Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid Interview

The National Post recently interviewed Dambisa Moyo, the author of the controversial book "Dead Aid". Moyo is advocating that Western governments slowly wean African governments off foreign aid, arguing that it has done nothing to help the lives of the African people. I spent four years in university studying Latin American politics and history, and while not as bad off, those countries suffer from a lot of the same issues. While trillions of dollars in aid have been spent on these countries, little progress has been made in improving the lives of their peoples. Africa in particular has actually seen quality of life regress. I agree with everything Moyo has said in the interview in that countries need to invest in economies and building a strong private sector based on small business, not in corrupt governments. In the interview, she also talks about her issues with NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and the celebrity-aid culture led by people such as Bono and Bob Geldof. It's an interesting read. Moyo herself was born in Zambia, was named one of the 100 most influential people last year, and her book is a TIME bestseller.

National Post: Why Aid to Africa Must Stop: Interview with Dambisa Moyo

read more...

Lil' Hitler's Legal Bind

There's a trial going on in Winnipeg where authorities are attempting to win the legal right to take away a young girl who's parents are suspected Neo-Nazis. It is alleged that her parents trained the child to be a racist who hates "niggers" [sic] and calmly talks about how all black people should be killed. The girl also believes that any visible minorities are a threat to white children. The story first broke last year when the child showed up to her school with swastikas and white supremacist slogans drawn on her skin. It was not so much what the girl was saying that alarmed social workers but the cold, matter-of-fact way in which she said those things. Social workers allege that the parents have Nazi paraphernalia around their home, have made frequent racial slurs, and have trained their child to think this way. The parents are fighting the seizure of their children on constitutional grounds citing freedom of association, conscience, and belief. The question is whether or not authorities are taking the right steps by trying to take this girl away and more importantly how the final decision will affect future cases.

It's the old can of worms argument once again. Can the state really take a child away due to the beliefs of their parents? Also, how does the state determine what beliefs are acceptable and which are not. In this particular example, assuming the allegations are true, I think child protection services has a perfectly viable case. Obviously the girl has been taught to believe that violence is perfectly alright. She may not pose a threat now but as those beliefs fester, it could lead to violent physical acts in the future unless she has some sort of epiphany before that happens. No matter which way this hearing goes, it could set a precedent that this country is not prepared for; setting off nightmare constitutional problems and potential legal double standards. There is no clear definition of what is and what is not an issue when parents bring children into highly charged politics. Most recently was the case where Tamils were alleged to have used their children as human shields during the blockade of the Gardener Expressway in Toronto earlier this month. The case seems different at first glance but is surprisingly similar to the case of the Winnipeg Neo-Nazis. Both peoples are using their children as a means to further their political cause. One is a hatred for blacks, the other is a hatred for the Sri Lankan government and frequently its Sinhalese majority. What about Muslims that take their kids to Mosques where radical Imams preach violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel. What about blacks who teach their children to fear whites or Hispanics who teach their children to blame the United States for issues in their home countries? Should these groups also have their children taken from them? Other recent issues involved the FLDS in Texas, which sparked controversy when American authorities seized children from parents belonging to the sect for at least partially indocrinating them in polygamy and a view that women were inferior. The question we need to ask ourselves is at what point does ideology become abusive. It's simply not as clear cut as physical abuse is. The racial element that is often involved only makes things more complicated, especially with the inevitability of human rights tribunals becoming involved; who's members which as we have learned are not always formally trained in law or politics. Unless physical abuse is involved, removing a child from the home in these cases should only be a last resort when counselling fails. Arguably simply taking the child away does not attack the root of the problem, where as court ordered psychiatric help for both the parents and the child would certainly be a start. It's just too much of a legal burden to decide which ideologies constitute abuse and which ones do not.

read more...

Getting to the Heart of Animal Rights Thinking

The other day while on a trip to Nunavut, Governor General Michaelle Jean helped gut a seal and ate a piece of its heart. Certainly not something I would do unless I was starving but it was an important symbolic gesture none the less. It shows that the GG is in solidarity with Canadians over the sealing controversy with Europe. Most Canadians have shown support for the action given that seal hunting is a way of life for many Inuit and Maritimers. However, her act has attracted outrage from a variety of special interest groups; namely animal rights activists such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. In an act which insulted two groups of peoples, PITA senior vice president Dan Mathews said that Jean eating the seal heart was an act of "bloodlust" and proceeded to call Canadians a bunch of "Neanderthals". Wow, I'm quite impressed with Mr Mathews. Offending all Canadians and the Inuit people to boot! This would have been perfect for my racism on the left series.

