The Shotgun Blog
« November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007 |Main| December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007 »
Saturday, December 01, 2007
The State of Play (2008 Thoughts)
Now it gets interesting. Rasmussen shows Huckabee moving to second place nationally.
If there really is a Rudy-Huck alliance then, looking at the raw numbers, this thing is damned near over.
As I see it, the way things go now:
Either Huckabee wins Iowa, or Romney narrowly does. Giuliani performs better than expected. Thompson fades.
Then we get to New Hampshire... McCain picked up the Union Leader endorsement today (or will tomorrow).
Romney must win New Hampshire - and by a lot. Being the former Governor of a neighbouring state. If someone else wins, he's probably done for.
And then... Well, looking at it, the scenarios we're left with are as follows:
1) Divided results up until February 5th, when Giuliani takes it.
2) Romney wins New Hampshire and picks up momentum.
3) McCain wins New Hampshire, then either wins or performs well in Michigan, then goes into South Carolina.
Frankly, I don't see a path to the nomination for Fred Thompson at this point, unless, of course, events overtake him. In particular, one possible event which would change the landscape would be if Rush Limbaugh decided to actually endorse him, a move which doesn't seem to be out of the question. But, it's a low-probability scenario.
And all of this, of course, assumes that more personal stories don't explode over Giuliani.
On the Democratic side, things are even more interesting.
Obama is closing. He has as much money as Clinton, more or less - and the ability to raise more.
I think that Iowa is damned-near a must-win for Hillary. She's like that old story about the ad company trying to sell Dog food.
The executives all sit in the room for hours, discussing the ads, the placement on shelves - but everything is perfect. Finally, one lonley secretary points out that the problem is that, "the Dogs don't like it."
That's Hillary's problem. She's got the money. She has the background. She has the machine. But the dogs don't like it. That is to say, I've met - and I'm including on the internet here - only a handful of people who actually like her and want her to be President. Her campaign is built upon inevitability and, especially in the case of Democratic primaries, inevtiability is meaningless - the Democrats like to eat their own.
If I was going to call it now, I'd say that the tickets:
Giuliani-Huckabee for the Republicans.
And...
Obama-Bredesen for the Democrats.
The latter is an entirely random guess, I should add - but it makes sense. Phil Bredesen is the moderate Governor of Tenneseee, with strong managerial experience (the CEO of a major health company no less).
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on December 1, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
And Then They Came for Mark Steyn…
Freedom is under attack in this country by a powerful alliance between human rights bureaucrats and a small group of self-appointed censors. As has happened so often in the past, laws which were written with a select purpose – in this case the protection of minorities and others from actual violence or incitement to violence – are being abused to an end which we were explicitly assured would never arrive. Human rights acts, commissions, and so forth – we were told – would never suppress genuine free expression or to declare certain thoughts illegal: and yet that is exactly what they are doing in this country.
Today brings the news that Maclean’s magazine, as thoroughly respectable and establishment a Canadian institution as one can find, is going to be hauled before the BC Human Rights Tribunal for printing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book “American Alone.” The Canadian Islamic Congress claims that Steyn’s words were, “flagrantly Islamophobic” and that it, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”
Now, people complain about things all the time. As a general rule, there’s a whole class of professional whiners out there. The problem here is that they might win.
There are two problems here.
The first is the law itself – whose language is sufficiently broad to make practically anything negative written about anything to potentially infringe. If I write that that someone is a moron – regardless of the subjective truth of that statement (that is to say whether I believe it to be true and whether a reasonable person could believe that to be true) – then that could automatically infringe regardless of truth. Similarly, if I write that someone or something is a threat that could also, by hurting someone’s feelings, transgress against the law even if that someone or something actually is a threat.
The second is that the people who interpret these laws are, to put in as non-infringing a fashion as possible, morons. The law was ostensibly written to be adjudicated by reasonable and unbiased people, a description which is as far from fitting for most “human rights” bureaucrats as describing Liberace as “mildly flamboyant.”
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Commission – or perhaps some other body that someone else has complained to – will go out and brand Mark Steyn’s book as “hate propaganda” or whatever other menacing term they might devise. No reasonable person would think it but, as I have stated, we are not dealing with reasonable people.
For evidence of this, we need look no further than the case of Stephen Boissoin, which was decided yesterday in Alberta. Boissoin wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate in 2002 in which he took issue with homosexuality in strong terms. For the most part I disagree with Mr. Boissoin’s position, but he expressed himself coherently and without calling for violence or anything else against gays – after all the newspaper selected it for publication. Yet, simply because he said things which gay advocates disagreed with, his letter has now been formally branded as “hate literature” and, therefore, illegal.
How long shall it be before some government bureaucrat orders me to dispose of my copy of “America Alone” – or my signed copy of one of Steyn’s anthologies? No one can say for certain. But can anyone say that such a day will not come in this country?
The larger danger here – and we see it in the Boissoin case – is that these legal actions will have a chilling effect on speech. The Boissoin case – over a letter to the editor in a local newspaper – dragged on for five whole years. That’s five years of expenses and anxiety. Less-brave people will opt simply to remain silent about controversial issues, rather than to risk the costs of protracted Star Chamber litigation.
These are not the only examples that exist. All Canadian lovers of freedom will know the sad chronology of oppression. The Toronto printer fined for refusing to make flyers for a gay group. The Saskatchewan man found guilty of quoting the Bible in a newspaper. The British Columbian teacher stripped of his qualifications for writing letters to politicians and newspapers. Brave men all – but courage has become a rare commodity in this country. Most of us don’t wish to be exposed to years of inaccurate ridicule in newspapers. Most of us don’t want to risk what we own and what we’ve earned to the capricious whims of kangaroo courts.
The Western Standard’s brave act of printing those Danish Cartoons –an international news story – cost them tens of thousands (and perhaps more) of dollars and helped to hasten the demise of the print edition.
But, if we fail to act, how long will it be before freedom is lost? It will not require that our opinions even be formally deemed illegal – no act of Parliament will have to be passed to enumerate a series of thought crimes. Instead, vexatious litigation will wear away the will of many. Soon, magazines won’t even try and print cover stories about Islam. Editors will throw away letters about homosexuality which don’t endorse the practice and excoriate Christianity. Indeed, much of this is already occurring. This entirely-legal form of harassment is enough to drive ideas – even popular ideas – to the sidelines of the forum.
Perhaps the time has come to act. To draw a line in the sand. I am not one for rallies. I am not one for shouting in public. I think that it’s uncouth, rough and, well, liberal. But, really, we seem to be running out of options.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on December 1, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (99) | TrackBack
Climate Change: The Truth
Once the left gets confident, they tend to let the mask slip. Nowhere is this clearer than in this little piece in the Guardian by Nicholas Stern.
His prescription for the West - pay, pay, and then pay again. Pay by taking an economic hit and bearing the lion's share of reductions. Pay for poor nations to reduce their emissions. Then pay again, to aid the Third World.
That's the real scheme here. That's the fundamental assumption of Kyoto and everything else.
Interestingly, Stern also admits - albiet without thinking through the implications - something which I've touched on in the past.
"Our starting point," he writes, "is deeply inequitable with poor countries certain to be hit earliest and hardest by climate change."
Indeed, that's the fundamental truth here. Even if the predictions of the climate fear-mongers turn out to be the truth, the other truth is that the facts of life in this planet mean that not only will Global Warming barely effect most of us in the upper reaches of the Northern Hemisphere but, in a lot of cases, it would be actually be a positive thing.
I point you to this facinating article from the Atlantic Monthly earlier this year. "Global Warming - Who Loses and Who Wins?" This is a vital point. There are few games where everyone loses. If the Earth gets a few degrees warmer over the next century, who wins?
The likely answer - The West wins. Indeed, a climate shift might well prove to be the West's salvation, for all of its folly. For God's sake, people, I live in British Columbia - an area roughtly the size of the whole West Coast of the United States - which has fewer than five million people living in it because the climate of large regions of the province is fairly immoderate.
Come on people - we're living in Canada here. Is there any Earthly reason why the idea of the world getting slightly warmer ought to concern us? At least three-fourths of the country is frozen right now.
A moderate warming could make all sorts of land open to development and exploitation. It would send crop yields in various areas through the roof.
This is an important point to remember in this climate debate because, in essence, we are being asked to actively harm ourselves to stop something which might not even exist and which, if it actually does come to pass, will probably be to our benefit.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on December 1, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (121) | TrackBack
Friday, November 30, 2007
Time To Bomb Iran
MacLeans magazine discusses the possibility of bombing the Iranian regime's nuclear facilities.
Posted by Winston on November 30, 2007 in Current Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Iran's Taliban Connection
German deputy interior minister believes that the Iranian regime's talking to Taliban. And Taliban is the prime force that is responsible for killing coalition (mostly Canadian) soldiers in southern Afghanistan:
"I believe that the Iranians have an influence on the situation in Afghanistan, above all in the border regions," he said."
That's the same regime that is currently killing American, Canadian and other coalition troops in Iraq & Afghanistan and yet western countries think they could negotiate with the mullahs over almost any thing.
"Hanning said he believed the Iranians were smuggling weapons into Afghanistan, where some 3,000 German soldiers are deployed in NATO peacekeeping operations to help rebuild the country and fend off an increasingly tough Taliban insurgency."
When will the western world realize the grave danger posed by this current regime in Tehran? Tomorrow will be late...
Posted by Winston on November 29, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack
British Teacher Gets 15 Days
Why? Because her class named a teddy bear Mohammad.
From Reuters:
A British teacher accused of insulting Muslims after her class called a teddy bear Mohammad was found guilty and jailed for 15 days, a defence lawyer said on Thursday.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, was ordered to be deported after she had completed her sentence.
"She was found guilty of insulting religion and the sentence is 15 days (in jail) and deportation," defence lawyer Ali Ajib said after the trial in a Khartoum courtroom, which lasted less than a day.
In London, the British Foreign Office said it was "extremely disappointed" with the verdict. "The Sudanese ambassador will be called in this evening to explain this decision," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said.
Robert Boulos, head of Unity high school where Gibbons worked, said: "We are happy with the verdict. It is fair. There were a lot of political pressures and attention."
He added: "We will be very sad to lose her."
Asked what he thought of the verdict, the head of Gibbons's defence team, Kamal al-Jazouli, said: "It was not bad."
Gibbons was charged on Wednesday with insulting Islam, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs because of the toy's name. Under Sudan's penal code, she could have faced 40 lashes, a fine, or up to one year in jail.
Posted by Leah Dowe on November 29, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBack
SCHREIBER SHOCKER
Steffi and the Fiberals... to absolutely no one's surprise... get played... yet again .
*
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 29, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Why is a Member of Hillary's Campaign Asking Questions at the GOP Debate?
So, the fellow who just asked the Republican candidates about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, retired Brigader General Keith Kerr, is a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Presidency.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 28, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack
GOP/YouTube Debate Liveblog
I'll be commenting on the CNN GOP/YouTube Debate tonight, so far as I have anything to say.
More after the jump.
Immigration has, so far, seemingly dominated the debate. This format is terrible.
Seriously, we have - unlike in the Democratic debate - some intelligent and thoughtful people here. If you put McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and - I suppose - Huckabee into the room and let them talk for more than thirty seconds at a time...
Congressman Ron Paul? Not quite but, I suspect, close in more ways than the most obvious.
Man, I'm sick of this lunatic. (5:36PM)
You know, the problem I have with Mitt Romney is that, listening to him, I just don't really believe him. He's just kind of... Fake. He says words I agree with, but I just don't believe him (5:37PM).
Emily Ekins - a fairly cute conservative? (5:38PM)
I hate Ron Paul and his supporters. I despise them with every fibre of my being. They are the scum of the Earth.
And I love John McCain. Man, I like that guy. He just got my support. (5:42PM)
Mitt Romney's answer to the farm subsidy question is probably the stupidest of the night. Really - they need farm subsidies in order to ensure that farm production remains up? Farm subsidies, in general, keep production down and prices up. Mitt Romney is smart enough to know that.
Or, I should say - it's the most dishonest of the night. (5:48PM)
That Tancredo video was terrible. Was it made with Windows Movie Maker? (5:50PM)
Heh. Thompson decided to let is loose. To finally take it to Huckabee and Romney, the two biggest fakes in this race. (5:53PM).
Romney's abortion position is absurd. "I was fifty-something when I spontaneously became pro-life at the exact same time I decided to run for President. It was an amazing coincidence." Come on.
Huckabee's response - meh. If he wins Iowa, his fiscal record will sink him. Most Republicans aren't stupid enough to nominate a fiscal liberal who's a cipher on foreign policy just because he can quote the Bible real pretty. (5:55PM)
re: Tyler Overman - shut up and go away.
I'd add further that Mike Huckabe''s description of enacting the death penalty as the hardest thing that he ever had to do shows that he's morally unfit to be President. (6:15PM)
That Romney answer on the Bible was terrible. If I were Huckabee, I'd pull it and run it in an ad. (6:18PM).
Yasmin? In a headscarf? Screw off. I wonder if they had Hans from Dusseldorf asking questions in 1944 about how the war against Hitlerism had offendd the German people. And, seriously. She, how shall I say, doesn't look like a born Moslem.
Alas, there's no one on the stage who will tell the whole truth about what it's going to take to defeat the Islamists. (6:27PM)
Alas, here's the one thing which keeps me from being 110% in support of McCain. There's no measure against these enemies which is too severe and ought to be refrained from. If it takes torture, so be it. If we need a Hiroshima to bring these people down, Deus lo volt. (6:29PM)
McCain speaks eloquently. But he can't be unbiased on this issue, so I don't blame him.
In any case, there are a number of issues so far as torture is concerned - it's not just a matter of whether or not it gets effective information, thre's also the fact that it serves, how shall we say, as a psychological weapon against the enemy, even when it can't be used to extract anything useful (6:34PM)
Ron Paul looks like he's going to have a stroke, ranting and raving. Oh, for a just God.
I wish that all of the candidates would instruct their supporters to simply drown out Ron Paul with a sea of boos all the time. I hate that man and all of the people who support him so much. (6:37PM)
Mitt Romney: I was wrong about everything before, and I'll ask other people what to think later. (6:50PM)
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 28, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Allies at work
A very interesting story for the military enthusiasts and defense observers:
"Canadian CF - 18 fighter jets helped plug a hole in U.S. air defences for almost two weeks this month after American jets were grounded as part of a crash investigation."
Posted by Winston on November 28, 2007 in Current Affairs, Military | Permalink | Comments (63) | TrackBack
Political Correctness Has Replaced Common Sense
What is happening to this country? Insane decisions can be found everywhere, completely void of any common sense, and all in the name of political correctness.
Sorrill, an ordained United Church minister, has personalized licence plates that read “REV JO.” But after almost 20 years, the Ministry of Transportation is revoking them over fears they encourage dangerous driving.
“I am more than upset. I am enraged,” says the Whitby resident, who received a letter from the ministry Monday ordering her to turn the plates in. “This is political correctness to the extreme.”
Her displeasure was doubled when a ministry employee later told her on the phone that her revised idea for a plate, REVRNDJO, was also unsuitable, saying the ministry wanted to avoid any sign of bias toward Christianity over other religions.
Read the rest of the article here.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on November 28, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack
The French Intifada: A Whiff of Grapeshot
Back in 2005, during the last wave of rioting in France, I predicted that although those disorders would eventually subside that without further action on the part of the government of France they would simply mark the beginning of a clear process of violence followed by concession followed by violence followed by either civil war or surrender. Those who fail to see the Jihadist element in all of this are blind. It might well be that these “Youths”, as the media insist upon calling them, are motivated by economic conditions and by the general liking of many young for mayhem. But it is equally clear that in France today, as we saw in Israel twenty years ago, there has been a clear and progressive escalation of both rhetoric and violence – a movement which, if allowed to proceed unchecked, can only lead to ultimate disaster.
Two years ago (using the pretext, as they are today, of the timely death of a pair of young criminals) the Franco-Islamic street rose in scenes reminiscent of the first stages of the Palestinian intifada nearly two decades before. Rock throwing. Vandalism. The occasional Molotov cocktail. Burned-out cars.
How did the authorities respond to this? As befits cowards, they took their knees and degraded themselves before the criminals. They offered jobs, money, aid – everything. Violence, both its actuality and the threat of greater violence, brought rewards to the budding Jihadists of Paris. Is it any surprise then that, on a similarly flimsy pretext, the violence should erupt anew?
Of course, I am heartless to suggest that the deaths of the two joy-riding criminals which sparked this (in addition to those sparks which set off the last conflagration) are a welcome event. You bleed for those people if you want – but facts are facts and criminals are criminals. Some will blame the French police for failing to aid the young scum when they struck them with their car – but to do so fails to consider the obvious fact that the officers in question were operating within what has become, in effect, a hostile state within the heart of France – and would almost certainly have been attacked and quite possibly killed had they left their car.
Now, though, it seems to be much worse than before. They’re shooting at the police this time. They’re targeting them for death. And how does the French political class respond to this outrage? The Socialists attack their own government, for failing to sufficiently prostrate themselves before the criminal element. What passes for the French “right” cowers and works hard not to offend anyone.
What would General Bonaparte think of what has become of his country?
The course of events is blazingly clear. The last time these riots came, Moslems made up roughly 10% of the French population or six million of sixty. With a low French birthrate, a high Moslem one, and continued immigration – both legal and illegal – who knows what it is now. Perhaps six and a half. Perhaps seven. And what shall it be in ten or twenty years when I, dear reader, am in early middle age and you, however old you are, are probably still here? The crisis is already here – but it is Armageddon that is drawing near.
I mentioned earlier that they are now shooting at the police. At least four police officers have actually been shot. Perhaps more by the time you read this. Over one hundred have been injured. And yet the riots go on. Troops have not been sent in to quell them. The police have not returned fire, even in self-defense.
I am certain that some – perhaps those Canadians so exercised about the recent Taser-related death of a Polish man – will be quick to praise the French police as a model of restraint. But I damn their leaders – those who send men to be injured and deny them the means of self-protection – as cowards. The know that the evil force in their midst must be resisted, but they lack the courage to do so. The enervated state of the French state precludes the use of any strong or effective measure against what, in effect, is a civic revolt.
What do you get when you have?:
1) An Islamic population which is growing, both in real terms and as a percentage of the population, each year.
2) Riots which are growing progressively more violent and beginning to take on the character of a guerrilla war.
3) A civic establishment too exhausted and too cowardly to confront the threat?
Disaster is the answer.
I cannot, at the present time, project the exact course of events. But once we have established the underlying course, we can make some reasonable assumptions.
As the violence increases – and as the French state is progressively paralyzed by this and other factors – those with talent or money will flee abroad. In my own youth, I knew a large number of white South African émigrés. In ten or twenty years, children will be growing up alongside those of many recent Western European immigrants.
Though the French state may be passive and weak in the face of this danger, the same cannot be said for all of the people of France. Some – some motivated by hatred, some by love of their country, some by some mix of each – will not yield France to their opponents. They will fight back with whatever weapons and by whatever means they can.
Neither will all elements of the French establishment yield. There is a reason why this is already the Fifth Republic. Little about French government in the last two centuries has been permanent. Perhaps, given the chance, some General will decide to make the transition from Fifth Republic to Third Empire.
Civil War? Islamic conquest? Military coup? We cannot say now what is in the future of France if events are allowed to proceed unchecked. We can only say that it will be evil that befalls that great nation if it fails to act swiftly.
Rioters do not understand words. They will respond to concessions – appeasement – with only future riots. In any case, the point for negotiations and compromise has long since passed – these rioters are irreconcilable with the West. The only thing that will wake them up is a whiff of grapeshot.
And, after that? Well, we know the answer. The world is not a single big happy place. Everyone cannot live together in peace and harmony. The West’s choice to discard integration in favour of multiculturalism must now be acknowledged for the utter disaster that it is. Those who fail to adopt Western –be they French, English, American, Canadian, Australian – norms ought to be repatriated. Voluntarily if possible – otherwise otherwise.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 28, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Another Iran Whitewash
New Iranian probe into Kazemi’s death:
"Iran’s supreme court has ordered a new investigation into the 2003 death of Iranian-Canadian photographer Zahra Kazemi, but her son and his lawyer are greeting the news with skepticism."
Who are the mullahs going to fool?
Posted by Winston on November 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
In other CBC news...
*
Casey and Finnegan have been spotted visiting a prominent Bay St. law firm.
*
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 27, 2007 in Media | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
French Intifada
Armed "youths" are waging Intifada and Jihad in the streets of Paris, France:
"More than 80 police officers were injured in pitched battles with youths - some armed with hunting rifles - as housing estates around Paris erupted into violence for a second night running."
Posted by Winston on November 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (91) | TrackBack
Monday, November 26, 2007
Judicial Arrogance: Gomery Whines about Mandatory Minimums
The man who Paul Martin hand-picked to bring down his own government, Justice John Gomery, has chosen to become the voice of the Judiciary in Canada against PM Stephen Harper's new crime bill. Officially retired since August, Gomery obviously feels free to speak his mind - and, in his opinion, the mind of most of Canada's judges - regarding the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences in Conservative legislation. From Richard Foot, CanWest News Service, "Judges resent 'implied criticism' of minimum sentences: Gomery" :
"This legislation basically shows a mistrust of the judiciary to impose proper sentences when people come before them," says Gomery.
Yes, sir, that would be correct. Judges have been shown time-and-time-again to go out of their way to avoid penalizing criminals - particularly the louses involved in the despicable Restorative Justice movement.
"Judges view this kind of legislation as a slap in the face."
And a well-deserved one, at that.
Gomery, who retired from the Quebec Superior Court after wrapping up the sponsorship inquiry in 2006, says judges are unhappy about this and other legislation that suggest a failure on their part to impose proper sentences. "Judges find that it's an implied criticism when Parliament imposes mandatory sentences," Gomery says. "It leaves the impression that judges aren't using their discretion wisely or in accordance with the wishes of the legislature. And judges are resentful about that."
How, exactly, does a man with such a weak grasp of elementary logic become a respected Judge? Sir: laws are made by the legislature. Judges must implement those laws. If judges won't implement those laws by applying reasonable penalties, then they are deliberately undermining the legislature, so the legislature MUST mandate specific sentences. But wait...a speck of logic creeps in...
Gomery admits that mandatory sentences will relieve judges from what he calls the "agonizing" task of choosing an appropriate sentence. "Most judges who sit on criminal matters would say sentencing is the hardest part of their job," he says. "But if Parliament has said, 'You've got to give this guy five years,' then you shrug your shoulders and obey the law and sentence them, even if you feel it's unnecessarily harsh.
Now we've gotten somewhere. Way to go, Gomery, you're absolutely right! IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER A LEGISLATED PENALTY IS TOO HARSH! Congratulations, John. Uh oh...he concludes:
"Still, my own personal view is that it's a mistake to take away discretion from judges," says Gomery.
In other words: Judges know it's wrong, but they still want to retain the right to override legislation at their every whim.
Arrogance.
Posted by Neil Flagg on November 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack
Liberalism leads to poverty?!?
What's going on? All I hear here and there is that Liberals have made us poorer over the years and I'm really surprised. I basically thought Liberalism/Socialism could lead us to more prosperity and wealth. Seems those who wanted us to believe so were wrong again. A new report appeared today says that one in three Toronto families lives in poverty:
"Almost one in three families in Toronto is living in poverty, a "deeply troubling" statistic that makes the city the poverty capital of Canada, according to a new report."
Good to remember that the province of Ontario and specifically the city of Toronto have been run by the Liberals for a long long time.
Posted by Winston on November 26, 2007 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack
This is What We Have to Deal With
From the Daily Times: Taliban burn aid agency food: officials
Local Taliban militants seized and burned thousands of kilogrammes of food destined for pregnant women from a hospital in South Waziristan, officials said on Sunday.
The food, mainly lentils and cooking oil, had been supplied by the aid charity Save the Children to feed pregnant women suffering from malnutrition.
Originally posted at Ranting Owl
Posted by Leah Dowe on November 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
What's left now?
There must be something in the air. The two previous blogs below, on the Australian election and on the failure of Canadian socialism, suggest that the political Left bears increasing scrutiny.
Coincidentally, this is exactly what my current Face to Face debate column in the Tri-City News attempts to do. Here's unrepentant leftie Mary Woo Sims' offering, and here is mine. Interestingly, we both seem to agree that the NDP can't win as true lefties. But, while Mary Woo celebrates the "third way", I advance a harsher analysis.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 26, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack