-China policies that have primarily benefited high profile Liberal Party supporters? What are you government guys going to do to kick start the economy? Start another war? How does the government make money or create wealth, Michael? Expand the civil service? Raise taxes?
Posted by Kevin Steel on August 30, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
The dominant dominion of 'deniers'
An exhaustive survey of scientific papers has concluded that less than half of all scientists support the "consensus" theory of man-made global warming.
Why isn't this page-one news around the world?
Let us hope that Drudge's link to the story sparks worldwide interest. And a re-evaluation of expensive, wasteful and ultimately destructive government policies.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 30, 2007 in Science | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
Abandoned to death
Criminal charges of child abandonment have been laid in the case of a baby boy who was born in a Wal-Mart bathroom in Prince Albert and then left to die, face down in a toilet.
Child abandonment? Child abandonment is when you leave your swaddled baby on the doorstep of someone's house or inside a hospital waiting room. The Wal-Mart incident, on the other hand, seems more like an act of attempted infanticide.
Another sad day for the Canadian justice system.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 30, 2007 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
To What Extent Should Ignorant People Be Protected From Themselves?
Phil Miller recently linked to this story in the Mankato, Minnesota, Free Press telling of some people who visited Mankato, hoping to see pyramids and do some whale-watching. They had been duped or misled by this website, which was created by a Mankato professor, purportedly to illustrate to his students that they should not accept as truth everything they see on the internet. For me, it's just plain funny to read about the Mankato Hot Springs, the underwater world, and deep-sea fishing on the Minnesota River.
But it isn't quite so funny to people who don't know any better. From The Free Press story,
Rosaura Prada stood in tears Tuesday morning after several frustrating hours of trying to find someone to give her answers about a fake Web site that led her to Mankato.
Prada, of Edinburg, Texas, brought her mother, Maria Alcantar, of Garden City, Kan., on vacation to Mankato Monday to see the underwater city, the pyramid and maybe do some whale watching. But when they arrived at their motel, they found no one knew about these and dozens of other attractions that the Web site...
Apparently it has happened before, too. The site has existed for over a decade and has received mention in the NYtimes and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
There were some questions about whether the disclaimer on the site is adequate, but I have to wonder why such a site should need any disclaimers at all. At some point we have to tell people that spoofs exist and they, themselves, have the responsibility to check things out more thoroughly before spending money on vacations like these. And perhaps examples like this will help illustrate the importance of paying attention in geography and science classes in grade school.
I'm thinking of starting a similar page for Clinton, Ontario. If it weren't for all the schools located here, we'd be a dying or dead community, and we could use the injections of tourism dollars into our local economy.
Posted by EclectEcon on August 29, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
Diplomacy
I recently took a trip to Taiwan sponsored by the Taiwanese Government Information Office in the company of some 11 other journalists from around the world. Larry Luxner, news editor of the Washington Diplomat, was the U.S. contingent. Larry also runs his own photo service and has just posted some pictures from that trip online. You can view them here.
It’s kind of fun for me to look at the pics because Larry’s used a few of his fellow travelers as models. For instance, this picture features the Beijing correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald. And modeling here is a staff editor for The Japan Times. (Oh look, here’s a senior writer for the Western Standard checking out souvenir scarves.)
I might as well post another one of my photos from that journey, just for fun. Following
Larry’s style of captioning I’ll label this picture “(l to r) A
Japanese journalist with The Japan Times, a Taiwanese Government
Information Office intern, and Indonesian journalist with the Sinar
Harapan Daily stand outside the Juming Museum in northern Taiwan.”
Here’s a picture of Larry--the guy by the tripod--that I took while he
was taking a group shot of us on the front steps of Taipei 101. The other guy with the smaller camera is a journalist
from Korea, one of us.
At some point during our travels, I was speaking with Larry and he was telling me about the various ambassadors who have been profiled in his paper. “There’s only one ambassador that we’ve never been able to interview. His office always refuses. You’ll never guess which one,” said Larry.
Caught up in the here and now, considering where we were and all the discussions we had been hearing, I took a stab at it. “China?” I guessed.
A big smile broke across Larry’s face. “No, Canada. Your country,” he said. I asked him why this was, and he replied he had no idea, but apparently this has been the situation going back for some while, through several ambassadors--always turning down their interview request. I told Larry I'd mention it on our blog some day. Done.
Posted by Kevin Steel on August 29, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Dealing with the devil
South Korean surrender monkeys, anyone?
That country's deal with the Taliban, to ensure the release of 12 of 19 missionaries who were taken hostage in July, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. "One has to say that this release under these conditions will make our difficulties in Afghanistan even bigger," Afghanistan's Commerce Minister Amin Farhang said. "We fear that this decision could become a precedent. The Taliban will continue trying to take hostages to attain their aims in Afghanistan."
Exactly.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 29, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
Love those lists
Ya gotta have a top-10 list if you're gonna make a media splash these days, so even the very-conservative Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has produced a double-digit ranking of the summer's noteable family-related news items. Here it is.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 29, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
War Museum Controversy
War museum to re-word controversial WWII display:
"The Canadian War Museum has done an about-face and agreed to rephrase the wording of a Second World War display that has outraged some veterans."
Posted by Winston on August 28, 2007 in Canadian Politics, Current Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (84) | TrackBack
Little regard for Little Mosque
The Gemini Award nominations are out now, and the big news from the Toronto Star's perspective is that the CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie has been given the cold shoulder. This is a surprise? I tried to watch this sit-com twice, and I found it to be so insultingly stupid, so moronically myopic, and so alarmingly naive that I didn't even make it to a commercial break. It was, in short, excruciatingly bad.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 28, 2007 in Media | Permalink | Comments (50) | TrackBack
The nuclear north
It doesn't make much long-term sense to burn natural gas or coal to generate electricity for the power-hungry Alberta oilsands. What does make sense is using nuclear energy to produce that electricity, and so it's good to see that the first step has now been taken towards construction of Alberta's first nuclear power generating facility, to be located 30 kilometres west of Peace River. The $6-billion facility isn't specifically being built for the oilsands, but the success of this project will likely make it easier to build more reactors in the province's north.
UPDATE: This morning's news reports suggest that the prime customer for this proposed nuclear-energy plant will, indeed, be a company doing business in the oilsands.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 28, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
So who really killed Lynne Harper?
An Ontario court has finally closed the book on the Steven Truscott case, ruling today that his original conviction was a miscarriage of justice.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 28, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack
Not Trusted
Michael Rubin has argued for far too long that the diplomatic engagement with Tehran is futile because the Iranian regime cannot be trusted at all.
Posted by Winston on August 28, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Monday, August 27, 2007
Some uncomfortable questions about abortion
One of my sons has just dawn my attention to this thought-provoking, six-minute-long YouTube posting, featuring a polite, off-screen interviewer asking anti-abortion activists at a demonstration in the U.S. earlier this summer a very good set of questions, which can be summed up as:
1. Do you think abortion should be illegal? (The answer was invariably Yes).
2. OK, then, if abortion becomes illegal, what do you think the penalty should be for a woman who has an abortion?
It's a logical and pertinent question, but not a single one of the demonstrators had a well-thought-out answer. Most of them initially suggested that the woman would have to answer to God, but then later displayed some discomfort when the interviewer pointed out that if abortion were simply a matter between a woman and God, then there was no reason to make it illegal.
It should be noted that one of the demonstrators suggested that the interviewer talk to the event's organizer for a detailed policy response. Either the interviewer failed to do so or he chose to omit the interview from the posting.
The demonstrators showed admirable honesty and also displayed commendable empathy for women who find themselves in so deep a personal crisis that they choose to abort their children. Nevertheless, I was taken aback by the obvious gap in the pro-life platform when it comes to sentencing. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing the issue discussed in Canada, for example, in the decade and a half since the Senate killed the Mulroney government's abortion-regulation bill. And I have to admit I personally haven't given it much thought.
So, are pro-lifers hypocrites for, on one hand, calling abortion "murder," but on the other hand appearing to not have the fortitude to demand murder-like sentences for women who abort their unborn children? If so, does this signify that the abortion question is really a moral one, not a legal one?
Is the more culpable criminal in an abortion actually the abortionist? If so, is the mother really another victim?
I'll be discussing this with pro-life activists in the weeks and months ahead. For now, I'd like to hear what Shotgunners think.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (162) | TrackBack
Trojan horse
Yet another way the Chinese are trying to work their way into the very heart of Canadian institutions.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on August 27, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
I spy with my PLA eye
More news about our 2008 Olympic Games host;
London Times: China accused of hacking into heart of Merkel administration. (See also Der Spiegel):
China has hacked into the computers of Angela Merkel’s Chancellery and three other German ministries in an extraordinary economic espionage operation that threatens to blight the German leader’s already delicate trip to Beijing this week.
. . . The information was being siphoned off almost daily by hackers in Lanzhou, northern China, in Canton province and in Beijing. The scale and the nature of the data being stolen suggest, the investigators say, that the operation must have been steered by the State and, in particular, the People’s Liberation Army.
I'm sure CSIS has read this. Background: CanWest, April 16, 2006: Government vows to curb Chinese spying on Canada.
Posted by Kevin Steel on August 27, 2007 in Media | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Only martial law will get us out of this war
When I first saw this, I thought the fine folks at the Onion had outdone themselves:
General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.
You can relieve the President of his command.
Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.
You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.
Alas, the truth is, as it often tends to be, much more bizarre: a left-wing publication openly advocating for overturning the constitution by asking for the military leadership to assume supreme authority over itself.
