I've put this article off for as long as possible, but now that it's actually happening, I may as well come forward and say it. I'm packing up and moving house to another part of Canada. I've lived in Toronto and Brampton for 33 years, and I've reached the point where I'm ready to try something new. I've seen Brampton decline during the years as a town which has been suffocated by the creeping urban sprawl and smog of the choke-filled ruins of Toronto. The traffic here is literally like slow torture. And the place has changed so much now that I feel like a sardine packed into a tin can. But I digress. I want to focus on the positives.
How did all this come about? Well, for those who read my blog regularly, I was laid off in very callous fashion on January 17. Literally seven days after the birth of my daughter, and six after the death of my grandfather, and one day after a vicious flu, I was sent packing with a poor excuse and a weak severance pay. I could have had a job the next day, with the economy in the shape it is, and the demand of my occupation. But the offers I got were miserly and insulting. I rejected offer after offer. I decided to try to take EI paternity leave, but this whole process is so convoluted and humiliating, I simply lived off my savings.
After some fruitless searches for the pay I am worth, I decided to broaden and widen my horizons. Western Canada has a severe labour shortage with their job boom, and it seemed to me to be that it was calling me. I've accepted a position in Vancouver at an improved rate of pay. I have spent the past few weeks getting my ducks in a row, and organizing the expensive transition of moving a family of four 4,500 km. But I am buoyed by the fact that this winter has been so utterly brutal that I shall never have to dig my driveway out from 5 feet of snow 40 times in one winter. I've been to Vancouver many times, and it's beautiful. It's a nice place to raise a young family.
So I'm leaving, for now, and I will not have time to attend my blog, despite the fact it has grown in popularity. In fact, thanks to your readership I have recently cracked the top 25 political blogs in Canada, and my visits per day were hovering at 600-900 per day in recent weeks. I had developed what I felt was a loyal fan base, and I know that many people look forward to reading my articles each day. And if that sounds arrogant, it shouldn't, because I look forward to reading the comments of each of you just as much.
Alas, I suspect the upheaval of my new adventure will not give me time to write again for several months. My best estimate would be two. I enjoy writing very much, however, and I shall miss it's daily pleasure. At times I wish I had become a journalist. I hope I am not breaching the confidence of Kady O'Malley too much when I quote her private correspondence she once had about a Chuck Cadman article I wrote in which she said : "As a journalist, I love the adrenalin rush that I get from slicing through the spin and deconstructing the attempts at dissembly." Indeed. It is the same pleasure I get from taking a non-partisan analysis of the political climate through the lens of a casual observer who happens to lean to the right of the ideological spectrum.
Again, thanks to all who have visited this site in the past 9 months, and I hope to see you again when I am settled into West Coast life. Special thanks to my regular readers, and you all know who you are. Jennifer Smith, I regret we shall have to postpone our co-blog. I hope some bloggers with whom I may have had any nasty disagreements with will forgive my exuberance, and bad feelings which were felt as a result of it. This exercise has been thoroughly enjoyable to me, but I never took the words of any individual personally or seriously enough to the point of externalizing that outside of the medium of the internet. So without further ado, I say adieu, and I'll see you all in a few months.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
So Long For A While, Fare Thee Well
My Site Is Broken In Firefox
Anyone have any idea why? I need help to fix this. It was fine last night. This morning it won't load.
I figured it out. Haloscan is currently not working in Firefox, so it's a Haloscan problem. If anyone has any help documents to uninstall Haloscan, I'd appreciate it. I suppose Haloscan will fix itself later in the day. Or something.
Update: Everyone with Haloscan who uses JSkit rating stars, you have to disable ratings for your blog to work in Firefox. If you disable JSKit, it will work fine.
Thanks to anyone who was trying to help me out. Will post some articles later. Going out for the afternoon.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Way To Miss The Point There Guys
Don't make me come down there!
Just a short post before bed. I have to applaud the House Speaker for addressing the Commons today to warn of the ridiculous partisanship that has poisoned the proceedings of Parliamentary business to the point of "anarchy". Anyone who has watched recent weeks of CPAC knows that the House has become less a place of business for the government, and more a playground for the mouthpieces of the various parties. House Speaker Peter Milliken addressed the children thusly:"Frankly speaking, I do not think it is overly dramatic to say that many of our committees are suffering from a dysfunctional virus that, if allowed to propagate unchecked, risks preventing members from fulfilling the mandate given them by their constituents," Milliken told the Commons.
Of course one of the worst offenders, who really doesn't seem to know when to shut the hell up, Peter Van Loan, opened his big yapper long enough to say "This is an important statement and a serious criticism of the opposition's anti-democratic tactics at committee." Um... no. On the other hand, Libby Davies missed the point as well: "I think it's clearly the government (at fault) and it's the PMO and the control that they want to exert over committees to carry through their own political agenda instead of allowing the committees to do their own business and do it in a democratic fashion."
Listen here. You're all idiots for acting in a fashion that embarrasses Canadians. Please stop. Now. Our elected officials are a disgrace to the kind of respect and decorum expected from "Honourable Members". You are all grown-ups. Start acting like it. Mr.Van Loan and Ms.Davies sound like children, pointing fingers at one another, and mumbling through their snot-nosed and plaintive cries "He STARTED it!"
Technorati Tags: peter van loan,libby davies,partisanship,Peter Milliken
Terrorist "Rights" Violated
A Federal Court judge has ruled that the federal government violated a convicted terrorist's Charter rights when it refused to issue him a passport, and explain why it was denying it to him. Justice Simon Noel struck down a section of the Canadian Passport Order which would enable the Minister of Foreign Affairs to refuse a passport for reasons of national security. The problem isn't that the terrorist in question, Fateh Kamel, wasn't a national security risk. It was that the government didn't give him a detailed explanation of the reason:Fateh Kamel, a 47-year-old native of Algeria who obtained Canadian citizenship in 1993, was sentenced to eight years in prison by a French court in 2001 for terrorism-related crimes. An internal Department of Foreign Affairs report submitted to Federal Court says that at the time of his arrest he was "the leader of an international network whose purpose was to plot terrorist attacks and procure arms and passports for terrorists throughout the world." [...]
That good enough for me. I wouldn't give a passport to a person who had a history like Mr.Kamel. So what was the problem? How was Mr.Kamel's Charter rights abused?Judge Noel faulted the Passport Office for failing to provide Mr. Kamel all the relevant facts related to the decision not to issue him a passport. More seriously, though, he found that the Passport Order as it stands does not respect the right of every Canadian citizen "to enter, remain in and leave Canada," as enshrined in Section 6 of the Charter.
I'm pretty sure that Fateh Kamel, being the terrorist he is, understood perfectly well why he was denied a passport at the time. Mr.Kamel denies all allegations, of course [are there any self-respecting terrorists who do admit their line of work?], but the ruling did not mean Mr.Kamel would automatically be granted a passport. France banning Mr.Kamel from the country for life as a result of his part in plotting terrorism in that country is good enough reason for me. I would support one, and only one travel document for this man: a deportation order back to Algeria where he belongs. As far as I am concerned, naturalized citizens found guilty of terrorism should be deported immediately.
Related:
Robert Jago says sure, let him use his passport. Other countries aren't as forgiving of convicted terrorists as Canada is.
Technorati Tags: Department of Foreign Affairs,terrorismFateh KamelJustice Simon Noel
Limiting Immigration Applications Is The Best Solution To Backlog
The Toronto Star has a typical anxiety ridden article about Conservative changes to the immigration policy to be tabled in Parliament as part of the recent budget [it may have been tabled today, but I was busy]. Diane Finley is working on the campaign promise to reduce the huge immigration backlog by amending the law to limit how many new applications are allowed. This, of course, worries many immigrants who are fixated on trying to bring as much of their extended family here as possible. Critics call it too dependent upon immigrants as an "economic unit" and not enough on developing citizenship, and a sense of commitment, belonging and ownership. Translation: Immigrants families want the government to process claims faster so that they can get more than just their children, husband, or wife here. They want the whole fam:"It's hard to be away from home. We had no friend, no relative here," said Gurpreet Kalra, 37, a Brampton real estate agent who arrived from India in 1995.
"When our child was born, my wife and I had to hire a babysitter so she could go to work ... it costs a lot of money."
Kalra successfully applied in 1999 to bring his retired parents to Canada but the process took three years – a typical wait. He hopes any change in immigration policy won't divert resources from processing family applications.
Speaking of developing citizenship, commitment, and ownership, Brampton has changed a lot from the time I was a child here. Heedless immigration from mainly one source has transformed the city into one of a vast demographic of Indian immigrants. Because of former Liberal policy on immigration, families were able to sponsor extended family members, clogging the system with uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, and grandparents. The Sikh community in Brampton is very large, and the backlog in immigration is reflective of the backlog in health care and the crisis we face accommodating so many newcomers.
What the Toronto Star fails to realize, is the additional burden of bringing so many nonworking relatives can have to social security. It is literally failing the test in our city. As well, when you think about so many immigrants waiting patiently on ten-year waiting lists while extended family members are queued ahead of them, it doesn't seem fair to me. As Diane Finley, I would implement a system where all immigrants and their immediate spouses and children get priority. But after that, those immigrants who have applied to come to Canada should then be queued ahead of the influx of uncles, aunts, and grandparents clogging the system currently. I know Canada is a wonderful country to live in, but we cannot supplant entire family trees from India to Canada in the name of compassionate immigration.
We have to balance the needs of Canada with the needs of immigrants who want to bring their family here. We also have to consider the ramifications of bringing one working person here, and six nonworking family members who become an extra drag on social security. The Conservative plan to process skill workers and immediate family members instead of constant family reunification applications will reduce the 250,000 immigrants to Canada by 70%. This is the best solution for everybody involved, and if it turns out that we have an immigrant shortfall in the future, we can open the border again to skilled workers, entrepreneurs and investors.
Technorati Tags: brampton,Indian immigrants,sikh community,immigration%20backlog
Canada Must Withdraw As Signatory To Kyoto
I've supported the Conservatives every step of the way on the Kyoto Protocol inaction, for reasons which are far too numerous to explain here. The short answer is that I think that if global warming is inevitable, and I'm not ruling that out, cutting a few carbon emissions isn't going to do a lick of good without global compliance. And we know how much China and India care about compliance, don't we? After all, Beijing says they're ready to break through the smog just in time for the 2008 Olympic Games. Never mind the fact that the air quality is so poor that the young and elderly are required to stay indoors.
It may seem strange for me to support the government on this course of action, since I am, in fact, strongly aware of the importance of our natural resources and environment. But you can hardly blame the Conservatives for being saddled with Jean Chretien's "legacy" who rushed it through in 2002 in order to ensure everybody but he would be left holding the environmental bag. The government has since managed to ignore the binding commitments to the Protocol by arguing that the consequences are not technically "legally binding" as they have not been adopted as an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol by agreement of all Parties.The federal government's submission to the court yesterday is in response to a lawsuit from environmental group Friends of the Earth. The group argues the Conservative government is in breach of the law because it is not complying with Bill C-288, a Liberal private member's bill passed last year by the opposition against the government's wishes, committing Canada to its Kyoto targets.
But I would urge the government of Canada to withdraw as a signatory from a Treaty which they do not intend to honour. By remaining a signatory on the Kyoto Protocol, which we have no intention of complying with, we stand to appear as a country which cannot hold to a commitment. We must make the international community understand that Canada does not intend to compromise it's economic strength in binding commitments, as per it's position stated at the Bali Conference. If Canada's reputation is sullied, it is because the Liberal Party signed us to an idealistic treaty without any pragmatic plan toward achieving the targets of that treaty. We must, therefore, withdraw from Kyoto once and for all.
Technorati Tags: kyoto protocol,Conservative Party,Bill C-288,Friends of the Earth
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Does A Politically Ambiguous Blog Belong Here?
My last few articles have been decidedly... how can I phrase this so as to protect my fragile ego... pathetic. But to quote Billy Bob Thornton from Bad Santa: "Well, they can't all be winners, kid." Blogging is just that, it's hit and miss. One day you're up, the next day you're down. Last week I barely had to post anything and I couldn't keep up with the comments. This week I've been clicking Haloscan wondering where everybody is. It is easy to get spoiled when one becomes accustomed to an audience. I admit, I've been fortunate lately. My readership has risen, and I appreciate the discussions that have evolved from various articles. I won't lie to you: I check Sitemeter quite often, because it gives me an indication of my readership, and the popularity of various articles. This may be an unpaid job, but I still like to do it to the best of my abilities. I couldn't help but notice, then, two articles linking to my blog from CBC Blogwatch.
The first article asks rhetorically, why bother with bloggers? John Bowman goes on to attempt to answer that question, cynically suggesting the well is poisoned for the most part, with uninformed opinion that would never pass the desk of the editor. He offers a weak sort of apology for his interest in blogs, by suggesting half-heartedly that while it isn't pretty, it's definitely worth paying attention to. But I'd argue quite the opposite. Blogs provide an insight into the opinion of the average Canadian in a variety of writing styles and skills. Tapping into the thoughts of "amateur" writers is no less resourceful than soliciting the services of a paid journalist, if the writing is par excellence. You also have to consider that in blogging, you frequently get what you pay for. Most people blog in between family and work, and mental fatigue can drain a blogger on sounding entirely coherent and lucid in argument.
John Bowman also touches upon my article about vile bloggers, and asks why I did not criticize my Blogging Tory colleagues, when it's clear I'm not a fan of the more radical right blogs. The truth? I didn't want to "call out" anyone that I wasn't prepared to go into a blog war with. There are several bloggers on the blogroll I don't agree with, and some whom I think go beyond the boundaries of respectful discourse. Yet I don't think anyone will deny that I have hesitated for a moment to go toe to toe with my ideological allies when I think they're wrong. That doesn't mean I'm not "right-of-centre". But I afford people the basic benefit of the doubt on any argument, and accept that most people happen to be "politically ambiguous" on any given issue. We may blog under the banners of the party, but our opinions can be as varied as imaginable, with Conservatives advocating legalized marijuana, abortion, and socialized programs.
This brings me to John Bowman's second article, which asks whether one blogs for the party, or for oneself. This was recently highlighted by Jason Cherniak's article which criticized his fellow Liberal bloggers for not towing the party line. He immediately met with some firm responses suggesting that it was ridiculous to ask bloggers to become cheerleaders in the face of clear misdirection of the party. John Bowman also asked when it would come to the time that Unambiguously Ambidextrous would be removed from the Blogging Tores for frequently coming at odds with the party and Conservatives.
I'll answer that in the best way I know how. From the myriad of emails, personal comments, and feedback I have received, Conservatives of all stripes have told me they like my blog. They like my writing. They like that I think independently, and that I challenge the status quo and the party line. People respect that I don't cheerlead the team on every issue, and that I criticize them where I think they are being misdirected. And I'll continue to do so within the confines of the Blogging Tories, unless I am asked to leave. As for Mr.Bowman's suggestion that I have been asked to leave from other "members" of the Blogging Tories, this is actually false. I've been scolded by numerous people claiming to be Conservatives, but I cannot think of one single member of the aggregate who asked me to leave. While we may not see eye to eye, I think that each member has the same respect for me, as I have for them.
But if you asked me who I think the best party for Canada is right now, I would say the Conservative Party of Canada. If you asked me what sort of values I have in general, I would say conservative values. And so long as I feel welcome in the aggregate, regardless of how "vile" it may get in the blogosphere, I will continue to share my opinions, and enjoy the debate and discussion I get from the readership.
