The Shotgun Blog
« November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007 |Main| November 25, 2007 - December 1, 2007 »
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Canadian Socialism: Failing the Sick and Poor
Canadian Brand Socialism: Failing the Sick and Poor:
"Once a proud supporter of Canada’s social safety net, Heather Cook now wouldn’t mind seeing a little more free-market competition in her country. Maybe then she wouldn’t have to wait over a year to take her son to the doctor’s office."
Posted by Winston on November 24, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Australia Election: Howard Behind
The exit polls have got John Howard down. Now the results are coming in. We'll see.
For some reason, the words of Edward Gibbon come to mind:
Under a democratical government the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused, and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude.
According to those same exit polls, 8% of Australians voted with "Climate Change" as the top issue. Good God almighty. For our fate to be entrusted to people such as this.
I'm going to liveblog this, at least for a few hours. Watch after the jump.
The actual numbers look slightly better than the exits. I don't know. It's worth recalling that the Coalition won with 49% of the vote in 1998. (11:55PM PST).
Right now there are eighty-one of one hundred and fifty seats with projected winners, according to ABC. To date, they're recording roughtly a 4.5% swing to Labor. They've got five projected seats swinging towards Labor, to date. They need sixteen to win. If the present trend holds, the Liberals might still have a chance. On Sky (live video here) they say that if Labor doesn't sweep New South Wales, it might come down to Western Australia. (12:14AM PST)
91 of 150 sets called so far. Labor with a pick-up of seven. They need a gain of an extra nine at this point, in the remaining fifty-nine seats (or a switch of those called). I think that it's going to be pretty close from the look of it. (12:26 PST).
It looks like it's going to come down to Queensland and Western Australia. (12:34AM)
62-44, with forty-four seats left to call. Labor needs a pick-up of at least four (and they need to keep all of their own seats) in what's left to win. (12:44AM).
Howard seems to have lost his own seat. 108 seats called. Labor with a pick-up of eleven. They need a pick-up of five in the remaining forty-two, assuming everything else holds. It's interesting because, what's left - above all else Western Australia - seems to be an Australian Alberta. If it defies the national trend...
Looking at this, it might come down to one or two seats. I don't think this is going to be decided tonight. There's still postal votes, too. One wonders what happens in a tie. (12:54AM)
Well, I'm going to bed. It doesn't look too great. A very narrow Labor win. Two or three seats, would be my guess. Depending, I suppose, upon the post vote.
Though, Howard seems to be closing.
Damnit. Man, I hate peope. Good night. (1:15AM).
Posted by Yoshi on November 24, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (125) | TrackBack
Friday, November 23, 2007
Schreiber requests a few days to get his story straight . . .
. . . sources have told The Canadian Press that Mr. Schreiber has asked for two or three days to review documents he has tucked away at his Ottawa home.
Mr. Schreiber is currently in detention at a Toronto jail as he awaits possible extradition to Germany, where he faces bribery, fraud and tax-evasion charges.
Mr. Schreiber's lawyer Edward Greenspan has also requested information on the hearings, said Liberal MP Paul Szabo, chairman of the ethics committee.
“I did get a faxed letter from Mr. Greenspan asking a couple of questions,” he said.
Granting Mr. Schreiber time to review his papers is not outside the realm of possibilities, said Mr. Szabo.
“That's not an unreasonable request that he have the time,” he said.
--Canadian Press, at the Globe and Mail's website
Lawyer Steven Skurka just observed on "Mike Duffy Live" that we do not have a tradition in Canada of allowing witnesses to dictate the terms of their testimony. (Replay at 8:00 Eastern Time)
Posted by joantintor on November 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Thursday, November 22, 2007
If this is a priority for the Dion liberals...
I'd hate to see the stuff at the bottom of their list.
-- OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has written to the governor of Montana asking him to commute the death sentence of a convicted murderer from Canada.
*
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 22, 2007 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (50) | TrackBack
Afghan Betrayal?
Afghanistan a thorn in Canada's side on Iran vote:
"Afghanistan effectively snubbed Canada in United Nations votes affecting a Canadian-led censure of Iran's human rights record."
Should we be surprised?
Posted by Winston on November 22, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
My favourite socialist
I disagree with most things Ujjal Dosanjh has to say. The former NDP premier of British Columbia, now Liberal critic for Public Safety, is on the far-left side of his party.
But every time I see Dosanjh, a Sikh himself, speak up against Sikh extremism, as he did again this week, I am deeply impressed. Grateful, actually. In 1985, he was nearly beaten to death for his opposition to Sikh violence, but continues to speak out, despite ongoing threats against him. Too many other politicians, especially non-Sikhs, turn a blind eye to this extremism in their hunt for votes. Here's Terry Milewski's outstanding report on the subject, perhaps the bravest act by a Canadian journalist this year.
I wish that more of Canada's Muslim leaders, including Muslim MPs, would take a similarly courageous stand against violent and extremist segments of their community. As Dosanjh shows, a moderate Sikh can be politically successful in Canada.
Posted by Ezra Levant on November 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Equalization on Steroids!
Canadian big city mayors like David Miller and Hazel McCallion are united in their cries to grab a piece of the federal GST. They see an opportunity to receive more cash for local needs, while not having to personally endure the political fallout from raising local taxes or trimming their wasteful spending.
For now, the mayors appear united in solidarity in their quest for more cash, trying to sound like crusaders standing up for local residents. They’re motivated by the greed to get more money, and by the desire to look like local heroes standing up for their city, going into battle with those ‘evil Conservatives’ in Ottawa. Unfortunately, it’s those same motives that will create a very different picture if the cities are successful in taking a share of the federal GST.
Now let’s just suppose for a moment that the federal government eventually agreed to offer the 1% share that mayors are asking for. How will that money be allocated to the cities? There are perhaps as many different ideas for allocation methods, as there are Canadian cities to receive the cash.
Do you recall the drama of our 13 Premiers, a group who can’t seem to agree on what to have for lunch, bickering like little children over Provincial equalization formulas? The arguments have gone on for decades. The players have changed over the years, but through it all, nobody is ever happy, and they’re all very vocal about it.
Well… You ain’t heard nothin’ yet, folks!
Once the money has been set aside for the cities, the mayoral gloves will come off. Suddenly, it will be each city mayor trying to get the most for themselves.
Mayors of the larger cities like Toronto and Vancouver will go it alone against Ottawa. But there will be strategic alliances formed. Smaller towns and cities will realize they need to band together to boost their bargaining power to get their messages heard. However, those bargaining alliances certainly won’t prevent fighting from within over the allocation between the local towns.
One faction will say the money should be allocated based on population. Another will argue for a share of the GST collected from commerce within the city. Another will say the money should be distributed based on need and the so-called ‘infrastructure deficit’. Toronto may even argue that they’re ‘special’, and should therefore receive an additional share because of what they do for Canada!
Large cities may argue that rural areas don’t need a share because they don’t have much infrastructure to finance. Rural areas will argue they need the money more than cities, because they don’t have a large a population base to pay for the services they already provide.
It doesn’t matter what system is proposed, the complaints will be loud and constant. If you thought provincial equalization was an ugly mess with only 13 bickering children, just imagine what municipal equalization discussions can do. I get a headache just thinking about it, and so will any federal finance minister who attempts it!
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on November 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (39) | TrackBack
Iranian regime is mad at Canada
A Canadian led UN panel on human rights condemned the Islamic Republic of Iran for its terrible rights records. And the crazy mullahs are very mad at Canada and I was told that the Islamic regime has put up an aggressive anti-Canadian propaganda campaign inside of Iran. I think Canadian government must better look out and I am hoping that Iranian regime doesn't inflict any serious harm upon the Canadian troops stationed in Afghanistan
Official Statement by the Canadian FM
Posted by Winston on November 21, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack
MSM Can't Hide It
Biased BBC News can't hide the good news from Iraq any more:
"An estimated 1,000 people a day are returning across Iraq's borders having previously moving abroad to escape the violence, Iraqi authorities say."
Iraq is a better place now thanks to the blood and sweat shed by the brave American soldiers. This is good news and the defeatists of the world can't spin or hide the facts now.
Posted by Winston on November 21, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
A Pixelated Lynching
The absurdity of much of the media and the general public’s response to the Robert Dziekanski affair defines reasoned explanation. One Facebook group calling for action to be taken against the RCMP members involved in the death has close to eight thousand members. The incident – more than a month old now –has been on the front page of virtually every paper every single day since the video of the incident was released. On Saturday, the National Post devoted fully ten – count them, ten – pages of coverage to it. Rather, I should say, at least ten. I stopped counting at that point. For all I know, there could have been a whole supplemental section devoted to the matter. The Globe and Mail went so far as to describe the death as an “execution” - a judgement which has been echoed in print and pixels across the land. Has everyone lost their minds?
It is often repeated that this death raises “troubling questions.” And so it does. However, I put it to you that the questions which should be asked are not those which are being asked – or are those which are likely to be asked by any wastefully expensive public inquiry into the matter.
An inquiry seems likely to focus upon the Taser itself and, more broadly, to lambast the RCMP for its glaring failure to greet a violently out-of-control man who they were summoned to subdue with milk and cookies. It appears appalling possible to me that the RCMP members involved might well, either by their superiors or by senior politicians, be thrown under the bus to satisfy public bloodlust on some pathetic technicality.
That’s a serious possibility here. It’s worth recalling, to pick one example, that when Sergeant Ken Deane, responding to a violent Indian protest at Ipperwash in Ontario, shot and killed a man who he believed to be carrying a rifle – a necessary and entirely defensible act – his superiors and the government of Ontario shamefully allowed him to be tried and convicted for criminal negligence causing death. Similarly, we should also remember that in the case of Rodney King – another case where video distorted the public mind – the officers involved were not only disgracefully put on trial for subduing a violent criminal who was high on drugs but then, when a jury correctly acquitted them, were further victimized by a vindictive Federal prosecution whose sole purpose was to satiate the appetites of the unwashed and illiterate masses.
It’s easy to see how these events will play out. The force members involved are marked. The only way to satisfy public anger will be to find something to stick against them. It won’t be murder or manslaughter. Instead, someone will find some minor charge to throw at them or some of them in order to satisfy the public. And that’s a travesty.
So far as the RCMP members are concerned, what happened here?
We know the sequence of events. This man was, for whatever reason, obviously unstable and violently out of control. Airport security declined to deal with him an instead the RCMP were summoned to the scene. When the RCMP arrived, their job wasn’t to attempt to talk sense into a deranged man who they knew not to speak English. Their job was to subdue him. When he resisted their lawful efforts to do so and reached for a weapon – a blunt object which, if used to strike could well have killed or injured one of the force members involved – they used what force they had at hand to subdue him and end the threat he posed. I fail to see what exactly they are supposed to have done wrong here.
The police aren’t social workers. They aren’t there to talk out-of-control people into being nice. When the police are called and a person is violently out of control, it is the job of the police to bring that person under control. Nothing more and nothing less. They did that job and, unfortunately, Mr. Dziekanski died as a result. Yes, it’s sad that a human life was lost – but the blame for that rests upon the person whose violent and dangerous actions forced the RCMP to use force against him. If I go running through the streets with a replica rifle shouting threats at the general public, the RCMP would shoot me – and rightly so. Their job is to, within a split second, respond to threats – not to wait until harm comes to themselves or others and then act.
The RCMP members involved in this incident were doing their jobs. They were defending the public. I don’t believe they deserve to be condemned for that. I will have no part in an ill-informed pixelated lynching of the sort we now see taking place before us.
Yet still, some troubling questions do linger – and ought to be addressed.
Primarily: why was someone with the background and skills of Mr. Dziekanski being allowed into Canada in the first place? How exactly did we come to have an immigration policy wherein we would allow an unemployed (and quite possibly close to unemployable) man in his early forties – a man who didn’t speak a word of English and had a criminal record – come to Canada to live with his sixty-something mother? That’s an outrage worth holding an inquiry over. No wonder my taxes are so high.
Second: I, for one, would like to know what kind of airport security we have in place if this deranged man was allowed to roam about for eight hours unnoticed and unmolested by police or security? The last time I came across the border I was harassed and aggressively bothered by the border services agency over my iPhone. How did a man who didn’t speak a word of English and was apparently in a highly agitated state for some period of time manage to clear customs and then fail to attract the attention of anyone in a position of authority for such a prolonged period of time?
Third: is the horrible abuse suffered by the RCMP members involved – and the police as a whole –as a result of inflammatory media coverage of this incident likely to make the police less aggressive and therefore less able to defend myself and the rest of the general public?
Those are some questions worth asking – but which, regrettably, will be ignored and swept aside in the rush to find someone for the public to blame.
Posted by Yoshi on November 20, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (151) | TrackBack
Monday, November 19, 2007
Canada's Beijing diplomats do their best State Department impersonation
Those of us who live and vote south of the 49th parallel are quite familiar with our diplomats deliberately undermining the policies of the president elected by the American people. It appears such betrayal is alive and well north of the border, too (read more here).
Posted by D.J. McGuire on November 19, 2007 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Clobberin' time
“Why Sangisar?”, Major Moffet said. “It was a node for the Taliban."
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 19, 2007 in Military | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Hungry for solutions
We're a long way from solving the world-hunger problem, and even the most perceptive analyst will have difficulty providing solutions in a 375-word column.
Neverthess, my regular debating partner, Mary Woo Sims, and I tackled the world-hunger issue in our latest Face to Face column in the Tri-City News. Mary Woo's take on the issue seems to centre on her belief that some sort of massive pan-governmental mobilization needs to take place to solve the problem. My analysis, on the other hand, sees government policy as the problem (from starvation caused by collectivism to trade barriers enacted by protectionist leaders).
Significantly, though, neither of us advances the deep-green, Malthusian idea that the world is over-populated and is incapable of producing enough food for all humanity.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 19, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (182) | TrackBack
Jean Landry, the In-and-Out Scandal, and Payback Time
The In-and-Out Scandal that was the focus of Liberal Party hysterics prior to the Karlheinz Schreiber nonsense basically had the Liberals claiming that the Conservatives had deliberately committed violations of the Elections Canada Act with regards to spending limits. The Conservatives did this by transfering money from the federal party to the local riding associations. The riding association would use that money to buy an ad from the party (the money goes in and the money goes out), the ad being essentially a national ad with the name of the local MP attached to the end. The ad spend was declared on the candidate's local return to Elections Canada, where a large portion of that cost is rebated.
Elections Canada called foul, saying the ads don't constitute "local" advertising.
I've already detailed how this seems to be a special rule for the Conservatives, since Liberal and NDP ad spends were conducted exactly in this way.
But one element to the story is the role of angry Conservative candidates. Jean Landry in particular is a Conservative candidate who did not win in 2006. Elections Canada later called Landry to inquire about the ad spend. Landry angrily talked about how he did not know what was going on, how the money just went in and out, and so forth. The media has reported that it was his reaction that got Elections Canada interested in all this.
Indeed, the press also reports the Landry has ceased to be a member of the Conservative Party and that he is willing to testify against the Conservatives.
Here's what is not being reported in the press. Despite the implication, Landry did not quit the Conservatives in disgust over questionable ad practises. That makes for a great sideline to the main story, but in fact, Landry fell victim to a party rule that says that a candidate who runs twice and loses twice can't run again (Landry also ran in the 2004 election and lost then too). Frustrated, Landry quits the party (rumour is that he is joining the Green Party, having already run in elections for the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives, and as an independent, in addition to his two election attempts for the Conservative Party). Elections Canada calls and Landry vents loudly and angrily. But in a letter to the Conservatives in which Landry asks for the documentation requested by Elections Canada, he mentions that he entered into the ad campaign "in good faith", suggesting that he knew what was going on and how it was organized, and that he certainly didn't have any misgivings at the time.
How much of the In-and-Out Scandal is really the by-product of a frustrated and angry perennial election candidate dishing out payback after being told that if he wants to continue with his hobby of running in elections, he would have to do it with a different party?
And shouldn't we know a bit about the potential motivations of the accusers?
You can read the letter (in French) and my translation of it, as well as some of the history of Jean Landry, at Angry in the Great White North. Hey, maybe you'll be able to read it in the main stream media too...eventually.
Posted by Steve Janke on November 19, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack