PTBC J-Log

Even if he loses election, Liberal Frenchman says he won’t quit as Liberal “leader”

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:08:22Z

Liberals are funny when they try to sound tough, mostly because the concept of it is actually preposterous on its face, given their history and policies and principles which manifest themselves around surrendering to the enemy, appeasing, and quitting.

The Liberal Frenchman says he won’t give up even if he loses, because unlike Stephen Harper, he isn’t a “quitter” (making this the 8,000th little girl-like negative adjective he’s applied to his nemesis Stephen Harper, in his not-at-all “mean”, “petty”, or child-like election campaign—is there any name he hasn’t called Harper yet?).

Won’t quit, Dion says.

I’m skeptical.

That kind of rhetoric doesn’t sound like something coming from a little girl, a liberal, a Canadian, or even a Frenchman, all of which he is.

But apart from that, he then added, according to the Ottawa Citizen:

“I’m married to my wife and my country and she’s nice enough, kind enough, to accept it”.

No mention of the Liberal Frenchman’s mistress, France, to whom he is also “married”

But you know, married, shmarried. They’re liberals! They’re the ones who changed the definition of marriage to something which doesn’t mean much, really—and certainly doesn’t mean anything like something sacred and special involving one man, and one women, or what we sane folks used to think of that “penis/vagina” thing, and that “mom and dad” thing. So I don’t imagine Dion’s “life partner” (or one of them), Mizzz J. Krieber, will have any trouble “accepting” France, that other “life partner”, either. Liberals are “progressive”! They accept anything.

Hey does this make Stephane Dion a polygamist?

And if we call him that, will he call us a nasty name?

How to vote for none of the above

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:59:24Z

For whom shall we vote on Tuesday? This is a “royal we,” of course: I would not presume to advise my readers, in making their solemn choice between the bean-counting nerd and the eco-nerd, or nerds. My more attentive readers will have grasped, anyway, what I think of all the prime ministerial candidates. Twice I have tried to unload the contents of a column over the head of Stephen Harper, whose betrayal of conservative causes I have been inclined to take personally. The other candidates do not annoy me nearly as much, since I have never been tempted to like, admire, or support any one of them.

In an election like this, if there is an attractive local candidate, one might as well vote for him (or her). I was aware of a few good men and women on the backbenches in the last Parliament—not only in the Conservative party—who impressed me as intelligent, upright, and soundly principled. Alas, most come from provinces like Saskatchewan, or otherwise very far away from the urban constituencies.

The best practical advice I could offer would be about the mechanics of the “returned ballot.” But here my expertise has expired.

In elections past, when I could find no candidate I would dream of voting for, I returned my ballot. This right was an ancient part of Canadian electoral practice, or so I still believe. The officer presents you with your ballot and the usual canned smile; you thank him in a well-bred manner. Then, to his horror, rather than walking immediately towards the voting booth, you declare: “I wish to return my ballot.”

In every case but one, the officer did not have the fondest clue what I was talking about. I then explained to him that, as I understood, should there be no candidate I wished to support, it was my right as a Canadian citizen to return my ballot. Indeed, one has no other choice, for simply not voting, or intentionally spoiling one’s ballot, would be irresponsible. One has a duty to vote that must not be shirked.

I would further explain that as returning officer, he should have a little book in which to inscribe my name, as that of an elector who has returned his ballot, so that my vote cannot possibly be confused with a spoiled ballot. Moreover, I would explain, tediously if necessary, that the matter was important because, as I understood, if there were a plurality of returned ballots in any riding, no winner could be declared. A byelection would have to be called, in which none of the previous candidates would be allowed to run again.

The idea of an aroused citizenry, forcing one byelection after another, in riding after riding, until the parties agree to run some plausible candidates, deeply appeals to me. Better yet, I should like to see a Parliament emerge with, say, five Conservatives, three Liberals, two New Democrats, and 298 independents.

The idea of mounting a national campaign to explain the returned ballot—of founding something like a “Returned Ballot Party”—has occurred to me in other moments, while sipping wine.

I wasted the better part of a morning, recently, trying to find some practical reference to “returning your ballot” on the Internet, or in Elections Canada literature. Take everything I write today as folk memory, therefore: I can find no evidence the returned ballot is still available in anything but remote municipal jurisdictions, in provinces like Manitoba.

This does not surprise me. Real democracy is something we’ve be phasing out in Canada for many decades now.

