Study Explains Liberals, Religious Right in a Nutshell

The universal explanation as to why liberals are stuck up idiots and why the religious right does the bad things that they do.

"The study, said Mazar, an assistant professor of marketing with the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, builds on research into the idea of “moral regulation” — that people either consciously or unconsciously balance bad deeds with good ones.

“What has been shown so far is that when we engage in actions that give us some kind of moral, warm glow — let’s call it that — that afterwards we are more likely to transgress,” Mazar said."

Source: CNEWS

read more...

Frosty

Alberta Shivers Amid Record Lows

Canada Ranks Low on Climate Change Report Card

read more...

Hot Headed on the Heels of Climategate

Violence erupts at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. It's a shameful spectacle of the worst kind. One thing about socialists. They hate war but they love to violently riot. The crowed has been described as groups of European leftists, naturally.

As I said in one of my previous articles, I believed that the pro-anthropogenic (man made) global warming crowd would get more militant. This was due to the fact that the anti-AGW side was gaining more ground in the debate. Of course this was before the proverbial feces hit the fan a couple weeks ago. Emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (the lead research institution for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) provided the strongest evidence yet that scientists were deliberately altering climate data and that there was an large, organized conspiracy to silence critics.

The so called Climategate scandal should have went off like the Tsar Bomba in the media, but fizzled like a dud cherry bomb. It did get reported, slowly, and has now given climate critics a huge stockpile of ammo against the IPCC. Climate activists know that their argument is weakening and they are loosing public support big time. Belief in man made global warming has dropped an astounding 20-30% in the United States. This follows on the heels of an earlier report that suggests that the majority of Brits don't believe in the AGW theory.

With these revelations, those pushing for the agenda behind climate change have gotten more desperate. The real goal of Copenhagen is to provide third world countries with huge wealth transfer payments from richer countries. It's not as if they've kept this hidden. They've been fairly open about it. The goal is not to stop climate change but rather equalize global wealth by taking money out of the hands of the G8; all based on the pretext of atoning for their eco-sins. Now that their socialist dream has come under threat, they believe they must become more militant to try and get public opinion on their sides. Nothing pulls at people's hearts and senses like beating a cop with a brick and setting cars on fire... apparently.

On the subject of wealth transfer itself. One may wonder why this is so bad. It's like setting up a global charity after all? Not exactly. Most poor people will never see a dime of the money spent from these agreements, should they be put into place. More often than not, it ends up lining the pockets of despots, organized criminals, and corrupt bureaucrats. Socialists love to cuddle up to their fearless leaders though. Leaders who don't mind taking their own peoples' human, social, legal, and economic rights away for the "greater good".

Believe me, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I know die hard liberals who think this climate change business is a huge scam. A lot of them in fact. The sceptics cannot be labelled crackpots or people buying into corporate propaganda anymore. There's just too many of us. Ultimately, we can only hope that this green madness will end and common sense will once again reign supreme.

read more...

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

It's that time again. We're getting bombarded with more climate change hysteria by "scientists" and activists as world leaders prepare to meet in Copenhagen. The goal of the meeting is to hash out a new deal to replace the largely failed Kyoto Protocol of 11 years ago. Arguably, there is a lot more debate now than there was, say five years ago. The problem is that the United Nations and powerful NGOs like GreenPeace have long entrenched themselves. Any argument that states that climate change may not be real, or a natural phenomenon, or that carbon reduction schemes would devastate the global economy usually falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have in favour of your argument, or how good it is. It's like trying to argue with a wall.

So far, the goal of Copenhagen seems to involve massive monetary transfers to developing countries in order to pay for them to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. This sounds an awful lot like a "social justice" wealth transfer scheme. It's not so much that I disagree with this idea, even though I do. Foreign aid has proven futile in solving poverty issues. What really bothers me is why not just call it what it is. It always amazes me that people are more moved by sad polar bears than AIDS riddled, starving African children. That is they're more willing to open their wallet if they think the "disaster" will affect them; as opposed to child poverty, which they can happily ignored without any direct influence on their own lives. I think it's a sad statement on ourselves as society, and a particularly large black mark on the "textbook" liberals.

So what should we do? Should we still push ahead with a climate agreement? Absolutely not. Rather, if you want to help developing countries, even in the name of stopping climate change, technology sharing and free trade are a far better solution for dealing with both. Money just ends up in the hands of corrupt officials. Give people something tangible.

read more...

Hybrid Importance

I found this on Failblog. I think it speaks for itself.
Priorities Fail



I have actually witnessed this. A certain large furniture chain (let's just say they deal in cheap, DIY-assembled furniture) has their parking lot setup like this. Hybrid car parking is closer to the door than handicapped. I've always wondered why hybrid owners would get this special privilege to begin with. Then again, I own a Honda Civic which does have a hybrid model, even though mine's not. I could park in these spots. How would they know without looking under the hood?

read more...

My Stew Tastes Like Bark

It wasn't that long ago that dog was a common sight on the menu in China. Today, most Chinese are repulsed by the idea of eating their pet. How regressive they've become!

Here's an interesting article from the BBC of course. Who else would publish this? The article advocates that eating your pets may not be a bad idea in terms of reducing carbon emissions. The article is written tongue-in-cheek obviously. It refers to a book written by Robert Vale titled "Time to Eat the Dog?", which argues that dogs and cats should be treated like pigs or chickens. They keep us company only later to be made a tasty meal. Supposedly it reduces carbon intensive ranching.

This just so typical of the climate change garbage that's published on their service weekly. So now owning a pet is being demonized as destroying the planet. Please. They're just getting even more ridiculous, as if that were possible. I guess more shocking/disturbing is that people actually buy into this rubbish.

read more...

Bring Out Your Dead!

"Cattle!" I exclaimed watching the news today of long line-ups for H1N1 flu shots across Toronto. There have been varying reports of wait times to get the vaccine. Two hours at the International Centre, and I could of sworn I heard 7 hours at one clinic. The City of Toronto has exploded into full on Swine Flu hysteria. People are cutting in line in front of the vulnerable, they're pulling their kids out of school, they're flooding the ERs for every minor ailment, and they're freaking out if anyone coughs or sneezes. Well, at least that's what the news was saying.

Walking along Front Street to the CBC building on an dreary Wednesday morning, everything seems to be moving along as normal, or as normal as Toronto gets. Aside from the hand sanitizers and various workplace safety posters scattered around, there was nothing to indicate the hysteria on the news. I don't for a second doubt that it's not happening. I must admit the panic over H1N1 has taken me back somewhat. You'd think this was a full on mass outbreak of the Bubonic Plague or Small Pox. Anyone see The Omega Man or 28 Days Later?

Taken back yes, but surprised no. The UN's World Health Organization has been stoking Swine Flu as the next big pandemic that would replicate the 50 million dead from the Spanish Flu in 1918. The Swine Flu has killed 6,000 people worldwide so far. This is considerably less than the 250,000 to 500,000 the Seasonal Flu kills over the same six month period. Governments and the media have done an excellent job in containing H1N1 but have failed on maintaining public calm.

The disease is not what I would call a pandemic. It's just the regular flu. However, governments and the media have been pushing people to this panicked state. When a 14 year old Toronto boy died of it this week, that was the spark that ignited the powder keg of panic that had been festering for some time.

The problem with this is that the Swine Flu will peter out like any other Seasonal Flu. People will look back at it and say "we got all worked up over that?" It's not the first pandemic the WHO panicked about and got wrong. Remember how the H5N1 Bird Flu was going to be the end of us? Repeated false pandemics highlight the need for restraint on the part of global and national health bodies. Of course you want to contain a disease before it becomes a pandemic. However, if you panic and it doesn't pan out, the public will eventually stop believing you. It's the classic Boy Who Cried Wolf dilemma.

Governments need to act with calm reserve in these cases to make sure people who are at highest risk get treated first. The massive rush of sheep to the immunization centres is an example of a colossal failure on the government's part. Since panic was openly encouraged, people who had no business getting the shot were cutting the line. Now there is a shortage of vaccine for the people who do need it most.

Our society is really in a shameful state if we just go to pieces over nothing like this. Hopefully, we'll learn from our mistakes next time.

read more...

GW Sceptics Must Become More Organized

I was reading an article about how 150 climate change activists disrupted Parliament this week, chanting that the government wasn't doing enough to stop the looming "disaster". In the past couple of years, the argument in favour of man made (anthropogenic) global warming has been whittled away. When the infamous "hockey stick" graph was proven to be fraudulent, this was a major blow the pro side. Then came the revelation that the planet has not warmed at all in the past decade. Then it came out that NASA had been allegedly duplicating data to make climate change appear worse than it actually was. The list of scientists now opposing the pro side has also grown enormously. Despite, and likely because of all this, those in favour of the man made theory have steadily grown more vocal and are becoming more militant.

The whole goal for a lot of these groups is to create a new radical-socialist world order. It's not as if they have tried to hide that fact. The rhetoric about changing the way we live and redistributing wealth to poorer nations for green initiatives comes up in just about any major climate change discussion. Governments who oppose it, such as Canada and the United States, have been labelled as "outcasts" on the world stage. We've all seen what these radical changes can do though. Climate initiatives have played a huge role in destroying Britain's economy, long before the recession hit. We're risking our livelihood and way of life by handing over the reigns of power to these crackpots that keep telling us the sky is falling.

It's high time the sceptics began to get more vocal. We've tried to hatch things out individually or in small groups over the years. Still, we don't have anywhere near the level of organization and funding that Greenpeace, PETA, and the IPCC have. We as sceptics must create our own anti-Greenpeace. An NGO that pushes for a halt to disastrous green programs and pushes for scientific truth. We have no idea what is really happening because so much of the argument in favour of anthropogenic global warming has been built on false or poorly researched information. If these people push, there must be at least an equally large organization to push back. We sceptics don't hate the environment, far from it. However, we do hate the spin and perversion of human rights and democracy in the name of averting a fake disaster. Humanity is arrogant to think it can change the weather. The time to act is now.

read more...

The Climate is Changing: Hell Has Frozen Over

Satan himself has laced up his ice skates this week to practice his triple sow cows on the frosty Phlegethon. The BBC has admitted that the world has not warmed 1998, in line with what climate sceptics have been saying for years. They even go as far as saying that the climate models were wrong. However, the BBC was quick to note that the "real" scientists expect warming to start back up again soon.

What happened to global warming?

The BBC is well known for their unrelenting support of the pro-AGW argument, despite claiming not to have a "bias, U-Turn, or agenda" on the subject. This is probably the first article I've seen that takes the anti-AGW side that doesn't patronize the sceptics, well at least for the first half. If they actually took the time to post an actual fact on the subject, you know things are starting to look bad for Al and Company.

Despite this admission, the BBC took the time to post this scary article that arctic ice will disappear in the next 10 years.

Arctic to Be 'Ice Free in Summer'

Satellite imagery has shown that the arctic ice sheets have in fact been growing. 2009 also boasted one of the coldest summers in recent memory despite climatologists predicting record breaking heat waves back in the spring. Autumn was also expected to be warmer than normal. October, in Ontario anyway, has been unseasonably cool, with temperatures half of what they normally are. Climate change is now considered the least important issue in the United States, suggesting that people are loosing faith in what pro-AGW scientists and activists are saying. All we have to do is cut off their gravy train to put this issue to bed once and for all. Easier said than done.

read more...

Obama's Peace Prize After Some Thought

I've gotten over the initial shock of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. To quote the prize committee themselves, he was given the award "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." When you look at Obama's foreign policy, there's really nothing spectacular there. Other than a watered down speech to the Muslim world back in June, he really has not accomplished anything in terms of foreign relations. There's a lot of rhetoric here, such as his stance on Cuba, but not much action. In reality, his contributions to world peace are few and rather inconsequential. Most of his work has focused on domestic issues. Contrast to the other US presidential laureate, Jimmy Carter. Agree with him or not, he has done a great deal of work in the field of foreign relations throughout the last three decades.

Obama's own shock at receiving the award speaks volumes. The real question now is why he got it in the first place. The prize committee's reasoning is purposefully vague. His efforts certainly weren't extraordinary. As I said, he hasn't focused on foreign policy a great deal. When he has, the world hasn't exactly expressed a great deal of confidence. Coalition nations lament the Oval Office's perceived apathy on the Afghan mission as one example.

Those in charge of the Nobels have admitted that the politics does in fact play a role in choosing the recipients. So who are these committee members? The five member panel is chosen by the Norwegian government. The panel chair is Thorbjørn Jagland, a leading member of the socialist Norwegian Labour Party. It is the country's the current ruling party. Two of the five members belong to the Labour Party, another belongs to the Socialist Left Party, though the remaining two are conservatives. Norway is one of the most left leaning countries in Europe. It's no surprise that they'd support one of the furthest left presidents America has seen. Despite that, there are plenty of other people further on the left that they could have awarded the prize to.

I don't think the prize was awarded to Obama just because he's Obama, Mr. Awesome himself. I cannot help but feel this is all a jab at George W. Bush. He is largely accredited by the left of turning America into an aggressive ultra-nationalist power hated the world over. Hell, whoever replaces him would automatically make the world more peaceful, right? As silly as that sounds, it's most likely the real reason why they chose Obama. Simply because he's not Bush. His goal is to make America into a soft power, which the socialist-left likes. It's just another case of the lefties doing what they do best: patting each other on the back.

Update: It seems the two Labour members forced the prize through. The two right wingers and the Socialist Left Party member objected to the decision made by Jagland.
Source: Reuters

read more...

The Best Political Shows: Penn & Teller's Bullshit

I thought I'd do a rundown on some of the best political shows on TV. Not the serious programs for a change but instead those that make light of politics. Today, we're looking at Penn & Teller's Bullshit. The show airs on The Movie Network's main station (Bell TV channel 300/840) Thursdays at 11pm.

In Bullshit, Penn Jilette and his partner Teller take commonly held beliefs and debunk them. The show is unabashedly biased with a heavy libertarian slant. The show always keeps this out in the open though, unlike so many others. The episodes follow a current affairs documentary format with a comic twist. Use of swearing, crude jokes, and even nudity are all there to prove a point. In a typical episode Penn & Teller will take a misconception or controversial topic, express their viewpoint, and interview those who support & oppose them. The show tends to take a far deeper look at people who do not support their argument. The duo then make fun of them and support their position with facts presented in an academic manner.

The show has covered topics ranging from silly misconceptions such as colonics, lawns, and hair, to more serious topics such as terrorism, cults, drugs, and climate change. It's different from the usual current affairs shows as it mixes serious issues with humour without being overbearing. It's also rare in that it's overtly biased but neither conservative or liberal. Teller has admitted that the duo think their own show is bullshit in that regard, which will likely be the focus of their final episode. However, the show is vary fair in its presentation. Bullshit won a Writers Guild of America award for best comedy/talk show in 2004 and has been nominated for Emmy Awards for outstanding reality and writing several years running. It's one of the best current affairs shows on TV right now and is definitely worth checking out.

Here's one full episode from Season 2 about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It's been broken down into four parts. Below is part one.

read more...

Obama Wins Peace Prize?

Even the liberals I know were scratching their heads over this one. Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. What did he do? "Gave hope for peace." Right... He hasn't done anything, at all, except show up to work. I think it's time we did away with the peace prize. The Nobel Prize was originally supposed to award people in the field of science. At this point, the peace prize has only serves to represent the Nobel Committee's political soapbox. How would you feel if you were a top diplomat brokering major peace deals and got passed up for the likes of Obama, or Al Gore. Well, at least with Obama, they're pretending he did something to advance world peace. I still can't figure out why they felt Gore deserved it.

read more...

An Ground Shaking Observation

Just a thought running through my mind lately given the recent tragedies in South-East Asia. There's one thing that particularly worries me though. You'd be surprised at how many people think tsunamis are caused by anthropogenic global warming. I've run into this misconception a few times now. I find that it's most often "educated" people that hold this belief. Tsunamis are the result of undersea earth quakes. Earth quakes are caused by activity deep under the Earth's crust, far out of reach of the influence of man and the atmosphere. All planets with a molten core are subject to quakes.

Anyway, if you want to donate to disaster relief in Asia, you can go to the Red Cross Website.

read more...

Things I've Learned...

We each have our own life experiences, here's a few things I've learned in mine...

-People believe what they want to believe:
In other words, it's difficult to convince people you're right and they're wrong, and vice versa.

-Love yourself unconditionally, because nobody else does:
All our relationships in life come with strings attached. If you don't love yourself, who else will?

-Life doesn't reward those who wait:
People spend their entire lives waiting and where does it get them? It gets them a book of lost dreams as thick as the NYC phone directory. Seize the day.

-Don't take anything at face value:
Just because someone isn't lying doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

-Don't be afraid to challenge your beliefs:
Goes with the above.

-Money talks:
Everyone has a price, make sure you set yours high.

-Faith is a crutch:
Some need it, some don't. There is nothing wrong with either as long as you don't become over zealous about it. Those that do are the true lost souls.

-People are always looking for ways to label you a deviant:
Whenever you engage in an activity or relationship that certain political stripes don't approve of, you'll always get attacked for it. The attacks don't always come from the usual suspects either.

-Try the wine:
Eat well, eat plenty, eat with friends. It's there isn't it?

-We're all going to die eventually:
Don't get worked up about all these "studies" that label common household objects as potential killers, or that the apocalypse is coming. At best, you're only delaying the inevitable by maybe a day or two max. You're more likely to die of confusion first.

-Japanese people are weird and uptight:
...but they still know how to have fun, and they don't care that the rest of the world thinks they're strange.

-Give me liberty or give me death:
I'd rather be destitute and free, instead of rich and under the boot of some despot

-Deadlines are for sissies:
Better the job be late and right than wrong and on time

-Gotta make the morning last:
Slow down and make time for yourself. You're not there to serve everyone's beckon call 24/7.

-Can't buy me love:
Wanting to be kind and caring for a woman you like doesn't win you girlfriends these days. In my experience, few take notice and fewer care. However, it still feels a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.

-Some breathing room:
Seems to me that most relationships end because one partner refuses to accept the other as an individual. It's ok to go your separate ways, have separate lives and friends, as long as you're back together in love at the end of the day.

-You can't spell shallow without hallow:
Despite what conventional Hollywood wisdom tells us, relationships based on sex are hallow and will never succeed.

-Some people exist just to piss you and everyone else off:
So you might as well have a little fun and make their lives a living hell while you're at it.

-I take that personally!:
Canadian politics is a never ending battle over who can shout the loudest, or who can claim to be the most offended.

-"I am a man who does not exist for others."
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand

-It's ok to be afraid
A fear of hurting the ones you care about can create road blocks in your life, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

-Have a hug:
Hug someone you care about at least once a day

-Death is not liberating:
Live life as if there is no heaven. You probably won't see those people again, so cherish what you do have.

-Laugh at other people's failures...
...because they're definitely laughing at yours.

-It's never a good time to keep your mouth shut:
Debate is mankind's greatest gift. Nothing is ever settled.

read more...

Catastrophe! What Catastrophe?!

I need a trillion dollars to combat a vary real and vary serious dilemma facing society today. I've got a sequestering plan that's going to cost a lot but it will prevent harm to the human race. I'm going to need a lot of concrete, tax dollars, and manpower to put this plan together but for god's sake, it's for the future of humanity and of our children. Of course I'm talking about the big threat that's been looming over our head for decades now, caused directly by man's meddling with nature. Zombies. Yes, the undead are a pox on our modern society because we disrespected nature by playing football with that skull I found in the ancient Indian burial ground. It's anthropogenic zombification at its worst! All the shower heads, ice augers, and shotguns in the world aren't going to save the planet this time. We need to bury the dead deep underground and encase their corpses in concrete to prevent them from ever rising up!
Ok, I could apply the same logic to every nonsensical scenario in the book. There's no proof that zombies exist so acting immediately in order to prevent an impending apocalypse of the living dead makes no sense. Maybe I'm going too far on a limb here with this tongue-in-cheek joke about global warming and the UN's alarmist position on something many feel is a non-existent issue.

Obama went in front of the UN today declaring that the United States needs to act immediately to prevent climate change. Never mind that he's already put the country another trillion dollars in debt. I suppose we could still find more money for Al Gores schemes and the grants to biased scientists who support his weak theory. The middle classes still aren't paying their fair share after all. There are lots of holes in the anthropogenic global warming theory. Perhaps the biggest one of all, assuming they're right, is just how exactly do we reverse it anyway. I've been reading a lot of articles on the subject and so far nobody has a satisfying answer to this question. Oh sure, we can all abandon our cars, throw the industrialized world out the window, and go back to partying if it 'twas 1299. That would stop it in the sense that you're not making the problem any worse. Of course to listen to the climate hysterics, the problem has already reached critical mass. Our climate is already out of control.

Ok, so what if we pump carbon dioxide underground and "sequester" it in big holding tanks? I remember hearing about this idea last year and it seems to be the scheme de jour. I suppose it makes sense in theory. A lot of things look good on paper though. You're going to store CO2 in these tanks, but how do you collect that much in the first place? How much will it cost to build these tanks and where will they be located? I'm sure a lot of people will be thrilled to bits to have one in their town. Also, what happens if one springs a leak? CO2 is now a pollutant after all, according to his Obamaness and Sir Al of Gore. So in that case you have a leaky, expensive, pressure vessel sitting under someone's back yard, with no way to fill it. Positively lovely!

That seems to be a general trend with climate change. Lots of ideas that will never work, but they all cost a huge fortune to implement. Yet somehow all these people on the green side, such as Michael Ignatiff in his recent attack ads, all claim that it will not effect the economy. That's BS and they know it but people are too stupid to see it, and the ones who perpetrate it couldn't care less about whether somebody has a job or not. It's all about wealth redistribution and expanding the already bloated size of government. Oddly, the only people these climate schemes actually seem to benefit are wealthy politicians and activists, while the rest of us get screwed as always. We really need to stop wasting our precious time and resources on this climate rubbish. With so many other pressing problems in the world, it's become a distraction at best. The rhetoric about saving the planet is nothing more than political masturbation. Let's focus on real issues; crime, poverty, the economy, rather than blaming all of humanity's strife on invisible gases.

read more...

Racism Still Exists in America, But Not Where You Think

"You lie!" Congressman Joe Wilson yelled that to Obama during his health care address last week. Jimmy Carter condemned the comment as having racist undertones. One New York Times reporter claimed to have 'heard' it as "you lie, boy!" Boy being a term once used by white southerners in the past to dehumanize blacks, as it was a title for slaves. Obama himself has shrugged off Carter et al's comments saying that he believed there was no racial intent in the comment. Some Democrats have taken things further by saying that all protests against Obama's heath reforms are also racially charged. Perhaps because the majority of those involved are white. Conveniently forgotten are the African Americans who do oppose Obama. I once had the pleasure to meet a black American trucker who hated his guts with a passion. Another scene on the news showed a black man protesting to save his Second Amendment rights.

All this highlights the childishness of American politics as of late. During the Bush Administration, liberals compared the president to Adolf Hitler and frequently and fiercely accused him of lying, hidden agendas, racism (Take Kanye West's infamous Bush Hates Blacks speech as an example, before we knew Kanye was just a "jackass") and cover-ups. Now the tables have turned. We have gone from the furthest right president in American history to the furthest left. Conservatives are just doing the same things to Obama that the liberals did to Bush. Suddenly we've switched from acceptable and encouraged protest to it being racist to criticize the president. That's particularly worrying. This is why I didn't think America was ready for a black leader, and I still don't.

Oddly, but unsurprisingly, the only people mentioning race and the president are Democrats. Of course I'm not claiming that racism doesn't exist in the US or that people aren't making racist insults about Obama. However, not a single sitting Republican or protester to my knowledge has uttered a single racial comment about him. If protesters were doing this, every media outlet in the country would certainly be all over it. The New York Times reporter could have blasted Wilson for violating House decorum, and labelled him as an out of control person with no respect for the rules. She didn't do that though, she took the racial line. In fact nobody had even suggested Wilson's comment was racist until Carter and the article brought it up. It's nothing more than a cheap attack against Republicans. However, I worry that people will become afraid to criticize Obama's policies or else also risk being labelled a racist and shunned. That's vary bad news for democracy and echoes of the McCarthy era. Is Obama himself supporting this tactic? I don't think so, but there are lot of people in his party who are willing to exploit his race for their agenda. After all, that was one of the main reasons why he was elected to be their presidential candidate. As for Wilson, he apologized to Obama, but I also believe that Carter should apologize for calling him a racist without evidence. That's slander. As for the race thing as a whole, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The day America gets a black president and nobody notices will be the only true victory for racial equality.

read more...

Why the CBC Hates FOX News

A great many people in the media today lament FOX News, the ultra-conservative 24-hour news station which airs in the US and on Canadian satellite. Those from the CBC seem to particularly sneer the network for it's strong political bias and editorials disguised as news. The difference between the two is that FOX is the top rated news station in North America, which the CBC is kept on life support by the CRTC and tax dollars. The news is a product like any other. I can make something which I think is the best ever but it means jack squat if I can't sell it. It branches out into a much larger debate over whether politics belongs in the news. Old timers like the late Walter Cronkite prided themselves on being as fair and balanced as possible. Even though Walt was a raging Liberal, he performed an excellent job in balancing both sides of the debate. Of course why watch DVDs when VHS was just fine? Who wants the extra content that the newer medium offers? A lot of people apparently.

The news has changed dramatically in the last ten years with the rise of the internet. It's no longer a matter of sitting down for the six-'o-clock CBC news broadcast or reading the morning paper. News is available everywhere at any time, on demand. It's not that there isn't a market for it. The market is larger than ever. People want more and conventional journalists are failing to deliver. It's not that there aren't enough stories being covered or that the coverage lacks quality. People however don't want to just read the story, they want the debate that goes along with it. They want to post their comments, they want to read others' comments, they want to hear what the reporters themselves think of the issue. In other words, people want the bias. They full well know its there. To tell young journalists that bias is inherently a bad thing that must be avoided at all costs is a bad decision. Heck, even the great Edward R. Murrow didn't follow that ideology. It's an unavoidable part of the business.

