The Shotgun Blog
« November 4, 2007 - November 10, 2007 |Main| November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007 »
Saturday, November 17, 2007
So, President Bush is my Cousin...
Seriously. Well, probably.
So, I used my day off today to plug the already fairly-detailed family history that I have into Ancestry.com.
Continued after the fold, for those who find geneology mildly interesting.
Now, some of this may be off - but, really, it's not that many generations ago. And, of course, there's the question of legitimacy, but...
I'm Adam Yoshida. Hi. My mother is June Yoshida (nee McKinnon). Her father was Hector Walter McKinnnon. His mother was Gertrude McKinnon (nee Barkley). Her mother was Maria Elizabeth Forester.
The first set are well known. I knew my Grandfather. My mother knew her Grandmother.
There are census records which show that Maria Barkley was Gertude Barkley's mother and that Maria Forester married Phillip Ellijah Barkley.
Now, Maria Forester's mother was Lurenia Cowdrey. That - and her father being Daniel Forester - is reflected on Maria Barkley's death cerificate from 1933.
Now, the rest I don't have records for. But, on the other hand, it's all been entered into the database and, based on the specific nature of the dates, places, marriages - it all seems to match.
Lurenia Cowdrey's father was named George Washington Cowdrey. He was born on February 10th, 1785 in Vermont. His father was Samuel Cowdrey, who was born on May 25th, 1766. In turn, his father was Thomas Cowdrey - who was born on September 14th, 1729 in Reading, Massachusetts. In turn, Thomas Cowdrey's mother was Mehitabel Damon, who was born on November 9th 1699. He mother was Lucy Ann Emerson, who was born on October 2nd 1667. He mother was Elizabeth Bulkeley, who was born in 1638 in Massacusetts.
In turn, the father of Elizabeth Bulkeley was Edward Bulkeley, who was born in Bedfordshire, England in 1614.
In turn, Edward Bulkey's father was the Rev. Peter Bulkeley, who was born in 1583 in England.
I realize that this is getting to sound a little like one of the more-boring sections of the Bible... So, the upshot of all of this is that President George Walker Bush in my 10th Cousin, 1 times removed and President George Herbert Walker Bush is my 9th Cousin, 2 times removed.
Also, through the same connection:
1) John Hancock is my third cousin, eight times removed.
2) Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden is my eighth cousin, five times removed.
Through other family relationships - though ones I'm less certian of than the one that I've outlined above:
1) Revolutionary War hero John Parker is my second cousin (eight times removed).
2) President Taft is my sixth cousin, four times removed.
3) So is President Garfield.
4) President Fillmore is my sixth cousin, five times removed.
I'm also related to two First Ladies:
1) Frances Folsom Cleveland.
2) Grace Coolidge.
Also of note, I seem to have some poetic relations:
1) Ralph Waldo Emerson is my fourth cousin, six times removed.
2) Emily Dickinson is my seventh cousin, four times removed.
3) T.S. Eliot is my ninth cousin, two times removed.
4) Jack London is my tenth cousin, three times removed.
In the technical field, I'm distantly related to Samuel Morse, Robert H. Goddard, and Ferdinand von Zepplin. That last part might explain some stuff.
Alas, no royal bloodlines - beyond the fact that the MacKinnons (the name was changed by my Great-Great Grandfather for reasons which are lost to history) claim descent from the historical King MacBeth (alas, not much like Shakespeare's - that I could really dig).
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 17, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
Friday, November 16, 2007
France to step up Afghan commitment
France is going to increase its military commitments in Afghanistan.
France has around 2000 troops in Afghanistan but most of them are located in safer areas of the country near Kabul. Canada, US and UK should ask other NATO partners to agree to a rotation system through out Afghanistan.
Posted by Winston on November 16, 2007 in International Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (74) | TrackBack
Mounties in ruin
Maclean's magazine's excellent new cover story, "What's really killing the Mounties," makes a strong case to support the proposition that the RCMP is in ruins
Although the story seems to have been written before the Dziekanski case blew up this week (and, moreover, makes no mention of the airport Tasering death), it nevertheless serves to place into a broader context the airport Mounties' questionable actions, and in so doing helps me, at least, understand how the four officers in question could be so bereft of professionalism and humanity.
As I noted in a response to Yoshi's entry, below, writer Paul Palango told CBC radio today that he considers the RCMP to be the worst-trained police force in the country, and that the worst of the worst are routinely stationed in airport detachments.
With all this in mind, it's a wonder the RCMP didn't Taser videographer Paul Pritchard as well.
