The pervasive concept of Global Warming is a fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'normal climate'. The only reason we are collectively panicked about it is because we are continuously fed doom and gloom stories (propaganda) from one side of the argument. There is just as much evidence (empirical AND anecdotal) refuting the concept. But what sells papers and ad time on newcasts? All one needs to do is look at previous 'Armageddon' scenarios (remember Global Cooling?) to see that.
Most people who 'believe' do so simply because they feel strongly about the environment, but can’t be bothered or lack scientific and statistical understanding to qualify their opinion with analysis. And the so-called scientists who still promote the idea have staked their reputations on disproved theories and have blinded themselves to the truth.
Consensus and relentless propaganda does not equal truth.
The Earth is not flat and the universe does not orbit the Earth but there was a time when stating that put one on the outside…
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Shootings in Montreal Lead to More Debate on Gun Control
With the shootings at Dawson College in Montreal this week, the debate is cropping up yet again about gun control in general and the merit of the Long Gun Registry specifically.
The Conservatives are set to table legislation that will essentially gut the Long Gun Registry. That legislation may now be in jeopardy or put on hold due to the reactionary nature of MPs, not to mention their willingness to pander to public opinion no matter how misplaced. This is unfortunate.
Why ‘misplaced’? Well, those who support the Long Gun Registry seem to think that events of this nature prove that the Long Gun Registry is needed. But when you ask the question ‘What did the Long Gun Registry do in this case?’ no one can say it prevented the incident. I’m no expert on firearms and I don’t know which ones Kimveer Gill had and how the Long Gun Registry treated them. I have read somewhere that Gill used an AK-47. I am sure that the AK-47 was restricted before the Long Gun Registry was put in place.
Either way, it is clear that he should not have had registered firearms (long or otherwise) and, given his disposition he would not have been qualified to own registered firearms of any kind. So, it stands to reason that the firearm Gill had were illegal.
For too many short-sighted urbanites, the Long Gun Registry is gun registry in Canada. Most fail to understand that there has been a handgun registry in place since the 1930’s.
The Long Gun Registry does not make us any safer. The Long Gun Registry does not prevent crime. The Long Gun Registry does not stop the smuggling of handguns or long guns.
The Long Gun Registry is a useless $2B make-work project. The money could have saved lives if spent in almost any other Government department.
The Conservatives are set to table legislation that will essentially gut the Long Gun Registry. That legislation may now be in jeopardy or put on hold due to the reactionary nature of MPs, not to mention their willingness to pander to public opinion no matter how misplaced. This is unfortunate.
Why ‘misplaced’? Well, those who support the Long Gun Registry seem to think that events of this nature prove that the Long Gun Registry is needed. But when you ask the question ‘What did the Long Gun Registry do in this case?’ no one can say it prevented the incident. I’m no expert on firearms and I don’t know which ones Kimveer Gill had and how the Long Gun Registry treated them. I have read somewhere that Gill used an AK-47. I am sure that the AK-47 was restricted before the Long Gun Registry was put in place.
Either way, it is clear that he should not have had registered firearms (long or otherwise) and, given his disposition he would not have been qualified to own registered firearms of any kind. So, it stands to reason that the firearm Gill had were illegal.
For too many short-sighted urbanites, the Long Gun Registry is gun registry in Canada. Most fail to understand that there has been a handgun registry in place since the 1930’s.
The Long Gun Registry does not make us any safer. The Long Gun Registry does not prevent crime. The Long Gun Registry does not stop the smuggling of handguns or long guns.
The Long Gun Registry is a useless $2B make-work project. The money could have saved lives if spent in almost any other Government department.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Liberal Opposition to Lumber Deal No More Than Partisan Politics
So, the Liberals are going to vote against a softwood lumber deal that has the support of lumber producers and the non-Conservative governments of the three biggest lumber-producing provinces. Surprise, surprise.
Is it mere partisan politics or is it unrepentant contempt for the electorate? Well, lets look at the sloppy thinking at play.
First, Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal International Trade Critic suggests that a special aid package be put together to help the lumber industry adjust to the fallout from the deal. Wait a minute, the government is to put a programme in place that essentially would indicate some short-coming in the deal. Nice try.
LeBlanc then goes on to say that getting anything less than all of the tariffs paid would be a failure. This thinking goes a long way to explaining why the Liberals couldn’t negotiate a resolution to anything with the Americans. Is it ideal? No. But in any negotiation there is give and take.
The impasse was costing Canada’s economy each and every day yet LeBlanc and Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale both said that Canada should have waited for legal procedures to conclude. But that assumes that Canada had a iron-clad case and the means to recoup all damages. That’s a dubious assumption.
The most contemptuous implication comes from Goodale when he tells us that “it is obvious the Harper government has played hardball with Canadian softwood producers to get their support for the deal”. This implies that no one in their right mind would agree with a Conservative or a Conservative government. It’s a cheap shot and sadly typical. Its also a classic example of a more insidious facet of Liberalism in Canada. Here we see ‘truth’ to a Liberal audience delivered with vacuous statements.
Its clear to me that the Liberal position is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at covering its inability to resolve this issue while they formed the government. They gave the Americans no respect while they were in government and reaped what they sewed. I’ll go further to say that perhaps if they had had a civil relationship with the United States, this whole mess may have been avoided.
Is it mere partisan politics or is it unrepentant contempt for the electorate? Well, lets look at the sloppy thinking at play.
First, Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal International Trade Critic suggests that a special aid package be put together to help the lumber industry adjust to the fallout from the deal. Wait a minute, the government is to put a programme in place that essentially would indicate some short-coming in the deal. Nice try.
LeBlanc then goes on to say that getting anything less than all of the tariffs paid would be a failure. This thinking goes a long way to explaining why the Liberals couldn’t negotiate a resolution to anything with the Americans. Is it ideal? No. But in any negotiation there is give and take.
The impasse was costing Canada’s economy each and every day yet LeBlanc and Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale both said that Canada should have waited for legal procedures to conclude. But that assumes that Canada had a iron-clad case and the means to recoup all damages. That’s a dubious assumption.
The most contemptuous implication comes from Goodale when he tells us that “it is obvious the Harper government has played hardball with Canadian softwood producers to get their support for the deal”. This implies that no one in their right mind would agree with a Conservative or a Conservative government. It’s a cheap shot and sadly typical. Its also a classic example of a more insidious facet of Liberalism in Canada. Here we see ‘truth’ to a Liberal audience delivered with vacuous statements.
Its clear to me that the Liberal position is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at covering its inability to resolve this issue while they formed the government. They gave the Americans no respect while they were in government and reaped what they sewed. I’ll go further to say that perhaps if they had had a civil relationship with the United States, this whole mess may have been avoided.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Our Mission in Afghanistan
Bill Carroll, a talk radio host from Toronto, (www.cfrb.com) appears on Global News most nights and comments briefly on one or two matters of interest. I find his comments insightful and direct. Every day, its a breath of fresh air to hear someone from Toronto talk who has such a grasp of logic.
His comment last night was in regards to the idea that Canada should cut and run from Afghanistan. He said that proponents of this idea are either political opportunists or cowards.
Bill Carroll is right.
Canada has traditions that have been forgotten by many. We fight for justice. We fight for peace. We do more than our share. We are not just peace keepers.
We do not cut and run. We do not negotiate with those who would threaten us. We do not coddle those who would gladly bring their tyranny and hatred and intolerance to our country.
Jack Layton suggests we do all that. Moreover, he suggests we act as peace keepers in this conflict as if we are somehow apart from all the conflict. I would argue that there is no peace to keep. And I would further argue that the only peace we can achieve with an enemy as intransigent as this is through annihilation. They will not stop with the expulsion of the West from Afghanistan. They will not stop with the destruction of the State of Israel either. They will stop when the West is annihilated. Its quite clearly us or them.
Jack Layton is wrong.
There is no appeasing an enemy who will always hate us for what we are, open, democratic, tolerant and generous. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that fundamentalist Muslims want anything close to what we would consider peace. In there distorted view of Islam, peace is achieved when all who are not Muslim or will not convert are exterminated. These people (I talk of the fundamentalist Muslims, not Muslims as a whole) do not want dialogue but will gladly ‘chit chat’ with us while they plot against us.
His comment last night was in regards to the idea that Canada should cut and run from Afghanistan. He said that proponents of this idea are either political opportunists or cowards.
Bill Carroll is right.
Canada has traditions that have been forgotten by many. We fight for justice. We fight for peace. We do more than our share. We are not just peace keepers.
We do not cut and run. We do not negotiate with those who would threaten us. We do not coddle those who would gladly bring their tyranny and hatred and intolerance to our country.
Jack Layton suggests we do all that. Moreover, he suggests we act as peace keepers in this conflict as if we are somehow apart from all the conflict. I would argue that there is no peace to keep. And I would further argue that the only peace we can achieve with an enemy as intransigent as this is through annihilation. They will not stop with the expulsion of the West from Afghanistan. They will not stop with the destruction of the State of Israel either. They will stop when the West is annihilated. Its quite clearly us or them.
Jack Layton is wrong.
There is no appeasing an enemy who will always hate us for what we are, open, democratic, tolerant and generous. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that fundamentalist Muslims want anything close to what we would consider peace. In there distorted view of Islam, peace is achieved when all who are not Muslim or will not convert are exterminated. These people (I talk of the fundamentalist Muslims, not Muslims as a whole) do not want dialogue but will gladly ‘chit chat’ with us while they plot against us.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Fact Finding?
I sent this to the MPs listed below after the three of them when on a 'fact-finding' junket to Lebanon. The trip was sponsored by the National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations, an organization with close ties to Syria and, by extension, Hezbollah.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj (Liberal) and Ms. Nash (NDP) were quoted saying a variety of statements that sounded to many, myself included, as sympathizing with and apologizing for Hezbollah. They even implied that refusing to negotiate with them indicated some misunderstanding or intransigence on our part.
CCd in my message were the leaders of the three main opposition parties, my MP Andrew Telegdi (Liberal), Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay.
I will edit this post if I hear from any of the recipients.
