A little rich

Former Minister of Non-White, Non-Male and Non-Anglophone Affairs (Canadian Heritage) Sheila Copps writes the following in today's Toronto Sun in reference to the Mike Klander blog controversy:

His blog struck me as stunning in its ignorance. No depth there, simply hate. Martin good, everyone else bad.

He mocks the facial disfigurements of former PM Jean Chretien, as well as Canada's first elected quadriplegic, Tory MP Steven Fletcher. He refers to one of Canada's first elected Muslim MPs as "ethnic" Rahim Jaffer. He makes what I view as misogynistic and homophobic comments in many entries.

What is even more amazing was the reaction this week by Martin spokesman Stephen Heckbert. He downplayed Klander's comments because they were on a blog: "Partisan blogs get a little heated, especially around election time. You'd see some language that might curl your hair."

If that is the language the Martin Liberals expect to see in print in a pre-election blog, what do they say in private?

I wonder whether it would even occur to the Martin backroom boys that there was anything wrong with the Chow-Chow "separated at birth" posting -- more likely, they would pass it around, smirking at anyone who did not get it.

The same backroom boys use the race card when it will play well for them. "Trade one Sikh candidate for a Ukrainian as long as it will get votes and keep them quiet," is a view I have actually heard expressed by a key Martin organizer.

In today's party machine, non-white voters are viewed as commodities, to be traded for seats which will guarantee a majority. The only difference in the Klander blog is that the public actually found out.

Do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind for anyone?

The affordable welfare state

In this article about productivity, Arnold Kling says the US's 3.39 percent growth in productivity from 2000 to 2005 augers well for what he calls the "affordable welfare state", which will require moderate tax increases nonetheless.

The Canadian economy is sadly much less productive than the American one, primarily because of higher levels of regulation, taxation and unionization. How affordable will our welfare state be as boomers start claiming their pension and medicare entitlements?

Baby steps

A number of analyses on the march to democracy in the Middle East are emerging. It seems as though there are different political cultures being created, with many Iraqis asserting their desire to see a ethnically representative and secular administration. Meanwhile, in Egypt, the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood continues to be President Hosni Mubarak's main opposition as secular democrats like Ayman Nour struggle to make themselves heard. Despite these growing pains, progress is being achieved, as Austin Bay presciently reminds us.

It is not a sprint but certainly a marathon towards democracy in the Arab world. Now, the question is, are markets, the rule of law and a culture of transparency being established and encouraged as well? Without them, democracy will be hard to sustain over the long-term.

Three questions

1. Why the hell are ski lift operators unionized?

2. What are the Jays going to do with all those corner infielders on the roster?

3. Why do I find myself liking that over-the-top French chef in the Lilydale commercials?

The best name in all of pro sports

Ottawa native and Philadelphia Flyers LW Ben Eager.

Tax reductions on the way

Today, the Globe and Mail is reporting that incremental tax cuts are on the way starting January 1.

Good thing. It is encouraging to see that governments are finally realizing that tax cuts are not just a political tool but are beneficial to the economy over the long term.

As Wilford Brimley said, "It's the right thing to do".

The age-old question

"How come if a woman does it, she's a slut, but if a man does it, he's a stud?"

Recently, there was a minor stink about some photos that have been going around the Internet concerning a University of Western Ontario student doing a striptease act. Underlying a lot of the commentary is some concern about how a young lady in a place of higher learning could engage in such demeaning behaviour.

Some have suggested that this type of "slut feminism" is simply women exercising their right to be sexually aggressive if they so choose. Others call this the phenomenon of "female chauvinist pigs" and look to the faux lesbianism and boob-baring antics of the "Girls Gone Wild" series.

From where I stand - and I'm just one guy speaking here - I think that this is great if you're a horny college student on spring break, but it is not the type of behaviour that we fellas like to see in a woman who we'd consider a keeper. The double standard exists for a reason, and it's this: Men are programmed biologically to ejaculate. We need it. It is in our very being to spread our seed with as many women as possible. Women, on the other hand, are biologically programmed to compliment, not imitate, this trait. Despite what radical feminist orthodoxy has tried to convince society, women naturally eschew those kinds of sexually animalistic tendencies that we men have in favour of finding a male provider and protector. In other words, women are programmed biologically to temper and moderate our more impulsive and irresponsible sexual urges. This is not to say that a gal shouldn't go for a good ol' one-nighter once in a while, if she feels the need. However, no guy in his right mind wants a gal who acts like a frat boy. Nobody wants a slut, and if a gal is classy, desirable and embraces her femininity, she won't have to worry about the double standard because she won't be the one asking the question.

A conservative purist speaks out

Great little analysis here from Michael Dabioch on how the Tory campaign thus far has disappointed those looking for a little red-meat conservatism in the platform.

I agree wholeheartedly, as I've said before. That being said, this is Canada.

Can it get any worse II

Senior Ontario Liberal operative Mike Klander's blog has gotten noticed, complete with racial slurs, the usual arrogance and just general prick-like behaviour. Read all about it here.

Can it get any worse?

Sheila Copps says the Libs are $33 million in debt.

They are also rightfully coming under fire for using a Holocaust memorial photo in campaign ads to imply that Harper would make a deal with the separatist devil.

Is this what Paul Martin gets from Santa for being naughty all year?

(I know, that was a lame ending, but it's Christmas.)

A Festivus for the rest of us

To avoid being exlusionary, I will not wish any of you Hammerheads a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanukah. Instead, we should focus on a holiday we can all be a part of:

Festivus.

Festivus is celebrated on December 23. First on the order of precedence is the "Airing of Grievances", where you tell your friends and family about how they have disappointed you over the last year. This leads into "Feats of Strength", and the less said about that, the better. Finally, instead of a tree, at Festivus we use a pole. No tinsel, no lights, no nothing, as they are simply distractions.

To commemmorate Festivus, donations to the Human Fund can be sent to road__hammer@hotmail.com. Donations that are less than $50 will not be accepted.

More seriously, in an attempt to prove I have hobbies other than raining blows on Bobcaygeon via this blog (an attempt at which I fully expect to fail), I will be hopping on the Net only sporadically over the next week and a half.

I hope everyone who reads this has a safe and rewarding holiday season and I look forward to preaching to the masses (does that term expose my hidden religious right-wing agenda?!?) in 2006.

Cheers!

The uproarious sense of humour of the social engineer

The chronically offended have struck once again, this time in Portland, OR:

OHSU board nominee bows out after joke falls flat

The Associated Press

PORTLAND — When asked on a form he was filling out if he had a disability, former Oregon state Sen. Neil Bryant wrote: "white/male."

It was meant as a joke, but the notation was written on his nomination form to serve on the board of Oregon Health & Science University, a position for which Gov. Ted Kulongoski had recommended him.

Bryant has now withdrawn his name from consideration and apologized.

"I sincerely and profoundly apologize for any discomfort I have caused," the Bend lawyer wrote in a recent letter withdrawing his name. "No one is to blame but me."

Earlier this year, Kulongoski nominated the former senator for the OHSU board. He was asked to fill in a three-page form from Kulongoski's office on gender and ethnicity, meant to help the state reach its affirmative action goals. The form also asked the prospective candidate whether he or she has a disability.

The Oregon Senate was expected to approve Bryant's appointment next month.

In his letter, Bryant explained: "I responded white/male...I did this to be humorous. I did not qualify for any affirmative action objectives on the form. I should have simply responded 'no."'

Bullying, intimidation and political correctness have just claimed another victim.

(Hat tip: Fred.)

Study of over 1,000 US academics finds Dems outnumber Repubs 8:1

Among the other conclusions:

- Sociology/anthropology profs are overwhelmingly Dem by a ratio of 20:1.
- Economics faculties are 3:1 Dem.
- Dem line of thinking around the issues is extremely consistent. Repubs have more disagreement and difference among themselves, reflecting a bigger tent and more diversity of thought.

Read it for yourself here.

A short-sighted and dangerous decision

Despite the efforts of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R), the US Senate voted down a proposal this week to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, pictured above.

I think this is a massive, massive mistake.

The negative impact that American reliance on Middle Eastern oil barons has on national security is well-documented.

A significant portion of the money that Americans pay to the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia for their oil finds its way into the hands of Wahabbi Islamist preachers as the opulent and corrupt Saudi royal family buys off the clerics. While average Saudis live in poverty and the Saudi leadership lives in luxury, the Wahabbis deflect criticism away from the Saudi government and towards the US and Israel as the root of all of Saudi Arabia's problems. When criticism of domestic governments does come up, the preachers state that it is the US - through military support, CIA activities, government aid and other support - that keeps these regimes in power to keep the oil flowing. (In my view, this latter claim carries a lot of truth.)

With the dollars that are diverted to the Wahabbis, extremist mosques are built and funded, books and literature that preach hatred of all things Western are produced and distributed, and Wahabbist educational academies that focus not on math and science but on fundamentalist Islamic studies are expanded. A lot of these efforts are not limited to the Middle East, as many of these educational materials find their way into Western mosques as well. This process creates the dangerous and destructive belief system which led people like Mohammed Atta to carry out the 9/11 attacks, and also leads born and raised Westerners like the London bombers to get sucked in to extremist and radical Islam.

Without American petro dollars, corrupt Middle Eastern dictators wouldn't have the funds to buy off the Wahabbis and this process would be significantly slowed.

That's why I think that the US needs to become more energy self-sufficient. A way to do this would be to explore resources like those in Alaska. There is nothing more beautiful than a picture of a herd of caribou running across an open plain, but there is nothing more terrifying than the picture of a terrorist attack which was funded, at least in part, by American dollars.

In the interests of national security, I hope that the US Senate rethinks this vote in the future.

Thumbs up

Congratulations to my brother's buddy Rob Collins who recently finished a three-game stint with the New York Islanders, scoring two points in three games. Collins was returned to the Isles' minor league team in Bridgeport, where he has been playing at a point-a-game pace, after some of the big club's regulars came back from injury.

No doubt this won't be the last time he sees NHL action.

Way to go, Robbie!

The smoking gun

People who watch the Michael Coren Show will be familiar with Akaash Maharaj, former Liberal policy chair and one-time candidate for the presidency of the party, who appears on the political panel from time to time.

Maharaj has stated unequivocally that there is no way Paul Martin could NOT have known about the sponsorship scandal when it was happening.

Maharaj points to a letter that he wrote to the then Finance Minister in 2002 asking Martin to look into rumours within the party concerning improprieties around advertising in Quebec.

Martin did not respond.

Clare Hoy writes about it here.

Just how desperate is this guy to go and falsely accuse an Olympian of anti-French behaviour?

Denis Coderre, Quebec Liberal, former Minister of Amateur Sport and also Minister of Immigration under Jean Chretien, has said that Phoenix Coyote captain Shane Doan should be kicked off the Olympic team for allegedly making unspecified anti-French remarks during a game against Montreal earlier this month. After the NHL looked into the matter, they found no wrongdoing and administered no discipline to Doan.

What isn't alleged, but is rather fact as found by a judicial inquiry, is that Coderre and his Quebec Liberal cronies benefited from the theft of taxpayers' dollars to get themselves elected over and over and over again.

Don't you think that Coderre, not Doan, should be saying sorry?

Doesn't it piss you off to see sleaze merchants like Coderre making allegations against Canadian athletes - who are spending time away from family and risking injury which could damage their professional career, costing them untold millions in income to represent our country - that have absolutely zero basis in fact?

Wouldn't you also like to see Coderre be punished for not only being an accessory to criminality but also for assassinating the character of Shane Doan?

I would.

Book Review: "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability" by Amy Chua (2003)

Amy Chua, law prof at Yale, released this book in 2003. It's an analysis of how, in her view, the expansion of free market democracy often gives rise to latent tensions and hatreds between what the author calls ethnic majorities and "market-driven minorities". For example, she looks at Indonesia in the late 90s, where riots against the Chinese minority - ever more economically dominant in the face of increased trade and globalization - caused investors to pull out en masse, leaving the economy of that country an empty shell. In Rwanda, the election of Hutu extremists led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of the wealthier Tutsi minority in the early 90s. And in Bosnia, the election of Slobodan Milosevic led to war against the more prosperous Croatians as well.

The author's thesis is that while globalization and democracy don't cause hatred, they allow for increased prosperity for those ethnic groups who already dominate in countries around the world, leading to more resentment of them by the majority who sees income inequality rise. Then, as democracy is implemented, the majority takes out its frustrations by opressing the minority, sometimes with violent and deadly results.

The subtitle of the book is therefore, misleading. She doesn't say that free market democracy breeds hatred and instability ... rather, it magnifies and amplifies it. As she says herself, she doesn't assign blame, but just makes the point.

I found the book a little tedious up until the two-thirds point because she ran through example after example without making mention of the role that corruption plays in all this. Often, these "markets" are distorted by criminal activity by the people within them, sometimes between governments dominated by one ethnic group and industry, which is dominated by another. Also, the electoral process in many of these countries is hampered by a state-run press, gerrymandering, non-universal suffrage, etc. Her analysis is good as far as it went, but without bringing these cultural factors into play, I think it is an incomplete one.

The last third of the book, titled "Ethnonationalism and the West", was an improvement. She compared the development of American democracy and markets to the "overnight sensation" type that is being advocated by neo-conservatives in DC now. She also talked about how Israel is seen as a market-dominant minority in the Middle East. Finally, she outlined the common complaints that the anti-globalization crowd has with US corporations like the Gap and Starbucks. Her writing here is very penetrating and led me to conclude that for democracy to truly flourish, there has to be a minimum standard of living established first. To that end, she suggests that America focus on pushing reform of institutions both political, economic and legal before pushing for elections. Otherwise, the whole process of globalization and democracy will fan the flames of deep-seated ethnic hatred.

Rigorous analysis and a hard look at the push for free market democratization, but it didn't convince me that Iraq is a lost cause (she addresses Iraq in the last chapter). Done right, I think that it can work, but I think her critique is a valuable one.

Overall rating: 6.5/10

Whacked out thought of the day

Something just occurred to me.

Could the viciousness of the reaction of some Conservatives to the "beer and popcorn" remark have anything to do with the fact that Reid's remark referred to the consumption of - gasp - alcohol?

Call me crazy but I have to wonder since so many Tories are teetotallers because of their religious convictions.

Gimme a break

In reference to Liberal staffers returning to Ottawa for three days pay, Paul Martin said, "There's a lot of stuff that has to be done and they better be working because I'm going to be working and I certainly expect to see them there."

Martin wouldn't be talking about "stuff that has to be done" for the campaign while they're collecting their taxpayer-funded salaries for three days, would he?

I know.

How dare I even suggest that.

Shame on me.

Saddam's claims of torture deemed bogus

The judge who prepared the case against Saddam Hussein for the 1982 massacre of 148 people has said that his claims of torture at the hands of his US captors are bogus.

John McCain could not be reached for comment.

Karma's a beeyatch, sister

I find this amusing.

Some female New York fashion designers are complaining that industry bigwigs unfairly promote and favour the work of overtly effeminate gay men, and are charging discrimination.

This is what happens when high-octane identity politics are brought into the workplace. Eventually, no one wins because competing claims to the diversity pie end up colliding.

Liberal attack ads

Stephen Taylor has obtained a copy of the Liberal ads that are to be released after Christmas. Here's my favourite:



I wonder if the Liberals attribute the damage Mike Harris apparently did to Ontario to his cuts to personal income tax. But aren't tax cuts what the Liberals are campaigning on?

Home heating rates are set to rise 22%, property taxes are on their way up too, and Dalton McGuinty's $975 health care premium is still on the books. I think a lot of families would like a Mike Harris-style government in power federally to clean house, especially when taxpayers' dollars have been stolen by Liberal politicians in Quebec for partisan purposes dating as far back as ten years.

This is just going to annoy the elitists even more

It appears that US Vice-Prez Dick Cheney is a rasslin' fan. From www.wwe.com:

Vice President Dick Cheney recently visited the troops stationed at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. While there, Mr. Cheney let it be known that he would have liked to have been there when WWE was there for the Tribute to the Troops show. Here is a sampling of Mr. Cheney's speech:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Don't hold back. (Laughter.) Well, that's quite a welcome. And Lynne and I are delighted to be here today. And I want to thank you for that fantastic welcome. And, General Eikenberry, for your kind words, and say good afternoon to my fellow Americans. Let me also thank General Sterling and Command Sergeant Major Savusa. It's great to be here today. I have a message from the folks back home: We're proud of you; we're grateful for your service; and we're behind you 100 percent.

It's good to be back at Bagram Air Field, and to express our country's appreciation to every man and woman in Joint Task Force 76. I'm only sorry I didn't come earlier this month. Somebody told me I missed a chance to meet Vince McMahon, Big Show, and Triple H. (Applause.)

The "do nothing" brigade

A thought-provoking bit of rhetoric this evening from the lovely Michelle Malkin:

Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at The New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public-college admissions, contracting, and police- and fire-department hiring.)

Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-miny-moe" random-search program at all subways, railways and bus stations.

Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue.

Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other key government agencies.

Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory.

Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the president for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

Repeat.

Although Malkin was going over the top for effect, she makes some hard-hitting points. It's all the more troubling when we have nuttiness such as this going on in courtrooms around the world. From Turkey:

A lawyer defending al Qaida-linked suspects standing trial for the 2003 suicide bombings in Istanbul told a court that jihad, or holy war, was an obligation for Muslims and his clients should not be prosecuted.

"If you punish them for this, tomorrow, will you punish them for fasting or for praying?" Osman Karahan -- a lawyer representing 14 of the 72 suspects -- asked during a nearly four-hour speech in which he read religious texts from an encyclopedia of Islam.

The November 2003 blasts targeted two synagogues, the British Consulate and the local headquarters of the London-based HSBC bank, killing 58 people.

The Arabic word jihad can mean holy war among extremists in addition to its definition as the Islamic concept of the struggle to do good.

Karahan spoke for three hours at the court in Istanbul.

"If non-Muslims go into Muslim lands, it is every Muslim's obligation to fight them," Karahan said.

Couldn't they find themselves a better lawyer than this guy, or is al-Qaeda's bench strength that depleted these days, in spite of Malkin's "do-nothing brigade"?

At 14 and a half minutes and counting

Most ridiculous quote of the day award goes to multiple winner Cindy Sheehan, from the pages of Newsweek:

Q: You feel like you were mistreated by the press?

A: They got hold of everything I've ever said and scrutinized it so carefully. They never scrutinized what Bush said. No one said, "Why did you lie to the American people and say there was WMD?" The press found an easy target in Iraq, and they found an easy target in me.

7 issues the Conservatives won't touch

Fred has come up with his 7 issues the Tories don't have the guts to tackle. Here they are:

1. The science of global warming
2. Immigration
3. Divorce settlements and child custody
4. Multiculturalism and political correctness
5. Bilingualism
6. Cooperation with the Americans
7. Native policy

Have a look at his site, linked above, for a discussion on each.

Word of the day

"Moresomes", as in "Swingers clubs which feature consenting adults cavorting in twosomes, threesomes and moresomes, are legal, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday".

Although it is the Road Hammer word of the day, somehow, I just don't see the term "moresome" catching on.

Life expectancy up

In 2003, women lived to an average of 82.4 years, while men lived till 77.4 years.

My question is this: Just how in the hell are we going to pay for health care, pension entitlements, etc. when people are living, on average, to 85 or 90? Immigration can't solve everything.

No slam dunk

Blogger Gin and Tonic offers his reasons for not getting on the Tory bandwagon wholesale, here.

I agree.

Things like the increased handout to farmers announced today don't help matters much either.

A spoiled ballot still counts as a vote.

An extra half a billion for farmers?

Boo.

Farmers already get enough taxpayer support for their failing industries.

Kentucky and Kinshasa

This comparison of poverty in North American with poverty in Africa is a must-read.

I have no sympathy for people who don't make anything of the opportunities that are offered to them in society.

An inside joke to local readers:

"If you got any change or Canadian Tire coupons, how about a smile?"

How about a throat-punch instead with a job application from Subway on top of that, you SOB???

September 10

In response to the revelations that the White House used the full capacity of the US federal government to prevent the mass murder of 3,000 innocent people from happening again, some congressional Dems are musing about impeachment proceedings.

Legally, there are numerous instances where the US government spies on people without the need for a warrant.

Taken along with the McCain amendment and the reluctance to re-authorize the Patriot Act, National Review asks if American political culture has returned to a September 10 mentality:

The New York Times ignited the firestorm last Friday, of course, with a front-page report on how President Bush has authorized the eavesdropping on conversations without obtaining warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democrats are rushing to accuse Bush of breaking the law and are even flirting with the I-word — impeachment — their favorite fantasy of the moment. While there is much yet to be learned about the NSA program, it seems very likely that no laws were broken and that President Bush was acting responsibly in a context where we are fighting a fast-moving, loosely organized enemy that uses the wonders of modern communications technology to aid its mass murder. The president still has preventing another September 11 foremost on his mind, even as much of the rest of political culture has lapsed back to September 10, when we hamstrung our own surveillance and law-enforcement capabilities in blissful unawareness of the enemy that was about to slaughter 3,000 Americans.

The chickens are coming home to roost

For years and years, the NDP and friends like Linda McQuaig, Maude Barlow and Murray Dobbin have tried to paint people like Mike Harris, Preston Manning, Stephen Harper, the Fraser Institute, and the editorial board of the National Post as those who would completely destroy Canada as we know it.

Now, Jack Layton and his candidates are saying that if you are sympathetic to the NDP but are considering voting Liberal to keep Harper out of power, you can stick with the Left because, really, trust us, Harper's actually an OK guy and we need your votes.

I would say that the years and years of abuse and name-calling by the Left is now coming back to bite them in the ass. Hearing the NDP turn around and say that the Conservative Party is really not THAT bad is laughable considering all of the alarmist, demonizing, character-assassinating rhetoric that has been directed towards free-marketeers in Canada over the last fifteen years.

The Captain Canada act - en francais?

With a Quebec lieutenant who helped found the BQ and who now refers to the Clarity Act as "tricks", it's no wonder that Martin plays up the saviour of Canada act in English Canada and downplays it when speaking in French. I think Harper had it right when he said that the Liberals need the Bloc to paint themselves as the only ones who can possibly hold Canada together. Mario Dumont said the same thing a couple of months back.

An op/ed from today's Globe and Mail, titled "Tell Quebec la vraie question":

Paul Martin plays the nationalist in English. Why, when talking to francophones, does he underplay the threat to this country's survival? demands WILLIAM JOHNSON

After Friday's English language leaders' debate in Vancouver, Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a truly Churchillian challenge to Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, saying he was "ready to meet him on every street corner, in every city and in every town and village in Quebec." No Mr. Dithers, he. Oddly, however, just the evening before, the French language debate had offered Mr. Martin precisely the opportunity to fight the separatist leader on the beaches, on the hills, fields, streets and landing grounds of Quebec, courtesy of the television networks. But Captain Canada was strangely restrained when addressing the country's French-speaking population.

He did say, "Monsieur Duceppe wants to set in motion a process leading to another referendum, and put an end to this Canada that generations of Quebeckers built with other Canadians, and which is the envy of the world." He also, later in the debate, accused the secessionist leader of "wanting to divide Quebec's families." And he added this fighting defence of Canada: "Our competitors are not within our frontiers. Together, Canada can take on the Chinese, can take on the Indians. And we will do it, as a country."

Later, he accused Mr. Duceppe of causing national instability by making a pact with Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair to start the process for a new referendum, and by "putting sand in the gears so that Parliament would not function." Mr. Duceppe parried that "on the 60 bills that were adopted in Ottawa, the Bloc voted with the Liberals 82 per cent of the time."

In his final statement in the French debate, Mr. Martin warned that Mr. Duceppe "wants to set us on the path to a referendum. He wants to waste our energies while our competitors take advantage of our divisions. My choice is to build Canada, a country that has everything to succeed."

And that was it.

Oddly enough, Mr. Martin turned far more articulate, flamboyant and patriotic the next night when he spoke in English. Then, he bared his teeth and raised his voice. "Mr. Duceppe, let me say to you that the Supreme Court, the Constitution of Canada and international law all make it very, very clear that you cannot have a unilateral declaration of independence. Let me say, also, that I am a Quebecker and you are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question . . . This is my country. And my children were born and raised in Quebec."

That one burst of patriotic rhetoric, far too long for me to quote in full, said far, far more than the sum of what he had said in French.

Why the difference? Especially when only French Quebec threatens Canada's existence?

And there was more: "Sovereignty is a question of international recognition. You're not going to get international recognition if what you do is violate the Constitution of Canada, if you violate international law . . . And certainly, and as Prime Minister of this country, I will defend the unity of our land."

In June, the Parti Quebecois committed itself to holding an early referendum on secession -- and, with a Yes majority, to a unilateral declaration of independence. The PQ is going for broke, and Mr. Boisclair endorsed the revolutionary plan. But neither the Prime Minister, his minister of justice nor any other federal party leader attacked a plan that clearly meant the overthrow of the Constitution.

That silence was maintained over the six months since.

Quebeckers, as a result, are totally misinformed about the implications of the secessionist plan. It is significant that not one question was raised about it in the French debate. It is now taken for granted.

Mr. Duceppe spoke the truth when he said in the English debate: "The Clarity Bill was unanimously denounced at the National Assembly in Quebec, not only by the PQ -- the sovereigntists -- but also by Mario Dumont's ADQ. Jean Charest also denounced the Clarity Bill."

A would-be prime minister has an obligation to set the people straight on the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision, and hence the strict obligations of the federal government to satisfy the fundamental principles governing secession.

Most people -- even journalists -- think that clarity in the referendum question and its answer is the main issue in determining whether Quebec can secede. But that deals only with the first of four principles that must be satisfied, according to the court. Clarity is a condition for the democratic principle to come into play. A trick question or an unclear answer would violate democratic legitimacy.

But the three other principles, equally important, must be brought into play: the federal principle, meaning the consent to secession by the provincial legislatures and the Houses of Parliament; the rule of law and the constitutional order, meaning that secession requires an amendment to the Constitution; and the rights of minorities, meaning that the boundaries of a new Quebec would be set by negotiations as part of the settlement preceding the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Martin has turned the defence of national unity into a partisan issue, a personal duel of champions between himself and Mr. Duceppe. That undermines Canada, weakening the real case for federalism.

He must, instead, instruct all Canadians about the real implications of a vote for secession -- above all, he must do so in French.

Busted

The Ontario Public Service Employees' Union is going to have to reverse a decision to pay $5,000 in wages to various members who happen to be running for the NDP federally after it was found to be illegal.

I am sure that the average Ontario public servant just LOVES to see their union dues being used for partisan political purposes.

It is absolutely disgusting that the OPSEU executive would even think that this is an ethical thing to do.

The liberal bubble

Great article here on the echo chamber on the American left and centre-left. I think to a large degree, the same observations apply to the Canadian political culture:

To a remarkable degree, America’s liberal elites have constructed for themselves a comfortable, supportive, and self esteem-enhancing environment. The most prestigious and widest-reaching media outlets reinforce their views, rock stars and film makers provide lyrics and stories making their points, college professors tell them they are right, and the biggest foundations like Ford fund studies to prove them correct.

It has been a disaster for them.

American liberals are able to live their lives untroubled by what they regard as serious contrary opinion. The capture of the media, academic, and institutional high ground enables them to dismiss their conservative opponents as ill-informed, crude, bigoted, and evil. The memes are by now familiar. Rush Limbaugh and the other radio talkers “preach hate.” Evangelicals are “religious fanatics” comparable to the Islamo-fascists in their desire to impose “theocracy.” Catholics observant of the teachings of their church are “hypocrites” and their priests possible “pedophiles.” Jewish conservatives are members of the “neocon” cult, a suspicious lot schooled in the esoteric works of Leo Strauss.

Liberal elites tend to cluster themselves in the biggest cities, coastal blue states, and if marooned in a red state, liberal enclaves like Austin, Texas, Missoula, Montana, Lawrence, Kansas, and Moscow, Idaho. Ensconced in their turf, they feel free to utter causal epithets directed at the President, Republicans, or conservatives in general, as if no person worthy of respect would dare to disagree.

As a result, liberal discourse has become an in-group code, perfectly understandable and comforting among the elect, but increasingly disconnected from everyone else, and off-putting to those not included in the ranks of the in-group. Rather than focusing on facts, logic, and persuasion, liberals find it easier to employ labeling (“That’s racist!”) and airy dismissal of contrary views to sway their audience, and because their authority figures in the media and academia accept this behavior, they assume it is persuasive to the rest of us.

Even worse (for them), the self-reinforcement they experience in their geographical, academic and media strongholds encourages more and more extreme expression of their worldview. Within the in-group, such strong expression of group norms earns prestige. But to the rest of society it becomes stranger and stranger, until it becomes repellant.

The unthinkable

Is Paul Martin really in danger of losing his own seat to the Bloc?

If so, wouldn't he welcome this opportunity?

Mississauga candidate denies making statement

Apparently he didn't say it.

Some of the Blogging Tories have egg on their faces right now.

A reverse version of the forged memo scandal, I suppose?

Lulled into a false sense of security

Read this and tell me if you think that issues of public safety and security should be playing a bigger role in this election campaign.

One night in Cairo

One man's tales of barhopping in Cairo, here.

"I mean the level of religious fundamentalism in the United States is beyond any country I know."

The latest droolings from Noam Chomsky, here.

Number of single moms in Canada up nearly 70% over last two decades

This is a major societal problem.

Kids need both parents ... a mom AND a dad.

The long-term societal costs of single parenthood are huge in terms of crime, drug abuse, and school dropout rates.

As a society, we also need to reinforce the importance of George Will's three rules for avoiding poverty.

1. Graduate from high school.
2. Don't have a baby until you are married.
3. Don't marry while you are a teenager.

What I'd like to know is ... why has this number risen so dramatically over the last 20 years? Conservatives (the small-c kind) will say it's because of overly generous welfare entitlements that make it easy for people to walk away from the financial unit of the family. Liberals (the small-l kind) will say it's because of the global economy and things like free trade that have caused job losses and other types of economic hardships that put stress on families.

What does the panel think?

"Why I will vote Liberal"

Ok, now this is more than a little exaggerated, but it's funny so I'm posting it.

As I've said before, the Liberals better not hope for an Ontario-wide snow storm on the 23rd of January because it is going to be only the really, REALLY pissed-off people who will get out and vote, like my buddy Lee who sent me this.

More importantly, let's say Harper wins. Does he realize the extent to which his core supporters are counting on him to totally overhaul the way things are done in this country?

How can he possibly live up to expectations?

WHY I AM VOTING LIBERAL

- Because I believe in the extent to which the Official Languages Act is carried out and enforced; that every public servant even in the most remote part of B.C. should be fluent in the French language, but that government business in Quebec should be in unilingual French.

- Because I believe that only lawyers from the province of Quebec are qualified to be prime minister of Canada.

- Because I believe that the federal government should be completely controlled by the province of Quebec.

- Because I believe that all criminals are just poor misunderstood victims of society and can all be easily rehabilitated in a very short period of time; and that only they have "rights"; not the victims of their crimes.

- Because I believe that hardened criminals like Karla Homolka should be pampered by living in a "cottage" with her own key and be allowed to have pajama parties and go out on shopping trips; and that killers in prison "resorts" on the Pacific coast should eat filet mignon, have barbecues, go whale watching and have their own golf course, while our senior citizens have to eat left over Kraft Dinner.

- Because I believe that mass murderers under that age of 18 should be protected by the Young Offenders Act and the rest of us law-abiding citizens do not have the right to know who they are.

- Because I believe in bringing hundreds of thousands of unskilled people into Canada from third world countries every year so we can support them on welfare and so that they will vote Liberal; and that this number should be increased every year.

- Because I believe that it is fair that the province of Quebec is the sole province allowed to be in charge of its immigration policy; that they receive 5 times the amount of federal immigration money than does Ontario, even though Ontario has to teach those people how to speak English whereas Quebec only allows immigrants to enter who already know the French language.

- Because I believe that we do not have a right to own land in Canada, as it is under Liberal law.

- Because I believe it is only fair that Liberals steal as much tax money as they can from us; through every conceivable means from the HRDC boondoggle to the 2 billion dollar gun registry that does not work.

- Because I believe that if my family is the victim of a home invasion I should not have the right to protect them in our own home.

- Because I believe in huge government bureaucracy and extremely high taxes, as I believe that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do.

- Because I believe in having essentially no military because everyone loves us and we will never be called upon to protect our country.

- Because Jack Layton is not a lawyer from Quebec so he is not qualified to be prime minister; besides, he smiles too much.

- Because Stephen Harper is not a lawyer from Quebec and he and the Conservative Party of Canada have a hidden agenda and they are very scary people.

- Because I believe that we should alienate our neighbours to the South because all Americans are morons and know nothing about Canada; and that we should continue to align ourselves more closely with our true friends, France, China and Russia.

- Because I believe everything that the Liberal controlled media tells me, especially the CBC.

- Because I believe that no one should ever be held responsible or accountable for their own actions in today's society. It is always someone else's fault.

- Because I believe that we should not expect newcomers to our country to accept or adapt to our culture and traditions and customs; and that we should not wish each other "Merry Christmas" in case it might be offensive to some.

- Because I have the IQ of a doorknob and am easily sucked in by Liberal scare tactics and propaganda; and am easily bought off with my own tax money.

Harvard and Georgetown accept funds from Saudi prince

Last week, Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities, to help "bridge the understanding between East and West, between Christianity and Islam, and between Saudi Arabia and the Unites States."

So what, you might say? Well, the irony is just delicious. The "see no evil, hear no evil" academic orientation of the modern social science faculty - oh, unless we're talking Western evils here - towards Middle East dictatorships is very pronounced, and accepting donations from those who perpetuate the very crimes the ivory tower claims to stand against ... well, that's pretty rich:

Helping to promote peace and tolerance is surely a laudable goal, but al-Waleed's cash may do the opposite. Underlying the prince's statement is the assumption that Americans have too negative a perception of Islam and Saudi Arabia. While this might be the case, much of the concern about of Islam and the Arab world is in fact a justified reaction to that world's uncomfortable realities, such as the oppression of women, Islamist incitement, and apology for terror. But universities — and especially Georgetown and Harvard — are not the place to find this sort of distaste. Their classrooms, and especially Middle Eastern-studies departments, tend instead to amplify anti-American rhetoric, legitimize conspiracy theories, and, in the name of cultural relativism, gloss over the oppression that exists in the Arab world.

Recently, Harvard's Middle East faculty registered a deafening silence when Saudi Arabia shunned the "West" by boycotting participation in the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative. The professors continue to say nothing in the face of Riyadh's production of textbooks that inculcate young children to wage "jihad for the sake of Allah." And Harvard students are just as placid. During my time at Harvard, my peers seldom avoided an opportunity to downplay the intolerant radicalism that has permeated Muslim societies. This resulted in a delicious irony, with many Harvard students describing themselves as progressive while denouncing White House prioritization of democratization abroad, ignoring imprisoned dissidents, urging divestment from democracies, and falling over themselves in a rush to excuse autocratic regimes. Nowhere is this irony more clear than when it comes to dealing with al-Waleed's home country, Saudi Arabia, as Harvard feminists attack President Bush for his domestic sexist slights, real and imagined, but remain silent when Saudi courts condemn women to death for the crime of having been raped.

Syria and Iran sign agreement to mutually protect each other from international pressure on WMD

More details here:

The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that Damascus was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to Syria. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.

Anybody still 100% convinced that Iraq didn't have the same type of deal going with Syria?

A bit of a reach, or ... ?

Hat tip to the Kinger for this.

On the one hand, it seems plausible, but it would also be highly dependent on Wilkins dressing the Martinites down, which he did. On other other hand, is this PMO bright enough to hatch such a sinister plot?

Still waiting for the mainstream media ...

... to pick up on this.

Apparently, Rogers Cable broadcast the whole thing, so it shouldn't be too difficult to verify whether it happened or not.

What is the over/under?

Assuming that it is true, will it break into the MSM by the end of the week?

Saturday?

Boxing Day?

Never????

Looking at Harper's proposal for Quebec

The first time I ever cast a ballot was in the Charlottetown referendum in 1992, where I voted "no" to codifying special status for francophone Quebeckers in the Constitution of Canada through the distinct society clause. I felt that although Canada was built on two founding nations, it was time to move beyond that and see the country as ten equal provinces, each with their own attributes. Sure, Quebec was and still is obviously different, but minority rights are already guaranteed in the Charter. Why did we need to put special status for one group above all others in the Canadian constitution? In multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural Canada, especially now in 2005, 13 years after Charlottetown, the concept of special status for one group over all the others smacks of favouritism and inequality.

Harper's proposal to allow Quebec its own seat at the international table beside Canada would harken back to giving one province special status. This is not the way to build and strengthen Canada. Instead, it smacks of appeasement. Does he think that separatists are going to stop pursuing their own country because they are given special status internationally? No way. They will want more. The federal government has tried for 40 years to try and make separatists believe that Canada is worth being a part of and the PQ and BQ have never been stronger.

Meanwhile, we see the antics of people in Chicoutimi toward minorities like Ted Nolan. Make no mistake ... this is the Pequiste/Blocquiste way. Sure, in the cities, not as much, because there has been some success in reaching out towards non-pur laine Quebecers, but in the separatist heartland of Lac St. Jean and surrounding areas like Chicoutimi, I believe there is a deep streak of nativism and exclusion directed towards those who are seen as one of "les autres". Codifying the distinction between francophone Quebecers and non-francophone Quebecers through the distinct society clause would have simply emboldened the feeling of superiority of small-minded and tribal Quebec "bluenecks" towards those who are not like them. The numbers of modern, outward-looking, globally-minded francophone Quebecers who are truly proud of both their Quebecois AND Canadian identities are diminishing. That's becoming more and more obvious all the time.

And so, as Jeffrey Simpson asks below, do the vast majority of Quebeckers even care about being a part of the Canadian family anymore? If so, what's the point of coming up with grandiose schemes like the one Harper is proposing?

I have reproduced Simpson's complete column from today's Globe and Mail because it is worth reading in full.

What next?

Why build bridges to Quebec if Quebeckers could care less?

JEFFREY SIMPSON

The French philosopher Ernest Renan once argued that a nation is a people that has done great things together and wants to do great things together in the future.

By that definition, half of Quebeckers are now outside the Canadian nation, a point underscored by their support for the Bloc Quebecois. The BQ does not want to do great things within Canada. It wants a separate country.

If, election after election, large numbers of Quebeckers keep voting for a Quebec-only party that can never be part of the governing of Canada, then those voters are apparently not interested in Canada. Or, their attachment is only as deep as the next cheque coming from Ottawa. A country, as Renan would say, cannot be built or sustained on a cheque.

The BQ's support represents a nightmare for Canadian politics and unity. The BQ takes so many seats out of play for the national parties that Canadian politics is consigned minority governments. These, as Canadian history demonstrates, never last very long.

The BQ also radically departs from Canadian political history. Francophones have played important national roles ever since Sir John A. Macdonald insisted all successful parties had to be "Frenchified." They do today inside the Liberal government, but the Liberals are now a rusting hulk of a party in Quebec. The BQ, not the Liberals, dominates Quebec.

A Quebecker has been prime minister for 51 of 138 years since Confederation. Most governments with prime ministers from outside Quebec had Quebec lieutenants and/or a significant number of Quebec MPs. Winning Quebec was almost always the key to winning national power.

Canadian political parties historically were among the most important institutions linking Canada's regions, especially Quebec and the rest of the country. The parties were bridges, if you like. The BQ and its supporters are not interested in bridges within Canada. They don't care about the Canadian experience, except to tear it down. They are happy to be in political opposition, focusing only on Quebec issues, and not participating in the governance of the country.

Federal systems represent give-and-take. People in a federation's regions search for the best deal possible from the centre, but they also display a willingness to participate in national governance -- not just to protect their interests but because they are part of a larger country that wants to do things, if not always great things, together.

The BQ is all take and no give. This posture appeals to those who vote for the party. Better still for the BQ, it can take credit whenever Ottawa does something that satisfies Quebec, insisting that BQ pressure produced the goods, and blame the federal system for everything that goes wrong. In an all-take/no-give world, no one by definition can ever be satisfied.

There are gradations, of course, to the all-take/no-give world. The Liberal government in Quebec City preaches asymmetrical federalism, whereby Quebec opts out of national programs, demands a Quebec foreign policy in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and insists it remains committed to Canada. Then we have majority of Quebeckers in national elections opting out of country-building by voting BQ.

Quebec has dominated federal politics and national policy-making for four decades. Now, in provincial and federal politics, it is clear an increasing number of Quebeckers don't care about Canada, witness to which is starkly given by support for the BQ.

In 1997, the BQ got 38 per cent; in 2000, 40 per cent; in 2004, 49 per cent; it looks set to break through the 50-per-cent score this time. These trends logically if painfully beg the question: If Quebeckers are no longer much interested in national politics, why should national politics be much interested in Quebec? This question is not "Quebec-bashing," It merely reflects the reality in Quebec, and the logical extension of that argument elsewhere.

The Liberals, for most of Confederation, thought more about Quebec than the Conservatives or NDP. They were the bridge-builders into Quebec. But what happens when folks on the other side aren't much interested in bridges? Who needs bridge-builders any more?

The Conservatives, being historically much weaker in Quebec, didn't think as much about the province as the Liberals. If Quebec is going to vote heavily for a party that is not interested in Canada -- and so vote election after election -- you can ask why the rest of Canada should not support parties that are less interested in Quebec.

And then we would see where this new combination of mutual lack of interest takes the country.

The Canadian "war zone" II

I'd like to ask someone to please explain to me the difference between comments like this from Abdullah Khadr and the rantings of the average first-year social science professor.

Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter.

"I think that the Americans should only rule America -- not the entire planet ... (I don't feel) that much sorry for the Americans because you can see they cause enough deaths, even if they say, 'No, we didn't.'

"Like, I think, enough people in Vietnam, they killed enough people in Lebanon "America can stop it in the beginning. But they don't stop it, except after the massacre is done. In Bosnia, they could have stopped it from all the way from the beginning. But they waited until 17,000 women were raped and murdered. After that they started working."

Massive poll of over 43,000 Canadians finds two major parties neck and neck

How these guys were able to poll 43,000 people in six days is beyond me, but hey. Here's what they found:

Which federal party do you support right now?

NDP 17.31 %
Liberal 31.39 %
Conservative 31.17 %
Bloc 13.95 %
Green 4.37 %
Other 1.33 %

The Canadian "war zone"

I am sick and tired of the Khadr family. Now, we have claiming that Canada is a "war zone" similar to Afghanistan because one of the Khadrs is facing charges under the Criminal Code for his alleged membership in al-Qaeda and attempts to procure weaponry for their efforts in Afghanistan. They make no bones about the fact that at the very least, they were members of al-Qaeda as late as 1998, the year that two US embassies were bombed in Africa.

"All I care about is what's going to happen to my brother," Abdurahman Khadr told reporters Monday.

"It seems like we're still in a war zone because we're not being able to live peacefully. Someone is always in, out, jailed."

The documents also allege that the whole Khadr family stayed with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at his compound in Pakistan in 1997 and 1998. Abdurahman said that his family's ties to al Qaeda were over.

"We're back and it's done. Whatever was is in the past and that's over," he said.

Sorry, pal, but once a terrorist, always a terrorist in my books. Alumni of the terror camp the Khadrs were involved with include 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, shoebomber Richard Reid, and millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam.

As for our esteemed PM, so much for not commenting on police investigations and cases before the courts. Is there an election on or something?

Prime Minister Paul Martin said Khadr will have all the rights of any Canadian citizen during a police investigation, despite the Khadr family's alleged links to al Qaeda.

"The family came (to Canada) many, many years ago and they obtained Canadian citizenship many years ago," Martin said in Regina on Sunday. "They have Canadian citizenship, and we don't have two classes of citizens."

"But the fact is the arrest warrants have been issued and the legal process will now take place."

"This is a victory for Islam!"

I would have to see this for myself to find out if it's true or not, but if so, the PMO *cannot* be pleased.

Harper would allow Quebec to represent itself at international fora

I find this troubling because I disagree with the idea of one country speaking with two voices. Through the federal government, Quebec is already VERY well-represented at international bodies where culture and language are discussed. (For example, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the lead on these matters, is overwhelmingly francophone.)

Is this the beginning of the slippery slope towards eventual Conservative support for the infamous "distinct society" clause?

It's going from bad to worse in the Swamp

Larry Robinson threw up his hands today and said, "F this".

Can't say I blame him.

What?

Paul Martin says it's OK to pick and choose Charter rights by opposing same-sex marriage. Unless you're a Conservative, apparently.

Then, we have this, on top of this.

Damn, the Liberals must be looking forward to the Christmas - I mean, holiday - break.

Hockey fans in separatist heartland show their true colours towards minority Canadians

Is this the new, tolerant, outward-looking Quebec we're hearing so much about?

I shudder to think how non-Quebecois would be treated in Quebec if the separatists won a referendum.

Year In Review - The Top 15 Newsmakers of 2005 - #1

Iraq.

It's gotta be.

Upon reflection, I left a lot of important people and happenings off of this list, like Terry Schiavo, Avian flu, the steroid scandal in baseball, the nomination of Harriet Miers, Plamegate, the debate on torture, the abduction of two Canadian peaceworkers, and my engagement, new house and new job, all of which happened within a 7-day span last January, just to name a few. However, so much of what is going on in the world today, from moves towards democracy in places as diverse as the Ukraine and Lebanon to things like Plamegate, the torture debate, gas prices and the abduction of two Canadian peacekeepers are linked to Iraq. There really is no other choice.

A review of the top 15:

15: The NHL strike
14: Condoleeza Rice
13: Toronto gun violence
12: Live 8/Make Poverty History
11: Ariel Sharon
10: Jack Layton
9: French riots
8: 7/7
7: Belinda Stronach
6: Same-sex marriage
5: Karla Homolka
4: Pope John Paul II
3: Justice John Gomery
2: Hurricane Katrina
1: Iraq

And, as an added bonus, here's another look at 2005 from The American Enterprise.

Joke

The depth of anti-Liberal sentiment out there is immense. The Liberals better not hope for a snow storm on Jan 23 because it's only going to be the really, REALLY pissed-off people who show up to vote, like my buddy who sent me this joke:

While vacationing on a ranch, Paul Martin gets thrown from his horse, lands on a rattlesnake, gets bitten and dies because the emergency room at the nearest hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time. So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. "Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a Liberal around these parts, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in; I'm a believer," says Martin.

"I'd like to just let you in, but I have orders from the Man Himself. He says you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for eternity."

"But, I've already made up my mind, I want to be in Heaven," replied Martin.

I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course; the sun is shining in a cloudless sky, the temperature a perfect 72 degrees. In the distance is a beautiful clubhouse. Standing in front of it is his Dad, and thousands of other Liberals who had helped him out over the years -- Pierre Trudeau, Jean Marchand, Pelletier, St Laurent, etc. The whole of the "Left" was there, everyone laughing, happy, and casually but expensively dressed.

They run to greet him, hug him, and reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at the expense of 'suckers and peasants.' They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. The Devil himself comes up to Martin with a frosty drink, "Have a Margarita and relax, Paul!"

"Uh, I can't drink anymore, I took a pledge," says Martin, dejectedly.

"This is Hell, son. You can drink and eat all you want and not worry, and it just gets better from there!"

Martin takes the drink and finds himself liking the Devil, who he thinks is a really very friendly guy who tells funny jokes like himself, and pulls hilarious nasty pranks, kind of like they pulled on the GST and Free Trade promises. They are having such a great time that, before he realizes it, it's time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as Martin steps on the elevator and heads upward.

When the elevator door reopens, he is in Heaven again and St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit Heaven," the old man says, opening the gate. So for 24 hours Martin is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things other than money, and treat each other decently.

Not a nasty prank or frat boy joke among them; no fancy country clubs and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster. And these people are all poor, he doesn't see anybody he knows, and he isn't even treated like someone special!

"Whoa," he says uncomfortably to himself. "Pierre Trudeau never prepared me for this!"

The day done, St. Peter returns and says, "Well, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for eternity."

With the 'Jeopardy' theme playing softly in the background, Martin reflects for a minute, then answers: "Well, I would never have thought I'd say this -- I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all -- but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell. The doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial waste, kind of like Sudbury. He is horrified to see all of his friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.

The Devil comes over to Martin and puts an arm around his shoulder.

"I don't understand," stammers a shocked Martin, "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar, drank booze. We lazed around and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!"

The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly, and purrs, "Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us!"

Year In Review - The Top 15 Newsmakers of 2005 - #2

The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in August and September this year was indescribable.

Katrina opened up a hard and intense debate which involved not only political figures but celebs and the media as well. For the Administration, President Bush embarassingly told Michael Brown, former horse show guru and head of FEMA, that he was doing a "hell of a job" when he clearly wasn't. Lower levels of government were even more incoherent in both preventing the disaster and responding to it. Gov. Mary Landreu (D) was completely out of the loop and New Orleans Governor Ray Nagin (D) seemed to point fingers at anyone he possibly could to escape blame. Even the media, which bit on stories of sexual assault at the Superdome, had egg on its face because that, and many other stories, were found to be simply untrue.

Nevertheless, the whole thing forced America to ask itself some hard questions about race, poverty and the ability of emergency responders to get the job done more than 4 years after 9/11. In the face of charges from the likes of rapper Kanye West that "George Bush hates black people", in late September, the President outlined a number of serious and imaginative proposals designed to foster entrepreneurship in the Deep South to get the region back on its feet.

The only people who came out of the whole debacle looking halfway decent were former Presidents Bush and Clinton who came together to form a relief fund, as well as the many volunteers from across North America (but especially in Houston, TX) who pitched in to help out.

It would be nice to think that Katrina caused governments all over North America to learn their lessons about priorities. Here in Canada, however, we are having an election debate which is largely about who is proposing the best government-funded babysitting program.

Sigh.

The good ol' Iraqi quagmire

It's Mark Steyn's world.

We just live in it.

Walmart saves Americans $2,329 per household in 2004

This, from a Dem policy analyst, which can be found in a very thoughtful piece here.

No doubt it's the people who are middle and lower class who are saving the most, because the "rich" don't shop at Walmart.

The company has also started to fight back against negative publicity with this website.

Perspective and the media

Great commentary here from Tom at RCP on the media's coverage of Iraq.

More Israeli intel on Iraq's WMD ...

... here. An excerpt:

And here is what he said about other intelligence services, including those of Israel: "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, many top intelligence and army officials in Israel still insist: "We said this at the time and we were not mistaken. The Americans are the ones who are making the mistake now."

Some of these officials have shared their views with their American contacts. "Why didn't we find the weaponry?" the Americans asked. The Israelis told them politely: because most of it was transferred to Syria before the war. Such suspicions have been openly published. All the intelligence services in the West are familiar with photographs of trucks sneaking across the border at night, accompanied by senior Iraqi officers. The problem is that the moment Israel turns an accusatory finger toward Syria, it is immediately suspected of ulterior, political motives. "They can think whatever they want," an Israeli officer says. "Perhaps it is impossible to change their opinion, but it is also impossible to change the truth. Material was transferred to Syria in the dark of the night, on the very eve of the war. Therefore, the Americans did not find it." And this, as suggested above, is the more polite explanation.

Some of these materials are still hidden in Iraq, the Israeli sources believe. Perhaps they will be found in the future. Maybe not. It is also not completely clear who knows where they are and who is controlling them. The Americans did not find the material transferred to Syria because they did not search there, of course. For many in the American defense establishment who opposed the war, it is very convenient that the material was not found. Thus they can take revenge against their rivals in the administration who disparaged them and ignored their recommendations during the months leading up to the war.

(Hat tip: Fred.)

All the news that's fit to print

Funny how the NYT sat on this story for one year and released it only the day after the wildly successful Iraq elections.

Anything to try and make the President look bad.

I would say most Americans believe electronic eavesdropping of the bad guys is a good thing, and furthermore, would be outraged if it WASN'T happening.

By Tuesday this story is going to disappear, after Pelosi and Boxer appear tomorrow on the talk shows and say, with plenty of moral indignation in response to questions about Iraq, "Oh yeah? Well, under this President, the US government spies on people!!! How dare they!!! How can Americans be proud of the progress in Iraq when the liberties of our own people are being trampled on here at home!!! OUR GOVERNMENT SPIES ON PEOPLE!!!! YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!"

Keep on preaching to the choir, Dem establishment.

Year In Review - The Top 15 Newsmakers of 2005 - #3

You know, instead of my usual commentary, I'm not even going to address this whole sordid and sickening tale of the national unity industry being co-opted by Liberal pols and their cronies for partisan gain. Everyone knows about it and everyone should be sufficiently outraged by it without me wasting my time running through it all over again. In fact, halftime between the Pats and Bucs is almost over so I think it's time to crack open another beer and park myself in front of the tube instead of sitting here blathering on about the Gomery Report.

Have a lovely evening.

DVD Review: Judas Priest - Rising in the East

Filmed in May 2005, reunited and grizzled metal gods Judas Priest return to Tokyo's famed Budokan concert hall, where their 1979 live album Unleashed in the East was recorded.

This concert disc mixes old classics like "Breaking the Law" and "Victim of Changes" with cuts from this year's "Angel of Retribution" disc. The 5.1 sound is very, very good and will fill your room. Performace-wise, Priest's drummer, Scott Travis, is the unsung hero of the band. A less irritating version of Lars Ulrich, he is a machine who holds it all down. How the hell does he stay co-ordinated? Also of note is riffmaster K.K. Downing, who I think is very underappreciated by the rock guitar community.

Where this DVD falls short, however, is in the performance of lead singer Rob Halford. The guy is washed up ... there's no other way to say it. He spends probably half the show bent over, holding on to his mic stand, and looking at the teleprompter. Not very metal, Rob. The screams have also evolved into growls. If you can get past that, go for it, but even I cringed a little bit and Priest is easily in my top 5 favourite groups of all time. Halford should look to Ronnie James Dio on the "Evil or Divine" DVD for a lesson on how to perform at an advanced age.

If you are a newer fan and are interested in discovering more about Priest, I would recommend their 2003 "Electric Eye" DVD, which contains a classic 1986 performance from Dallas, to get acquainted with them. "Rising in the East" is a nice souvenir for fans, but it's certainly not Priest at the top of their game.

Rumour has it that a 1982 show from Memphis on the "Screaming for Vengeance" tour is about to see wide release. You can bet that if it does, I'll be all over it.

Overall rating: 7.0 (but that's because I'm a huge fan).

John McCain's al-Qaeda Bill of Rights

So once again John McCain is all proud of himself. This time, it's because the White House is not vetoing his amendment which would ban the use of torture on terrorists by US forces, even though McCain said that in some cases, "you would do what you have to do" to protect innocent Americans from attack by procuring information in some ugly ways.

As is pointed out here and here, this provision is not all it's cracked up to be. Basically, this whole thing is a half-baked measure which boils down to mere political posturing from McCain. And we've never seen THAT before, have we?

(I don't know how I'm going to handle three more years of this.)

Paul Martin speaks out of both sides of his mouth AGAIN

Paul Martin's claims that he never supported Canadian participation in the Iraq effort is 100% bogus.

See here and here.

He cannot be allowed to get away with this stuff.

Canada's state religion

I proudly display both a Canadian and American flag decal on my car which is basically my way of giving the middle finger to the high priests of Canada's state religion, anti-Americanism.

Here's a letter to the editor from today's Ottawa Citizen on the same subject which I think is bang-on.

Re: Keep US out of election, envoy warns, Dec. 14.

In 1994, my husband, children and I moved to the United States to follow my husband's work. I chuckle now when I recall how naive I was: I lived in fear that we would be carjacked, murdered, or meet some other terrible fate from gun-toting, agressive Americans.

After all, hadn't we been bombarded by stories like this from our Canadian news reports? But the situation wasn't nearly as bad or widespread as we were led to believe. I learned an important lesson: Do not be quick to judge based on other people's opinions. My family and I quickly discovered that Americans are upstanding, decent and generous people, for whom we have the utmost respect.

Over the nine years we spent in the US, we heard only positive comments about Canada from Americans. When they discovered we were Canadian, they offered compliments and stories about Canadians, family connections, travelling and vacationing in Canada, and much more.

In contrast, during visits to Canada, we were accused of being traitors, and anything good we said about the United States was met with defence.

With all due respect to Canadians, having lived in both countries, I think that many Canadians have a big-brother complex when it comes to the United States. Of course we hear more about them than they do about us - they are a superpower, after all.

After years of hearing anti-American sentiments from Canada and its politicians, and particularly in light of recent comments by Prime Minister Paul Martin, it is understandable that Americans have finally had enough. I know I have.

Our family likes the United States, its citizens, and the many friends we made (and still have) there. We might not agree with every decision made by the US administration, but we do respect the administration and what it stands for. The United States is a country that stands by its convictions and values, even when those decisions are unpopular and the cost is great.

I find if difficult to comprehend how people can be so critical of a country that gives so much.

I applaud Ambassador David Wilkins' comments and am angered and embarassed that he felt the need to speak them. The United States has been a good neighbour and friend, despite disagreements.

This letter is my way of showing support and friendship for the United States. I hope more Canadians who share these sentiments will also stand up and be heard. God bless America, and Canada, too.

Nancy Olenic
Kanata

How can anyone possibly turn a blind eye to this?

The NDP and the Canadian Arab Federation seem to think that Canada's presence in Afghanistan is unjust.

In the face of occurrences like this, I find that position to be completely abhorrent.

(Hat tip to Fred.)

Post-debate observations

I just finished watching the English debate.

Here's my report, leader by leader.

Jack Layton: Boy, has this guy come a long way from the last time we saw him with his game-show host act in 2004. Measured, reasonable, and direct, notwithstanding the fact that by the 30 minute mark, adding up all of his promises to fund this and that would completely bankrupt the country. However, that's what the NDP's all about, right? Also hit the usual notes about class warfare by arguing against corporate tax reductions and identity politics by saying that the House would be more civilized if there were more women elected. I'm sure that the NDP will see a bounce of 4-5% from their current 12% over the next few days based on an all-around solid performance.

Grade: A-

Stephen Harper: Got into trouble early on by not repeating his pledge from last night in which, directly translated, he stated that he would "never" use the notwithstanding clause on same-sex. Confusing ... I wouldn't want to be a Tory candidate explaining that at the doorstep. Stern for the first hour, playing up to the traditional Conservative stereotype as the "dad" party, but then began to lighten up towards the end, focusing on encouraging entrepreneurship and urging Canadians to aspire to better. Very strong closing statement.

Grade: B-

Paul Martin: Can anyone remember anything that he said, other than outbursts towards Harper saying that the PM "has to defend the Charter" and another towards Duceppe where he wrapped himself in the flag and said that Duceppe would not "take his country away from him"? A lot of the usual Liberal pap without the charm of Chretien. I wish I could say more, but really, I can't. An utterly unremarkable performance.

Grade: C

Gilles Duceppe: Hard to grade because he isn't in the running to form government. That being said, he does a lot better in the more free-flowing debate than in question and answer type of format we saw tonight. Focused on typical Bloc issues relating to things like employment insurance that really have little to no resonance in the rest of Canada as a whole. Left no doubt that he is not there to promote Quebec nationalism, but rather, wants to take Quebec out of Canada entirely.

Grade: C

The North American family

Growing up in southwestern Ontario during the 80s, it was a matter of state religion that we were just "better" than the Americans. A big part of that was because Americans were seen to be racist, as opposed to us friendy, welcoming Canadians. As I matured, I realized that this was a bogus claim, what with our issues relating to francophones, aboriginals and others. America and Canada have a lot more in common on the issues of race and culture than we may think, and we have both done a good job of bringing people from around the world into the North American family than has Europe. An excerpt from the Boston Globe, here:

Just how successful assimilation has been in America may be more clearly visible from outside. In 1988 I was taken to a press dinner in Washington at which President Reagan spoke. He gave what was no doubt a well-rehearsed set-piece speech: ''Every immigrant makes America more American," he said. You can't become an Englishman by going to live in England, or a Frenchman by going to live in France, ''but anyone can become an American." It may have been corny; I was moved almost to tears.

Indeed Reagan's words were truer than he may have realized, and even nomenclature is telling. A friend of mine was born and bred in Vienna before he left quickly and for good reason in 1938. Having spent the rest of his life in London and, in the fullness of time, as a subject of Her Majesty, he used to say drily, ''I've become British, but I know I can never become English." But anyone can become an American.

Year In Review - The Top 15 Newsmakers of 2005 - #4

Pope John Paul II, leader of the Church since 1979, passed away this spring after years of failing health. The outpouring upon his death was emotional and sustained, as this man was admired by people all over the world as an advocate for justice, peace and forgiveness through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My impression was that it brought many Catholics back in touch with their faith and reminded a lot of us that it's not really about rules or dogma but how you live your life. For many non-Catholics, I think it caused a lot of people to ask themselves, "What's it really all about?"

John Paul's successor, Pope Benedict, was a former cardinal in Germany. Many liberals were saddened to see that the Vatican braintrust had chosen someone to lead the Church who was, well, Catholic.

No doubt Benedict, as John Paul did, will continue to challenge (and annoy, for that matter) both members and non-members of the Church.

Take a guess

I am going to reproduce excerpts from an editorial in a major newspaper today. After you read it, I'd like to you guess which paper it is from. Answer below.

Iraq's inspiring example

... It is also a rebuke to those who say that it is futile to plant democracy in the Middle East. Iraqis clearly feel otherwise. Millions of them walked through the streets of their towns and cities yesterday to vote for a new national assembly, the first permanent, democratic parliament the country has in decades. The turnout was reported to be heavy in all parts of the country, even the Sunni districts where the insurgency is strongest. In the Shia and Kurdish regions, where most people oppose the insurgents, the mood was celebratory. Instead of the usual grim pictures of smouldering buildings and burnt bodies, the world saw another side of Iraq: proud, smiling people waving ink-stained fingers after exercising their new right to vote. Some voters even walked to the polls wrapped in the Iraqi flag. Only the sourest cynic could fail to be inspired.

... Remember, too, that since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis have suffered through a repellant campaign of terror and destruction that has killed or maimed thousands of innocent people. That they marched to the polls anyway, heedless to the danger, heads held high, was triumph for human liberty.

... Those of us in safer places can only wonder at their courage.

Ok, so where do you think it came from? If you guessed the Wall St. Journal, you're wrong. Washingon Times? Nope. USA Today? Uh uh. National Review? Not even close.

This came from Canada's national newspaper - the Red Tory, mushy, apologetic Globe and Mail.

Finally, the Canadian establishment realizes the value of risk-taking, guts and leadership.

It is about damn time.

The media's top 10 economic myths of 2005

If you are going to read only one thing today, read this.

Excellent stuff.

Deconstructing Stephen Harper and Paul Martin on gay marriage

Over at Gay and Right, Fred says that since Harper stated last night that he would not use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, it is now safe in law, even if Parliament decides to bring the issue to a free vote and affirms the traditional definition of marriage.

In other words, the 2005 Charter ruling by the Court will trump any future parliamentary vote.

I think Fred's reasoning is correct here ... but if Parliament votes against same-sex marriage and even without using the notwithstanding clause, it will take yet another Charter challenge to have the Court re-affirm the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. This issue is still going to hang around for quite some time yet and it is still going to remain a pretty nasty debate.

What really pisses me off is the high-and-mighty attitude of Paul Martin towards all this.

First of all, if same-sex marriage is such a fundamental question of human rights, why did Martin only whip his cabinet into voting for it and not the entire Liberal caucus? (As I've pointed out, every MP from Scarborough voted against it, as did other MPs like John MacKay, Roy Cullen, and Dan McTeague, all who happen to be Privy Councillors because they are Parliamentary secretaries to the Ministers of Finance, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs ... all of which happen to be the three biggest portfolios in government. Plus, Andy Savoy, Liberal caucus chair, also voted against it.) Obviously Martin doesn't believe in it THAT strongly or he would have made every single Liberal MP toe the line.

Secondly, if Martin thinks using the notwithstanding clause is an unacceptable option for any federal leader, why doesn't Martin come out and say that he supports removing it entirely from the Constitution of Canada? (Answer: because then the province of Quebec would be found to be in contravention of the Charter because of their draconian language laws, and no Liberal would ever touch that.)

Finally, and closely related to the other two points is this: What does Mr. Democratic Deficit have to say about Parliamentary supremacy? Do judges make laws or does Parliament?