On Modern Warfare And "Nation Building"
[This is just an unedited musing on modern warfare. It has not been researched, and I provide no evidence for my assertions. Please debate or discuss if you wish. Or ignore. It's the reader's choice.]
Times have changed from the days of ancient civilizations and conquest, and our modern perspective is based within entirely different parameters from those in centuries past. As recently as the Second World War, the conquest of other nations was not viewed within the perspective of "liberation" and "nation building", but solely within the needs of the occupying power. For this reason wars have become more expensive, not only with the addition of technology, but the constraints of ethical conduct in the occupied territories. If only it were as simple as it used to be. If only the enemy were one which was meant to be conquered and destroyed, it's assets and resources plundered, we wouldn't face the dilemmas of "detainee transfers" and "rules of engagement". Collateral damages and civilian deaths would be irrelevant. The United States could openly declare the actual reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
Of course, just because it would be easier, doesn't mean it would be better. I do not think fondly back upon times in which conquest between civilizations was one in which the losing side would face extermination. But it is an interesting evolution in warfare, to witness the changing rules of conflict, and the attempt to minimize the damage to infrastructure and civilians, focusing solely on the reasons for the removal of a "hostile" government. The most recent wars in memory have all involved the justification of a relatively innocent population besieged by a hostile government or ideology. Whether it be communism in Vietnam, or terrorism in Afghanistan, or terrible weapons in Iraq, the people are never blamed for the actions of the rulers. And so wars are now fraught with the peril of winning "hearts and minds", and the ridiculous notion of a "moral war", as though that could ever be entirely possible.
Wars have always required some pretext in order to galvanize the citizens into acting in the "best interests" of the state. Whether it be the Nazi ideal of supremacy, or the simple conquests of the Mongols, or the Roman Empire, all nations who engage in conquest have used either a moral or a divine imperative. Some civilizations were guided by acts of religion, in which they felt it was their duty to seek out the conquest of the world for the glory of God. Only in recent history have the reasons evolved to attempt to fit a modern and ethical framework. Nothing has changed in terms of the actual purpose of warfare, which is the killing of the enemy and his army. Only the reasons have evolved to suit a changing world.
The reasons for invading Iraq were utterly contrived in this respect. With faulty and limited intelligence, the United States, possessing the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, invaded the country of Iraq because of the supposed threat that Iraq posed to the United States and it's neighbours. We could argue about the reasons for the war until the end of time, but the interesting thing is that at all times the Americans have argued that they possess the moral high ground. War would not otherwise be authorized by an advanced civilization unless it was claimed that another country posed an immediate threat to their safety. Perhaps six hundred years ago, in a different era of moral evolution in an alternate Universe in which the U.S. existed with modern technology, they could have simply declared their intent to annex Iraq for the purposes of natural resources, and all the contrivances of the moral dilemma would have been unnecessary. As well, the Americans could strike with impunity. They could walk in, exterminate the population at will, and simply take the oil reserves for themselves. No debate necessary.
In ancient times, that is precisely what armies would do. They would march into the territory of a weaker opponent, kill the men, take the women, and plunder the resources. Justification was as simple as "we deserve it, because we're stronger than you are." Of course, it wasn't always easy for the strongest civilizations to walk over everybody, as there were always new powers rising and falling all the time. Borders were drawn through negotiation, warfare, and alliances. Europeans didn't require a reason to take the territory of the aboriginals in North America. It was simply viewed as European territory by virtue of the fact that the aboriginals had no defenses capable of claiming it as their own. Today, one would need a justification for such an invasion which would pass the credible test of a moral imperative.