The problem with a lot of journalists today is the inherent elitism in the profession. (Apparently, according to my inside sources, some journalists at the CBC don't even watch TV at all because they think it's a mindless diversion for the stupid. The irony is delicious.) Judging by what I've heard in journalism school, most think their viewers and readers are pretty stupid. One vary liberal student commented that he was shocked that people watch FOX News and then go out and vote. They conveniently forget that their left-wing golden boys and girls such as the BBC, the New York Times, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Ariana Huffington are all extremely biased in their reports. One notorious example of this hypocrisy is FOX being frequently attacked for its bias during the lead up to the Iraq war. However, a major study (the PIPA report) found that all major American networks had blindly reported false information on the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. Only PBS News did not, which incidentally also receives the least amount of viewers. For liberal journalists, who make up the majority of the profession, to smugly claim they are not biased is itself a huge lie, not only to the public but to themselves. It serves no one.

So do I think that the media should abandon its old style fair and balanced approach? Well, as I've already said, no such thing ever existed. The media does have a duty to cover the story from both sides, but I feel that there is nothing wrong with the reporter voicing their opinion on subjects, especially given that it is what the people want. Bias is ok as long as journalists openly acknowledge it and don't try to hide it, or worse, pretend it doesn't affect them. Bias should be separate from the main story, but linked to it. It serves to spark debate. A story is just a story, a story with an opinion tacked onto the end is what gets people talking. All it takes is someone to get the ball rolling. This is why talk radio, FOX, CNN, John Stewart, and the bloggers have all become so successful. Ignore the reasons for their success and you too are doomed to go the way of the dinosaur, or more accurately, be left standing in the unemployment line.

read more...

Attention Canadian Youth! Mike Thinks You're Morons

Seig heil to all my readers. I have now proclaimed myself the infallible ruler of the nation. Get ready to do my bidding. Ok, you're probably thinking at this point that I've gone right round the bend. Well it's not so crazy because it would probably be quite easy just to take over the country and make myself emperor of Canada. Especially given how blasé people are when it comes to their leadership, namely those under 25. If you're in that age group and you're reading this, my comments are obviously not directed at you. I got a chance to view CBC's "Screw the Vote" documentary today. Yes, I know it's five years old but judging by the reaction from the rest of the class, it's just as relevant today as it was back in 2004. The spoof "don't vote" campaign looked at why Canadians 18 to 25 have the lowest voter turnout out of any age group; 22% turnout at the time. The documentary annoyed and frustrated me. So I figured I'd do an unabashed writeup of the top five reasons why young people don't vote, then bust the BS wide open.

1. I'm too busy to vote
Whaaaa.... (cocks head like a dog that's head a strange noise). By law, all employers and schools must provide time to for their people to vote. A full hour I believe. Plus there are plenty of advanced polling stations that allow people to vote early. What on Earth could be so pressing in your personal life that you can't make time to drop a piece of paper into a box?! Ok, maybe if Grandma died I'd accept that excuse but seriously, nobody is so busy they can't take five minutes out of their day to determine the future of the entire country/province/city.

2. Voting is inaccessible
Polling stations are everywhere, heck they even have them on university/college campuses. Internet voting just dilutes to process into something akin to American Idol. Get up off your fat ass and drive five minutes to your nearest polling station. And for the love of god please don't tell me you're too busy to do that.

3. Youths/minorities are disenfranchised
"So yah, like, all the people in Ottawa are a bunch of old white men who don't represent my [insert race, ethnicity, religion, bohemian lifestyle of choice]." Uh huh. So not voting is the best way to get representation for your people? Well of course it works! I mean look at all those black people who didn't vote for Obama en mass... oh, bad example. Well we all know that Punjabi people in Brampton can't vote for Indian MPs.... oh, sorry, another bad example. This is the absolute largest pile of bullshit I've ever heard from young people and minority groups. The reason nobody in Ottawa is there to represent you is because you deliberately choose not to vote or run for office to protest that there's nobody in Ottawa to represent you. If you actually think not voting is the best way to encourage representation, you're a dumb ass.

4. My vote is wasted under the current system
Ok, you've already heard my rant about proportional representation. You want to change the system to get smaller parties in for more direct representation of the people by switching to a system where faceless representatives are picked from a list, written up by the same old white dudes you hate so much so they can get all their old white buddies in office. There's a vary good reason for keeping the fringe radicals out of the lime lite anyway, because it creates nightmarish deadlock and nothing gets done. So all you end up with is a bunch of crazies who answer to no one. Smaller ridings might help votes get better represented, or a "none of the above" option may help. Seriously though, a single vote counts a heck of a lot more than no vote at all.

5. Democracy is just a way to get the man to keep oppressing you
Yah, some people actually consider this a legitimate reason for not voting. Of course we cannot accuse Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Zedong, Mugabe, the Taliban, Gadhafi, the Khamer Rouge, Pinochet, Ho Chi Mihn, Tojo, Franco, and Kim Jong Il of ever oppressing anyone, especially minorities. If you actually believe that not voting is the best way to stick it to the man, you're an ass hole. That's the best way to get the true dictators in power.

Note: My swearing here is a parody of the "Screw the Vote" documentary, which uses similar language. So much for the prim and proper CBC.

read more...

September 11th Retrospective

Excuse the lateness of this article. Every year on September 11th, I feel compelled to write something but I never seem to get around to it. It's a vary difficult topic to approach, even for the most seasoned journalists. That day back in 2001 was the defining moment of Generation Y. Unlike the strife our grandparents faced during the Second World War, we have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Eight years have passed and not a lot has changed. I'd like to take a look back at that day and give a retrospective of all that has happened since then in hopes that you will walk away with some greater insight into the subject, or at least an interest to learn more.

September 11th is one of those events in history where most people can remember vividly exactly what they were doing when the news broke. I was only 15 at the time, yet the magnitude of it hit hard even for someone that young. It forced me to question a lot of my beliefs; namely it was what finally pushed me into atheism. After all, how could people proclaiming to be the religious pious commit such a satanic act? At the time, I didn't even know what Islam was. I can from a rather white bread school. We had a Muslim student come to our class in grade 8 but the kids saw him more as a curiosity rather than a threat or someone to be shunned. Now it has become something to be drilled into the children's heads, to beware of Islamophobia. Strangely, there was little anti-Islamism in the wake of the attacks. A stark contrast to the treatment of "Japs" following Pearl Harbour. On the other side of the coin, the attacks sparked greater anti-Americanism and antisemitism across the world, not only in Muslim countries.

One does not need to dive deep to explain why 9/11 happened. Those who perpetrated the attacks were soulless bigots. Bin Laden himself is a false revolutionary, like so many others who have followed him. Wealthy madmen who claim they're fighting for "the people" when all they want is to craft the world into their own image. They end up being more tyrannical than the tyrants they seek to destroy. Adolf Hitler may have been one of the most evil men in history but at least he was unabashed about his goals and did come from a common background. Bin Laden is the rich, spoilt brat version of Hitler. He hides behind phony claims of oppression and fighting for the common Muslim while he himself was one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. Like Hitler, he believes in the racial purity and moral superiority of his version of Islam. He is a fascist like any other fascist in history. The only difference is that he is not limited to geographical borders. To people who follow the Islamo-fascist doctrine, anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is ultimately the enemy and deserves death. I have always found terrorism in the name of religion to be especially ironic. If God, or Allah, is omnipotent, can't he do his own dirty work? The people who died in the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 died simply because they weren't Muslim, despite the fact that some of them were. Do you still become one of their martyrs when said members of your own religion slaughter you in cold blood?

9/11 for the first time in over 60 years brought the world to a breaking point and made a lot of people question our civilization. Bin Laden's goal was to create fear on that day, divide America, and drive the world into a holy war. On the last two, Al Qeada utterly failed in that mission. On fear, it was a decisive victory. The West has become more willing to give up basic rights and liberties for security, something Benjamin Franklin warned against over 200 years earlier. At the border, I can be strip searched or have my laptop and all it's information detained indefinitely without cause. I can't take a drink on a plane. It has opened the door to more snooping on the Internet. My free speech is curtailed so that I don't provoke Muslims. I can't publish cartoons of Mohammad unless I want to be hauled in front of the human rights commission. Ironically, it's still ok to negatively satirize Jesus and the Holocaust. The War on Terrorism has fizzled. Bin Laden has not been seen in years. Some question whether he's even still alive. The people who planned the attacks are living quite well despite being in prison. They're not exactly hanging the Nazis in Gitmo. Some people even believe we should feel sorry for the attackers. Not the kind of treatment you'd expect from those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ultra-political correctness in response to 9/11 may seem like taking Ghandi's morally superior path but where has it brought us? We're just walking in the circles. We have gotten little out of Afghanistan. Our boys are dying over there. One day it looks like we're making serious progress in instituting the most basic human rights there, the next day Karzhai is saying it's ok for Afghan men to starve their wives if denied sex. Perhaps we would have been better off just nuking the country. We went there to destroy Al Qeada and Bin Laden, instead it has turned into a bizarre and perpetual nation building exercise. There are Afghans who want change and modernization but they're up against savages in great number like the Taliban, who seem to be like the proverbial annoying house guest that keeps coming back. I think it's fair to call them that. Afghanistan is the third lowest ranked country in the world in terms of human development as measured by the UN. Take that Sierra Leon. The Human Development Index takes into account literacy, life expectancy, average education, and GDP. Canada by contrast is the third highest ranked. On average, most Afghans won't live to see their 45th birthday, and only one in three can read. Schoolgirls are unlikely to make it past the fourth grade. This is actually an improvement over what it was. How long will it be though before we're back at square one?

In the time since, other Islamic powers have risen up and are threatening the west. Iran has already hinted it wishes to nuke Israel, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Sudan is slaughtering non-Muslim Africans en mass. Iraq has turned into a farce. Obama has since declared that the US will become a soft diplomatic power. However, diplomacy has proven ineffective against these enemies. Then again, so has war. It is difficult to reason with or fight a pan-national ideology, especially when there's no one person to represent it. If anything, 9/11 turned the whole field of international relations upside down. It's much harder to define the enemy. What worked well during World War II and the Cold War, 70 years history, suddenly no longer applied. The only way we can stop this second tide of fascism is to stop pussyfooting around the issue and stand together to denounce it. The Muslim world cannot be expected to do this. To this day, vary few moderate Muslims have spoken up in outrage over the attacks. Instead they'd rather lob accusations of persecution and Islamophobia against Westerners, or make up excuses for the bigots. Many Muslims cheered when the planes hit. The majority of them are not our enemies, but they are not exactly our allies either.

The last subject I want to tackle here are the so called 9/11 Truthers. I kind of let them slide until I say a truck plastered with Truther bumper stickers the other day, and Discovery's recent show about 9/11 conspiracies. They are the people who believe the US government perpetrated the attacks as an excuse to attack Muslims. From my years of dabbling in politics, I can say without a doubt that the US government is not competent enough to pull something like that off. They can't even keep the names of CIA spy agents top secret. You'd think somebody would notice the government putting dynamite in the WTC? Most of them are sad, ignorant fools just like the morons who think the moon landing was a hoax. There is simply no credible evidence to suggest a conspiracy. The Truthers are no better than holocaust deniers, and are terrorists in their own right by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

read more...

Voter Burnout

University of Saskatchewan student newspaper The Sheaf published an interesting article regarding voter burnout among youth. Considering the election posturing right now, it's worth a read. It reflects my belief that parliament is risking a crisis of legitimacy.

The Sheaf: Students Suffer Election Fatigue

read more...

Obama's Bushisms and His Politcal Stance

Just a slight observation about Obama's speeches lately. Particularly in the past week regarding education and health reform. On education, he claimed that Americans who do not graduate high school are basically betraying their country. In the health reforms, he blasted Republican fear mongering. Regardless of whether you're for him or against him, I've noticed that Obama has been taking a strong "you're either for us or against us" tone in his speeches. G.W. Bush used this style a lot and was blasted for it, yet nobody but me has seemed to have noticed Obama doing it. For someone billed as a great united, this is a vary polarizing tactic. It's certainly got the American right rilled. I can't help but wonder whether it's going to come back and bit him in the end.

I also sense that Obama is far more of a socialist than his policies would indicate, suggesting that he is being held back quite a bit. His appointment of Van Jones as "Green Jobs" czar was an odd choice. Jones is an admitted communist and is a 9/11 "Truther", someone who thinks the government perpetrated the attacks. He has since stepped down from the job due to these controversies. Obama is also good friends with 70s self-proclaimed revolutionary Weatherman Bill Ayers. Then there was the Reverend Wright scandal during the elections. He seems to surround himself with a lot of far-left radical thinkers. On the political spectrum, I would place Obama as a social democrat, not a liberal. You get the sense that he wants to take his policies further left into the realm of socialism, but is frustrated due to the political and procedural roadblocks preventing him from doing so. This is why I believe he has been more aggressive in his speeches in recent weeks. It's not just the Republicans that are causing problems either. He's further left than a lot of others in the Democratic party. (In Canada, he'd probably fit right in with the NDP.) Many Democrats do not feel comfortable with his policies. Unlike Canadian leaders, Obama doesn't have the luxury of strict party unity, so bills inevitably get watered down in congress in an effort to please everyone. He has certainly received a rude awakening now that the honeymoon is over. He's either going to have to accept the limitations on his power, or he should just resign now and save face before the BS hits the fan.

read more...

Idiots Hall of Shame: June to August

June Inductees
Us -- No, no, not the United States. I'm talking about Us, you and me. We're idiots for not putting a stop to out of control hypergovernments that have done far more harm than good.

CUPE Toronto -- Striking over 18 sick days? A classic example of greed and a culture of entitlement. They're not going to win public sympathy for this one

Canadian TV Networks -- Radio profits are way up, ad revenue is up, yet they face stiffer competition that TV does. How is it that Canadian TV is still loosing money?!

Gays -- For shamelessly perpetrating their own negative stereotypes and then wondering why so many find them so offensive.

July Inductees
Miller & McGuinty -- Banned pesticides saying they're unsafe, now telling us we must use them on garbage piles to control pests and that they're perfectly safe. Which one is it?

Bundanoon, Australia -- Town completely banned bottled water. Highly reactionary response to a non-existent issue. Also puts citizens in danger should regular tap water become unreliable a la Walkerton.

August Inductees
David Miller & Toronto Council -- Caving in to a militant union and general abuse of Toronto citizens. These corrupt councillors need to be roped in before the city finally falls apart.

Scottish Government -- For releasing a convicted, unrepentant mass murderer on "compassionate grounds".

Expert Panels -- Experts who say nothing useful

Milton Tornado -- For damaging buildings on the wrong side of town! I sure would have liked to have seen some Mc(Guinty) Mansions mowed down.

UK Parliament -- The fall of an empire through corruption, greed, and incompetence. Also bending over backwards to Arab interests at the expense of their own peoples'.

read more...

Loving to Hate the Bike

I think it's fair to say that Canadians have a love-hate relationship with the bicycle and those who ride them. Especially now that cycling has become a "green" alternative to driving. I'm sure everyone who drives has been tempted to throw a milkshake at those spandex clad idiots who run stop signs and insist on riding down busy roads barely wide enough for car traffic. Cyclist see car drivers as a threat to their safety as many don't pay attention to small vehicles. The debate rages over who should get priority on our streets. Now that Saint Al of Gore has put the fear of anthropogenic global warming into the minds of the public, certain politicians have shown increasing hostility toward the car. Cyclists shut down Bloor St in Toronto yesterday during the rush after former Ontario Attorney-General Michal Bryant ran one over in an alleged road rage incident. It is increasingly becoming apparent that bicycles and cars cannot coexist on city streets.

Generally speaking, cyclists are the problem. As I said, they have a complete disregard for the rules of the road. They run stop signs & red lights, they do not yield to motor vehicle traffic, they ride on roads that are unsuitable for cycling, they don't signal their intent, they cut drivers off, they ride on busy sidewalks. Most cyclists don't like to admit it but few will outright deny it, opting instead to just avoid the question. I swear they must have a death wish. Who do you honestly think is going to win a battle between a car weighing in at a metric ton versus a bike that weighs 180lbs including rider?! The end result is slow downs in traffic flow and higher risk of injury and death than there needs to be. Of course drivers cannot be totally excused as many react with aggression to people on bicycles, or simply do not make themselves aware of their presence. To the first one, I think the cause of it can be blamed on cyclists no obeying the rules. The problem is that there is no clear route to punish cyclists who do break the rules. Drivers can be fined, given demerit points, have their vehicle impounded, or have their license taken away. Most of these options don't exist for people on bikes. There seems to be little will to even run safety blitzes for them as is frequently done with cars and trucks.

So what's the solution here. For many politicians, bike lanes seem to be the obvious one. What is a bike lane though? In most cases it's just a line paved down an already existing street, making it increasingly narrow for motor-vehicle traffic. It's just too expensive to widen existing roads to add them. In Toronto, which has bike lanes aplenty, most are considerably underused. You can drive down a busy street during the rush and maybe see one or two cyclists in them. The rest are weaving in and out of traffic or are riding on the sidewalk. The lanes are uneconomical for another reason, that being they can only be used six months out of the year. Vary few are loony enough to ride in the dead of winter when it's twenty below outside. So why waste that money when the road could be widened for more car traffic, or to expand transit which solves pollution issues and can be used all year round.

I think the best solution is to make cyclists pay for the roads in the same way drivers do. Currently, drivers must pay $70 annually for plate renewal, double that if you live in Toronto, to maintain roads. That means filling potholes, resurfacing, expanding the system, repairing bridges, ploughing snow, salting & sanding, and sweeping debris. Should cyclists not also be made to contribute considering that they too are using the roads? The solution would be to require bikes to be plated in the same way cars are. So if the rider is over 16 years of age, their bike would require a small, mandatory annual renewal fee of say $10 to $20, which would go directly toward road maintenance and the construction of bike lanes. For the fee they get a license plate that is attached to the back of their bike. This serves a number of uses. We generate additional revenue of course. It also allows us to track cyclists who aren't abiding by the rules of the road. See one doing something dangerous? Call the cops and given them his plate number. Enough serious infractions and they would not be able to renew their plates, thus be unable to ride their bike, just as we do with car drivers. Cyclists would benefit from this program as well, as plates would serve to curtail the serious problem of of bike theft, or at vary least increase the odds of recovery. When the cyclist takes their new bike to be plated, the make, model, colour, and serial number would be kept on file. If the bike were stolen, police could use it to easily track stolen bikes back to their proper owner. In essence, this would not punish cyclists but rather force them to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, which is what the Highway Traffic Act already stipulates. It might put the breaks on their holier than thou attitudes as well.

read more...

Ignatiff Gambling with Democracy

I'm really starting to get fed up of this garbage. Liberal leader Michael Ignatiff is threatening to pull the plug on the Conservatives come Fall. If he goes through with this, it would be the fourth election in the last five years. One has to admire the tenacity of the Liberals. However, is this really about serving the public good or rather making sure the Grits can go back to ruling with their divine right? Ignatiff has said that he would do a better job as PM but has failed to outline how he would do so other than expanding the EI program, something that is arguably as fine as it is. Really, there's a lot I don't like about Harper. Namely his party's ringing endorsement of the controversial HST reforms in Ontario and BC, and forking over public money to GM and Chrysler. Ignatiff has failed to attack this though and instead has focused on minor "scandals", such as the woman who is currently suing the government after she was detained in Kenya for passport fraud. Incidentally, I think she did not look anything like her passport photo. So one woman who could not be confirmed to be who she was by any authorities until a DNA test was performed constitutes the government abandoning Canadians abroad.

All the Liberals have offered up are empty slogans about being green and bringing accountability but what they do have to show from this Parliament is a string of colossal blunders mixed in with silence on the real issues. An election would cost millions of dollars and I can tell you right now how it would turn out. We'll spend the money, poll turnout will be at its lowest ever, we'll elect another Conservative or Liberal minority, and we'll be right back to square one. Lather, rinse, repeat. None of the parties even have adequate funding to keep fighting annual elections. In the end, all it serves to do is make a mockery of our democratic process. A process which the Liberals under Dion showed little regard for. Don't like the outcome, hijack it and force yourself into power like some sort of petty dictator. The Canadian public won't tolerate it, but they won't retaliate by going Conservative. They'll retaliate by simply not voting. I think this is what Ignatiff is gambling on; that he can grab the support of die hard political junkies that will show up to vote no matter what. It's not exactly equivalent to having an ace up his sleeve, more like betting on a horse named "Glue". This is especially a poor gamble when the liberal-left is on the defensive right now in the Western world. The way Obama and Brown have bungled the US and UK economic recoveries respectively won't draw rousing support from those who follow the news, who are also those junkies. What the Liberals need is a Conservative majority. Of course I'd like to see that but there is practical advantage for Ignatiff et al as well. Simply put it gives them time to reorganize as the party clearly has lost touch with its support base and Canadians at large. This is why Dion had to go and this is why they'll likely loose again. Harper has a solid platform for better or worse while the Liberals have none. They had long put their money on the "better the devil you know" mantra when they were in power, but it might just come back to bite them in the backside. Regardless of what happens, everyone in Parliament needs to stop playing foolish games with democracy and get down to some real business.

read more...

Britain: The Mighty Have Fallen

Britain came from humble beginnings as the home of Celtic and Norse tribes inhabiting the islands off the north west coast of Gaul. It was invaded by the Romans, then then Normans, then united under a single kingdom. It became the largest and most powerful empire the world has ever known controlling territories from Canada to India, to Hong Kong, and many points in between. It was the victor in the first world war against mighty central European powers. In the Second World War it fended off the mighty German Luftwaffe single-handedly and outnumbered three to one. The British revolutionized trade, ushered in the age of steam, changed the way ships navigate, built the most powerful navy in the world. They invented television, the type writer, the world wide web, the MRI, the hot blast furnace, cloning, and the jet engine, football (soccer) among other things. Alas how the mighty have fallen. One could argue that Britain ever did fully recover from the ravages of World War Two. That's what brought many Brits to the colonies during the 1950s; including my own family. While the nation recovered economically, it has suffered serious social and political decay during the recent decades.

London's Sunday Times reported this week that convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was set free due to a secret oil deal made between the UK and Libyan governments as part of a prisoner transfer program. An exchange of letters between UK justice secretary Jack Straw and his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill detailed the plan. The government had originally opposed including Megrahi as part of the prisoner transfer in 2007 but later that year turned their position to include any Libyans the government was currently holding. Allegedly, the decision was made after negotiations between the Libyan government and British Petroleum, for a multi-million pound oil exploration deal, stalled. This contradicts the governments claims that it had no involvement in Megrahi's release. It also contradicts Scottish claims that he was released purely on compassionate grounds.

This is just the latest in a string of scandals that have plagued Gordon Brown's embattled Labour government. The corruption allegations involving the UK Parliament makes Canadian Parliament look comatose, and turns Obama's health care debate into the cure for insomnia! MPs from all parties have been accused of stealing money from government coffers. Labour's environmental plans have arguable run Britain's economy into the ground. Social problems have also exploded. Banning handguns did nothing to solve the country's high rates of violent crime. It is said that any given night, young adults can be seen passed out in the street from binge drinking. Many feel that the country is now controlled entirely by Muslim-Arab interests. The government has further adopted an increasingly nanny-statist view on the public, and keeps watchful eye on them through thousands of CCTV cameras. Orwell must be turning in his grave. So far the reaction to this has been blasé. Brits have reacted angrily to the scandals and social problems but looking from the outside in, there seems to be a lack of political will for change. The difference with the Lockerbie scandal is that it attracted international scorn. However, even if the Conservatives or another party gets in, will they really go through the effort of making the drastic changes needed to get the nation back on it's feet? They face insurmountable odds and risk political suicide doing so. If there's one problem with democracy, it's finding someone who will throw caution to the wind and do what needs to be done. Churchills and Thatchers are a rare breed though.

The UK parliament is running a vary real risk of evoking a crisis of legitimacy. Far more serious than when Stephane Dion wanted to circumvent democracy here. No, rather due to the corruption across the political spectrum, people will simply believe that no party represents them. This of course breeds radicalism. Note the increasingly worrying militant nature of Britain's young, middle and upper class Muslim males. The Underground bombings of 2005 were a home grown attack. Perhaps if this were a one-off, we could dismiss it but many more such attacks have been foiled recently. Simply put, social problems and government corruption can merge together to create a ticking time bomb. This means more race riots as in Bradford in the late 90s, and a possible return of violence not seen since the end of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. That is if things aren't brought under control soon. Brown's government has to fall as even die hard social democrats will agree that the party, and by proxy the country, has taken a huge wrong turn since at least Tony Blair's resignation. Britain is falling. The question is whether the empire will choose to die with a whimper or come out fighting with that classic stiff upper lip.

read more...

Paying For Others to Have Kids?

There's a bit of a debate raging right now over whether the Ontario Government should fund in-vitro fertilization. Honestly, I really haven't been following this story too much but I do have some comments on it. According to the Toronto Sun, a panel of experts has suggested that the provincial government should pay for the fertility treatments of women under the age of 42 including gays, single parents, and those who are HIV positive. People obviously do have a right to bare children should they choose to. However, the last two have me bothered. Heterosexual and gay couples obviously have fertility issues not by choice. One due to health concerns, the other due to a supposedly hardwired sexual orientation. It is also more likely that the children will be raised in a stable home. Studies have shown that children with two active parents tend to fare better than those with single parents at pretty much every aspect of life. Ann Coulter in her book "Guilty" argues that willing single moms, those who deliberately choose to raise a baby without a father or any other second parent, should not be entitled to government support. I tend to agree with her on this subject. I've heard all to many stories of single women getting in vitro from sperm banks just because they want someone to give them unconditional love or they believe they are unlovable. Not exactly the best mental state to raise a child in involuntary conditions, such as divorce. Choosing to do so intentionally is just plain selfish.

Then there's the suggestion that HIV positive people are entitled to such treatment. I must admit I'm confused by this isn't explained vary well. Is it the mother who has HIV that's getting the treatment, or is it the father with the disease? In the case of the former, would the baby not be in serious risk of contracting HIV? Is some sort of surrogate involved? Do we have to pay them for their services if so? Also, even though AIDS fatalities have dropped significantly over the years, the parent is still at high risk of premature death from, lets face facts, a 100% preventable disease, leaving the child at an equally high risk of becoming orphaned. I get the feeling that this panel really hasn't examined the social aspects of this issue beyond whether it's a parents right to have a child.

Of course this begs the question. With all the children in this country up for adoption, why are we encouraging people who may not be able to take care of their kids to have their own biological children? Furthermore, why are people so obsessed with having biological children to begin with? Many parents who have adopted have expressed that they love that child as much as any biological child. There are thousands of kids out there that need a good home. Simply put, if you cannot have your own children, why would you not pursue this avenue? You will have far greater impact on an adopted child's life than you probable would your own. I know I would certainly consider it if I were in this situation. Rather than pay for in vitro, the government should instead be streamlining the adoption process to make it faster for fit parents to bring their child home, as well as open the ability to adopt any available child they want. (of course I'm speaking of the rubbish which often requires adoptive parent and child to be the same race or cultural background) This would be money well spent and would make a huge difference in some child's life.

read more...

Lockerbie Bomber's Release Pouring Salt in Old Wounds

I've been covering politics for what, four years now at least. I had long held onto the belief that nothing surprised me. This week's story of the Scottish government's decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds I must admit had me a little taken back. For those who don't know, al-Megrahi, an ex-Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted in 1999 for being one of the conspirators in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 back in 1988. The plane exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie taking 270 lives including several on the ground. al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison but was released on the grounds of him having terminal prostate cancer. Upon his arrival in Libya, he was given a hero's welcome. US President Barack Obama and the UK government condemned, all be it mildly, the Scottish government for al-Megrahi's release. Most of the bombing victims were Americans. The release of the perpetrator of one of the most deadly terror attacks prior to 9/11 is to the victims' families like pouring salt into old woulds.

At first it puzzled me as to why the Scottish government would do such a thing. However, reading some of the comments posted on the BBC article provided some insight into the decision. One particular comment from a Marianne from Lichester UK caught my eye. She writes "All morons wanting this man to apologise..for what? He is innocent, the US knows it. They were afraid to go after Iran, knowing full well they did it, since they needed the oil, and remember Iraq was a friend at the time. The USA navy blew down an Iranian jetliiner [sic] with almost as many passengers by accident, and this was their payback, they basically had said so much, but no direct evidence was ever found even to this man!! Leave him be, he will be meeting his maker soon enough either way." This woman is obviously the typical "US committed 9/11 conspirator nutjob.

Scotty from Sydney, Australia provides some more "insight". "A tough, but ultimately right, decision.It takes a special type of character to rise above the political morass and cliche that is moral high ground. This shows Scottish character at its best - light where there is darkness, hope where there is none. A momentous act of national courage. Sure, this mass murder will never be forgotten or forgiven, but we did the right thing for humanity.
P.S. Nobody from the US even has the right to comment - your foreign policy is the cause of all of this."


I think I'm beginning to see a trend here. Before I make a final conclusion, I want to hear what a Mr. Dazzlingpuddock has to say. "I have never been prouder to be a Scot than I am today!! Vengeance has no place in a civilised society!! Well done Kenny for not bowing to pressure from the US!! The US will complain which means MacAskill has done the decent and just thing!! What good is keeping a dying man in prison going to do apart from cost taxpayers money!! The fact that Megrahi was probably innocent will now never be aired and the US and UK intelligence services are now breathing a huge sigh of relief!"

So I think I can draw some conclusions from these three comments. First of all, al-Megrahi's fans seem to have either atrocious spelling skills or a fetish for the exclamation point. While most people in the comments have expressed outrage at the decision to release this man, the ones who support him tell us why this decision to release him was made. Many people blame the United States for the bombing. American foreign policy is far from spotless and most certainly many deaths have resulted. What puzzles me is how can people express outrage at say the Mai Lai massacrer but not Lockerbie. Both involved the mass murder of innocent civilians. Yet because the bomber in this case is Muslim and the US has supposedly oppressed Muslims, that makes the latter ok in the eyes of many? This belief sets a bad precedent morally as any group can claim oppression to excuse itself from murdering civilians, something expressly condemned by the Geneva Conventions that outline the rules of war. The Americans were rightly blasted for Mai Lai during the Vietnam War. However, that same standard absolutely must be applied to other nations without exception. An attack such as Lockerbie does constitute an act of war and the Gadhafi was lucky his nation didn't become another Iraq in the process. One could argue that the US was indeed arming Libya's enemies but this still doesn't excuse the country of committing an unprovoked attack. The country had also been closely allied with the Soviet Union during the 1980s and had been assisting Palestinian terror groups. Libya is not exactly known for respecting the lives of civilians, even their own.

The second part of the story is whether Megrahi was guilty to begin with. Many, including former Israeli prime minister Sharon, have argued that it was actually a Palestinian terror group working for the Iranian government that committed the bombing and that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted. Without knowing the details of the trial, I cannot really comment on how sturdy the case was. It can be assumed he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. If there was such doubt that did exist, international organizations such as the UN should have been advocating further investigation into the case. It is far easier to get someone off a serious crime than it is to convict them due to the higher burden of proof. The conspiracy theorists will of course argue that the trial was tampered with by the US. It is a distinct possibility but then again if the international community knew this, there should have been more scrutiny. However, there was little to none. This leaves us to conclude that Megrahi was involved in the bombing. Therefore, the Scottish government has released a convicted mass murder eight years into his sentence so he can go back to Libya and become a national hero before he dies. As the Toronto Sun put it, how would the victims families of Paul Bernardo feel is he were released on compassionate grounds? What about other notable mass murders such as Herman Goering or Rudolf Hess, tried at Nuremburg. Would people today come to their aid today? Some have even begun to theorize that Libya has brokered a deal with the Scottish parliament for Megrahi's release. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but it certainly seems that things do not add up in this case. No other criminal of that calibre would receive that sort of treatment. Either that or it is political correctness run amok. Regardless, the Scottish Parliament has made a colossal mistake releasing this man and rightly deserves to be internationally shamed.

Source: BBC News, BBC News Reader Comments

Edited Aug 23: Fixed some spelling issues and added sources.

read more...

Toronto Strike Highlights Need for Municipalities Inquiry

During yesterday's rather heated debate at Toronto city hall over whether the strike deal should be ratified, council took a rare but not unprecedented step. In a motion during the debate that only one councillor voted against, video feeds were cut and all members of the media and the public were asked to leave. The debate over the deal continued behind closed doors away from the public eye. At the federal and provincial level, such a motion would violate the rules of parliament but it is perfectly legal for municipal councils. Of course this is raising many questions over what exactly was discussed during that closed door debate among a sadly dysfunctional. Whether or not you agree with the contract or the strike itself is a moot point. Looking at the bigger picture, we have been presented with a mayor who has chosen to conduct city business in the utmost secrecy, and someone who is not afraid to stretch their autocratic muscle should they not get their way. As much as a weenie David Miller appears to be in public, he strikes me as being ruthless in his dealings outside of preying eyes. During the part of the debates that did make it to the media, Miller accused councillors who planned to veto the contract of "hating" Toronto, and furthermore claimed their dissent was a personal attack against him. The public was not kept informed regarding the mediation process, they were kept in the dark by the mayor, and when we finally had something, they were shut out of the debate. This is not democratic. This is the kind of government behaviour I would expect in the People's Republic of China or Cuba.

This is just another addition in a long line of scandals that the city has tried to keep under wraps. Councillors have been caught spending taxpayer money like water on their expense accounts, billing everything from fine dining to one particularly chintzy member who billed a bottle of Advil to the city. Debates over misspending have raged since Miller became mayor despite his main campaign platform in the first election being to clean up city hall. He actually had a broom in hand when he made that statement, as if we need another walking political cliche. Toronto is now plagued by crumbling infrastructure that it cannot pay for, mainly due to councillors' pet projects and generous contracts for unionized labour. Toronto may not be a dangerous city, crime wise, but it sure looks like it. No longer maintaining its clean reputation, the city is downright dirty even at the best of times; and examining critical infrastructure is like hopping in the DeLorean to go back to 1955. The council just uses tax payers like their own private bank account, and McGuinty's foolish City of Toronto Act has allowed them to accelerate that process unrestrained with all sorts of new user fees.

Unfortunately, corruption issues within Ontario municipalities are not limited to Toronto. It is just more noticeable there due to the larger media presence and variety. I've taken strong issues with the way the Town of Milton operates. Both Vaghan and Ottawa's mayors have seen court cases with accusations over electoral fraud. Other cities in the GTA, such as Burlington and Brampton also have serious issues with corruption according to the scuttlebutt in political circles. What goes on behind the closed doors of Ontario's city hall would probably make your blood boil. Everybody knows it; however, it's extremely difficult to prove. Given what we know about in Toronto, I do believe there is substantial enough cause for some sort of provincially led investigation into how municipalities in Ontario are being run. While many would balk at the idea of spending millions more in tax dollars, I think the situation has gone beyond critical mass and that there is no other way to deal with it. Most municipal politicians, is seems, care little of what their constituents think; partially out of arrogance, partially because nobody votes. This attitude is the vary antithesis of the responsible government concept that this nation was built on.

The Ontario government first of all needs to appoint a group of independent, non-partisan auditors to comb through the books of a select number of municipalities where there are the largest number of complaints. Sniff out any questionable expenses and "income sources" that councillors and civil servants might have. From there, if proof of corruption if found, it may be necessary to investigate the personal finances and assets of said individuals. Look at everything from voting records to ties to stakeholders such as big time land developers. From there, a system of checks and balances needs to be set up to ensure councillors and civil servants must remain fully transparent and accountable to their citizens. I think it is time to do what the United States has always done and appoint municipalities as a third level of government, rather than having them as self-governing corporate entities under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as they are now. Doing so would require councils to operate under the same decorum, constitutional conventions, and procedures that Parliament and the Legislature are required to operate under. Failing that, each city should at vary least have an independent auditor general and ombudsman appointed by the province to investigate citizens' complaints. Once who is accountable only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and not city council.
City councils must be roped in through some way, shape, or form to make sure citizens are getting the kind of democratic government they deserve.

read more...

Organic Food Has No Health Benefits?

Well there's another big shot at the greenies who have been pushing the eat local, eat organic mantra as both a healthier and more eco friendly lifestyle. A large study conducted by the UK's Food Standards Agency has found that organic food showed no difference in nutritional value or evidence of additional health benefits over regular produce. The findings back up a similar study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The Soil Association, a UK based environmental group which promotes sustainable eating is cautioning against the results, regardless of them being proven with proper scientific method by two separate and independent studies. The data also supports an investigation by ABC's 20/20 several years ago (when organic labelled food first started appearing) that examined organic and regular produce for toxins. The small study found that there was little difference and that organics could actually harbour more harmful bacteria. The conclusion, always wash your produce no matter how it was grown.

So why discuss this on a politics blog. Well, organic food has been a bit of a political football lately. Remember the whole fuss over raw milk earlier this year despite countless scientific studies, backed by the UN, which labelled it as a hazardous product? They used the same "less chemicals better for you" line even though pasteurization only heats the milk to kill bacteria and nothing else is added. One of the biggest problems concerning organic food is a lack of regulation. Currently, there are no set laws in Canada and the US which dictate exactly what can and what cannot be labelled organic. Therefore, something could be called organic and may not be. With consumers being asked to pay more for organic food, which has now been proven to have dubious health benefits, it's time to get some labelling regulation in place whether farmers like it or not. The current system is akin to gouging or selling snake oil.

Source: BBC News

read more...

Cartoon Warren Buffett to Teach Kids About Finance

Ah, somethings you know are just awful ideas when you hear them. Remember how his constant idiotic sky is falling rhetoric kept crashing the stock market earlier this year? He may be one of the world's richest men but he's hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Just another suit who got lucky. So you're going to put him in an internet cartoon to teach kids about finance. "Ok kids, each time the market goes down, panic and pull all your money out!" Smart. (rolls eyes)

Here's a link to the Calgary Herold article about it.

(I just realized I've been spelling his name Buffet all this time. I must have been hungry when I wrote those articles. lol)

read more...

The Disgrace that is Obama

Barack Obama put his foot in it, some are saying intentionally, after he commented on the Gates arrest during yesterday's press conference on health care. For those who don't know, here's a little background. Henry Louis Gates, a professor of African American Studies at Harvard in Cambridge Mass. locked himself out of his own house and and attempted to break in. A passerby who did not live in the neighbourhood and did not know the professor, phoned police to report suspicious activity. Gates' house had been broken into earlier this month. Two officers responded, a Sgt. James Crowley and his African American partner (who was not named in the news reports I read). They asked for Gates' ID, which he produced, which was confirmed by university police. Just as Crowley and the other officer were leaving, Gates went on a tirade, calling Crowley a racist and saying that the Cambridge police were racial profiling. Screaming and making a scene in front of the whole neighbourhood, the two officers arrested him for disturbing the peace. Yet he had been burgled before. I'd be happy knowing the police were protecting my property. Of course Mr. Gates just happens to be a friend of Obama's. During the conference, Obama admitted he did not know the details of the case, but when on to say that the Cambridge police force had acted "stupidly" and said that racial profiling was still a major issue in America.

The one of the most critical rules of politics is that you should never get involved in active cases when you're in such a position of power, especially if you just admitted you didn't know all the facts. Everyone in America is innocent until proven guilty. Obama's comments on TV Wednesday effectively reversed that; assuming that Crowley was guilty of racial profiling. Another ironic twist was that Crowley had taught a course in how to prevent racial profiling at the police academy. The Cambridge police force has so far stood by their Sargent and Crowley himself has refused to apologize to Gates despite calls from Boston area African American leaders to do so. Obama has now backtracked and has offered his own apology to Crowley after the media got wind of the gaffe. After listening to some talk shows on satellite radio, it seems that many Americans feel Obama made the comments intentionally to detract attention away from his controversial health care bill. Instead of the media picking that apart, they instead jumped on the racial profiling story. I wouldn't put it past him as this is a vary common political tactic that is studied in political science circles.

Barack Obama is shaping up to be a failure of a president. His current approval rating stands at 55%, much lower than the 70%+ he had just after he entered office. In fact, this is actually lower than George W. Bush's approval rating over the same first six months time period. If his health care plan is passed, from what I'm hearing it is estimated that Obama would be responsible for adding $1 trillion to America's national debt. It already stands at $11.6 trillion as of July 24th. To put this in perspective, Canada's annual gross domestic product, the total value of all goods and services produced per year in this country, is $1.5 trillion. It would take Canadians almost eight years worth of production to pay of America's debt assuming we didn't spend our money on anything else. The number is mind boggling. So far Obama has risked trade wars with his NAFTA neighbours over Buy America, has enacted a disastrous cap & trade system to combat climate change, and has generally done little to help alleviate the recession in that country, or address Iraq and Afghanistan. The costs of his two tier health system that he hopes to enact are already spiralling out of control even before the bill has been passed. It has Republicans and moderate Democrats worried. To cover the costs, Obama has suggested that America's top 1% earners may have to pay extra fees, read taxes, to pay for the program. Estimates peg that tax rate to rise to well over 50% of their incomes, higher than even Canada and France. Average Americans worry about this because many still hold onto the belief in the American Dream. More likely, they fear it will filter down as costs go even higher until middle Americans are paying tax rates equal to or higher than Canada and many European nations. Studies have shown that of the 15% of Americans who lack health care, only a small number of those are people who do not qualify for insurance. Many question the value of such a program, paying so much to take care of a few really needy and the rest who are lazy or have too much bravado to think that they don't need to be insured; while on top of that paying for their own private insurance. Interestingly, this is starting to sound like that whole "premium" thing we have to pay on top of regular income taxes to boost health funding. Obama is the black version of Dalton McGuinty after all. Many thought Obama would provide change to America but all he has proven to many is that he's just another silver tongued tax & spend liberal. Still, the media coddles him. In fact, the Gates affair has been one of the rare events where the media has actually come out critical of something Obama has done. Even notable liberal current affairs comedian John Stewart railed against the president on the Daily Show. Obama is still gambling on his race to prop him up but that is starting to erode away as people realize how disastrous his policies have been. Others still choose to blame Bush, who did create a lot of the problems. However, Obama has only aggravated them through his policies rather than bring the "change" he promised. I haven't even touched on the weakness of his near non-existent foreign policy. Will America's first half-black president be it's first one termer as well? Hopefully yes if Americans want to walk away with something left in their wallets.

read more...