To:
Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Peggy Nash
Maria Moureni
I’ll start this letter by letting you know where I am coming from:
1/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself from terrorism
2/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the obligation to root out terrorism within its borders
3/ I believe that a sovereign nation has to be able to act autonomously (spare me the Bush-Harper rhetoric)
4/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations has strong ties to Syria
5/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations sponsored your visit and I believe it has no interest in giving you a balanced view
6/ The links between Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Hezbollah have been clearly established
Hezbollah attacked Israel from within Lebanese territory. So, that makes Israel ’s actions against Hezbollah justified (1) and it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Lebanese ‘government’ (2) for not rooting out Hezbollah. Clearly no one can call Lebanon a sovereign nation as they have no control over many parts of Lebanon . The Lebanese ‘government’ has allowed itself to be a vassal of Syria (3) and Syria allowed Hezbollah to exist and no doubt funds Hezbollah with help from Iran . Surely I’m not the first to fill you in on these details.
I understand that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Ms. Nash have called for the de-listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I have to wonder just what happened to make you come to such a misguided and myopic conclusion.
You have allowed yourselves to be sucked in by a tried-and-true propaganda machine. You were shown some bombed-out buildings and asked only who’s bombs they were. You are too simple and foolish to even ask why.
You and I will likely agree that Lebanese civilians are paying the biggest price in this conflict. But we would disagree as to why. I’m sure you believe that Israel targets innocent civilians.
Lebanese civilians are used, most cowardly, by Hezbollah as human shields and then their corpses and destroyed homes are used as propaganda to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. Where does it end? Well I don’t know that, but collaborating and negotiating with and apologizing for Hezbollah will only encourage them to continue to target Israeli civilians and then hide behind Lebanese civilians. There is nothing in their agenda that makes them a legitimate group. They are no more interested in peace than you are in war. Hezbollah is bent on the destruction of Israel and the murder of as many of its civilians as possible. If Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, then the work ‘terrorist’ has no meaning. Hezbollah and groups like it, whether Islamic or otherwise are cancers on civilizations.
And you let them use you. The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations used you to further their political agenda.
Israel is a sovereign nation that has showed admirable restraint over its 58-year existence against many intractable enemies.
You suggest we should afford ‘elected’ members of Hezbollah some dialogue. But I encourage you to look at 20th century history and see just how effective appeasement can be with enemies of peace. The British, led by Neville Chamberlain, tried to appease Hitler and the Americans tried to ignore the problem and in the end nearly 50 million died in WWII.
I am convinced that we need to take a stand against hate and tyranny (this time in the form of Islamifascism).
Do I want war? No, absolutely not. But history tells us that you pay a big price if you are willing to say to an intractable enemy ‘I want peace at any cost’.
Your willingness to look at only one side of the conflict shocks me. Your short-sightedness and ignorance disappoints me. Your willingness to collaborate and speak for terrorists disgusts me. That you are Canadian shames me.
I defy you to respond to my message.
Paul Suggitt
Waterloo, Ontario
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj (Liberal) and Ms. Nash (NDP) were quoted saying a variety of statements that sounded to many, myself included, as sympathizing with and apologizing for Hezbollah. They even implied that refusing to negotiate with them indicated some misunderstanding or intransigence on our part.
CCd in my message were the leaders of the three main opposition parties, my MP Andrew Telegdi (Liberal), Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay.
I will edit this post if I hear from any of the recipients.
To:
Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Peggy Nash
Maria Moureni
I’ll start this letter by letting you know where I am coming from:
1/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself from terrorism
2/ I believe that a sovereign nation has the obligation to root out terrorism within its borders
3/ I believe that a sovereign nation has to be able to act autonomously (spare me the Bush-Harper rhetoric)
4/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations has strong ties to Syria
5/ The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations sponsored your visit and I believe it has no interest in giving you a balanced view
6/ The links between Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Hezbollah have been clearly established
Hezbollah attacked Israel from within Lebanese territory. So, that makes Israel ’s actions against Hezbollah justified (1) and it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Lebanese ‘government’ (2) for not rooting out Hezbollah. Clearly no one can call Lebanon a sovereign nation as they have no control over many parts of Lebanon . The Lebanese ‘government’ has allowed itself to be a vassal of Syria (3) and Syria allowed Hezbollah to exist and no doubt funds Hezbollah with help from Iran . Surely I’m not the first to fill you in on these details.
I understand that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Ms. Nash have called for the de-listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I have to wonder just what happened to make you come to such a misguided and myopic conclusion.
You have allowed yourselves to be sucked in by a tried-and-true propaganda machine. You were shown some bombed-out buildings and asked only who’s bombs they were. You are too simple and foolish to even ask why.
You and I will likely agree that Lebanese civilians are paying the biggest price in this conflict. But we would disagree as to why. I’m sure you believe that Israel targets innocent civilians.
Lebanese civilians are used, most cowardly, by Hezbollah as human shields and then their corpses and destroyed homes are used as propaganda to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. Where does it end? Well I don’t know that, but collaborating and negotiating with and apologizing for Hezbollah will only encourage them to continue to target Israeli civilians and then hide behind Lebanese civilians. There is nothing in their agenda that makes them a legitimate group. They are no more interested in peace than you are in war. Hezbollah is bent on the destruction of Israel and the murder of as many of its civilians as possible. If Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, then the work ‘terrorist’ has no meaning. Hezbollah and groups like it, whether Islamic or otherwise are cancers on civilizations.
And you let them use you. The National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations used you to further their political agenda.
Israel is a sovereign nation that has showed admirable restraint over its 58-year existence against many intractable enemies.
You suggest we should afford ‘elected’ members of Hezbollah some dialogue. But I encourage you to look at 20th century history and see just how effective appeasement can be with enemies of peace. The British, led by Neville Chamberlain, tried to appease Hitler and the Americans tried to ignore the problem and in the end nearly 50 million died in WWII.
I am convinced that we need to take a stand against hate and tyranny (this time in the form of Islamifascism).
Do I want war? No, absolutely not. But history tells us that you pay a big price if you are willing to say to an intractable enemy ‘I want peace at any cost’.
Your willingness to look at only one side of the conflict shocks me. Your short-sightedness and ignorance disappoints me. Your willingness to collaborate and speak for terrorists disgusts me. That you are Canadian shames me.
I defy you to respond to my message.
Paul Suggitt
Waterloo, Ontario
Monday, March 13, 2006
Our troops in Afghanistan
I sent the following in an e-mail to Jack Layton and CC'd the other New Democtratic Party Members of Parliament. I also CC'd the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay.
Mr. Layton,
I’d like to talk to you about tradition, courage and hypocrisy.
I understand that you (and because of that, your party) want to debate our role in Afghanistan. No doubt this is an aim to getting our troops out of there. Here I talk to you about tradition. It is a Canadian tradition to fight against tyranny in support of peace, liberty and justice. Canada has demonstrated its resolve in the form of war against forces that threaten the peace, liberty and justice of others. Yes, Canadian Forces are not just peace keepers. We have the wherewithal to be peace makers too. Another Canadian tradition is to do far more than our share. I am proud of these traditions and, more importantly, so are those in our Canadian Forces. You disrespect them with your stand.
You don’t believe this is our fight too. You believe we should stay out. I can be thankful that you and your soft, short-sighted ilk are not in power. You would have us discard our traditions and take on new traditions of dithering and ignorance and betrayal and short-sightedness. Personally, I am glad of the opportunity to rebuild Canada’s stature on the world’s stage with this mission. The recklessness and stupidity of the previous Liberal governments eroded it. Your form of recklessness would have us fighting these terrorists on our soil instead of theirs.
And if you believe, as many people are being told to believe, that the US is an imperialistic war-mongering power (a concept to which I do not subscribe) would it not be a good idea to have a seat at the table when these kinds of actions are planned and implemented?
Those traditions I talked about came to be through the courage and sacrifice of previous, harder generations. I talk about those who fought in the World Wars and in Korea. This is the same courage demonstrated today by those brave men and women in uniform. Have you asked the soldiers in Afghanistan if they want to come home? Have you asked them if they believe in our mission there? I think you would be shamed by their answers. How can you make politics hoping to bring them home for their sake when they don’t want to? And how would letting down our allies help us? Shame on you for your cowardice and politicking Mr. Layton.
Next I talk about hypocrisy, specifically that displayed by the very same Liberals who, quite rightly, sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. No doubt your shameful behaviour seems more reasonable to you with these hypocrites in your corner.
You love to tell others that they are wrong. Now I tell you Sir, you are wrong. You would turn your back on those who fight for freedom? You would turn you back on those who crave it? Just what kind of Canadian are you?
If I had no use for you and your party before, I have even less now.
Shame on you.
Mr. Layton,
I’d like to talk to you about tradition, courage and hypocrisy.
I understand that you (and because of that, your party) want to debate our role in Afghanistan. No doubt this is an aim to getting our troops out of there. Here I talk to you about tradition. It is a Canadian tradition to fight against tyranny in support of peace, liberty and justice. Canada has demonstrated its resolve in the form of war against forces that threaten the peace, liberty and justice of others. Yes, Canadian Forces are not just peace keepers. We have the wherewithal to be peace makers too. Another Canadian tradition is to do far more than our share. I am proud of these traditions and, more importantly, so are those in our Canadian Forces. You disrespect them with your stand.
You don’t believe this is our fight too. You believe we should stay out. I can be thankful that you and your soft, short-sighted ilk are not in power. You would have us discard our traditions and take on new traditions of dithering and ignorance and betrayal and short-sightedness. Personally, I am glad of the opportunity to rebuild Canada’s stature on the world’s stage with this mission. The recklessness and stupidity of the previous Liberal governments eroded it. Your form of recklessness would have us fighting these terrorists on our soil instead of theirs.
And if you believe, as many people are being told to believe, that the US is an imperialistic war-mongering power (a concept to which I do not subscribe) would it not be a good idea to have a seat at the table when these kinds of actions are planned and implemented?
Those traditions I talked about came to be through the courage and sacrifice of previous, harder generations. I talk about those who fought in the World Wars and in Korea. This is the same courage demonstrated today by those brave men and women in uniform. Have you asked the soldiers in Afghanistan if they want to come home? Have you asked them if they believe in our mission there? I think you would be shamed by their answers. How can you make politics hoping to bring them home for their sake when they don’t want to? And how would letting down our allies help us? Shame on you for your cowardice and politicking Mr. Layton.
Next I talk about hypocrisy, specifically that displayed by the very same Liberals who, quite rightly, sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. No doubt your shameful behaviour seems more reasonable to you with these hypocrites in your corner.
You love to tell others that they are wrong. Now I tell you Sir, you are wrong. You would turn your back on those who fight for freedom? You would turn you back on those who crave it? Just what kind of Canadian are you?
If I had no use for you and your party before, I have even less now.
Shame on you.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Electoral Reform
I sent this to The Record.
I'm writing this in response to the two letters you published on 01FEB that called for electoral reform; specifically proportional representation.
I could not disagree more. Even when the Conservatives earned only 2 seats in 1993 but 'earned' far more I would not have supported such folly.
If we did as the proponents ask, we could say goodbye to majority governments. Moreover, in order to get anything at all done we would have to pander even more to fringe and special interest groups. These groups would then hold the country hostage while the responsibilities of the government would not be met.
What if you had to include environmental matters in a bill regarding child pornography to get the Green party to vote for it?
And this would only be the start. Instead of having three or four parties on your ballot you would have a dozen. We could then expect parties to crop up representing any and all single issues. Now imagine having to give concessions to the 'Gay and Lesbian Party' or the 'Christian Fundamentalist Party' to get support on a matter of foreign policy. Now imagine needing both of them to support you.
No, its better to have a few parties who, for the most part, cover the spectrum and have a well-rounded platform that touches all the responsibilities that a government has.
I'm writing this in response to the two letters you published on 01FEB that called for electoral reform; specifically proportional representation.
I could not disagree more. Even when the Conservatives earned only 2 seats in 1993 but 'earned' far more I would not have supported such folly.
If we did as the proponents ask, we could say goodbye to majority governments. Moreover, in order to get anything at all done we would have to pander even more to fringe and special interest groups. These groups would then hold the country hostage while the responsibilities of the government would not be met.
What if you had to include environmental matters in a bill regarding child pornography to get the Green party to vote for it?
And this would only be the start. Instead of having three or four parties on your ballot you would have a dozen. We could then expect parties to crop up representing any and all single issues. Now imagine having to give concessions to the 'Gay and Lesbian Party' or the 'Christian Fundamentalist Party' to get support on a matter of foreign policy. Now imagine needing both of them to support you.
No, its better to have a few parties who, for the most part, cover the spectrum and have a well-rounded platform that touches all the responsibilities that a government has.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Hamas democratically elected?
What are we to think when a jurisdiction holds a democratic vote and elects a government that will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of its neighbour?
Such is the case in Palestine. I used the word ‘jurisdiction’ on purpose. Words like ‘nation’, ‘country’ and ‘civilization’ just seem inappropriate in this case.
Palestinian nationhood is a goal that seems even harder to achieve now that Hamas is to form a government. Or was it ever the goal?
So, why did Hamas win? Do Palestinians not want peace and prosperity for their children?
The culture of hate put forth by so many leaders including the candidate who ran for Hamas after having sent one of her teenaged boys to his death on a suicide attack is surely a factor.
Perhaps its my soft Western mind but I wonder how anyone can regard such an individual as anything but a terrorist.
It is right of all nations to condemn the new Palestinian ‘government’. Palestine does not belong in the company of sovereign nations. To recognize this ‘government’ is to condone terrorism.
The best that can come out of this is political pressure from the rest of the world who realize too late that Palestinian intransigence is the main stumbling block to peace. I don’t hold out a lot of hope on this front.
The irony is that the conditions that exist in Palestine, while not totally of their own design, are exacerbated by their own behaviour. There was a time not long ago that the two societies had a more symbiotic relationship. Thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel. Now, of course, those Palestinians are unemployed because Israel is exercising its right to protect itself. Now, the lack of opportunity and prosperity has turned Palestine into a terrorist hotbed.
While Israel may not have handled all situations perfectly during its existence (and what nation has?) we cannot fault its attempts to protect itself and we must applaud its willingness to negotiate in good faith and its desire to live in peace. We cannot expect Israel’s patience to be boundless.
If I seem one-sided its because I believe that Palestine and its leadership needs to bear the brunt of responsibility for the state it finds itself in.
Such is the case in Palestine. I used the word ‘jurisdiction’ on purpose. Words like ‘nation’, ‘country’ and ‘civilization’ just seem inappropriate in this case.
Palestinian nationhood is a goal that seems even harder to achieve now that Hamas is to form a government. Or was it ever the goal?
So, why did Hamas win? Do Palestinians not want peace and prosperity for their children?
The culture of hate put forth by so many leaders including the candidate who ran for Hamas after having sent one of her teenaged boys to his death on a suicide attack is surely a factor.
Perhaps its my soft Western mind but I wonder how anyone can regard such an individual as anything but a terrorist.
It is right of all nations to condemn the new Palestinian ‘government’. Palestine does not belong in the company of sovereign nations. To recognize this ‘government’ is to condone terrorism.
The best that can come out of this is political pressure from the rest of the world who realize too late that Palestinian intransigence is the main stumbling block to peace. I don’t hold out a lot of hope on this front.
The irony is that the conditions that exist in Palestine, while not totally of their own design, are exacerbated by their own behaviour. There was a time not long ago that the two societies had a more symbiotic relationship. Thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel. Now, of course, those Palestinians are unemployed because Israel is exercising its right to protect itself. Now, the lack of opportunity and prosperity has turned Palestine into a terrorist hotbed.
While Israel may not have handled all situations perfectly during its existence (and what nation has?) we cannot fault its attempts to protect itself and we must applaud its willingness to negotiate in good faith and its desire to live in peace. We cannot expect Israel’s patience to be boundless.
If I seem one-sided its because I believe that Palestine and its leadership needs to bear the brunt of responsibility for the state it finds itself in.
Rosie O'Donnell Doesn't Like Conservatives
Rosie O’Donnell, at the Sundance Film Festival this week, was asked for her reaction to the results of our Federal Election here in Canada. I only caught a snippet on the news as the full content was to appear on ET Canada the following hour, but I got the gist of her reaction.
Rosie said that she was disappointed that we ousted the Liberals and then went on to lament the loss of some kind of gay haven where she could go and let her hair down.
My disappointment is in her comments multi-facetted.
I am Canadian. I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative for myriad reasons. And, I am not so daft as to focus on any one issue.
It seems her main concern, or perhaps only concern, regarding the election is the Conservative’s stand on gay marriage.
Like many liberals she seems to suffer from the tendency to over-simplify her thought process. If she knew anything about Canadian politics she might have known that the Liberals had long ago lost any moral authority to rule. Ottawa stinks with Liberal corruption. They were arrogant and lazy with power. They stole our money. They wasted our money on several projects. They spent $2B on registering long guns while (hand)gun crime rose alarmingly in our cities. They fostered the rise of the Separatists in Quebec through inaction and bungling. They soured relations with the US, our biggest ally and trading partner. They made the same old and tired promises in election campaigns in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 and each time they won they failed to deliver. There are virtually no responsibilities they had that they didn’t entirely bungle.
The most disturbing is the implication that we did wrong by ousting the Liberals. Canada’s political landscape is complex. Its not all about how we treat gays and lesbians. Its not just about gay marriage.
Now, for the record, I oppose gay marriage. More specifically, I oppose the re-definition of ‘marriage’. I oppose it for two reasons. First, the laws we have in Canada provide the conditions whereby clergy will probably end up going to jail for refusing to marry gays and lesbians on the gounds of their religious beliefs. (For the sake of brevity I won’t get into the details of the failings and flaws of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) Suffice it to say that a gay’s ‘right’ to get married will end up trumping another person’s right to practice their religion.
My second reason for opposing the re-definition has already reared its ugly head. The fact is, doing so has set a precedent. People who support the ideas of polygamy, bigamy, incest and bestiality, while clearly on the fringes of society, will be encouraged by the idea that ‘marriage’ can be changed at any time to fit their beliefs. Now, I DO NOT compare gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, etc. and I am sure that gays and lesbians do not want to have to debate those matters any more than the rest of society. But when you are convinced to re-draw a line, you will likely be forced to re-draw it again and again. It’s a slippery slope and quite frankly I don’t want people around the world laughing at us when the Supreme Court has to hear some case and decide one’s right to marry his horse or his daughter, or have a harem.
I am a libertarian at heart. I am fine with allowing couples (two people) entering into a 'civil union' with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as marriage. But I want it in law that NO ONE will be forced to perform these unions. I want safe-guards such that my rights won’t get trampled by those of others. The Charter fails here.
My second cause for disappointment is the notion that before voting Conservative, I was to consider what kind of gay refuge for foreigners that I might be destroying.
As in most countries our politics is not about one single issue. I find that too many people are ‘single-issue’ people. Environmental zealots care only about a party’s stand on environmental issues and gays and lesbians are often single-issue people such that nothing (like fiscal policy, foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, defence policy, etc.) seems to matter that doesn’t address or celebrate their sexuality. Other groups like union memberships and those who oppose all concepts of free trade suffer from the same kinds of self-centered myopia.
I find that conservatives tend to be big(ger) picture people.
I figured Rosie O’Donnell would be more broad-minded having traveled the world and having had the experience of hosting a talk show, but I see now that she is indeed a single-issue lesbian.
But its just like liberals, be they US Democrats or Canadian Liberal and NDP supporters, to disrespect the democratic will of the people for having the audacity to disagree with them.
Now, Canada is still going to be open. It will not become a Christian theocracy as some dim-witted people fear. Canada has a tradition of inclusion and freedom that dates back to when other nations employed slavery.
This is my country. I cast my informed vote based on my values in the way I thought was best for my country. I do not generally care if my vote offends the sensibilities of individuals who do not pay taxes here or care not to inform themselves. But I do care if they use their celebrity to tell me I’m wrong.
Rosie said that she was disappointed that we ousted the Liberals and then went on to lament the loss of some kind of gay haven where she could go and let her hair down.
My disappointment is in her comments multi-facetted.
I am Canadian. I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative for myriad reasons. And, I am not so daft as to focus on any one issue.
It seems her main concern, or perhaps only concern, regarding the election is the Conservative’s stand on gay marriage.
Like many liberals she seems to suffer from the tendency to over-simplify her thought process. If she knew anything about Canadian politics she might have known that the Liberals had long ago lost any moral authority to rule. Ottawa stinks with Liberal corruption. They were arrogant and lazy with power. They stole our money. They wasted our money on several projects. They spent $2B on registering long guns while (hand)gun crime rose alarmingly in our cities. They fostered the rise of the Separatists in Quebec through inaction and bungling. They soured relations with the US, our biggest ally and trading partner. They made the same old and tired promises in election campaigns in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 and each time they won they failed to deliver. There are virtually no responsibilities they had that they didn’t entirely bungle.
The most disturbing is the implication that we did wrong by ousting the Liberals. Canada’s political landscape is complex. Its not all about how we treat gays and lesbians. Its not just about gay marriage.
Now, for the record, I oppose gay marriage. More specifically, I oppose the re-definition of ‘marriage’. I oppose it for two reasons. First, the laws we have in Canada provide the conditions whereby clergy will probably end up going to jail for refusing to marry gays and lesbians on the gounds of their religious beliefs. (For the sake of brevity I won’t get into the details of the failings and flaws of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) Suffice it to say that a gay’s ‘right’ to get married will end up trumping another person’s right to practice their religion.
My second reason for opposing the re-definition has already reared its ugly head. The fact is, doing so has set a precedent. People who support the ideas of polygamy, bigamy, incest and bestiality, while clearly on the fringes of society, will be encouraged by the idea that ‘marriage’ can be changed at any time to fit their beliefs. Now, I DO NOT compare gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, etc. and I am sure that gays and lesbians do not want to have to debate those matters any more than the rest of society. But when you are convinced to re-draw a line, you will likely be forced to re-draw it again and again. It’s a slippery slope and quite frankly I don’t want people around the world laughing at us when the Supreme Court has to hear some case and decide one’s right to marry his horse or his daughter, or have a harem.
I am a libertarian at heart. I am fine with allowing couples (two people) entering into a 'civil union' with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as marriage. But I want it in law that NO ONE will be forced to perform these unions. I want safe-guards such that my rights won’t get trampled by those of others. The Charter fails here.
My second cause for disappointment is the notion that before voting Conservative, I was to consider what kind of gay refuge for foreigners that I might be destroying.
As in most countries our politics is not about one single issue. I find that too many people are ‘single-issue’ people. Environmental zealots care only about a party’s stand on environmental issues and gays and lesbians are often single-issue people such that nothing (like fiscal policy, foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, defence policy, etc.) seems to matter that doesn’t address or celebrate their sexuality. Other groups like union memberships and those who oppose all concepts of free trade suffer from the same kinds of self-centered myopia.
I find that conservatives tend to be big(ger) picture people.
I figured Rosie O’Donnell would be more broad-minded having traveled the world and having had the experience of hosting a talk show, but I see now that she is indeed a single-issue lesbian.
But its just like liberals, be they US Democrats or Canadian Liberal and NDP supporters, to disrespect the democratic will of the people for having the audacity to disagree with them.
Now, Canada is still going to be open. It will not become a Christian theocracy as some dim-witted people fear. Canada has a tradition of inclusion and freedom that dates back to when other nations employed slavery.
This is my country. I cast my informed vote based on my values in the way I thought was best for my country. I do not generally care if my vote offends the sensibilities of individuals who do not pay taxes here or care not to inform themselves. But I do care if they use their celebrity to tell me I’m wrong.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Remembrance Day
I make it a point to go to the Cenotaph every Remembrance Day.
For me, today is one of the most important days of the year. It reminds me that the peace and prosperity we enjoy has been bought and paid for and that we must be vigilant to preserve it.
Remembrance Day also reminds me of the mere triviality of many of my worries. The people who provided us this peace did so selflessly. They suffered lost years, lost innocence, lost limbs and lost lives. They saw the horrors of war; horrors we dare not imagine. These images haunt them and not us.
And all they ask is that we remember; not their glory, but their sacrifice. They ask us to remember so our societies can be more vigilant than the leaders of their times and avoid the calamities they endured.
Peace HAS a price. And vigilance is less expensive than the alternative. There were then as there are now people ruled by an ideology of intolerance and hatred and greed and avarice. They are inclined to destroy us if we let them. We can fight them now, or we can fight them later at a far higher price.
This is their lesson.
For me, today is one of the most important days of the year. It reminds me that the peace and prosperity we enjoy has been bought and paid for and that we must be vigilant to preserve it.
Remembrance Day also reminds me of the mere triviality of many of my worries. The people who provided us this peace did so selflessly. They suffered lost years, lost innocence, lost limbs and lost lives. They saw the horrors of war; horrors we dare not imagine. These images haunt them and not us.
And all they ask is that we remember; not their glory, but their sacrifice. They ask us to remember so our societies can be more vigilant than the leaders of their times and avoid the calamities they endured.
Peace HAS a price. And vigilance is less expensive than the alternative. There were then as there are now people ruled by an ideology of intolerance and hatred and greed and avarice. They are inclined to destroy us if we let them. We can fight them now, or we can fight them later at a far higher price.
This is their lesson.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
I’m reading an article on CNN about a US District Court judge in San Francisco who has declared the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional.
At issue is the Pledge’s reference to God. The argument is that the Pledge coerces children to affirm the existence of God.