When I was in high school, I had a teacher who tough native children in in Kenora for years. He said that he never understood the opposition to fur since it was the most natural garment for humans to wear. In fact we've been doing so for thousands of years. Of course there are questions regarding over harvesting of fur bearing animals for clothing but the act hunting the animal for that purpose is not wrong in and of itself. Then there's the question of PETA's existence. They've been waring on anything and everything they consider to be animal abuse for at least the last 25 years now. The group has also attracted a lot of celebrity attention, namely our export bimbo Pamela Anderson. They have also harnessed shock and awe protests such as Gorey signs and nude marchers. They aren't the most radical group out there (unlike the Animal Liberation Front), but they certainly are the most public. They certainly like the attention but I cannot help but wonder whether these people are just insane. Based on what I've heard the group say, it seems to me that they think animals should be awarded the same rights as people. (Both South Park and MAD Magazine classically lampooned this belief) Obviously we can agree that animals are free from abusive treatment but the idea of abandoning ALL animal products is ludicrous. According to PETA, we're not supposed to eat meat, wear fur and leather, own pets, race horses, hunt and fish, or use animals for work. It has gotten to the point where these groups feel that the rights of human beings should be sacrificed by the rights of animals. Surely if I accidentally ran over a possum with my car, they'd jail me for hit and run if they could. Of course animals should have the right to be free from mistreatment. However, telling people to sacrifice their only means of subsistence and then calling them bloodthirsty Neanderthals for refusing to give it up, you're anti-human at best and racist at worst. If PETA really wants to help animals, they'd focus on the puppy mills and helping humane societies rather than lashing out against the poor Inuit hunters.

read more...

CTV Gets Warning Shot Across Her Bow

According to the Financial Post, Canadian cable operators have filed a formal complaint with broadcast authorities against CTV regarding their recent advertising campaign. They are accusing CTV of violating journalistic principals by only airing their side of the story, constantly. Any avid couch potato will have seen their ads running 24/7 on each station the network owns. They have also inserted the pro cable tax ads into all their news casts. Presumably this is what has gotten cable companies irked. They have filed a letter with the CRTC asking them to take "immediate action". I'm definitely siding with the cable providers on this one. CTV is certainly not going to win many friends in the public. One thing I've come to learn is that Canucks hate it when anyone tries to raise the costs of their holy trinity: Tim's Coffee, beer, and TV. When Canadians hear cable TV and bill increases in the same sentences, they tend to get riled up.

I had considered filing a complaint myself with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, of which CTV is a member. Their fee hike commercials do seem to violate clauses 6 and 7 of the CBSC's code of ethics which require balanced coverage of issues. Being a journalism student who will be looking for work in a year's time, that's probably not the wisest thing for me to do. Perhaps my readers could be persuaded into doing so. It's gone beyond simply a matter of money to something I would equate to as deceptive propaganda and extortion by this network. CTV is hosting an open house this Saturday (May 23rd) so that would also be a good platform to politely voice concerns about their methods.

Source: Financial Post

read more...

Proportional Representation or How I Learned to Let Nutjobs Run the Country

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May is once again pushing for proportional representation for the House of Commons. She feels the current system of "first past the post" elections are unfair to alternative parties. It's worth addressing this issue again since British Columbia recently voted in a referendum to switch their electoral system to the needlessly complex "single transferable vote" system. It was voted down of course since naturally, nobody understood it. It's hard to get excited about electoral systems but it ends up effecting us all. Arguably our current system has a lot of issues but is not nearly as problematic as the nightmare that proportional representation would be. Currently the candidate with the most votes wins their seat in parliament. Which ever party wins the most seats rules the House. Under proportional representation, rather than counting the number of votes for an individual candidate, only votes for the party are counted. The House of Commons has 308 seats. I'm going to use the figures from the 2008 election to show how this would work, rounding numbers off to make it easier.

Current System
Conservatives: 37.65% of popular vote, 143 seats
Liberals: 26.26%, 77 seats
NDP: 18.18%, 37 seats
Bloc: 9.98%, 49 seats
Greens: 6.78%, 0 seats
Independent: 0.69%, 0 seats
Christian Heritage: 0.19%, o seats
Marxist-Leninist: 0.06%, 0 seats
Libertarian: 0.05%, 0 seats

Proportional System
Conservatives: 37.65% of popular vote, 116 seats
Liberals: 26.26%, 81 seats
NDP: 18.18%, 55 seats
Bloc: 9.98%, 31 seats
Greens: 6.78%, 21 seats
Independent: 0.69%, 2 seats
Christian Heritage: 0.19%, 1 seats
Marxist-Leninist: 0.06%, 0 seats
Libertarian: 0.05%, 0 seats

I know this doesn't equal 308 but of course somebody can't have half a seat. However, you can see how the playing field changes when popular vote is factored in as a whole rather than per individual candidate. Left wing parties in parliament would have gained a significant amount of power had this system been in place. It especially benefits the greens who would have gone from no seats to 21. May sees proportional representation as a free ride to power. Some have argued that this would enhance democracy but like so many things, what looks good on paper doesn't always work in real life.

The biggest flaw with proportional representation is the question of accountability. Under the current system, members of parliament are directly accountable to their constituents. This is why people like Garth Turner, Wajid Khan, and Blair Wilson lost their seats in the last election. They betrayed the trust of their voters. Proportional representation completely wipes out the local riding system and local candidates in favour of a list. Parties draft this list of 308 names with the party leader at the top and the most favourable choices in descending order. The problem with this system is two fold. First of all, it separates the citizen from their representative. There is no local representative to contact as everyone is based in Ottawa. In a country as vast as Canada, a lot of issues would likely get ignored. If candidates are caught doing unscrupulous activities, it is up to the party to deal with them. The public has no say. While it is more democratic in terms of allowing smaller parties for a shot at seats, it removes a great deal of interaction between citizens and their government. Proportional representation is a system ripe for abuse. The second issue is one of patronage. A common complaint about the current system is that it fails to ensure that the best candidates for the job lead ministries. Proportional representation opens the door to changing that but the list based on favouritism is also widely open to abuse as party leadership moves their friends and biggest campaign contributors to the top, ensuring that they get seats regardless of whether they're qualified or not. The temptation to stack the list with patronage appointments is just too strong and opens the door for corruption combined with lack of accountability. This system in actuality is far less democratic than the current system. It may benefit May but it doesn't benefit us. Besides, the current system is hardly broken so why try to fix it?

read more...

Are Canadian Broadcasters BS'ing the CRTC?

For all the talk about the death of media, there seems to be no shortage of it. HDTV is surging, the Internet is growing, even print media is expanding to a certain extent even if its future is no longer on paper. However, we kept getting told that advertising revenues are down and threaten to destroy Canadian television/newspapers/radio as we know it. Tell that to the fifty commercials they make you sit through during the average half hour TV show. Now, Canadian broadcasters are up in front of the CRTC trying to drastically hike your cable and satellite fees or else pull over-the-air television from the airwaves in some markets. I don't buy the argument that the death of conventional media is imminent. Even if it is, a lot of it has to do with how the media industry is operating rather than how people are consuming content. Take CTV for example who just accomplished a hostile take-over of the CHUM network and auctioned off former CITY stations to Rogers Television since they couldn't hold more than two network stations in the same market by law. Canada went from four major networks to three (soon to be two as some claim) as CHUM went the way of DuMont. Legendary rock station 1050 CHUM in Toronto was closed down and replaced by CP24 radio, an all news station owned by CTV, and most CITY shows were liquidated or replaced with new personalities. Arguably, the content on CTV controlled networks has gotten worse, not better since the takeover. They currently now own half the channels in the country including flagship CTV stations, the Comedy Network, Space, Bravo, the A Channel network, the Much Music network, MTV Canada, CP24 News, CTV Newsnet, TSN, and the Discovery Channel. That's not the mention the fact that they already owned Canada's largest direct-to-home pay satellite provider as well. CTV, owned by Bell Canada, spent hundreds of millions on the deals to buy up Canadian media and now has nothing to show for it except mountains of debt. Talk about a case of their eyes being bigger than their bellies.

Of course, CTV is not the only network in trouble. We've been hearing for a while now that Canwest Global is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot even pay employee salaries. However, they have continued to operate as normal so I can only assume that what we've been hearing is not the whole truth. CBC is threatening cuts despite their executives being caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, abusing their expense accounts to the tune of $60,000 on frivolous things. We are in a recession but I just cannot accept that it is the only reason they are in trouble. Nor can I accept that Internet sites like Youtube are stealing business away from them. Just as it is with the auto industry, most of the problems seem to stem from a long string of poor business decisions. Also like the auto industry, the networks are trying to put the government up against the ropes (read blackmailing) by threatening to take down over-the-air television unless they either get a bailout or get additional fees from cable companies to carry network stations. If there's one thing CTV is good at doing, it's tooting their own horn. After the CRTC denied the increases last week, they've launched an advertising campaign to argue that cable fees should be hiked. CFTO in Toronto is even hosting an "open house" where they will brainwash... er, inform the public on their side of the issue.

