Greens vs Gaia

The Gaia Hypothesis is one of those ideas that has been shamelessly abused. Now the man who developed it is delivering a smackdown on those people who, until now, have revered him.

Tripwires

Is Argentina seriously considering making another move against the Falkland Islands?

Children have no value

In my previous post on the value of mothers, I reprinted one of my posts from 2004. That was actually one of two posts.

The first was about the devaluation of mothers.

The second was about the devaluation of children.

In both cases, we have socialism to thank.

Mothers

(Via NealeNews)

Michael Coren steps in it this week in a big way:

I don't really know if there is a different aptitude for science between men and women and don't particularly care. I do know, however, that a woman's place is in the home.

There, it's been said. The unthinkable has been uttered. I can only wonder what the various highly intelligent women who edit my column are saying as they read this, but that's hardly the point. A woman's place is in the home.

Crikey, he said it twice.

Nobody is forcing women to become moms, but if they do they should take their new job seriously and not pretend it is some hobby or part-time occupation. Instead, we have created a situation where many women are embarrassed to admit that they are at home with their kids.

Actually, the situation was created in part by others, and on purpose. Worse than that, the intent was not to make women feel embarrassed for being mothers. The intent was to eliminate motherhood altogether.

No special rules for the Prophet

Muslims are being told that Canada's Parliament sets the law, and as far as the Canadian government is concerned, the Prophet has as much protection as he deserves.

Blogging troubles

I've had trouble reaching the mu.nu server over the last few days. It becomes unreachable for hours at a time, so posting comes in fits and starts. Sorry about that. I expect the problem to sort itself out soon.

The supremacy of the electoral process

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Short and sweet.

Now how do go from that to this?

A constituent in the Vancouver Kingsway federal riding is organizing a class action lawsuit against incumbent federal MP David Emerson.

[Peter Dimitrov, a human rights and trial lawyer], who ran for the leadership of the BC NDP in 2003, says while the mass rallies and recall petitions are laudable, he worries that they will not be effective in removing Emerson, since there is no federal recall legislation. BC is currently the only electoral jurisdiction that has such legislation, which was introduced by the previous NDP government in 1995.

He says this is why legal action is necessary, since a charter interpretation will likely settle the matter.

"Based on my understanding of Section 3 of the charter, and the publicly available evidence respecting the context and timing of the 'crossing,'" he says, "it is my opinion that the post-election actions of David Emerson, and perhaps the prime minister, as well, nullified the rights of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway to play a meaningful role in the election of their elected representative and it further denied them the right to "effective representation" by the party of their choice (Liberal) and their party-affiliated representative."

Nope, sorry, don't see it. The Charter does not recognize political parties or recalls -- just elections. We have the right to vote. Period.

I'm not sure why "effective representation" is in quotes. The phrase does not appear in the Charter in any context, either as a right or otherwise.

But besides being a bit of a stretch, this lawsuit is dangerous, and should not even be allowed to proceed. Once the count has been certified, and the people have spoken, there should be no intervention by the courts to overturn the result where there is no evidence or even allegation of a flaw in the voting process.

To even acknowledge that the courts have such a power to overturn a valid and well-executed election is to complete our transition from a democracy to a judicial oligarchy. Any judge presented with this lawsuit should toss it out with a stern warning that this is entirely outside of the powers of the judiciary to adjudicate.

You don't like Emerson? Fine. Help to pass legislation that forces him to stand for re-election. Good luck making it retroactive, by the way. And good luck also at crafting it in such a way that it could survive a constitutional challenge.

But don't think a simple lawsuit is the way to go. The election was fair. People voted as is their right under the Charter. No laws were broken. The ballots were counted and David Emerson received the most votes.

The result of a well-executed election is sacrosanct. It must be for our democracy to have any legitimacy. If you are successful at getting legislation forcing a recall or a by-election, all you've done is increase the number of elections. I think you are being silly, but at least you aren't dismissing the legitimacy of the previous election as such. You aren't arguing the David Emerson is not the legitimate MP. You are requiring him to submit to a separate election outside of the normal requirement of an election within five years based on a specific decision (an idea which I think suffers from a serious constitutional problem) but at least you are using an election as the mechanism for your solution. Moreover, you are implementing that solution via the legislature, the body that represents the combined voting wisdom of all Canadians.

What you are not doing is subordinating the choice of thousands of citizens expressed at the ballot box to the whim of a single judge. However, this is exactly what Dimitrov wants to do.

The judiciary should fulfill its role in determining if such a law meets the standards of constitutionality. In others words, the judiciary can be asked to make a decision on whether it is a good law. The judiciary should never be asked whether an MP is a good MP. That is for the electorate to decide and no one else. Ever.

Even if you don't like what Emerson did, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Whatever short term heartburn you are suffering because of Emerson crossing the floor pales in comparison to making free and fair elections subject to successful lawsuits by those who don't like the result.

Acceptable lies and unacceptable truths

The are lies we are allowed, even encouraged to tell. And there are truths we are required to ignore.

And woe to the brave fool who tries to voice one of those truths in the presence of those people who make it their business to tell those lies.

To solve the problem, you have to solve the problem

News out of Vancouver:

No other city in North America would tolerate the sort of open drug use seen daily on Vancouver's streets, parks and school grounds, Vancouver police said Tuesday. And they vowed they're going to put a stop to it.

Insp. Bob Rolls, who is in charge of District 2, the northeast section of the city that includes the Downtown Eastside, announced a new enforcement program against public drug use.

The open use has led to a horrific situation:

Rolls said there is an elementary school, which he did not name, in his district where the janitor begins each day by sweeping the school grounds for used syringes, crack pipes, broken bottles, beer cans, used condoms and human excrement before children arrive.

At Strathcona elementary school, he said, 300 used needles were picked up around the school in a one-month period.

Rolls said that last summer, a woman was with her child in the grounds of an East Hastings community centre when the child picked up a used needle and put it in its mouth.

"The mother stopped breathing and rushed the child to hospital and thankfully the child was okay. The mother said when she takes her children to play in that community centre she always checks the sand at the foot of the slide to see if there's any needles," he said.

Of course, the chance that a child my get AIDS has to be balanced against the rights and dignity of drug abusers:

Dianne Tobin, president of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU), said such enforcement would only drive the activity out of the Downtown Eastside into other areas.

"I feel sorry for the people of Strathcona because the police will drive the problem there. I think it's a waste of money and a waste of time," she said.

"We want to see it [on-street drug use] stopped too and we are trying to do something about it. But if you're homeless and living in an alley, where else are you going to shoot up?

"We're concerned that the police are turning the clock back 10 years and are going to start throwing homeless and marginalized people in jail," she said.

If kids weren't getting stuck with needles ten years ago, I suspect more than a few parents would jump headlong into that time machine.

But Tobin has a point. These drug abusers are homeless and poor. Without a means of supporting themselves, they will steal from law-abiding citizens to feed their drug habit, supplied by organized crime gangs. How can we help them (the drug users, not the gangs)?

Well, assuming that Vancouverites aren't willing to strangle the drug problem by rounding up the abusers, cutting them off from their supply, and so put the drug dealers out of business, the only other approach is to somehow help them break out of the cycle of poverty.

For that you need jobs.

For jobs you need investment.

For investment you have to entice people with money to spend it in Vancouver. Those people have to be convinced that Vancouver will provide a safe environment for customers and employees, and their families.

An obvious first step is to eliminate the open use of illegal drugs on city streets. I can guarantee you that a fellow looking to open a Tim Horton's franchise is going to look elsewhere if he thinks his Vancouver store is going to be a hangout for strung-out street people hoping to bum a coffee between highs.

So to get the economic activity started that will help eliminate the poverty that will get the drug abusers off the streets, you have to get the drug abusers off the streets.

Sorry, Tobin, but it looks like that time machine set for ten years past is the way to go. The way Vancouver has been heading looks like a dead end.

Feed a fever...

From the Wikipedia entry for fever:

An adaptive mechanism, fever is the body's reaction to pathogens; it attempts to raise core body temperature to levels that will speed up the actions of the immune system, and may also directly denature, debilitate, or kill the pathogen. Most fevers are caused by infections, and almost all infectious diseases can cause fever. When a patient has or is suspected of having a fever, that person's body temperature is measured using a thermometer. If successful in ridding the body of an invasive pathogen, fever is an important protective immune mechanism and should generally not be suppressed.

Sometimes, for various reasons, mild fevers are intentionally induced. Naturopath Paavo Airola claimed that, because cancer cells are known to die at lower temperatures than normal body cells, they can sometimes be fought with fevers.

That last point is contentious -- the evidence certainly does not support inducing fever as an effective means of treating cancer in the human body.

But there are many kinds of cancer:

Thousands chanted slogans and burned Danish flags in Pakistan and Iraq to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on Tuesday.

Witness accounts, meanwhile, confirmed a report by Italy's envoy, who said the violence that killed 11 people in Benghazi, Libya, last week was the work of both Islamic radicals and anti-government forces.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Muslim anger over the cartoons was being exploited by radical Islamists and other interests.

"I think it is evident for everyone that this crisis is no longer about the 12 drawings in Jyllands-Posten," Fogh Rasmussen said. "It's about everything else and different agendas in the Muslim world. It's obvious that extremist circles exploit the situation."

One thing is clear -- the cartoon riots are certainly flushing the radicals out into the open. You just know intelligence agencies and domestic security forces everywhere are taking special care to identify the mob leaders and the provocateurs. To file the information away for a rainy day.

Time to return the money

From Robert McLelland's MyBlahg:

Update: Correction, the net kook is asking for $600,000, which makes it even more laughable considering his reputation isn’t worth 6 bucks let alone 6 hundred thousand.

The net kook in question is Warren Kinsella, and the lawsuit againt Mark Bourrie of Ottawa Watch was covered here, and concerned a poorly worded post that made it sound like Warren Kinsella was involved in some sort of criminal activity.

Net kook or not, you never make that sort of allegation against a lawyer.

At the time, McLelland was urging people to donate money:

Update II: If you want to help out, you can donate to the screw Kinsella fund.

The link took you to a post at Ottawa Watch where you could make a PayPal donation to "StopKinsella".

Any money left over from Bourrie's defence would have gone to Reporters Without Borders.

What defence?

This has been an interesting month. I posted, in January, about Warren Kinsella's political future. That was, in my mind, what the post was about. At that time, and now, I did not believe he was an actor of any kind in the sponsorship kickback scandal. And he certainly did not know and couldn't possibly anticipate the future dealings of Public Works in advertising, which happened long after Kinsella left government. I truly believe that, and I could not, in good conscience, even begin to try to prove otherwise if his libel suit went to trial.

The manner in which my January 14, 2006 blog entry was worded made it seem that Mr. Kinsella had been a party to illegal conduct when this was clearly not the case. I apology [sic] without reservation to Mr. Kinsella for that error on my part.

So he caved before any stepping into a courtroom, as far as I can tell. Probably because it was made clear to him that he was in the wrong.

I'm curious, though, if there was no defence offered, will the money in the fund be returned? Donating the extra to Reporters Without Borders sounds nice, but it looks like there was nothing spent for which there was anything to be counted as extra.

Certainly, it doesn't look like Bourrie's promise to those making donations that he was going to fight this was fulfilled.

I'm sure McLelland will be calling for a full accounting on behalf of anyone who followed the link from his blog to make the donation. Right.

Honestly, people, who for a moment thought this was going to play out any differently? McLelland and his kind goading Bourrie on were doing Bourrie a huge disservice. Instead of the belligerence and cockiness, Bourrie should have talked to Kinsella immediately, openly and honestly. McLelland should have told him that that was the honest thing to do, and the smart thing to do.

It's easy to cheer for a fight from the sidelines.

Fire burns while firefighters watch

From the News-Leader out of Missouri, reporting on news from the Ozarks:

Firefighters near Monett stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner, who was injured battling the flames, had not paid membership dues.

Monett Rural Fire Department Chief Ronnie Myers defended the policy, saying the membership-based organization could not survive if people thought the department would respond for free. The department said it will fight a fire without question if a life is believed to be in danger.

I guess Rueda should have jumped into the flames. Instead, he tried hard to save his property:

Four mobile homes and a number of vehicles were on the property. Rueda managed to get one mobile home out of danger, using a garden hose and buckets, but was burned in the process, Evenson said.

Someone seems to have forgotten the notion of the common good. I rage against high taxes because they seem to be used to provide services far in excess of the common good. Indeed, a great deal of our taxes are used for the good of narrowly defined segments of our society as a way of earning favour. Much of the rest is used for policies that support the common good, without consideration of how much better a private operator might provide the same service, especially in competition.

But firefighting is not a free-market activity. We don't have multiple firefighting brigades each offering better firefighting than the competition. But we had that in the past.

The first fire brigades were the Roman vigiles, funded by a 4% tax on the sale of slaves. A vigiles cohort included firefighters and medical professionals, and they patrolled the streets of Rome looking for unsupervised fires. However, this idea of a professional public system did not survive the fall of Rome.

In 17th century London, fire brigades were funded by insurance companies, and only fought fires in those buildings sporting the moniker of the insurance company in question. In 19th century New York, fire brigades would compete, even to the point of sabotage, since brigades were paid out of by the insurance company for each building saved.

So despite this history of firefighting wackiness, how is it that today a man has lost his property because of money he says he did not know he was supposed to pay?

Rueda offered to pay, Evenson said, but the Monett department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing.

Randy Cole, assistant state fire marshal, said there was no state law requiring membership-supported fire districts to help nonmembers in any situation.

However, state law says those departments may perform services for a nonmember if they choose, and then charge the nonmember based on a set amount outlined in statute, Cole said.

Common good goes far beyond mere property though. When I see a firetruck on its way to an emergency call, I know that I have helped pay for that service. So have my neighbours. We have all chipped in to ensure our safe community in creating a service that helps all. How is the community bond strengthened when neighbours watch as another neighbour engages in a pitiful attempt to save his home? How is the community bond strengthened when their only concern is that the fire not spread?

Firefighting is more than just about fighting fires. It is about meeting the common enemy. In Monett county, I'm guessing that more than a few people are looking at each other as the enemy instead. I wonder if race played a role in all this:

Myers said he would make an effort to explain the membership policy to the area's new Hispanic residents after the property's owner, Bibaldo Rueda, said he had never been told of the dues policy since moving there 1 1/2 years ago.

I think Chief Myers should be asked some pointed questions about how evenly the policy is enforced. Call me a cynic, but why do I get a feeling some fires are put out right away, and others are left to burn, when there is a question of membership dues being paid?

Holocaust denial

The issue of the Holocaust is terribly sensitive. The greatest civilization the world has ever seen witnessed one of the most important and cultured nations of that civilization sink into a frenzy of industrialized murder.

Not only that, there were plenty of like-minded people in neighbouring countries only too happy to lend a hand.

As a result, millions died.

The historical record is clear and unambiguous. People are alive who witnessed the events. The bones lie in silent testimony for all to see.

For all that we have people who insist it did not happen, or that it was not as extensive as portrayed, or that it was not managed from the highest levels of Hitler's Germany.

In many nations, to voice such opinions is illegal:

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.

He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.

The reasoning is that Holocaut denial is equivalent to anti-Semitism:

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust welcomed the verdict. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.

I have no love for those who deny the Holocaust. I don't think they are qualified to teach history, for example. But as in all free speech issues, the line must be drawn between advocating violence and mere stupidity.

Can merely denying that the Holocaust occurred be equivalent to advocating violence?

If I were speaking to a crowd on neo-Nazi skinheads, and I gave a fiery speech on how the Jews controlled the education system and had foisted this Holocaust lie on us in order to gain support of a guilt-ridden West to advance their own agenda, could that trigger violence without actually advocating that Jews be attacked?

Unfortunately, in some circumstances, it can. So I see the problem authorities in these countries face. How do you craft a law to manage violent speech when the speech does not have to be blatantly violent to have a violent effect?

I want to make it clear that I'm not planning to come down on the side of free speech without some consideration of the complexities of the situation.

But I am going to come down on the side of free speech anyway. Well, mostly.

First, on the principle of the matter. Free speech is not free if there is a cost to be paid for unpopular speech. Is the Holocaust a special case? Special cases are dangerous, since eventually everyone wants to be treated specially. Each special case limits speech further.

Are we willing to give Muslims special status in the matter of speaking of the Prophet? Most would say that we would not, because we can see where that road leads. But some countries have already taken a step on that road with Holocaust denial laws.

Second, on the matter of the practical effect. I have to think that for every David Irving punished for merely attempting to contradict the historical record, a martyr is created. The suspicions among those predisposed to believe that the Jews are the power behind government and media are confirmed. The ranks of Irvings supporters are strengthened, not weakened, when you attack Irving with the law.

Free speech that we disagree with is best attacked with more speech, not less.

Easy to say, isn't it?

But I can be wrong on this one. Maybe the Holocaust is a special case. Maybe denying it is to open the way to allow it to happen again. Maybe denial needs to be punished. I'll admit I'm still torn on this.

The National Post steps up

Though the National Post has not published the cartoons themselves, the paper has come out strongly in defence of the Western Standard, seeing the big picture:

Last week, the Calgary-based Western Standard newsmagazine published eight of the 12 Danish cartoons that allegedly blaspheme the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Some Muslim groups responded by demanding the magazine be charged with hate crimes, and by applying to have its senior staff hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In the interest of protecting freedom of expression, both Alberta's Department of Justice and the province's rights investigators must reject these demands summarily.

We have disagreed with the Standard over the need to reprint the cartoons that first appeared last September in Copenhagen's Jyllands-Posten newspaper. But the magazine's decision was certainly defensible: Its publisher and editor argued the best way for their readers to place the images in context was actually to see them.

If the legal actions against the Standard are successful, it will send a dangerous message: that any group in society can use mechanisms of government to censor views it disagrees with. The result would be a media environment that is timid and bland. Even those who disagree with the Standard's editorial stance should support it in its campaign to uphold the principle of free speech.

The editorial board at the National Post gets it. This is about sovereignty, and about the duty of the media to defend it. We have our rights and freedoms, and they have theirs. We live by a set of standards, and the media acts as the watchdog, calling out when we fail to live by those standards, or when those standards are threatened. It can be a dangerous role to play, but that is why the media garners so much respect (or used to).

Our standards are for ourselves. People in other nations don't have to like them, but then they have their own countries in which they implement their own standards.

And maybe that's the real difference between us and the rabid crowds screaming their fury over the cartoons:

We don't demand that those living in other countries live by our standards. On the other hand, they are demanding we die by theirs.

The media needs to make that clear. Part of that is not cowering in the face of the mob about the cartoons. And for those media outlets like the National Post that have decided not to print the cartoons, they have to be unequivocal in defending those who do.

You can't pick and choose which rights you want to defend and when to defend them. The media needs to remember that. Otherwise the mob will attack when while we dither and wring our hands.

Protected nonsense

Apparently this is the result of "careful consideration" by our university students today:

The reasoning for this?

A university newspaper in Canada is defending its publishing of a cartoon showing Jesus and Muhammad kissing, saying it's not "an act of hate."

"The decision to print the cartoon was carefully considered in an effort to advocate tolerance," Brian Clow, president of the Victoria University Students' Association said.

As Brian Clow is a member of the Young Liberals Club, I can see where he gets his ideas of "tolerance". If we don't tolerate having a same-sex agenda shoved down our throats, we're socially backwards in some way.

But hey, I don't think Brian Clow needs to have his head removed from his body because we disagree. And if certain Muslims think this Catholic is going to make common cause with them because the same people insulted both of our religions, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Maybe it's a sign of my confidence and faith that I don't flip out whenever someone insults the Church, the Pope, Jesus, or what have you. Whether it's screaming for blood or asking for a hate-crime investigation -- it infringes on Brian Clow's God-given right to be jerk. Who am I to get in his way?

The corollary is to wonder about the confidence and faith of those who do become unglued, whatever their religion. Those who cry out for death whenever they see others not following their rules are those who, deep down, know that given a real choice, no one would willingly follow their rules, at least the way they've implemented them.

Now here's the kicker.

Deeper down, these same people know that they wish they didn't have to follow these rules. And that fundamental lack of faith is what drives them mad. At least that's what I think.

If you are interested in the thoughts of the people who put out this cartoon, go read the blog. Despite what I said, these people are actually aiming for more lofty goals than merely annoying everybody:

We aim to reclaim the language of liberty from its enemies on the left and the right: those who would bind liberal societies in the poisoned chains of identity politics and moral relativism, and those who would impose the false freedom of a society in which the market is the only source of value. We believe that personal freedom must be protected by political institutions, and that an unreasonable threat to personal freedom is a threat that must be met with any sacrifice.

However, we are not survivalist troglodytes or libertarian anarchists. We believe that personal individual freedom can be maintained only by living with a sense of civic responsibility, compassion, and moral justice.

Actually, there is lot about what these people stand for that I can get behind. I think, though, that their message might be drowned out in the uproar. Purposeful controversy is a tricky thing to manage, as we've all seen.

It's your fault!

The Liberals are not taking responsibility for anything:

Former finance minister Ralph Goodale, who is now the Liberal House Leader, repeated his party's position that the Tories should not count on them to prop up the government.

Mr. Goodale said it will be up to the Bloc and the NDP to play that role because those parties joined with the Tories to defeat the Liberal government.

It includes fighting to maintain the Liberal deals with the provinces on child care and the Liberal cuts to personal income taxes, even though the Tories promised to scrap those items to pay for a $1,200-a-child tax credit to parents with children under 6 and an immediate one-percentage-point cut to the GST.

[Mr. Goodale] said the NDP should have kept the Liberals in office if they wanted a national daycare program.

"The NDP can't have it both ways. They have to assume their responsibility. They've made their bed and now they have to lie in it," he said.

You could take issue with the NDP tactics and strategy leading up to the last election, but for the Liberals to claim that it was the NDP's fault that we don't have the Liberal's nationalized daycare seems to ignore that there was indeed an election!

If Canadians wanted the Liberal program, the Liberals would be in power today.

Instead, Conservative policies, a new one announced every day for the first two weeks while the Liberals dithered, impressed Canadians with their common sense approach. Lower GST. More money for parents to spend as they see fit. A stronger military.

The Liberals were unable to fight against that, not while under multiple investigations.

Perhaps Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale needs to be reminded about the nuclear-powered bombshell that most observers claim delivered the killing blast -- the announcement that the RCMP was opening a full criminal investigation into the possibility that a leak had occurred in the finance minister's office on the day of the income trust taxation announcement.

The finance minister's name? Ralph Goodale.

But then I guess that would explain trying to blame everyone else.

Who buys daycare?

The Conservatives will not implement a Liberal Party program.

This is surprising? Especially a program cobbled together in the dying days of a government in an attempt to buy last-minute votes?

The Tories have promised to provide an allowance of $1,200 a year for every child under age six -- but they'll also do away with the former Liberal government's $5-billion child-care deal with the provinces as of March 31, 2007.

It's a decision that'll create a myriad of problems for parents who will suffer because of a lack of child-care spaces, says the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.

"The demand for the service is not going to go away and so by cutting back on the service side of it, people will be standing there with their cheque and nothing to buy with it," said the association's executive director, Monica Lysack.

Consider that last sentence. People in search of daycare, with money in their hands, but unless the government pays for the daycare spaces, none will be created?

I knew I should have taken economics in school. I was under the impression that as long as there was a customer, someone would create the goods or services desired, arriving at a mutually acceptable price for the exchange.

Maybe, just maybe, some daycare providers will step up and create daycare spaces with parents signed up and ready to pay.

Parents.

Daycare providers.

Children.

No government.

If this Tory government accomplishes nothing else, I hope that it at least teaches people in this country that you don't need the government to facilitate everything. In fact, we really need the government for very little. Create and regulate the monetary system, and then let us handle the rest.

Amazing that people seem to have forgotten that.

Since when did a letter to the editor constitute news?

I hate to pile it on, but I think Pierre Bourque has finally jumped the shark.

The headline reads "Harper coveted Emerson".

I clicked, hoping to read an investigative piece in which a confidante of Stephen Harper's revealed that the plan to get Liberal MP David Emerson to cross the floor was long in planning.

Not that I hoped that this was the case, but if it was true, best that we know.

Instead, I get a letter to the editor, for the The Record, the community newspaper for the city of Kitchener.

The letter was from Sue King, as far as I can tell, a regular citizen like you or me, and though I can't speak for you, I know that I have no special insight into Stephen Harper's mind. I doubt Ms King has any such insight either:

So Stephen Harper took the oath on his own personal Bible at the swearing- in ceremony earlier this month. His Bible must be different from mine, because in mine God set the laws in the Old Testament and one of the commandments says: "Thou shalt not covet."

Harper coveted David Emerson and he got him into his Conservative caucus by overruling the oath he took on his very own Bible. Jesus set standards in the Beatitudes in the New Testament that Harper misinterpreted with his arrogance. The gospel according to Stephen Harper shows his rule will be like that of a dictator, not a believer in humility.

OK, she's upset. We get it. But did Stephen Harper covet David Emerson? Maybe. Maybe for months and months. But then maybe not. Nothing in Ms King's letter acts as evidence to support that assertion. It is pure opinion, and frankly an untenable one at that.

As far as I can tell from the letter, Ms King's opinion is based entirely on what she's read in the news and seen on TV. I don't think Ms King has ever met Stephen Harper, or David Emerson for that matter. I am certain she never had a long conversation with Stephen Harper, or anyone close to him, such that she could make any judgment on what he does and does not covet.

Heck, I've had long conversations, each on the order of 30 minutes and more, with three individuals each of whom work with Stephen Harper on a daily basis, one of whom is likely to have as good an insight into the true Stephen Harper as anyone can short of Harper's wife and his parents.

For all that, I don't pretend to have the any better understanding into Stephen Harper's deep motivations than any of you.

A bitter letter (one in which Belinda Stronach is compared favourably with Joan of Arc -- just so you get the sense of where this person is coming from) is hardly newsworthy. And one which makes accusations without any supporting evidence is less so.

Pierre, take a break from this. Your judgment as a legitimate "Newswatch" is in question, and unless you remember what constitutes "news", you will find your audience quickly heading elsewhere. My issue is not that you are targeting the Conservatives over the Emerson controversy. You are entitled to your opinion. But it is just that -- an opinion. If you can't find the hard news to back it up, don't lower your standards.

Spinning too hard

You can report the news.

You can even spin the news.

But sometimes we get caught trying a bit too hard.

The United Nations as the Sharia police

From the Globe and Mail:

In Cairo, Bishop Karsten Nissen, of Denmark's Evangelical Lutheran Church, met with Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of al-Azhar University, the world's highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning.

Mr. Tantawi said the Danish prime minister must apologize for the drawings and further demanded the world's religious leaders meet to write a law that "condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets."

He said the United Nations should impose the law on all countries.

I have to expect that the Grand Imam is not as much of a fool as his statement suggests. The United Nations can't impose anything. Members states can incorporate UN resolutions and charters into their legal codes, but even then only if they are consistent with their constitutions. If they don't like the UN ruling, they can ignore it, or simply leave the organization. The UN doesn't have an effective enforcement body.

The only time the UN went to war was in Korea, and then only because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council vote over a different issue -- the exclusion of communist China from the UN. That allowed the Western bloc to use the UN to go to war with the Soviets against the North Korean invasion. That mistake has never been repeated, and the UN has essentially been in stalemate. At best, such as in Iraq in 1991, the UN simply authorized what was already going to happen with or without its support.

So what does the Grand Imam think is going to happen? The UN will never pass a binding resolution via the Security Council on the issue of cartoons. The General Assembly can try, but with all the ultra-left transnational progressive NGOs slumming at Turtle Bay, it is unlikely that a resolution in support of religious conservatives will see the light of day.

And even if such a resolution passed in the General Assembly, so what? Nothing would change.

Well, one thing would. The Islamists would have succeeded at turning the UN into an organ for promoting their agenda. Today it's cartoons, tomorrow the sale of pork, next week burkas for everyone. That might be the final straw for some Western nations to drop the UN altogether.

Maybe that would not be such a bad thing.

Who knows? If that were the outcome, the Grand Imam might get support for his silly idea from some unexpected quarters.

Hockey game? Afghanistan?

A week back, there was a story of aids urging Stephen Harper to make a special trip to witness the Canadian Olympic hockey team playing in Italy.

I didn't wite about it at the time, but I remember thinking that this was such a lightweight fluff trip, and that I would feel slightly disappointed that a hockey game would be Stephen Harper's debut on the international stage.

Looks like I can shelve that disappointment:

Stephen Harper is considering one of the most chaotic corners of Afghanistan for his first foreign trip as prime minister.

The Taliban stronghold of Kandahar is being weighed against a more genteel option - visits with the presidents of the U.S. and Mexico - for Harper's first trip abroad in office. Harper began considering Kandahar late last month after his federal election win, at the urging of senior military brass.

He was told that such a visit would send a strong message about his commitment to the Armed Forces and about Canada's desire to make a difference in the world.

Brilliant idea. Not only for the reasons listed. A strong message would go to Washington -- Canada is on the ground, and they are working for Canada, not the Americans. I think the US would appreciate that.

A strong message would go to Canadians -- you might think same-sex marriage or money for healthcare define Canada, but you'd be wrong. Canada will make a difference in the world not by participating in conferences on social policy but by taking on the people who threaten all those things, on the ground and in their own backyard.

You want Canada to defend your favourite government handout? Then defend those who defend Canada.

Sounds like Stephen Harper is going to do exactly that.

It'll be interesting to see, should this trip happen, what if any criticism comes of it, and from where.

Respect for respect

From CBS News (via NealeNews):

In Islamabad, former U.S. President Bill Clinton criticized the cartoons but said Muslims wasted an opportunity to build better ties with the West by holding violent protests.

"I can tell you most people in the United States deeply respect Islam ... and most people in Europe do," he said. Mr. Clinton was visiting to sign an agreement with Pakistan's government on an HIV-AIDS project by his charitable foundation.

I beg to differ with the ex-President. Deep respect? Very, very doubtful. Before the cartoon furor, respect for Islam as a religion was tenuous, at best, with the lurking fear of Islamic-inspired terrorism undermining whatever respect, or at least tolerance, there existed.

If respect for Islam was at a low point, it was in part because the weak response by most Islamic nations to terrorism originating within their borders (and in some case, the active support of that terrorism) meant that the respect was not earned.

Muslims don't get it -- Islam doesn't get a free ride. Westerners do not respect Islam just because Muslims say we have to, no matter what. That fundamental disconnect is a major problem in establishing a dialogue.

But there is another reason respect is at a low point. For that, I blame Westerners who claim to be respectful.

In Denmark, we Westerners indulged in a time-honoured tradition of satirizing authority. This time, the target was Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

All hell breaks loose. We are not surprised.

Nor are we surprised by the death threats, the bounties, the fires.

But we are surprised by the spinelessness exhibited by most of our media, trying to hide their cowardice behind "respect". The sheer inability of the media to stand up and protect their own freedoms makes us all wonder what role they should be playing in protecting any freedoms.

Cowardice masquerading as respect.

When respect is used as an excuse to allow our freedoms to be trampled by those whose goals is to substitute those freedoms for totalitarianism, it should come as no surprise few people are bothered if they are accused of lacking respect.

If that's what it means to be respectful, count me out.

Being disrespectful becomes a badge of honour, since it separates those from the others who sully the notion of respect by equating it to capitulation.

That's too bad. There is a role for respect to play here -- those in the West for Islamic sensibilities, and for those in the Islamic world for the freedoms enjoyed in multi-religious democracies. I don't think for a minute that the solution is going to be easy -- my fear is that a true clash of civilizations is upon us, and that no cohabitation is possible in the long run.

If that's the case, respect will play a role when the West triumphs (and I'm certain it will), as it did at the end of World War II. The lack of respect at the close of World War I is pointed to as a proximate cause for the rise of fascism and Nazism. If we want to avoid that mistake again, we had better protect our capacity to truly respect something. As it is, we are devaluing the concept, and we will regret the day when "respect" is the province only of the weak and fearful.

Stockwell Day: Busy guy

Besides his eye-opening briefing on the real numbers behind the gun registry, the new Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has many other irons in the fire:

Stockwell Day is considering a U.S.-style armed border patrol to stop "bad guys" getting into Canada.

The newly appointed Public Safety Minister has solicited proposals to bring an armed presence to the border.

One of the ideas being considered is for a separate armed border patrol, Day said in an interview.

"The fact is we don't want border guards to feel they have to leave their posts because they feel unsafe," he said.

Last month, about 20 unarmed border officers fled from their posts at the Peace Arch border crossing after they learned that two U.S. murder suspects were headed their way.

Twelve years of Liberal government -- nothing. Stockwell Day hasn't been minister for twelve days and already there is honest discussion.

But that's not all.

On Air India:

Yesterday, he also confirmed plans to go ahead with a full, judicial inquiry into the Air India disaster.

"We owe the families that, and we owe that to Canadians," he said.

On terrorists:

Day also pledged to list the Tamil Tigers as a banned terrorist organization in Canada.

On the cartoons:

Day also said yesterday he understands Muslims are upset over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. But he said free speech allows people to question all religions.

The first skeleton

From AM 940 out of Montreal:

Canadians will be shocked by the true cost of the federal government's ill-fated gun registry, says new Public Security Minister Stockwell Day.

Day told The Canadian Press that figures bureaucrats have shown him during briefings for his new portfolio are much higher than previously thought. He would not divulge what the tab is, but said it's upsetting.

"Some of these numbers, when we get out all the numbers and when the auditor general releases them all very soon, eyebrows are going to go up," he said Thursday.

The first of what might be many Liberal skeletons to come tumbling out of the closet looks like the Gun Registry.

Who had Gun Registry in the Skeleton Pool?

When the Liberals added the registry to the federal gun control program in 1995, they said it would cost taxpayers no more than $2 million. But the most recent estimates put the figure in the hundreds of millions of dollars, bringing the total cost of the gun program to more than $1 billion.

At last estimate, the gun program was said to be consuming $90 million a year to maintain.

I am still baffled that we can track cows and cars and trains and planes without too much trouble, but a billion or two or more to track guns? And these are rifles and shotguns, overwhelmingly held in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The former Public Safety minister, Anne McLellan, did not win her seat on January 23. So she will be able to hide behind the excuse that she is private citizen now, and thus we might have trouble getting answers to questions. But the silver lining is that if she uses that excuse, she can't very well respond either. Depending on what the Conservatives find and what the auditor reveals, Anne McLellan could be tagged with a major part of the blame.

Good luck finding work in this town ever again.

The Anglican Church in Canada: Trying to maintain the faith

A schism, and a schism within a schism, is starting to form in Ottawa.

A blogger gets sued

NealeNews reports a blogger being sued by Warren Kinsella.

Time for me to ride in to the rescue? Sorry, but not this time.

From OttawaWatch:

Actually, the Liberal lobbyist and self-styled political asskicker wants $600,000. Should I write him a cheque or fight this thing? Hmm... write a cheque... fight this thing???

Um, I think I'll fight it.

Looks like we're going to court, folks. Should be an interesting ride.

First off, you've got more than those two options.

My advice? Contact Warren's lawyers, and apologize for your mistake.

Yes, you stepped into it:

Mr. Bourrie's entry on Ottawa Watch at 4:15 a.m. on January 14, 2006 read, in part:

And they remember Kinsella was executive assistant to Pulis [sic] Works minister (sic] David "I'm entitled to my entitlements" Dingwall. Kinsella was the guy who foisted Chuck Guite on the bureaucracy. He was a key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal. And that scandal is about half the reason Paul Martin is on the skids.

Key actor? Unindicted co-conspirator? The Smoking Man?

I think bloggers forget that for a lot of people, blogs are hard news sources. They aren't, of course, but that perception means that if you call someone a "key actor", people are going to walk away with the idea that this person ran the program in some nefarious way.

Where's the link to a source that claims Kinsella are a "key actor" in some way, shape, or form? The Gomery Report said the Kinsella memo described the structure of the program (as I recall), but as any engineer knows, the best design in the world will not protect you against lousy implementation.

I don't see where Kinsella were ever involved in the implementation or management of the program. The program started two years after he left government, for crying out loud.

Warren Kinsella is a lawyer, people. That means he can lose his means of feeding his four kids just on the rumour that he was responsible in some way for something illegal.

Is he thin-skinned? I don't think so. But this sort of thing is serious business.

Is he greedy? I don't think so. The $600,000 is just to get your attention. All he really wants, I'd guess, is a very public correction. Apparently, he wants it very badly. And since it looks like Ottawa Watch was sloppy in the way he characterized things, a correction is the least he can do.

If he offers one quickly, the odds are better that that is all he'll have to do.

Flumian Confusion

From the Prime Minister's website:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was pleased to announce today the following changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service. The changes reflect the smaller, more streamlined Cabinet structure of the new government:

Maryantonett Flumian, currently Deputy Minister of Service Canada, becomes Deputy Head of Service Canada and Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

But at Service Canada, the move is described slightly differently:

On February 7, 2006, Maryantonett Flumian was appointed Deputy Head of Service Canada. She also continues to serve as Vice-Chairperson of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

Prior to this, she was Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Social Development Canada, and the Deputy Minister of Labour.

The Service Canada bio suggests that she is no longer the Associate Deputy Minister of HRSDC and Deputy Minister of Labour.

In fact, the Deputy Minister of Labour is Munir Sheikh.

So has Flumian been moved out of HRSDC?

Well, a few things. First, part of the "move" is related to a name change. Human Resources and Skills Development is now Human Resources and Social Development. That would explain this "announcement":

Alan Nymark, currently Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, becomes Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

So part of the announcement has to do with title changes, and not promotions. But what about being appointed Deputy Head of Service Canada?

Well, that decision was taken some time back, and not in the three weeks since the election.

Flumian's name came up in September of 2005, being appointed by Prime Minister Paul Martin to the head of Service Canada:

From Hansard:

Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport-Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, faced with the sponsorship scandal, the federal government is not learning from its mistakes. The Prime Minister just appointed as head of Service Canada the very person who was in charge of the gun registry, another scandal involving nearly $2 billion for which his government will soon have to answer.

How can the Prime Minister explain his choice in appointing such a mediocre manager as the head of Service Canada?

So who appointed Flumian to be head of Service Canada? Stephen Harper, or Paul Martin? Is this one of those inertia things, where a ball starts rolling in September under one administration, then comes to rest in February at the beginning of the next?

Finally, is this a promotion? "Deputy minister" is the highest unelected official in a ministry. In the British system, that role is titled "permanent undersecretary", which helps describe it better. It is the bureaucrat who remains, permanently, as governments change. It is a role that defines apolitical continuity.

Everyone else, including "deputy head", reports ultimately to the deputy minister.

Being appointed "deputy head" doesn't sound like a promotion over "assistant deputy minister" and certainly not over "deputy minister".

The wheels of the bureaucracy continue to turn even as governments rise and fall. It is a strength in Western-style democracies that the civil service is generally apolitical, meaning that government services continue despite elections and changes in government. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will have to review all the functions in government, and the people responsible for them, and make some hard decisions about both. But that will take time, and I expect that the new government will be compelled to implement some Liberal decisions, simply because they have no choice to do otherwise, practically speaking.

No choice...yet.

Blogworthy but not newsworthy

If you read blogs and other online news sources, you'd think that the Tories were crumbling over the cabinet controversy.

However, it would appear that most people aren't reading blogs. Maybe it's a good thing. Take this poll from Ipsos:

Majority Approval For Harper Government

Harper Conservative Government Approval (54%) Well Above Party's Support in Recent Election (36%)
Canadians Split on Recent Cabinet Appointments

February 13, 2006

Toronto, ON - As Stephen Harper and the Conservatives move through their first week in office, a new Ipsos Reid/CanWest Global poll shows a majority of Canadians approve of the new government’s performance so far. Canadians are somewhat less supportive of the new government’s cabinet appointments.

Interesting. Not the government has actually done much yet, but it does suggest that people either aren't paying much attention to the cabinet controversy, or that they've dismissed the criticism as over the top.

I'm not a subsriber, so I couldn't get the poll details. But since the poll was done for CanWest Global, I figured I could find the news story that went with it.

Except there doesn't seem to be one.

Interesting. The Tories are enjoying over 50% support, in spite of the cabinet appointments, or maybe because of them, and it isn't newsworthy.