Here is a link to a cover story, on possible corruption problems within the RCMP, that I wrote in June 2005 for the Western Standard .
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 16, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (42) | TrackBack
That's why they call it war...
And not... "Circle of Friends"
For all anyone knows, these guys are simply probing to see how close an actual bomber can get. Anybody who ignores the warnings and breaches a safety perimeter... they're dogmeat... and rightly so.
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 16, 2007 in Military | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Robert Dziekanski and the RCMP
Once again, of course, we see in the case of the RCMP and Robert Dziekanski an example of how, when taken out of context, a short video can have a galvanizing effect upon public opinion. I’m not a law enforcement officers – nor have I received law enforcement training. But I do have common sense and, unlike many people, I believe that I have the ability to separate logic from emotion.
Is it a tragedy that Robert Dziekanski died? Of course it is. Should we blame the RCMP members in question for what happened? I believe that we should not.
Watch the whole YouTube video – not the short bits that have been played elsewhere. In this case, a clip without context – and without careful viewing – is meaningless.
In this case, the facts are these: the RCMP was called to respond to a case of a man who appeared to be dangerously out of control. Again, watch the whole video. The man is behaving in an extremely erratic fashion, waving what appears to be a table around and throwing items – presumably other people’s property, I might add – to the ground.
Airport security is called to respond. They quickly conclude that the situation is beyond their pay grade and call for further help.
The RCMP members arrive at the scene. They are confronted by a violent and obviously out-of-control man. When confronted by them, he remains confrontational. According to the RCMP – and there seems to be no reason to disbelieve them on this point – he initially responded and the grabbed a stapler. That’s consistent with what is seen on the video.
At that point – in that split second – the police officers made the decision to use their Tasers. Some question that decision, which is their right. But I think that, frankly, it is simply beyond dispute that – at the point the RCMP arrived and confronted the man – that the use of force to subdue him was necessary.
Now, of course, some might ask why actual physical force was not used. And, within the context of this discussion, two words should obviously be called to mind: Rodney King. The police are, quite understandably, hesitant to use their batons to administer beatings to people – even abundantly necessary beatings – for the obvious reason that someone may be filming and that fifteen out-of-context seconds might then be endlessly replayed on the news. Of course, the risk to the members involved might also be added to that mix – but I personally have little doubt that the move towards the extensive use of Tasers, pepper spray, and so forth by law enforcement is directly related to the desire to avoid the highly unphotogenic results of the traditional beating.
And anyways, based upon his actions, there is little reason to believe that a single blow would have been enough to subdue this man. Based on what I’ve seen, the only way to subdue him through the route described would have been either to wrestle him to the ground and hold him there – something which could have been equally fatal and potentially injurious to the RCMP members – or to beat him unconscious. Or perhaps both.
I’m no shill for the police. Anyone who knows me knows that. I’m not blind. I know that those who enforce the laws are merely human. As it happens, I disagree with a great number of the laws of the land and, in general, feel that the police would be better off finding other things to do than much of what they do on a day-to-day basis (I’m talking, mostly, about various forms of annoying traffic enforcement here and the like).
But, at the same time I believe that it is vitally necessary for us to defend the guardians of society when they require it. These RCMP members responded appropriately to a split-second problem that confronted them. They did their jobs. To demand that they be punished now, to salve the public conscience, is frankly obscene.
No, what blame there is to be laid here must be apportioned elsewhere.
Perhaps some rests with Customs. Maybe some with the airport. Though, I might add, that those whose knees might jerk at the airport for not being able to instantly translate this fellow’s words ought to contemplate the cost of keeping translators for every conceivable language on staff.
While we’re at it, we might also ask some other hard questions. For example – I would be curious to know why, exactly, a forty year-old man who didn’t speak a single word of English was immigrating to Canada to live with his mother. While Mr. Dziekanski may well have been a kind and good man, he doesn’t exactly seem to fit the profile of someone who would be high up the list of people this country’s economy required. Perhaps it might be that some special circumstances underlay his arrival here. But I have no knowledge of any.
I would also add that, as hard as it is for some to hear, a great deal of the blame for what happened must fall upon Mr. Dziekanski. It is taking multicultural naiveté to the absolute extreme to argue that, simply because this man found himself in a foreign airport in a frustrating situation, he was thereby excused from all norms of civilized behaviour.
We have reason to be sad when someone dies in circumstances such as these. But we should not rush to judgement against the police nor should we take leave of our own senses in an orgy of compassion.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 16, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (185) | TrackBack
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Name game
The B.C. government announced today that it is naming the entrance to a new emergency ward and urgent care facility in Surrey in honour of the founder of the Sikh religion, Guru Nanak. The door will be called the Guru Nanak Emergency Services Front Entrance.
Interesting. I wonder if we can now expect similar naming practices for other new provincial facilities located in areas of political import and ethno-religious concentrations.
One project immediately spring to mind: the Golden Ears Bridge, now being built in the Fraser Valley, which is known as the Bible Belt of B.C. Might not the bridge now more appropriately be called the Jesus Christ Crossing?
Or how about the Canada Line, which is being built under Cambie Street and, thus, runs through the heart of Vancouver's small Jewish community. Would it be too much to ask that at least one of the stations be named after the Prophet Abraham?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 15, 2007 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
No Refugee Status for Deserters
As it should be. Are these men fleeing persecution? Are they afraid the government will burst into their homes and torture or summarily execute them? Will they be imprisoned for their beliefs? Is there war in their homeland? Will they be persecuted for their religious beliefs? No, they're Americans, who joined an all volunteer military. They aren't conscripts, like in Vietnam, they joined of their own free will. Like I say, if you join the military thinking you won't get sent into a conflict, you're a fool. Sounds harsh but it's true.
Posted by Leah Dowe on November 15, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
What Kind of War Are We Fighting, and Can We Win It?
What Kind of War Are We Fighting, and Can We Win It?
Thoughtful, provocative and intellectual answers from the Commentary Magazine editors and contributors. Highly Recommended!
Posted by Winston on November 15, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
L. Ron Paul's Supporters Raided by FBI
Apparently the FBI and Secret Service has raided the offices of a company which has been selling "Liberty Dollars" and, more recently, "Ron Paul Dollars" allegedly backed by (or minted in) Gold and Silver.
Why? Well, this company was minting coins and issuing paper notes claiming to be "dollars" and which, at least in the case of the coins, might easily have been taken by individuals for notes and coins issued by the Mint or the Federal Reserve.
Of course, some will claim that these actions are no different than a company issuing gift cards or the like - as has already been attempted. This is utter nonsense. Companies which issue gift cards and the like don't specifically market them as a replacement for the U.S. dollar.
Neither do they, for that matter, sell them at a discount on a dollar-for-dollar basis and encourage people to make money by putting them into circulation.
Perhaps even more hillariously, given the intended market for these things, it appears that the minted gold, silver, and bronze coins were being told at markups of between 25% and 400% on the actual value of the precious metals contained therein. The only thing worse than a Goldbug is a stupid Goldbug and, apparently, these people were that in droves.
Now, Ron Paul's smarter supporters will attempt to distance themselves from such a disreputable operation. They can try and do that, of course - but, frankly, it will be difficult to with fifty pages of teeth gnashing from L. Ron's supporters about the raid. Moreover, any claim that Ron Paul didn't approve of or support this ought to be viewed skeptically in view of the fact that these people have been marketing these coins using his name and likeness since July at the very earliest.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 15, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (205) | TrackBack
The Absurd Mulroney Affair
Can someone explain to me, other than the obvious animus felt by the media for Brian Mulroney, why it is necessary to hold an expensive and extended public inquiry to examine the almost certianly unverifiable (and, in any case, a decade and a half old) allegations of a man about to be deported from the country to face charges of fraud?
These accusations are absurd on their face. What kind of kickback gets paid out in multiple installments FIVE years later? The entire public interest in this - that is to say the only part of this affair which might concievably not be considered the private business of Brian Mulroney and the other individuals involved - is the claim that the money paid to Mulroney in 1993 and 1994 was, in some fashion, related to the Airbus sales completed in 1988. Frankly, the allegation seems absurd to me.
I fully understand why, with the Globe and Mail running the story above the fold practically every day (one might recall also their treatment of Conrad Black - this isn't a paper that is shy about abusing its front pages to attack those it sees as enemies) Brian Mulroney would want an inquiry to clear his name. But, frankly, I'm at a loss for why I ought to be on the hook to pay for a pointless judicial circus which, given what we know -and extensive prior investigations - is fairly likely to conclude that the whole matter is inconclusive.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 15, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Robert Dziekanski's last moments
In the weeks since Robert Dziekanski died after being Tasered by RCMP officers at the Vancouver International Airport, the press and the public have been asking many important questions about the incident. These include:
Why was the obviously distraught Pole, who spoke no English, allowed to flounder for hour after hour, growing everymore distraught, in areas which are closely monitored by authorities? And why didn't the Mounties simply tackle the weaponless Dziekanski or knock him on the head with a billyclub, instead of using a Taser, which has been linked to a dozen and a half deaths in Canada alone?
Now that the video of the encounter has been made public, another important question has been raised: did the knee of one of the Mounties, which was pressed against Dziekanski's neck, contribute to his death?
Finally, having just watched the video myself, I have one more question, one which has yet to be raised in the msm: why didn't at least one of the four officers surrounding Dziekanski's prone body attempt to administer some sort of basic CPR? The video shows that absolutely no attempt was made to resuscitate Dziekanski. I'm appalled.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 14, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (88) | TrackBack
Liberal and NDP In-and-Out Funding Games
Though overshadowed now by the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, the Liberals are still trying to convince Canadians that the Conservatives entered into some sort of shady money laundering scheme to evade election spending limits:
The Liberal Opposition has written to the Commissioner of Canada Elections requesting that he look into an additional nine campaigns that may have participated in the Conservatives’ apparent scheme to violate election spending limits, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc said today.
“The list of people implicated in this “in and out” scheme appears to be growing longer with each passing day,” said Mr. LeBlanc. “If Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not come clean about how deep this scandal goes in the Conservative Party, then we are calling on Elections Canada to get to the bottom of it.”
The Conservative Party is currently under investigation by Elections Canada for allegedly funnelling over $1.2 million in national advertising costs to regional candidates during the 2006 federal election in order to circumvent federal election spending limits.
The Conservatives claim that there is nothing illegal in what they were doing, and that critics in the Liberal Party are hypocrites, since they do the same thing.
Defensive bluster? Apparently not. In a post too long to summarize here, I go through emails, faxes, cancelled cheques, and return statements for six campaigns, three Liberal and three NDP, and show how the Liberals and the NDP repeatedly moved money from the headquarters to the riding associations so that the riding association could buy ads created by the party centre, how the ads are national in content except for a mention of one or more ridings at the end, and how party headquarters would remind the local ridings of the importance of filing this ad spend in the local candidates' returns in order to be eligible for the Elections Canada rebate.
In other words, everything that is being cast as near-criminal activities by the Conservatives is being done by the Liberals and the NDP.
Posted by Steve Janke on November 14, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
More on the Mulroney inquiry
The latest news from the PMO on the Mulroney inquiry: PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT ADVISOR
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today the appointment of Professor David Johnston, President of the University of Waterloo, as Independent Advisor to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, in order to make recommendations for an appropriate mandate for a public inquiry. This appointment is effective immediately.
Professor Johnston will provide his final report to the Prime Minister, in both official languages, by January 11, 2008.
“I am confident that Professor Johnston will carry out his duties with diligence and rigour”, said Prime Minister Harper. ”As an independent and impartial third party advisor, Professor Johnston will provide the government with the parameters for the public inquiry as well as any other course of action that may be required.”
An eminent lawyer with a distinguished academic career, Professor Johnston was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario from 1974 to 1979, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University from 1979 to 1994 and has served as President of the University of Waterloo since June 1999. Professor Johnston has served on numerous provincial and federal task forces and committees. Recognized for his considerable legal experience and expertise, Professor Johnston is ideally suited to conduct this review and provide independent advice to the government on these allegations and the way forward...
continue reading to see the full terms of reference...
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Whereas Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber has made various allegations with respect to his financial dealings with the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., that go beyond the private interests of the parties, including in an affidavit sworn on November 7, 2007; and
Whereas the allegations with respect to the Right Honourable Mulroney’s time as Prime Minister, although unproven and in part conflicting with other available information, raise questions respecting the integrity of an important office of the Government of Canada;
Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph 127.1(1)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, hereby appoints to the position of special adviser to the Prime Minister, David Johnston of St. Clements, Ontario, as Independent Advisor, to hold office during pleasure, for a term ending on January 11, 2008; and
(a) specifies the duties of the Independent Advisor as to conduct an independent review of those allegations respecting financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., and to submit to the Prime Minister by January 11, 2008
(i) make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a public inquiry into those allegations, including the specific issues that warrant examination, under the Inquiries Act,
(ii) state whether the Independent Advisor, in the course of his review, has determined that there is any prima facie evidence of criminal action; in that case, the report shall make recommendations as to how this determination should be dealt with, and what should be the appropriate mandate and timing for a formal public inquiry in those circumstances, and
(iii) make recommendations as to whether any additional course of action may be appropriate;
(b) authorizes the Independent Advisor to adopt procedures for the expedient and proper conduct of the independent review, including reviewing relevant records and documents and consulting as appropriate;
(c) fixes his remuneration as set out in the attached schedule, which per diem is within the range ($1,200 - $1,400); and
(d) authorizes the payment, in accordance with Treasury Board policies, of the following expenses incurred in the course of his duties:
(i) travel and living expenses while in travel status in Canada
(ii) expert staff, as required, and
(iii) any other reasonable expenses as necessary to conduct the independent review.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 14, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Harper opens door to a full Mulroney inquiry
Fresh news from the PMO:
Date: November 13, 2007
For release: Immediate
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER
OTTAWA
“On Friday I announced that I would be appointing an independent and impartial third party to review what course of actions may be appropriate given Mr. Schreiber’s new sworn allegations. These allegations remain unproven and untested in a court of law and arose in a private lawsuit. There are however now issues that go beyond the private interests of the parties in the lawsuit.Many have called for a public inquiry, including most recently Mr. Mulroney.
"Given the conflicting information and allegations (including what appears to be some conflicting information under oath) and the extended time period over which the events referred to in various documents and allegations surrounding this matter have occurred, I have decided to ask the third party to advise the government on appropriate terms of reference for a public inquiry. If in reviewing material, the independent party finds any prima facie evidence of criminal action he or she will identify this and advise how this should be handled and what impact, if any, it should have on the nature and timing of the inquiry.
"A public inquiry is a major step and one that should only be taken when it addresses Canadians’ interest, not those of the various parties, whether Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney or political parties. That is why it is important that we engage the necessary independent expertise and take the time to ensure that the terms of reference meet that test.”
Shotgunners comments?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 13, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (65) | TrackBack
All Negative, All the Time
It appears the Toronto Star editors can’t make up their mind on where they stand (much like their Liberal Party bosses), causing them to flip-flop on their positions. Or perhaps they just like to take the negative side on every issue? Maybe it’s a bit of both?
Last week, the Canadian Dollar was finishing a rapid rise in value relative to every major currency around the world. Any economist will tell you that there are both good and bad sides to this story.
To tell us all about the negative side, the Toronto Star issued an editorial entitled “Bank’s job to cool overheated dollar”.
After months of articles and opinion pieces telling how the rising loonie will cripple the Canadian economy, and calls for the Harper government and the Bank of Canada to do something to slow the rise of the dollar, the opinion of editors at The Star seems pretty clear–they think the dollar’s rise is bad news.
But wait! In the past 2 days, the Canadian dollar has given back some of those gains! Today, The Star gives us a different story.
That was the biggest one-day stumble in at least 36 years, since daily changes have been recorded.
So why the negative tone and pessimistic words? Given the past columns and editorials out of the pages of The Star, shouldn’t this be good news? Where is all the flowery positive language to tell us this is what they’ve been asking for? Shouldn’t the editors be reporting the drop as the best thing to happen to the Canadian economy since Paul Martin?
Of course not! The Toronto Star: Always Negative, All the Time.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on November 13, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack
Monday, November 12, 2007
Yes, Mary Woo, there can be just wars
C'mon people, now/smile on your brother,/ev'ry-body get together,/try to love one another right now.
Remember the above lyrics? They're from the song "Get Together," and represent the naive ideology that permeated the hippie movement of the 1960s. But while the sentiments embodied in the lyrics may have given the hippie generation a flimsy, self-serving rational for living in their free-love communes, they're hardly fit for the real world of domestic and international affairs.
Sadly, however, we still see some opinion leaders trapped in the utopian mindset reflected by the lyrics of "Get Together." One such person is my Tri-City News debating partner, Mary Woo Sims, who displays her "group hugs will save the world" mindset in our latest Face to Face debate.
Here's Mary Woo's take on the question of just wars, Afghanistan and Remembrance Day, and here's mine, which I believe is both more pragmatic and, ulimately, in more secure possession of the moral high ground.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 12, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (84) | TrackBack
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Lest We Forget
I remember Edward Albert Dowe, the great uncle I never knew. He was born in 1923 in Toronto Ontario, the youngest brother of my Grandad. Like my Grandad, Edward joined up to fight in the Second World War. Unlike my Grandad, Edward chose to join the RCAF and not the Army.
On February 20th 1944, Pilot Officer Edward Albert Dowe was killed in action in Germany, most likely when his plane was shot down. He is buried in Eindhoven General Cemetery.
Originally posted @ Ranting Owl
Posted by Leah Dowe on November 11, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack