The Shotgun Blog
« December 16, 2007 - December 22, 2007 |Main| December 30, 2007 - January 5, 2008 »
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Raving Leftist Steals iPod, Leaves Note
Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I almost fell out of the chair after reading this story.
In summary, a girl opened her iPod box on Christmas to find a note denouncing "capitalist garbage" and encouraging her, instead, to go and read a book.
What happened to the iPod isn't mentioned but, if I was asked to bet, I would guess that whichever freakish doped-up left-wing "culture jammer" decided that it was good enough for me but not for thee.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on December 29, 2007 in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Stay in Afghanistan, US Ambassador urges Canada
US ambassador to Canada David Wilkins urges Canada to stay the course in Afghanistan beyond 2009:
"As ambassador, he's encouraging Canadian officials to extend that country's military operations in Afghanistan beyond its current commitment that ends in February 2009. "But we fully understand and appreciate it's up to Canadian elected officials to make that decision," Wilkins said."
I think Canada is the best friend and ally that the Americans have got in Afghanistan since no body else (except the British) is doing what we're doing there and here comes the word of praise for Canadian troops:
"I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Canadian troops on behalf of my country for their service"
It's the English speaking world that is taking care of the business again.
Posted by Winston on December 29, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack
Friday, December 28, 2007
Passport fee
On the sentencing of Emmanuel Villarceau which happened back on Nov. 20, the Ottawa Citizen today: Passport fraud lands ex-public servant two-year prison term
"The court documents do not indicate how the people who obtained passports using falsified information came in contact with Mr. Villarceau, nor what Mr. Villarceau received for providing the passports."
Back on May 16, the CBC ran this piece; "Former government worker forged passports" which has these details;
"Villarceau, who worked as an examination officer at the passport office in Gatineau, Que., sold the fake passports between December 2003 and June 2004 to Canadians living overseas, RCMP Sgt. Monique Beauchamp said.
The buyers allegedly paid up to $10,000 for the bogus passport, which bore a false name."
The next day, May 17, the Citizen had this: Passport officer admits to document scam. It contains these soothing words from the RCMP;
"Sgt. Beauchamp said the RCMP has discovered no evidence that the passports have fallen into the hands of known terrorist groups or criminal organizations."
Okay, if the recent story is true and the court documents don't tell us "what Mr. Villarceau received for providing the passports", and the CBC story is true, that "buyers allegedly paid up to $10,000 for the bogus passport" then somehow that detail didn't wind up in the court documents. In stories I read, the other detail of how these people "came in contact with Mr. Villarceau" is missing. That is curious and I'm glad the recent Citizen story pointed out it's missing in the court documents. So who would, or could, blow $10,000 on a false passport? Why would they do that? How did 14 people willing to spend $10,000 on a passport manage to get in contact with this one guy in the main office of Passport Canada-Foreign Affairs and International Trade? (btw just to be clear, the Passport Office changed its name to Passport Canada in Feb. 2005, right around the time Villarceau got caught and was fired--March 2005--probably, you know, to confuse criminals.)
Posted by Kevin Steel on December 28, 2007 in Crime | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
Someone inform the lefties: the world is not Europe
Amidst the hand-wringing down here by the usual suspects on how Bush is to blame for the Bhutto assassination (no, I'm not kidding), we're headed for the usual Bush-has-made-America-hated nonsense that passes for "analysis" down here and up there.
Amazingly, even as we are discussing a Pakistani assassination, there is almost no mention of India (save Jonah Goldberg at National Review On line), which just happens to be both the largest democracy on Earth and a place where President Bush is quite popular.
Given that India has a larger population than all of Europe, wouldn't it make sense to include it in any conversation about Bush's popularity worldwide?
Then again, such data would be unfathomable to the sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on December 28, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack
Weakness for power
Dec. 26, CP: Canada--Limping into 2008
"When the year began, Harper's Conservatives were sitting at 34 per cent in public opinion approval, according to Harris-Decima, just ahead of the Liberals at 31 per cent. The NDP was at 15 and the Green party at eight per cent.
As 2007 draws to a close, Harris-Decima's rolling three-week averages had the Tories hovering around 34 per cent, the Liberals at 29, the NDP at 15 and the Greens polling 11 per cent."
Michael Den Tandt in the Owen Sound Sun Times: Fearless predictions (and why Harper, and I, got it wrong)
"What better way to set those fears to rest, get ahead of a rising global political wave and severely undercut the Liberals than to go Green? It couldn't fail.
But it did."
And then Den Tandt goes into the technicalities of policy. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Canadians I believe don't pay that much attention to the technical aspects of policy.
The only lesson here is apparently you gain nothing by bowing down to people like Gore and Suzuki. Give an inch and they'll just keep bashing. They don't have to compromise because they're not running for office. They can't give an inch because that would p-ss off their core constituency which wants control, power, and hates you for a whole lot of other reasons. And in passing, you alienate the people who did vote for you. Back to waiting for the wave.
Posted by Kevin Steel on December 28, 2007 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Real Pakistan
I really have nothing much to say about the Pakistani PM Bhutto assassination earlier today but there is that constant thought with me that Pakistan has always been a quasi-nation state where Islam as a religion triumphs any thing else and the Pakistani people have no national identity and they mostly identify themselves with the radical form of Islam. This great piece at NRO caught my attention today and reaffirmed what I've always thought of that country:
"there is the real Pakistan: an enemy of the United States and the West."
The article is a must read.
Posted by Winston on December 27, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Freedom Farmer
Joel Salatin may be to farming what Jacques Chaoulli is to medicine.
I spent Christmas at our family farm and came across Salatin’s name after picking up a copy of the Western Producer. He’s the author of Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front. Salatin is a self-described Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-capitalist (there is something in that description to please and/or offend everyone on this blog).
On Dec. 4, he was in Brandon, Man., giving a speech to the Manitoba Grazing School. (I hear their Delta Phi house is off the hook.) I can’t link to the Western Producer article because their online content requires a paid subscription, so let me summarize:
Joel Salatin is leading an army. His soldiers are farmers. His tactics are subversive. His goal is to liberate the family farm. And his sworn enemies in this war are the food safety regulations he thinks favour potentially dangerous industrial farming operations by denying market access to safe, local food producers.
In his book, Salatin tells the real life stories of guerrilla farmers like himself, those who employ subterfuge to get around food rules. When the government told one dairy farmer he couldn’t sell his unpasteurized cheese, he gave it away and asked his loyal customers for “donations.” Some local food producers mislabel their products as pet food to avoid costly regulations that would put them out of business; their customers know what they are getting because they trust the local source and so regulators are thwarted. A lady in the U.S. rents her property by the square metre. In her state, Michigan, you can butcher an animal for your own use as long as it’s done on land you own or rent. This sneaky strategy, all within the law, allows her to expand farm gate sales of fresh, safe meat.
Will all small farmers become sneaks to serve their customers? Will big government force enterprising farmers into a life of crime? It’s hard to say. Farmers can be a powerful political force, but so is fear. Tainted food imports from China have put the normally complacent North American consumer in no mood to support Joel Salatin’s campaign for deregulation.
And politicians? Much the same. The federal government announced on December 20, 2007 that it is spending $5 million in tax dollars to establish an animal health and food safety vaccine production facility at the Bioniche Life Sciences Inc. campus in Belleville, Ontario. The project will create as many as 135 new government jobs.
Farmers like Salatin are arguing that small farms and decentralized, small-scale food production will do more to make food safer than $5 million in vaccine production and 135 more food safety bureaucrats. In other words, relaxing food safety regulations for small farmers may be exactly what’s needed to secure a safe, local food supply, though the idea may not be popular with the consumer at the moment.
In his address, Salatin said “Folks, it’s not about food safety. It’s about market access. We can raise kids on Twinkies and bon-bons, but we can’t give them raw milk.”
Come on, Salatin. We can give our kids raw milk. We just have it label it “cat food.”
By Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on December 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
The Income Trust 300
According to a Dec. 24 email update from Richard Schechter with the NAFTA Trust Claims group, over 300 U.S. investors have now come forward to join a potential $6.5 billion NAFTA claim against the Government of Canada. That’s about 298 more than the group started with when it was founded last spring.
The 300 investors are preparing to seek compensation for the Canadian government’s flip flop on income trusts. In a surprise move on Halloween 2006, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced the Conservative government’s intention to eliminate tax benefits in the Canadian oil and gas income trust model. The announcement shocked everyone because the Conservative Party promised during the Jan. 2006 election campaign not to tax the trusts.
In the wake of Flaherty’s announcement, stock prices plunged. American investors lost an estimated $5 billion.
This ad hoc group lead by US investor Marvin Gottlieb claims NAFTA protects foreign investors in signatory countries from the impact of costly broken policy promises.
They cite NAFTA’s Chapter 11 which, in their interpretation (on their website www.naftatrustclaims.com), "allows investors from one NAFTA country to sue the government of another NAFTA country for actions which hurt them or their investments." While a NAFTA Tribunal cannot order the Canadian government to repeal its Tax Fairness Plan (which changed the income trust tax structure) it can order the government to compensate U.S. and Mexican investors for losses resulting from the new tax plan.
Chicago-based Gottlieb and his wife filed the initial NAFTA Notice of Intent against the Government of Canada on October 30, 2007. A full claim could be filed as soon as February 2008.
In a letter to Flaherty on November 5, 2007, Gottlieb maintains he is bringing the claim forward in the interest of "fair play" and not for the money he hopes to recovery. He also insists he's not working with the Liberals to keep the income trust issue in the news as a way to embarrass Harper's Conservatives.
I ask you:
Did the Conservative government hurt its international trade reputation with its decision to eliminate the oil and gas income trust model?
Should US investors be compensated for their losses?
Or is this evidence that NAFTA is a threat to Canadian sovereignty?
By Matthew Johnston
Posted by Western Standard on December 27, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (61) | TrackBack
Bhutto assassination was an al Qaeda hit
According to Bill Roggio, Ayman al-Zawahiri ordered it himself.
FWIW, I whipped up a quick primer on recent Pakistani history (complete with Mark Steyn quote).
Posted by D.J. McGuire on December 27, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Bhutto Assassination
Breaking, CTV: Bhutto killed following attack in Pakistan
Reuters India: Facts on Pakistan's ex-PM Benazir Bhutto
Posted by Kevin Steel on December 27, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Canada's New Year's resolution: Get Tough With Rights Abusers
Canada's New Year Resolution for 2008 according to Diane Francis of the National Post newspaper:
1- A disclosure law requiring countries that abuse human rights, according to our definition, to disclose all their existing holdings in our economies, including stock market stakes, bonds or any ownership in private companies, hedge, mutual or private-equity funds.
2- Canada should impose investment bans against Saudis, Iranians and others, barring them from ownership in our economies until they reform.
3- A ban against immigration, visa work, tourism or students from these abusing countries.
Posted by Winston on December 26, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Afghan Insurgency
Defense minister Peter MacKay says "Afghan insurgents are getting weapons from Iran" :
"weapons are flowing from Iran into the hands of Afghan insurgents"... "Improvised explosive devices from Iran have been a particular concern for Canadians."
Posted by Winston on December 25, 2007 in Military | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
And now, a message from the Queen
It would be nice if the new Royal Channel would allow embeds. But they don't. So you'll have to click here to listen to the Queen's Christmas message.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on December 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Merry Christmas
Wishing every body, friend or foe, a very merry Christmas. Let's not forget those who are not fortunate enough to celebrate this holiday season as they please. And allow me to wish the brave Canadian soldiers overseas, wherever they are, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I'd like to wish them well and tell them how proud we're for things they do. We're all indebted to them and appreciate their service.
Merry Christmas Every Body!
Posted by Winston on December 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Monday, December 24, 2007
Is it getting warmer?
I'm not a global warming skeptic. I'm not a global warming believer, either. I have no particular opinion on the subject of whether or not our temperatures are climbing or declining, or whether we are in the middle of the most frightening climate calamity ever.
I'm not certain either way because I don't have a degree in any of the relevant fields that would give me the expertise to judge this, and I'm convinced that global temperature trends and facts about the climate are a little too complicated for easy summation and digestion.
I am of the opinion that the global warming alarmists are all a little too firm about their convictions. They lack the basic intellectual humility to admit that this thing is complicated. That understanding weather patterns and global trends in the climate are chock-full of assumptions and guesses and other troubling bits of data that don't square with one another too easily. The Weather Network can't even tell me what the day is going to be like tomorrow with anything resembling certainty, never mind a hundred years from now. The alarmists don't have it in them to admit that they might be wrong.
But the religious fervour of the new eschatologists--signs in hand that replace "God's wrath" with the wrath of Gaia--makes finding uncomfortable facts a little, well, heart-warming. Call it schadenfreude.
And so it is with this discovery. Apparently and statistically speaking, 2007 was no warmer than 2006. And 2006 was no warmer than 2005. And 2005... well, you get the idea. All the way to 2001. 2007 is no warmer than 2001. But I thought that greenhouse gases were supposed to accelerate a warming trend, and that increases in those gases--which we have seen since 2001--were supposed to be followed by increases in temperatures at least within, say, a year or two. But six years without any statistically-significant increase in temperature?
This news doesn't prove that global warming is a hoax or a myth. But it should raise a skeptical eyebrow. It should introduce a little bit of doubt into Al Gore, if he manages to read the article either in that mansion of his that uses as much electricity in one day as 20 average American homes do in a year, or while he's flying to some new $100,000-per-global-catastrophe-speech-engagement on his private jet.
I'm sorry, you're right. This is just ad hominem designed to avert your gaze from what is really at issue here. He could be right, after all. And in spite of the apparent hypocrisy, he might just be suffering from akrasia. Like Augustine before him, who pleaded with God to grant him chastity (but not just yet). But, damnit, if it's such a huge problem, and Gore is so ahead of the curve on this as to somehow deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, shouldn't he be the first to stop all this mass consumption of carbon-based fuels and maybe opt for a solar panel on his home here or there?
Take note, dear reader. Once upon a time, at some Institute for Humane Studies get-together, I heard the following tid-bit that I thought was prescient enough to take note of myself. Consider what some doomsayer or politician or religious figure or philosopher says. Suppose they tell you that giving away half of your money is the right and moral thing to do. Suppose you discover that they don't do it themselves (Peter Singer, anyone?). This doesn't give us sufficient reason to determine that the ethicist doesn't really believe it himself. What it does is give us an efficient way of sorting through the mountain of ethical considerations by placing less weight on his pronouncements. It might, of course, be true that we do have this ethical obligation, but if someone who insists it is true fails to live up to his own claims, then we have a tiny reason not to believe him.
And so it is with Gore and with the rest of the jet-setting enviro-movement types. They might be right. We might be on a path to global calamity. But until they give up their private jets and trips to Bali, you'll forgive me if I don't scamper up the stairs to shut off the light I left on in the bathroom. I'll get around to it. Eventually.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on December 24, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
Early morning music
Here's a Christmas nostalgia pill, a classic for certain people of a certain age; on YouTube, on vinyl at 33 RPM, the 1958 version of The Little Drummer Boy performed by The Harry Simeone Chorale.
Posted by Kevin Steel on December 24, 2007 in Media | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Sunday distractions
A few distractions to keep you busy this Sunday. Click at your own risk.
For a while now, I've been a fan of flash-based tower defence games. The objective is simple. Keep the "creeps" from getting to your home base, or from getting to the exit by building a bevy of different towers.
Here are my top five favourite tower defence games:
5. Bloons tower defence I
4. Bloons tower defence II
3. Flash Element tower defence
2. Onslaught tower defence
And the best one of them all?
1. Desktop tower defence 1.5.
(Know of any other tower defence games? Post in the comments, s'il vous plait.)
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on December 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
On my apology to Syed Soharwardy
Dear Western Standard readers,
On the matter of my apology to Syed Soharwardy, I plan to privately respond to every comment made directly to me about this.
In the interim, let me start by saying that I purchased the Western Standard website when no other buyers appeared. I did this to ensure that our independent voice would not disappear entirely when the magazine was forced to shut down.
I hired an editor who was a senior writer with the Alberta Report and the Western Standard. I did this so that the conservative voice of the Western Standard would not be lost during this ownership and format change.
I was a co-founder of the Western Standard and I want this product to survive and succeed with its independent, conservative editorial voice intact. I believe this conservative voice can, and did, exist alongside a classical liberal one.
The comments that prompted the human rights complaint appeared on an un-moderated blog, posted anonymously by someone who was not a Western Standard staffer or freelancer. I removed the comments when they were brought to my attention as they were offensive and did nothing to advance genuine discussion or enhance the reputation of the Western Standard. And I apologized to Syed Soharwardy as I am ultimately responsible for comments made on this forum, and, again, those comments were indefensible.
Just as the Western Standard magazine content was edited, the Western Standard website content will be edited. We simply want to provide our readers and advertisers with the best product we can.
Moderating the comments on our website will also protect the Western Standard from unfair attacks. For example, as online reader "OBC" noted, tonight we were forced to ban an IP address with 6 user names. This individual was actively working to discredit the Western Standard with anti-Semitic and racists comments that would never have come from any of the thousands of thoughtful readers who visit us online. I removed the comments and reported the IP address to our webmaster.
I’ll defend Western Standard editorial decisions, but not the unmoderated comments intended to hurt the Western Standard and unfairly discredit our editorial agenda.
For those worried that this new oversight is a slippery slope toward further self-censorship, I’m counting on your participation on this website to keep us on track and fiercely independent.
If you have any questions about my decision, feel free to post a comment or email me at info@westernstandard.ca.
Sincerely,
Matthew Johnston
Western Standard
Posted by Western Standard on December 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (43) | TrackBack