I truly believe that Canadians, as well as our soldiers, believe we are doing a fundamental good in Afghanistan. And I believe we are. And yet it is being fought within such difficult parameters, that it makes it almost impossible to "win". It isn't just the conquest of an enemy, and the plundering of his resources. It is an attempt to literally separate an ideology from a people, and foist upon them the notion of western liberal democracy, which they are expected to embrace wholeheartedly. If we operated under the ancient times of warfare, the threat of the Taliban would involve the invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the systematic eradication of it's tribal people. It would be cruel, brutal, and merciless. But it would be victory. Today we fight under different rules. It doesn't mean they are objectively worse, only that they are constrained to our perception of what is a "moral war". As we attempt this process of "nation building", it is difficult to imagine past civilizations investing such time, energy, and money into the benefit of a civilization not their own.
Surprise, Surprise, The Taliban Are Not Canadians
Federal Court Judge Anne Mactavish has ruled that Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian troops are not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, as it would logically follow, they are afforded rights under the Afghan constitution and are protected under international humanitarian law. Amnesty International had been seeking an injunction of transfers by arguing the Canadian Charter applies to Taliban prisoners under control of Canadian troops. Judge Mactavish argued that just because they are not protected under Canadian law, this does not mean that Canadian troops can act with "impunity".
Canada's independent Military Police Complaints Commission, however, has complained that the federal government has refused to provide unfettered access to uncensored documents. Stephen Harper has rejected the claim. The MPCC wants a public hearing and the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses and documents from Foreign Affairs about the alleged torture allegations.
Of interest, Victor Wong points out the precedents which led to Judge Mactavish's ruling:Were Charter standards to be applied in another state’s territory without its consent, there would by that very fact always be interference with the other state’s sovereignty. . . . As a consequence, the majority of the Supreme Court was of the view that Canadian law, including the Charter, could only be enforced in another state with the consent of the other state.
Obviously, Afghanistan would not consent to allowing Canadian Charter rights to be applied to Afghan prisoners in Afghanistan. In light of this ruling, the only things which remains to be proved is that Canada has taken steps adequate to ensure the removal of torture concerns from detention facilities in Kandahar province.
Technorati Tags: afghan detainees,afghanistan,Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,Madam Justice Anne Mactavish
A Simple Act Would Go A Long Way
If this article is correct that Stephen Harper twice vowed to extend the Veterans Independence Program to all veterans and their spouses, and has not done so, he should be held accountable. According to the Chronicle Herald, Mr.Harper wrote a letter in 2005 which offers assistance to surviving spouses of Second World War and Korean War veterans. Many of them, like Joyce Carter, is a widower.Last spring, Ms. Carter confronted Mr. Harper in the foyer of the House of Commons, and during a private meeting with the prime minister she said she got a promise from him that her concerns would be addressed in the budget.
Ms. Carter said the program announced in last month’s budget was not what she would call Mr. Harper keeping his word.
The program was only extended to low-income and disabled widows. This seems to fly in the face of conservatism, which would discriminate against those spouses who are deemed to have an income which doesn't require extension of benefits. To me, it sounds like the government is being cheap. Keep your word, Mr.Harper. Give all spouses of Korean and World War II veterans immediate assistance as promised. We would not like to think that our gratitude for military sacrifice is contingent upon financial situation.
Related Articles:
The budget tabled recently did not deliver on the original promises. It only proposed a $282-million extension to the program that would help those on a Guaranteed Income Supplement of the Disability Tax Credit. Elizabeth McIntyre's first husband served in World War II, and her second husband served in Korea and spent 40 years in the military, yet she is not eligible for the program.
Joan Terris will have to sell her home in order to keep up with her finances. She cared for her husband for 10 years before he passed away.
Technorati Tags: Veterans Independence Program,Joyce Carter,Stephen Harper,Veteran Spouses
Good Morning Mr.Dion, This Is The Collection Agency
I'm only joking. But this headline certainly made me chuckle a little bit. Poor Mr.Dion is still mired in campaign debt from the leadership race of the Liberal party to the tune of $850,000. If that sounds like it's not bad progress, considering he originally spent $1.68 million on the campaign, you might want to glance at his running mates. Bob Rae, who spent $2.2 million, will be debt-free shortly. Michael Ignatieff owes $300,000, but is expected to pay it off by June. Mr.Gerrard Kennedy is in the same boat as Mr.Ignatieff. Not that any of this in any way implies that Stephane Dion is fiscally irresponsible in any way. I would never suggest anything so stridently partisan.
