Keeping Up With the Blogses

It Would be Nice to Have a Month Off to Protest

2011-10-18T15:43:00.000-07:00

I have, more or less, been working since I had a paper route beginning at age 12. My parents were separated and mom wasn't exactly shelling out the bucks to satisfy the whims of a pre-teenager (soon to be teenager). So, I got a job.

I was a newspaper boy. Then, I worked at McDonalds. I did telephone soliciting and door-to-door sales. I worked as a carpet cleaner. I did shit jobs for money because I needed money to live and to buy the things I wanted. It didn't matter to me how I made the money as long as it was legal.

Which is why the current protests that started in Israel (yes, Israel - if you really want to go back to the roots) and then spread to Wall Street and across North America and Europe kind of annoy me. It's not that I mind protesting or that I don't think there is some validity in the concerns of many of the people attending - it's the endless litany of hapless whining and the chorus of how unfair life is that grates on my nerves.

I have heard numerous interviews with these people. One, an American now living in Canada, complained a bank "conned" him into accepting a $200,000 mortgage that he couldn't afford because he only made $10 an hour. Apparently, he was incapable of doing the math himself. Others, asked about what they're protesting, mumble and stumble throwing around words like equality and justice without exactly identifying the inequalities and injustices of North American life. Another I heard advocated a society without money. We don't need money, she opined, we just need to share everything. And, still others have arrived to blame that age-old world pariah: the Jews.

They call themselves the 99-percenters to differentiate themselves from the wealthy of western society but they don't acknowledge that they are far richer than anyone not from a developed first world nation. Further, leaving riches aside, they have the right to protest and enjoy freedoms many people would gladly trade whatever fortune they have to achieve.

The problems in our current economies were not merely the faults of banks and government agencies, although they certainly played their part. They are also the fault of the millions of people like $10 an hour guy who happily accepted an endless amount of credit with some kind of expectation that it would all work out in the end. And, it did, just not the way they wanted.

I don't know how someone can sit on a street for 30 days demanding this, that or the other thing. How many opportunities at working for a living slipped by in that time for those people? How many left jobs so they could squat in a park with others feeling all self-righteous while accomplishing nothing? How many have never worked at all and have no intention of working because they feel, simply by the virtue of their existence, that the rest of us owe them something?

We have created a society of entitlement and this is the fruit we are being rewarded with. The protests will fizzle out when the cold weather sets in, at least in the northern states and Canada. And, those people will be no better off because they've been playing the role of Aesop's grasshopper while us ants - the true 99 per centers - have been preparing for the less sunny times ahead.

Does "Fuck You" Qualify as an Apology?

2011-09-05T15:45:00.001-07:00

As its regressive government completes Turkey's transition from secular democracy to islamic craphole, it took an important step this week - downgrading its relations with Israel and expelling Israeli diplomats from the country.

Any old excuse would do - the Turks are clearly bent on earning their arab street cred and that must include treating Israel as a pariah state. You can't cozy up to the Iranians and their Syrian puppets without a healthy dose of Jew-hating and paranoia infesting your every decision. In this case, however, Turkey seized on the UN report exonerating Israel for last year's unfortunate flotilla incident which left 9 terrorist-wannabes dead. And, when I say unfortunate, I mean in the sense that several Israeli commandos were seriously injured.

Anyway, as most people should know by now, the UN had no recourse but to report that the Gaza blockade is legal. Had they been able to come up with another conclusion, I've no doubt they would have. But, no, the UN admits the running of weapons into Gaza via the sea is an existing and existential threat to Israel and it questioned the motives of the flotilla's "humanitarian organizers". By extension, if the blockade is legal, running it must therefore be illegal. So, it was the flotilla that broke international law, not the Israelis. Further, it was the Turkish government that allowed this farce to occur with, I imagine, the clear intent of embarrassing Israel. They, apparently, did not realize the Israelis are serious about their security.

Luckily for the Turkish government, in the arab world, you can pass anything off as a Jewish, Israeli or Zionist conspiracy, thereby avoiding what really irks them - being humiliated. When your armies are defeated, you claim victory. When a few dozen gunmen are killed, you yell, "massacre and genocide". When your citizens revolt, you blame the Mossad, etc. Hell, last year Egypt blamed Israeli-trained sharks for a spate of biting attacks in one of its tourism areas. And, that was when the Egyptians were still being run by Mubarak, one of the least Israeli-hating of the arab thug leaders.

So, rather than make amends to Israel for essentially underwriting an attack on a country that had been mostly an ally, the Turks demanded an apology from Israel. Israel, having already publicly expressed deep regret at the loss of life (one imagines the reaction inside the halls of power was somewhat less sympathetic), refused. The Turks have decided this is cause to end a diplomatic and business relationship that has been one of the few anywhere in the Middle East built on mutual accommodation. It is Recep Tayyip Erdogan's plan to continue Turkey's move to an islamic state and it goes hand in hand with purging the army of its secular leaders and becoming ever-more chummy with Iran.

Israel, being Israel, will likely take this slight and put on its normal face of regretting the Turkish actions, calling for reconciliation and refusing to issue any other public apologies, hoping all the while the Turks eventually come to their senses. Sadly, I have my doubts. If I were Israel, I'd be very tempted to take two diplomatic steps of my own: 1) publicly recognize the Armenian genocide and 2) call for an independent Kurdish homeland. Sometimes, when you're in the sandbox, you have to toss a handful back at your tormenter.

Just a Little Off the Sides

2011-08-31T21:34:00.001-07:00

When my wife was pregnant with our first child, we attended a Lamaze class. During the course of the sessions, the issue of circumcision arose. I don't remember the circumstances - whether it was part of the actual program or just a question raised by one of the other three couples attending.

I was aghast when one of the couples began having an actual argument over the issue. He, a Canadian, was insistent that any male child would be circumcised; she, from Britain - where the practice is not nearly as prevalent as in North America - was equally convinced otherwise. After about five minutes of uncomfortable squirming, I suggested perhaps it would just be best if they had a girl. Which they did. They also divorced a couple of years later.

Lately, it seems the circumcision issue is getting a lot of media play. An initiative to ban it completely in San Francisco failed. My daily newspaper recently had a two-page spread on whether it was a responsible act or not. Howard Stern, who I listen to almost daily, regularly speaks out against it, one of the few things I'm in complete disagreement with him on.

The arguments against circumcision seem to be: 1) it's unnecessary, 2) it's mutilation, 3) it causes psychological harm to the baby and 4) it lessens the man's pleasure during sex.

Of these, 1) is largely correct. There is no specific reason to circumcise a baby. But studies have shown circumcision reduces the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, and it reduces the potential for other infections. It also removes the potential for requiring a circumcision later in life - an occasional and, reportedly, very painful prospect indeed for an adult male. And, yes, there are rare complications but those exist with vaccinations and other common medical procedures (generally with much more serious medical consequences). 2) depends entirely on your point of view. Young girls (and boys) often get piercings before they are of adult age and it, too, is mutilation but I don't hear anyone calling for it to be illegal. Ditto tattoos which are sported by teens on a regular basis these days. 3) is utter, complete and absolute bunk. I had both my boys circumcised. I held them while it was being done, without anaesthetic, by a mohel (a Jewish doctor specifically trained in both the medical and religious aspects of the process). In both cases, a single cry was emitted and that was pretty much it. The idea that this causes some deep scars to the baby's psyche is the type of ridiculous babble regularly touted by those who feel that we've all been scarred and are incapable of overcoming even the most minor - or in this case, completely unmemorable - events in our lives. 4) I can only say that if I am foregoing, let's say, 10 per cent of the pleasure I would otherwise get from intercourse, then it's a sacrifice I am willing to make both for myself and my wife. Feeling too little pleasure is not a problem in my world. And, as far as pleasure goes, my wife reveals that on the one occasion she was involved with a non-circumcised man, she found it, delicately speaking, off-putting.

In reality, what drives the anti-circumcision crowd is they are convinced they are right and will use whatever means at their disposal - whether supporting evidence exists or not - to advance their argument. You do not hear anyone call for all babies to be circumcised because the reasoned view from that perspective is that it's a choice parents make based on their own convictions.

The simple fact really seems to be that circumcision is a procedure that has some benefits but not necessarily enough to compel the medical community to recommend it universally. And, that's how it should be left. Parents are given the appropriate information to make their own decision. It is not an issue that requires the intervention of the nanny-staters - but, then, I suppose that comprises the vast majority of their issues in this ever-increasing atmosphere of regulation and taking decisions away from the only people who should rightfully be making them.

A Tale of Two Riots

2011-08-18T21:28:00.000-07:00

Following four or so days of intense rioting in Britain a couple of weeks ago, the police, courts and politicians have acted aggressively, already combining to send a number of people to jail for periods that, in some cases, far outweigh the generally accepted severity of the crime.

This, of course, has sent the usual suspects into great spasms of righteousness as they cry to the heavens about the lack of justice and assert that on appeal these sentences will be overturned. They don't get it: British society, or at least those in charge of keeping some kind of order, seem to have decided enough is enough and that a) even if the sentences are overturned the jail time those individuals are now serving will far exceed previous such penalties and b) it could possibly act as a powerful incentive to others inclined to do the same stupid things to maybe just have another beer instead and pass out peacefully.

Having never been there, I don't know what Britain is really like but I've read enough about its societal make up and recent history to be pretty sure it's not a place I'd feel particularly comfortable living as I am opposed to endemic anti-Semitism, appeasement-oriented multiculturalism and cradle-to-grave entitlements with no effort to instill any sense of responsibility in those receiving said benefits.

However, I generally applaud the British reaction to rioters and wish I could say the same for the actions of the equivalent parties here in British Columbia. Because, apparently, we need a couple of more serious riots before we learn the lesson.

It turns out that more than two months after a very damaging riot in downtown Vancouver following the loss of the Stanley Cup final, not only has there not been a single conviction, there has yet to be even a single charge laid. This despite the fact that many of the rioters were captured on video and camera and that many of the people involved were even stupid enough to post of their exploits on social media sites. This despite the fact the police and the government promised swift and serious action after the second hockey related riot in the city's history. This despite the fact the public outcry was both loud and direct: prosecute the people responsible for damaging property and sullying our city's reputation.

It has been posited that the cry for swift action was borne of the same mob mentality that led to the riots and that the emotion would ebb as quickly. I disagree wholeheartedly. Two months later and I, for one, still want those responsible held responsible. I want the clowns who burned cars and threw stones at police and broke windows and looted stores jailed, for at least a short period of time. I want those who participated in less violent or damaging ways to suffer the embarrassment of being hauled before the courts and made to, at least, undertake public service to pay us back for their actions.

I'm extremely irked that there has been no action here and that the police are still yapping about having to compile more evidence. If they don't have enough evidence to convict some of these people, then our governments need to address the definition of evidence so that those who post pictures of themselves on Facebook breaking laws in a significant way are deemed to have provided sufficient evidence, not withstanding whatever other evidence may exist.

I want an end to the bullshit before British Columbia looks like the British Isles. Justice delayed is justice denied and, in this case, it is society that is being denied.

Time to End the Tea Party

2011-07-04T15:17:00.000-07:00

It is supremely stupid that the US election cycle seems to be never-ending. Congressmen, restricted to their two year terms, are campaigning virtually all the time. The President's office isn't much more secure, usually by the time the four-year term is half over, people on the opposite side are lining up to take a run as are people from the ruling party, if the president is in his final term.

Sadly, Republicans seem intent on making sure that people from both sides will be lining up for the 2016 election. They do not seem to have a single candidate who is electable to the actual office of president.

We have seen this before, or at least Canadians have. After the Conservatives were handed a monumental ass-kicking in 1993, the party split in two. One half became the Reform Party - headed by evangelical Christian Preston Manning. The other continued to hold itself to the party's more centrist leaning faction. Predictably, they split the right of centre vote during several elections, handing easy victories to Jean Chretien and his Liberal Party. It was only after common sense prevailed and the right reunited under the capable stewardship of Stephen Harper in the early half of the last decade that they were able to challenge and eventually defeat the long-governing Liberals.

Manning, it must be said, wasn't a complete knuckle dragger but he did have knuckle dragging tendencies. I don't think he denied evolution but he would have denied you an abortion or a same-sex marriage. On the general scale of mixing religion with politics, he'd rate about a 7.5.

The darlings of the tea party, people like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, rate about a 9.5 on the knuckle-dragging scale. I'm giving them the half point benefit because, frankly, both of them are too good looking to be complete neanderthals. And, since the tea partiers now seem to hold the balance of power - or at least enthusiasm and probably money - for their chosen candidates, it would seem quite possible one of their beloved seizes the Republican nomination for 2012. If not, it's entirely feasible they will not vote for the Republican candidate and would either forward a third party or independent candidate or just stay home.

Either way, the Democrats win and Barack Obama's confused, meandering presidency gets another four years, including two where - if history is any indicator - he'll be a complete lame duck incapable of getting anything done. This is, by any reasonable standard, absolutely not what the United States needs right now.

It may already be too late. By indulging, or being overrun by, the Tea Party, the Republicans find themselves in a sticky situation. Some tea partiers, no doubt, are very sensible people who really are interested in nothing more than lower taxes/deficit, greater accountability and less intrusion in the average citizen's private life - areas where Obama, as the latest in a growing list of 20th/21st century presidents, has failed badly. But the vast majority seem to reject simple facts like evolution or what should be simple rights like a woman's control over her own body.

There is a split in the United States right now - or, at least it seems so from 15 minutes north of its border - between those who would run the country on semi-theological lines and those who would run it along semi-ideological lines. What is desperately needed is someone interested in running it along practical lines. With an ever-increasing deficit, three wars, a still-stagnant economy and an ungodly mess of a foreign policy, the Obama administration is ripe for the picking.

But, it won't be by Michelle Bachmann or those of her ilk. The Republican party needs a quick adaptation to the realities on the ground and a candidate who can forward a platform to reduce the deficit and bloated government, take a pragmatic, 21st century approach to a range of social issues and produce a cohesive foreign policy.

Sadly, I'm wagering my dashboard Jesus that this won't be happening in 2012. Rather, I think the Republicans are well on their way to turning the campaign into a year-long farce. And, as depressing a thought as that is; the alternative - they nominate and Americans elect someone like Bachmann - is just so opposed to common sense that it causes a small brain such as mine to produce a major headache when even contemplated.

Some Things Never Go Out of Fashion

2011-06-22T20:32:00.000-07:00

When I was a child, my mother insisted that I wear oxfords and dress pants to school until I was about 10 or 11. Of course, I hated this. In the 35 years since I have worn denim on at least 90 per cent of the days. Blue jeans, t-shirts, athletic socks and running shoes are my typical daily wear with only slight variations allowed for seasonal considerations. I even managed to wrangle myself employment in a white collar profession but with employers who allow blue collar dress.

All of which goes to say that I have the fashion sense of a colour-blind four-year-old. Furthermore, I daresay I care less about how I dress than that same four-year-old.

Which is why I was so surprised to learn today that fashion designer Johnny Galliano was under so much pressure from his job that he found it necessary to take drugs and alcohol in such quantity that he all of a sudden, presto, change-o, turned into an anti-Semite, like some sort of warped national socialist version of Cinderella. You must take your job pretty seriously when dressing up runway models becomes a reason to start ranting as if you've been possessed by Joseph Goebbels.

According to AP, during his trial for "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" Galliano doesn't remember any such incidents - although he's standing trial for two such occurrences and at least one other was reported - due to his drug and alcohol addiction. The drugs and alcohol were necessary because of the difficulties experienced by designers in a recession-wracked world. Over-priced and ugly clothing, it seems, just doesn't sell as well when people are defaulting on their mortgages.

Personally, I'm unconvinced that such a small, petty creature should even be on trial. His reputation lies in shreds, like the leftovers from one of his cutting room sessions. His employer, Christian Dior, turfed him immediately, and rightly so. Galliano is entitled to his stupidity but no one is obligated to keep paying him if he conducts himself in an unprofessional manner. It could really have been left at that.

The kicker is, of course, that Galliano is overtly homosexual. The Nazis, their personal indiscretions aside, would not have been impressed. The only fashion he would have been wearing under a Nazi regime would have included a pink triangle.

I will never buy the inevitable mea culpas that flow from the likes of Galliano and Mel Gibson. In wine, truth and all of that. But, really, ho-hum...if we want to get serious about anti-Semitism in this world, Galliano is hardly the starting point. Anti-Semitism isn't haute couture; in fact, as far as irrational hatreds go, it's ubiquitous - like t-shirts and blue jeans. For the garden variety anti-Semite slug, the best approach is a liberal sprinkling of ridicule and a good smack in the pocketbook; they are generally incurable but easily dealt with.

Let Loose the Unicorns of Diplomacy

2011-05-20T12:53:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Barack Obama delivered a lengthy speech on the state of the Middle East. Most of the approximately 45 minutes was used to outline the background of the so-called "Arab Spring" and to detail how the US will support those countries that move towards democracy and enhanced individual freedoms. He called for all the very presidential things that a president should call for: women's rights, minority rights, an end to cronyism, nepotism and rule by decree, etc.

And, then he spent five minutes or so on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is, of course as is always the case where the word "Israel" is found, that portion of the speech which dominated the following commentary and headlines (at least in North America).

I believe Obama should have made such a speech. What is happening in the Middle East is incredibly important to the world - whether the end result is good or bad remains to be seen - and the effort to support those potential leaders who are actually interested in assisting arab countries to lurch into the 21st Century should be a priority. It is a positive sign that he is tying aid to actual reform, although it remains to be seen whether that can be accomplished in a region where tribal and family ties stretch back centuries, where nationhood is a much newer concept and where illiteracy, a lack of women's and minority rights and religious zealotry are major obstacles to progress.

And, Obama's call for roughly 1967 borders is nothing particularly new. It is foolishness to expect Israel to dismantle large towns/small cities in the West Bank but it is certainly feasible to swap land in exchange.

This, however, is where he steers horribly wrong and where pundits - as usual - have missed a central point: the potential borders between Israel and a palestinian state are not the problem. By essentially putting that ahead of all other considerations, Obama is saying one of either two things: a) he remains naive about the realities of palestinian politics or b) he sees no solution to other issues so he will try to patch together a palestinian state and carve himself a permanent place in the history books.

In fact, he essentially acknowledged this in his speech by noting the presence of hamas and its policies and the refusal of palestinian leaders (and, by both extension and appearance, the citizenry) to recognize Israel and its right to exist. But, he didn't stress that for what it really is: the determining factor. It is illogical to expect Israel to make peace with a government whose elements are still bent on its eventual destruction and who are state-sponsors of terrorism before they even have a state.

Until the US - regardless of who is president - puts the emphasis where it belongs, there cannot be peace. Borders are easy to create - in fact, the whole Middle East is full of artificial borders that make no sense (the root cause of much of the sectarian violence seen in countries where nationhood clashes with age-old traditions). And, Israel has shown it will make land concessions and uproot citizens in the pursuit of peace - as it did in Gaza, which resulted in the reward of having thousands of rockets lobbed indiscriminately at its populace.

What you cannot create is a peace partner where none exists. By entering into a power-sharing agreement with hamas, the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas has torpedoed any such hopes in the short-term. It is a child's fantasy to believe the palestinians are seriously committed to a secure peace and, perhaps, in that fantasy, a hero would ride in on his sage and horned equine companion and save the day. The west has long been wide-eyed at every bedtime story the palestinians have concocted. Thus, it is no surprise Obama handed out his scholarly rhetoric empty of any suggestion of a solution to hamas' presence, etc, skimming over it but without interrupting the tale.

The US - and the world community - does have an opportunity to positively affect events in the Middle East and certainly in those countries experiencing political upheaval. That is important. The last thing the world needs is more nations falling under the sway of radical islamic leaders or just overall sectarian violence, and Egypt is already demonstrating the very real possibility of that kind of reaction.

The I/P conflict can wait. Egyptians, Syrians, Tunisians, Libyans, etc. weren't/aren't out in the streets because of the plight of the palestinians. They're fighting for their own futures. The I/P situation is a sideshow. It doesn't need the US's attention and the US's attention would be much better put to use elsewhere.

The Shame of Being Richard Goldstone

2011-04-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

After Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli response to 7,000 or so missiles and rockets launched from Gaza into Israel, the world was aghast at the actions of a sovereign state defending itself from attack.

The United Nations, as its general reaction whenever Israel is mentioned, went ballistic, eventually appointing Richard Goldstone, a retired South African judge, former International Criminal Tribunal prosecutor and a Jew himself, to investigate potential war crimes and crimes against humanity. While the mandate included actions by hamas, the de facto government of Gaza, everyone knew what its real goal was: to demonize Israel.

The Israelis, having already appointed their own investigation (with foreign investigators included) declined to take part in Goldstone's inquiry. And, rightfully so. Israel has nothing to gain from the United Nations and especially its so called Human Rights Council.

Goldstone, predictably, came back with a report slamming Israel, accusing it of deliberately targeting civilians and demanding investigations. It also demanded the same of Hamas, which is a little like demanding your cat not scratch the sofa - it might make you feel better but it has no validity as far as the cat is concerned.

In the fallout, Israel was again singled out as a world pariah. The anti-Zionist crowd out there milked the Goldstone Report right until this past weekend - when Goldstone recanted.

In a Washington Post essay, since carried elsewhere in North American (hopefully, in Europe, too, where its message is far more sorely needed), Goldstone now says he "knows a lot more today about what happened" and "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document".

Without reprinting the entire thing, let's just say Israel followed through on its commitments to investigate individual actions, that Israel never, as a matter of policy, targeted civilians and that Hamas has done absolutely nothing to investigate the allegations against the Gazans, including those thousands of projectiles launched at nothing but civilian population centres.

None of this is at all surprising. Israel has been through this before; Jenin and the Free Gaza flotilla incident being two other recent examples. Throughout its 60 year history, arab leaders have repeatedly launched the most bizarre accusations against the "Zionist entity" and much of the rest of the world has gobbled it up like ice cream in August.

What is shameful, however, is Goldstone's condemnation of Israel knowing full well he didn't have all the facts and having even one iota of expectation that the palestinians would act to curb their deliberate targeting of civilians (and the myriad human right abuses against its own citizens, nevermind Israeli Jews). The man was a judge and a prosecutor for God's sake - does he not understand the need for evidence?

Against a backdrop of the largest number of attacks against Israel since Operation Cast Lead, including the gruesome slaying of a family of five by knife-wielding terrorist scum, a bus bombing and more missiles with greater range now landing on Israeli territory, Goldstone's change in tune does have meaning. It shows that, once again, the world's sole Jewish state is consistently at the mercy of the arab/muslim bloc and its allies at the UN. It shows that, once again, western nations have been played for fools by the palestinians. It serves as a reminder of just how treacherous dealing with that part of the world is - a lesson that a mere two years later we seem intent on having to re-learn, this time in Libya. (Not to mention Egypt where, lo and behold, the islamists are now demanding a greater role in government only weeks after claiming that was not their goal while working to unseat Hosni Mubarak.)

But, no number of apologies can undo the damage. There is no question in my mind - and has not been from the day the UN announced it intentions - that the result was predetermined. Israel was going to pay the price for protecting its citizens and will do so again just as soon as a few more Iranian-shipped missiles land on its territory from Gaza.

The next time the UN feels the need to launch an investigation into Israel measures, its members need to ask themselves a very simple question: "how would I expect my nation to react to a constant rain of deadly missiles on our civilian areas by an enemy whose only stated goal is to destroy us?"

Israel has long been held to a higher standard than other nations. It has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with an enemy that is intractable and serves as a proxy for Middle East heavyweight Iran. Richard Goldstone needs to do a lot more to make up for his mistake, maybe he can start by conveying that message where ever he goes. Call it restitution.

A Larry David Election

2011-03-25T16:53:00.000-07:00

For the fourth time since 2004, Canadians are headed to the election booths to vote on which federal party should lead our nation.

This, sadly, is an election about nothing but egos; a pointless $300-million plus expenditure of taxpayers money that is almost certain to end - barring some extreme public relations stumble by one of the four parties - with almost the exact same make up of Parliament we have today - a Conservative minority government roundly hated by the three remaining federal parties likely to win seats.

Canada has reached a point of political stalemate. This is largely due to the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party that runs in only about 25 per cent of Canada's ridings (all of them in Quebec, obviously) and wins about 15 per cent of the seats. Canada is one of the few countries in the world - if not the only one - where the taxpayers fund the sitting members and operations of a party whose only goal is to extricate itself and its province from the federation. Failing actual separation - which Quebecers aren't really that interested in anymore, according to polls - they settle for wringing as much money out of the federal machinery as possible and whining to the heavens when they don't get everything they want. Quebecers may not want separation all that much but they do want as many dollars from the rest of the country as they can possibly get their hands on.

The Liberal Party is an utter mess, led by a colourless, professorial policy wonk who might actually have something to say if it were possible to stay awake long enough to hear it. Michael Ignatieff might be a nice guy with a big brain but he's not a politician. He couldn't make a decision if he were faced with the choice of eating a bowl of ice cream or a bowl of arsenic. And, while it should be true that his public image should not disqualify him from the position, he'd be fodder on the world stage. The Liberals have no real campaign platform, apparently choosing to fight the election on economic grounds where the ruling party has a clear edge. There second option is to fight on ethical grounds except for the fact that a "sponsorship scandal" under the previous Liberal regime cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions more than all the mini-Tory scandals combined. The Tories stretch the law - the Liberals last run in office saw them actively break it. Canadians have not forgotten this.

The Tories have bumbled and stumbled a bit. Their leader, and current PM, Stephen Harper also projects a rather drab public image. He's also somewhat autocratic, keeping a tight rein on information coming from the government and repeatedly frustrating the opposition by keeping them fighting for every scrap of paper they can get. This could be easily changed if Harper exhaled every now and again but he's wound tighter than the inside of a golf ball. He is, however, a leader who's been relatively honest. Tagged with having a "hidden agenda" based on his conservative and religious views, he has kept his word and refused to even consider any legislation that would affect societal norms such as legalized abortion and a continued ban on the death penalty. He has kept his personal views entirely separate from his political agenda.

Lastly, we have the New Democrat Party, led by the one leader on the federal scene who has some flair. Unfortunately, for Jack Layton that's all he has - the NDP's platform is one of promising everything without being specific about where the money will come from and of acting like euroweenies on every international issue. Maybe worse, actually, some of the European countries have vastly changed their tune in recent years, admitting that multiculturalism is an abject failure; the NDP has no problem putting and keeping the cult in multiculturalism. They still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that these kind of policies make a country such as Canada strong rather than facing the truth that weakening our western democracies in the name of "fairness" and "equality" makes us all losers, including immigrants. Layton is also plagued by a recent hip operation and a bout with colon cancer so maybe he forced this vote hoping to get a few sympathy seats. It's not going to happen. The NDP is ridiculously outdated, clinging to an us (socialist/union/labour) vs. them (business) philosophy that is economically ruinous. When given the opportunity in two of Canada's three most populous provinces (BC and Ontario), the NDP was as corrupt as any other party and more destructive.

I vote Conservative because they are a much more moral party when it comes to foreign affairs, often eschewing pragmatism for an actual stance on human rights and freedoms. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and a couple of his cabinet ministers are among the few politicians in the world who will criticize China, raise the spectre of Iran's nuclear program in a solid way and support Israel in its fight against islamic terror. These are examples - in general the Tories have brilliantly remade Canada's image in the world.

Still, like most Canadians, I was relatively accepting of the status quo. Sure, the opposition parties forced the Tories to spend more on "stimulus" than was needed (by billions and billions) and we'll have to pay that back some day. On the other hand, they have also kept some of the government's nastier ideas from becoming law - for instance, the Tories "law and order" agenda is a complete loser; A US-style approach to the justice system predicated on throwing more and more people in jails thereby justifying the expense of building more jails which thereby justifies throwing more people in jails, etc. Very rarely is throwing someone in jail an actual answer to a problem unless the problem is keeping those within the legal system employed.

Regardless, I do hope the Tories win this election and with a majority. It will allow them to try to balance our books without the constant hindrance of being a minority government one non-confidence vote away from another election. And, the alternative is ghastly. Because the Tories will almost assuredly win the most seats, the only way another party can form the government is by entering a coalition and said coalition would almost certainly have to involve the Bloc Quebecois. In other words: a government either supported or partly run by a party whose platform is essentially treason.

Thoughts On A No-Fly Zone

2011-03-20T14:31:00.000-07:00

Normally, I blog with a sort of stream-of-consciousness approach. Let 'er rip, then go back and edit the mistakes. For some reason, I can't edit while viewing the post in editable form, I have to sift through the actual blog post and then go in and correct it.

Anyway, this is not one of those times. The no-fly zone established over Libya actually made me think about a number of things like:

1) What is the point? Unlike Egypt, there is no established movement in Libya touting democracy - or even the most minor of human rights - to take over or work with if Khadafy is removed from power. And, while I doubt such efforts will easily succeed in Egypt, I think they are well nigh impossible in Libya. If all that's going to happen is a) chaos followed by b) more violations of human rights with a combination of c) the additional influence of islamists, I'd be more inclined to stick with d) the devil we know and just finally isolate his ass as the terrorist he is instead of continuously pretending he can be redeemed. The world eventually figured it out with Arafat and, once he was shut away in his compound and unable to practice terrorism freely, the palestinians were far better behaved. After he died and the hamassholes got ahold of Gaza, the situation quickly reverted to what we see today because everyone pretended you could work with a "democratically elected" palestinian government. Well, everybody but Canada, anyway, where our Prime Minister, forever to his credit, told hamas to shove it from day one.

Is it not time we learned from recent history - say Afghanistan and Iraq - that getting into military actions in muslim or arab countries where we don't know who the players really are, where we don't understand the tribal culture or the "society" is just a recipe for expensive, drawn out disasters? Of the three, only Afghanistan really required our attention.

The way I see it, war needs to be fought - especially in muslim countries - with only one goal: to defeat the enemy as severely and quickly as possible to make them realize fighting on will only get them killed. Our wishy-washy western perspective on life is counterproductive to the way we need to wage war in these places because they do not have the respect for life, liberty and rights that we do and yet we repeatedly pretend they do. It's stupid, wasteful and ends up with needless western deaths. Do it fast and do it right or don't do it all.

2) France? Really? F-r-a-n-c-e? Are you freakin' kidding me? One think about Nicholas Sarkozy: he's got some balls. Certainly more then Barack Obama has ever had or will have. Who would have thought the French - the great capitulators of the 20th Century - would take a lead role in an effort that they know will require military action? Or, maybe it's not so unusual - the chances of any Frenchmen actually dying for the cause are pretty small (it's air and missiles only - no boots on the ground).

3) What is Barack Obama doing? I doubt even he can answer that question. Here you have the situation in Libya, the desperate situation in Japan and the leader of the free world is off in Brazil touting its democracy as a model to the arab world...as opposed to, say, the United States' democracy which for 225 years or so has led the world in, well, democracy.

The Obama administration has badly misplayed this - either they should have taken the lead role or stayed out all together. Now, they've put themselves in a position where the US is involved in some kind of military action in 3 muslim countries, it's going to come down to the US taxpayer to fund these shenanigans and the US has no real say in how the effort is conducted or how it will end. My two cents? This is one time the US could have just said to the world, "nah. We'll pass. There is nothing to be gained here and no one, really, worth defending. France? You want it, you got it."

I've taken a fair dose of crap from my more Democrat-leaning friends over the past few years for my instinctive dislike of Obama. But, I think as time goes on, I'm being proven absolutely correct - this man reached his personal Peter Principle level the day he graduated from being a "community organizer".

4) Who chooses the names for these things? Okay, Operation Iraqi Freedom I get. Desert Storm is understandable. This one's called Operation Odyssey Dawn. WTF is that? Sounds like a band one of my kids might listen to. Oddysey Dawn would be better...after all, France is involved and that is odd...

5) When Operation Odyssey Dawn is done can we have Operation Shut Chavez the Fuck Up? The Venezuelan strongman, a close ally of Khadafy's (of course), is whining about the intervention, claiming civilians are being killed. Other than Chavez, the only person claiming this is...Khadafy. Well, both of them know quite a bit about killing civilians but the evidence is thus far lacking that any are being killed by the recent actions over Libyan airspace. Mark my words, Chavez will leave office either in chains or in a coffin. He will never go as a result of a democratic election which he loses. NEVER. I think the UN should pass a motion to drop Sean Penn and Danny Glover from 30,000 feet onto Chavez's head...a three-for-one bonus blow for humanity.

6) We're listening to the Arab League? Seriously? The Arab League? Are you freakin' kidding me? Much has been made that the Arab League supported this idea. Well, that was for the first five minutes, anyway. Once a missile actually entered Libyan airspace, the arabs were back to their normal ways - decrying western butchery.

7) Lessons from China and Russia? Are you freakin' kidding me? Oh, yeah, Putin and the Oriental oligarchs are screaming to the heavens about this horrible intervention in the lives of Libyans. Well, one thing is for sure: when the western world needs some guidance on human rights and messing around in other nations' politics, the first people we will most definitely want to consult head the governments of those two countries. And, the next time I need information about good investing, I'll contact Bernie Madoff.

8) You say Libya, I say Iraq - let's call the whole thing off. With the US State Department already admitting the end goal of this little process is not necessarily to remove Khadafy from power are we not just setting Libya up to be the next Iraq? Let's see: conduct a military action against a despot, ostensibly to get him to stop a military action against innocents and then leave said despot in power for a further indeterminate period of time so he can continue crushing and killing dissenters. Anyone remember how that worked out for the Iraqis and the rest of the world? Which brings me full circle back to point #1...what is the point?

Brain Freeze

2011-03-12T13:47:00.000-08:00

Winters are one of two things in Canada. In 99 per cent of the country, they are long, cold and very, very bitter. Where I live, they are long and damp with stretches of a month or more where we record some precipitation every day.

Anyway, by March, Canadians are suffering from cabin fever. They're a little off. Too much shoveling or too much sloshing does strange things to the brain.

Hence, the reason early March is when Canadian university students, aided by all sorts of looney tune supporting groups with fantastical names that usually invoke peace, justice, truth or freedom host Israel Apartheid Week. (It is, by the way, one of my long-held truisms that if any of those four words appear in a group's title, an individual's internet name, etc. that you can be damned sure they stand for exactly the opposite.) This five or six day testament to hate is particularly prevalent in Ontario and Quebec. Like I say, the cold does get to you after a while...

2011's IAW was particularly noteworthy for Nick Day, the elected prefect of Queen's University. Day wrote an article on a useful-idiot lefty Web site complaining of the ongoing genocide of palestinians and signing it in his official capacity as the representative of thousands of students. This particular candidate for an eventual Darwin Award (Rachel Corrie Division) may not escape unscathed, however; enough students at Queen's were outraged and he now faces a recall vote.

Equally, both Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative) and Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff (Liberal) rightly stepped forward this year to condemn IAW, as did the entire Ontario Legislature. Of censure from the New Democrat Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the fringe Green Party, all left-leaning, nary a word. They wouldn't want to alienate their supporters, I suppose.

Now, it's no surprise that people hate Israel and that IAW and its proponents hide what is actually virulent anti-Semitism behind idiotic labels like "Israeli apartheid". But, what is shocking is that we are, apparently, raising generations of young people with absolutely no understanding of historical fact. Not conjecture but clear fact. Equally, they don't know the definitions of common words like "apartheid" and "genocide", throwing them around as if the rest of us will be convinced merely by seeing them in print. And, let's not forget, modern history - while Day and his moronic cohorts were busy railing all week against Israel, the Arab world remained in severe flux with people actively gunned down in the streets, prevented from assembling or arrested and jailed with little or no cause.

Keep in mind, the IAW is specific to universities. These are the places we send our children to obtain higher learning. Yet, somehow many of the people who attend these universities have bought easily dispelled propaganda which goes largely unchallenged and, even sadder, is often supported by the ivory tower set.

My teenage son was quizzing me the other day about his post-secondary options and stated he had no intention (at this point, anyway) of going to university. Seeing as what's going on on numerous campuses, there are a bunch I wouldn't want him near, anyway.

You've Come A Long Way (In Some Places), Baby

2011-03-10T20:09:00.000-08:00

March 8 marked International Women's Day. I would have noted this yesterday but I'm a guy so I was watching sports, drinking beer and belching loudly and kind of forgot.

I find the word "International" in the day to be somewhat out of place. Living in Canada, I think women are getting a pretty decent shake. Not being one, my perception may be at odds with how most women feel they are treated generally - whether by men or other women.

To be sure, men still hold the majority of the power positions in our society - politically, in business, economically - but the real tell is in how equal opportunity is and whether the issue of a person's sex influences their progress personally and professionally. This is what International Women's Day should be about, right? That is: the promotion of women as equal members of our society to the point where being a woman is merely a fact and not a factor.

(In order to reach exact equality, of course, we would also need to eliminate programs that give preference to one's sex. I've pondered the relative merits of affirmative action programs and have never been able to wrestle my thoughts to a final conclusion. Perhaps another day...)

Anyway, we are perhaps 70, 75 per cent of the way there in western society? And, the improvement - as for many who were formerly at least partly disenfranchised - has been mostly in the past half-century. The women's movement has brought great, positive changes to our society. I, personally, wouldn't have it any other way. I'm a pretty typical male in how I spend my spare time (see hockey, beer, belching) but most of the people I work with are women and I find them far more intuitive and interested in a creative, positive work environment.

What irks me is that - and here's that pesky word - internationally, the vast majority of women across the world enjoy nowhere near the benefits that we see in the west. Too frequently, this doesn't seem to be much of a concern to the women's rights movement (or, at least, their appointed representatives) in places where women have rights.

This needs to change. When women's groups join in the typical leftist hue and cry - as so many of the prominent ones seem to do - they do women elsewhere a great disservice. In Canada, for instance, these groups opposed and continue to oppose the very just war in Afghanistan (Canada didn't send troops to Iraq) which brought an end to perhaps the most oppressive regime on Earth regarding women and they argue for people in this country to accept cultural customs that are clearly regressive. These kinds of things seem antithetical to me. You can't just gauge progress by your own rights while ignoring so many others living a life with no rights.

It occurs to me, too, that perhaps this is already changing. Traditional "women's groups" don't want to hear this but polls, for instance, regularly show that the American Tea Party movement has as many women - or near as many - identifying themselves as members as it does men. And, while people like Sarah Palin repulse me with their jingoistic, religious-based platforms, it certainly is telling that millions of people identify with her version of "hockey mom" feminism.

Anyway, enough soap boxing. Here's a positive: if you want to help women across the world, go to www.kiva.org. This is a micro-financing site where you lend $25 at a time to people across the world - usually so they can expand or begin their own small businesses. This is the way out of poverty; the modern day twist on "if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish, you have fed him forever."

I can't speak highly enough of the work kiva is doing. You go through the people looking for loans, you pick the ones you want and in a click of a button, you've given them $25 towards their goal. Kiva provides information on the project, those involved, the lending institution (with ratings for dependability) and sends you an e-mail every time a portion of your loan is paid back. Once a loan is paid off, you can either withdraw the money or lend it to someone else - although why you'd take it back is beyond me, that $25 won't even buy a ticket, drink and a bucket of popcorn at the local cineplex.

I'm using kiva now as main recipient of my charitable donations. So far, every loan I've made has been to a woman or group of women because raising women from oppression and destitution is a clear path forward for all women.

P.S. Please don't pillory me for the header - it's an example of the changes in our society that "You've Come a Long Way, Baby" was once the tag line for a cigarette aimed at women and that, today, calling a woman "baby" is likely to get you punched in the face unless you're Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing.

The Great Gall of China

2011-03-09T20:54:00.000-08:00

Today, likely because they are feeling the heat of uprisings in the Middle East, the Chinese government announced they would never adopt multi-party democracy or reforms that would threaten the rule of the Communist Party.

Now, to be sure, Communism in China is different than your Marxist-Leninist variety found or previously found in Eastern Europe, Cuba and various other anti-democratic shitholes. The Chinese actually encourage profit-making and enterprise. Their "Communism" is more just a dictatorship over the people for the benefit of the ruling elite without driving people into increased poverty.

But, for the future prosperity of the western world, it's all one and the same. An aggressive China, whose government rules with an iron fist and operates without regard for civilized behaviour, is no better than the old Soviet Union was.

To whit:

The Chinese government props up the worst regimes on the planet - Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, etc.

The Chinese have zero respect for copyright law or anything else that gets in the way of making money.

The Chinese subjugate their own people and try to spread their influence by over-running and persecuting their neighbours (see Mongolia)

The Chinese artificially deflate the value of their currency so they can keep their exports cheap at the expense of western business interests and workers.

Chinese products, sold in the west, are often shoddy if not downright dangerous.

The Chinese repeatedly block western interests at the UN, refusing to even consider such simple acts as a no-fly zone in Libya which might save thousands of lives.

The list is pretty much endless.

And, yet, we seem to endlessly want to increase our standing with China without calling on its government to do anything in return.

Why?

There are democratic nations that can offer us the same products as China. Sure, countries like India, Bangladesh, Mexico, the Philippines and Indonesia aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they are democracies and they are emerging economies. They do not reflexively act in a way that is contrary to our way of life at every turn. They are not hegemonistic, are not controlled by governments that oversee every facet of life and, for the most part, are actually anxious to be in good standing with the western world.

Were I President Obama (and thank God, I am not) or any candidate considering a run for office in 2012 - Democrat or Republican - I would put making China accountable for its actions at the very top of my foreign policy platform.

If we take nothing else from what's happening in the Middle East today, we need to take this to heart: propping up dictatorships in the interest of "trade" is an untenable position. Eventually, the citizenry under the heels of those dictators get it in their heads to do something about it. And, that leaves us in the position of damaging our trade relations or watching as people are gunned down in the streets for wanting the same things we already enjoy.

Better to take the moral high ground now and refuse to prop up those governments. And, there is no better nation on Earth to start this with today than China. It's unethical and irresponsible for us to feed the Chinese government - Wal-Mart, quite frankly, can go fuck itself.

I now make it a habit when shopping to avoid Chinese manufactured products whenever I can. A shirt from somewhere else might cost me a few more bucks but as long as I can afford to pay the extra, I will.

As for the Chinese government's claim that it will never change: well, to this day no Communist government has made it to its 75th birthday. The Chinese are now in their 62nd year suffering under a Communist dictatorship. Time is running out and we should help hasten the downfall in any way we can, particularly economically, because, in the end, other solutions will prove far less palatable.

Books Worth A Look

2011-03-07T21:13:00.000-08:00

One of the thing that regularly astounds me is the absolute dreck that passes for popular literature these days. It's almost guaranteed that if it's on the New York Times bestseller list, endorsed by Oprah or touted in your weekend paper, it will be awful. If it gets made into a movie, even worse.

I suppose some thanks should be given that people still read at all. Really, who needs books when American Idol is on 200 days a year and Survivor is around to fill up the spaces in between, right?

Now, admittedly, I haven't read a lot of popular literature since I was about 16 and Stephen King ruled the roost. But, I did read the Da Vinci Code and the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, certainly amongst the hottest books of the decade and they were awful. In fact, the Da Vinci Code was beyond awful. Dan Brown will surely burn in hell, not for degrading the Catholic Church but for writing such incredible gobbledygook. But, these, along with what seems to be an endless procession of vampire-based books that make me want to drive a stake into my own heart are what, sadly, passes for literature in the early 21st Century. Yuck, yuck and extra-double with dripping blood on top yuck.

So, that being said, should anyone stumble across this blog, here are 3 contemporary authors I highly recommend and that I guarantee are far superior to anything usually found on the bestseller lists (I might get to less contemporary favourites another time):

1) David Foster Wallace. Rather than save the best for last, I'm going to put the best at the top. It's hard to describe DFW in a way that would come close to doing him justice. Let's just say he committed suicide in 2008 at the age of 46 and every time I read one of his books I sigh a lot wishing he were still with us because he had half a lifetime ahead of him that could have been used to fill the world with even more of his beautiful, sad, whimsical, philosophical, comical, introspective essays and stories. I could use adjectives ad nauseum to describe DFW and it still wouldn't come close to describing how perfect a writer he was. I will be forever grateful to my internet friend, cat of Austin, Texas, for first recommending I read Infinite Jest.

Now, Infinite Jest isn't for everyone. It has footnotes that are almost books in themselves - DFW was known for his extensive footnotes, and I think he probably used them so that he could explore nooks, crannies and tangents that were vital to his thinking but would have subtracted from, or at least confused, the actual story. Infinite Jest weighs in at 1,400+ pages and it took me a good three months to work my way through it, often reading paragraphs multiple times to ensure I grasped the meaning but sometimes just to savour the construction a second or third time. When I got to the end, my first impulse was to flip back to page 1 and start again. This I will do eventually but in the meantime there were other books of his to get to and I haven't reached the end yet.

DFW wrote three or four novels (one is yet-to-be published and I've already pre-ordered it, to give you an idea of how much of a fan I am). The novels have several things in common: they are all set in the near future but in a slightly alternate universe so that you recognize the time, the places and the world around you but also that they are a little off-kilter. This unsettles the reader enough to make you pay close attention but not so much as to make you think you're reading science fiction.

He also wrote numerous essays which are compiled in several collections. His most famous writing is probably an essay about a week he spent on a cruise ship (it can be found in the collection A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again - see, even the title makes you sit up and take notice).

If 1,400+ pages sounds like it might do you in, try the above mentioned essays or another collection, Consider the Lobster, or his first novel The Broom of the System. Or anything else you can find with his name attached (including David Lipsky's Although Of Course You End Becoming Yourself - his detailed article - 150 pages or so - of spending five days on the road with DFW doing a book tour - the lucky, lucky bastard).

2) Ben Elton. Elton is a British comedy writer whose books usually center around common themes of the moment. So, he's written books about the War on Drugs (High Crimes), the environment (Stark), traffic (Gridlock), reality TV (Chart Throb and Dead Famous), social networking (Past Mortem), the recent recession (Meltdown) and a few others.

Elton's books contain often-befuddled characters caught up in situations they can't control or that they try, without success, to control. He is a pure comedy writer even when tackling serious themes. He writes great airplane books. I recommend Chart Throb, Stark and High Crimes as three of the best. What Chart Throb does to these karaoke contest singing shows that have swept the western world left me near tears in spots because I know too many people who waste too much of their time on that dreck and he captures the silliness of it all so perfectly.

3) Gerald Seymour. Seymour is another British writer but unlike Elton, his books are very serious. He writes what would generally be known as thrillers only they're not.

What sets him apart from more popular authors like John Le Carre, Robert Ludlum or Tom Clancy is the way he frames his characters. They are all flawed, every single one of them. And, flawed in ways that means even the heroes aren't really heroes, they're just people doing their jobs and often only so that they can escape their pasts.

Seymour's books are written in shades of grey even when the issues are black-and-white. His protagonists have often committed unethical acts but are still ethical people. His antagonists are the dirtiest mofos around (terrorists, mob bosses and the like) but they have depth and character. The endings are rarely pretty because, in actuality, events such as those he describes rarely end with everything tied up nice and neat. I recommend The Collaborator and The Untouchable as two of the best I've read although I've only been able to find about half his novels so far here in Canada.

Among contemporary writers I'd also recommend Michael Chabon (serious literature with a funny side - and one who did have a good book become a good movie - The Wonder Boys), Bill Bryson (travelogues with a heart and explorations of just things that interest him - try A Brief History of Nearly Everything), David Sedaris (comedic essays - Me Talk Pretty Some Day was brilliant) and James Lee Burke (crime novels set in the Louisiana bayou - I like the Dave Robicheaux series but there are too many to mention, just trust me). They all spring to mind when I sit and think about it for a few seconds.

Give some of them, any of them, a go. I guarantee you will never disgrace your home with Dan Brown again.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

2011-03-04T17:00:00.000-08:00

So, my morning paper devotes much of a page earlier this week to speculation that Moammar Khadafy is bats in the belfry, shithouse rat NUTS. Myriad analysts weighed in on this speculating he's lost the thread and that his speeches and rhetoric - not to mention actions -since the unrest in Libya broke out show he's divorced from reality, unable to process events around him and suffering from a variety of mental illnesses.

Quite frankly, I think they're full of crap. Moammar Khadafy is no crazier today than he was a month, a year, a decade, four decades ago. Which is to say, that if he was so acceptable to so much of the world over at least part of that time, he's done nothing to indicate he's any different a person today. He has been, for more than 40 years, a dictator, running his country as his personal fiefdom, promoting terror abroad, stealing from the nation's coffers and killing those who oppose his rule. There is nothing new in his bid to stay in power and nothing surprising about his "fight or flight" reaction to the challenge to his regime. He has nowhere to flee to and so he has done the one thing available to him - try to crush the rebellion. That's not crazy - had any of us done the same things Moammar Khadafy has done over the years, we'd be doing the same things now, fully aware that failure is almost certainly a death sentence.

He may very well succeed in hanging on to power. The longer the situation remains as is, the more likely it is the protesters will give up, run out of steam or just be killed in significant numbers so that they run away. We can look at what happened in Tiananmen Square, Zimbabwe and the Sudan as examples of how fickle the world is when it comes to holding other governments to account for their actions over the long term.

Let's look at who's really crazy here:

The UN: among other things, it put Libya on the UN Human Rights Council despite consistent evidence that the only rights a human has in Libya is the right to do exactly what Khadafy's regime tells them to.

England and Scotland: remember the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Magrahi, the Lockerbie bomber sent home on compassionate grounds to placate Khadafy and earn British Petroleum some extra oil contracts? al-Magrahi, supposedly suffering from advanced cancer and with less than three months to live continues to curse this planet with his presence two years later. Meanwhile the Scots and English have played an endless shell game of passing the blame around.

Russia and China: as all of this killing has gone on in Libya, they, as usual, have refused to act in concert with the US and the EU to rein Khadafy in or at least prevent the continued slaughter of innocent Libyans.

Venezuela: No doubt Hugo Chavez is just as "crazy" as Khadafy. He can't even bring himself to condemn the killings, saying the evidence he has doesn't support the contention that Khadafy is firing on his own citizens. My own personal hope is that the unrest in the Middle East eventually takes its toll in places like Venezuela which are also run by strongmen who crush dissent and curb any and all civil rights that could possibly threaten the regime.

Turkey: swerving his own country ever more into the dangerous territory of islamic shithole, Turkish President Recep Erdogan said moves such as no-fly zone over Libya (to prevent bombing of innocents and oil fields) were inconceivable. Dead muslim brethren aside, Erdogan doesn't mind cozying up to dictators and, Turkey, once one of the few reasonable secular muslim states, is becoming ever more radicalized and divorced from the western thinking it, at one time, was working hard to incorporate into its own society.

Most of the rest of the free world: sadly, our leaders embraced Khadafy after he "renounced" terrorism and gave up his nuclear program. This, by the ridiculous standards under which we now operate in the west, redeemed and legitimized Khadafy's rule, leading, in part to the situation there today.

The US administration: okay, maybe not crazy. But how is it that Obama threw Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak (a bastard but still "our" bastard) under the bus within days of the unrest there but waited two weeks to basically make any comment on Libya (a long-time American enemy) and when he did, did so with the most tepid of "demands" that violence stop? Another obvious case of recent American foreign policy being nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm not saying it's the US's responsibility to act in this instance (it's not) but, really, that's the best Obama and Secretary of State Clinton can come up with as people are gunned down in the streets?

The reality is that the last world leader who actually called out Khadafy for what he is was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, you remember, tried to off Khadafy, for which he received universal criticism and condemnation. While he didn't manage to kill him, he did manage to impress upon the Libyan leader that there were consequences for fucking with the US. Subsequent administrations backed off from isolating him and, thus, we have what we have.

Khadafy, rather than being crazy, has played the world for the suckers we are - pushing the limits and then drawing back when he crossed the line. And, doubtless, he would have continued down this path for an indeterminate future time period had the unrest elsewhere not spread to his own country. The one thing he couldn't account for was an uprising throughout the arab world - and no one else saw that coming either.

It would be very nice if someone stuck a bullet in Khadafy's head in the near future. But, people like him don't survive as long as he has by being crazy. Rather, he is cold and calculating with an overwhelming sense of self-preservation. To pretend otherwise is to vastly underestimate the continued danger he poses to Libyans, his neighbours and the free world.

Idiocy of Titanic Proportions

2011-02-28T21:17:00.000-08:00

It is absolutely incredible to me that almost a decade after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States still doesn't have a clue about security.

This morning, my wife and I returned from a short visit to Las Vegas. We had a very nice few days, saw some shows, wandered the strip, wined and dined, enjoyed a brief sojourn free of kids and did a little shopping.

Because most airlines, including Allegiant - the one we used to and from Las Vegas - now charge outrageous fees for checking bags and because we were only going to be gone for a few days, we packed light enough that we could carry our belongings with us. On the way to Las Vegas, they confiscated my wife's mostly-empty bottle of hairspray. At one time, this particular bottle contained more than the allowable 100 ml, so out it went. Silly, of course, but the rules are stated so we didn't have anything to complain about.

It was on the way home that things got really stupid. While in Las Vegas we stayed at the Luxor. The Luxor currently has an exhibit of the Titanic going on and we happen to have a nephew who is at that age where the Titanic is of particular interest (I don't know why but boys seem to go through a phase of consuming information about disasters; I remember having a similar fascination with the ill-fated ocean liner at about the same age). Anyway, since it's my nephew's birthday in a couple of weeks, we thought, "hey, this is perfect. We'll go to the gift shop and grab him something Titanic-oriented for his birthday." After wandering the shop, we settled on a snow globe (he also collects snow globes) and a piece of coal (apparently, coal from the actual Titanic is the only thing that can be sold to the consumer). The snow globe was approximately three inches high and maybe half that around. The coal, a mere fragment encased in plastic but because it was actual Titanic coal, had a real connection to the ship.

So, what happens? Going through security this morning, there is all of a sudden a great hullabaloo. Three Transportation Security Administration officials gather around the X-ray machine and one of them quickly gestures me over. "Sir," he says (you know you're in trouble whenever they start using "sir"), "I hate to tell you this but we have to confiscate your snowglobe." When I point out that the amount of liquid contained within is obviously far less than the allowed amount, he nods in sympathy and says, "yes, but we don't know what the liquid is and the only way we can tell is by breaking it." He then informs me I have three options: check the snowglobe as luggage, return to the main body of the airport and mail the snowglobe to myself or surrender it to the ever vigilant TSA. Seething internally but knowing full well if I get too huffy, I'm going to spend many hours as a guest of the TSA, I surrender the offensive object with a sigh, a shake of my head and a sarcastic, "well, I'm sure my nephew will understand."

Ironically, earlier that morning, I had wondered aloud to my incredulous wife whether we might be in trouble for trying to transport bath bombs (they create a fizzy bath water) that we'd purchased. After all, I remarked, with the word bombs, you just never know. How sad that I was so close to the mark.

The simple fact that the TSA and all those absolute fucking morons running security in the US can't get through their addled brains is that white, middle-aged Jewish Canadians toting snowglobes and bath bombs (the bombs were, it should be noted for accuracy, not confiscated) are not a threat to security. Neither are petite French-Canadian women toting hairspray. In fact, you could let just about anybody on an airplane carrying just about any substance whatsoever and they will never, ever, ever be a threat to national security nor will they use these products, whatever they are, to bring down airlines or smash them into buildings.

The absolute, only threat to national security are the people who are set on destroying our way of life. That is: it's not the product, stupid, it's the people. Banning matches, lighters, snowglobes, scissors, nail clippers, hairspray, etc. etc. ad nauseum will never cure the problem. Only profiling for the individual will lead to better security and that's what the TSA (not to mention Canadian security and security officials around the free world) need to learn. It's most astonishing they haven't clued into this yet, particularly in light of having it beat into them repeatedly that the one nation that does this correctly - Israel - does so by profiling who might be out to cause trouble, not what might cause trouble. And, guess what: there hasn't been an attack on an Israeli airliner in many years, precisely because the people who might be prone to take such actions are weeded out.

It's not even that hard. The only people in the world who try to use airplanes as flying bombs are islamic jihadis. They are largely identifiable - by looks, by name, by their body language, etc. All the things the Israelis wisely look for and that we miss in our zest to make sure the liquid in a snowglobe never makes it off the ground.

One Is Enough

2011-01-29T15:48:00.000-08:00

My wife reminded me the other day that it was right about this time of year, 20 years ago that we first met. It'll be 18 years this summer since we married and, unless there's something she's hiding from me, our marriage is by all considerations, inside and out, happy and healthy.

Which isn't to say we live a life of wine and roses. We are a pretty standard Canadian family with two kids and three cats living in a fairly standard 3-bedroom home in a standard subdivision in a standard municipality. If you take the opening theme song to Weeds (Little Boxes) and downgrade the neighbourhood by about 1/3, you'd have us.

I was thinking about married life in Canada because there is ongoing controversy in British Columbia about polygamous marriages where men have more than one wife and they all live together and raise kids. In our case, this is a fringe practice and the current court focus is on the community of Bountiful, B.C. where residents are a splinter group of the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints). Now, seeing as even the regular Mormons are committed to following the doctrine of Joseph Smith, a known shyster who received the word of God in a language only he, conveniently, understood, it's hard to say exactly how screwed up the Bountiful crew is. I lived in that area for two years in my early 20s and got to see them close up as they traveled the streets in long dresses, kerchiefed hair and running shoes but I couldn't even venture a guess as to how their worldview operates.

I think this is more like a commune with Bibles than anything else but it's not for me to decide the faith and beliefs of others as long as they extend me the same courtesy.

In thinking about marriage, I can't really come up with a good reason why a person shouldn't have more than one spouse as long as all involved are consenting adults. I doubt this is the case in Bountiful where children are indoctrinated from birth but I could make the same argument about traditional marriage - we are brought up to believe one spouse at a time. (Historically, it would even make sense to have multiple partners - men can impregnate numerous women at a time and women would have sought virile, strong men who offered food and protection.) There isn't really a concrete reason unless you want to cite Judeo-Christian values. As much as I agree with most of these values, it doesn't necessarily make them more valid.

The arguments against polygamy seem to be:

a) it flies in the face of our societal structure. Well, people said the same thing about gay marriage (which I totally support) which is now legal in Canada. So far, our society seems to have survived it pretty well.

b) it goes against scripture. I give that about as much weight as I do to Joseph Smith.

c) people involved in these marriages are forced or coerced. This could very well be true. But the remedy to that is to prosecute individuals for marrying those below the age of consent or who have had sexual relations with an individual under the age of consent.

d) it will open the door to more islamic creep in our society. I'm sure not crazy about that idea but that's our fault for letting islamists come here in the first place. In reality, one suspects, most of the concern in Bountiful is actually aimed at islam as it is the only other slice of Canadian society that would actively seek multiple marriages. We can solve this problem by tightening up our immigration laws.

e) it will be more expensive in terms of benefits and other entitlements. This might also be true but then we don't have an upper limit for how many people can be in a traditional family. If mom and dad are strict Catholics and have 12 kids, the impact is going to be the same as a family with three wives each having three kids.

Really, the most compelling reason I can think of not to be married to more than one woman, at least concurrently, is because women are complicated creatures. I have enough trouble remembering all the little things I need to do or not do to keep up my end of the marriage contract (somehow, in our vows, I think I ended up with "obey").

I have a feeling that polygamy will eventually be legal in Canada. Other than creating some more work for lawyers, I don't think there will be any drastic fallout.

Flaming Mo's legacy

2011-01-27T18:04:00.000-08:00

So, leaders around the arab world are all of a sudden in deep shit thanks to one Tunisian, Mohammed Bouazizi,who set himself on fire Dec. 17 in a protest, reportedly, against unemployment in his home country. Ten days ago or so, the Tunisian government fell and now there are protests shaking regimes all over North Africa and Middle East.

This eruption in some of the poorest and most corrupt countries of the world is very interesting but I seriously doubt it's going to herald in some new era of growth in that part of the world. In Egypt, for instance, where long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak seems to be in some trouble, a power vacuum would likely give rise or at least increased power to the Muslim Brotherhood. How that could be good for Egyptians - well, other than the ones who are in the Muslim Brotherhood - is beyond me. Perhaps a poll of some Coptic Christians could shed some light...

As someone whose few remaining relatives survived not only the nazis but then the communists as well before escaping to North America, I was brought up to believe totalitarianism in all its forms must be rejected. The vast majority of arab nations are run by absolute bastards but it's not like there are a bunch of democracy-touting populists waiting in the wings to raise their people from poverty and oppression. More likely would be brutal crackdowns to stabilize the existing power structure or brutal crackdowns on those opposed to whomever takes over. That is the existing legacy of the Middle East, whether we choose to admit it or not.

It's not easy to care too much about what happens to the arab street. I can't find a lot of redeeming qualities out there. I'd love to see some freedom flourish in these regressive countries but I'm way too cynical by both nature and intelligence to believe it's coming anytime soon. This isn't post-Berlin Wall Germany. In the Middle East, even when uprisings succeed, what follows is generally anything but pretty - witness Iran following the shah's ouster in 1979 or Lebanon which, as of this week, is now essentially being run by hezbollah.

On the other hand, it is nice to see them protesting something other than Israel for once.

There sure a lot of cobwebs in here for me to clean out

2011-01-26T16:15:00.000-08:00

Okay, so it's been 3.5 years since I last made a post to this blog.

I don't even know if people still bother blogging with Twitter and Facebook having overrun the interweb. Twitter seems kind of desperate ("I have something to say and you need to know it RIGHT NOW") to me and Facebook is just annoying.

There are, of course, your very large blogging communities where people of similar views on one issue or another tend to congregate. I never really got the point of a lot of those: "Here's my opinion which is going to be pretty much the same opinion every day and I really only want people who agree with it to respond. If you don't agree with it, me or one of my moderators will likely toss you."

Then there are messageboards where people of absolutely opposing views shout shrilly at one another with endless ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, red herrings and complete fabrications. For a long time I used one of those boards but, as with this blog, I ended up just stopping, cold turkey. It became over run with extremely angry and personal attacks based largely on whether you supported or did not support Barack Obama. I doubt very much it is unique in that regard.

So, why do any internet writing at all? Well, like a lot of people, I'm opinionated. Or, depending on your perspective, I'm an opinionated asshole. Also, a person whom I have a lot of respect for advised me recently that my blog had been enjoyable. Stopping was never a conscious "I quit" decision. It was more like one day became 1200 or so. At the time, it seemed I had presented my viewpoint on issues that were important to me.

Last night, I re-read the posts I made 3.5 - 4 years ago. It was interesting to see what had changed in the world since then and what, sadly, had remained essentially the same. Also, I could look at what I had predicted what would happen in certain places or to certain people. Anyone who wants to - though I can't really imagine why anyone would - can judge for themselves whether I can compete with all the brilliant talking heads infesting 24/7 news channels.

I'll probably get to some more stuff in the coming days and weeks now that I've fallen off the wagon. Or, maybe I'll forget my password again and we'll see what the world looks like in 2015.

2007-08-04T11:21:00.001-07:00

This being the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Summer of Love, I've noticed a lot of newspaper and magazine articles extolling the virtues of the mid-60s and, to be fair, a few that have actually questioned them.

I imagine this is due to a couple of factors. One would be that most editors of larger dailies and magazines are in their 50s and were teenagers during the heyday of that chaotic time. The second is that baby boomers are by far the most self-absorbed generation that has ever walked on planet Earth and the mid-1960s was the time when they were coming into their own. Those who can remember anything about those days, I'm sure, remember how they were busy changing the world.

Being born in 1965, the first post-baby boom year, means I basically missed out on the 60s. Instead of LSD, free love and the most creative period of rock and roll, I got the AIDS scare, disco and Reagan's War on Drugs. My memories of the 60s are largely restricted to the moon landing and watching teenagers smoke pot (though I didn't know that that was what it was) on front porch of our New Jersey home because my parents were nice enough to let them stand there if it was raining while waiting for their school bus.

I'm not really bitter about missing out. I grew up with the music and, despite Reagan, managed to indulge most of my curiousities about drugs when I was a teen. Could have used some of that free love but AIDS wasn't the 60s fault...

What I don't like about the 60s legacy is the ongoing concept that the protest and social change movements of the day are applicable today. If anything the opposite is true: the leftover hippies and those they have influenced have become the far-left and the far-left quashes free speech and supports horrible political systems around the world. They do this because they have somehow arrived at the incredibly misguided conclusion that their lives are more sacred than everyone else's lives and that appeasement, no matter how grotesque, is better suited to dealing with problems than ever using our armaments in anger.

Much of the media is a major supporter of this approach, going out of its way, for instance, to trumpet loudly every lost life while almost never publicizing the good that is coming out of efforts in places like Afghanistan or that could come out of Iraq if the US were allowed to deal with the terrorist elements and their supporters properly. The other places where the leftist culture of the 60s flourish include our universities which, perhaps more than any other single institution, has allowed the dippy part of hippie to take centre stage, churning out generations of far-left mush heads who didn't even need acid to get that way.

Forty years on, the world is a much changed place. Most of those people have probably given up smoking pot and sleeping around. A few may even have traded in their Bob Dylan albums for, well, Bob Dylan CDs. But, unfortunately, the political hangover continues and it's strangling our growth in horrible ways. It is time we buried the 60s alongside Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix.

The Surreal Days of Summer

2007-08-01T18:34:00.000-07:00

It's actually way too nice here to sit at a computer blogging which explains why I haven't bothered much lately. But, a couple of items in the past couple of days have caught my attention. And, no, I'm not talking about the Simpsons Movie which was absolutely wonderful; these things are far more surreal than anything Matt Groening and company could have dreamed up.

The first is the announcement this morning that the UN has finally agreed to send 19,000 troops to the Sudan in an effort to stop the murderous arab janjaweed from their genocide on the innocent black Sudanese populace.

The surreal part is: those 19,000 troops will only have a limited role in combat operations and that they will only go if the Sudanese government lives up to its agreement to have them there.

Inasmuch as the Sudanese government is sponsoring the janjaweed and their slaughter, the chance of Khartoum all of a sudden thinking this is a good idea is about as great as Al Gore all of a sudden admitting the polar ice caps aren't melting and the world is cooling off. It ain't gonna happen.

Anyone with half a brain - thereby excluding anyone connected to the UN - knows the only reason the Sudanese government made their so-called "agreement" in the first place was to stall further sanctions and isolation.

What's needed in Sudan is armed intervention with a strict mandate of killing the janjaweed and restoring order. And, if the government falls at the same time, well, one less islamoshithead government on planet Earth would also be good.

But, then, that's not going to happen either, because the West is too busy gazing at its navel to actually intervene and save innocent lives.

The second - even more surreal occurrence - was the US administration's announcement that they're going to beef up arms supplies to Middle East nations Egypt and Saudi Arabia by billions of dollars.

According to Condolleezza Rice, who must ponder which face to wear each day, this will help battle extremism in the ME. Uh, Ms Rice...the Saudis are the main sponsor of extreme Islam around the globe. Sure, they may not announce it loudly as the madmorons of Iran do, but there is simply zero question that radical Islam flourishes because the Saudi wahabbist movement pours money into making it so.

Much more likely is that the Bushies are sending more money to Saudi Arabia because the Saudis have a lot of money invested in the US, the Bushies have always been far too buddy/buddy with the Saudis and they don't want the House of Saud to fall. Unfortunately, George and company are ignoring history yet again. It has long been proven that propping up dictatorships only hurts freedom in the end.

As for Egypt: the US has been giving the Egyptians money for years. And, the US gain from that has been that the Egyptians use the money to foment anti-US sentiment and to crush independent thought in their own country. Yes, that includes radical Islam but it also includes those who promote democracy and human rights.

The Bush White House has completely lost the thread. The best solution at this point - especially with the Sunnis pulling out of Iraq's government - is now: a) to announce that they have done everything they can in Iraq and that the Iraqis have only themselves to blame for the continued violence, b) to announce that they will begin immediately to remove troops from Iraq, c) that the arabs can now solve their own problems, d) to support the only relatively peaceful arabs, the Kurds and a few Gulf States like Dubai and Qatar, and negotiate some kind of solution with Turkey, e) to not send weapons to any arab nation except for Iran and when it sends weapons there, it should be by aggressively dropping them from airplanes and f) giving Israel carte blanche to deal with hostile arabs as it sees fit.

It's about freedom and the future and the vast majority of the arab world is not part of either at this moment in time and probably never will be.

Poor Sports

2007-07-23T21:18:00.000-07:00

Ordinarily, I'd think being the commissioner of a professional sports league would be a pretty cool thing. You get to go to all the games, hang out with stars and make tons of money.

But, not last week, which might go down as the darkest moment in professional sports history, if you were to combine all the scandals from all the leagues that hit the papers.

Professional baseball: Bud Selig was forced to sit through a three game set in Milwaukee where Barry Bonds, the human steroid laboratory, could have broken Henry Aaron's all-time home run record in the city where Aaron was a long-time star and against the team that Selig once owned. But, Bud got off lucky, Bonds fell short.

Professional football: Roger Goodell, newly-appointed commissioner, now has to deal with the scandal of Michael Vick, once seen as one of the game's bright young stars - a black quarterback who could have been a role model for millions of kids. Ooops, turns out in his spare time, Vick was part of a dog-fighting ring that featured not only the inhumane "sport" of forcing dogs to fight against one another to the death but also an even more cruel side problem of people involved in the ring torturing and killing the dogs. PETA has been protesting, Vick has been indicted and Goodell has been forced to basically suspend him.

Professional golf: On the eve of the British Open, perhaps the most prestigious tournament in the world, Gary Player, one of the game's most respected elder statesmen, announces he knows that at least one player has taken steroids. WADA - the World Anti-Doping Agency headed by Canadian blowhard Dick Pound who would charge my 11-year-old is on steroids if he watched him play XBox - promptly wades into the fray. Think this is going to just go away? I doubt it.

Professional hockey: Gary Bettman, the rat who basketball sicked on hockey, is under fire because he apparently quashed a sale of the Nashville Predators to Canadian Ron Bellisle who wanted to move the team to Canada. God forbid the NHL allow teams to actually play in cities where they're wanted instead of the Deep South where they rate slightly lower than, well, dog fighting. But, this could be the end of Bettman. If he actually colluded to deny Bellisle the right to buy the team, he's in shit so deep even his ratness might drown in the sewers.

Amateur soccer but with professional players: At the World Under 20 tournament in Canada, the Chilean team gets in a fight with a bunch of Toronto cops wearing bicycle shorts. Chile promptly goes nuts, filing an offical complaint with the Canadian government. Okay, let's look at this logically: Canada has never had a soccer riot in its history because Canadians don't give a shit about soccer; the Chileans had just lost a semi-final match against South American rival Argentina that had turned vicious with 9 yellow cards handed out and something like 60+ fouls called. Who do you think was to blame? Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA, soccer's world body, was forced to do some serious back-pedalling, especially since Canada had just set the record for the most tickets sold at the World Under 20 and had acted as a perfect host nation.

Professional cycling: the leader at the time of the Tour de France is forced to acknowledge he'd skipped as many as four urine tests due to an "administrative error" and been kicked off his national team. Where's Dick Pound when you need him?

And, the topper? NBA basketball, where David Stern is under serious heat after it was revealed a referee had been betting on games including ones he was reffing. Uh-oh...the whole league, long a disaster for its shoddy rule calling and on- and off- court antics, just took a black eye like it had been beaten by Mike Tyson. Frankly, even basketball fans probably can't take it seriously anymore.

I'm a big sports fan but the fact is there is now too much money, too many egos, too much TV involvement and a severe lack of respect for the games and the fans these days. Professional sports is heading for a fall and last week may have accelerated the descent.

No Fools Like Some Old Fools

2007-07-20T22:08:00.000-07:00

According to my morning paper, Nelson Mandela, who turned 89 this past week, has gone completely senile.

Well, actually, the paper didn't say that but it's the only conclusion one can draw from the announcement that the former President of South Africa and the man who was a central figure in the fight to end Apartheid has compiled a "group of elders" who will come together on occasion to help solve the world's problems.

This, of course, sounds very nice. In many cultures, although not in the caucasian world, Elders are looked upon as people who, through their years have gained wisdom and insight and can guide younger people in times of difficulty. Clearly, however, this is not the case with the names Mandela has chosen to associate himself with.

Among the less obnoxious names are Richard Branson - billionaire businessman with a flair for innovation and good-humoured self-promotion. Okay, I don't mind Branson. There's also Peter Gabriel, the former frontman for the 70s arts band Genesis before embarking on a successful solo career. I liked Gabriel in both incarnations though I don't think he's even that old and he's certainly never done anything particularly wise or outstanding that I'm aware of. There's also Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland. She, too, ain't that old and since she once served as UN Commissioner for Human Rights, she's obviously not that wise, either. There's also Muhammad Yunus, billionaire and Nobel Prize winner for his Green bBank which gave microloans to the poor. Don't have anything against him. Bishop Demond Tutu is also on the list, not the least one imagines, because he and Mandela go way back - I'm not particularly a fan of either because both have been highly critical of Israel while ignoring human rights violations by numerous other nations and, of course, the palestinians, showing a clear lack of objectivity.

Then there are several people I've never even heard of, or if I have heard of them, it was only in passing. They include Gro Harlem Bruntland, environmental envoy to the UN - whoopee! Also, Ela Bhatt, Indian women's rights activists. Well, East Indian women certainly do need a human rights champion, so she's probably okay.

Then, there are the downright insane. Li Zhaoxing, foreign minister of China, one of the world's most regressive nations and a major violator of human rights. He's right in there with Jimmy Carter, asshole extraordinaire and quite possibly the worst president the US has ever had, certainly the worst of the 20th century. And, topping them all: Kofi Annan, former UN head honcho, who oversaw numerous genocides while his family and cronies lined their pockets at the expense of the unfortunate and downtrodden.

This is no council of elders. This is a council of people who should exit stage left and stay exited. If anything, a few of them should be subjected to the Eskimo way of dealing with the elderly and infirm...that is, left to float away to the next world on an ice floe.

God forbid any members of younger generations look to this collection for guidance.

Sensibly Stoned

2007-07-17T06:54:00.000-07:00

According to a recently released UN report, Canadians are the highest people in the industrialized world.

That's right: we smoke more pot than any other first world nation, placing fifth overall in the world behind a handful of third-world countries where, let's face it, there isn't much else to do.

As someone who has enjoyed a toke or two in his lifetime, (or maybe even more - I forget, man) it didn't really come as a surprise that one out of every six Canadians admits to firing up a doobie or that that number rises to as high as one in three if you're a high school student in Quebec. Marijuana fits in pretty nicely with the Canadian lifestyle - it goes great with a hockey game, beer and chicken wings, it gives you a nice buzz, usually a slight sense of euphoria, but nothing too outrageous and it grows like a weed - probably because it is a weed - in most regions of the country.

British Columbia, as any dope afficianado will tell you, is one of the world's great producers of pot. Often in the summertime, you can hear and see police helicopters as they search for crops - growing it between rows of corn is pretty common - or seek grow-ops which they can identify by the amount of infrared heat that's picked up. Other common ways of busting growers include targeting homes with a highly unusual consumption of water and electricity.

The silly thing about marijuana is that there are somehow still politicians and law enforcement officers who believe they can stamp it out and that it's worth any effort to do so. This, of course, flies in the face of all logic: prohibition of any material has never worked, pot is way too easy grow and move around and, lastly, there's no good reason to persecute it in a society where I can legally get wrecked on alcohol or over the counter medications that are far more dangerous to my health and the health of those around me and also far more addictive.

Yesterday, I was talking to a friend who just caught his teenage son high on the reefer because said son had doused himself in Axe to cover up the smell. "Did he admit it?" I asked "Yes," said dad. "Did you have to give him one of those stern talking tos?" "Yes", said dad, "I had to pretend I was really angry even though I wasn't." "Did you feel like a bit of a hypocrite?" "Yes."

And, therein lies the great Canadian conundrum with weed. Even in only one-sixth of us admit smoking it - which makes me believe a lot of people were lying - almost no one I know really cares.

The best thing we can do with pot is legalize it, sell it in liquor stores with all the appropriate regulations about providing it to the young, take it out of the hands of organized crimes and use the tax revenues to subsidize the cost of Cheesies. Or maybe to help people get off really serious drugs or other addictions. Or build roads. Or whatever.

One thing is for sure: just because it is illegal doesn't mean anyone's going to stop smoking it.

Canada Has the Palis Figured Out

2007-07-15T16:06:00.000-07:00

If Condolleezza Rice and the rest of the current American administration ever want some help figuring out how to deal with the palestinians and Mahmoud Abbas, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

I can hear the laughing now. Canada, after all, is the socialist welfare state, home of the porous border that probably harbours terrorists. Hell, even Michael Moore likes Canada so obviously, we suck. But, for any of its other faults, our current Conservative government certainly has the palis figured out.

Canada was the first country to cut off funding to the palis after they foolishly elected hamas, saving taxpayers about $30 million a year in wasted cash. This week, Jordan's king was in Canada promoting MidEast peace and probably other fictitious things like unicorns, too.

Anyway, among the king's requests: that Canada reinstate the funding to help prop up Abbas.

Harper, thankfully, declined. He suggested Canada would reinstate funding when Abbas began cracking down on the corruption that is endemic to Fatah. After all, Harper noted, even palis who weren't terrorist lovers voted for hamas because they were tired of the lousy style of governing practised by Fatah. Canada, he added, wasn't about to prop up a dictator just because he had less blood on his hands than the hamassholes.

This approach is far different than that being practised by the Americans, Israel, the EU and others who have fallen all over themselves singing the praises of Abbas "the moderate".

Canada's tactic is the only one that has any chance of helping the palestinians. Lack of money is not the problem; the palestinians are the largest recipients of foreign aid per capita of any group in the world that I know of. They have been mollycoddled for decades while the cash has gone into a great sewer of corruption and the private bank accounts of their so-called "leaders".

The only way to change this is to tie the money to reform. And, if nothing else, at least we won't be throwing away our tax dollars on the palis anymore. It can be used for much better causes.

The UN - Number One For My Vote of the World's 7 Greatest Blunders

2007-07-13T22:50:00.000-07:00

Finally! The United Nations has found an issue it can really get behind, issuing strong statements and declarations.

Yup, that's right: the world body is all ticked off at a private initiative to choose 7 modern Wonders of the World. According to newspaper reports, UNESCO - some gobbledygook alphabet of an acronym which no doubt translates to "abject failure" - is not the least bit pleased. Christian Manhard, UNESCO's press officer, went so far as to say it sends out "a negative message to countries whose sites have not been retained". Other officials also criticized the online effort sponsored by a private Swiss foundation that reportedly gathered close to 100 million votes on 21 chosen sites.

I guess the UN must be worried that the sites that didn't win will suffer from a drop in self-esteem. That seems to be all the rage these days. And, just like my kids are sometimes subjected to games where no one is allowed to win so that no one else will lose, I think it's massive bullshit.

The 7 winning sites were the Great Wall of China, the Taj Majahl, the ruins of Petra in Jordan, the Colosseum in Rome, the statue of Christ that towers above Rio De Janeiro ("it's like a Jesus on the dashboard of the whole city", said Homer Simpson in the episode where the Simpsons go to Brazil), the Incan ruins at Machu Picchu in Peru, and the ancient Mayan city of Chichen Itza in Mexico. I haven't seen any of them so I don't know how spectacular they are or aren't.

It wasn't only the UN that was upset with the whole competition. Egypt complained about it and claimed only the Pyramids at Giza - one of the seven original Wonders of the World and the only one still in place - were truly worthy of the honour.

One thing I did notice was that none of the historical sites was in Israel or built by Jews. Which is a good thing. Because if any had been, you can bet the UN Human Rights Commission would be meeting right now to condemn the contest as a zionist plot and the internet would be humming with neo-nazi morons and their arabist lapdogs claiming that it was just a Jewish attempt to take over architecture.

Anyway, it's nice to see the UN fired up for once and taking a stance. If only we could elicit that kind of response out of them when it comes to Iran or Sudan or China or Zimbabwe, etc.

Lost Life Regrettable; Ignoring the Reason, Reprehensible

2007-07-12T17:17:00.000-07:00

Canada has now lost 66 soldiers in Afghanistan. According to a Canadian Press-Decima poll, two-thirds of those Canadians asked believed that was an "unacceptable number.

The percentage peaked at more than 75 per cent in Quebec where the largely-French population has traditionally had a far higher rejection of the concept of Canada being at war. But, then they are French, after all.

The anti-involvement crowd also envelops three of the four major parties - the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. But, the Liberals committed Canada to serving in a combat capacity and the Conservatives are adamant they will not prematurely end that commmitment. Currently, Canada is slated to have soldiers in that role until 2009.

I think it's sad that such a high proportion of Canadians are unwilling to have our soldiers defending a people whose country has been torn apart by internal and external strife for decades. Certainly, those serving in Afghanistan have not adopted such a stance. They, when asked, seem almost uniformly to believe in what they are doing.

And, what they are doing is giving Afghanis something to build on. This was a country, that under the Taliban, had massive ignorance, terrible health conditions, an average annual income of less than a $1,000 Canadian and a misogynistic, regressive, disgusting "government" that harboured the hardest of the world's hardcore terrorists.

Now the Afghanis have the beginnings of a credible regime, crucial infrastucture being built, wells being dug, girls being educated, women returning to the workforce (even to the halls of government)...in other words, some hope and something concrete to hang it on.

In World War II, Canada lost not 66 soldiers but 66 THOUSAND soldiers. That was out of a population much smaller than today's. It was done in aiding European nations to defeating Hitler. I don't think there's any question we're at much greater risk for an attack on our soil today (from the same type of jihadists our forces are engaging in Afghanistan) than Canada was in 1939. Canada, itself, was in no immediate danger from the Nazis but Canadians chose to support the idea of fighting for the cause of freedom.

Every lost life is regrettable. The Canadian soldiers who have died were mostly young. They had dreams for their future. Some were married with small children. They sacrificed those futures for a greater good and a belief they were making a difference.

We should honour their memory by picking up their cause. Calling it quits on them would be reprehensible.

Cindy Sheehan, the Rabid Moonbat

2007-07-09T18:31:00.001-07:00

When Cindy Sheehan announced a couple of months ago that she was packing in her crusade of left-wing lunacy, I thought it was a positive. After all, the last thing American soldiers needed is some shrill, insane bitch whining about their role in Iraq while hobnobbing with scuzzballs like Hugo Chavez and actively rooting for America to lose.

But, now Cindy is back and this time, she's become a comedian; a veritable one woman laugh-riot.

According to news reports, Cindy is threatening to run against none other than Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the next election. Now, ol' Nance is no stranger to shrillness herself, often sounding like Chicken Little running around screaming that the sky is falling. In fact, if the two do face off, they should call it the "Shrilla of the Hilla".

Cindy, speaking for all Democrats, because after all, she's their elected representative and knows exactly what each and every Democrat voter is thinking at any given time is disappointed that Pelosi and her buddy Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, haven't gotten around to trying to impeach George W. Bush yet.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war," Sheehan told AP. She then gave Pelosi until July 23 to begin impeachment proceedings against the President; impeachment proceedings that would, of course, end up being nothing but a further costly burden to the American taxpayer with absolutely no hope of success because Bush has broken no laws.

Her reasons are as follows:

1) she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war - no, he acted on the intelligence he was given at the time

2) he violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees - Bush didn't torture anyone and I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest he knew people were being tortured if in fact they were being tortured (depends what your definition of torture is, I suppose).

3) he crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - no, again. Presidents are allowed to issue pardons as Bill Clinton did for all kinds of people before leaving office.

She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program (I doubt it)and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina (hardly, FEMA fucked up but people were warned to get out of New Orleans and surrounding areas in plenty of time).

Now, I'm no fan of Bush and I'll be glad when his term is up but let's try and live in reality for a second. He's made unpopular decisions but that doesn't make them illegal decisions.

This has got to be one of the most amusing American political stories in years. Pelosi is a twit but Cindy is flat out, certifiably, squirrels in the attic nuts as can be. She is an Insane Clown Posse all by herself. And, now her moonbat madness has become a kind of Democrat rabies as she bites back at the very same people who coddled her while she was making crazy in Crawford, Texas.

The Republicans must be laughing their heads off at this. It's the first decent break they've had in months.

Cindy, at the end of it all, is a self-absorbed fruitcake who has become far more interested in her own self-promotion than in any kind of justice or resolution. Take away the soundbytes, and she's just another person pushing a grocery cart full of rags on the street while mumbling incoherently to herself. But, before that happens, let's see her and Pelosi go a few rounds, just for the laugh value.

Doctors of Destruction

2007-07-06T23:46:00.000-07:00

Okay, I have to admit that I was wrong when I projected that the homicidal wannabes who tried to blow up cars outside crowded nightclubs and an airport would be homegrown. In my defence, though, it does appear as though they hatched the plot while employed as medical professionals in Britain so the bombing attempts, themselves, were more or less homegrown.

Anyway, I hope that this will dispel that oft-repeated, and just as often disproved, fallacy that terrorists are the poor and the desperate. Not only were these assholes mostly doctors, certainly a profession that in western countries does not leave one destitute, but they were in a position to fully enjoy the benefits of western life.

The idea that terrorists rise out of the slums to attack westerners thousands of miles away is ridiculous. There is no basis to support such a theory. Yet, it pops up repeatedly and in otherwise very reputable publications. One of my earliest blog entries was about an article in the Economist that cited a lack of economic means as a reason for terrorist attacks.

It is true that movements arise internally in nations based on a number of factors which may include economic disparities between the ruling class and the downtrodden. But, these movements usually have many other factors including thuggish behaviour by those in government, persecution of one or more minority groups, corruption, etc. They are rarely, if ever, motivated solely by monetary considerations. Even more rarely are they exported beyond their own borders although one could make the argument that palestinian anger aimed at Israel should really be aimed at their own government which has left them, literally and figuratively, stranded in a desert of despair.

At any rate, the islamic jihadi movement that the various Dr. Mohammadeds etc. belong to, come not from a lack of funding or access to the best that life has to offer but, rather, from an intense desire to destroy it and force the world into submitting to their warped view of religion. Money has nothing to do with it, never has and never will. In fact, many of those involved in such activities are independently wealthy or, at least, well off.

Britain has reacted with some backbone to this latest attempt with the government immediately ordering a cutback on the number of foreign medical practitioners allowed into the country. The US also comes out looking good as it now appears at least two of those involved had attempted to gain entry to work there and, for whatever reason, were denied. And, the Australians were also on the ball; rounding up a suspect who it seems quite possible will lead them to some more jihad monkeys.

All in all, score one for the West. Let's hope it's the start of a long streak.

Rock Gods of Conspicuous Consumption

2007-07-05T22:50:00.001-07:00

On Saturday, rock and roll hypocrites from across the globe will gather in seven cities to perform for free in another of those ridiculous homages to their own egos disguised as social responsibility.

This time, the issue is the environment and the money they raise will, not inconveniently, be forwarded to an organization headed by Al Gore, the ex-US vice-president turned maybe-should've-been president turned enviroguru whose voracious appetite, if his bloating into a Jabba the Hutt type character is anything to go by, may be the single greatest threat to Earth's future. Well, okay, maybe global warming is a little more serious but still Al's giving Michael Moore a run for most obese propaganda artist out there.

Anyway, a few rock and rollers have been honest, refusing to play and stating that their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's. Plus, they point out, the jetsetting rock and roll lifestyle, complete with energy consuming stadium shows and conspicous consumption in all areas leaves them unable to preach to anyone else.

Sirius satellite radio will be carrying the concerts on its stations. I know this because I recently bought a new vehicle that came complete with satellite radio and a six month subscription. I must admit I'm not impressed with Sirius but that's beside the point.

What kind of vehicle did I buy? A Ford Escape hybrid. Why? Well because the environment is important but mostly because I like to protect my own pocketbook and because every cent of gas money I can save means, among other things, that another cent doesn't find its way into the pockets of rapacious oil companies and arab dictators. I don't need Al Gore or rock stars to convince me that buying a hybrid was smart; simply the fact that the federal and provincial governments in Canada offer enough tax breaks to bring the price down to that of a standard gas engine along with the future savings in gas consumption was enough all by itself.

And, therein lies the message of this post: people will help the environment when it benefits them directly. I've composted and recycled for years because that could reduce taxes on garbage collection and it offers me money for certain returnable products such as bottles and cans. What I can't return for money, I'm happy to throw in a box rather than a bag because it's just as easy.

The first great rock concert effort was, of course, Bob Geldof's inspired Live Aid that collected hundreds of millions for starvation relief in Africa. Geldof, former frontman for the Boomtown Rats (whose album the Fine Art of Surfacing I still love) was spurred on by the famine in Ethiopia. I was about 19 at the time and vaguely remember watching the concerts in London and Philadelphia (I think) all day while drinking beer and smoking pot. Sadly, much of what Geldof raised ended up going nowhere. The money was spent but a lot of the food ended up rotting on docks or on the black market and never did a damn thing to reduce starvation.

But, at least Geldof's heart was in the right place. Unlike his effort, I view Saturday's concerts as a cynical attempt for recognition while Al Gore's ego gets to grow as big as the rest of him. And, also unlike Geldof's attempt, this time I won't be watching.

Time For Brits to Stop Hitting the Snooze Button

2007-06-29T22:50:00.000-07:00

So, the British seemed to have lucked out and stopped an attempted terrorist double bombing shortly before hundreds of people might have been killed and maimed. And, it seems as though it was little more than luck, with ambulance drivers attending a call outside a nightclub noticing smoke coming from an abandoned Mercedes which led to the discovery of the first bomb and prompting a police search leading to the second.

The scenario was a perfect islamist type attack pattern, very similar to the attacks in Bali several years ago, also in a nightclub district, that killed some 200 tourists, more than half of them Australian. The idea is that as people flee the first bomb they stumble right into the second, inflicting maximum terror and carnage on those who would have just a few minutes earlier been enjoying a night of revelry.

It seems likely this was meant to put new British PM Gordon Brown on the defensive, particularly as he vacillates over Britain's commitment in Iraq. The islamists are not stupid; they learned from their efforts in Spain that Europeans can be easily cowed in this day and age. They learned Americans can not nor can Australians. The jury remains out in Canada where we have yet to suffer such an attack so the reaction to same cannot be measured, and hopefully never will be.

At least one British official, with no evidence whatsoever, announced it the work of foreign terrorists. I'd be willing to give him odds - though I have no more proof as I write this than he did - that precisely the opposite will prove true. I'm betting this was the work of some more British homegrown jihadis.

One wonders if the Brits will ever learn. They have bent over backwards to accommodate islam. They have allowed all kinds of shenanigans that no reasonable people would put up with, agreeing to bigger and bigger mosques, radical clerics in their midst and societal changes to avoid "offending" muslims. Further, they are historically and currently anti-Semitic, from the halls of their governments to their media to their academic circles. Perhaps the average person on the street thinks differently but I have my doubts.

Yet, for all of this, the British have now been targeted at least three times in the past two years with the successful Tube attacks of July 7, 2005 about to mark their second anniversary.

The lesson is that the more we accommodate radical islam, the more its adherents will attack, the more ferocious those attacks will be and the less able we are to stem them. If the British want to be around in 50 years in any recognizable form, they'd best stop ignoring the wake up calls.

Democrats Back the Nutjob

2007-06-27T16:23:00.000-07:00

It is difficult to define how moronic Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson sounded today when they urged continued dialogue with Iran.

"In this vacuum, Tehran continues its progress toward developing nuclear weapons and increasing its influence in the region," Clinton told the Center for a New American Security. "After initial talks with Iran and Syria on Iraq, the administration says it isn't sure that we need any more discussions with either of them. I think we should keep talking."

Richardson was even more ridiculous. According to AP: Richardson, who served as U.N. ambassador for Clinton's husband, said that instead of lecturing Iran's leadership, the United States should talk with them without preconditions. And instead of using inflammatory names, such as "Axis of Evil," the U.S. and its allies should seek and find common ground, particularly with moderates unhappy with the current leadership.

What is showing here is their appalling ignorance in the face of facts and a partisanship that more than matches the Bush White House's for shrillness.

In fact, had either Richardson or Clinton bothered reading or listening to the news today, they would have learned that Iranians were rioting over new gas prices and rationing. If either of them had more than oatmeal for brains, they would have known that Iran has been increasingly intolerant of its dissidents and is cracking down hard, has sent its religious police into the streets to crush any sign of non-islamic behaviour and is seizing and holding foreigners including British sailors and, at the moment, 4 Americans.

There is plenty of dissatisfaction in Iran right now and today's actions only brought some of that to light. The pressure, exerted by US-led sanctions, is working. If Iranians rise up and throw the crazy bastards out of power before the crazies get too close to building nukes, it would be the best possible outcome.

Richardson also doesn't seem to have listed any common ground that the US currently shares with Iran. Let's see: one is a secular democracy and the other is a madman-run theocracy. One extends protections to all its citizens, the other is run by decree. One wants to wipe out another nation, the other is a close friend of that nation. One supports Lebanese democracy, the other wants to hand it over to Syria...etc, etc. There is no relevant common ground for Iran and the US at the moment and Richardson's rhetoric doesn't change one iota of that very basic fact.

Further, how dare Clinton, who wouldn't even be able to show her face in public if she lived in Iran, support bolstering such a system with meaningless talks? Iran has not lived by a single condition set for it by the UN. Further, Mahmoud Ahmamadman has given no indications whatsoever that he would abide by any future conditions. And, the "vacuum" she speaks of that has led to continued development of nuclear weapons by Iran are the conditions set by China and Russia, not the US. Harsher sanctions may well have achieved their desired goal by now.

Sadly, some Democrat candidates have reached the point where they will pander to the worst human elements on the planet before they will agree with any of Bush's policies. It's a horrible mistake for them to be making but one I guess we've all become accustomed to and, hopefully, one that will come back to haunt them.

Throwing Money Into the Abbas Abyss

2007-06-26T21:46:00.000-07:00

So, once again the Israelis are releasing hundreds of prisoners and forking over millions of dollars to the palestinians while governments and organizations around the world rally to prop up another corrupt palestinian leader.

And, for what?

Is Mahmoud Abbas all of a sudden going to turn into a true leader? Is he going to end the corruption in fatah that helped get hamas elected? Is he going to crack down on terrorism? Is he going to change the palestinian school system, media and religious groups so that they stop creating a culture of hatred and death? Is he going to use the money to build the infrastructure the palestinians will need if they are ever to run their own country?

Don't be ridiculous.

Abbas, "the moderate", will be doing none of these things. At best, he will use the money to fight internal dissidents and hamas while continuing to operate an autocratic government.

Apparently, all Abbas has to do is not be hamas and he gets the support of everyone except Iran, Syria and al-Qaida. Nevermind that his new government was not elected - guess that isn't important anymore. Fatah's blood-stained hands don't matter anymore nor does its long history of misappropriating and misuing funding while the people who are supposed to benefit get nothing.

In fact, Israel, the US and the West are so thrilled with the new, improved Abbas, he's not being asked to do anything except open his arms to accept the mountain of cash that is about to drop on him.

Fatah's ass-kicking in Gaza is the best thing that ever happened to Mahmoud.

It shouldn't be. There's absolutely no reason to prop up fatah. They offer nothing in terms of peace with Israel and improvement for palestinians. The fact that they're not islamist, as hamas is, is irrelevant because both groups ignore human rights, accept and endorse violence and lack any plan for governance of a sort compatible with human progress.

This is merely another repetition of a historical pattern that seems set to go on indefinitely. And, in the end, it's a tragic joke on millions of people who should be better served by their leaders, both in the West Bank and Israel.

Tagged...

2007-06-22T15:58:00.000-07:00

And, I can never not respond. There are few enough people who read this blog so I can't afford to upset them...

This one comes courtesy of Michael at olehmusings, one of the blogs I always make sure to check because he gives a really nice reflection of life in Israel from the perspective of someone who grew up in North America and because when he talks about his young children, it reminds me of when my own were that age.

1) Name your favorite band and singer. (The singer can’t be from the band)
Favourite singer I don't even have to think about: Neil Young. Favourite band is a little tougher but I'll take the Rolling Stones. One thing I love about the Stones is the wide range of musical genres they've tackled and how they've made them all sound good. Even country music is enjoyable when Mick breaks out on Dead Flowers or Girl With the Faraway Eyes.

2) Favorite historical politician (domestic)? (Historical = Dead)
I live in Canada so asking for one's favourite historical politician is kind of like trying to pick one brand of vanilla over another. I guess I'd go with John A. MacDonald (our first Prime Minister and legenday souse - at least we'd have a good time downing some brewskis).
On the other hand, I was born in the States so I guess I'm free to pick an American, too. I'd go with Thomas Jefferson; there have been attempts recently to besmirch his name but to me he still ranks as one of history's great Renaissance men and the person whose words set the tone for American democracy and the emergence of truly free societies.

3) Favorite historical politician (International)?

Well, could go with Jefferson again, lol, but that would be unfair.
I've always been fascinated by Golda Meir. There is no way she got where she got through anything but intelligence and sheer determination and she had such an incredible way of summarizing the Israeli/arab relationship.

4) You’re giving a Hollywood pitch (25 words or less) about your Blog — GO
It's about nothing (oh, wait, that's been done before).
So, I'll go with: "look, I'm a Jew. And we all know Jews run Hollywood and ZOG said you have to buy it no matter what it's about."

5) Other then where you live now, what city do you like?
Sydney, Australia.

6) Favorite modern politician? (In office now)
It's too early to tell but I'm hoping it will be Nicholas Sarkozy in the near future. A France that's engaged in world events and protecting freedom would be much better than what they've been giving to the world for the past several decades.
I can't think of too many politicians who've done much to earn my respect in recent years.

7) Are you a Wilsonian Idealist or Nixonian Realist in foreign policy?
Michael at olehmusings wrote he was a Reaganist: challenge your enemies and force their hand. I liked that response.
I prefer Wilson's foreign policy to Nixon's but I don't align myself with either. Idealism is ridiculous in our world but so is pandering to dictatorships for monetary gain.

8)Favorite obscure movie?
My favourite movie of all time is Harold and Maude. It's pretty obscure.

9) What is your favorite restaurant?
I don't even know the name of it but I had dinner in a restaurant in Washington, D.C. once where you ordered crabs by the bucket and that's what they brought you: a bucket full of crabs and a wooden mallet to crack them open with. And, when you were done one bucket, they brought you another. The whole experience was just a hoot.

10) Choose a music video on YouTube. Why that one?
I don't often click anything on YouTube. But I saw one the other day where people from countries like Ethiopia were talking about the contributions of Israel to helping them in times of need while Bob Dylan's Neighbourhood Bully played in the background. It was a good reminder that Israel takes way too much crap even as it lends assistance whenever and whereever asked.

A Rare Nugget From UN official

2007-06-19T21:34:00.000-07:00

According to the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, there are now almost 10 million displaced people on Earth with a 14 per cent increase recorded in 2006.

The figure does not include the palestinians, which should be because they're not refugees but is actually due to the fact the UN has a special refugee department, the UN Reliefs and Works Agency that does nothing but suck up to the palestinians.

Anyway, the head of the UNHCR is naturally very concerned about this situation and predicts more and more people will become displaced and that economic and environmental refugees will join the more common class of refugees created through armed conflict.

What is amazing is that Antonio Guterres actually understands why, which is the UN equivalent of a blind pig finding a truffle.

"What is worrying is that this is happening in the absence of international capacity and determination to respond," Guterres, the former prime minister of Portugal was quoted as saying.

Exactly. The situation is worsening because organizations like the UN have failed, miserably failed, to get the world determined to respond to anything. And, what's worse,but which Guterres doesn't say, is that in many cases, the UN is absolutely complicit in allowing all kinds of human rights violations occur on a wide scale, leading to, among other things, displaced persons.

The EU is also complicit. NATO less so, but not entirely innocent. The Chinese, the arab league and a hodgepodge of other countries or groups even more so.

What we need to learn is that in order to prevent such abuses, we need to tie aid and largesse to human rights improvements and a cessation of mindless violence. It does not serve the average person in most nations receiving aid at all to prop up dictatorships and oligarchies with large infusions of cash. The cash doesn't reach the people; it gets diverted into luxuries and bank accounts. If we're going to spend our money, let us use it to buy some freedoms.

Guterres' comment isn't going to get much play but it should. Because it's got a germ of the idea of what's happening. Common sense is sadly lacking in UN and diplomatic circles and should be promoted and augmented whenever found.

Khelad Meshaal and the Great World Conspiracy

2007-06-15T14:44:00.000-07:00

It actually took longer than it should have but one of the palestinian "leaders" finally got around to blaming everyone else for the palestinian civil war.
Predictably, he had a special shout out for Israel.

According to hamasshole head honcho Khelad Meshaal, speaking to AFP from whereever it is he's hiding these days (Syria, I think):

"We attribute to the international community, which has kept silent about the crimes of Israel, the primary responsibility for our internal crisis, although we acknowledge that we ourselves also have part of the responsibility," he said in an interview to Al-Jazeera television.

"We reject the division of the nation. The problem is not with Fatah or with brother Abu Mazen (Abbas)."

Palestinians, you see, are tossing people off buildings, summarily executing them with a bullet to the head or riddling their entire bodies with bullets, because Israel makes them do it.

Oddly, it doesn't seem to have stopped hamas from celebrating its takeover of Gaza with great joy and more killings. I guess when palis celebrate, Israel must be making them do that, too.

Sadly, Meshaal was not the only delusional arab today, just the most delusional one. The Saudis, for instance, implied Israel was behind all of this as well.

What has happened, in reality, is that what was always going to happen has happened. A palestinian civil war was a predictable outcome for years. Israel didn't need to do anything; the palis couldn't avoid this because they have been either brutally oppressed by their thuggish leaders and those leaders' security forces or they have gleefully joined in the bloodlust.

The taught and encouraged hate has to have an outlet. They built a society steeped in a message of death and destruction and now they are reaping the fruits of their labour.

You Have to Be Hunter S. Thompson to Understand the Palestinians

2007-06-14T18:22:00.001-07:00

In order to make sense of the palestinians and the world's reaction to their actions, one would, I think, have to be on a combined cocktail mix of LSD, ecstasy and alcohol.

LSD to sort out the surreal behaviour that the palestinians display. Alcohol to experience the kind of rage they seem to display at each and every turn. Ecstasy to comprehend why any world government or organization still treats them as though they are worth our time - especially as so many other people live in squalor and misery that is not of their own making.

As anyone who reads or watches news knows, the palestinians have been busy beating the crap out of each other in Gaza for the past week. This has included killing women and children, gangland style shootings of captured enemies and other such activities such as dropping living people off rooftops and turning them into jelly.

Hamas has now overrun Gaza with the full intention of turning it into a typical islamic thugocracy backed by Iran and Syria, at least until Israel gets sick of Qassam rockets and Olmert grows some balls (which, sadly, might be never). Fatah is holed up in the West Bank. Both sides are issuing forth the usual arab assmonkey rhetoric that we are all so familiar with. There is no end in sight. Sadly women and children are caught in the crossfire. Gladly, many fatahdiots and hamassholes are being sent to Allah and the more of those, the better.

But, to hear the rest of the world, there is something salvageable about the palestinians. The US has backed Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, "the moderate" (LOL). Condi Rice, ever becoming more like Colin Powell by the day, has pledged the US will not abandon the palestinians and will work towards getting the peace process back on track (where it has not been since the Oslo Accord). The US administration is dreaming in technicolour - and it's, by far, one of the more realistic nations when it comes to viewing the palestinians.

It speaks volumes that most of the lefty groups haven't commented at all, despite the clear violations of every human right imaginable. The palestinians, of course, violate human rights more often than I blink, but this time they're doing it in full daylight. Yet, nothing...

Imagine the reaction if Israeli soldiers tossed a palestinian from a rooftop.

Personally, I say let them fight it out. The palestinians have been headed for civil war for months and the only real surprise is that it took this long to for it to begin in earnest.

Meanwhile, if I were Israel, I'd be eyeing Iran's nuclear facilities very closely right now. Get 'em while the rest of the world is at least partially distracted.

Reagan Had It Right

2007-06-13T00:11:00.000-07:00

I didn't realize it until I watched the Colbert Report this evening (and, boy, hasn't he surpassed Jon Stewart?) but this was the 20th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's famous "Mr. Gorbachev...tear down this wall" speech.

Within a couple of years of that speech, the Berlin Wall had, indeed, been torn down and the world was, for at least a short time, transformed.

Sadly, there was not a single mention of this on the news networks I watched or newspapers and Web sites I read today. It probably should have been front and centre in many of them.

It comes at a time when I'm reading Natan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy." In it, Sharansky pays a lot of attention to Reagan's speech; it marked a clear reversal from the policy of detente that allowed the Soviet Union to pretend to be peaceful while still funding violent movements and crushing civil rights internally. Sharansky, himself, at one time faced trial for a charge that could have brought the death penalty.

Sharansky argues that you cannot have peace without freedom, that the Western world should not yield its knowledge, economic advances and military capabilities to non-democracies without attaching conditions of demonstrated improvement in its external and, particularly, internal policies. The Soviet Union, he says, could have have been forced into collapse earlier by increased isolation and pressure from the West rather than the legitimacy it was offered through allowing it to remain a "fear" society.

I was in my late teens when Reagan came to office. I was young and naive and subject to the normal tendencies of people that age, believed Reagan was a nut who stood a good chance of getting us all killed by getting in the face of the Soviet Union. I was totally wrong and have known, without question, exactly how wrong I was since the start of the second palestinian intifailure.

I can only say that, thankfully, 19-year-olds can't be President unless it's of a frat house. Reagan, for whatever faults he had, helped bring an end to the Soviet Union which was a great boon for the world. If there was a candidate for '08 who would approach the current situation in Russia and China in much the same manner, it would be a good thing.

At any rate, the West really does need to stand up to tyranny and to tie its aid and support to nations that are striving to give their citizens a better life.

Unfortunately, that means a lot of people would have to stop acting like teenagers - believing that any sacrifice is too much sacrifice and that all people can be swayed by words.

There may not be that many things worth fighting for but our freedom is unquestionably one of them. And, if we act intelligently (ie. before a crisis), all we have to sacrifice is some of our economic largesse along with some diplomatic niceties.

Letters from Lefty Losers

2007-06-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

Canada's far-left dingbats are at it again, this time boycotting bookstores and mailing letters to soldiers and their families asking them to desert instead of serving in Afghanistan.

In the case of the soldiers, letters have begun appearing at the homes of members of Canada's famous Royal 22nd Regiment (based in Quebec and known as the Vandoos - for those unfamiliar with French, 22 (Vingt deux) is prounounced roughly as Vandoo. 2,300 members of the Regiment are due to deploy next month to Afghanistan where they will be helping to rebuild a war-torn society now embarking down the road to freedom and democracy and protecting its citizens from the regressive, misogynistic, scumbags known as the Taliban.

This of course, isn't appropriate according to the anti-war group Guerre a la Guerre (War against War) who should rename themselves Guerre a l'Intelligence or perhaps Guerre a la Paix. Those serving in Afghanistan are doing a wonderful job and have helped restore Canada's international position as a country that has some backbone instead of being a euroweenie outpost.

According to Joseph Bergeron, spokesmoron for Guerre a la Guerre, "we believe we have a legitimate right to offer our opinion and information to soldiers," which, of course, they do.

But, isn't it ironic that the lefties can never see we have those rights because of our soldiers?

Does Mr. Bergeron think he would have that right if the nazis had won WWII or if the islamists such as those in the Taliban ran things?

Does Mr. Bergeron think Canadians should have those rights but Afghanis should not? Is it okay if Afghanis are murdered, the women treated like dirt and the country ruined economically while its people live in squalor and fear because they're in Afghanistan and not Canada?

Does Mr. Bergeron feel that it's okay for the Taliban to be a terrorist haven as long as the terrorists attack anyone but Canada?

Actually, he probably does.

What's surprising is that Mr. Bergeron has time to talk to the media at all because he's busy writing letters and probably picketing outside Chapters bookstores, as well.

For those who don't know: Chapters is a huge Canadian chain of bookstores, owned by - oh, don't you know it - some damned Joooooos.

And, it seems these Jews, Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz, support an organization known as the Heseg Foundation which gives scholarships to Israeli soldiers for post-secondary education. And, not just any soldiers but only those who have no family to help them.

That the money has no military application is irrelevant.

That the money might actually get a soldier out of uniform and into university - as surely any good left-wing peacenik would want - is irrelevant.

That Chapters has numerous left-wing screeds on its shelves and that the only publication it ever refused in recent memory was the Western Standard that had the Muhammad cartoons in it (deemed too offensive to Islam to carry) is irrelevant.

In Canada, the freaks are now picketing Chapters outlets because the freaks hate Israel. They will support every disgusting action by arab nations but never the right of Israel to defend itself against terror or of its right even to exist.

I sincerely hope these assholes come to my hometown. There's a Chapters just down the road from my house and I love shopping there. Nothing but nothing would give me more pleasure than to break their boycott, tell them all to go fuck themselves and come back out with about $500 worth of books.

Big, heavy books. Suitable for whacking far-left idiots over the head with...it will be the opening salvo in my declared Guerre a la Stupide.

What's in a Name

2007-06-07T15:35:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid, I can remember reading with interest the most popular names lists that were released each year.

Each year it seemed, names that topped the list in the English speaking world were David, Michael and John, Mary, Lisa, Jennifer, etc. That stopped about 25 years ago when people started getting more trendy with names. If it was popular on TV, it would be popular for society.

When my wife was pregnant with our children, we enjoyed looking through the baby names book. We settled on classic Hebrew names that were known but not the most common.

Today, from Britain - if I remember correctly, the place where English evolved and was spread to the world - news came that, when you combine the 14 variations in spelling, the name Mohammed is the second most popular in the nation, second only to Jack but ahead of Thomas. If the trend continues, it will be the most popular boys name in Britain by year's end.

According to the story, scholars said the rise in popularity was the growing number of young Muslims having families and the desire to honour the prophet. I don't know why it would take a scholar to figure that out; any old shlub should be able to.

The demographics in Europe show the rapid increase in the muslim population and it's no exception in Britain. The rise in the use of Mohammed is only a small indicator of what's going on. It is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

The British have practised a polished version of anti-Semitism recently. It's present in its media and the censures against it from journalists - even as one of their own has been held for almost three months by palestinian terrorists - university professors and labour unions which are appalling in their bias. But, then that's nothing new for the British who have long had a vein of only half-concealed anti-Semitism in their society (Winston Churchill, God bless him, among those exempted).

The combination of British contempt cloaked in civility mixed with islamic hatred is very worrisome and one wonders how much influence it's already having.

If I were British, I don't think I'd be happy with this news. Sure, it's all well and good to bash around a bunch of Jews thousands of miles away but the day may come when Mohammed2007 has made it so Jack2007 can't live in his own country.

XXXcellent

2007-06-05T17:24:00.000-07:00

You know things must be improving in Afghanistan when my morning paper has a story about how internet cafes are springing up like poppies in major cities like Kandahar - an area where Canadian troops have been operating heavily for the past several years.

Seems as if the Afghans have discovered on-line porn and they likee. Not that that's all they're flocking to cafes for. Many of them just want to find out what's happening in the world. As one can imagine, the Taliban did not look kindly on either.

One of the main goals of any incursion into a muslim or other type of thugocracy should be, without question, the exposure to the big world, and if that means complete with pornography, so be it. (And, before anyone gets all upset and calls me misogynistic or sexist, I will also point out that a recent Australian study showed at least one-third of those people who regularly view on-line porn are women.) Maybe pictures or videos of all the various possible sexual interactions shouldn't be tops on the list but it's a lot less dangerous than Taliban-style thinking.

Sadly, Afghanistan is in the minority. Much of the world seems to be going backwards. In the palestinian areas, internet cafes are now regularly firebombed even though their owners say they block sites that don't carry the proper Islamist message (I don't know how many sites that would leave, but it can't be many). In Egypt, bloggers are routinely jailed. In China, the government blocks endless numbers of sites and, unfortunately, major corporations like Google and Yahoo! go along for the ride.

The internet is an amazing tool - heck, for starters, it allows you to read my pearls of wisdom. Western nations should deluge nations like Iraq with computers and internet access because information will defeat the islamists much more convincingly than bullets. Sure, the internet is full of an amazing amount of bullshit and more lies than a stadium full of politicians, but it's the exchange of ideas that allows it to flourish and has made it into a tool for freedom.

And, if that doesn't work, throw some more porn at them. A sexually-drained islamist is more likely to fall asleep than chop a head off.

The Natives are Restless, and for Good Reason

2007-06-02T21:48:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of talk in Canada recently about exactly what the Aboriginal population is willing to do to force government action on its issues and about exactly what the non-Aboriginal population owes them. Not dissimilar debates occur sporadically in the United States as well as Australia.

In Canada, the Aboriginal (which includes First Nations, Inuit and Metis) population has some very valid grievances. Perhaps most worthy of consideration is the number of promises made to Aboriginal communities or negotiating groups that have been broken over the years. Then, there were the policies that were meant to assimilate Aboriginals but that resulted in an alienation from both the "white" society and their own.

Sadly, many people in Canada think Aboriginals are demanding what they do not deserve. Yesterday, I read a letter in the National Post that implied Aboriginals were little more than North American palestinians. That lowers the Aboriginal population to a place they do not belong.

To whit:

A) palestinians were not forced off their lands. No matter what any anti-Zionist or arabphile says: the dispossessed palestinians fled Israel at the urging of their own arab brethren and British propaganda. Nor were they isolated as North American Aboriginals were on reserves. In fact, any "reserves" are those kept by the arabs for palestinians, such as the one in Lebanon currently infested with terrorists and besieged by the Lebanese military.

B) Aboriginals have, in the most, acted with dignity and conciliation when dealing with the government. There have been only isolated acts of sustained civil disobedience and almost none of violent action. The palestinians base their entire philosophy not on justice but on destruction. An Aboriginal homicide bomber or rocket landing in a large Canadian city? Has never happened. The don't even touch on the type of "resistance" offered by many European groups such as the Basque or IRA.

C) palestinians were never asked to assimilate. Israeli-Arabs have their own traditions to themselves. The Aboriginal population of North America was forced to become something it was not. If anything, the rejection by arabs of the idea of assimilating or naturalizing their palestinian residents has only led to the continued misery (as planned by the arab nations and aided by the UN).

D) Aboriginal people are asking for equality. Get some in one area; give some in another. They do not want to destroy Canada or to kill whitey. They want an equal opportunity to succeed in one of the world's wealthiest and most advantageously-positioned countries. As someone from a family where many people, including myself, have worked with Aboriginal people, there are experiences of mistrust but hatred is not found.

I truly believe we have not done right by the Native populations. Much of that is the result of policies that we were not responsible for - the same way I don't hold today's Germans responsible for the actions of the nazis. But, there are still things that can be done.

It's not a question of simply throwing money or land at people. There is an issue of allowing Aboriginals enough of their own culture and ways of doing things that affords them a status of equality but not necessarily assimilation. In this country, we make allowances for all kinds of recent arrivals, yet we often refuse to do so for its most historical people.

This is going to come back to bite us if the situation is not dealt with. Young angry Natives may well look at the tactics of terrorists and the reaction from the west and think it could be successful. At the end of the day it wouldn't be, but I would like to see efforts to ensure that day never comes.

As God Is My Witness, I Shall Not Bear Witness

2007-06-01T22:50:00.000-07:00

Over the past month, the two papers I regularly read have been full of commentary that I can only describe as The Atheists Strike Back.

People like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are getting a lot of ink with their assaults on religion and the belief in God. One column I found really interesting suggested this was a natural response to the rise of fundamentalist religions, particularly islamist behaviour and the evangelical US Christian-style.

Several people whose blogs I regularly visit are also ardent atheists. One of them (baconeating_atheistjew - one of the people I've corresponded with on the internet for years) posted a What Kind of Atheist Are You quiz a couple of weeks ago. Turns out I was 92 per cent Apathetic Atheist and 75 per cent Agnostic.

That sounds about right for me. I've never been convinced there is a God and I've never rejected the concept, either. I grew up in a very secular household with one parent who was an atheist and another who converted to Christianity after I left home and became a minister in one of the more liberal sects. I've always considered myself Jewish but more in the sense of trying to appreciate the culture and history and not so much the God (or should I write G-d) part.

What I most think people should do is leave each other alone. I understand why atheists are getting pissed off but they need to attack the core groups. The vast majority of people who profess a belief in God do so in a benign way.

If it helps them lead better lives, or even decent ones, that's great.

If it gives them comfort in the thought that there is something after death and that their deceased love ones are in a better place, that's terrific.

Even if it just gives them a sense of tradition, that's fine, too.

If they want to chop my head off or replace evolution in school with "intelligent design", well, then I'm with Hitchens. But, there's a lot more at play in geo-politics than religion and it certainly isn't religion that gave rise to the western apathy and accommodation that has landed us in a whack of trouble.

I don't think people who believe in God are wrong or stupid. The reason is: I just don't know. Believing in God is an act of faith. Not believing in God is a matter of extrapolating science; saying that because we've come so far in explaining so many of the universe's mysteries, we will eventually be able to pin it all down to a scientific explanation.

I've known people on both sides who were rational, good human beings. I know that in history, there have been many horrible things done in the name of religion and many others - including probably the greatest human rights violations (start with Communist China, Communist Soviet Union and nazi Germany) - that were not.

At the end of the day, it's very simple: live and let live. Believe what you want to but don't come looking to tell me about it.

I don't give a lot of thought to the spiritual side of the world. Generally, I'm too busy living in the day-to-day one. But, perhaps later in life, when I have time to reflect on what I've done and what I've learned, maybe I will. If so, I promise not to blog about it.

Last Gasp of the Irrelevant

2007-05-29T19:38:00.000-07:00

So, Cindy Sheehan, renowned far-left flake for "peace", has decided to pack it in.

Hunmorously, it would seem even a Democrat party led by Nancy Pelosi and presided over by someone ever shriekier than her, namely Howard Dean, wasn't leaning far enough to the left for ol' Cindy, who's decided to head home to California to wash the sinkful of dishes she left behind about three years ago when she began her lunatic crusade against George Bush.

The ironies, of course, never end when it comes to people like Sheehan. While bashing Bush and the US administration at every turn, she had no problem cozying up to Hugo Chavez and other primo dictators but now complains that the US she "loves" is no longer the US of today. That's because the US she "loves" is seemingly known as the USSR and it went out of business about 20 years ago.

In her "resignation" letter, Sheehan said, "I'm going home for awhile to try and be normal." (Yeah, right.)

Then she went on to comment she'd taken a lot of "smears". Note to Cindy: that's what happens when you bash your own country, demean its soldiers and kiss its enemies' asses. Not to mention, she smeared as good as she got; lying about Bush refusing to meet with her (he did) and turning her son, who fell serving his country, into a symbol that he likely would have wanted nothing to do with (seeing as he volunteered both to join the army and to serve a second tour in Iraq).

At the end of the day, it seems to me that Cindy has walked away for two reasons. One, like a petulant child, she didn't get what she wanted and two, no one was paying any attention to her anymore, including the Democratic Party that once feted her.

She won't be missed.

Six Degrees of Shithole

2007-05-28T22:02:00.000-07:00

The older I get, the more I come to believe that the vast majority of the world is a shithole for humans. Let's face it, aside from North America, some parts of Europe, some of Asia, a bit of South America, Australia, New Zealand and Israel, there has been very little progress in the plight of humanity over the past centuries.

Sure, people might have a little more to eat and live longer, but in essence, they are still largely denied basic human rights, freedom, the ability to advance themselves and equality through much of the world.

Let's take a little tour through my morning paper and see if I can explain what I'm talking about...

We'll start in Nigeria

Nigeria is an oil-rich African nation and one of the few on the continent that is not a complete and total basket case. But that might soon change.

Later this week, Nigeria will see its first president-elect following another elected president take office when ex-Marxist turned devout Muslim Alhaji Umara Yar'Adua is sworn into office.

This might sound very nice but the elections were a farce. Yar'Adua was the hand-picked successor to outgoing president Olusegun Obasanjo and even he admits the elections were not properly run. The losers are saying far more: they want the elections annulled, and this being Africa, there is sure to be plenty of violence when that doesn't happen.

Last week 48 Nobel Laureates, including one from Nigeria, issued an open letter to world leaders demanding new elections within 18 months. Of course, 48 Nobel Laureates and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee...

Even the EU has weighed in, threatening to withhold financial aid from Nigeria. You know something's wrong when the EU issues a condemnation and the target is not Israel.

Perhaps Nigeria is learning from our the second stop on our tour.

That would be Zimbabwe.

In Zimbabwe, President-Thug Robert Mugabe continues his reign of terror and error. Not content with having turned privately-owned farms into publicly-owned wastelands and watching his citizenry starve, Mugabe has now turned his attention to foreign-owned businesses.

Last week, his cabinet passed legislation that would require foreign-owned businesses operating in Zimbabwe to forfeit at least 51 per cent of their holdings to Zimbabwe. If you're a friendly nation, such as China - where corruption and thuggery are the rule - then you're exempt. But, if you're, for instance, a British bank, you're in deep trouble.

Not that the bankers will admit it. A spokesman for Standard Charter, with 26 offices in Zimbabwe, refused comment. A spokesman for Barclays, with 29 offices in Zimbabwe, would say only "it is early days and the proposed bill may not become law."

Yeah, right.

Mugabe is a total asshole but he does have his proteges.

Take for instance our third stop: Venezuela, ruled by strongman President-Thug Hugo Chavez.

In Venezuela, Chavez is busy consolidating his power for ages to come. First he jailed his political opponents and now he's moved on to that age-old dictatorial policy of shutting down any media outlet that opposes him.

Recently, he refused to re-issue an operations license for Radio Caracas Television, the nation's largest TV station, replacing it with a new, state-funded TV station that will, no doubt, masturbate endlessly over the glory of its leader in typical 1984 Orwellian fashion.

The station went off the air when the clock struck midnight Sunday/Monday, leading to mass protests in the streets. Being the good dictator he is, Chavez responded by having police fire rubber bullets at the protesters.

Mark my words, if this man is still in power in five years, the average Venezuelan will be as destitute as the average Zimbabwean.

Then there's Myanmar.

That's the country formerly known as Burma where democracy icon and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has had her house arrest extended for yet another year.

No surprise there; in fact, if there's any surprise, it's that Suu Kyi is still breathing. Normally, in a country like Myanmar, people disappear and are surprisingly never seen again or magically turn up dead.

Nevertheless, Myanmar's government quickly squashed an attempted prayer rally at the Shwedagon Pagoda in the capital of Yangon. There's really not much one can say about a nation where even praying is illegal.

Except maybe that all of the above examples seem awfully like our next example.

That would be Russia, home of Vladimir Putin

Putin is, for lack of a better phrase, an utter fucking pig who makes the above guys look almost credible.

His newest target is Estonia. The Estonians, apparently, have had the audacity to exercise their own freedom by removing a statue of a Russian soldier that was erected in the former Soviet-bloc nation in commemmoration of the Russians pushing the Germans out of Estonia in World War II.

The problem, from the Estonian perspective, is that the nazis were replaced by
Soviet communists which was kind of like replacing heart attacks with cancer.

Free at last, they wanted to remove memories of both from their national conscience.

Russia has responded by shutting down Estonian Web sites, including its government site, banks and at least one newspaper. As Estonians are a western-style democracy, where people bank online, vote online and read online, this has caused a certain amount of grief brought about by what is, at best, industrial espionage and, at worst, economic terrorism.

Still, there's nothing worse than a democracy in Putin's eyes.

Sadly, our last nation could use a good ol' strongman.

That would be poor Lebanon.

In Lebanon, a new civil war is brewing because terrorists, posing as palestinians (I know, it sounds kind of odd that a terrorist would pose as a terrorist but these are different terrorists than the average palestinian terrorist) are using a 'refugee' camp to launch attacks on Lebanon's embattled civilians and government.

Sadly, Lebanon can't actually respond by going into the camp and destroying the terrorists because there's an agreement with other arab nations not to do such a dastardly thing. So, Syria gets to continue its proxy war in Lebanon using some Muslim fundamentalist assholes known as Fatah al-Islam while the citizenry continues into its nine-thousandth, three hundred and eighty-seventh year of internal conflict as pawns for other arab nations.

Putin, Chavez, Mugabe and even Syria's leader, Bashir Assad, wouldn't bother with the niceties for even a second. They'd squash the whole camp like a bug, eat dinner and then claim it was an accident.

So, there you have it, a news round-up that shows why I'm a right-winger. Because only a left-winger could read this shit day-in and day-out and still show up to bash the US and Israel.

A Great Place To Be

2007-05-25T18:44:00.000-07:00

Seems to me I've been kind of hard on Australia in my last couple of posts so to make up for it, here are 10 things I really love about this country:

1) The weather...duh. Okay, it's May 26 which means it's late fall. Today, it's about 75 in Sydney, not a cloud in the sky. By night time, it will be down to about 55 and Aussies will be wearing sweaters and complaining but for a Canadian, weather conditions don't get much better.

2) The beer. Australians drink a heck of a lot of it and produce some very good ones. The most common beer that people drink in Sydney is Victoria Bitter (VB) and it's quite delicious on a hot day, which is almost every day.

3) The Shout. This is tied to beer. When you're in a pub, Australians buy everyone at their table a round and take turns. Very civilized. Plus, if you're a foreigner, you'll usually get special treatment. My liver hates The Shout but the rest of me loves it.

4) The women. Australian women are beautiful and they know how to dress to show it off. Plus they're awfully tolerant of Australian men which is saying something because Australian men tend to be far less sympathetic to women than in other places, such as Canada. Australian men better hope the women never figure it out.

5) National Rugby League football. When I went to high school, we played a lot of Union rules rugby which is the boring kind where half of each team spends half the time hugging each other with their heads down in a scrum while everyone else stands around. It's the official upper crust type of rugby. NRL, on the other hand, is an incredibly fast-paced, hard-hitting game that's a good deal of fun to watch while enjoying beer and food. Plus, its players - who make far less than most North American pro athletes - are genuine people. Most of them will emerge from the stadium after a game and spend time talking with fans and signing autographs. When's the last time you saw a major league baseball, hockey, football or basketball player do that on a regular basis?

6) The food. Australians love to eat and love to barbecue. The other night, I went over to a friend's place to watch the first NRL State of Origin match (a three-game set played each year between players from Queensland and New South Wales). The menu included: fresh prawns and oysters, barbecued steak, barbecued sausages, potatoes, salad and beans not to mention little snacks. The drinks included beer, wine and port. Now, I ask you: how can life get much better than that? This was on a Wednesday night, mind you. On the weekends, they eat and drink even more.

7) The Sydney CBD (Central Business District) or, as North Americans would call it, downtown. Beautiful old buildings, well preserved, shopping galore, good prices and lots of the aforementioned pretty women walking around. Great place to sit at an outdoor table at a cafe, have a coffee and just watch the people.

8) The manners. Sydneysiders are almost always polite and don't put on airs. They actually seem to enjoy helping people. The only other large cities I know where people are genuinely that nice are Montreal and - believe it or not - New York.

9) The Sydney Harbour. Unlike most cities built on the water, Sydney has preserved its waterfront. Darling Harbour, the largest gathering place on the water, is a wonderful place full of walking paths, little waterways, lots of greenspace and neat things for the kids to do.

10) The accents and the lingo. I don't always know what Australians are saying but it always sits nicely on the ear whatever it is.

Anyway, tomorrow it's back home - which will be very nice as I've had one or two too many nights out and a lot of work to do while I was here. But once again, Sydney has been a great place to be.

Hicks Up

2007-05-21T22:30:00.000-07:00

Well, the Australian newspapers finally found something better to whinge about than a kangaroo in Canada - that being the fact their government spent $500,000 (yes, half a million bucks) transporting a convicted terrorist from Guantanomo Bay back to Adelaide.

David Hicks was, I believe, only the second accused (after American John Walker Lindh) held at Guantanomo to be convicted. It took five-and-a-half years, mostly because his lawyers did everything they could to stall the process (when it came time for his trial, he suddenly entered a guilty plea). In that time and despite the fact at one point he tried to claim British citizenship, he became a cause celebre in this country, for some God unknown reason.

It should be noted that unlike most of the scum at Guantanomo, including Canada's Omar Khadr - who the Americans can keep forever as far as I'm concerned - Hicks didn't actually do much of anything except act as a kind of gofer for al-Qaida/Taliban before being captured. He actually comes across as a total simpleton; a high school dropout who just kind of drifted, got sucked into radical Islam and then ended up in NATO hands. Which doesn't mean I have any sympathy for him; anymore than I would the simpleton who ends up acting as a supporter for murderers.

The Aussies, though, expressed plenty of sympathy for him; at least the far-left ones and his dad has become kind of an Aussie Cindy Sheehan. In fact, while his son was enjoying a ride home in a chartered Gulfstream aircraft, munching down on his choice of chicken or beef, chatting with security guards and watching movies, dad was at a "peace" conference; no doubt, one of those events where the US, Israel and other western nations are guilty of everything and the islamic world is just misunderstood and only needs a group hug to get along with us.

But, even the most sympathetic Australian seemed unimpressed with the tab run up to get him home to serve the final 7 months of his sentence. I doubt very much they were overly impressed with the fact that his lawyer then said being in an Adelaide jail was like being in the Hilton compared to Guantanomo Bay. A fine piece of rhetoric that as Hicks himself has admitted he was not mistreated by his American jailers.

Hicks has declared that he intends to finish his high school equivalency while in jail and then go to uni (as they call it here) to become an environmental scientist. From destroying the Earth to saving it, how very honourable. No doubt, the taxpayer will find themselves on the hook for part of that, too.

Now, the only question remaining is: how much are the Aussies willing to spend to repatriate their kangaroo?

Sometimes, I Wonder About Down Under

2007-05-18T22:45:00.000-07:00

Let me preface this by noting that I love Australia. I've been here about 20 times and as I sit in my Sydney hotel room today, I'm looking out at bright blue skies, beautiful women passing by and anticipating a night of lively beer drinking with some of my Aussie "mates".

As much as I enjoy this country - so much so that I once applied to move here - I don't always understand it. Case in point: one of the daily newspapers - the tabloid Daily Telegraph - has begun an absurd campaign against Canada because some yahoo Canadian who owns what's known as a "roadside" zoo in London, Ontario has had the audacity to keep a kangaroo penned up. The headline of the story: Tyson jailer's cruel silence" subtitled, "pity it's not her caged big cat that's got her tongue".

Nevermind the Canadian government has pledged action on this "zoo" and others, which had existed in a murky legal area between being businesses and private pet ownerships. Nevermind that the "zoo" in question has now been closed, as they all should be. Nevermind that the kangaroo most probably arrived in Canada from Australia since the animal is far from native to our northern climes. Nevermind, for that matter, that Australians eat kangaroo and you can buy it at many local butcheries (for the record, I've tried it and as a meat choice, I wouldn't recommend it).

That's not enough for the Tely. When its reporters trespassed on the owner's property, she called the police. The police questioned the reporters and cleared them of any wrongdoing, even agreeing the woman who ran the "zoo" was a known pain in the ass but explaining when police are called, they are obliged to respond. That was worth yet another story from the Tely, despite the fact the cops were just doing their job.

Over the last two days, I have counted four stories in the Telegraph about this as well as an editorial. All of a sudden, Canadians are just slightly above al-Qaida as a threat to the Australian way of life.

What is particularly amusing, in a sordid, twisted way, is that the Tely now has posted, on its Web site, a "collection of Dumb Canadian video clips" that they invite their readers to "laugh at". In the same issue where I read this there are stories about:

- new cashless poker machines (pokies in Australia) that will allow ever-increasing numbers of obviously highly intelligent Australians to blow their weekly wages without needing actual cash,

- a genius Sydneysider who invented and is circulating a video game modelled on the killings at Virginia Tech,

- an Einstein of a family whose six small children were found living in a drug den,

- a Mensa-quality decision that allows a doctor charged with raping a patient to continue his practise

- some super smart guys who flimed themselves sexually assaulting two schoolgirls. (Gang rapes are an ongoing problem in Australia, usually perpetrated by people the Tely will only describe as "olive complexioned"...you can figure out the rest.)

All of which might lead some people to believe that when it comes to dumb, Canadians don't exactly stand alone in the western world. The kangaroo story, by the way, took up most of Page 7 of the particular issue. The pokie story got one column on page 5, the VT video game rated about three inches on page 9, the drug den got half of page 15 and the doctor accused of rape and the filmed sexual assault by a bunch of young males were so lacking in newsworthiness, compared to the kangaroo, that they appeared on pages 18 and 19, respectively.

Not sure why the Tely has decided to take on Canada and label us "dumb" - perhaps it ran out of George W. Bush jokes - but surely it could put its resources to better use, particularly since the Canadians have already moved to address the problem they're complaining about in the first place and the Aussies seem to have a few problems of their own to work on.

Not the News 2

2007-05-15T22:44:00.000-07:00

In another story out of the Middle East, it appears the palestinian civil war is back on but, in reality, it never stopped in the first place.

Again, there's nothing new about fatah and hamas faction idiots mowing each other down in the streets and one almost has to wonder why anyone even bothers reporting it anymore. On the other hand, it happens as often as Paris Hilton does something stupid, and that gets reported, too.

In the latest bloodfest, 8 Fatah "policemen" were gunned down in what AP called "the
most ruthless round yet of factional fighting," which suggests even AP is stretching to find reasons to continue reporting this bullshit.

AP also pumped the story claiming the attack was "pushing the Palestinian unity government closer to collapse", which is kind of ridiculous since there is no such thing as Palestinian unity and likely never will be.

Other than that the story is pedestrian: gunmen in black ski masks took up positions and fired at one another for hours while residents of Gaza City hid in their homes and wondered how such a terrible thing could happen.

Clue: Your culture thrives on death and destruction. Israel's wall keeps the death and destruction, generally, from visiting it so the fall back position is for the terrorist factions to kill one another and whatever innocents happen to get in the way.

All in all, 15 palestinians were killed in internicine violence Tuesday - 28 in total over the last three days according to AP - but, hope is nigh, a truce was reached for the third consecutive day. No doubt, it will be prove equally as successful as its predecessors.

I may have printed this once or twice before but, hey, it's at least as much news as what AP is reporting: the palestinians are a waste of time and effort and the idea of them running their own state in any forseeable future is laughable.

Not the News 1

2007-05-15T20:42:00.000-07:00

Just spent two days at a local resort where my wife and myself enjoyed good food, good drink and good company while I totally stayed away from computers, TVs and all other carriers of news. Tomorrow, it's off to Sydney for 10 days to deal with some family issues, so not much blogging to be done for a while.

Arrived home today to read a "story" about how Iran is not complying with demands made on it to cease enriching uranium in its continuing attempt to build a nuclear weapon. Not sure why this qualifies as "news" inasmuch as there's absolutely nothing new about it; Madman Ahmadingdong has made it quite clear he has no intention of stopping so unless he's overthrown or killed, the world can expect this effort to continue.

What is almost amusing if it weren't so absolutely insane and enraging was a comment from the head of the International Atomic Energy Association head, Mohamed ElBaradei, who has one of those names that leads one to suspect he might not be so opposed to the idea of Iran incinerating Israel.

ElBaradei, who has done for the IAEA what Kofi Annan did for the UN (that is, turn it into a laughingstock) implied in his comments that there seemed to be little use in trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium if Iran was already enriching uranium.

"What he's saying is that we've now crossed a line," said a diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with reporters.

What he is not saying, however, is what the world should do instead if Iran has crossed that line.

Even some American experts seem content to continue to allow Iran to pursue its course.

"Iran is steadily moving toward nuclear weapons capability, and the negotiations are not working, and we may have to settle into an extended crisis where we need to sanction Iran and further isolate them," said David Albright, a former inspector who heads the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security,

"But this doesn't mean war. ... You have to resist the urge to strike out militarily, which could even be worse than Iran gaining nuclear weaponry."

Worse for who, Mr. Albright? The Iranians? Surely not worse for the Israelis who, no doubt, are not about to sit around and wait for Iran's best before date before turning parts of the Persian nation into a glowing glass parking lot.

Both ElBaradei and Albright, not to mention the still ineffectual EU and the increasingly ineffectual Americans, are kidding themselves if they think Israel's going to sit back and wait.

Sadly, when the time comes, Israel will take the blame while the rest of the world pretends it could have stopped Iran with more "negotiations" and "sanctions", much as Chamberlain believed he could do in 1938. Seventy years later, and politicians and diplomats have still learned sweet fuck all.

Not a Tide, But At Least a Small Ripple

2007-05-12T23:45:00.000-07:00

If you frequent even one pro-Israel blog or messageboard, you will inevitably come to read all manner of Judeophobic posts. One of those will almost certainly contain the phrase "the tide is turning".

It's very popular among losers who like to believe that Israel's demise and/or another Holocaust of the Jewish people is imminent. All they need to do is post it enough times and it will happen. It is often accompanied by its sister phrase: "Americans are waking up". The really hard-working ones will add a link to some Jooooo-conspiracy Web site.

Americans, most of them anyway, seem to have woken up, so we'll just leave that particular piece of stupidity alone.

Since 9/11, North Americans have become much more cautious about the intentions of islamists (keeping in mind, I do not mean Muslims as a whole but, rather, those who preach and/or practise a violent form of it). There have been no further terrorist attacks in either Canada or the United States - the two most sought after North American targets. Law enforcement has been tightened up enough that any plots have been disrupted.

One was, however, left wondering whether Europeans would ever wake up. The London and Madrid bombings, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the Paris riots - none of them seemed to phase a weary, aged continent, largely content to babysit its citizens for life for a few more generations before finally succumbing to societal deterioration. Recent events, however, might suggest at least a stirring.

On Saturday, the European Union's plan to profile mosques was greeted favourably by its main members. The idea is to identify imams who preach radical Islam.

According to AP: Italian Interior Minister Guiliano Amato said Europe had ample experience with the "misuse of mosques, which instead of being places of worship are used for other ends.

"This is bringing about a situation that involves all of our countries and involves the possibility of attacks and developing of networks that use one country to prepare an attack in another," Amato said, after a meeting in Venice of interior ministers and security officials from six European countries and the United States.

On the same day, an article titled "A New Cold War" appeared in my paper. It noted the growing dissatisfaction Europe was showing towards Russian near-dictator Vladimir Putin, including considering withholding support for Russia's entry to the World Trade Organization. Russia has been sliding backwards since Putin came to power and until recently no one, other than a few brave - and now often, dead - souls have had the guts to say it.

Along with Sarkozy's win last week in France, there are three clear indicators in a very short period of time that the Europeans may be starting to realize that they can't ignore internal and external factors working against freedom and still hope to remain free.

I'm not arrogant enough to suggest the tide is turning nor do I trust the EU or most of its member nations. And, none of the events I cited were directly related to the Jewish community, the current and historic anti-Semitism in most European nations or Europe's generally incredibly hypocritical approach to Israel.

I will, however, say that it's the first time in a long time - with a few specific exceptions - that I haven't been completely disgusted with Europe.

Joke of the Year

2007-05-10T19:18:00.000-07:00

"JERUSALEM - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told an inquiry the army command did not perform well in last summer's war in Lebanon and acknowledged he gave short shrift to warnings troops weren't ready"

The army command didn't perform well? Has Olmert lost his freakin' mind? He ignored every goddamned thing he was told, fulfilled none of his objectives and stopped the war when Israel was finally in a position to seriously crush Hezbollah because he was worried about world opinion.
Command starts at the top, Ehud...

Poll Simply Didn't Ask the Right Questions

2007-05-10T18:33:00.000-07:00

According to my morning paper, Washington is "out of touch" with the American public.

Now, this isn't exactly a revelation in a country where the President has an approval rating hovering somewhere between "is your term over yet?" and "get the fuck out of here right now!" but what was interesting is that the story was in reference to the view that the average American has towards the Useless, errrr, United Nations.

According to a poll, Americans are enthusiastic supporters of the UN even though they are suspicious of it.

60 per cent believe it should have the right to regulate the international arms trade.

72 per cent believe there should be a UN standing peacekeeping force selected, trained and commanded by the UN.

45 per cent believe the UN should be allowed to implement taxes on things such as the international sale of arms and oil.

62 per cent believe the UN should be able to use force to prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons.

83 per cent believe the UN should be able to use force to prevent human rights violations and genocides.

76 per cent believe the UN should be able to use force to stop countries from supporting terrorist groups.

So, my question is: how exactly does this put Americans out of step with the American government?

I'm sure Bush would have been ecstatic if the UN had lived up to its own binding resolutions on Iraq instead of watching UN members and outside corporations reaping billions of dollars in profits while Saddam thumbed his nose at the international community and the Iraqi people starved or were murdered.

I'll bet Bush would love it if the UN used force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I've no doubt at all Bush would have been grateful if, after 9/11, the UN had sent a force into Afghanistan to hunt down and eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaida.

I can't imagine for one second that Bush would complain if the UN had a trained force that could stop the genocide in Sudan.

I'm not as sure that the White House would agree the UN should stop or regulate the international arms trade but I am willing to bet the 60 per cent of Americans in favour of that weren't thinking of their own nation's role in that when they answered the questions. My guess is they were thinking of Russia and China arming America's enemies like the Middle East thugocracies and the crackpots in Venezuela.

As for the 45 per cent of Americans who support allowing the UN to levy taxes, well, they're wrong. Perhaps they thought that would lower the US's annual contribution to that international sinkhole of finances. Or, perhaps, they're just stupid or ignorant; after all, roughly the same number of Americans reject evolution theory in favour of young Earth creationism. Obviously, there are some pretty whacked out people living south of the border with little idea what's going on in the world either now or in the billions of years that have passed on our little rock.

To me, it seems as though Americans are probably pretty much in line with their government when it comes to the UN. The thing is, the poll only asked whether people supported the ideas proposed, not whether they believed the UN could actually accomplish those goals.

The answer to that, unfortunately, is a resounding "No!" The UN, as is, is a parasitical organization sucking up American dollars while cozying up to American's enemies. As such, it should be disbanded and replaced by an alliance of nations dedicated to living in free societies with measures in place to ensure there is compliance and not just lip service.

Hopefully, almost all Americans (and Canadians) would agree with that.

It Will Only Have a MAXIMum Effect

2007-05-09T07:42:00.000-07:00

I received the following e-mail from a friend the other day:

DON'T PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH!!

In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted
nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices
dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, all internet users are to not go to
a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is
now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.

There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on
the internet network, and the average car takes about
30 to 50 dollars to fill up.

If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it
would take $2,292,000,000.00 out of the oil companies'
pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the
gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in
the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.

If you agree send this to all of your contact list.

I'LL BE PARTICIPATING..HOPE ALL OF YOU SEE THE
IMPORTANCE AND DO THE SAME!

The first thing that struck me is that not buying gas for a day is a nice idea but rather futile. After all, if you don't fill up on May 15, you'll probably have to on May 14 or May 16 and the "Middle Eastern" oil industry will still get your cash.

The second thing that struck me is how cheap gas still is in most of the United States as compared to Canada, despite the fact that Canada is one of the world's largest producers of gas and has, I believe, the second-largest reserves. We export gas to the US. In other words, Americans pay less for our gas than we do. In Vancouver, the price is now regularly over $5 a gallon (a little over $4 US), and that's for the cheap stuff. Vancouverites also pay about the highest rates in Canada, much more than, for instance, Toronto where people have been whining about paying $1.10 a litre while we pay more than $1.25. I'm assuming government taxes are generally to blame.

Number three was that not using gas for a day doesn't actually cost the gas companies a cent and that the contention that if all 73 million Americans on the internet didn't buy gas for a day it would cost the companies $2.3 billion dollars is patently false. The only way that would work is if everyone filled up on the same day all the time and that day was the same day of the week that May 15 falls on. In fact, at best, we could assume it would cost the companies roughly $300 million (one-seventh to reflect the fact there are seven days in a week). Where it would cost the gas companies, it's true, is in side revenues - the sales of point of purchase products such as coffee, candy bars, cigarettes etc. It is possible you could quite actually dent gas company profits if everyone agreed to buy only gas from them.

Point four is that while this is a nice symbolic gesture to show the oil companies how pissed off we are at their record profits and the fact that when gas goes up on the world market in price it's reflected immediately at the pumps while when it goes down it seemingly takes weeks for the price change, it's fairly useless.

Point five is that there are oil companies that use only North American gas. In Canada, those companies are Mohawk and Husky which, may God bless them, carry not an iota of arab oil. Why they don't promote that as hard as they possibly can is beyond me.

Lastly, if we really do want to send a message to gas companies and the MidEast oil barons, the answer lies in keeping our vehicles parked whenever possible, carpooling, buying hybrids, not buying Hummers and other gas-guzzling SUVs, etc. If you really need an SUV, both Saturn (the Vue) and Ford (the Escape) make them in a hybrid; I know, I'm looking at purchasing one or the other in the next few weeks.

While I wish everyone luck in not buying gas on the 15th, I would hesitate for anyone to think this will have an impact whatsoever except to give a few gas jockeys the opportunity to spend more of their day reading Maxim and wiping down the counters.

Playtime in Paliland

2007-05-06T21:17:00.000-07:00

Well, I thought about writing about the pleasant surprise that turned out to be the French election today or maybe even a personal note about how I ran and completed my first half marathon this morning but then I saw this little gem on Yahoo:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Muslim extremists attacked a children's festival at a U.N.-run elementary school Sunday, killing a politician's bodyguard and wounding seven people in the latest incident of lawlessness engulfing the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian unity government formed two months ago appears powerless to end extremist groups on foreigners, music shops and Internet cafes. Clan fighting, kidnappings and other attacks have added to the chaos.

Boy, those palis sure know how to celebrate stuff don't they? And, nothing like doing it at a UN-run elementary school in order to impress all the marvellous UN-types who've been busy hyping the wonderfulness of the palis over many decades.

The fact is, has been and always will be (I imagine) that palestinians are a complete waste of time, money and effort.

Why did this happen?

The homemade bomb and gun attack on the U.N. school in the southern Gaza refugee camp of Rafah began with a protest by Muslim extremists in long robes, who said a sports festival the school was hosting was un-Islamic. One protester's sign said the U.N. "is turning schools into nightclubs."

Sports are unislamic. Dancing is unislamic. Sex is unislamic. Drinking is unislamic. Killing people - now that's islamic.

In fact, here are the stats for palis killing palis in Gaza for the past couple of years - and these are the stats palis themselves admit to, so you can bet the number is likely much higher:

New statistics showed that during the first three months of the year 147 Gazans, including 10 children, were killed by fellow Palestinians, according to the Palestinian human rights group Al-Mezan.

Factional fighting killed 57 people in 2004, followed by 101 in 2005 and 252 last year.

But, lest anyone forget: this is no doubt Israel's fault.

I wonder if running half-marathons is unislamic and can only imagine that it must be. There were women there and not one of them was wearing a burka. To be truthful, watching some of them made the time pass much more quickly as did the music from my IPod. Man, I'm so far up the beheading line I better learn to run a hell of a lot faster than the nine minute miles I was turning in this morning...

Trouble in Turkey

2007-05-05T10:33:00.000-07:00

While most of the Western media has been focused on one political battle on the other side of the Atlantic - that being France's - another is shaping up to be much more interesting and with far greater implications.

In Turkey, a power struggle has been gaining strength after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tried to install fellow islamist Abdullah Gul as the country's President. To be fair, in Turkey, government islamists are kind of islamist-light, not yet the virulent strain of murderous islam found in, for instance, the halls of power in neighbouring Iran. However, these things have a habit of gaining strength and if islamists - even less strident ones - beging occupying the major seats of government, it will only lead to further pressures to become more conservative until the country enters a death spiral of talibanization.

Turkey is an interesting country - somewhat westernized and secular, somewhat islamic and backwards. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who brought modern Turkey into being, was an ardent opponent of islamic culture and forced much of it out of the nation. He is still revered today by millions of Turks, even though the nation is without question Muslim. And, among those who revere him the most are members of the military who basically threatened to stage a coup if Erdogan got his way and Gul was installed.

To get an understanding of just how deep this rift runs, a lot of the controversy has centred on Gul's wife because she wears a headscarf and sometimes a veil. My guess is it would be a non-issue in non-Muslim democracies, including Canada, if someone running for office had a spouse who wore a head covering (be they Muslim, Jewish or of another faith where orthodox or semi-orthodox adherents wear coverings). Here, for instance, Sikhs often run for office, often win and many of them wear turbans. In Turkey, the idea was enough to bring people out in the streets demonstrating.

That is, of course, an indicator of just how wary many Turks are of islamist movements. They can look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other such nations, some of which they border, and see how backwards they are compared to their own country which has enjoyed rapid progress, a growing economy and decent relationships with western nations up to and including Israel. They are smart enough to not want to go back to a barbaric way of governance.

One problem the secular Turks face is the waffling from Europe about whether it can join the EU. The Europeans have been sending mixed signals on this for years, demanding certain concessions from Turkey that have nothing to do with EU membership such as admitting the genocide of Armenians in the earlier parts of the 20th century.

True, there was such a genocide and the Turks refuse to call it that, but it seems rather counterproductive to perhaps send that nation, its 70 million inhabitants and its second-largest standing army in the western world, into the arms of islamists over the issue (though, Armenians might well see it differently, to be sure).

European nations happily slaughtered one another's citizens in one war after another for centuries and I don't know if any others were asked to admit to it before joining the EU. What Europe is really afraid of is admitting 70 million Muslims into its membership - unless, those 70 million come from a country that used to be called France, I suppose - and so it has continuously come up with obstacles to prevent membership while trying to cultivate Turkey's cooperation and friendship.

Turkey, for better or worse, is a key NATO ally and a reasonably dependable one. It is also a bridge between the western world and the islamic one that could play an important role in the future of relationships between the two. Better that we keep them on our side then send them reeling to the other. The Turkish people and military seem to realize that, let's hope our governments do, too.

No Freedom, No Surprise

2007-05-04T17:29:00.000-07:00

It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone with an IQ above plant life that when Freedom House released its annual report on freedom of the press this week, only one Middle Eastern country was rated as allowing a free press and that one country was Israel.

Only two of the arab countries, in fact, were found to have an even partially free press: Lebanon and Kuwait. Lebanon, it should be noted, is about the only arab nation not wholly dominated by islam.

All others restricted press freedoms. Jordan, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco were the only other four that even rated above the bottom of the world's barrel. And, of those, all but Egypt saw regression over the past 12 months from their freedoms of the year before, according to Freedom House.

Libya and Iran were the worst, no surprise there. What is surprising is that Iran went backwards last year which is rather perverted because how can you get worse than zero? If Iran keeps it up, Freedom House may well have to re-establish its rating system.

There are two things to note here. One is that Israel continues to allow a free press - and usually has the highest infestation of foreign reporters in the world - despite the fact those very same people use that freedom to routinely bash Israel with bad publicity. Many news outlets, including such worldwide services as AP and Reuters, have admitted they skew the news out of fear for their reporters in the palestinian areas.

That is truly the mark of a free and open society: when you're willing to take a bashing day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, because the principle comes first.

The second is that a free press is one of the most crucial things that any open and free society can have. That no arab country allows a free press is a very good indicator of where the arab world stands.

I got in a little trouble earlier this week on another site when I left a comment that "the arab world could disappear tomorrow and it would probably be a boon for the rest of mankind." The operator of the site challenged me, saying that my remarks smacked of the same stuff Iran's crazed leader has been espousing about Israel.

"No", I replied, in clarification, "I do not mean that arab people should disappear; I have no desire to see 300 million people killed. I meant that the arab culture could disappear and the world would be better off."

I believe that to be true, to my core. The arab world is regressive, misogynistic, violent, dictatorial and crazed with religious puritanism.

I'm sure others would agree with me if only the media had the balls and the opportunity to print it.

I'm doing this one because I'm not tired enough to go to bed yet

2007-05-03T23:35:00.000-07:00

1. What is the stupidest mistake you have ever made with money?

I invested in a store that sold environmental products about 12 years ago. Ended up costing me about $20,000 I didn't have because I got left holding the bag when it went belly-up and all my so-called partners fled like rats. Damn thing wasn't even my idea to begin with. I guess we were ahead of our time; we'd probably make a killing today.

2. Do you think taxes are unfair or do you think it’s your civic duty?

I have no problem with the idea of paying taxes. I just wish government spent the money a little better.

3. Do you take risks and possibly turn your life upside down for new opportunity?

I have done so on many occasions in the past. Now, I don't have to anymore. I mostly like my life the way it is.

4. Are you the alpha in your household? (Include pets)

I often get up at 4 a.m. to let out one of our cats who has a particularly obnoxious yowl...so I guess not. I'm a light sleeper. No one else ever hears him.

5. Do you compromise with your significant other or does someone always get their way?

We discuss every important decision. I'm not sure that means compromise because sometimes I get what I want and sometimes my wife gets what she wants. But, in the end, neither of us is angry, so I guess it's all good.

6. What curse word do you use most often?

Fuckinggoddamnedpieceofshit. It's what I usually refer to my computer as.

7. Do you easily change your mind or are you dead set on most issues?

Usually dead set on issues of importance to me; open to change on things that are important to other people.

8. What famous person would you like to trade places with for one week?

Jose Reyes. My dream was to play shortstop for the New York Mets.

9. If you could go back in time and tell one person off, who would it be and what would you say?

The girl I moved halfway across the country to be with when I was 22 only to arrive in Toronto and have her tell me she was fucking one of her university professors who was 15 years older than she was and married. She couldn't have told me before I moved? I was too young, too "in love" and too stupid to tell her off at the time. Of course, he ended up dumping her and I ended up staying in Ontario, meeting my wife and leading a happy life. The last time I talked to her, she was miserable so I guess karma got her in the end.

10. Were you a good student or did you do just enough to get by?

I hated school. I did just enough to get by and skipped the rest of my classes for four years of high school.

11. If you could give one piece of advice to someone just starting out on their own, what would you tell them?

Work to live, don't live to work.

12. Are people basically good and honest or are most people opportunistic and predatory?

Most people want to be good and honest...but they also want to have more than what they've got. The two are rarely compatible.

13. Is there somebody you wish you could go back and apologize to?

I've rarely said anything to anyone that I didn't mean and on the occasions where afterwards felt I was out of line, have had no problem sucking it up and apologizing.

I had a girlfriend once (not the one mentioned above) and after we broke up we were still friendly but then we both got involved with other people and stopped communicating. I got a call one night and was told she'd suffered a brain haemorrhage at age 27 and dropped dead. I don't know that I would have anything to "apologize" for, but I would have liked to talk to her again and tell her how much I valued her friendship because she was really cool.

Hockey in the Halls of Canadian Power

2007-05-03T21:47:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I answered a question about whether hockey was a genetic part of being Canadian with a simple "yes".

Let me expand on that.

For the last two days, the news in Canada has been dominated - and I do mean dominated - by the naming of a Canadian player as captain of a Canadian team to an international squad in a tournament that no one in Canada really watches or cares about.

The World Hockey Championship is held in the middle of the NHL's Stanley Cup playoffs and the only players who attend are those on teams so lousy they didn't make the playoffs. It's held in Europe. The games take place at hours most Canadians are sleeping or working and I don't even think the preliminary matches are televised.

The captain of this year's Canadian squad is Shane Doan. Doan is a good player, not a great one, but he is a leader and he was a popular choice with the players to wear the "C" as we in Canada call it.

But, his role has become a political and media hot potato the likes of which you rarely see in this country.

About 16 months ago - that's right SIXTEEN MONTHS - in a game against the Montreal Canadiens in Montreal, Doan was accused of calling a referee a "fucking frog." He didn't. There is no video or audio evidence of him doing so and Doan is one of the few players in the league who doesn't use the word "fuck" on any occasion. He is a strict Christian with an unblemished record. Everyone who has ever played with him or against him has attested to the fact he is one of the most gentlemanly players to ever lace up the skates.

Most hockey players use "fuck" as a verb, adverb, noun, pronoun, adjective and anything else they can think of. Not Doan; he says "fudge" and his comment that night to a teammate, misheard in a crowded, noisy arena by a Francophone linesman whose command of English is not perfect, was that there were "four French referees", the implication being that perhaps his Phoenix-based team, with the game in Montreal, might not get a 100 per cent fair shake. Hardly the stuff of controversy at a professional sporting match.

A short time later, he was named to Canada's Olympic Team and the Bloc Quebecois protested.

Then, the situation died down, for more than a year. Even the referee has said the incident was long ago laid to rest.

The one outstanding issue is an unresolved defamation suit Doan has launched against against a Member of Parliament, saying that you could call him "the worst player in the league" but you could not impugn his reputation as being honest and a gentleman.

But, after he was named captain last week, the issue rose its head again. This time, the Blocheads charged that Doan was not a proper person to represent Canada, which is pretty rich coming from a party whose ONLY platform is to rip the country apart and whose leader, Gilles Duceppe, has demanded a separate Quebec team be sent to world events such as Olympic games. And, even more bizarrely, this time, the Bloc is supported by the New Dumbocraps (socialist morons) and the Liberals (slightly less socialist morons).

The issue has been dominating the House of Commons, the media, the airwaves, the office watercooler and every other avenue and outlet of conversation in the country.

Most Canadians view this as political gamesmanship at its very worst, and it will come as no surprise to anyone that I agree. The political fallout could well be tremendous; that's how much Canadians love and respect hockey and its players.

And, the ruling Conservatives? Well, they're headed by Stephen Harper who is pretty much a hockey historian. His party is more or less lending their support to Doan and, no doubt, hoping the issue remains front and centre because, in the end, they stand to reap the windfall.

As does Doan. He's gone from captain of a footnote of a hockey squad to a man Canadians are now rallying behind. Far from sullying his reputation, the three-headed political monster has turned him into a hero.

I volunteered to be a guinea pig

2007-05-01T18:16:00.001-07:00

for a meme where you only get tagged if you do volunteer. The idea is that once you have offered up yourself as a sacrificial lamb, the person to whom you made the offer gets to ask you any five questions they want.

I did this because one thing I wanted to ensure when I started blogging was that I didn't just write about the same things all the time. There are plenty of people who are interested in the same topics that I am and who have both the patience and time to research them and write very eloquent, in-depth posts. Me, I'm more of a stream of consciousness guy; there's not a post on my blog that took me more than 15 minutes to write although I sometimes do spend that much again editing them.

Anyway, the questions are courtesy of Michael at Oleh Musings (that's two times I've mentioned his blog in a week, so he owes me one). The answers are courtesy of me. Anyone who wants to volunteer to put themselves in the firing line is free to indicate so.

1) You have kids. What do you love most about them, and what is the one thing they do that really just makes you want to sell the to the lowest bidder?

What I love most about my kids is being able to watch them grow up into real people with personalities of their own. Sometimes, though, especially with my younger son, it makes me sad because I know I won't be having anymore (snip, snip) and I try really hard to cherish the moments that we have and to remind myself that they're only young once so I'd better take the time to appreciate them now.

What makes me want to sell them to the lowest bidder - and it's not just my kids - is the sense of entitlement that children in our society seem to have these days. I've worked hard to get it through to them that very few people are as lucky as we are but then they have friends who are even luckier and whose parents are even more indulging so it's kind of difficult. It not only comes from parents but from the school system which is so absorbed with shit like self-esteem and the idea that all children are the same instead of preparing kids for the real world.

2) You live in Canada. Is hockey really genetic for Canadians?

Yes. I'm writing this while I wait for the overtime to begin between Vancouver and Anaheim. I was born in the US and actually prefer baseball but the only Canadian I know who doesn't like hockey is my wife. That, however, is not why I married her and she doesn't like baseball much, either.

3) If you could change one major world event from the last 100 years, what would it be, and why?

I'll even narrow it down to a single day - January 30, 1933 - The day Hitler was declared Chancellor of Germany by Paul von Hindenburg. It would lead not only to the Holocaust but to millions of deaths around the world and, eventually, the cold war.

4) If you could have the ear of a one world leader for 10 minutes, with a garauntee that your advice would be heeded, who would it be, what would you say, and why?

I'm willing to bet that fully two-thirds of people in the western world right now would answer that question by saying George Bush and then going on a rant about Iraq.
I'm not one of them.
I'd want the ear of Chinese President Hu Jintao and I'd tell him to bring a democratic system into China because together, the western world, China and India would comprise more than half the world's population and could do wonderful things for the future of humanity. I think China has the ability to be a great country or to hasten the doom of mankind and right now its politicians are leaning the wrong way even though its citizens would probably go the other way if they had the choice.

5) Who are the 3 most important people in your life?

Easy. My wife and my two children. Talk about a softball question. Thanks Michael, although you can lob me another one if you want.

Now back to the hockey game.

Bush "Co-operating" With Democrats Just Another Mistake

2007-04-30T19:37:00.000-07:00

I really do wonder if any president in the history of the United States will go down as having more totally underestimated or overestimated everything than George W. Bush.

Now, I'm not ordinarily a Bush-basher. The guy was put in a tough spot when, barely eight months into his presidency, a bunch of psychotic arab fucks killed 3,000 Americans while striking the worst ever blow against the country on its own soil. It wasn't Bush's fault that 9/11 occurred; in fact, the Democrats knew damn well Osama bin Laden was a major threat and allowed him to more or less dance merrily around flipping them the finger for quite some time.

But since the events of 9/11, Bush has managed to have an administration that has cocked up pretty much every damn thing it tried.

- They couldn't find bin Laden and, six years later, still can't confirm whether he's alive or dead.

- They got rid of the Taliban but the Taliban still exists.

- They've depended on Pakistan to help in the war on terror while Pakistan allows a free-flowing border situation to become a major transit point for terrorists.

- They embarked on an ill-advised war in Iraq.

- They easily won the war in Iraq but have had no concept for four years on how to get the hell out of there while the country slips further and further into a morass and the Bush administration backs an ineffective government.

- They've allowed Moqtada al-Sadr to continue to breathe despite numerous opportunities to send him to Allah.

- They found Saddam Hussein and then allowed him to be turned into a cause celebre, ending in an execution that could only be described as comic if it weren't so grotesque.

- They've claimed on numerous occasions that the goal is to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East but refuse to really support Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East.

- Meanwhile, they've tolerated Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and a host of other non-democratic arab shitholes.

- They've burned bridges with pretty much every country in Europe which isn't necessarily a bad thing except that it has emboldened Vladimir Putin who's little more than a Soviet-style communist despite Bush's claims that he is a good man (Bush's silliest statement of all, IMO).

- They've continued to increase the economy of China, another deplorable dictatorship, and emboldened its military at the expense of Taiwan - a functioning, vital democracy.

- They wrangled a deal with North Korea over nuclear arms, only the North Koreans have shown zero commitment to actually live up to the deal.

- They've allowed Iran to continue on their nuclear program because they can't get the aforementioned Chinese or Russians (not to mention several European countries) to play ball with them.

- They've had a series of moronic heads of various crucial departments including Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and Michael Brown, all of whom Bush seemed to back out of allegiance rather than intelligence. And, we won't even get into Colin Powell's run as Secretary of State.

- They couldn't get their best appointment, John Bolton, named as permanent ambassador to the UN. He was maybe the one chance to clean up the corrupt and decrepit halls of that ridiculous institution.

- And, today comes word that Bush, who bragged after the 2004 election that he had built up lots of political capital and was going to spend it, was preparing to cooperate with such farcical characters as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid because Bush not only spent his political capital, he's gone further into debt than a college student with a VISA card and a gambling habit.

In summation, Bush has managed to claim he's a principled man without living up to his principles and has invited people into his administration that seem to more belong pedalling kiddy cars at the Ringling Brothers Circus. He's president today only because of Katherine Harris in 2000 and the utter and extreme ineptitude of John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004.

That, in itself, is not a bad thing. It says quite a bit that Bush was a better option than both Gore and Kerry. But, it's simply not good enough.

Perhaps, in 50 years we'll look back at the Bush administration and his legacy will be somewhat better than it appears to be today. And, sadly, that will probably be because the Democratic President who followed him (if such a thing comes to pass) will be even worse.

Those of us who really do believe in spreading freedom and democracy are shaking our heads in anger and frustration and shaking in our boots out of concern for what the future might very well hold.

An Environment Plan for the Real World

2007-04-29T20:39:00.000-07:00

Canada's Conservative government unveiled its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Friday and it must be a pretty good one.

I know this because Al Gore, who is now challenging Michael Moore for the title of biggest windbag (both literally and figuratively) on the planet, immediately announced his hatred for the Tories' plan. Since this is Canada and Al Gore is an ex-American vice-president who did dick all for the environment while he had the ear of the most powerful individual on Earth, he can shut his fucking piehole.

At least our current government has an actual plan unlike the previous Liberal government which had a plan much more to Gore's liking - that is, they mouthed endless platitudes about protecting the environment while doing absolutely nothing. This was the same plan that was adopted by the Clinton White House. Our current Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, in fact, was the environment minister who headed the do-nothing plan, so Gore and Dion are two peas in a failed enviropod.

Canada, under the announced moves, will lower its carbon emissions by 20 per cent from today's levels by 2020. It allows for a growth in emissions over the next three years while corporate Canada adjusts to the new restrictions followed by a gradual reduction for the 10 years following that. Under the plan, Canada will reduce its overall emissions by 150 megatonnes by 2020.

I, perhaps optimistically, believe we will do better than that because the technology of today will be improved upon by 2020 and more people - not just corporations - will do more to help the environment.

I'm a big believer in the power of people to do the little things to help and the power of human innovation and scientific progress to affect big changes. Gore, of course, believes only government interference can accomplish anything. That's why he's a nanny state Democrat and I'm an intelligent human being.

What the Tories have arrived at is a plan that has a lot of logic and some silliness involved. There was no way Canada was going to meet its Kyoto commitment because in the 13 years of Liberal rule, the government had taken absolutely no concrete steps to actually reduce anything and the hot air emanating from Ottawa politicians was probably adding to the problem.

The Tories did overreact in some areas - for instance, they'll now ban incandescent lightbulbs, a decision which many people have greeted as draconian and stupid. It is stupid but I think I'll be able to live with it as I already have a few of the new bulbs and they're not the end of the world. Still, it smacks of pandering to the environuts instead of basing decisions on real science.

In the end, though, the Tories figure the plan will only affect Canada's economy by about half-a-per cent while making real progress on emissions. It's upset both the environmentalists and the climate change deniers and, as we used to say when I worked in the newspaper industry: "if you've pissed off both sides, you're probably doing a pretty good job."

Oddly, it did not upset corporate Canada. The oil industry, which was the most fearful of legislation that would require real changes, has reacted by saying it will be expensive but it is doable. Translation: gas prices are going to go up a lot more from the $5 dollars a gallon they are at now in Vancouver. Maybe more people will buy hybrids which will reduce gas use which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions...see, it's all good.

That's not good enough for Gore who will probably continue to leave his carbon footprint all over the planet by jetting around and hosting useless public relations events like rock concerts and star-studded galas but it is good enough for real people living in the real world.

You Can't Have Peace With Those Devoted to Death

2007-04-28T13:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Michael, who blogs at Oleh Musings (see link to the right), provided his rundown of the democracy and freedom in the Middle East in response to a Dutch lib-left Euroweenie who blogs under the name Wisse. Said Euroweenie was whining because the Dutch governmment had refused to allow members of hamas to attend a conference in their country. How could the Dutch be considered an "honest peacebroker" if they refused to allow hamas officials into the country? he stupidly wondered.

The Dutch government, if not some of its citizenry, seems to at least understand that hamas is a terrorist organization that remains committed to a policy of spreading death and destruction. It is made up of the same sort of islamic radicals that were responsible for the stabbing murder of Theo Van Gogh and numerous threats and attacks against others in the Netherlands, despite the fact that it is one of the freest and most accepting societies on the planet.

The answer to Wisse's question is that there is no honest peacebrokering in the Middle East because there is no intention of the arab world to make a peace with Israel that does not result in the demographic or military destruction of Israel. That goes double for the palestinians and at least 10-fold for hamas, which refuses to even recognize Israel much less negotiate towards a peace agreement.

Today's National Post helped drive that point home. It contained a story about a new video that is being regularly aired on al-Aksa TV (also known as Hamas TV). The pop music video, praises the homicide bomber Reem Riyashi who is glorified by her small child. Here are the lyrics - all backed up with the appropriate acting - as contained in the Post's article:

Mommy what are you carrying in your arms instead of me?

A toy or a present for me?
Mommy Reem!
Why did you put on your veil?
Are you going out mommy?
Come back quickly, mommy,
I can't sleep without you
unless you tell me and Ubayadah a bedtime story.(Reem had two children, Ubayadah was the younger, the older is portrayed in the video asking the questions)

My mother, my mother,
Me and Ubayadah are awake and waiting for you
to come put us to sleep
Me and Ubayadah, oh Mommy, still need you to wipe our tears.

Instead of me you carried a bomb in your hands.
Only now, I know what was more precious than us
May your steps be blessed
and may you be flawless for Jerusalem.
Me and Ubayadah wish we were there with you.

Send greetings to our Messenger (Muhammad)
and tell him: Duha loves you.
My love will not be words.
I am following mommy in her steps.

This, folks, is what hamas represents: the ideal that killing yourself and innocent civilians is more important than loving your children and raising them to be something productive instead of merely more cannon fodder for radical islamists.

As Golda Meir said: "we will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate our's."

That day is still far off, despite what the Euroweenies (and some in North America)might think. I do, however, wonder whether people who point this out are simply wasting our time because no matter how often it is thrust in their face, there is a large segment of the western world that simply refuses to acknowledge the facts and recognize the bloodlust that is undisputably the motivating factor for much of the arab world.

It's well past the time that we stopped treating arabs as merely westerners in bedsheets. Millions and millions of them want to destroy us and Israel is only the first step on that road.

Listening to Stephane Dion, now that's torture.

2007-04-26T17:58:00.000-07:00

Canada's Opposition parties, having fished around for months for an issue they can call a "scandal" in attempt to disrupt the governing Conservatives, have been trying to make a big deal over the fact that Taliban members captured by our soldiers may have been tortured after they were turned over to the Afghanis.

Oh, woe is us! The people trying to kill our soldiers, the people responsible for more than a decade of horrific murderous government, the people leading terrorist attacks through Afghanistan, the people responsible for head-sawings and other forms of disgusting mutilation, the people who harboured al-Qaida...they aren't treated so well when the Afghanis get ahold of them. And, it's all our government's fault. Or maybe the army's. The Opposition isn't too sure; they've called for the resignation of the Defence Minister, the general in charge of our troops, the government and just about anyone else they can think of.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion went so far as to suggest perhaps we should bring captured Taliban members to Canada and imprison them here. Yeah, right. And, what would happen then? Well, as soon as one Taliban member complained his Quran had a tear in the corner or his prayer mat wasn't plush enough, the opposition would charge that Canada was running another Guantanomo Bay and the Minister of Defence should resign and the Minister of Corrections and the government and so on.

Nor can our soldiers be asked to watch those prisoners in Afghanistan. They're soldiers, not jailers and they're needed to stop the terrorists, not babysit them.

Now, to be sure, the Tories did screw up on a couple of things. They did state that the Red Cross had access to those prisoners once they were turned over. The Red Cross, apparently, did not. And, they did say they had no knowledge of any torture when they were warned that torture may have taken place. As is often the case with government, it's not the screw ups that are worrisome, it's the denials that follow. Everyone makes mistakes but for God's sakes, at least own up to them, especially when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

But, let's face it, this is not a "scandal". In fact, judging by the letters I've seen in the media, most people could not care less what happens to radical islamist terrorists after they've been apprehended. Philosophically, we oppose torture but if an Afghani whose family was murdered by the Taliban subsequently beats the shit out of a Taliban member who falls into his custody, well, somehow, it just doesn't seem to resonate as a pressing issue with Canadians who've seen almost five dozen of their finest fall in the line of duty in that country.

And, the Tories have now taken steps to admonish the Afghan government over this and received pledges (likely hollow, it's true) that improvements will be made. That's a barbaric, backwards corner of the world and any changes in the area of human rights will come slowly. The fact that women can walk the streets and girls can go to school is of far more import.

One idea I kind of liked appeared in a letter to the editor. The author suggested allowing countries like France - which won't let its troops to enter combat zones in Afghanistan - to act as the jail guards. Sounded good, I thought. And, then, thought again...they'd probably just release them back into the general population to kill some more Canadians.

No. Better to leave it to the Afghanis to handle their own internal governmental matters. I'm sure that's what the freedom-loving NDPers and Liberals would want. After all, Afghanistan is a sovereign nation with its own "culture" and "traditions" and far be it for us to mess around with them...at least that would be consistent with their position on all other manner of tyrannical governments around the world.

Or, we could just ask our soldiers to make sure there are no more Taliban prisoners, thereby short-circuiting any potential for future abuse.

Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco...Only Moderately Warped

2007-04-25T21:02:00.000-07:00

By most standards, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco would be considered moderate Islamic countries.

Egypt receives $2 billion or so in US aid each year. Pakistan's government has received strong American support. Indonesia is one of the few Muslim democracies and by far and away the largest. Morocco is generally inoffensive with its citizenry rarely involved in some of the shenanigans that afflict Islamic nations around the globe.

Which just goes to show how deep the disconnect between Islamic nations, the Western world and reality really is after results from a recent survey were published yesterday.

According to the survey, conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, the majority of people in both Indonesia and Morocco believes the US is not at war against terror but has, rather, embarked on a campaign to spread Christianity. In fact, said Steven Kull the program's director, "people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the US as being at war with Islam."

This is despite the fact that Muslims are freely practise their religion in the US and in other democratic nations around the world and the constant reassurance - both stated and practised - that the Americans are after terrorists, not Islam.

The pollsters also wanted to know whether residents in those nations thought spreading Christianity in the ME was a goal of the US. In Egypt, they weren't even allowed to ask the question. So much for spreading democracy and freedom through economic assistance...

But, hey, "only" 83 per cent of Egyptians did "strongly approve" of attacking US troops, so at least that $2 billion a year has convinced 17 per cent to merely moderately approve, or maybe even in isolated cases, disapprove of killing them. Quite the bang for the buck, eh? How many Israelis do you think approve of killing Americans? I'm thinking that the $3 billion the so-called "American-firsters" are always whining about in annual aid to Israel (which is then sent back to the US to purchase stuff) might be a slightly better investment...

It gets worse. In Egypt, 92 per cent of respondents believe the US is out to weaken and divide the Islamic world. The figure was 78 per cent in Morocco and 73 per cent in Indonesia and urban Pakistan (rural Pakistanis were so backwards the results couldn't be reliably tabulated because people there had no concept of what that actually meant. If it ain't in the Koran, it ain't worth knowing, right?). My question would be, of course, how much further could the US actually divide the Muslim world seeing as Shiites kill Sunnis kill Kurds kill Druze kill Shiites kill Kurds kill Druze kill Sunnis, etc...God bless the Sufis, they seem to be the one sect of Islam that can actually live without killing someone else.

And, there's more. Only 28 per cent of Egyptians, 26 per cent of Indonesians, 35 per cent of Moroccan and TWO per cent of urban Pakistanis believe al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. More believe the US and/or Israel was behind the attacks because there is absolutely nothing that has ever happened in history that cannot be blamed on the Jews or the Americans or, failing all else, freedom.

What is sad is that we will continue to talk about our "friends" in Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan and sending them billions in handouts or investments to prop up their regimes. They, in turn, will use that money to continue to foment anti-US and anti-Western sentiment as they have done for years.

Natan Sharansky in his book "the Case for Democracy" argues that when we look at world regimes we should not regard leaders as being "for" or "against" us in terms of whether they're willing to mouth platitudes about being Western allies if, in fact, they are unwilling to make the necessary changes in their own nations to bring about positive advances for freedom. From Egypt and Pakistan to China and Russia, Sharansky is absolutely right.

The pollsters merely help make his case. We should not be pissing money away in Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia if all we get in return is hatred and the occasional blast in a bar. Instead, we should tie money to progress and cut it off when that progress is not clearly and markedly visible. There are plenty of countries where we can spend the money and actually get a return that is not delivered with poisonous venom.

Counting Qassams and Shaming the Media

2007-04-24T17:02:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Elder of Ziyon, a blogger who I knew in cyberspace long before he ever became a blogger. He has been cited by HonestReporting for his running tally of Qassam missile attacks launched by the palestinians against Israel on his daily Qassam Calendar carried on his blog.

Elder is an extremely bright, dedicated Zionist and, as such, is one of my internet heroes. You can find a link to his site on the right hand of this blog under "Blogs of Those I Know and Respect" (those are reserved for people who I "knew" before I began blogging although I respect some of those in my "other sites I like" equally as much).

I just wanted to tip my hat to Elder; he's one of the bloggers whose work spurred me to write down my own thoughts on this much lesser forum.

It's too bad he has to do the media's job for it because the media is too damned lazy to do its own work. Anyone interested in Israel and the incessantly biased reporting against the Middle East's only democratic nation should definitely check out Elder's blog and add it to their blogroll. He is truly ahead of his time in countering the typical pro-arab BS that runs through media outlets - particularly Reuters, AP and AFP - when it comes to the ME.

HonestReporting's citation came in response to Hamas' announcement it was ending its so-called ceasefire with Israel after the Israelis sent a bunch of pali terrorists to meet Allah in hell this weekend. The fact is, of course, that there was never any such ceasefire; the palis continued to lob Qassam rockets into Israel on a daily basis and to send terrorists out in the hopes they would infiltrate Israeli borders and kill more innocent Israeli civilians. Yet, the world media never, ever reports these attacks and only seems concerned with promoting the terrorist agenda of the hamassholes and their supporters.

Elder, btw, also keeps a running tally of the number of palis the palis kill in their never-ending gang war. It will be of no surprise to any thinking human being that the palis kill far more of their own citizens than Israel does and that they fire off weapons nilly-willy all over the place all the time, in the process killing many unarmed children, teenagers, women and innocent men. The IDF, on the other hand, targets pali terrorists who have a nasty habit of hiding behind the innocent and those innocents sometimes get caught in the crossfire. Those deaths, too, lie at the feet of the pali terror factions and not Israel.

As I've stated before on this blog and many other areas whereever I can: the palis are a complete waste of time and are perhaps the least deserving people in history of having their own country. Any other nation, attacked by terrorists on a constant basis as Israel is, would have wiped out the palis decades ago and slept with a clean conscience after doing so. Israel, alas, is often too humane for its own good.

***

It will be interesting to see how history portrays Boris Yeltsin, who died a couple of days ago at age 76. On the one hand, his bold actions and statements in the face of an attempted hardline Communist coup in Russia about 15 years ago temporarily saved the nation from a return to evil days of the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, he prosecuted the war in Chechnya which has been both unnecessary and extremely bloody. And, he also anointed Vladimir Putin as his successor. Putin, in his eight years in power, has largely done what those Communist hardliners Yeltsin stood up to wanted to do in the first place.

In many cases, Yeltsin came across as drunken buffoon but maybe it was the alcohol that gave him the cojones to stand on that tank in the first place and stare down the coup. Either way, I think the western world, not to mention the Russians, would have been better off if he and/or Gorbachev had stayed in power and Putin had been relegated to ex-KGB official rather than massively regressive leader.

***

It was very interesting to read that scientists have, for the first time, identified a planet outside of our solar system that meets many of the requirements they see necessary for sustaining life.

581c, which hardly seems like a fitting name for such a find, is about the right size and density, astronomers believe. Of course, it's 120 trillion miles away, which, while just around the corner in space terms, makes it difficult to tell. It also orbits a red dwarf sun and until a few years ago, scientists didn't think those solar systems could support life.

This planet, however, seems to orbit its sun at a distance that would set its surface temperature somewhere between 32 and 104 fahrenheit, which most definitly puts it in the right temperature range. It still remains to be discovered as to whether the planet has an atmosphere, what the composition of the atmosphere might be and how dense it is. Regardless, pretty neat stuff for anyone with an interest in the universe outside of our own fairly insignificant little marble.

Personally, I've always been convinced there's life out there among the stars. It's probably just smart enough to stay away from us. They've probably seen the palis in action.

***

On the fun side of life, the Vancouver Canucks knocked off the Dallas Stars last night in the first round of the NHL playoffs. They now face the much tougher Anaheim Ducks (the team removed the ridiculous Mighty from their name this year) with their massively imposing defensive corps headed by Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermayer.

This should be an interesting series. The Ducks are combative, fast and have a great blend of youth and veteran leadership. The Canucks are not nearly as tough, fast or deep but they have Roberto Luongo, the best goaltender in the NHL not named Martin Brodeur, and a coach who seems to know just when to tweak his lineup to get the most from his players.

Additionally, there is some bad blood there. The Ducks GM, Brian Burke, was unceremoniously and unfairly dumped by Vancouver three years ago. Burke lost his job because he refused to play all nice for the media and the fans, basically telling people to get stuffed when he felt they should get stuffed. He took his act and arrogance to Anaheim where he has fared very well indeed. As a person who has more than occasionally been accused of arrogance myself, I had a lot of sympathy for
Burke and couldn't care less what he said to the media if he put a winning product on the ice.

I picked Anaheim as my Stanley Cup winner before the season started - based on the presence of Pronger and Niedermayer - but, of course, will be rooting hard for Vancouver all the way...as soon as the hangover from last night's festivities subsides. Damn draft beer...you figure by the age of 42, I'd know better.

Au Revoir, France.

2007-04-22T13:12:00.000-07:00

The news coming out of France today is astonishing. The country's citizens seem prepared to pack it in - economically, culturally, demographically and politically.

According to exit polls, Nicholas Sarkozy will end up in a run-off with Segolene Royal for the presidency. Sarkozy is considered a Conservative because he freely admits that France's economic situation is growing progressively worse due to the fact that people there simply don't work very much and expect to be coddled from cradle to grave. Additionally, he also realizes that the multicultural efforts of France have helped create a growing and disaffected Muslim minority that is often terrorizing the rest of the nation. There is no debating these facts because they are a stark reality.

Royal, on the other hand, is a socialist. She vows to rollback the extremely modest economic reforms of Jacques Chirac. Chirac, amusingly, was also considered a Conservative which shows the incredible disparity between a European Conservative and a North American Conservative inasmuch as Chirac spent much of his 12 years in power kowtowing to every anti-western, anti-democratic and/or far-left (by our standards) interest he could find.

Amazingly, according to the pollsters and political pundits, it would appear Royal will beat Sarkozy in the run-off even though the results in the first stage of the election looked to favour Sarkozy.

I think that North Americans, by and large, have gotten used to the idea that France is no friend of our continent. Chirac and his toadies like Dominique De Villepin have repeatedly made that clear. In Canada, in fact, it's been clear for much longer than that - ever since De Gaulle backed the Quebec separatists some 30 years ago when he pronounced, "Vive le Quebec Libre" (which roughly translates to "Up the Free Quebec".)

It is also no surprise that the French pig-headedly refuse to face their economic woes. Every attempt by its governments to cut back on the ridiculously short work weeks and the generous but incredibly shortsighted benefits has been met with protests, anger and widespread opposition (not to mention riots, car burnings and violence).

But, what is surprising is that the French, who've long prided themselves on their particular form of arrogance, are willing to pack it in so easily and go quietly into that crescent-mooned night. Not that anyone here should give a shit; in fact, maybe it will end up being a valuable lesson to the Germans, Dutch, Swedes, British and other European nations who have allowed political correctness and economic stupidity to send them teetering to the brink of cultural annihilation. I guess it couldn't happen to a more deserving European country; France is not only anti-Western it is intensely Judeophobic and has been for centuries, regardless of what their politicians would have us believe.

I do kind of feel sorry for people like 60-year-old Eliane de Pouzolz, a retired secretary in the poor Paris suburb of Clichy-Sous-Bois, where three weeks of nationwide youth rioting started in 2005. Quoted after casting her ballot, she commented, "Politicians talk a lot but nothing ever changes. France is stuck."

Sorry, Madame de Pouzolz, it's a lot worse than that. France is unhinged and doomed.

Green And Obscene

2007-04-20T22:41:00.000-07:00

In 1988, when I lived in Toronto, I spent about six months working for Greenpeace on a fundraising and awareness campaign around the Great Lakes. It was a pretty easy sell; Toronto sits on Lake Ontario and everyone knew it was massively polluted. Convincing the tony residents of that city to shell out a few bucks to the greenies wasn't difficult.

Sadly, I was mostly at odds with those I worked with, particularly around an election campaign that was underway at that time. It was focussed on the proposed Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. Greenpeace, and the small numbers of people who made up the Green Party at that time, were massively opposed to free trade; I was 100 per cent for it and still am today. I used to chide them that they were simply scared Canada couldn't compete with the Americans while I believed strongly in the Canadian ability to produce and sell goods to a market 10 times larger than our own.

As Canadians - and maybe even an American or two might know - the Conservative party won that election, free trade came into being and 20 years later Canada's economy is robust and, with the exception of a few instances, the free trade agreement has worked pretty well.

What I learned from that experience is that the Greens, who were often wrong even about environmental issues, should absolutely shut the fuck up when it comes to any other political issues.

This was borne out this week in Vancouver where a star Green party member revealed that during 9/11 he pumped his fist in the air when he learned the first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York and his joy grew as a second plane ploughed into the WTC and news followed about the attack on the Pentagon. No doubt the only glitch to his day was when the hijackers of Flight 93 were overtaken by the heroic passengers who gave up their own lives to ensure their descent to Earth and subsequent fiery death didn't take anyone else along with them.

Furthermore, said Kevin Potvin, the 2005 bombings in the London Tube were "not cowardly, despicable and unspeakable acts; they were acts of war...(they - meaning islamic terrorists) are defending themselves from cultural genocide."

Rarely in my life have I read a more despicable, false and asinine comment then Potvin managed to come up with. There is no cultural genocide being practised against the Muslim community; quite the opposite, islamists are exporting a virulent, vicious and hateful brand of religion that is bent on committing cultural genocide against anyone who disagrees with them, including their fellow Muslims.

Furthermore, the British have bent their asses so far over backwards to accommodate Islam that one can almost see the Queen donning a burka if asked. They have removed the Holocaust from their school textbooks for fear of upsetting muslims and just this week, the British Union of Journalists, of which Potvin should be a member, voted to boycott Israel because radical palestinian islamist terrorists kidnapped and may have killed a BBC journalist. (George Orwell may be long dead but his descendants in the British press seem intent on fulfilling his prophecies.)

Anyway, Potvin proves what I have long known: that the hot air emanating from the environmentalist movement is far more dangerous than greenhouse gases. Canadians should not only be wary of Green Party environmental policies but should reject everything about that party not related to the environment. Oh, and since the Liberals recently swung a deal with the Greens to not run against them in a federal byelection in return for God only knows what concessions down the road, we should equally reject that party which has been reduced from one that used to run the country to one that probably couldn't even run a lawnmower (push variety, of course).

Lastly, I'm now shopping for a hybrid vehicle. I still believe in being kind to the environment and I also want to ensure even less of the money that I spend might somehow find itself headed for the arab world. But, hey, Potvin would merely call me a racist bastard and cheer if a hijacked plane lands on my house.

I really do wonder what this world is coming to and I don't like the picture my mind paints when I think about it - the Green Party and the green of Islam are not compatible with the rest of the world's colours, it seems.

Tragedy at VT highlights systemic, not gun, problems

2007-04-19T16:45:00.000-07:00

Having spent the last week in Australia (well, aside from the day-and-a-half travelling to and from there), I got a rather different interpretation of the tragic events at Virginia Tech than I no doubt would have gotten had I been in North America.

Aussies are great, great people but one thing they didn't grasp at all, even the ones living and working as foreign correspondents in the US, is that US gun laws are not simply changeable at any given time. Over and over again I heard things to the effect of "oh, why doesn't Bush do something about guns" and "the American gun lobby is too powerful and the gun laws too weak" and "thank God we don't live in a place where everyone loves guns so much". Not once did I hear any commentator actually point out that the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution and that the Constitution is an incredibly difficult document to change even if the will existed to do so which, in this case, it does not.

Nor did I hear a single Australian (or Canadian, probably) commentator note that in states that enacted laws allowing private citizens to carry holstered weapons that violent crime statistics went down, for the simple reason that, for instance, a wannabe rapist or mugger is far less likely to act if he thinks there's a chance he might get his fucking head blown off. When it was even suggested that had students at VT had guns the killer would have been stopped very early on, it was merely pooh-poohed as a ridiculous argument when it is actually a very valid, if unpalatable, argument.

I'm actually no fan of guns but as a Jew whose family members either barely survived or didn't survive the Holocaust, I'm trained in their use and have considered stocking one at my home (deciding so far to wait until my children are old enough to respect firearms). While I'm no fan of guns, I am a believer in "never again" and no one's going to get a free shot at me.

Australians were also loathe to point out - although they had to - that they had a rampage at Port Arthur in Tasmania about a decade ago where a gunman killed 35 people and that Britain, Germany, Canada and other nations with much tougher gun laws than the US has have all had people go on rampages that left innocent victims dead on the ground.

And, in fact, despite Canada's laws, the murder rate by gun in Toronto, last I read, had surpassed, per capita, that of New York's. Why? Because gun laws only take guns out of the hands of people who care about laws. And guess what? That doesn't include murderous scumbags like Cho Seung-hui who committed the massacre at VT or Marc Lepine who gunned down 14 female students at Quebec's Ecole Polytechnique about 15 years ago.

I guess what bothered me most about the coverage of the killings was the rather arrogant suggestion that once again the US is a culture based only on violence and an incomprehensible love of firearms. It has become all too commonplace to bash the US around ad nauseum while, for instance in Sydney, roving gangs of Muslim males rape innocent women and, despite the public outrage, receive often insignificant sentences, far-left sympathetic gibberish about the "difficulties in adjusting" and "cultural differences" and little action from the government.

If those women had guns, those "men" would be lying in gutters with their dicks shot off and the world would be an incrementally better place.

The solution isn't to ban guns, it's to make it more difficult to for them to be used by nut jobs. Steps might include, for instance, smaller magazines for concealed weapons requring more frequent reloading, more concrete actions when a crazy like Seung-hui is identified (he was known to police, school officials and students as a complete whacko but of course the warm-fuzzy PC society made it impossible to stop him before he acted) and simple steps like longer cooling off periods between gun purchase and gun possession and stiffer penalties for losing or selling a firearm when it may fall into the wrong hands.

There are also socio-economic and racial factors at play but we can't talk about them. It would be wrong to suggest that some people might be more prone to using guns in a violent manner because that's profiling and God knows we don't want to do that even if the statistics are staring us right in the face.

You can make all the laws you want but to address this kind of problem, the solution does not lie in banning guns. It lies in keeping them out of the hands of the insane and criminal.

Nappy Heads In Good Company, Imus Is Not

2007-04-11T00:12:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on Don Imus:

1) Calling members of the Princeton Women's Basketball team "nappy-headed hos" was incredibly distasteful and unbelievably stupid.

2) MSNBC must have really hated having to suspend him for two weeks. I wouldn't even like to guess at what the jump in their listening audience must have been in the days following.

3) There is a significant amount of truth in the contention that if it isn't alright for Imus to call people "nappy-headed hos" then it isn't alright for anyone to use such terms. The terms help perpetuate the stereotypes regardless of who employs them and it's not just African-Americans who are listening to African-American artists etc., it's kids of all backgrounds.

4) The nappiest head that ever walked Princeton's grounds sat on the shoulders of Albert Einstein. Those young women are in some pretty heady company (pardon the pun).

5) It's amusing beyond belief that Al Sharpton got to take Imus to task. Pardon me? In beliefs, Sharpton is to Imus as Mel Gibson is to Michael Richards. What a crock of shit. Of course, being a black bigot is perfectly acceptable, especially if New York Jews are your target...just ask Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan.

6) Why do 67-year-old men continue to wear their hair like they're 17? As if Imus is in any position to make hair comments; he's halfway to Cousin Itt status.

7) This is what one of my editors used to call a "nine-day" wonder because in nine days no one will really remember or care. The media loves to feast on its fallen. Trust me, though, in a week, Paris Hilton will get busted while snorting crushed amphetamines off the chest of an American Idol contestant. Imus will be forgotten - unless he calls Paris a "platinum-blonde bleached bitch ho". Which he might...

8) Whatever happened to Howard Stern?

9) Talk radio, like internet chat sites, are dumping grounds for hatred, vitriol and derogatory language. This is due to the anonymity available, people's general need to vent and their inate belief that their opinions mean something. Of course, I have a blog so, mea culpa. I try to avoid the hate but I've definitely been guilty of the vitriol. I also believe the derogatory terms are unnecessary. My favourite target is the arab world. It's exposed with no further description necessary...

10) Ah, seriously, this shit ain't worth 10 thoughts.

God Was Looking The Other Way

2007-04-09T19:14:00.000-07:00

Not being a golf fan, I watched exactly 0 seconds of the Masters Championship over the weekend. I did, however, hear about the victory speech given by some guy named Zach Johnson because it made for good radio fodder today.

Apparently, Johnson is a Christian of faith so he did the whole thanking God thingy that pro athletes seem to find so appealing. "I'd just like to thank the Lord for helping me to (make that shot, stop that shot, catch that ball, knock down that ball, insert relevant sports action here)."

I've never understood this. I suppose I can grasp the concept of a player thanking God for giving him/her guidance, moral fortitude and the strength to avoid the familiar pitfalls that see a lot of athletes show up in as many police lineups as they do commercials.

The idea, however, that God favours any particular athlete or team is ludicrous. I once wrote, and still believe, that the media should ban any and all references to supernatural powers being involved in their triumphs. The only Angels in the outfield have to put their cleats on one foot at a time just like all other players even if Vladimir Guerrero's hitting is occasionally otherworldly.

Johnson, for instance, is 31 years old. His Masters victory was a complete fluke; he'd won one other tournament in his career. However, his victory was not that unusual; unknowns have certainly captured majors on numerous occasions, especially in the past few years with courses being constantly redesigned to overcome technological changes.

In golf, if God favours anyone, it's Tiger Woods. He's the winner of 12 majors, well on his way to setting the all-time records for everything golf related including career earnings and married to a super hot Swedish babe. Tiger doesn't thank God when he wins because he knows his victories are crafted from natural talent, physical abilities, his instincts to put opponents away and hours upon hours of relentless practise. I don't really like Tiger Woods as a personality inasmuch as he's been pretty much invisible on important issues around the game and society, particularly equal rights, but I give him credit for rarely stooping to the traditional media pandering and cliched responses to everything.

In sports, players on all teams thank God all the time. But, would God really let the New Jersey Devils win several Stanley Cups if he cared about sports?

Mr. Johnson should remember that Sunday was also Easter. So, on the one hand, God's got the Pope reminding him of every damn thing that's wrong in the world and, on the other, he's got some no-name golfer wanting to wear a green jacket and take home a big paycheck. Benedict represents 100s of millions of Catholics and is decrying poverty and violence; Zach Johnson wants to upgrade the designer label on his plaid golf pants.

I'm thinking God might have had more important things to do on Sunday...which is probably why Tiger Woods didn't win the Masters.

A Short Break From Baseball

2007-04-05T18:33:00.000-07:00

Blogging has taken a backseat to baseball this past week. First there was a 12-hour rotisserie draft with a group of friends that have been members of the same league for more than a decade. Then a second draft. Then figuring out where the mistakes were and trying to correct them. And, then the actual games themselves started...

I have loved baseball since I was a child. My grandmother taught me the finer points of the game when I was small, sitting on the two single beds in her room and sneaking me soda while watching the usually woeful New York Mets, a team she followed after the Brooklyn Dodgers left for LA. Tom Seaver was my childhood sports idol. When I was 8, they lost the World Series to Oakland and I bawled my eyes out. When I was 21, the Mets won the World Series, just four months after my grandmother died and I spent several days thinking about how happy she would have been.

The game appeals to me on many levels. It's strategic, tense and anticipatory, full of quirks, strange hops and the many permutations of its individual parks. It has its physical moments with 95 mile an hour fastballs, 400-foot home runs and basepath collisions and its graceful moments with well-turned double plays, strategically placed breaking balls and diving outfield catches.

The mathematics also intrigue me. Baseball can be examined, its tactics can be worked out and their success rates established. It can be translated to paper or fantasy sports like no other game.

Of course, it also has its dark moments, but, really, we can thank the outlandish amount of money at stake for that.

Baseball gets a bad rap for being boring. And, I suppose I can understand the charge in today's world of Xbox and XGames. But, then classics are often considered boring, everything from music to literature to theatre. Among sports, baseball would be considered a classic and like the others, it, too, will persist. Its global appeal will ensure that; it's an inexpensive sport that can be played in almost any environment.

So, anyway, the Mets are off to a 3-0 start, having swept the Cardinals in St. Louis to open the season. God is in his heaven and everything is right in the world. Maybe I'll institute a policy of only posting when they lose and with any luck, I'll never be heard from again.

Cold War Renewed

2007-03-29T17:23:00.000-07:00

As if Vladimir Putin's iron-handed rule wasn't reminiscent enough of the bad old days of the Soviet Union, now comes word that the Cold War really has resumed.

Apparently, some people on both sides of the Atlantic would like to see a replay of the 1972 Summit Series, an eight-game hockey showdown between Canada and Russian professional players - the first time the world's two primary hockey superpowers had met on the ice under equal terms.

No doubt, in the United States, the series passed with but a whisper. In Canada, however, the whole nation stopped during Game 8 where, with the series tied 3-3-1 and the final game tied in the final minute, Paul Henderson picked the puck up in the Soviet corner found his way to the front of the net and forced it past goaltender Vladislav Tretiak with 34 seconds remaining.

Here's a really cool little clip from the CBC of the moments leading up to and after the goal. The call is by Foster Hewitt, a Canadian icon for more than 50 years who basically created the term "He shoots! He scores!"

The goal comes about three minutes in but watch up until then to see the tension etched in the faces of viewers.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-318-1650/sports/summit_series/clip7

It's a moment that remains locked in the Canadian identity because the series was more than hockey (and, in Canada, just hockey is pretty powerful on its own)- it was us vs. them; the free world vs. tyranny...and freedom won (largely due to Bobby Clarke's Machiavellian attack on Valeri Kharlamov's ankle that forced the Soviet superstar from the series, it must be noted).

Personally, I think the idea of trying to resurrect the series is ridiculous. You could never recreate that kind of tension with the emotional overtones of the first. Canada and Russia have played numerous times since then and the best Russian players now play in the NHL alongside Canadian players every day. We send our best to the Olympics just like they do (and did in 1972, while we sent amateurs) and there are many other tournaments where the two nations meet. On top of that, Russian hockey is now only in the mix of the world's best nations; Canada is a consistent number one but any of Russia, Sweden, Finland and occasionally the US can have dominant moments.

On the plus side, with the way Putin's been acting lately, maybe a nasty Bobby Clarke two-hander to his skull would serve the world well.

On another Russian note, it was interesting to see the Russians pull much of their technical staff from Iran over reported stalled payments on the Iranians plan to incinerate Israel (oh, sorry, peaceful nuclear power program), with speculation it could have been due to side negotiations with the US.

But then they turn around and block the UN from issuing a stronger rebuke to Iran for its kidnapping of 15 British sailors (and, yes, I absolutely mean kidnapping). The reason? Well, let's see: oil has gone up three or four dollars a barrel since the kidnapping and Russia is making scads on the world oil markets. Coincidence? I think not.

As for the Britain/Iran standoff: the Iranians have once again shown their complete disregard for any kind of civility and humanity (not to mention the Geneva Convention). First they kidnap the 15 Brits, then they parade one of them on TV (after agreeing not to) and then they force her to write an obviously coerced statement.

Is there going to be a point, I wonder, at which the civilized world realizes Iran must be reined in and that sanctions and other penalties are put in place to ensure it happens?

And, lastly, I was going to write a few words about the renewal of the Arab League "peace plan" with Israel. But, then I thought, "why? Everyone with half-a-brain already realizes it's a complete and utter farce." Sadly, I'm not sure that Ehud Olmert has the half brain necessary but for Israel's sake, I truly hope he's at least that smart

Buried in Their Own Shit

2007-03-27T18:54:00.000-07:00

If ever a story encapsulated everything about the Palestinians, this is it:

"UMM NASER, Gaza Strip - A huge sewage reservoir in the northern Gaza Strip collapsed Tuesday, killing five people in a frothing cascade of waste and mud that swamped a village and highlighted the desperate need to upgrade Gaza's overburdened infrastructure.

Rescue crews and Hamas gunmen rushed to the area to search for people feared buried under the sewage and mud. Dressed in wetsuits, they paddled boats through the layer of foam floating on the green and brown rivers of waste. Others waded up to their hips into the sewage.

The noxious smell of waste and dead animals hung in the air.

Angry residents drove reporters away and mobbed government officials. When Interior Minister Hani Kawasmeh arrived to survey the damage, his bodyguards fired in the air to disperse the crowd.

Aid officials said plans to build a larger waste treatment facility had been held up for years by perpetual fighting in the area between Israel and Palestinians and donor concerns about political instability. However, construction did not appear to have been affected by international sanctions imposed on the Palestinians after the militant Hamas group's election victory last year.

The existing treatment plant in northern Gaza — located just a few hundred yards from the border with Israel — stores waste in seven holding basins. With the burgeoning population producing nearly four times as much waste as the plant could treat, officials have put overflow sewage in the nearby dunes, creating a lake covering nearly 110 acres, the U.N. said.

On Tuesday morning, an earth embankment around one of the seven basins collapsed, sending a wall of sewage crashing into the neighboring village of Umm Naser.

The wave killed two women in their 70s, two toddlers and a teenage girl and injured 35 other people, hospital officials said. More than 200 homes were destroyed, health officials said.

The Gaza City mayor blamed the collapse on local people digging dirt from the structure and selling it to building contractors.

Aid officials and the Palestinian government sent bulldozers to build makeshift walls to push back the sewage. Officials will also try to divert the waste into the other holding basins, putting those in danger of overflowing. Another collapse could send sewage flooding into Beit Lahiya, a far larger town, officials said.

"We are doing all we can to prevent any disaster, but the solution is temporary," said government engineer Nidal Musalameh.

Many of the evacuated residents were staying in tents and other shelters nearby, rescue officials said. But officials feared a public health disaster.

Gaza City Mayor Majid Abu Ramadan, who leads a council of Gaza municipalities, blamed the collapse on lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, accusing residents of stealing the dirt and selling it to building companies for $70 a truckload.

A 2004 U.N. report warned that the sewage facility, built for a population of 50,000, was handling waste from 190,000 people, and flooding was inevitable. It warned that the lake created by the overflow from the seven basins posed a serious health hazard, providing a breeding ground for mosquitoes and waterborne diseases.

Shepard said that since the report was published, international funding for a new plant had been secured but construction could not proceed because of security risks in the area.

The flooding underscored the fragility of the overburdened infrastructure in the impoverished and overcrowded coastal region of 1.4 million people. The West Bank, too, is suffering from eroding sewage and water infrastructure.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum blamed international "sanctions against Palestinians" for the sorry condition of Gaza's infrastructure. Most foreign donors froze aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas came to power last year, but Shepard said a project to build a treatment plant in northern Gaza had not been affected by the boycott.

An internal World Bank document obtained by The Associated Press said the Palestinian Authority decided in 2003 to dump partially treated excess waste into the ocean, but Israel vetoed the idea."

Okay, to begin with: it's tragic women and children were killed.

But, let's just sum up: Palestinians ignore warnings. Palestinians create disaster. Palestinian women and children die. Palestinians blame Israel. Israel totally vindicated. Palestinians blame international community, instead.

Oh, and on top of that, their original solution was to create an environmental disaster by dumping partiallly treated waste into the ocean.

Palestinians can't control shit...but, by all means, sign these people up for statehood.

Iran's Elephant Needs a Few Mice

2007-03-26T17:21:00.000-07:00

In between kidnapping British sailors and trying to build nuclear weapons, the Iranians have been busy lately doing that most islamic of things: whining loudly about western decadence.

In this case, their enmity has been focused on the movie "300"; the comic book-style film about the battle of Thermoplyae where roughly that number of Spartans held off thousands of Persians. The Iranians claim the movie is a deliberate propaganda attempt to make them look bad - Persians being the forerunners of today's Iranians. Of course, being moronic buttheads, they can't actually understand the movie is really a deliberate attempt to make millions of dollars off cash-rich teenage boys with no dates who've already conquered all the latest video games.

The Iranians seem to get their noses out of joint fairly often when it comes to Western entertainment. (It must be admitted, we get our noses out of joint on islamic entertainment, too, but since that seems to be mostly violence of the real sort, rather than cartoon, I'd say we have a point).

A quick search showed in the last year or so, the Iranians have protested 300, Mohammed cartoons, the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean" and first, and funniest, Tom and Jerry.

I hadn't heard about the Tom and Jerry thing until today when someone asked me about it, so maybe I just missed something. But, apparently, it was developed as a zionist plot by arch-Jew Walt Disney to persuade Europeans that Jews weren't so bad. Jerry, it seems was a Jewish mouse and by being cute and funny while still kicking Tom's ass he fooled European children into thinking Jews (or mice) were pretty cool.

As "Professor" Hasan Bolkahri, a member of the Film Council of Iran Broadcasting and cultural advisor to the Iranian Educaiton Minister, put it:

There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults - Tom and Jerry.

[...]

Some say that this creation by Walt Disney will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse - especially the mouse.

Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe.

[...]

If you study European history, you will see who was the main power to hoard money and wealth, in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the anti-Semitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began... Some of this is true. We do not deny all of it.

Watch Schindler's List. Every Jew was forced to wear a yellow star on his clothing. The Jews were degraded and termed "dirty mice." Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice. One of terms used was "dirty mice."

I'd like to tell you that... It should be noted that mice are very cunning...and dirty.[...]

You have to love his contention "some say" at the top. The "some", no doubt, being a few twisted Iranian idiots who really need to get out more.

Additionally, Tom and Jerry weren't created by Walt Disney. They were created by Joseph Barbera and William Hanna. And, by the time the pairing came along, it was already 1939 and no cat and mouse were going to save the Jews when the Americans were busy refusing to allow them to even enter the country as were Canada, Mexico and other nations.

It's incredible to believe that a nation led by people who will create such inane and absolute bullshit is currently holding a gun to the world's head. We don't need the US military or Israeli jets to defeat the Iranians. We don't even need 300 superpowered Spartans.

All we need is a bunch of mice and/or some creative cartoonists and we can probably drive the Iranians into such a fit of anger they'll collectively implode.

Khadrs - Citizens on Paper Only

2007-03-23T16:08:00.000-07:00

According to many published reports over the past months and years, as a Canadian, I'm supposed to be outraged by the fact the US is holding one our citizens.

After all, I'm frequently reminded, Omar Khadr was only 15 when he was apprehended by the US military and sent to Guantanomo Bay where he's been held ever since. The great ogre that is America has held young Khadr without - as yet - a trial. Woe is us! America has trampled the rights of one of our valuable citizens!

Well, except that Omar Khadr was raised to be a militant islamist by his parents. His father was one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants and a trusted member of the al-Qaida network. He and his brothers spent time in an Afghanistan terror training camp. His mother and sister returned to Canada a couple of years ago and promptly went on lengthy tirades against Canada and the evils of western society while also promoting jihad and terrorist attacks. (His father, who was known as "The Canadian" in al-Qaida circles, was killed in a gunbattle in Afghanistan which was certainly no loss to our society).

One brother, who rejected terrorism and spoke out against his father and family is considered the "black sheep" of the family. That's right: he's the bad one because he didn't want to kill anyone or commit suicide while doing it.

Omar, himself, is in Guantanomo Bay for throwing a grenade into the face of Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a US medic. In other words, he murdered the man in cold blood.

Well, I do feel sorry for Omar. He was raised to be a killer and that's what he became. He should have been removed from his parents' sphere of influence and brought up in a proper Canadian home where he would have learned tolerance and respect. Maybe an Xbox game would have been enough to satisfy any violent tendencies as it seems to do for many children in our society.

But, I don't feel one-one millionth as sorry for him as I do for Christopher Speer and his family. Nor do I for one second denounce my government for refusing to interfere or the US for holding him where ever they feel is necessary. The Americans have said they won't seek the death penalty for Khadr which is more compassion than he ever showed for Sgt. Speer or anyone else in the west.

Frankly, the Khadrs are a perfect example of the failed policy of multiculturalism. They should be stripped of their citizenship and removed from this country immediately. We have no use for terrorists or their advocates and the Khadrs as they have clearly stated on numerous occasions, have no use for us.

A little meme about MeMe

2007-03-22T18:19:00.000-07:00

I almost never do this kind of stuff but for some reason, I liked this one:

FIRSTS:
First job: Newspaper delivery boy followed by the usual assortment of crappy teenage work. Adult job: newspaper reporter at a small town weekly.
First funeral: My great grandmother's.
First piercing: none
First tattoo: none...I'd like to get one but it's one thing I've always held back on because Jews aren't supposed to have tattoos.
First credit card: Visa
First favorite musician/band: KISS...ROFLMAO! What can I say? I was 11. Hearing "Beth" still makes me feel like a kid.
LASTS:Last movie watched: Borat
Last beverage drank: Water...I'm out of beer.
Last food consumed: Fish and chips
Last phone call: my son's babysitter
Last CD played: Bruce Springsteen's Greatest Hits, CD 3
Last website visited: This one.
Single or Taken: Taken.
What do you miss? The sun. It's been raining here for weeks.
Hair color: Light brown with more grey every day.
Natural color: grey, I guess the brown was just 40+ years of colouring.
Eye color: blue
Makes you sad: Being out of beer.

Unity - When Everyone Shoots At Each Other At Once

2007-03-21T16:37:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, when I was young and naive (ie. under 30 and still believing in warm, fuzzy Liberal-style ideology), I thought Israel could have peace with the Palestinians.

As I got a little older, I began to believe that while Israel and the palestinians would never have a real peace, it was possible to at least create a "cold" peace where the parties just kept out of one another's affairs as much as possible.

Then, after Arafat walked away from Camp David in favour of starting the second intifailure, I realized there would never be anything but hatred emanating from the palis towards the Israelis. So, I backed the concept of the wall and increased checkpoints along with the Gaza pullout which helped solidify that part of Israel's borders. At that same time, I began to believe there was no way the palestinians would avoid civil war once Arafat was sent to roast in hell with his buddies Yassin and Rantisi.

The palestinians haven't really had their civil war yet. They've had what would better be considered as mindless street thuggery...the kind the bloods and crips might have if they were all armed with AK-47s instead of .38 specials and knives. There's no war, really, just tit-for-tat violence that claims lots of terrorist-wannabe lives and just as many innocent lives.

But, of course, the palis have it all figured out. The Saudis brokered that famous peace, the palestinian unity government was formed, approved and sworn in only three days ago! The Russians were said to be ready to normalize relationships, the Norwegians sent a representative and urged other nations to do likewise, the rest of the Euroweenies were falling all over each other to hail this remarkable advance and even the US signalled its willingness to meet with non-Hamas members of the new "unity" government.

But, here's today's news: GAZA (Reuters) - A militant loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction was killed and seven people were wounded on Wednesday in the first deadly clash between Fatah and Hamas since a unity government was formed.

Within hours, two Palestinians linked to Hamas were abducted in Gaza City in a sign violence could spread despite the new coalition's stated aim of ending factional strife and closing ranks against a crippling year-old Western aid embargo.

Now, two days without killing each other IS a significant achievement for palestinians but hardly the stuff of unity. They couldn't even make it past 50 hours, with the world watching, before they resumed their slaughter...it's the palestinian version of playing Xbox.

Ho-hum, better they kill each other than Israelis, anyway. Guess the Russians and Europeans will just have to wait for the bloodletting to end before they can once again begin pandering to Arab interests. Hopefully, the US at least won't make the same dumb statement again and thankfully Canada never even came close to accepting this latest formation of palestinian terror groups.

Even for LA, this guy's a headcase - so of course, he's a UCLA professor

2007-03-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

Here is what Israel is up against when it comes to distortion from even westernized arabs. The following is from a UCLA professor and is a load of amazing crap. Nevertheless it was published in the Los Angeles Times, a major daily newspaper in one of the world's largest and most influential cities (my comments in bold).

In the war of words, The Times is Israel's ally
The paper consistently adopts Israel's language, giving credence to an inaccurate, simplistic and dangerous cliche.
By Saree Makdisi, SAREE MAKDISI, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes frequently about the Middle East.
March 11, 2007

'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.

George Orwell abhorred tyranny and would have been aghast at the way most arab "societies" are run.

No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment — even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is — at best — utterly nonsensical.

There is nothing nonsensical, of course, about such demands. "Recognize" means acknowledge it exists and "right to exist" means you foreswear trying to extinguish it from the face of the planet.

First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).

Israel has signalled its willingness to recognize a palestinian state once one is brought into being for decades. The palestinians themselves have chosen not to have a state. Arafat was offered 97 per cent of what the palestinians asked for along with control of the Temple Mount/Golden Mosque area and rejected it.

Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?

See above. Israel's borders remained undefined because the palestinians refuse a state. When Olmert said he would define Israel's borders unilaterally, the palestinians howled. They can't have it both ways.

For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

Non-binding resolutions do not have to be "submitted" to (interesting choice of words. Islam loves submission). The palestinians were not expelled from their homes; they fled at the urging of their own leaders who promised to wipe out the Jewish state.

If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?

ROFLMAO! Nothing is demanded of Israel? Of course not. Israel is only supposed to bow to every palestinian desire, allow itself to be destroyed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the whackos in Iran and in the meantime must apologize every time some palestinian gets a sliver when pushed against the wall after being apprehended for trying to enter Israel wearing a bomb belt.

Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.

Orwell certainly was right...in tyrannies, the truth is alterable and 2+2=5 if your leaders tell you it is and you want to keep your head on your shoulders.

Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

See above. The palestinians were not forced to leave by the Jews in 1948. Notice, the author also shows no acknowledgement for the 900,000 Jews thrown out of arab nations at the same time. True: the palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people; they are however, the first dispossessed people allowed to suck the international tit for 60 years while practising terrorism and internicine violence.

A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.

Love the comment about a just peace. Indeed. Note the word "catastrophe". It sounds so much better as "nakba". The catastrophe was of the arabs own making.

And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.

Obviously, the author is again ignoring reality. Most "palestinians" today have no connection to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of them have been dispossessed from arab nations, not Israel. So much for arab brotherhood.

This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.

If Israel wanted to eliminate the palestinian presence, it could have done so at any time by either expelling or slaughtering them. It has been far more humane towards palestinians than any arab nation. There are one million arab-Israelis (about 15 per cent of the population) and Israel has never moved to expel them. Why, I wonder, should Israel accept muslims in its country while Jews can't live in areas the palestinians want as part of their state? Nor, of course, can they live in most arab nations or even visit some of them.

In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology — a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine — The Times is taking sides.

If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.

If the LA Times wants people to understand the conflict, it need look no further than professor Makdisi. The conflict is the result of arab refusal to accept reality and live in the 21st century - nothing more, nothing less.

Canada - International Pariah Populated by Racist Bastards, Part Deux

2007-03-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

Gee whiz, as if things weren't be enough for Canada what with the UN all pissy towards us these days, we've really done it now and upset the Egyptians.

Egypt's Foreign Ministry sent a rep over to see Canadian Embassy officials in Cairo last week. The reason: an 11-year-old Canadian girl had been told to remove her headscarf or leave the field during a recent soccer tournament in Quebec. The Ontario resident had been wearing the attire with no problem in her home province.

Egypt's Ambassador to Canada felt he had to weigh in, too. "If you look at things from a world perspective, it is as if Muslim or Islam are under attac and under siege around the world."

Yup. That's right: Canada is attacking the Muslim world because a girl couldn't wear her hijab at a soccer tournament. The referee issued the order, citing regulations around safety. The referee, BTW, was MUSLIM.

It was, in my opinion, actually stupid to remove the girl from the field. Hijabs are not, in themselves, offensive or dangerous to others. If any safety risk existed, it was solely to the player. I suppose it is possible that someone, for instance, might have grabbed the loose end and choked the girl. But, in a country that allows Sikh policeman and soldiers to forego the usual headwear in favour of turbans, it doesn't seem illogical to extend the same courtesy to a young girl.

What is, of course, absolutely illogical is the premise that Islam is under attack in Canada or around the globe. Islam is the global leader in attacking people and objects of other faiths and there is absolutely no way to extend an argument claiming otherwise in today's world reality. From Australia to Sweden, Islam has turned itself into a major concern for the rest of the world.

It is also beyond pale for Canada to accept any criticism from a nation like Egypt which routinely abuses human rights, murders the government's political opponents, resists women's rights, blows billions of US aid every year on fomenting anti-US sentiment and even goes as far as to jail bloggers.

I sincerely hope that our country responds by calling in the Egyptian ambassador each and every time Egypt abuses any rights; he'll be spending the rest of his life on the carpet. We should start with the Canadian of Egyptian descent who the Egyptians recently arrested as an Israeli spy even though everyone knows the real reason he's imprisoned is because he's a homosexual activist.

Canada - International Pariah Populated By Racist Bastards

2007-03-10T10:08:00.000-08:00

It seems I might live in a country that is quickly becoming an international pariah and I couldn't be happier about it.

Less than a week after the UN chided Canada (particularly Vancouver) for allowing safe injection sites, we were squarely back in their sights over racism. Seems the use of the term "visible minorities" is in itself a racist comment, according to a UN report.

Leaving aside for a moment the very real fact that being a visible minority in Canada actually has benefits - inasmuch as your special cultural beliefs and background have to be considered in all things big and small and there's all kinds of ways to voice your displeasure if you feel wronged - and the question of why the UN is once again busying itself with minutaie while civilization teeters ever closer to collapse, it also begs the question, what would the UN rather we use?

Because, of course, there was no alternative language suggested. Would the UN prefer we went back to describing people of African descent as niggers, East Asians as pakis and Chinese as chinks? Does that make me a Yank (born in the States), a Hun (family background), a kike (religous persuasion) or a honkie (skin colour)?

Does the UN want a warmer, fuzzier more PC term like "people whose skin colour may be slightly different from others but that doesn't make them less worthy" or "people who are just like everyone else and only racist bastards would suggest otherwise"? Seems a little wordy but then again government's never shied away from employing ridiculously long descriptions for everyday things.

Visible minority is a pretty accurate description for people who are not Caucasian and who live in Canada. According to the World Factbook, two-thirds of Canadians are from European countries which makes them generally Caucasian. Perhaps instead of visible minorities, we should eliminate all terms for people not of European descent and simply call Caucasians the "visible majority".

Or, perhaps we should just ignore the UN, like most everyone else does these days. And, like many of those nations, we should stop paying its damn bills, too.

America: Alone But Still Strong

2007-03-06T18:12:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I learned that, following the necessary tests, I was officially spermless and able to discard all types of birth control thanks to undergoing the big snip. Two kids...that's it, that's all.

Until last night, I considered that good news. But, last night, I began reading Mark Steyn's America Alone. And read it and read it, in growing horror.

It's not Steyn's take on the islamist/jihadist movement that turned my stomach - I share pretty much the same views as he does: that it's a dangerous, hateful, murderous cult and regardless of whether "mainstream" Muslims oppose it or not, it's gradually gaining strength, particularly in Europe.

What got me was his very rational argument that we may very well already be doomed and not just by Islam but by nanny-stateism and demographics. The first is one of the reasons I vote for a right of centre party. I don't need nor do I want someone holding my hand from cradle to grave to make sure I never get a skinned knee or to ensure that if I do that I can wait for about 18 hours in the emergency room before a doctor will look at it.

Demographics, on the other hand, I have to admit I've given short shrift to. I'm aware, certainly, of the demographic tide that would swamp Israel under a one-state solution which is why I so strongly oppose the stupid idea. I know, also, that Canada's birthrate is not sufficient to replace its population and that Russia is gradually becoming a wasteland for humans because not only does it have an unsustainably low birthrate but people are leaving. At least, in Canada's case, people want to move here and not generally from here.

But Steyn showed the problem is much worse than that. More than 15 European nations have birthrates that are not at replacement levels. Of those, many are seeing increasingly high Muslim populations because they're breeders - no question about it. As the European birthrate goes down and the Muslim population goes up, they become gradually more Arab, hence the term Eurabia. All of this I was more or less aware of but I had held out hope that some nations would eventually get their back up and crack down hard on islamist behaviour.

The sad fact, as Steyn draws one to conclude, is that the Europeans will never fight back because there is no will to sacrifice current comforts for any kind of dispute. And, it can't get better because the Europeans are shrinking to smaller and smaller percentages of the population within their own nations.

He thinks Europe is already past doomed; I only thought it was headed there. Sadly, he shows Japan is even worse off (not due to Islam at all, simply demographics) and even the Chinese isn't reproducing at a sufficient rate (that one baby idea is really going to crush them in a few years...imagine a society with 120 men for every 100 women, they'll have enough underused testosterone to act like islamists even if they aren't).

As for North America, Canada isn't in much better shape than most European countries. We have a nanny state that isn't quite Sweden or France but which certainly believes in coddling people and has adopted all of the PC garbage that allows radicalism to foster because we're too timid to stand up to it. Our current Conservativer party needs a majority and at least 10 years to turn this around.

Thankfully, we also have the US to our south. Steyn calls his book America Alone because the Americans are keeping up their birthrates, they understand that it's their society that is better, not Europe's and they're both proud and well-armed. Too many of the current crop of Democrat politicians would like to change much of that, of course, and here's hoping they never succeed.

From my front door, I can see the US, it's about 15 minutes drive to the south and Washington's Mount Baker dominates the view. I can tell you that if it ever comes down to choosing a 10-gallon hat, a rifle and a pick-up truck over knocking my head five times a day in the direction of Mecca, I'm going with the cowboys. Just don't make me drink Bud, okay?

You Need Drugs To Understand the UN

2007-03-04T10:02:00.000-08:00

All hail the mighty UN for surely it has finally found an issue that it can really sink its teeth into!

We're not talking about the slaughter in Darfur or the nuclear crisis in Iran or anything to do with the Israeli/palestinian situation. Nor is the topic for discussion human rights or starving children or even the environment.

Instead, the UN has fastened itself on to Vancouver and a few other cities/countries around the globe that offer drug addicts safe injection sites.

Seems those sites contravene a very, very important 1961 UN agreement where countries, including Canada, agreed not to treat drug addicts as anything other than the criminal scum God intended them to be treated as. Toss 'em in jail or let 'em die on the streets but never treat them with dignity or at least with enough conscience to provide relatively safe haven.

Since Vancouver opened its clean injection site several years ago, it seems to have gone some ways to alleviating the transmission of infectious diseases as well as helping to cut down on overdoses. There are, admittedly, some drawbacks, there has been some question about the peddling of drugs in its general vicinity.

Vancouver, facing a tough drug problem exascerbated by being a major port city with many Asian connections where the drugs come from as well as being one of the few places in Canada where people can live on the streets year-round without freezing, chose a humanitarian approach. In doing so, it joined other world cities with a more liberal outlook on drug use.

Iraq looks like a smooth military operation compared to the so-called war on drugs. In its latest incarnation, the poppy eradication program in Afghanistan is fuelling support for the Taliban. Going after growers ekeing out subsistence wages and addicts in the streets is not going to cure the problem. The answers lie in treating addicts as suffering from a medical condition rather than as criminals.

For the UN to involve itself in such a trivial matter as safe injection sites is about par for the course. Powerless to solve any real problems, it singles out "western decadence" so that representatives to the august body can preen and prance at home about their importance.

The Ambassador of Giggles

2007-03-02T19:06:00.000-08:00

The Saudi Arabian ambassador to Canada has a career ahead of him as a stand-up comedian if a column he wrote for the National Post this week is any indication of his extreme sense of humour.

According to Abdulaziz Al-Sowayegh, the Mecca Accord that saw the pali factions reach a deal not to slaughter one another in the streets anymore should be accepted by the world. Canada, particularly, he says, should accept it because our reputation as an "impartial peace broker in the Middle East" has suffered of late.

Well, to begin with, Canada has never been an "impartial peace broker in the Middle East" because it's never brokered peace in the Middle East. No one's every brokered peace in the Middle East because there is no such animal and one will probably not be coming along anytime soon.

Secondly, thank God, the Arab world doesn't see us as impartial anymore. Canada should not be impartial about the Middle East; rather it should demand an end to the theocracies, murderous intentions, brutal repression and misogyny that is rife throughout the Arab world.

Thirdly, the last country that should be talking about fostering peace is Saudi Arabia. Well, maybe not the last but close to the bottom, despite the ambassadors claim that the Saudis have played "a positive role" in the region. Saudi Arabia's sponsoring of crazy wahabbist thought, its funding of radical madrassahs in many countries, most particularly Pakistan, its utter contempt for women's rights and its spreading cash around to various terrorist groups is hardly an example of peaceable actions.

Lastly, there is nothing in the Roadmap for Peace that calls for palis to treat one another in any specific way. The Roadmap for Peace calls for a recognition of Israel and a cessation of terrorist activities against it. The internal palestinian conflict is not why the palis have been cut off from the international money trough nor should any short-term agreement in that regard change international opinion.

The Russians, of course, jumped all over this because Russia is busy trying to re-establish itself as the natural enemy of the western world while cozying up to every piece of shit thug out there. If another Beslan happens but it occurs in Israel or the US, the Russians won't mind...they'd even help pay for it.

So far, though, the other key European nations have held firm (a small miracle in itself) and Canada, the first country to cut funding after the election of hamas, has a government with no intention of indulging any arab fantasies.

The best Mr. Al-Sowayegh accomplished was to give a few readers a morning giggle. Which is likely why the Post editors agreed to print it in the first place. Its editorial slant is often quirky, humorous and self-deprecating so a little Middle East fiction fit in quite nicely.

Diesel David and Rockin' With Al

2007-02-26T19:51:00.000-08:00

As I've intimated before, I'm not a big fan of enviro-God David Suzuki.

I've a rather jaded view of the man, and I'll admit that up front. It's always struck me that Suzuki is much more a shill than a scientist.

Recent news bears me out.

Suzuki is criss-crossing Canada these days. Once very famous and then more an afterthought, the recent hew-and-cry over the environment has re-established his presence in the public eye.

Sadly, however, Suzuki is making his journey in a diesel-fume spewing 30-or-so passenger bus. Even more sadly, while there are 30 spaces, there are only eight people on the bus, according to reports which have been basically admitted to by his staff.

When asked about the anomaly between Suzuki's stance that major changes are needed to avert environmental disaster and his mode of travelling, a spokesperson agreed the bus was too big. They even fessed up that it was for comfort and/or economic reasons that they didn't use a hybrid or bio gas (hybrids too small; bio gas, not covered by warranty).

Too offset this, Suzuki's team was buying "carbon credits". Carbon credits are the environmentalists way of saying, "yeah, I throw around just as much shit in the air as you do but if I can buy my way out of it." It's kind of similar to the way the mafia approaches the legal system.

Al Gore is doing the same thing with his upcoming Live Earth concerts that will feature huge rock acts in seven cities. This necessitates the necessary consumption of power, energy, water, foodstuffs, etc. that is naturally incurred by such spectacles.

There is a pathetic hypocrisy in all of this. Both Gore and Suzuki are cashing in on their fame in many ways by selling their "science" to the masses. Both routinely criticize exactly the same sort of things they are doing. But, from them, we're supposed to take it because they'll send some money to an underdeveloped country for some dubious environmental project where the cash will probably be sent into a black hole of bribery and waste.

At a personal level, helping the environment really doesn't require a Suzuki or Gore. It requires the good sense to recycle, compost, walk or use another mode of non-polluting transportation when possible (don't drive your freakin' car 2 blocks to the 7/11 to get a slushie when it's sunny and 75 outside), a few other minor lifestyle changes, some easy shopping choices and a reasonable commitment to kind of be aware what's going on around you and how you affect it.

If it needs to be taken to a larger degree in response to a particular problem in a given community, then public pressure on local, provincial/state and federal governments often proves very successful.

I'm not ignorant on this: I covered environmental matters for newspapers for about a decade, I once worked for Greenpeace, and for several years, I owned part of a store that sold environmental products.

Rock bands and diesel buses are just gimmicks and Suzuki and Gore, for the most part, carnival hucksters.

Well, He Doesn't Hate All of Us

2007-02-25T16:12:00.000-08:00

The other day, I happened across a blog by a character named Robert after responding to a comment he made on yet another blog.

Robert, I won't bother printing his last name because I don't want to encourage any traffic, is adamant that he's not a Jew-hater but runs an extreme left-wing moonbat blog. Among other juicy tidbits are his picture of a weasel which he calls Elie Wiesel. He described Wiesel as a "pathological liar" and a "racist creep" in and amongst his various other diatribes. (Sorry, I could only get through bits and pieces, too much bullshit gives me a headache).

Robert also claims his last girlfriend was Jewish, blah, blah, blah. No doubt he has lots of Jewish friends, too...they always do. For all I know, his last girlfriend could have been in grade eight or is the by-product of an imaginative evening spent with a Brook Burke video

Anyway, it got me thinking about what really constitutes hatred of Jews. I'll admit it's an easy label to apply to someone like Robert. It's also sometimes just fun to call someone like him a hater because it drives them so crazy. In Robert's world, if you don't hate all Jews, then you're not a Jew-hater and I've no doubt he loves Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein, Naturei Karta and the rest of the .1 per cent of the Jewish world that rejects everything modern Judaism stands for.

Robert says he only hates "certain types of Jews" and would like to kill some of them. That seems to include any Jew who supports Israel and any Jew who's both proud of being Jewish and adamant his/her history not be taken away by revisionists and propaganda. Since that's almost every Jew there is, I think we can safely say that Robert, with or without a Jewish ex-girlfriend, is pretty much a hater.

Everything else aside, Robert stands as a good example of the far-left. It isn't always that they hate Jews but that they facilitate the hatred of Jews. They have dressed it up as "anti-Zionism" or "America-first" and have given it a place to flourish in North America.

It goes with a host of other tendencies with Israel/Jews usually thrown in somewhere. They come up with conspiracy theories that would make Oliver Stone blush, rehash long past and isolated historical events, ignore current day reality other than to use as a hammer against democracy and generally foster an atmosphere of appeasement and self-loathing.

Sadly, they do so at their own peril. There are only 13 million Jews on this planet. They're not committing terrorist attacks, calling for the death of Americans or controlling oil supplies. Israel has been a constant and reliable ally to the US, sometimes even at a cost to its own self-interests.

Beyond the rhetoric, what people like Robert stand for is feeding an ally to the alligator in the hopes that will satisfy it. Jews, it seems, would be a nice hors d'oeuvre.

I'm Surprised There's Any Surprise

2007-02-23T10:06:00.000-08:00

According to the morning paper, it was a "mild surprise" to international experts that Iran had not only defied the UN but was now installing centrifuge networks in its underground Natanz enrichment plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported two are completed and another two are close to completion.

This represents an effort by Iran to reach "industrial-scale" production.

I'm not sure where the surprise comes from. Iran's made it quite clear they are going to try to produce weapons-grade materials by rejecting every offer to supply them with the means to run nuclear power plants for power but not weaponry. There is only one reason they have chosen the path they have.

If that's not enough, of course, the crazies running Iran have also made it clear they wish to possess a nuclear weapon. If someone's holding a gun to your head, it's best to treat them seriously even if you think it might not be loaded.

That's something we still haven't learned about Iran or the ME in general. We treat the attempts to possess WMDs and the genocidal statements issuing from their leaders as little more than bluster. And, true, in many cases it is bluster.

Just as in many cases, the statements of Al-Qaida leaders are bluster but every once in a while, they fly airplanes into your office towers.

Bush, bless him for this one, has already stationed two aircraft carrier groups off Iran. No doubt the Israelis are turning over one contingency plan after another at this moment.

There is still time for the UN to act but I've written before, and still believe, this could be that organization's last opportunity to establish itself as anything other than a laughingstock. The tepid sanctions installed two months ago need to be severely ramped up as should support for whatever efforts are going on inside Iran to dispose of the freak show in power.

Circumcision - One Healthy Cut

2007-02-22T17:44:00.000-08:00

When my wife was pregnant with our first child, we took a Lamaze class. It so happened that we ended up in a class with three other couples, two of whom we already knew. During a session, we talked about what to expect after the baby was born; a discussion that touched on circumcision.

All of a sudden, one of the couples that we knew began to have a nasty fight over whether their baby, if a boy, would be circumcised. The husband was adamant he would be, the wife equally as adamant he wouldn't. It got so bad, the rest of us suggested they just better have a girl to avoid a further argument. They did end up having a girl...and a few years later, a divorce. I guess circumcision was just one of a number of things they couldn't agree on.

For us, when we had a boy, the question of circumcision was a no-brainer. I may not be a religious Jew but I'm enough of one to follow that tradition, rabbi and all. It never occurred to me not to have my sons circumcised and my wife was all for it, too. When the procedure was done, to be quite honest, she shed more tears watching than either of our boys did experiencing it.

Male circumcision has received a lot of negative press over the past few years. A number of groups have claimed that it traumatizes boys for life and that it is equivalent to mutilation and female circumcision. Ridiculous arguments; at best it can be claimed that male circumcision is unnecessary.

As it turns out, even that argument may have been quashed with the news today that uncircumcised men are 50-60 per cent more likely to contract the HIV virus than circumcised men are. That announcement is being hailed as a breakthrough in the fight against AIDS, particularly in poorer nations where sexual activity is not met with the same precautions as it is in the developed world. The reason, it appears, is that the cells in the tissue that make up the foreskin are very vulnerable to the infection.

It has long been suggested that circumcised men were less likely to suffer from a number of infectious diseases and there has been established links between circumcision and a reduced chance of penile cancers. To me, tradition and religion aside, that makes circumcision more like an inoculation than mutilation.

Of course, convincing people, in places where superstition and religious dogma run rampant, that circumcision will be healthy for their children is another matter, altogether. Even efforts to wipe out diseases like smallpox and polio in those nations has been difficult thanks to hideous propaganda against Western efforts.

Hopefully, we can at least convince the naysayers in our society.

JetBlue Makes Skies a Little Friendlier

2007-02-21T17:01:00.000-08:00

JetBlue, having learned from a recent experience when it cancelled more than a thousand flights scheduled to leave from New York, stranding 10s of thousands of customers, has pissed off the rest of the airline industry by issuing a Customer Bill of Rights.

The new guarantees include vouchers for any delays over two hours and future round-trip vouchers if your flight is cancelled due to the airline itself. There is also a $1,000 guarantee if you're bumped because a flight is overbooked although JetBlue apparently has a policy not to overbook flights at all.

In this case, it's not the value of the compensation that is interesting but rather the admission that, all things being equal, airlines actually have an obligation to deliver customers to their destinations within a reasonable timeframe.

I'm not a business-type flyer who's hopping from one city to another on a daily or weekly basis but I do fly fairly frequently (three to four times a year) and usually on long-haul flights. Thus, I have experienced the full gamut of airline failings from overbooked flights to lost luggage to cancelled flights to long delays to the interminably stupid security measures that couldn't catch a snowflake in a blizzard much less a terrorist.

I've flown enough to shrug most of this off, find my way to the nearest airport outlet that sells booze and just relax until I can get off the ground.

But what is maddening is the completely callous disregard airlines have for their customers. It is the only industry I can think of that can have a written contract with a customer, be paid in advance for the rendering of services and then fail to do so with no consequences.

A recent flight I took with Delta is a perfect example. I arrived on a flight from New York in Salt Lake City where I had a connecting flight to Vancouver. Delta had overbooked the SLC to Van. flight and were offering people a night's accommodation and Delta vouchers to step off.

Fine. I had to work the next morning or I might have taken them up on the offer. They then announced that the weather in Vancouver was foggy and they might not be able to land there. If they couldn't, we were informed, the plane would land in Seattle (not Bellingham or Abbotsford which were both much closer to the destination and were suggested by passengers as possible landing sites). Once in Seattle, the plane would refuel and return to Salt Lake City. The passengers would be free to either return with the plane or disembark in Seattle where they would be, and I quote, "on their own"...

On their own. Think about that. My ticket said Vancouver. I paid for a flight to Vancouver. Seattle is a three-hour drive from Vancouver. Delta was not offering to provide flights to Vancouver when the weather cleared nor were they prepared to, for instance, rent a bus to transport their customers to their destination.

I get that weather can affect an airplane's ability to land and I sure as hell would rather land in Seattle than plough into the bogs surrounding Vancouver's airport. I understand that airlines are allowed to overbook though I think it's ridiculous. I can even appreciate that they wouldn't put passengers up in hotels for the night if we were forewarned and chose to go anyway.

But the sheer gall of telling a paying customer that they're "on their own" when they have a contract to deliver them to a certain place is nuts. On the way to Vancouver, where, ironically, we landed in very clear weather, several passengers were disgruntled enough to announce they wouldn't be flying Delta again. I wasn't one of them but only because I was too busy composing the letter I was going to send to Delta if they didn't get me to Vancouver.

Maybe I'll check out JetBlue next time. At least if they dump me in Seattle, they'll compensate me enough to rent a car.

It'll Be a Cold Day in Hell Before I Visit

2007-02-19T19:30:00.000-08:00

Once the kids are grown and gone, my wife and I already have plans to ditch our middle-class, suburban lifestyle for one that features a lot more mobility. It's a big world; I'd like to see a lot more of it when I've got the time.

I can say right now, however, that without a doubt two places I will never, ever go are Fraser, Colorado and International Falls, Minnesota.

It's not that I have anything against Colorado or Minnesota or that my future plans don't include travelling through the US. But, I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my time in two towns that are vying for the title of "Icebox of the Nation."

Seriously, how boring can two towns be if the only claim to fame they can envision is being really cold? I could see fighting over being the "Sunshine Spot of the Nation" or the "Nation's Beach" or even, maybe, the driest or rainiest places.

But coldest?

Cold sucks. I spent 15 years in a place where it routinely reached zero fahrenheit or lower in the winter and often socked us with snowstorms, ice pellets and howling winds. There is nothing redeeming about it whatsoever. There is no glory or valour in living in Arctic conditions. You freeze, your skin dries out, every breath outdoors is a chore, cars slide around - providing they start at all.

One of the great moments of my life was when I finally convinced my wife to move to BC (home for me but foreign for her) and we stepped off a plane on Nov. 27. It was 55 here and 20 and snowing in Ontario and she looked at me and said, "I'm never going back."

Even in the Dark Ages people had cold figured out. After all, Greenland was an early attempt at con job real estate marketing.

International Falls currently holds the moniker but only because they paid Fraser $2,000 for the right to the name in 1956. They were supposed to renew their right in 1996 but forgot (maybe the cold froze their brains). Now Fraser wants the name back.

If I were International Falls, I'd give it to them. Change your own town slogan to, "Not the Dumbest Town in America...Anymore".

Abbas Antics

2007-02-18T07:26:00.000-08:00

In 1986-87, I worked in a town in the southeast corner of BC. It was kind of a weird place. There was a left over hippy community in one corner, a bizarre sect of Doukhobors who practised polygamy in another, a bunch of real redneck yahoos, and a few fairly normal types.

Over the 18 months I worked there, I got to know the mayor fairly well. Whenever the particularly bizarre happened, she would just roll her eyes and say, "it's something in the water."

"It's something in the water" is a phrase that could be used every day to describe the arab world. If they had any water. Maybe it's something in the sand.

The latest example of bizarro world arab thinking comes from none other than Mahmoud Abbas, the so-called moderate of paleolithic, ummm, sorry, palestinian politics.

(As an aside, I always love the use of "moderate" to describe Abbas. He's the head of an organization that has long been wrapped in terrorism and he, personally, wrote a university thesis on denying the Holocaust. In the world of palis, a moderate is someone who denies the Holocaust occurred at all, while a radical is someone who wishes to repeat it).

According to AP, Abbas responded to reports that the US and Israel were not going to accept a palestinian government that did not renounce violence and recognize Israel and its right to exist, by telling US envoy David Welch that he had reached the best possible deal he could reach with Hamas, and that the world would have to live with it.

Using diplospeak, I hope Welch responded somewhat like this: "No, Mahmoud, I don't know what kind of drugged up state of mind you are in, but the world does not have to accept a terrorist government running the palestinians...a government which does not meet a single one of its requirements under the Road Map for Peace. The world is not beholden to the ridiculous hate, moronic violence and insane actions of hamassholes. Perhaps you, Mahmoud, are but the rest of the world can sit back and wait while you idiots starve in the streets."

Maybe Abbas is under the impression that the world is all Jimmy Carters and Jacques Chiracs but he's wrong. Much of the world is just fed up with the antics of the palestinians. Since they elected hamas last year, their status in the world's eyes has fallen faster than Lindsay Lohan's acting career.

The plain and simple truth is that palis are not ready for a state, incapable of thinking more than about six hours ahead and don't want any peace with Israel that means there still is an Israel. The world does not have to, and absolutely should not, accept anything less than the palis living up to their commitments. The rest of the world should tell Abbas that the tail doesn't wag the dog and that his bluster has all the impact of a fart in a windstorm.

Let the palis go back to the drawing board and start again. The rest of the world has other things to do.

A Death Sentence for the Death Sentence?

2007-02-17T09:30:00.000-08:00

Today's paper had lots of interesting news bits. Or, maybe it's just that because it's Saturday, I have time to do more than scan.

There was a two-page, centre spread about the US shift away from the death penalty that I thought was pretty interesting. New Jersey has a bi-partisan bill coming before its state legislature that would ban it in that state. If it passes and the Democratic governor signs it into law, New Jersey will be the first state to repeal its death sentence law. Mind you, the state, which re-instituted the death penalty as a sentence in 1982, hasn't carried one out in the quarter century since.

A dozen other states have put a moratorium on the death penalty after reports and studies began questioning the use of lethal injection; the method favoured by most because it's supposedly humane.

And, for the first time in many years, Americans slightly favoured life imprisonment over the death penalty in a Gallup poll. Meanwhile, executions themselves have fallen almost 50 per cent since their heyday in 1999.

I have always opposed the death penalty. I think it's expensive, hypocritical, misapplied, disproportionately applied and needless. I've nothing against killing the bad guys when they're beyond the arm of the law, but once in custody, I say lock 'em up under the least nice circumstances you can constitutionally get away with and leave them to rot.

The death penalty is also irreversible once carried out. In Illinois, it was suspended after a report showed more men on death row had been exonerated than actually executed. That means, in more than 50 per cent of the cases, someone who should not have been sentenced to death was. Some analysts say the possibility of an innocent person being executed has been largely minimized through judicial appeals, overviews, etc. I say that if the courts can be wrong more than 50 per cent of the time in their judgments on accused in capital cases, than the system is almost certainly irredeemably flawed.

For those who do favour the death penalty, here are the nations that most used it in 2005, according to their own reporting (so, take it for what it's worth). China had almost 20 times the reported executions of any other nation at just under 1,800. Iran (94), Saudi Arabia (86), and the US (60) were the next three, followed by Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Jordan, Mongolia and Singapore. Is that really company you want to keep?

Meanwhile, in Canada, meetings between the RCMP and CSIS (our intelligence service) and minority community representatives is the stuff of high comedy, if a transcript obtained and excerpted today is any indication.

The meetings, labelled a "circus" by some in the know, were instituted three years ago. At this particular meeting there were about 50 invited guests, from various religious and ethnic backgrounds.

It started off with a Muslim complaining that 9/11 did not involve Muslims and 7 of the hijackers are still alive.

Then, the wife of one of 18 Muslim men accused of terrorist activities in Ontario complained a military exercise was held outside her children's Islamic school (military exercise in this case, no doubt, meaning a soldier in uniform walked by on his way to get cigarettes at the corner store).

Imam Ali Hnidy, no stranger to preaching to a terrorist or two, whined it had been brought to his attention that six Muslims couldn't get security clearances for sensitive government jobs.

The Canadian Arab Federation knocked the government for deporting its "Muslim brothers" for terrorism.

Then, the meeting, according to the report, digressed into a shouting match between rival factions of, you guessed it, Muslims.

Now, to be fair, one Muslim representative did urge fellow adherents to stop venting and another applaused the way police and CSIS have been acting.

But the police and CSIS are wasting their time here. If they want to reach Muslims, they should bypass the official mouthpieces, hateful clerics and sketchy organizations and go directly to the people.

If, as Muslim leaders in Canada claim, the terrorist element and their supporters are a small minority, then meeting with people who would be open to a constructive, intelligent dialogue instead of just showing up to go on insane rants shouldn't be too hard.

Finally, for today, anyway, the Canadian Liberal Party is now starting to remind me of the suicide squad from Monty Python's Life of Brian; the guys who rush up at the end of the movie after Brian is strapped to the cross, pull out their swords - leaving him to think he'll be rescued - and then fall on them before tapping their toes to the film's closing song, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.

Since they elected Stephane Dion as party leader about six weeks ago, the Libs have a) joined the other opposition parties in passing a motion calling for the Kyoto Accord standards to be met despite the fact the Liberals themselves knew it was impossible without eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs and never did a thing to meet it while they were in power;
b) indicated their willingness to let a key piece of anti-terror legislation expire. It was their legislation in the first place and is still supported by many current Liberal MPs;
c) tried to turn Afghanistan into a Conservative albatross, despite the fact it was the Liberals who sent the soldiers there and made a commitment to have them in active battle and to serve until 2009. And, this is also despite the fact that there is measurable progress being made in Afghanistan.

I wonder how stupid the Liberals think people really are? They seem as though they're trying to absorb the NDP voting bloc because they know they've lost the centre and right. But, the NDP - as stupid and wishy-washy as they frequently are - are at least consistent in their silly ideology.

Canada will almost certainly have an election this year. In the last three elections, the Liberals went from a majority government, to a minority government, to opposition. If they keep this up, they might very well plummet directly to afterthought.

Axe Terrorists Like the NBA On Hardaway

2007-02-15T17:59:00.000-08:00

Well, I opened up the Yahoo! front page this evening and what didn't I see? A story about the number of people blown up in Iraq by "insurgents".

Was that because:

A) It was an "insurgent" holiday and they were all frolicking by the seashore wearing nothing but their bomb belts?

B) They ran out of cars to pack with explosives?

or, C) The US and Iraqi governments finally figured out the best defense, in this case, is a strong offence?

The long-awaited move against the terrorist elements running amok in Iraq has begun in something approximating earnest. Moqtada al-Sadr, having already, according to reports, fled to Iran, has now apparently ordered his militia to flee, as well. The borders with Iran and Syria are closed so maybe the pricks are finally hemmed in.

The Iraqis also reported wounding the leader of al-Qaida's Iraqi division. Hopefully, Abu Ayyub al-Masri was seriously wounded and left a nice trail of blood. The US has a $5 million bounty on his head so there should be lots of takers if he can be found.

The US administration has also offered its proof that Iran has been active in Iraq, while admitting it's unknown exactly whom in the Iranian government has given orders or provided the means to stock terrorist groups in Iraq with weaponry.

I'm actually willing to believe that such activities have been orchestrated by the very highest levels of the Iranian government. But, then I also believed Iran and Saudi Arabia were far more dangerous and much better targets than Iraq in the first place.

In Iraq, this may be the last good chance to quell a civil war that would turn it into another proxy battleground for the 1,400 year old or so fight between sunnis and shiites. The US can settle this situation to the point where they can withdraw their troops, leaving behind at least a momentarily stable Iraq.

Momentarily is of course the key word because Iraq will probably never be stable in its current form. PJ O'Rourke once wrote that arab nations were "quarrels with borders". We've seen more than enough to know he was right.

In completely unrelated news, it was nice to see the NBA act quickly to sever its contacts with Tim Hardaway, after the retired star said that, "I hate gay people" and assorted other homophobic comments during a radio interview. When given an opportunity to retract the statement, he instead basically confirmed it.

The question came in relation to a recent disclosure by a former NBA player that he was homosexual.

There has still never been an openly gay player in any of the four major professional North American sports (baseball, hockey, football, basketball). A handful have revealed it afterwards. Doubtless, many more have not made that public.

Chances are actually pretty good that some time during his career, Hardaway did have a gay teammate and didn't feel at all uncomfortable because he didn't know.

I wonder how such a teammate would have responded if asked about sharing a locker room with a homophobic jerk?

Later, Hardaway issued the standard apology about how he didn't mean what he said and he was sorry if it offended anyone.

I guess dude should get an anonymous blog like the rest of us...

Cotler...The Liberal In Jew's Clothing

2007-02-14T16:53:00.000-08:00

Former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler took Iran "to task" yesterday, according to the morning news.

Cotler, who is Jewish, told the Jerusalem Post that the world needed to be on guard for the "new anti-semitism". He cited Iran and its leader Madman Almonddingdong as the most prominent example of this tide.

Sadly, while Cotler was a high-ranking member of the Liberal government, his party did nothing to benefit Israel. The Liberals were masters at pretending to be friends to the Jewish state while acting in exactly the opposite manner - almost always joining the annual arab parade of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, frequently joining in condemnations of Israel during conflicts with the palis while never calling the arabs to account and cozying up to arab groups by the handful to gain a few votes.

Equally, he talks big now but while the Liberals were in power, they did nothing to stop the Iranian tide. When the Iranians jailed and then beat to death a Canadian photographer before holding a mock trial and acquitting the accused, the Liberal response was a few pithy comments about justice and freedom. A full-out boycott on Iranian goods or recalling our ambassador along with a censuring motion and call for UN investigation would have been the appropriate response.

Cotler's wife has more balls than he does. She, at least, resigned her membership in the Liberal Party after one of its candidates in a recent leadership race said Israel had committed war crimes in Lebanon. Irwin, ever the Liberal, didn't have the stomach to actually take a principled stand as his wife did.

And, of course, Cotler, who is now a professor of law at McGill University, is wrong. The fear of a rising tide of anti-Semitism doesn't emanate from Iran. It emanates from Europe. Most European nations remain quietly, if not overtly, anti-Semitic, regardless of the platitudes mouthed by their leaders. Their rising Muslim populations add fuel to what has been centuries of persecution throughout Europe (for my money, I don't understand why any Jews want stay in countries like France and Russia).They allow other nations, such as Iran, to practise extreme anti-Semitism by refusing to act against it.

Iran could be shut down tomorrow if the collective will of North America, some Asian nations and Europe - particularly Russia - were set to do that.

It's too bad that Cotler, who as far as I know held the highest ranking cabinet position in Canada ever by a Jew, does not and has never really seemed to understand much beyond the ivy-wrapped towers of academia and the pristine halls of Parliament.

On the other hand, we currently have a government that has been a true friend to the Israelis, a stance that I hope persists for decades.

Stick With It In Afghanistan

2007-02-13T19:58:00.000-08:00

A Canadian Senate committee whose members recently visited Afghanistan are suggesting Canada withdraw its troops from that country if other NATO countries don't step up the table and commit more of their soldiers to actual action.

France and Germany were particularly singled out for their refusal to release troops for service in more volatile parts of Afghanistan.

I can't really blame the Senate committe on national defence for coming to their conclusion. After all, it's the lives of Canadians in Afghanistan that are of prime concern to Canadian politicians and Canadians. And, it's absolutely true that Canadians have served in some of Afghanistan's most terrorist-ridden and violence-prone areas. Several dozen have died in the effort.

What is very sad is that Canada would suggest abandoning Afghanistan because countries like France and Germany are morally bankrupt when it comes to actually showing some backbone.

It's equally sad that one of the reasons Canadians would cease their commitment to Afghanistan after 2009 is because of very diverse opinions on being there in the first place. Too many Canadians seem to equate Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no comparison.

Afghanistan is one place where western intervention actually serves a purpose. Over the past 30 years, it's been ruled by warlords, Russian invaders and islamist fundamentalist crazy fucks. There are few people in Afghanistan today who've known anything but war, poverty and strife in their lifetimes. Now, it's a country making slow progress but in one key area it's made huge strides: educating people. Once you educate people and give them the ability to acquire knowledge and think for themselves, you will not stop progress.

In fact, if people would slow down for a second, they might realize there's some progress being made in a lot of areas. Al-Sadr just fled Iraq for Iran, which not only rids Iraq of the lead figure in blowing people to bits but also makes Iran's claims they had no involvement in Iraq's "insurgency" ring completely hollow.

Iraq also closed its borders with Syria and Iran, at least temporarily, another indication the Iraqi government may be feeling the heat.

North Korea might finally be brought to heel on its nuclear program. Apparently, the midget maniac finally ran out of Courvoisier and decided the sanctions were too tough.

The palestinians might also be feeling the pinch of sanctions. No one in their right minds actually believe the palis are serious about making peace with Israel, but at least Hamas isn't running their show anymore. A few well-placed assassinations in hamas headquarters and the situation could improve...

Meanwhile, Canada should really hold steady in Afghanistan. We need France and Germany to act more like Canada not for Canada to act like euroweenies. The world has enough of those already.

Spring Springs and Other Things

2007-02-11T15:57:00.000-08:00

One thing I love about Vancouver is that it's always a race to see which comes first...the start of baseball spring training or the first real day of spring in the Lower Mainland.

Baseball spring training starts later this week. Spring came on Saturday when temperatures climbed to around 50 fahrenheit under completely sunny, blue skies. Got the first outdoor run of the year in and it felt great.

When I lived in Ontario, I always began pretending it was spring when baseball started up again but it could be more than a month into the real baseball season before the snow was gone. Here, we'll probably have a week of temperatures near 70 by the end of March and the kids will be playing baseball.

Meanwhile, the rest of Canada enjoyed temperatures last week that once again affirmed if global warming is such a pending calamity, it sure hasn't told Mother Nature about it yet. In Winnipeg, it got below -40 (which is the point at which Celsius and fahrenheit come together at the bottom of the thermometer where it's simply marked, "too freakin' cold for any normal person to live with"). Ontario was considerably balmier, reaching the minus 20s Celsius or around zero fahrenheit.

One news item out of Vancouver that I neglected earlier has been the birth of sextuplets to a Jehovah's Witness couple. Three of the six babies subsequently died and the other three were put under government control after the parents apparently refused or signified they would refuse needed blood transfusions.

I would just like to say, "good". An adult has the right to refuse medical intervention that would save their life because an adult, presumably, has the capacity to make decisions based on their own beliefs. Not so for babies and children. The babies didn't ask to be born into a sect whose tenets border on a cult and that are a mistranslation of scripture.

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the entertainment world but it did catch my eye that tonight is the Grammy Awards. Can there be a dumber awards show? This is an organization that has never given an award to Neil Young but did give one to Manilli Vanilli. There's really not much else you can say.

It also caught my eye that Anna Nicole Smith died but only because my sister pointed it out and it somehow then made the letters page of every newspaper as writers pontificated on whether she was a tragic figure or not.

My favourite was in the National Post where a reader complained that Anna Nicole Smith was no Mother Theresa or Princess Diana.

Mother Theresa, no. But Princess Diana? Not too far off, really. Both were women who basically became famous because of who they married, suffered from numerous and largely self-induced public problems, had a string of men and then died in rather murky circumstances. Sorry, Royal lovers but Princess Di's legacy is really over-rated.

As for Anna...well, in her early days she was a stunning woman who looked like a woman and not one of the emaciated teenage stick figures that pass for "models" these days. Ask any real man and he'll take the curves of early Anna over today's runway prancers.

Apparently, the Spanish agree. They just banned five models from a show for being too thin, according to Yahoo! They did it for health reasons which is right and proper. But, it's also time the public stopped being fooled into believing the desires of male designers for models that look like pre-teen boys should be a standard for female beauty.

Finally, I liked the way US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates bitch-slapped Russian President Vladimir Putin today while responding to Putin's remarks about US actions destabilizing the world. Since Putin's regime has continuously funded rogue nations while throwing up roadblocks to the US attempts to reign in crazies like Iran and North Korea, it was nice to see the US remind him that the world doesn't need another Cold War. The Russians didn't do so well in that last one.

I still believe that of all the dumb things Bush has done, his dumbest may have been saying that he'd looked into Putin's soul and saw a man he could trust. Yeah, let's all trust autocratic, secretive KGB veterans with a vast network of spies and secret-ops types at their disposal and an established record of cracking down on freedoms and removing dissenters.

Have you ever actually looked at Putin? Those eyes contain no soul.

Gates is flying to Russia to hold talks with the Russian president. Hopefully, he can read people better than his boss apparently can.