I don’t think it does.
Whether YOU believe in God or not you cannot deny that the United States of America (and the rest of the Americas for that matter) is a Christian nation. This is to say, that most of the people practicing a religion choose Jesus Christ as their savior and follow some Christian belief structure. The same was true of the founders of United States of America. And when they constructed and adapted the Constitution they did so with their faith as a building block.
So, the phrase ‘under God’ could be taken to acknowledge that the nation was built and is maintained under the guidance of the teachings, as perceived by many, of a God. I think it falls short of requiring that the individual reciting the Pledge (or their parents) affirm the existence of or believe in any God.
This is a prime example of political correctness run amok. This is a tradition in which very few can find offense. Yet it may be banned to appease the miniscule number of parents who disagree with its use because of their own interpretation. This is undemocratic. It is alarming when a Constitution, a cornerstone of democracy, is used to circumvent democracy.
I am Canadian so, of course, I have never recited the Pledge. But this still bothers me as I see this same kind of nonsense going on here.
At issue is the Pledge’s reference to God. The argument is that the Pledge coerces children to affirm the existence of God.
I don’t think it does.
Whether YOU believe in God or not you cannot deny that the United States of America (and the rest of the Americas for that matter) is a Christian nation. This is to say, that most of the people practicing a religion choose Jesus Christ as their savior and follow some Christian belief structure. The same was true of the founders of United States of America. And when they constructed and adapted the Constitution they did so with their faith as a building block.
So, the phrase ‘under God’ could be taken to acknowledge that the nation was built and is maintained under the guidance of the teachings, as perceived by many, of a God. I think it falls short of requiring that the individual reciting the Pledge (or their parents) affirm the existence of or believe in any God.
This is a prime example of political correctness run amok. This is a tradition in which very few can find offense. Yet it may be banned to appease the miniscule number of parents who disagree with its use because of their own interpretation. This is undemocratic. It is alarming when a Constitution, a cornerstone of democracy, is used to circumvent democracy.
I am Canadian so, of course, I have never recited the Pledge. But this still bothers me as I see this same kind of nonsense going on here.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
On Monday 12SEP2005 I sent this to the Editor of my local paper; The Record. It is main local daily paper published for Waterloo Region. In my opinion, it is not a balanced paper. It leans quite a bit to the left and, like most print media in Canada, is in the Liberals' back pocket.
The fact that I have to choose between supporting a paper like this or not knowing what goes on in my community bothers me.
I indeed was called last week by a saleslady. I did not mention to her that we used to subscribe but cancelled it for the reasons stated and because we would only get 3 or 4 of the six editions actually delivered to us each week. The content was most important to me; the reliable delivery most important to my wife.
I expect no response.
Good day,
I saw the front page on Sunday and unless I was mistaken it is yet another reason to not buy your paper. I used to subscribe but I haven’t for a long while.
I think the gist of the article was that we have a shameful number of people in the Region who are living below the poverty line. And you quoted a number in the order of 47,000.
Well, considering the fact that the definition of poverty is something like 'the least fortunate 10% of the population' and the fact that the population of Waterloo Region is approaching 500,000; don't you think this is a non-story?
Now, if I got the wrong end of the stick and indeed the story was substantive, for a change, then I apologize. But I simply could not bring myself to buy your left-leaning, socialist rag. Not to worry though; most papers in Canada are as balanced as yours. I was assured by the saleslady who called last week to ask me to subscribe that 'a lot has changed at The Record in the last six months'. But I guess they haven't.
I assured her that The Record would not likely change to get me as a reader as they would lose more readers than I am worth. The public has been spoon-fed unbalanced tripe for so long by the print media that truth and logic would now be as palatable to them as sour milk.
Don't bother printing this in your column for my benefit, I won't be reading it.
Regards,
The fact that I have to choose between supporting a paper like this or not knowing what goes on in my community bothers me.
I indeed was called last week by a saleslady. I did not mention to her that we used to subscribe but cancelled it for the reasons stated and because we would only get 3 or 4 of the six editions actually delivered to us each week. The content was most important to me; the reliable delivery most important to my wife.
I expect no response.
Good day,
I saw the front page on Sunday and unless I was mistaken it is yet another reason to not buy your paper. I used to subscribe but I haven’t for a long while.
I think the gist of the article was that we have a shameful number of people in the Region who are living below the poverty line. And you quoted a number in the order of 47,000.
Well, considering the fact that the definition of poverty is something like 'the least fortunate 10% of the population' and the fact that the population of Waterloo Region is approaching 500,000; don't you think this is a non-story?
Now, if I got the wrong end of the stick and indeed the story was substantive, for a change, then I apologize. But I simply could not bring myself to buy your left-leaning, socialist rag. Not to worry though; most papers in Canada are as balanced as yours. I was assured by the saleslady who called last week to ask me to subscribe that 'a lot has changed at The Record in the last six months'. But I guess they haven't.
I assured her that The Record would not likely change to get me as a reader as they would lose more readers than I am worth. The public has been spoon-fed unbalanced tripe for so long by the print media that truth and logic would now be as palatable to them as sour milk.
Don't bother printing this in your column for my benefit, I won't be reading it.
Regards,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)