No, I'd far rather talk about the scientific classification of Liberalis Protochordata Invertebrateis, and the leadership hints that they will sink their own RESP bill. On what planet in the solar system does Mr.Dion live, that he is immune to intestinal fortitude? This latest Liberal duck and cover is perhaps the most cowardly thing I think I have seen in my, albeit short, observation of political history. Stephane Dion said today that he would not sink the Conservatives because they are to kill the Liberals own RESP bill, preferring instead to chase Chuck Cadman's ghost, talk about NAFTA-gate [dear Lord, what a stupid name], pretend they care about the environment [despite not showing up for a vote on it], and use Dalton McGuinty's spat with Jim Flaherty as means of holding the Tories "feet to the fire"."About an election, not this week," he said after the Liberals' weekly caucus meeting, and a day after some Liberals mused about pulling the plug on the government over its plan to kill Registered Education Savings Plan legislation that has been approved in the Commons and now is in the Liberal-dominated Senate.
What a parody the Liberals have become, in each and every sense of the word. Bloggers have been able to score easy political hits off Mr.Dion with his frequently amusing declinations of an election. The worst part of this, is the fact that Dan McTeague's PMB had strong multipartisan support, and from unexpected news sources.A private member's bill that would make contributions to a registered education savings plan tax-deductible would benefit all income groups, say experts.
[...]"We talk about the government wanting to have tax measures that would affect the broadest range of Canadian taxpayers," says Hamel, "in this case ... it doesn't matter how much you can put aside ... you will see savings."
The Toronto Star remains hopeful that the Liberals will show something beyond being "ineffectual and weak", but despite Garth Turner's promise to buy his buddies a bucket of "testosterone" [I hear Barry Bonds knows a guy], I don't see it. Mr.Dion has said he will not be "taunted" into sparking an election. Well, one thing is for certain. He can't be shamed into it.
Technorati Tags: stephane dion,campaign debts,election,RESP
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Well, So Much For John McCain's Principles
You would think a man who was tortured himself could stick with a simple principle like... oh, I don't know... opposing torture? But that proved too difficult for the potential future Prez, as he moved to uphold George W Bush's veto of a bill which would have made waterboarding illegal for CIA operatives. The House fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to overturn his veto with a 225-188 vote.
"I think that waterboarding is torture and illegal, but I will not restrict the CIA to only the Army Field Manual," McCain said last month.
You can't have it both ways, Johnny.
The American Conservative asked a rhetorical question in their December 18, 2006 issue: Have Republicans become the party of torture, secret prisons, and indefinite detention?In his speech last month on signing the Military Commissions Act (MCA), President Bush declared that the bill “sends a clear message. ... We will never back down from the threats to our freedom.” “Rough interrogation” (a.k.a. torture) in the name of freedom may be Bush’s clearest ideological legacy.
The MCA [Military Commissions Act] was rushed through Congress in September to overturn a Supreme Court decision that struck down Bush’s military tribunals and his scorning of the Geneva Conventions. The new law—far more dangerous than the more controversial Patriot Act—is perhaps the biggest disgrace Congress has enacted since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Stephen Gray, the author of Ghost Plane, notes, “The act grants fewer rights to defendants than the Nazis got at Nuremberg.”
John McCain voted in 2006 to pass the MCA, knowing the CIA would be using torture on suspected terrorists. He admits as much himself. Despite having been tortured himself, time appears to be wearing on Mr.McCain's memory. Or perhaps it is interfering with his thirst for power. If he continues to support provisions like this, I have to revoke my endorsement for the only Conservative candidate left and admit that John McCain isn't the kind of leader the Americans need right now.
Technorati Tags: john mccain,Torture,waterboarding,military commissions act,