What if?

What if Al Gore has prevailed in the US election in 2000? Does anyone really think George W Bush would be doing anything like this?

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Note that Al Gore attended the forum after the Saudis had disinvited the Danish delegation over the Muhammad cartoons. No matter that these Danes did not represent the paper in question. They were Danes, and that was bad enough. Did Al Gore then refuse to attend to protest this racist move? Did Al Gore refuse to attend to make a stand for free speech, a theme he plays up a lot in his criticisms of the Patriot Act?

Of course not. Instead he delivers the anti-American screed just quoted to his Saudi buddies.

The Captain weighs in:

I'm stunned almost to speechlessness. We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where? What exactly were the "unforgivable" conditions of which Gore speaks? And as far as the visas go, when exactly did Saudis have a right to enter the United States at whim without any consideration of security? Perhaps the former VP has forgotten, but most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

Though history would no doubt have proceeded differently after 9/11 had Al Gore been president, in the immediate aftermath, a vetting of all Saudi citizens in the country would have occurred regardless.

It's just common sense given that 12 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Give the US credit for not performing a wholesale "roundup" -- it would have happened in many countries in the same circumstances. One country in which indiscriminate roundups would have happened? Saudi Arabia. Of that I have no doubt.

But back to the original thought. What if Al Gore won Florida in 2ooo?

I have to wonder if George W Bush and other senior Republicans would be popping up in the heart of the Islamic world to denounce America. Somehow I doubt it.

First Air India, then Adscam, next the Tainted Blood Scandal?

Recall the Air India Inquiry and trial ended up with nothing:

The Canadian government's trial of those accused of the bombing, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, is known as the Air India Trial. The investigation and prosecution took almost twenty years and was the costliest in Canadian history at nearly CAD $130 million. On March 16, 2005, the accused were found not guilty by Justice Ian Josephson in British Columbia and were released.

And now this, via CNN (since our major news sites are focusing on Wayne Gretzky and David Emerson):

The case against four physicians and a pharmaceutical company accused of failing to properly screen blood that infected thousands of Canadians with HIV and hepatitis was in jeopardy Monday after a key witness cast doubt on some evidence.

After years of investigation and delay, opening arguments were set to begin in the criminal trial of New Jersey-based Armour Pharmaceutical Co.; the former medical director of the Canadian Red Cross, Dr. Roger Perrault; two other Canadian physicians and one from the United States.

But Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto was told that a key medical witness recruited by the prosecution has questioned some evidence against Perrault and the two other Canadian physicians and believes the three may not be criminally negligent.

Benotto agreed to adjourn the trial until February 21 while both sides interview Dr. Graham Dukes, an English regulatory expert who arrived in Toronto during the weekend.

Dukes, a lawyer, medical doctor and professor of pharmaceutical policy at the University of Oslo in Norway, said in a preliminary review of the case that the charges against the accused appeared to be well-founded.

But in his final draft report of last week, Dukes said: "I do not believe that there is, in the documentary evidence available to me, a sufficient basis for the criminal charges against the blood transfusion service and its directors."

If the principles in this case are innocent, then justice is served. But that leaves two uncomfortable truths. Our investigative branch of the justice system in unable to indentify the guilty parties, or the prosecutorial branch cannot make the charges stick against those who are guilty.

And as we learned in the Sponsorship Scandal, guilt in these bigger-than-life cases doesn't necessarily lead to punishment:

Advertising executive Paul Coffin is given a conditional sentence of two-years-less-a-day to be served in the community. Coffin had pleaded guilty to 15 fraud charges in May. As part of his sentence, he is ordered to observe a curfew of 9 p.m. on weekdays and to speak publicly about his experience. The Crown had sought a sentence of 34 months in prison. Coffin admitted defrauding the federal government by taking $1.5 million between 1997 and 2002 for doing little or no work. By the time of his sentencing, he had paid back about $1 million.

The CBC: "Go read blogs!"

A billion dollars a year, and the best the CBC can do is tell us to go read blogs to get the news.

I wish I got a billion dollars a year to run this site.

From the interview between the CBC's Harry Forestell and Ezra Levant concerning the decision to publish the Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard (starting at the 0:31 mark of the video interview):

EL: ...I don't mean to be rude Harry, but why hasn't the CBC shown the cartoons?

HF: You could easily cover that news without showing the cartoons.

EL: Well, I'm not sure "easily" because you wouldn't know what the cartoons are like.

HF: They've been published elsewhere and are available on the Internet...

OK, if I was on the board of governors of the CBC, I'd be apoplectic. Did Harry Forestell just tell a national CBC audience to change the channel, or get their news from blogs?!

Heck, I'm paying for the CBC with my taxes. I'm mad too! What the hell...can I get a tax credit for every nugget of news I get from someplace other than the CBC? Maybe the CBC can publish a list of links. Starting with Fox News Channel.

Is this what the CBC is going to be like going forward? Saving a buck by making sure they don't repeat news?

Of course not. What Harry Forestell said is CBC policy in this situation: if the story involves danger, the CBC will simply avoid the scary bits. The CBC audience will have face whatever dangers exist in gathering the news for themselves, while the CBC will provide...what? A safe workplace for its on-air personalities?

Harry Forestell is wrong, which makes it even worse. The cartoons are available on the Internet. But so are fakes. When any of us tune in to the news, part of the reason is that we are looking for news from a trusted source. Harry Forestell and his team of crack CBC reporters and researchers will vet the cartoons, confirm the accuracy of the images, filter out the lies and half-truths, and present to us an accurate picture.

But for this story, the CBC has decided to let the audience do that job. For what it's worth, hopefully the shameful exchange will make some people realize that maybe the CBC is not all that relevant as a source of news for Canadians.

Don't take my word on it. Ask Harry Forestell.

Urging the Western Standard to reconsider

One the lead stories in Canada today is news that the Western Standard will be publishing the Muhammad cartoons in today's issue.

Of course, Canadian Muslims are not happy:

Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.

"It's unfortunate," said Elmasry, who had urged [pubisher Ezra] Levant not to republish the images. "I think he really goes against the will and the values of Canadians by this provocative action."

I contacted Ezra to ask him how exactly Elmasry urged him. What arguments did he use?

Apparently, "urging" Ezra constituted putting Ezra on the "cc" list for the news release.

That's it. Not even a direct email, but an offhand copy.

Here's what I think. If Elmasry really want to stop the publication, he would have made a major effort. A conversation with Ezra, maybe even a meeting. If Ezra held the line, then maybe more discussions about how to manage the reaction to make sure no one got hurt.

I think Elmasry is happy to see the cartoons published. Why? Well, that would be further speculation, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine a a leader of a Muslim community looking to use the cartoons as a way to further his own agenda, perhaps earn some extra respect inside the community.

As it is, Elmasry is in the news. He gets some exposure, babble on about hate crimes, and generally act like a castrated Taliban, looking for the Calgary police to do his dirty work.

I wonder how all those offended Muslims would feel if they knew exactly how much effort Elmasry put into preventing this insult to the Prophet from happening.

Go home to the Liberals

He doesn't steal any money. He doesn't offer cabinet posts as candy to entice weak-willed MPs to his side for the sake of a vote. He doesn't ignore non-confidence votes for a week while looking for that extra vote. He runs on ideas and on policy instead of lies and fears and smears. He reaches out and gains support from every region of the country.

He pulls together a cabinet out of the best offered to him by all the voters in this country and not just those who voted for him. This includes someone from another party, universally seen as qualified for the post, even perhaps the best man for the post.

He has broken no rules. Indeed, he has used all the rules to explore all the possibilities, instead of being constrained by narrow thinking and the regularly beaten path.

He has made brave decisions and creative ones, instead of safe and conventional ones.

For that his supporters, especially those online, have excoriated him, called for the resignation of his cabinet minister, called his ethics into question, called his ability to lead into doubt.

And why? Because he has led where few have gone, those who had preceded him content to be conventional and parochial, beholden to traditions that had led us to the state of affairs that dominated the last dozen years and more.

So now we face this:

Liberals are dreaming about a speedy return to power after watching the disastrous opening week of Stephen Harper's new Conservative administration.

[Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham] said the opening week has stiffened Liberals' resolve to oppose the Conservative agenda, even if it means toppling the government.

"We're going to oppose those measures that we find are not in the interests of Canada and Canadians and we'll oppose them all the way," Graham said.

"And if that leads to the government falling, it's going to lead to the government falling. And the way they're making their decisions it's clear that could happen earlier rather than later just given the nature of what they're doing."

All last week, disappointed Tory MPs voiced muted disapproval while disgusted Conservative bloggers across the country railed against the cabinet choices, particularly the perceived hypocrisy and opportunism of Emerson's defection only days after winning re-election as a Liberal.

Hey, I think the Liberals are overestimating the Emerson effect. But if the Liberals are being a bit over the top, it's in large part because they've been cheered on by largely conservative bloggers and columnists who, in my opinion, have the political sophistication of barnyard chickens. They have an understanding of the rules of Parliament and the roles of the people who make up that body that makes me wonder how they they justify calling themselves observers of the political process.

The problem with being over the top is that it can be self-fulfilling. An unjustified confidence leads to gutsy moves that in the random and chaotic world of politics might actually pay off. The tenuous grip on power currently enjoyed by the Conservatives might slip in the face of an overly aggressive Liberal Party. If it gives way, we can thank the cheap shots taken by the friends and supporters of the Conservatives, shocked that politics is not as pure as the driven snow, that it is made up of compromises and of hard choices, and that people who play it well play for the long haul focused on the results that will be enjoyed months from the present, if not years.

Instead people are still in election-mode, looking ahead weeks, days, maybe only hours. The election campaign finished on January 23. Since November, we've been looking ahead weeks, then days, then hours. Starting on January 24, we should have reset our focus on the years ahead. But most of us haven't, it seems.

And for that mistake, we might be handing the Liberals, the masters of short-term poll-driven politicking, the opportunity to deny the Conservatives the one thing they need to succeed, and that is time. Stephen Harper will be the sort of prime minister that shows his strength over time, in the same way his leadership of the Tories was seen as a mistake early on by many, and now recognized to have been the best thing to have happened to the party by most.

Imagine what this country could be like if Stephen Harper is given years to fulfill his program. Then wonder about the opportunity squandered because you panicked at the first sign of risk-taking leadership.

Too scary for you? Then go home to the Liberals. They'll make you feel safe, for a price of course. That's what they do best. Keep up with the sheepish bleating, and you might very well get the chance to do exactly that.

Sacrilege!

No, this isn't about the cartoons.

This is something truly offensive. It is a story of wasted tax money, of taking advantage of a bureaucracy asleep at the switch, and of an embarrassing epsiode kept quiet until revealed by the press.

Breathe easy -- it's not Canada this time. It's in the US. In New York. At Ground Zero.

If you care about freedom

If you care about freedom, you will go tomorrow to your favourite magazine vendor and pick up a copy of the Western Standard:

Cartoon jihad news

We're publishing them in our next issue, which rolls off the press on Monday. Looks like a small Calgary newspaper beat us to it.

Posted by Ezra Levant on February 11, 2006 at 08:16 AM

This is important. It matters. Don't be shy. And for goodness sake, don't be intimidated.

Paying the piper

Buzz Hargrove decided to dance with the Liberals, and now the piper is demanding payment:

The NDP has expelled Buzz Hargrove, the country's most prominent labour leader, for actively promoting strategic voting and Liberal candidates in last month's federal election.

The Ontario NDP provincial executive voted yesterday to pull the membership of Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, for violating the party's constitution regarding provisions against endorsing other candidates. It also automatically revokes his membership in the federal party.

And Hargrove's reaction?

"I was shocked and surprised," said Hargrove, who has held an NDP membership card for 41 years. "I never had any warning that this was coming or being debated. I never had a chance to speak."

I'm a member of party X, and a very visible member. I tell people not to vote for party X.

And I'm surprised that they would put a big X through my membership?

Does this spell a period of tension, if not outright fighting, between the NDP and the CAW? I don't think so:

The CAW, the country's biggest private-sector union with more than 260,000 members, overwhelmingly endorsed strategic voting after a recommendation from Hargrove and a lively debate at a national council meeting in December.

After the vote, Hargrove gave then-prime minister Paul Martin a union jacket and the two hugged on stage.

The decision, and Hargrove's high profile in the campaign at Liberal events, infuriated many long-time NDP activists, other union leaders, workers and CAW members. Some carried anti-Hargrove placards at rallies or vented their anger in letters. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union distributed buttons with the message: "Buzz Off. I'm Voting NDP."

They argued that such a strategy would bend a person's political principles and make it difficult for a third party to win an election if supporters are voting for another party all the time.

Furthermore, they said the Liberals and Martin cut social and employment insurance programs that hurt workers during their 13 years in power.

Seems more likely that there will be tension, if not outright fighting, between the leadership and the rank of file of the CAW and perhaps other unions as well.

Of course, there are bigger questions here. Should unions be endorsing parties in the first place? How about the use of membership dues as donations? A business association can endorse a candidate and make a donation, but membership in the association is voluntary. Membership in a union is not voluntary should you chose to work in a union shop. How about the use of union workers to "volunteer" on campaigns?

Is the problem that Buzz Hargrove endorsed the Liberals? Or that he's endorsing anyone? Can a union member who wants to vote for a Liberal or Conservative or Bloc candidate lose his union status if he mentions his voting intention at work? If he defends it?

But they didn't elect an independent in Halton

From the Ottawa Sun (via Bourque):

Conservative MP Garth Turner is contemplating leaving his caucus over the backlash from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's officials, angry at his public criticism of Liberal turncoat David Emerson's appointment to cabinet.

In his online blog, Turner says he had a series of "unhappy meetings" with caucus officials Thursday over his comments, including one with Harper, who demanded he publicly support the appointment.

The Halton MP said party officials have made him feel unwelcome, and have caused him to reconsider sitting in the Commons under the Tory banner.

I suppose he's being true to his principles...sort of:

Turner said he would continue to sit as an MP and represent Halton if he does decide to bolt to the Tory caucus.

Now how many people in Halton voted Conservative because they wanted a Conservative MP to represent them? How many voted for Turner only because they figured the Conservatives were going to win nationally, and wanted to be certain that whatever MP they had in the riding, he was on the government benches and in the governing party caucus?

We don't know, do we? Maybe we should find out. Now how do we find out. I've got it! We'll have a by-election!

By Turner's reasoning, his change in status should trigger a by-election, with Turner running as an independent, to gauge whether the constituents in Halton really want an independent MP representing them.

Funny that he doesn't mention that.

On election night in Halton, less than 15% of the vote went to neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives. So it seems that the people in Halton aren't enamoured by third parties, or logically, by independents. Moreover, it was a tight race, with less than 3% of the popular vote separating Turner from Liberal Gary Carr. So it doesn't look like a big love-in for Garth Turner either.

I can see why Garth Turner would not be eager to have a potential decision to change his status as a parliamentarian put to the test in a by-election. And yet he wants to force all other parliamentarians to undergo exactly the same test in this situation.

You would think that if Garth Turner were so much more honourable than David Emerson, he would willingly submit himself to the judgment of his constituents, to set an example. Indeed, he should run his by-election campaign on this very issue. It's only fair, since he clearly believes it's in the interests of his constituents to remove himself from caucus. He could use this as an opportunity to show all of Canada that at least in his riding, people are consumed by the Emerson affair, and are demanding an MP willing to make the changes Turner is proposing.

I eagerly wait for the announcement of Turner's voluntary resignation from caucus, his resignation as an MP, his announcement to run as an independent, his landslide win on the issue of by-elections, and his triumphant return to the House of Commons.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Olympic captions

Iconic? To be iconic, something has to have "conventional formulaic style".

In what executive producer Marco Bacilli described as an "iconic moment," silver-clad dancers appeared with big, white bubbles stuck to their heads. Bacilli, who has staged concert shows for U2 and the Rolling Stones, said the balls signified snow, of which there is none in Turin.

Can you imagine not ever having experienced snow, and being introduced to it by this?

"Oh my God! The snow's coming! The snow is marching on us!"

Which of course suggests a caption contest. The prize? Only the hope that Marco Bacilli continues to produce iconic silliness.

Empty bravado

A blast of hot air from South America:

Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, has called Tony Blair "the main ally of Hitler" and called on him to return the Falkland Islands to Argentina.

As part of an ongoing verbal dispute, Mr Chavez said the islands belonged to Argentina and demanded Britain give them back.

Speaking in the western Venezuelan city of Maracaibo, he added: "Those islands are Argentina's. Return them, Mr Blair. Those islands are Argentina's."

Give them back? Why don't you tell the Argentinians to simply take them back?

Oh yeah, they tried that. An expeditionary force at the end of a supply line an astonishing 8000 miles long came to kick them off the islands in their own backward, and did exactly that.

Yeah, Chavez, you keep talking trash. But don't be demanding anything.

The Franco-Phoney

What do these countries have in common?

• Austria: German, Slovene, Croation, Hungarian
• Poland: Polish, other (less than 3%)
• Georgia: Georgian, Russian, Armenian, Azeri, other
• Albania: Albanian (of the Tosk variety), Greek, Vlach, Romani, other Slav dialects
• Moldova: Moldovan (same as Romanian), Russian, Gagauz
• Bulgaria: Bulgarian, Turkish, Roma, unspecified (less than 2%)

That's right! These overwhelmingly non-French speaking nations are all members of the Francophonie.

What I like to call the Franco-Phoney.

The last two, Moldova and Bulgaria, are full members.

Bulgaria?

Why should we care? Because Stephen Harper is taking heat for appointing an MP who is only just learning French to assist the minister of La Francophonie.

Eet eez an eenzult!

Actually, I'm insulted that Stephen Harper didn't just yank Canada out of this ridiculous organization.

Newspapers should not print material that puts people's lives in danger

The rule not to use the media to put people's lives in danger seems to be selectively applied.

News from AFP:

A top Taliban commander offered a reward of 100 kilograms of gold to anyone who kills the person responsible for "blasphemous" cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) reported.

If someone killed the cartoonist responsible for the cartoons in Denmark, the "Taliban will give 100 kilograms (244 pounds) of gold," Mullah Dadullah said in a telephone call to AIP from an unknown location, the Pakistan-based private news agency reported on Wednesday.

Dadullah also said the Taliban would give five kilograms of gold to anyone who killed a Danish, Norwegian or German soldier, AIP said.

So all we have to do is develop a warhead capable of tracking large concentrations of gold.

OK, seriously.

Here's the irony. A editor of a newspaper prints a doodle of a guy in a turban, and he is accused of irresponsibly putting people's lives in danger. On the other hand, another editor allowing his media outlet to spread the word that the death of this unarmed doodler will net you almost US$1,800,000, well, that's entirely different.

Truth, justice, and the EU way

A European Union commissioner suggests a way to help soothe feelings over the Muhammad cartoons, but in doing so, he is not being even-handed even though he wants to treat all religious sensibilities with equal respect.

It's a subtle point, but he is fulfilling Islamic expectations only.

Canadian campus police take sides with Islamists

Shocking. Not surprising, perhaps, given Canada's tradition in recent years to value inoffensiveness over individual freedom, but I'm idealistic enough to still be shocked:

The Cadre, UPEI's student newspaper has published the twelve infamous editorial cartoons that criticized aspects of Islam.

At the request of president Wade MacLauchlan, university administrators have removed all 2,000 copies of the paper from campus.

My God! It is something straight out of George Orwell's 1984. Thought police rounding up newspapers in order to suppress knowledge and keep the populace in peaceful complacency:

“When we realized that they were in circulation, we acted to round up the copies that were in circulation,’’ said UPEI president Wade MacLauchlan.

“We see it as a reckless invitation to public disorder and humiliation.’’

Since when is the UPEI president become responsible for the behaviour of others? If Catholics were to threaten to demonstrate against an advertisement for Planned Parenthood, would Wade MacLauchlan hoover up all the offensive papers?

How many violent riots against the Muhammad cartoons have there been in Canada? And how many on Prince Edward Island?

Worse yet, the newspaper school blog is no longer allowed to discuss the cartoons or comment on the banned paper:

The UPEI Student Union has withdrawn support of this week's issue of The Cadre and has also stated that Weblogs@UPEI "are no longer accepting comments on the cartoon issue" CTV's Steve Murphy noted during his broadcast tonight that it appears that they are now "censoring discussion about censorship".

In 2002, Concordia University allowed Palestinian radicals to run amok, ultimately forcing the cancellation of a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. A one-time thing? Of course not. In 2004, Concordia decided that nothing had changed:

Concordia University’s decision last week to reject Hillel’s request to host former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak on campus opened a floodgate of protest.

Rabbi Reuben Poupko, a well-known community activist and spiritual leader of Beth Israel Beth Aaron Congregation, attended the rally in support of the students. “Through its actions, this university has made a clear admission that it cannot guarantee a safe environment for a distinguished speaker like Ehud Barak,” Poupko said prior to the rally. “They have also told us that any anti-Israel speakers are allowed to come here, but that pro-Israel speakers would cause a riot and are therefore denied access.” [emphasis added]

So there it goes. Muslims riot. Muslims burn. Muslims rampage. And Muslims get their way.

The rest of us act in a civilized manner. Our reward? In the institution that most symbolizes civilization, the university, we concede to the barbarians without even a semblance of resistance.

Gretzky gambling shocker

I'll have more to say about this, but for now, you might find this interesting -- the summons issue by the State of New Jersey for Richard Tocchet on the charge of transporting over $75,000 in proceeds from an illegal gambling operation.

From the New Jersey Star-Ledger (via Bourque):

State wiretaps in the unfolding NHL betting scandal caught Wayne Gretzky discussing the multimillion-dollar gambling operation run by his friend Rick Tocchet before the ring was dismantled Monday, according to law enforcement sources.

The State Police charged Tocchet and Trooper James E. Harney on Monday with money laundering, promoting gambling and conspiracy for taking big-money bets on football and basketball games from NHL players and Gretzky's wife. Harney, who was suspended from his $75,477 a year job, also was charged with official misconduct for accepting wagers while patrolling the southern end of the New Jersey Turnpike.

This is going to be nasty.

NDP child-care bill: Consequences and motives

The NDP are going to come out of the gates in the spring with legislation to set national standards for child-care.

They are playing politics with our kids.

Now they want to write our laws

From the Jerusalem Post:

The leader of Hizbullah, heading a march by hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims on Thursday, said US President George W. Bush and his secretary of state should "shut up" after they accused Syria and Iran of fueling protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

"There can be no settlement before an apology and there can be no settlement before laws are legislated by the European Parliament and the parliaments of European countries," [Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah] said.

Islamic nations should demand "a law committing the press and the media in the West that proscribes insulting our prophet. If this matter cannot be achieved that means [the West] insists on continuing this," he added.

Normally I would scoff at Nasrallah's ridiculous demand. A law indeed. This from the leader of terrorist organization.

I wonder what sort of law would please Nasrallah. I wonder how many body parts need to be lopped off before he is satisfied that the law is sufficient to the task of punishing doodlers and cartoonists.

But I worry that the same sort of people who have written our ridiculous hate crime legislation, the kind that earns a person a fine for calling someone names, are contemplating exactly this sort of thing.

I wouldn't put it past them.

Of course, such a law would have to be carefully tuned. You would have to ban any insults directed at Muslims, allow Muslims but not one else to insult Jews, and make sure it is open season on Christians.

Who said racial profiling doesn't work?

From Reuters (via NealeNews):

The United States and its allies thwarted an al Qaeda plot after the September 11 attacks to use bombs hidden in shoes to breach the cockpit door of an airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, President George W. Bush said on Thursday.

So what was the twist in the plan?

Rather than use Arab hijackers as in the September 11 attack, [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks,] "sought out young men from southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.

What people sometimes forget that is if you force the enemy to work harder, you are forcing him in a situation in which he will more likely make mistakes. The more he is forced to do, the more can go wrong.

Ideally Khalid would use young Arab men to carry out the attacks. He knew who to trust, he knew where security was weak or corrupt, he knew where he could rely on tribal or family connections.

But with the US on high alert for suspicious Arab men, he had to look farther afield:

"The plot was derailed in early 2002 when a southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative," Bush said in a speech.

Find any element of the enemy plan, any link in the chain, and apply pressure. If the enemy is forced to respond because you can apply effective pressure on an element where you have some control, you have created an opportunity to take the initiative and ultimately foil the plan.

The return of Cindy Sheehan?

Haven't posted much on this topic for a long time, but it looks like things might change:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is set to hold an 11 a.m. press conference Thursday in San Francisco regarding her potential run for the Senate.

Sheehan has considered running against current California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is up for re-election in November.

Sheehan gained national attention for holding a vigil outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch in 2005 for her son, Casey.

Casey Sheehan was a soldier killed in Iraq in April 2004.

By all accounts, Cindy Sheehan is not a great speaker (especially if she can't rely on four-letter words), nor is she particularly effective in interviews. On the issues, well, she essentially only has one -- the Iraq War. Her opinion on any other issue can be predicted by starting with the assertion that the United States is evil, and then extrapolating.

Economics? Trade? Law and order? The environment? There's a lot to being a senator.

And it costs a lot of money to run. The big donors looking between known quantity Feinstein and unpredictable radical Sheehan will know where to put their money.

Cindy Sheehan can expect donations from the Code Pink fringe, but then they will expect her to bring their concerns front and centre. Complete American withdrawal from world affairs. Abandonment of Israel. Wholesale disarmament. Appeasement of the Muslim radicals.

Remember that there are the people who ridiculed American soldiers recuperating in hospital.

So what Cindy Sheehan sees as support the voting public at large will see as serious baggage. If she tries to take on Feinstein, be ready to see all this and more brought back into the limelight in an attempt to cut Sheehan off at the knees. The Democratic Party was happy enough to use Sheehan when she was a thorn in President George W Bush's side, but if she makes a run at them, they will use every trick in the book, dirty and otherwise, to slap her down.

Give the president credit -- all he did was ignore her for five weeks. Sheehan hasn't seen a real fight yet.

Brave Muslim men

Note the courage of the men who would attack teenage girls.

Note the courage of the men who ran off instead of defending the girls.

Note the courage of the men who sentenced one of the girls to death.

Oh yeah, the brave Muslim:

An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls' boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

If Westerners mock Muslims, it is because they've earned every drop of disdain. The Iranian theocracy, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Sudan -- any place where Muslims win complete control to implement an Islamic paradise -- each is an damning example of why Sharia has no place in a civilized culture.

The system works

I give money to a merchant to deliver a product. The product does not perform as I expected. Do I yell at the product or the merchant who sold it to me?

When you cast your vote in a Canadian election, are you voting for your member of parliament or for the party he or she is running for?

Here's the answer -- you are voting for the member of parliament. Of course, you cast your vote with the party platform in mind (I certainly do), but the fact remains you are voting for your riding representative. If we truly had a system where we voted for parties, we would have party lists, with members selected based on the proportion of the popular vote. Israel has such a system.

We do not. We vote for the member of parliament. Some MPs win despite what party they run for, such a Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach.

So how does factor into the David Emerson mess?

From the Toronto Star:

Conservative Trade Minister David Emerson says he will not bow to demands that he resign the Vancouver seat he won two weeks ago as a Liberal -- nor will he pay back the money his former Liberal riding association says it is now owed.

Let's say you contributed money.

If you contributed to David Emerson, then congratulations, he won!

If you contributed to the Liberal Party, then like the person who paid for a product that did not work as expected, take it up with the Liberal Party. The party fielded Emerson. But at the end of the day, the problem is that you don't get it -- you can donate to the Liberal Party in your riding, but at the end of the day you are voting for a person, not a party.

When all is said and done, David Emerson received the plurality of votes in the riding to act as their representative. He was their representative two weeks ago. He is still their representative today. The system works.

Back on the air

Unexpectedly ill yesterday, requiring a quick trip to the hospital, and a day of recuperating. Sorry for the lack of posting. Back live by lunch.

The other side...

The issue of David Emerson's appointment to Stephen Harper's cabinet has most conservative bloggers furious. A doughty band of brother and sister bloggers have staked out the hill opposite, and on it they've hosted the flag that reads: "Hey, this makes sense!"

A small band, to be sure, but stout of heart. And not a single one a stooge of the Conservative Party, but each of us, based on the facts of the case, convinced that this was a good move, and possibly a brilliant move.

• small dead animals
• Stephen Taylor
• either orr (and here)
• Plattytalk
• M.K. Braaten
• The Phantom Observer
• Just between us girls
• Officially Screwed
• Greater Toronto Area Conservative
• Dark Blue Tory
• Japnaam Singh
• Captain's Quarters
• Black Sheep Press
• Cloud of Idiot Gas
• Strong World
• Blue Blogging Soapbox
• cerdipity
• Canadian Conservative
• Keeping the Liberals on the Outside
• This Canada
• The Potent Pew
• The Raw Life
• Peaktalk
• ChuckerCanuck
• The Hammer of Thor
• IAMalsoCanadian
• Alliance Reformist Conservatrice Canadienne
• Canadianna
• Hatrock's Cave
• ThePolitic
• The Great Pumpkin
• unsolicitedADVICE
• Upper Canada Catholic

I'll add to this list if you are a blogger who has posted a defense of Stephen Harper's cabinet decision on David Emerson.

One thing to note, though, is the civility of the disagreement. The debate has been overwhelmingly polite. Focus on the argument, not on the person. Thankfully, I don't see any reason to remind people of that.

The best is the enemy of the good

Glad I'm not alone on this:

For now, let's hope Harper employs every legal loophole, every opportunity, every bit of leverage at his disposal to keep the Liberals as disorganized, dazed and confused as possible.

Anything less would be political malpractice.

Though from what I've seen, it seems like small dead animals and Angry in the Great White North are virtually alone. Just about everyone on the right is dumping on David Emerson's appointment to Stephen Harper's cabinet, one even suggesting this is Canada's equivalent to the Harrier Miers nomination to the Supreme Court in the United States. [Correction: Apparently the comparison Wonder Woman was making was meant to only to cover the the power of blogging on a poorly considered nomination, not on any similarities between the nominations. Having said that, Paul Wells is making a more explicit comparison, so I will leave the rest of the text alone.]

This is silly. Harriet Miers was unqualified, and clearly a patronage apppointment by President George W Bush. David Emerson is very qualified, and Stephen Harper owes him nothing.

I saw this phrase on David Warren's blog: "The best is often the enemy of the good." Would it be best for Stephen Harper to find an expert on the softwood lumber issue from his own ranks, ranks sorely lacking urban representation by the way? Of course.

And if we hold out for the best, we'll end up with nothing.

Is David Emerson the best choice in an ideal world? No. But is he a good choice? Yes, and as long as Conservatives make good choices for good reasons in the pursuit of good goals, we'll be fine.

Remember, Stephen Harper is on record as being against rules that take away the ability of members of parliament to cross the floor. This was after the Belinda Stronach defection. He felt that such rules essentially transfer power to the party leaders, making it impossible for MPs to vote with their feet.

Sounds like a guy who supports democracy. And I can see his point. If MPs are hostages, then they'll be powerless.

Clearly though, I'm in a minority. Still, I'm used to being outnumbered.

I've created a category for this topic, by the way, since it seems like we might be talking about it for while longer.

But not too long, I hope.

It's time to start governing.

For those looking for a reason to like David Emerson

For those Conservatives struggling to understand that all MPs are candidates for cabinet, and who can't see the difference between selling a cabinet post to an MP of dubious qualifications in order to stave off a looming non-confidence vote versus putting an experienced MP in charge of a ministry in order, among other things, to provide continuity in ongoing delicate international negotiations, I'll offer another reason to cheer Stephen Harper's appointment of David Emerson to cabinet.

It makes Buzz Hargrove look like a putz.

From a Google cache of a deleted Liberal Party election page:

I especially want to repeat what I said this morning to the Prime Minister. When you look at the record of the minority government for the next 17 months that it would have served the interest of Canadians to continue for another 17 months. That's not in the cards. But if you look at the record, then every Canadian should agree. This minority government deserves to go back to Ottawa, with even bigger numbers. And look at the health care - over $30 billion put back into health care. Cities agenda - the gas tax that will help all the major cities and the municipalities across Canada. A national child care program. Social housing, including housing for Aboriginals. Same-sex legislation, only the third country in the world that had the courage to bring equality before the parliament of Canada. And Stephen Harper wants to change that and doesn't deserve the opportunity to change that. Support for our industries - for the auto industry. Over $900 million in support for this important industry under attack from offshore imports. Support for the aerospace industry. And I want to mention David Emerson, who is not here but boy, did he play a key role in some of these agreements. Recent training agreement, additional $600 million a year for workplace training. All in addition to the bankruptcy act. This has been one of the most productive parliaments in the history of our Canada.

Note how Hargrove goes out of his way to praise Emerson, even though Emerson is not in the room, and even though the meeting was held in Toronto, not even remotely close to Emerson's Vancouver riding.

So let's recap.

Hargrove dumps the NDP in favour of the Liberals. The Liberals lose their hold on power while the NDP gains seats.

Hargrove calls Stephen Harper a separatist. Support for separatism recedes while Stephen Harper builds the Conservatives into a real force for Canadian unity.

Hargrove singles out David Emerson for praise as a particularly effective Liberal MP for his key role in getting the business of government done. Two weeks after the election, Emerson dumps the Liberals and a potential leadership bid that might have enjoyed Buzz Hargrove's support.

Now only if Buzz Hargrove had said I was the worst blogger in the world. I'd probably be the new Instapundit today.

It's one thing to sacrifice yourself for your beliefs...

...but to sacrifice someone else, someone who has come to you for help, someone you are pledged to help?

From Forbes (via Malkin):

The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.

'We have taken a unanimous decision and it will be immediately implemented in Pakistan,' Rao told AFP.

'Doctors in the country are very motivated on this issue,' he said. 'We would use alternate medicines in future till a public apology comes from these countries.'

Pharmacists have also vowed not to sell such medicines, Rao said.

The association is advising patients against using medicines from the offending countries if they are mistakenly prescribed by doctors, he added.

So what is the medical tradition in the Muslim world? Death before infidel medicine? Hardly:

Q: Are there treatments or medications, which are refused by Muslims?

A: Some Muslim physicians believe that healthcare practitioners should do everything in their power to save a life. Others do not believe in prolonging life beyond that which God has ordained – there should be no attempt to artificially prolong life (or misery). Healthcare professionals are believed to be assisting God in the care of patients but should not try to replace God. There is great emphasis on the sanctity of life, but also on the reality of death and the will of God.

However, Muslim's [sic] also believe there is a cure for every disease. Even the implantation of a pig's heart may be considered acceptable, if it is a medical necessity. Also alcohol or pig-based medications can be used if there are not other comparable alternatives and the medications are deemed to be medically necessary.

Everything in their power. Even accepting medicines developed by scientists who have no direct responsibility for the Muhammad cartoons.

Sounds to me these doctors aren't very good Muslims. Perhaps a few beheadings are in order. I certainly don't condone beheadings -- I'm just trying to be culturally sensitive here.

Ill patients will die so that these doctors can make a point. Young and old -- taken by death over a cartoon. Denied medicine by a medical practitioner eager to curry favour with...who? Allah? Allah will be pleased to watch these people die in agony?

Maybe. Probably. He seems to be that sort of God, doesn't he?

Of course not everyone will be denied medicine. I bet there will be exceptions for the right people, especially those with money.

Emerson's people: Will they stay or will they go?

From reader dmorris on the issue of David Emerson crossing the floor to join Stephen Harper's Conservatives and to enter cabinet as Minister of International Trade:

I've always wondered; when a pol crosses the floor, what happens to all the folks in the background who worked for the candidate before his/her election, ie the campaign manager? What about the riding office staff? Are they all miraculously converted to their boss' new faith, or fired and replaced by members of his new party?

Under the Parliamentary system, the fiction we maintain is that we vote for a particular person to be our member of parliament. Parties are created once the people show up in parliament and see who shares their concerns. As such, the staff could certainly stay with the MP. In practise, of course, most of us are philosophically aligned with a party. If the MP switches sides, there will be plenty of people who would resign.

However, this case might be different.

Given Emerson's business background in the lumber industry and his focus (and continued focus in the new cabinet) on one issue, the softwood lumber dispute, I think a fair number of people would stay, more than usual is this sort of situation. They are committed to solving this problem for BC's lumber producers, and staying with Emerson means they can continue their work. From their point of view, they aren't working for Stephen Harper, as such, but for the people of British Columbia, especially those whose livelihood is tied to softwood lumber. If Stephen Harper is willing to give David Emerson the ability to continue his work on this file, why leave?

Indeed, if the relationship with the United States thaws as a result of Stephen Harper becoming prime minister, the chances that this dispute might finally be resolved might have improved significantly. For people committed to solving this problem, Emerson's crossing the floor is a shock, but a happy one.

How many of Emerson's people cringed when Paul Martin played the anti-American card during the election? Each one thinking that none of this helps Emerson reach some sort of modus vivendi with the US. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Emerson crossed the floor. Maybe he realized that his efforts were being undercut by his own party.

I can think of worse reasons to cross the floor than to complete the work you have started, and to reach a goal you firmly believe is attainable and that would benefit the people you represent.

Stephen Harper puts us in a pickle

How do we, supporters of the Conservatives and of Stephen Harper, respond to this?

Former Liberal industry minister David Emerson has crossed the floor to sit in Stephen Harper's Conservative cabinet.

The Vancouver MP and former head of lumber giant Canfor stunned onlookers when he arrived at Rideau Hall shortly before the Tory cabinet was to be announced.

A short while later he was sworn in as the new Conservative Minister of International Trade and the Minister responsible for the Olympic Games in Vancouver in 2010.

Damn. I wrote sometime back about the possibility of poaching some Liberals to the Conservative side, and I was generally against the idea, but I was specific:

Given that potential problems, maybe a minority that verges on a majority should be left well enough alone.

The situation I was describing was a near-majority. The Conservatives sitting at 152 seats or so. One or three converts, and a majority is formed.

My problem is when a conversion happens that dramatically alters the landscape of Parliament.

That happened when Belinda Stronach came over to the Liberals. That one-seat difference changed a non-confidence vote from a Liberal loss to a Liberal victory.

The problem is that when a conversion happens under those circumstances, the member of parliament crossing the floor wields all too much power. As a result, he or she can demand an absurd reward for the switch. Absurd because under normal circumstances, that person would not be worthy of that reward.

Consider Belinda. She dropped out of York University not having completed even one year. She then became the CEO of a multi-billion company owned by her father. By all accounts, her tenure was unremarkable, to put it generously.

A mediocre business figure who passed on a paid-for university education in favour of being catapulted to the top of a business empire on the strength of her relationship to the owner is not, at a glance, the right person to put in charge of a ministry preaching to people about the importance of jobs skills, and hounding students for their tuitions loan payments.

The final irony: she was also minister of democratic renewal. Many argued, with reason, that her defection and the reward she earned was epitome of undemocratic behaviour.

And yet, it all happened because she picked the right time to switch teams. Paul Martin had no choice. Governance by blackmail.

If Stephen Harper was within striking distance of a majority, I would also have serious problems with a member crossing the floor and being put in cabinet. I said as much.

But to be fair, the situation is simply not the same. Adding Emerson to the Tory tally in this House of Commons changes nothing (not entirely true, see update below). The Tories go from 124 to 125 seats. The Liberals from 103 to 102. Combined, the Liberals and the NDP still outvote the Conservatives. The Bloc Quebecois can still stop the Liberal-NDP combo by voting with the Conservatives.

So if grabbing Emerson has no consequence in terms of voting or the balance of power, why do it? Unlike Belinda, who became a cabinet minister in a portfolio for which she was not suited having spent her few months in Parliament in opposition, David Emerson spent the time since being elected in 2004 in cabinet as Minister of Industry. He holds a doctorate in economics, compared to Belinda's, well, nothing. He will be one of the only people on Stephen Harper's team with any experience in cabinet. So while putting Belinda in cabinet probably lowered the average quality of Paul Martin's cabinet, David Emerson potentially improves it.

In other words, all Emerson can offer to Stephen Harper is experience and representation in one of Canada's major cities, both things in short supply in Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Increasing both makes for a better government.

What Emerson doesn't offer is power. And I think that makes a difference.

Stephen Harper knew the flak he would take for this, both from his opponents and his partisan supporters. He knows people will glibly compare the two situations (Stronach and Emerson) and conclude that it proves all politicians are the same. He knows his popular support is tenuous, as much right now about rejecting the Liberals as it is about supporting the Conservatives, and any act that potentially makes the Conservatives look like the Liberals is particularly dangerous. Yet he did it anyway, even though it could be argued that, from a purely political point of view, he had every reason not to do it. That's got to tell you something.

Update: There is a vote scenario in which this could be significant. Before Emerson switched, the Tories and the NDP combined for 152 votes (removing the Speaker's vote, of course). The Liberals and the Bloc combined for 154. Now the Conservatives and the NDP combine for 153 votes, equal to the the Liberals and the Bloc. Add the Speaker's vote to break a tie, and a Conservative loss becomes a Conservative win, in a situation in which they have NDP support, in the face of Liberal and Bloc opposition.

But this scenario has to have the Liberals and the Bloc making common cause. How likely is that? The scenario also has the NDP and the Tories making a deal, and we all know how expensive a deal with the NDP can be. How likely is it that the Tories will make a deal with the NDP? The things that the CPC and the NDP can be counted to agree on are things like the Accountablity Act, and the Bloc is likely to vote for it as well. Childcare cheques? The NDP won't go for it, but the Bloc will. GST reduction? Count on the Bloc to support that, and maybe even the Liberals. Fact is, I don't see the CPC+NDP combination playing a role anytime soon, which means the Emerson defection is not likely to make a difference.

Still, I missed that combination the first time around.

Update of an update: There is also the independent. That means that a tie does not actually exist. Either the CPC+NDP or the Liberal+Bloc would have to entice Andre Arthur to their side. So we're right back to a minority situation of deals and compromises. Bottom line, however you cut it, Stephen Harper has not taken control of this parliament by getting Emerson on his side. No majority has been formed, except by the combining this bit with that without consideration of the politics involved. Nor is he avoiding an imminent non-confidence vote by selling off a cabinet post to a power hungry MP. He is building a cabinet and using all sitting members of the House, as is his perogative as prime minister. It'll be interesting to hear from Emerson though.

This is a strategic move, not a tactical one. It's refreshing to see a government actually planning instead of reacting.

Are the Conservatives up by one?

This email from CKNW News:

Vancouver Kingsway Liberal MP David Emerson has apparently defected to the Conservatives to take a Cabinet post in the new Stephen Harper Government.

I guess we can take Emerson off the list of potential Liberal leadership candidates.

Stuck in mob-think?

A typical leftist response:

I think Reason points out that some of the cartoons shout fire in a crowded theatre.

As far as the Moslem reaction goes, I think it unfortunate that some take their animus out against Danes in general.

But on the whole, the newspapers walked up and whacked a hornet's nest with a stick. I can't get all worked up about a few stings.

In four sentences, this fellow has just handed the Islamists complete victory.

When you shout fire in a crowded theatre, people flee in a panic because the enemy is flame and smoke. It cannot be reasoned with. It won't minimize its impact on your well-being because you pleaded with it. It is a remorseless chemical and physical process, a process that will consume you if you don't get out of the way.

That is why people run from a theatre that is on fire. That is why people risk getting injured and killed fleeing -- to stay is guarantee injury or death. And that is why it is illegal to shout "Fire!" when there isn't one.

Are Muslims the human equivalent of fire? Are they incapable of reason? Are they mindlessly following rules as immutable as gravity?

Frankly, if I were a Muslim, I'd be insulted. But then insulting a Muslim is no great feat, it seems. Too bad.

But follow this person's train of thought to the logical conclusion. Muslims are incapable of managing their emotions. If insulted, they will, en masse, react violently. They are permamently stuck in mob-think. Therefore the onus is on us, rational Westerners, to pander to them, to soothe them, to avoid riling them.

Fine. Today it is about cartoons. What if tomorrow a university wants to host a talk by an Israeli politician? Is the university guilty of "whacking the hornet's nest"?

Concordia University did exactly that in 2002, and paid the consequence when the free speech was deemed offensive by the mindless Muslim mob incapable of governing their own behaviour, or so this person would have us believe. Presumably he did not get "worked up" about what happened at Concordia since the university should have known better than to offend Muslims.

And where does it end? What laundry list of offenses to Muslim sensibilities should be reviewed by every public figure and organization for fear of stirring up the mob?

The cartoons were deliberately offensive, but they also had a deliberate point to make about the fact that short of libel, falsehoods, and incitements to violence, a newspaper must be able to print anything. That it might choose not to is a separate matter. To suggest that Muslims are somehow incapable of responding rationally to a drawing, and so the newspaper should have not printed the cartoons accomplishes three things:

• it puts the blame for the violence on the shoulders of the newspapers
• it infantilizes Muslims as a whole
• it empowers Muslims to demand any concession desired by mere threat of mass riot

Why not get it over with and implement Sharia law right now?

The Vatican speaks on the cartoon issue

The Vatican makes a statement, but miss the reason that this crisis over the cartoons has started in the first place.

Now there's a queen!

Defender of the faith:

She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

Queen Elizabeth? No.

Michaelle Jean, Governor-General of Canada, and the Queen's representative? No.

It was Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, speaking on April 15, 2005.

[Turns out Little Green Footballs already posted this.]

Yeah, he got away with it, but...

From the Toronto Star (via an outraged Bourque):

David Dingwall, former head of the Royal Canadian Mint, has received $417,780 in his now-famous "entitlements," as one of the last acts of Prime Minister Paul Martin's departing Liberal government.

The Privy Council Office announced the payment yesterday following the decision of an independent arbitrator, George Adams, who concluded Dingwall had not resigned, as the government suggested at the time, but had been fired.

Dingwall left the $277,000-a-year-job in September after a prolonged controversy about his six-figure office expense account. A subsequent review by the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded Dingwall's spending was within the rules with minor discrepancies.

So it looks like Dingwall got away with it. But then the review did clear Dingwall, so frankly there was not lot that could be done.

Or that should be done. What would be worse? David Dingwall getting his money, or a government, either the outgoing Liberals or the incoming Conservatives, ignoring the rules and punishing people in an extra-legal way?

But if you are still thinking that Dingwall deserves a punishment, consider this. He is out of a job. He can't go back to his previous job as head of Wallding. Wallding was his own lobbying firm. Dingwall has no connections in this new government. In fact, any project looking for government support and then found to be associated with Dingwall is likely to be tossed out on its ear. That limits the sort of clients willing to hire Dingwall.

Dingwall is a lawyer by training, but I doubt he has practised much since 1980. He'll get a good job somewhere, and will be paid well, I'm sure. But until things change in government, he's not going to be allowed anywhere near the centres of power.

I hope he's satisified working the legal papers for condo deals.

Cowardice, honour, and sinking ships

An exploration of the theme of honour.

A second rate third branch

From the Globe and Mail:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says Parliament should not try to change the current process for appointing judges to Canada's highest court.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin says the existing appointment process is working just fine and should not be politicized.

Currently, the Constitution gives the prime minister final say in appointing justices to the court.

The problem with this analysis is that it is correct. The prime minister does have final say in appointing justices, and that's where the problem lies.

We are used to the American model where the judiciary is the third branch of government, co-equal with the legislative and executive branch.

But in the British scheme, that isn't the case. The courts are subordinate to the Crown. Tradition holds that the courts dispense the King's justice, but do not act as a balance to the King's power.

In the British system, the tension exists between the Crown (the executive) and Parliament (the legislature). There is no third leg to government. The innovation introduced by the American Founding Fathers was to design a three-legged system, by removing the judiciary out from under the control of the executive.

What has evolved in Canada though is the concentration of power, not into Parliament, but almost entirely into the Prime Minister's Office. That means one person, the Prime Minister, is selecting the cabinet, setting the legislative agenda, and appointing judges.

I selected those three examples because they touch on all three branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

All in one person.

When Stephen Harper suggests introducing a process of parliamentary oversight and review of the selection of judges, he is trying to diffuse power. The downside for people like McLachlin is that she has to convince more than one person that she is right for the job as top judge. Under the current system, she only has to convince the prime minister, and the prime minister has already selected her, so there really isn't much to do.

Now she'll have to face a group of people, representing a range of views and attitudes about Canadian society, and convince the majority of them that she will be fair and even-handed in her application of the law.

She calls that politicizing the process.

I think "politicize" is what elitists say when they are faced with "democracy".

A call for Canadians to help Michael Moore

From MichaelMoore.com:

Send Me Your Health Care Horror Stories... An Appeal from Michael Moore

How would you like to be in my next movie? I know you've probably heard I'm making a documentary about the health care industry (but the HMOs don't know this, so don't tell them - they think I'm making a romantic comedy).

Of course, he is looking for input for his movie "Sicko", a slanted look at the American health care system:

About four hundred years from now, historians will look back at us like we were some sort of barbarians, but for now we're just the laughing stock of the Western world.

Thank you in advance for sharing them with me and trusting me to try and do something about a very corrupt system that simply has to go.

Thank you, all of you, for your help and your continued support through the years. I promise you that with "Sicko" we will do our best to give you not only a great movie, but a chance to bring down this evil empire, once and for all.

No system is perfect, for sure, but Michael Moore's documentaries are famous for their selectivity when it comes to facts, or even outright lies.

Do you have a story about waiting for months in pain for an operation? Do you have a story about waiting for months for cancer therapy, months wondering what was going on inside of your body? Do you have a story of poor treatment by hospital bureaucrats-slash-staff? And what about the stuff not covered by government insurance? Did you have to travel to get medication or treatment, or pay out of pocket?

Maybe you work in the medical profession, or for the government in the health ministry, or with a private insurer. Do you have a story of callousness or of waste to share?

Not everyone has had bad experiences. I haven't yet. Many have though. Michael Moore doesn't care, because those stories don't boost his ego (it's one thing to direct a documentary, it's another thing altogether to attack an evil empire).

Here's what I want you to do. Write up your experience. Don't mention that you are a Canadian until the very end of the email. Send it to Michael Moore:

Why am I suggesting that you not mention you are from Canada until the very end?

I will read every single one of them (even if I can't respond to or help everyone, I will be able to bring to light a few of your stories).

Let's make Michael Moore read the story to the very end before he decides to throw your painful experience into the memory hole because it doesn't promote his agenda.

The Muhammad Cartoons: Church and State

One of the problems with talking with Muslims about the Muhammad cartoons is that many Muslims cannot perceive of an actor independent of that State.

Part of this is a function of their religion. Islam is not just a religious belief system. It is also a blueprint for civil administration of society. This is in stark contrast with Christianity's distinction between Caesar's realm and God's.

Part of this is also a result of the fact that most Islamic countries are dictatorships or oligarchies. For them, government control of the press is the norm.

Perhaps the second point is a consequence of the first.

In any case, when a privately-owned newspaper in Denmark printed cartoons insulting to Muslims, it comes as no surprise that Muslims the world over, but especially in the Middle East, have targeted the Danish government.

It makes sense -- clearly the government must be held to account for not controlling its people:

Syrians have set fire to the Danish embassy in Damascus to protest against the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, witnesses say.

No other confirmation of this account, nor any more details from the BBC. The embassy could be a smoking ruin, or pile of rubbish could have been set on fire and put out with a fire extinguisher.

But it is revealing. The Muslim view of the social structure means that a government is responsible for the people, not responsible to the people.

I don't subscribe to this view, but maybe I should reconsider. Maybe we should look at the country of origins of a terrorist -- Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, whatever -- and hold that country responsible for the actions of its citizen.

And extract payment.

The Muhammad Cartoons: Canadian press reaction

Should the Canadian media print the Muhammad cartoons? Or should they respect the Canadian Muslim community, a community that in turn seems to be respecting Canadian laws about freedom of expression?

The attitude that "One good turn deserves another" seems to be the order of the day.

The Muhammad Cartoons: Intense interest in the forbidden

Check out this capture from my SiteMeter:

The circled entries are hits to my blog from Google image searches looking for the Muhammad cartoons.

This has been going on for days now. Sometimes it is a solid page of Google search hits. What used to be normally dead times, early morning hours from 2am to 6am Eastern, are now a constant buzz of search activity.

The protesters, people who want to make sure the Prophet is never mocked, satirized, or disrespected, have succeeded in making sure more people have looked at the image of the Prophet and laughed than if they had simply kept silent.

Now here's a thought. I wonder how many of those Google hits are from good Muslims surreptitiously taking a peek at the forbidden.

So much laughter to be punished.

So many people to behead.

And it's getting worse hour by hour.

The Muhammad Cartoons: The protests are getting serious yet Canadians are sitting this out

From a protest in Britain numbering in the hundreds:

"...slay..."

"...demolish..."

"...behead..."

"...butcher..."

"...exterminate..."

As angry as a Christian gets about an offensive display of crucifixes in urine posing as art, do you really think you could find even 50 willing to wave placards demanding that an entire continent be put to the sword for the perceived sins of one person?

Seriously.

When Christians get angry, it is almost always because of the state support of the "art" in question, rather than about the exercise of free speech. And they fight back by writing to their elected officials, or by boycotting the corporate sponsor of the event, or by starting a petition, not by demanding that people be "exterminated".

You do see the difference, don't you?

You do see what we are all up against?

You do see why this is important?

You do see what sort of world these people want to live in?

You do see what sort of world these people would compel all of us to live in, if they had the chance?

This isn't just about Denmark, or Europe, or Britain and the United States. All democracies are threatened, including Canada.

So I ask again, if you believe in free speech, if you believe that Church and State have distinct roles to play, and that they need to respect each other's authority, if you have spared any thought about the sort of world you want your kids to grow up in, and if you have ever wanted to poke an Islamic terrorist in the eye but figured you would never get the chance, then post a cartoon if you are a blogger.

State that the cartoon is offensive and in poor taste, if you find it so. Call it puerile and juvenile if you like. Misleading even. But if you have a blog, post a copy. Whatever your point of view, stand up and be counted against those who have not only have no interest in your point of view but would have your point of view silenced, violently if need be.

I've done it once already. Here's another one:

[More pictures of the protests; the full gallery of cartoons; a blogburst is forming]

Allan Rock is out

From the Globe and Mail:

Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, yesterday joined the parade of prominent Liberals rejecting a run for the party's leadership, ending conjecture that the Chretian-era cabinet minister would return to federal politics.

His move further highlights the trouble the Liberal Party is having in attracting star candidates from its recent past, although other would-be candidates have said the party would be better to look to its future in an effort to renew itself after its election loss last month.

Who hasn't backed out? The two ex-Conservatives Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison, former NDP premier of Ontario Bob Rae, and pro-torture pro-Iraq-war Michael Ignatieff.

No wonder some people want to hold off having a leadership convention.

My guess? Nobody wants to be leader of the opposition for the next six or more years. These people see the following: a stable minority for two years, maybe three, followed by a Conservative majority for another four years. Then maybe even more years in opposition.

I shouldn't say that nobody would like the job. I'm sure if we look hard enough, we could find someone who enjoys the media spotlight without any actual power. What is Kato Kaelin up to anyway?

Now it's getting ridiculous [Important update]

Last week there was an incident at a British Columbia border crossing during which Canadian customs officers walked off the job when a high speed car chase on the American side involving an armed criminal came to a dramatic conclusion mere feet from the border.

Canadian customs officials tasked with guarding the border are not armed, thanks to Liberal meddling.

So as cowardly as this behaviour appeared, these people are unarmed. And a gun battle erupted only a few feet away.

Under federal law, they can run away when they feel scared.

Which apparently justifies this:

Management staff were running a border crossing between southeastern B.C. and Montana on Thursday after customs officers walked off the job over an alert about an armed man possibly heading to the border, a union official said.

"It's a grave concern the customs inspectors have," Dan Liebel, local president of the Customs Excise Union, told CHDR radio in nearby Cranbrook.

Mr. Liebel said the latest warning involves a man who abandoned his vehicle in the United States but has ties to Canada along the border with Montana.

So somewhere there was a guy who might be heading to Canada.

Run away! Run away!

Arming these guys is not going to be enough. There will have to a change to the rules that allow this sort of behaviour. Armed customs officers will be expected to hold their ground, and to guard the border, even when under threat.

Especially when under threat.

Update:

At yet another BC border crossing, customs officials soiled themselves then fled when shown the picture of a vicious lion thought to be nearby, possible armed, certainly cranky:

Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, and the Gomery Report

Some time ago, I noticed something that has seemed noteworthy. Maybe you have too.

Have you you noticed how Stephen Harper is very careful to put distance between himself and the Gomery Report? You might wonder why, since the Gomery Inquiry was a critical element in the defeat of the Paul Martin Liberals, putting Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in power.

Paul Martin, on the other hand, has always been very eager to embrace the Gomery Reports, sight unseen even.

At first glance, Paul Martin's trust in Gomery and Stephen Harper's wariness seem strange.

At second glance, Stephen Harper's wariness make sense.

But at a third glance, Paul Martin's trust also makes sense, but in a bad way.

Here's what I mean.

Something we don't appreciate

In North America, and in English-speaking countries in general, citizenship is a function of birth. If you are born within the boundaries of the country, you are a citizen.

It seems so obvious.

In most countries, however, citizenship is a matter of bloodlines. It is tribal, not geographical.

The art of diplomacy

The UN is closing in on Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program (via Bourque):

The UN's nuclear watchdog has begun meeting to decide whether to report Iran to the UN Security Council - a move which could lead to sanctions.

The Vienna-based body is considering a resolution agreed by the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany.

Analysts say the text of the resolution is a compromise that puts off any UN action, including possible sanctions, until at least March, when a conclusive report is delivered by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

What happens in March? It's hard to say, but here's one possible explanation from Will Rogers:

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Is someone going to have a "rock" ready in the spring?

Shocked at free speech...sometimes

Warren Kinsella has written an interesting opinion piece in the National Post about the tell-all book about to be published, written by former Gomery Commission spokesman Francois Perreault. The book was written, with the support of Justice John Gomery, while the commission was in session investigating the Sponsorship Scandal :

While this multi-million-dollar commission was underway -- a commission that would have a huge impact, as Justice Gomery himself admitted many times, on the reputations and lives of many people -- one of the most senior commission officials was secretly writing a book about it all. And that senior official intends to personally profit from it.

Do Messrs. Gomery or Perreault see anything improper about any of this? Not Justice Gomery. On Wednesday afternoon, at a press conference, he said he "gave [his] blessing" to Mr. Perreault's project because "it would be an interesting book" and "I believe in freedom of speech."

But this is not a "freedom of speech" issue. As they are made to understand when they embark on their careers, judicial officers, and the people who work for them, cannot say whatever they like. They must observe limits, and for good reason.

How is it that Francois Perreault can publish a tell-all book likely to impact public opinion about the guilt or innocence of key players in the Sponsorship Scandal, regardless of the actual conclusions made by Justice Gomery in his November report, because Justice Gomery feels that "freedom of speech" is important for his senior staff member, but media and bloggers had no such freedom to report on the sworn testimony of Jean Brault when he revealed that money was being kicked back to the Liberal Party?

Seems like a selective exercise of freedom of speech.

And I think I know what would happen if Francois Perreault was told that it was inappropriate to be writing a book while the inquiry was ongoing.

He would have been shocked!

Being shocked seems to be his reaction when other people exercise free speech without permission.

But then he wrote his little money-maker with Justice Gomery's permission, so I guess we're the ones who should be shocked.

Time to think about the role of artists

In the United States, the arts community is despondent that people aren't following their lead. Of course, in the United States, the funding of the artist and his work is a rational contract between private citizens and the artist.

It should come as no surprise, then, that artists have limited influence, since they ultimately only influence the people who like their art.

In Canada however, despite one famous artist's demand for a closer relationship between the artist and the person enjoying the art, artists instead exist at the pleasure of the government through massive public funding. That makes the artist community a sort of constituency, which gives them influence. Since they get all their funding from a single source, they tend to vote as a single block, and speak with a single voice.

By the way, the artist demanding that closer relationship between the artist and the citizen? Margaret Atwood, of all people. No, she hasn't become a voice for the free market. She just doesn't know what she's talking about.

Which probably explains why she's right on this point.

The left wing and the military in Canada and the US

Seems like those on the left have a real problem knowing where to draw the line when it comes to their natural inclination to heap abuse on the military. The problem knows no boundaries, as we see the same problem in Canada and in the United States.

But the symmetry goes further, as we also see similar restrained, measured, and professional responses to the provocations.

A liberal blogger gives credit where credit is due

Yet another pat on the back for Stephen Harper:

In addition, this poll also has some good news for [Quebec Premier Jean] Charest, with support for his government climbing 10-points. And, prior to the federal election, 49 percent of Quebeckers would have voted Yes to the 1995 "fuzzy" question and now, only 41% would vote Yes versus 53% who would vote No.

In the spirit of honesty, Mr. Harper and his team deserves credit for this minor rebound. Here's hoping the Harper government can continue this trend.

Check out the original post -- he's got a great cartoon to go along with it.

Minor rebound? And if Paul Martin had somehow been credited for causing a full 9% gap to open up between this country staying together and a "50% + 1" nightmare scenario, these guys would have demanded statues to be erected in his honour.

Ah well. There's no harm in a bit of partisan boosting, as long as they aren't ignoring the facts. And it's nice to see that Al Duce is facing facts.

David Suzuki: Give Stephen Harper a chance

No, I'm not making this up.

David Suzuki has come out against those labeling Stephen Harper as "anti-environmental":

When Stephen Harper was elected, I heard people comment that it was a disaster for the environment. After all, Mr. Harper has been labeled a "neo-conservative," a "libertarian," and "anti-environmental." It hasn't helped that he has spoken out against even the most broadly supported of environmental initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol.

Now, I never minded being called an "environmentalist." In fact, I wore it as a badge of honour because it represented some of my core values. But the older I get, the more I realize that most people don't like being labeled. They don't like being typecast or pigeonholed. Labels are exclusionary by their very nature and they push people to their ideological corners, like boxers ready to come out for a fight.

The fact is, for every declared "environmentalist" there are 1,000 people who care profoundly about the environment. And there are another 10,000 who recognize almost intuitively that human health and well being is intimately connected to the world in which we live. As a leader and as a father, Stephen Harper, I am sure, recognizes this connection too. Polls show that the vast majority of Canadians certainly do.

The greatest environmental victories of the future will not be made by environmentalists, but by millions of concerned people taking small steps towards a common goal and ensuring that governments help us take those steps. These people have no labels. They may be Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Quebecois, Greens - it doesn't matter. They simply see that taking care of our environment means taking care of us. It makes sense for our health. It makes sense for our economy and it makes sense for our well being.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we want our country to look like? Not just today and tomorrow, but 25, 50 and 100 years from now. What do we want our grandchildren and great grandchildren to thank us for doing? When we look ahead to our long-term goals, we can find common ground. And that's where we have to begin.

Well, I'm surprised.

Maybe I've been guilty of mentally labeling David Suzuki, assuming I'd know what he was going to say in any situation.

Sounds like David Suzuki is hoping to work with Stephen Harper. Maybe David Suzuki recognizes that he's going to have to. But in the same vein, this represents an opportunity for Stephen Harper and his people to talk to Suzuki and find the "common ground" Suzuki says exists.

How long has Belinda been eyeing 24 Sussex Drive?

Interestingly, back on October 19, 2005, someone registered the following domain:

The site is not active yet. The registry record is not all that revealing, other than it uses a different registrar than Belinda's other websites:

Registrant:
Internet accountant
ATTN: BELINDAFORPM.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447

Domain Name: BELINDAFORPM.COM

Administrative Contact :
Internet accountant
qm7258c46sn@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
ATTN: BELINDAFORPM.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Phone: 570-708-8780

Technical Contact :
Internet accountant
qm7258c46sn@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
ATTN: BELINDAFORPM.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Phone: 570-708-8780

Record expires on 19-Oct-2006
Record created on 19-Oct-2005
Database last updated on 19-Oct-2005

Of course, any hope of moving into 24 Sussex Drive soon was dashed when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won the election on January 23.

This might be, and quite likely is, an example of cybersquatting. Still, one wonders...

The Muhammad Cartoons: Post this cartoon and frighten a terrorist

This cartoon will get you in trouble:

Masked gunmen today took over an office used by the European Union to protest the publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam.

About five gunmen stormed the building, closing the office down, while 10 other armed men stood watch outside. One of the militants said they were protesting the drawings, one of which depicted Islam's Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb.

That was two days ago. The cartoon appeared in a Danish newspaper way back in September. Since then, denunciations have continued, and Denmark is being subjected to a boycott by Islamic nations.

The justification? Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri of the UAE called this "cultural terrorism".

Nice try. Not too many buses got blown up by cartoons. No one has ever taken over an airplane by threatening to draw a cartoon. In fact, it's hard to be terrorized by a cartoon.

Unless you are some sort of coward. Frightened by doodles. Are Muslims terrified by a sketch? Are they really terrorized by this?

What a bunch of babies. And I always thought that Muslims, and Arab Muslim men in particular, were all about honour and reckless courage, at least as they perceived themselves as courageous. Guess I was wrong.

I extend a personal invitation to every blogger to repost this cartoon on their blog in order to take a stand on free speech, and to frighten a terrorist with this bit of "cultural terrorism".

Interestingly, back in October, I posted about the cartoon flap. In that post, I included cartoons by another Dane, Julius Hansen, in which he skewers Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I don't see Christian nations boycotting Denmark. As far as I know, the Mossad has not sent a hit team to take out Hansen.

Leave it to the Muslims to insist that we play by their rules...or else! Guess it is a response to their fear of cartoons.

In the last week, I have had a steady stream of hits from Google's image search, looking for those Hansen cartoons. Seems like a lot of people would like to see the forbidden cartoons. Too bad for the Islamic fundamentalists, but it looks like just about nobody is going to give you guys special treatment.

Or special respect.

Not that you deserve any, in my opinion.

As for peace-loving Muslims who are offended, well, too bad. Being offended is the price of freedom. Be offended, but don't be frightened or terrorized. Get used to being offended. I feel offended at least three times a week by things I read and by the opinions I hear voiced. I write about it, I defend my point of view, I try to show where others are mistaken or duplicitous, but I never ask that people be silenced.

I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.

I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.

[More at Malkin]

[A French newspaper is standing side-by-side with the Danes on this. Any bets about when a Canadian newspaper will take a stand in favour of free speech?]

[Is this "cultural terrorism"?
"Take this plane to Libya or I start doodling! I swear, I'll do it!"
"Everyone down! He's got an Etch-a-Sketch!"
First get these guys a dictionary, then we can talk.]

Russia's hypersonic missiles -- hot air?

Bet there are plenty of people on the left laughing at the notion that America's ballistic missile defense system has already been rendered useless by Russia's new hypersonic missile.

Well, I'm not so sure this alleged super-missile is all it's cracked up to be.

Angry in the Great White North by Steve Janke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License. Based on a work at stevejanke.com.