The last time I managed to convince a returning officer, in an Ontario provincial election, that such a thing as a “returned ballot” had ever existed (he was an old man with some memory of it himself), I looked eagerly to the riding result to see my (probably solitary) returned ballot displayed. But it was not: there was only a count of spoiled ballots. It struck me that I was in a position to demonstrate that the election result was invalid, as my vote, at least, had been mis-counted. For a moment I thought of making this into a mission. However, I had other priorities in my life, at that time, and gave up trying after a few pointless phone calls.

So where does this leave us (royal “us")? It leaves us in a neighbourhood where no local candidate has been able to please us. Thus, it reduces us to comparing the parties’ national manifestos, each of which consists entirely of pandering, incoherent blather. Thus, we are further reduced to choosing between national leaders, each of whom we detest. And yet we refuse to spoil our ballot, as we reject on principle most easy ways out.

I will therefore vote for the bean-counting nerd over the eco-nerd (or nerds), as the least bad among very bad options. But only in the hope of keeping the other party (or parties) out of power. In this, I suspect I am voting with the majority.

Lame Christian Media is Culpable for Our Cultural Corruption

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:57:46Z

If our nation goes down the secular crapper, then I lay a lot of the blame on the limp-wrist Christian media. Yep, I condemn Christian TV, Christian radio stations and Christian publishers that have the power and the audience to pump truth to the masses but have instead chosen to peddle spiritual candy rather than the unvarnished verities that the church and our nation need.

As far as I’m concerned, if Christians don’t speak, sing or write to the serious issues of their day then they’re about as useful to us and to God as teats on a boar hog.

Pathetic.

Aside from Dobson and his crew at Focus and a smattering of other luminaries, you don’t hear many of the overt Christian writers or talking heads speaking even mildly to the sassy secularists who are hell-bent on wrecking this land.

What’s the matter, ladies? Are you afraid you’ll lose your love offerings, your BMWs, or your 501(c)(3)? It’s unbelievable to me how these “Christian” corporations can be silent, for whatever reason, in this raging cultural war. You, sir/ma’am, are a disgrace to your post. Good luck at the judgment seat.

Y’know, I appreciate O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and others who go to bat on behalf of Christian principles, but it would be kind of nice to see some more pastors in that mix also. Ted Nugent brings more truth to the table than most pastors and priests do on radio, TV and in print.

Again, I’m glad for Bill, Sean, Glenn and Ted’s defiant input, but the insane silence amongst the brethren, especially the boys who run the so called mega-churches, to me is both pitiful and immoral. No matter how you want to slice your silence, Christian ministers and corporations, your mute mouth is cowardice of the highest order and a betrayal of our nation’s Christian heritage.

Being in the radio business and an author myself, here’s why I believe these various industries have put forth generic voices rather than specific punches: They don’t want to offend anybody. They have been converted into thinking that being Christ-like means being nice and eating whatever slop the secularists shovel down their throats. Political correctness has clipped their ‘nads and their vocal chords. Therefore, they won’t let anyone name names, they won’t allow the talent to get raw, they can’t permit a rowdy sense of humor, and they will not encourage men to be men about the issues lest someone . . . God forbid . . . get offended.

Here’s a big FYI to the boys in charge of these various vapid corporations: You’re more like Neville Chamberlain than you are like Jesus Christ, who would not pawn flapdoodle off on his friends, followers or foes. He could not turn a blind eye to that which was antithetical to his person and his work. He couldn’t do it. He was married to the truth. What are you married to?

Cash?

Praise?

Ratings?

Huh?

What’s REALLY on American voters’ minds? Maybe more than they’re prepared to admit!

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:44:36Z

This made me chuckle—especially at the absolutely predictable theories of nefarious right-wing conspiracies and all of that usual boiler-plate numskullery that is automatically attached to these stores.

Big ballot boo-boo: Osama for president?

...Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s last name is spelled “Osama” on some 300 absentee ballots mailed out this week to voters in Rensselaer County hilltowns.

Is it a Freudian slip, intentional gaffe or a mistake? Voters are sure to have opinions, and one politician pointed out that the letters “s” and “b” are not exactly keyboard neighbors.

“Of all the letters to hit by mistake,” County Democratic Chairman Tom Wade said. “Unfortunately it is a mistake which negatively impacts our Democratic candidate for president.” ...

I wonder how liberals explain NatPo columnist Don Martin repeatedly coming right out and accidentally calling Obama “Osama bin Laden” on the CBC one day, as I explained here, in this post: National Canadian columnist calls Obama “Osama bin Laden”, on state-owned CBC, then laugh riot

A feckless Conservative Party? Principled conservatives have only themselves to blame

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:24:38Z

It has been said that the only things certain in life are death and taxes, but in Canada, there’s one more thing you can count on, and that’s conservatives – both fiscal and social – accusing the Conservative Party of “abandoning” its principles and “deserting” its core constituents. It’s no great surprise then that a handful of prominent Canadian conservatives are now doing just that.

There is no question that the Harper government’s record, from a narrowly conservative perspective, has been unspectacular, something for which conservatives are completely justified in holding them accountable. The critics are wrong, however, to blame the politicians alone for this unsatisfying performance.

The primary role of politicians is to get elected and stay elected. Sure, the purpose of getting elected is to implement a particular policy agenda, but that’s true only to the extent that it’s possible. To achieve anything in the way of policy, politicians must often perform the delicate and unpleasant task of balancing principle with popularity, pursuing only those policy objectives that are acceptable to the largest number of people at any given time, and setting aside those that are not.

To be successful, politicians must be adept at mediating multiple conflicting interests. Pragmatism, flexibility, and the ability to compromise – within reasonable limits, of course – are vital qualities to have in politics, especially in a country as large and as diverse as Canada.

On the other hand, these very same qualities render politicians singularly unsuited to be the exclusive, or even the main, source of conservative ideas and defenders of conservative principles. That role can only be filled by an independent conservative movement.

Freed from the inherent constraints of electoral politics, those individuals and organizations that comprise an independent conservative movement are able to develop and promote policy alternatives in a way that no political party can. By explaining conservative principles to the public and highlighting their benefits, these individuals and organizations expand the envelope of what’s possible for a conservative party to achieve in office, while reducing the scope of what non-conservative parties can impose.

Unfortunately, such a movement doesn’t really exist in Canada. The reason for this isn’t the desertion of conservative principles by its elected adherents though, but the lack of vision and committed leadership among conservatives outside of the political arena.

There’s no doubt that conservatives in Canada are sincere in their desire for change, but they aren’t very serious about promoting it. Support for independent conservative organizations in this country is tepid at best. As a consequence, most of these organizations are forced to operate as little more than volunteer clubs rather than the professional institutions they ought to be. Mediocrity is the rule, rather than the exception, and the results show.

For their part, the heads of many these organizations seem only too eager to surrender leadership of the conservative movement to the politicians, a convenient – if subconscious – way of evading any blame for its weak condition. Those who do fancy themselves leaders more often than not lack the knowledge and skill to competently represent their followers. Time and again their amateur interventions undermine their objectives and discredit the movement as a whole.

Compounding this is the attitude of at least some prominent conservatives that conservative organizations should act as surrogates of the Conservative Party when that party is in office, promoting its needs rather than challenging its thinking.

Given all this, is it any wonder that a Conservative government would settle into policy fecklessness, while principled conservatives feel bitter and abandoned?

The frustration of conservatives in Canada is understandable. The answer, however, is not to punish the Conservative Party for compromising its principles in order to remain politically attractive – as disagreeable as that may be – but to alter the environment that makes such compromises necessary in the first place. Politicians will always compete for the middle of the political spectrum and they are right to do so. The key for the long-term success of conservatives is to define where the middle of the political spectrum is.

To accomplish this, not only must there be institutions promoting conservative policies and defending conservative principles independent of the political party, these institutions must be adequately funded and competently run. By failing to provide this support and accountability, it’s grassroots conservatives and their leaders who have abandoned their ideas and principles, not politicians. Criticism of the Conservative Party is a healthy thing, but it would be a lot more credible if those doing it weren’t guilty of the same offences they accuse the politicians of.

It’s time for Canadian conservatives to stop the blame game, to stand on their own two feet, and to assume responsibility for the advancement of conservatism in Canada themselves.

Let’s let the politicians follow us for a change.

Add Montreal Gazette to list of Conservative endorsers; near total lack of liberal endorsement

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:52:47Z

...and yet the media generally bash the conservatives at every opportunity. (And I have a theory about that, which I’ll expound on more, later.)

In fact, PTBC beaver Bruce, who sent me this Gazette heads up, says he had to struggle though the usual four pages of anti-Harper, anti-conservative, pro Liberal (and even pro Justin Trudeau, proving they’re just ridiculous) nonsense, before finally getting to the faint praise for Harper and the Conservatives in their endorsement.

And I’ve noticed that this painfully tepid endorsing is all the rage these days in what I insist is very much the liberal media. Canadians are thought by many Americans to be excruciatingly boring, and this goes a long way to endorsing that notion.

It opens: “Canada has had a Conservative government for more than two and a half years now, and its record is, on balance, not bad.”

Gee. “[N]ot bad”. Don’t go crazy!

Other than that:

• “Amid all the unfair and misleading advertising of this campaign, one Conservative message is truer now than when the writ was dropped: Constancy and prudence with the country’s finances are even more important when we’re in the economic doldrums.”

• “… on the big issues - the economy, Canada’s place in the world, and striking the right balance between Ottawa and the provinces, including Quebec - it has done well.”

And then almost as if to simply give up all pretense of political sophistication and seriousness on politics generally, and certainly on the fate of our very nation, they toy with the notion of electing Justin Trudeau, purely on the basis of their “curiosity”.

“And we admit to being deeply curious about how Justin Trudeau would comport himself in Parliament. We hope he is elected in Papineau.”

Here’s a radical idea for you at the Gazette: Why don’t you haul him before your editorial board and ask him a few question before encouraging people to drop their principles, play games with democracy and their very franchise, and vote for that one purely on the basis of “curiosity”? Elect Conservatives because we need a steady, stable, reliable government at this vital time in our history, but hey let’s goof around with that playtoy Liberal just for funsies!

So in the end it’s hard to take their endorsement seriously. I’ve heard more rigorous logic and frames of reference amongst my friends and neighbors chatting over wine and beer and burgers and onion rings at the local tavern. And hey, why should that surprise me?

EXTRA EXTRA PREDICTABLE TRIPE

Right on cue (it’s election time in Canada), the liberals’ Toronto Star, one of the most left-wing mainstream papers in North America, today finally comes out and shocks exactly nobody as it endorses Liberal Frenchman Stephane Dion and Team Liberal, mainly by showing their utter contempt for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. We support Liberals because they are the best ♥liberal♥ team! It’s in our mandate as a fair and balanced Canadian newspaper to pick the best liberals!

Favorite quote from their official endorsement: “The New Democrats have an attractive leader in Jack Layton – articulate and knowledgeable. And the NDP platform is very similar to the Liberals’...”

Thinking caps on, America

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:49:22Z

Twenty years ago a dense meditation on the state of higher American education by a political philosopher at the University of Chicago rose to the top 10 of the New York Times non-fiction bestseller list.

Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind discussed how liberal education, by pushing cultural relativism in American universities over the previous 25 years, undermined critical thinking. Bloom taught Plato, and he recalled for his readers Plato’s famous allegory of the cave and man’s escape from its darkness via philosophy.

Bloom wrote, “A culture is a cave. (Plato) did not suggest going around to other cultures as a solution to the limitations of the cave.” Instead, according to Bloom, Plato held “philosophy, not history or anthropology, is the most important human science” for assisting individuals to emerge eventually from the closedness of caves to the openness of republican democracy.

Cultural relativism is anthropology’s revenge on philosophy, and subversion of critical thinking or reasoning. The function of rational thought is to assist individuals learn how to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness. But for such discrimination there needs to be standards – measurements and criteria – by which what is good, or true, or beautiful can be discerned, appreciated and separated from what is evil or false or ugly.

But cultural relativism insists standards are arbitrary construction of norms and values by those holding power or, in other words, predominantly white males.

Moreover, cultural relativists by conflating discrimination with bigotry put a chill on critical thinking and corrupted liberal education by subjecting it to political correctness.

For Bloom, the closing of the American mind meant dismantling of rational inquiry in higher learning. He observed, “As Hegel was said to have died in Germany in 1933, enlightenment in America came close to breathing its last during the ’60s.”

America in modern history is man’s greatest experiment in building a free republic protected by his devotion to rational thought. The founding fathers invested much of their thinking on how this could be done given the failings inherent in human nature. They found the answer in the ingenious device of checks and balances in government.

James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” He recommended good and free government required “that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.”

Since the 1960s, however, the corrosive politics of cultural relativism and erosion of critical thinking have left the United States vulnerable to those who do not take kindly to freedom. In a republic about equally divided, nearly half of the citizens are unwilling to be sentinels while having no qualms in being predators raiding the public treasury.

A prudent American voter – irrespective of the failings of elected representatives – would not vote members of the same party, Democrat or Republican, to the White House and the Congress, and nullify the virtue of divided government.

The urgent question then hanging over the United States is if there are Americans sufficient in numbers to protect the republic from the peril of those with closed minds voting in the November 2008 election.

We’re scared of shadows

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:47:27Z

While it is true that the Dow Jones Industrial Average rather plunged this week—one of the deepest dives since Charles Dow invented the index in the late 19th century—we might back off a bit, and look at Wall Street’s performance over the last year. Over this longer period, bidders in American stock markets alone have erased more than eight trillion U.S. dollars in stock values.

Not a good year for the captains of industry, but buried in that number is at least two trillion in pension funds of one kind or another. Clever, educated people satirize the “trickle down effect,” but in this instance they can perhaps be made to understand that when Wall Street suffers, we feel their pain.

And then we may look at the (generally worse) performances of Toronto’s 300, London’s FTSE, Frankfurt’s DAX, Paris’s CAC, Tokyo’s Nikkei, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng, Sydney’s All Ords. If money grew on trees, this would be a glorious planetary autumn.

Not only should we grasp the “trickle” concept—when the tsunami from these securities adjustments reaches our far consumer shores—but also, the unpredictability of all human life. I am filing this column from the middle of yesterday, and no one in the world can tell me with certainty whether the bloodletting in New York will resume after lunch, or bargain-hunting will give the Dow a late sprint. I may not need to know, but there are millions of others who urgently covet this unavailable information—so they can bet against each other.

Even the Pope weighed in, this week, with investment advice of a sort:

“We are now seeing, in the collapse of major banks, that money vanishes, it is nothing. All these things that appear to be real are in fact secondary. Only God’s words are a solid reality.”

While I am always skittish when the Vatican decides to contribute its share to the world’s sound bites on breaking news, I can see no flaw in the Pope’s analysis. He was referring to Matthew 7, in which Christ comments upon houses built on sand; and to the self-evident fact, that this world itself will finally pass away. We must remember that, and get used to that, for otherwise we are just crazy panicked headless roosters looking for some skyscraper to jump off.

Moreover, to be Platonic about this, money is unreal by two removes, for it bears a relation to objects of acquisition not unlike that of words to things, or art to nature. It is quite abstract, it is a semblance of a semblance. And when the money is removed, and the words are removed, and the picture is removed—the thing that they depicted is usually still there.

I am making this rather recondite observation to some point. Were it not for the panic, very little would be lost. The things that we produce by our labour we may continue to produce, so far as they are needed; and the things we need may continue to be produced, in exchange. Money itself, so long as it is taken at face value, may continue to be the convenient mode of exchange. Neither now, nor in 1929, nor in any of the other times of stock plunge and bank failure, has anything much been lost, until, to use Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s phrase, “fear itself” became the enemy of the people.

For in practical terms, the stocks on Wall Street are not worth nothing. Formidable agencies of production lie behind each of them. When their heads have cooled, investors may sort out which are over-valued, which under-valued by comparison, and what needs writing off. The more I try to think it through, the clearer it seems to me that every “rescue plan” is counter-productive. The sorting-out process is seriously confused when the government blunders in.

Indeed, the consensus of the economists I have read is that the Great Depression was largely an artifact of government intervention, reacting to a meltdown by freezing it into place. For politicians and bureaucracies characteristically mistake money for goods, words for things, pictures for reality.

--------

In my column of Oct. 1, I wrongly stated that the U.S. Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, had tried to squeeze a renewed moratorium on oil shale drilling into the financial bailout bill the Senate had just passed.

It was instead into the Senate’s continuing resolution on government funding that Mr Reid tried to squeeze this moratorium (unsuccessfully).

Maclean’s and Mark Steyn: off of the fascist BC “human rights” commission kangaroo court hook

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:55:45Z

If it had gone any other way, I’d likely have left the country.

B.C.commission rejects Maclean’s Muslim complaint

Updated Fri. Oct. 10 2008 5:57 PM ET
The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER—The B.C. Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint against Maclean’s magazine that claimed an article about Islam violated anti-hate laws.

In a ruling released Friday, the commission found the article by Mark Steyn did not violate anti-hate laws or raise hatred against Muslims.

It’s the third time the complaint by members of the Canadian Islamic Congress has been dismissed by a human rights commission in Canada. [...]

Read about my attendance as a witness at the “court” “hearings” from back in June. “Just hopped back from Kangaroo Court”

Just hopped back from Kangaroo Court
Written by Joel Johannesen
Thursday, June 05, 2008

I spent the entire morning at the B.C. edition of the “human rights” tribunal against Maclean’s and Mark Steyn and Canadian freedom. It adjourned early today so lawyers could prepare their closing remarks for tomorrow. I couldn’t have been happier.

I decided to go and attend this event in person because I doubt I’ll make it to Iran anytime soon. And this is right in my home town.

For details, I’ll leave you to read the excellent live blog-a-palooza posted at Maclean’s.ca by famed columnist Andrew Coyne (see specifically HERE for today’s ordeal). He was sitting over to my right a few ‘roos away from me. He’s doing a superb job capturing—live, and then busily in far away corners of the courthouse corridors during “court” breaks—the essence of the sham “trial” and all the subtle nuances.

I was lucky enough to sit beside Mark Steyn himself, who, after we chatted a tiny bit beforehand in the lineup to get in (yes, it was packed today), sat as bemused as most of us ‘roos were, in the cramped kangaroo gallery. He couldn’t have been more gentlemanly and enjoyable despite the absurd, faux scandalous circumstances he finds himself in. For example while it has been noted in newspaper articles that many Steyn supporters (and they are legion) in the gallery choose, in protest, to not rise (real court-room style) when the pretend “judge” enters and seats herself at the big imposing bench, Mark told me that he rises only out of deference to the fact that the tribunal chairman is a woman. So I did too.

The proceedings were interesting only to the extent that it was utterly amazing to hear things like Osama bin Laden’s name in the same sentence as Mark Steyn’s name, and it was Mark Steyn—not bin Laden—who was on “trial” here! And it is apparently Steyn who is to blame for some Muslims’ feelings being hurt and for feeling castigated by many folks in North America (and Belgium, apparently, and California...), not Osama bin Laden.

Several times, people were heard to smirk at some of the issues raised by the complainant’s lawyers and their witness. So your feelings were hurt, were they Mr. Habib? And your wife’s feelings too? Voila! —and this sort of thing is to be taken as some sort of definitive, conclusive argument. I saw many heads shaking left to right in disbelief. As was my head.

Canadian heroes seize series of Taliban supply depots full of weapons

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:55:45Z

Great news from one of the fronts of the war on terror. News you’d think the state-owned CBC would be all over and up and down and around with video, photos, big stories from on-site correspondents, and so on. I mean it’s all-Canadian and about heroes and it’s happy and it speaks to Canadian success and heroism and progress in the war on terror, and you’d think they’d think Canadians should know all about it…

Therefore I can’t find diddly about it on CBC.ca and haven’t heard anything about it on CBC Newsworld.

From citizen-owned CTV.ca:

Canadian soldiers seize Taliban weapons, supplies

Updated Fri. Oct. 10 2008 12:18 PM ET
The Canadian Press

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan—Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have seized a series of major Taliban supply depots containing everything from winter clothing and medical supplies to bomb-making equipment and anti-tank weapons.

I can imagine liberals and further leftists in Canada angrily demanding that the “mean” Canadian military give the clothing back for “humanitarian” purposes and to show the Taliban “compassion” because we’re but “peacekeepers”. (I nominate Jack Layton for the clothing exchange, since he’s so eager to share a chat with them over tea and buns. I would suggest he arm himself to the bone, or at least be covered by men with heavy arms and possibly even F-18 cover from the Americans, but I imagine he’d be against all of that...)

But in what struck me as the quintessential irony, this line appears near the end of the news story, listing some of the items found:

“...two 50-kilogram sacks of dried peas from the United Nations, originally donated by Canada.”

How Canadian liberal. That donation to the U.N. was, once again, VERY effective. Let’s up that budget.

And finally this line, which, well, it just ain’t liberal. It speaks to the need to carry a big stick—and that peace can be secured through superior firepower:

“Insurgents declined to tangle directly with the heavily-armed battle group from the Royal Canadian Regiment...”

Anyway, here’s the front page of their/our people’s web site:

Nothing about it on the state media. Guess they don’t think Canadians should know this.

An American Carol starts today in Canadian theaters

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:40:36Z

Once again, let me remind folks that for a little comedy relief, go out to the movies and watch An America Carol which starts this weekend in Canada. After watching that Dion video, even you undecideds have no more need to ponder politics! Well except on this funnier, more professional level.

Support movies and actors that for once mock liberals and their icons like Michael Moore. I understand this movie didn’t get any government funding or support of any kind, and yet here it is, a good, fun movie, in Canada. (’Course it’s American....)

Trailer:

Check listings here at “Tribute.ca” for times and days etc—it’s only in larger towns apparently, so of course the rest of you will have to wait for the DVD to come out.

TORONTO
Empire Empress Walk 10 Cinemas, North York
AMC Winston Churchill 24 - Oakville
AMC Kennedy Commons 20 - Scarborough
Alliance Atlantis - Cumberland 4 - Toronto
AMC Yonge & Dundas 24 - Toronto

OTTAWA
AMC Theatres - AMC Kanata 24 - Kanata

VANCOUVER
Famous Players - SilverCity Coquitlam
Famous Players - SilverCity Riverport
Cinemark - Cinemark Tinseltown

CALGARY
Empire Studio 16 Country Hills, Calgary

EDMONTON
Cineplex Galaxy - North Edmonton Cinemas
Empire 10 Clareview Cinemas

Thanks to woodburner for the listing link

Obama rally: “Please welcome next Vice President… John McCain!” (-- Don’t worry, not a “gaffe")

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:54:06Z

Just as Dion didn’t make a “gaffe” according to the CBC (which officially names every single slip that has ever befallen any conservative in North America a “gaffe”), this Obama representative nincompoop—who I’m going to go ahead and call “that one” —didn’t make a “gaffe”. Which is why neither the CBC nor any Canadian media is showing this particular clip.

(Hat tip to Malcolm for this)

ALERT!!! Jack Layton mentions—then waves at—his mommy at campaign event! SHAME!! (Apparently)

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:58:44Z

<total media and politician hypocrisy—on>

JUST NOW:

Jack Layton introduces his mommy and his “life partner’s” mommy to the crowd. Crowd goes wild! Loves it!

Media not all over this! Thinks it’s adorable! Folksy! “Progressive”!

Unlike when Harper mentioned his mom and was castigated as a crass and moronic mom-user neo-con!

(Layton’s a socialist, not a conservative!)

CTV covered the event. Here he is waving at his mommy:

Unreported: Layton may own fluffy sweaters.

</total media and politician hypocrisy—off>

Arts funding flip-flop won Harper no friends

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:21:03Z

Living out of a suitcase can’t be easy, and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has now been criss-crossing the country for almost six weeks in his attempt to win the support of the majority of Canadian voters. Each day means different handlers, a different city and a different hotel room—and it all happens at a frantic pace.

So perhaps Canadians can forgive Harper for somehow misplacing his spine this past week.

While his spine was temporarily AWOL, Harper caved in to the demands of Canada’s artistic community and their ludicrous cries of censorship. At issue were amendments to Bill C-10 that would ostensibly deny federal tax credits to film projects that would be considered offensive by a majority of mainstream Canadians.

The battle had been going on for six months, and the government hadn’t budged in its resolve to be accountable to Canadians for the kinds of projects supported by their tax dollars.

But in the past couple of weeks, it became apparent that the issue had touched a nerve with Quebec voters and their drive to maintain a culture that is separate and distinct from the rest of Canada—but funded by money from Canada.

With one week before the election and Quebec support in rapid decline, Harper caved and made a commitment that simply isn’t in the best interests of Canadians.

It’s embarrassing to witness such a blatant grovel for votes and, frankly, it’s embarrassing to see him take on the likes of Margaret Atwood in a staring contest—and be the first to blink.

The one problem Harper couldn’t overcome in this stand-off was public perception.

The protests primarily came from high-profile artists (like Atwood and Grey’s Anatomy star Sandra Oh) who had a public stage and the public’s ear to complain about government cuts and a government that wanted to censor films according to its conservative ideology.

That’s the message the public heard, but it doesn’t represent the reality of the situation.

Yes, the Conservative government cut $45 million from arts funding this summer.

But Parliament already voted to provide $4 billion in funding for cultural programs in this fiscal year, so we’re talking about a $45 million cut from a multi-billion dollar budget—which is about one per cent.

In addition, arts funding under the Conservatives was 20 per cent higher than the amount provided by the Liberals in their last year of government (2006).

I can’t think of many government departments that would whine about a one per cent loss in funding if they had just received a whopping 20 per cent funding increase over the last two years!

The idea that Bill C-10 is about censorship and forcing a Conservative notion of morality on Canada’s artists is also blatantly false.

The bill was first introduced by the Liberal government back in 2002—so if there’s any ideology involved, it’s from the Liberals. Secondly, the bill was passed unanimously by Parliament in 2007—that means with the support of the Liberals!

The bill also passed two readings of the Liberal-dominated Senate before the cries of Conservative ‘censorship’ began. Given all this, how can this bill possibly represent some anti-cultural bias of Conservative ideology?

The bill would have allowed for scrutiny of project content before funding is granted, but that’s standard government procedure for every other kind of funding.

Scientists, medical researchers, social scientists and entrepreneurs don’t get an automatic pass to a grant.

Their proposed projects are scrutinized and considered for their potential benefit to society, and they don’t cry ‘censorship.’

Why should artistic projects be any different?

Considering content before handing over the cash isn’t censorship. It reflects common sense and responsible government.

The greatest irony in Harper’s about-face is that it still won’t win him the support of the arts community. Already prominent Canadian actor Sarah Polley has declared “it doesn’t negate the harm this government has caused to culture in this country.”

Of course she doesn’t provide any evidence for her claim, but it makes for great reading in the newspaper.

The president of ACTRA, the union of Canadian performers, also says the reversal isn’t enough to win their support.

Why? Because they still believe the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to certain types of arts and culture. Again, no evidence was provided to support the claim.

In sum, the Conservative government gave far more money to the arts than the Liberals and it tried to pass a Liberal-created bill that was in the best interests of Canadians.

In return, the arts community has complained about massive cuts and some conservative ideology being imposed on all film-makers.

Both complaints are false, but the public believed them. So Harper caved.

The one good thing that stems from Harper’s policy

reversal is that the Conservative party has now announced a $500 tax credit that parents can claim to offset fees for their child’s participation in arts and cultural activities like music or art lessons.

No doubt the artistic community will claim it’s a plan to inculcate the next generation in Conservative art and music, but by then the election will be over.

The liberals’ Vancouver Sun [UPDATE: and others!] in Harper and Conservative endorsement

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:35:37Z

Add this to the Globe and Mail, the National Post, The Economist, and probably others. Well not the CBC. But others. ... (UPDATES with some more “others”, below)…

• “...Stephane Dion, with his stumbling English delivery and ideological approach to politics, was not an obvious choice to lead a national political party...”

• “So on the ballot box question that’s on everybody’s mind - the slowing economy - we trust Harper to navigate the rough road ahead.”

• “A majority government for the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper is our choice.”

EXTRA EXTRA
The Ottawa Citizen is also on board:

• “...Of all the leaders, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a trained economist, seems the most capable of steering the nation through these rocky times. He has not panicked on the campaign trail...”

• “Liberal Leader Stephane Dion would fare little better [than Jack Layton] as prime minister. His economic plan—which wasn’t even featured in the Liberal’s official platform—seems like it was sketched out on a cocktail napkin. It involves little more than meetings, emphasizing talk rather than action. It seems designed to capitalize on the fears of Canadians for the short-term benefit of the Liberals without offering any long term benefits to taxpayers.”

ALSO:
Toronto Star-owned Kitchener-Waterloo Record, has put itself in line for a scolding by the “mother corp” (no, not the CBC —well actually...) the TorStar Corporation, by endorsing Harper and the Conservatives.

• “...And when we weigh things as fairly and carefully as we can, we conclude that Harper and his party deserve another term in government.”

• “Unfortunately, it is at this precise moment that Dion and his Liberals are asking Canadians to take a leap of faith that could land them on their backsides in the dust.”

• “Throughout most of its history, The Record has endorsed Liberals in federal elections. In fact in the past 40 years, there have been only two other occasions on which we did not. However, the Green Shift is a stumbling block we cannot clear.”

• “On balance, Harper has put Canada in a good, even enviable position to weather the coming economic storm. Proof of this came this week when the International Monetary Fund predicted that Canada will lead the Group of 7 industrial nations in growth next year, with our gross domestic product estimated to rise by 1.2 per cent.” ...