The reason there are no cable fees for network stations is because they are seen as a vital link between the state and their citizens as a tool for informing the electorate and providing information on disasters. Television networks are obligated to offer their network stations for free regardless of whether it is by antenna or cable. The same is true within the United States. It's also worth noting that it is unfair to make people pay for a service that is already available for free to everyone. Despite the government having a vested interest in keeping network TV available for free, television stations are under no obligation to keep over-the-air facilities operational. As Canada approaches the DTV switch-over date in 2011, certain networks may refuse to upgrade their equipment in less profitable markets, leaving many in the dark. A large number of these less profitable markets do not have cable access and the costs of satellite TV are prohibitive for many. (Basic satellite is roughly double the price of basic cable, not including taxes and box rental.) Large swaths of the country, namely in markets such as the Prairies, the Maritimes, and the Far North in particular may see themselves without access to television. To many, it seems unfathomable that TV would simply disappear.

One has to question CTV's true motives, given they are the only network that has really been openly trying to win public support for the fees. They are owned by Bell, who also owns Canada's largest satellite provider. Increasing cable costs to make it more comparable to their satellite service would certainly be beneficial to them. It would potentially solidify Bell's monopoly over information utilities within Canada. A monopoly that the CRTC has all but openly endorsed. BCE and its various utility subsidiaries have been facing slipping sales and growing consumer dissatisfaction in recent years. Regardless of their motives, blackmail is not exactly the best tactic to win political support and CTV's gamble borders on being outright shameful. If CTV wants to save some cash, they should instead sell off some of the assets they foolhardily bought in their attempt to build a media monopoly. They are the ones who are being greedy and anti-competitive. All the hikes would do is punish consumers. Unfortunately, that's just situation normal when it comes to Canadian politics. If media is dying, it's media monopolies that are doing it. Not the cable companies and certainly not consumers. Of course now that HDTV is available for free over the air, what would happen if people ditched cable and satellite all together. Don't laugh, I've seen more and more antennas going up in my neighbourhood. More people switching to free alternatives would effectively wipe out all the money CTV gets from their speciality stations and Bell ExpressVu. Maybe they'll be demanding we ban antennas next and lable people who use them as pirates.

read more...

Dhalla's Conspiracy

The recent case involving Brampton MP Ruby Dhalla's illegal hiring and abuse of migrant workers has shown that the Liberals still have not solved the issue of extreme arrogance within their ranks. To make long story short, Dhalla is being accused failing to pay the wages of three Filipina live-in caregivers she once employed. The accusers claim they were forced by Dhalla to work shifts up to 16 hours preforming duties beyond what they were required to do, such as cleaning the family's chiropractic offices. They claim that Dhalla withheld their passports and refuse to pay them. Of course none of these allegations have been proven in court. However, it's Dhalla's reaction to the allegations that has surprised many. The Brampton-Springdale MP is popular in her riding. For those who do not know the area, Brampton has a huge Punjabi population and as a Sikh woman, Dhalla has proven popular in her home riding. She is also a former Bollywood actress and model. According to the Ottawa Sun, at least one of her fellow MPs considered her to be manipulative. Other Liberals think vary highly of her.

The "nanny-gate" story has exposed her dark side for the world to see, a mind which seems to border on paranoia. She must have been talking to Garth Turner before speaking to the media about the story. She is now claiming the allegations are a Tory conspiracy against her, claiming the nannies are in cahoots with the Harper government to have her removed as an MP. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has said he finds the conspiracy allegations preposterous. Regardless, Dhalla has spoken with the integrity commissioner, which her lawyer is calling an unprecedented step. The nannies will testify under oath in front of an immigration committee. However, it seems like the Liberal party has already convicted them of perjury before any trial has begun. Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, who sits on the committee, promised that the hearing won't turn into a witch hunt; but it sounds to me as if it already has. Unfortunately for them, the Liberals are not winning the battle in the court of public opinion. Strong calls are coming out for her to resign. However, in a community who often puts the candidate's ethnicity over issues, it will be hard convincing Brampton's Sikh voters otherwise; especially given the star power Dhalla has. If anything, this whole tale shows that the Liberals have not learned a thing from the sponsorship scandal. The party is still as arrogant as ever and fails to own up to mistakes, or even to keep their mouths shut before the proverbial feces hits the fan. If the Liberals wants to ever be elected to lead, Igantiff would be wise to start purging the Dhallas of the party.

read more...

Americans Have It Good

I've never understood the gripes of our neighbours to the south about their country and our government. They complain about their taxes, their social services, their government. American liberals look to Canada with envy for our broad social network and "free" healthcare. I argue that Americans actually have it far better than Canadians do and that Canada is actually moving backwards as the rest of the world moves forwards.

Taxes are one of the most common gripes I hear about on online messages boards. Americans think they're paying too much. Back in April, Tea Parties were held by American conservatives protesting high taxes. They fear Obama is going to raise taxes to an unprecedented level to offer "Canadian style" social services. Canadians pay a vary steep price for our social services and I'm not sure we're getting anywhere close to getting our money's worth. So, it's worth comparing the two countries in terms of what we receive versus what Americans receive for our dollars. In Canada, people spend half their year working for the government. According to Wikipedia, my bible, Tax Freedom Day in Canada, the abstract date in which we start working for ourselves and not for the tax man, will land on June 14th this year. The United States has already passed their Tax Freedom Day, which landed on April 13th. The average tax burden of Americans, that is the percentage of money going towards the government from all taxes, state and federal, is 28.2% and is actually decreasing. For Canadians, the tax burden is 44.8% and climbing. Canadian taxes are over a third higher than they are in the US. To add to this, Canadians also make less money than Americans do. According to the CBC, the median household income of Canadians in 2005 was approximately $41,404 CAD, a figure that has not changed since 1980 when adjusted for inflation. Using today's exchange rate, that works out to be $35,179 US. (the rate then was similar to what it is now so it's just easier to use today's rate) By contrast, American median household income was $43,389 during the same period. Americans get to keep about $31,153.30 after taxes while Canadians keep just $19,418. Americans make more and get to take more of it home than we do. Of course I'm using pre-recession figures but we can assume that the large gap still exists.

Of course, Canadians have to take home less because we're paying for health care, right? Americans have a choice of health insurance and what they want and don't want to be insured. Canadians do not have that choice. We can't shop around for the best deals. In Ontario, $600 to $900 annually is collected in tax per person as a "health premium" on top of what is already being paid into healthcare from other taxes. It's worth noting that the socialized medical insurance plans don't cover eye, dental, drugs, physio-therapy, and medical supplies. Everyone is guaranteed health treatment but this often doesn't mean Canadians are entitled to the best care available. While wait times have decreased, average ER wait times are still six to eight hours for minor ailments and up to 19 hours or more for more serious conditions. People are often left on stretchers in the hallways of many urban hospitals because there aren't enough beds. Rural hospitals are being closed down in many provinces to cut costs. Wait times for diagnostic examinations such as MRIs and ultrasounds must be booked months in advance. Many Canadians lack family doctors, particularly in more rural regions but the problem exists in major suburban areas as well. While health treatment in the US is not equal across the board, Americans will usually receive faster service and treatment than Canadians do. While I don't have the statistic in front of me, the US government supposedly spends more per capita on health care than Canadian governments do.

Another incident of Americans having it better than we do in Canada boils down to something much simpler that effects us all on a daily basis; municipal services. I have a friend that lives in Fairfax, Virginia. To give you some idea, Fairfax is a medium sized town that's a suburb of Washington DC. It's like Streetsville would be to Mississauga; a town within a city. I was floored when she told me they get their garbage picked up twice a week. That's everything including recycle. By comparison, in Halton region of Ontario, where I live, garbage is only picked up twice a month while recycling is picked up weekly. In Toronto, residents have to pay for their garbage collection on top of already steep property taxes. Halton uses two trucks to pick up garbage and recycle while most US cities use one truck that can store both. Aside from better garbage collection, Americans also get mail delivery on Saturday. In fact, there was some controversy when the USPS was considering dropping weekend delivery due to the recession and increasing costs. Canada by contrast has never had Saturday delivery. For transit, the DC area features a robust subway system that reaches right out into the suburbs and runs trains all day. In the Toronto area, the subway only operates in the city and commuter trains only run during rush hours. It costs nearly $7 ($5.95 US) to get from outlying areas of the GTA to Union Station, one way regardless of time. By comparison, it costs about $4.50 US to get from far flung Fairfax to central DC during the rush, and $2.35 at all other times. Want to go further? Hop on the Accela Express, a Canadian built electric train that runs between DC and New York City at speeds of 200km/h. You could travel from Toronto to Kingston in 1.5hr rather than the three hours it takes for VIA's aging diesel trains. For those who know the area, Washington DC is hardly a model city. However, it still manages to pull off better services for average citizens, and for less money than we do here.

Canadians are getting ripped off when it comes to the level of services versus what we pay out. The high taxes wouldn't be so bad if we actually got what we paid for. Each year we're asked to give more while governments claw back services or simply leave things to fall far behind the rest of the world. So where is all this money going? Corruption, pet projects, and bureaucratic red tape are the primary culprits. Simple projects, such as constructing a highway offramp or building a badly needed railway grade separation, get tangled up in years worth of environmental impact and cost feasibility studies. At minimum it takes a year for any infrastructure repair project to get approval. The civil service chews up money as it it were going out of style, most of it going to their ludicrous salaries and benefit programs. Politicians spend it on their little projects, such as Toronto mayor David Miller's green initiatives which have sunk the city far into the red. Granted, Americans don't always have things better. Canada's schools are probably better than theirs and we do pay less for electricity. However, if we continue to waste money at this rate, Canada risks slipping further and further behind the rest of the developed world. We're paying a small and increasing fortune annually to the government, who keeps infrastructure and basic services at the level of barely adequate at best. It's high time we Canadians started holding our own Tea Parties. The government needs to know that if they expect us to pay out so much, we at least want our services to reflect that. As for the Americans, you guys really don't have it all that bad, even with Obambi as your new president. Anybody know where I can get a green card?

read more...

Liberal Policy Making in a Nutshell

Some wonder how political parties decide what should be part of their platform. In honour of the recent Liberal convention, I thought I'd detail how that party makes it's decisions.

There's a problem...
Step 1: blame most recent Conservative leader regardless of how much time has passed since they left office, be it a month or ten years.
-People believe you: do nothing
-People don't believe you: proceed to step 2

Step 2: Can we ban it?
-Yes: problem solved, remember to ignore cautions by experts against banning it.
-No: proceed to step 3
-Already banned: legalize it then proceed to step 3

Step 3: Can we tax it?
-Yes: problem solved, set it at some ridiculously high number and call it a premium. Free all inclusive trips to Cuba for all our friends!
-Already taxed: Hike tax by minimum 5% but more is better. Buy the good Scotch and roll some BC bud to celebrate.
-No: There is no "no". The sheer concept of not taxing something would implode the universe

There is no problem...
Step 1: Manufacture fake problem

Step 2: See above...

read more...

Obama: The Anti-Hero for Canada

Obama to Canada is a bit like an abusive spouse. No matter how many times he hits us, we still claim to love him with all our hearts. When I told people before the November election that I thought he would be the worst possible choice for Canada, people thought I was being an idiot. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I'm happy about being right but I'm sad about being right since everything I said came true. Don Martin of the National Post voices similar concerns to mine complete with 20/20 hindsight. For those keeping score, the Obama administration has attacked Canada in several ways.

-"Buy American" plan discouraged buying raw materials for American made goods from other countries. Canada being a major provider of those materials.
-Homeland Security secretary said that the 9/11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada despite the 9/11 Commission stating otherwise
-Administration press release labelled Canada as a haven for copyright infringement due to it's lack of DMCA style protections, the only Western country fingered in the report.
-Recovery Act and new environmental programs that threatens to put NAFTA into jeopardy over things such as carbon trading & the Alberta oil sands, food labelling on pork, and new duties on softwood lumber.

Five international incidents with Canada in the first 100 days. Not what I would call a good start. I don't even think Bush had that many that quickly. All he did was refuse to visit us. Even Canadian liberals must be second guessing Obama at this point. None of this should be a surprise though. It was known since the NAFTA-gate (fake) scandal came to light last summer. Obama is shaping up to be another Jimmy Carter. A weak and incompetent president who should have stuck to farming peanuts (or taro in Obama's case) rather than trying to lead the free world. What do you expect for someone who was voted in based on race alone rather than record. Now that we have some greater degree of political power on the global scale, I think it's high time we started throwing our weight around.

read more...