Then again, with the ever-growing melding of the extreme fringes of political discourse, this development was inevitable. Tim Blair must be proud.
Posted by Rob Huck on August 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Sunday, August 26, 2007
In defense of Michael Vick
May Dog forgive me.
Let me be clear: I think dog fighting is reprehensible, and that in a mob-justice system, Michael Vick would be disemboweled. But to my knowledge, last time I looked we didn't have a vigilante justice system. And when it comes to the "beautiful people", like rock stars, actors, socialites and sports icons, we barely have any type of justice at all.
Michael Vick endangered the lives of dogs - man's best friend. We get all warm and squishy when we think of our childhood pal Fido or Rover (or in my case, Valentine). And our anger at a "monster" like Vick becomes palpable.
Vick has been suspended indefinitely from the Atlanta Falcons, disgraced. Dog lovers and animal rights groups would like to kill him. His co-defendants copped a plea, and he will now plead guilty himself. And he'd better hope the judge doesn't have a dog.
Am I the only one who thinks this "kill Vick" mentality is a little overblown? Where were these activists and outraged do-gooders when Kobe Bryant was on trial for rape? Or when Mike Tyson was beating the snot out of Robin Givens or chewing on Hollyfield's ear? Heck, Barry Bonds probably didn't even know he was in the ballpark when he hit his history-making homer. What makes the pit bulls more important than a rape victim? Have we really sunk so low that we place the lives of dogs before the lives of humans?
I'm not saying - like some celebrities in past days have done - that Vick should get away with what he has done. I'm just suggesting that perhaps we should try to have a little perspective. We cry rivers of grief when gang-banging rappers are shot in the street - we never stop to ask what they did to deserve it. Why are we so quick to condemn Vick?
Cut the guy a little slack - he wasn't a drug pusher, he didn't rape or kill anyone. He hurt and killed some dogs. Disgusting and criminal? Yes. Worth all this misplaced fury? No way.
Posted by RightGirl on August 26, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (105) | TrackBack
Osoyoos: the model reserve
When I was on CBC's "Next Great PM" in March, one segment was dedicated to Aboriginal issues. Unfortunately, CBC only aired a fragment of that debate, and completely axed my statements on the issue. I told the former PMs that Canada must work with First Nations people to help them become less dependent on the government. I pointed to the example of the Osoyoos reserve in BC's interior as a model for how reserves should operate. The reserve is featured in this week's Maclean's and is worth a read.
Some highlights:
When Chief Clarence Louie was elected 23 years ago, at the age of 24, the Osoyoos were bankrupt. The reserve was plagued with your typical fare of problems: welfare dependency, corruption, violence - everything except tainted water. Today, the reserve pumps $40 million into BC's economy; owns nine businesses, including an award-winning winery; and is the biggest employer in the south Okanagan. In fact, they have such a high demand for labour that they've employed a good number of people off the reserve.
I recall seeing a documentary on Chief Louie several months back, and was very impressed with him. He preaches his ways to Aboriginal leaders and does so with brutal honesty, telling his colleagues that if they want to turn their reserves around, they have to do it on their own and stop expecting that others (read government) to do it for them. Nancy Macdonald summarizes his sermon quite nicely:
Blaming government? That time is over,he tells cross-country audiences. Join the real world. Get off welfare. Quit your sniffling. If your life sucks it's because you suck. Our ancestors worked for a living; so should you.
How refreshing.
Posted by Joseph Lavoie on August 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Don’t Let Jack Layton Manage Your Family Finances
Due to a stronger than expected economy, the federal budget surplus is estimated to be over $6 Billion. In other words, we have collectively been overtaxed by over $6 Billion.
That surplus is our money. But do not fear, Jack Layton has a plan to manage our money!
Layton says hardworking Canadian taxpayers are responsible for the surplus, yet many are struggling to support their families.
Fair enough, Jack. I can agree with that simple statement of fact. However, this next statement is where we part ways.
He believes the surplus should be spent on foreign aid, affordable housing, public transit and keeping post-secondary education fees down.
If Jack acknowledges that the surplus was provided by hardworking taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to support their families, why not call for a tax reduction for those hardworking taxpayers? Instead, he lists foreign aid as the first item to spend the money on?
I would like to know how spending some of our budget surplus on foreign aid is supposed to help those hardworking taxpayers who are struggling to support their families?
Jack Layton’s plan aside, my personal opinion (for whatever that’s worth) is we should use the budget surplus for a mix of debt repayment and tax reductions. The last budget, which increased government spending to record levels, gave us more than enough social spending.
The economy is good now, but it will not always be good. Spending at levels tied to today’s hot economy is not sustainable. Let’s spend at a level that can be maintained for the long term, and repay debt when times are good. When the economy eventually turns bad, we’ll be in a much better position.
It may not be as much fun as blowing the cash on a Layton-style spending spree, but it’s the responsible thing to do.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on August 26, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack