Fighting Dirty

John Tory's thugs have targetted another Conservative volunteer. Here they're trying to smear the reputation of Dr. Rueben Devlin. I met Dr. Devlin a few times when I was more involved in politics, and I went to University with his daughter. From my limited contact with him, I found him to be a wise, caring, and honorable man. BUT this is not about Dr. Devlin. Dr. Devlin is not running for office, John Tory is working to keep his post. Right now, John Tory's only job is to prove to the party membership that he deserves a second chance. The first thing he should do is rise above this shameful smear and condemn its authors.

Right now, I'm just thankful that I'm (mostly) irrelevant to this proces. Otherwise, I'd be concerned what Tory's thugs might dig up about me.

Shameful.

H/T Adam Daifallah

Here's to John Manley

I've gotta hand it to John Manley. Less than two weeks ago I was slamming his leader Stephan Dion for a pathetic press conference the two gave in Afghanistan. Tuesday, a panel headed by John Manley recommended that Canada extend it's mission in Afghanistan. According to the CBC, the panel found that Canada should maintain its current role in Afghanistan provided two conditions are met:

(1) The assignment of an additional battle group of about 1,000 soldiers to Kandahar by NATO and/or other allies before February 2009.

(2) That the government secure new, medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance before
that date.

If these conditions are not met, "the government should give appropriate notice to the Afghan and allied governments of its intention to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar . . . The hard truth is that an ISAF retreat from Afghanistan before that country's own forces can defend its security would most likely condemn the Afghan people to a new and bloody cycle of civil war and misrule — and raise new threats to global peace and security," the panel says.

"In sum, an immediate military withdrawal from Afghanistan would cause more harm than good."

I'm very impressed by the intelligence of this report, and I couldn't agree more with the conclusions. John Manley's role is even more impressive, he has willingly contradicted his own party policy to make a bold statement for the benefit of Canada's national interest and International peace and security.

John Manley's contribution should not be understated, take his words at a news conference:

"We've heard it again and again, 'This is NATO's most important mission.' Well, it's time for the rhetoric to end, either they mean it, that this is the most important mission, or they don't. If they don't, then we need to look to the well-being of our young people."

This is a master stroke. It's a bold challenge to other NATO countries to get involved in a meaningful way in the mission. Canada is willing to sholder more than it's share of the burden, but we can't do it alone. Manley has also effectively put the responsibility on Prime Minister Harper to pressure other countries to play their part.

John Manley, you've done an excellent job. Prime Minister Harper, gifts like this don't come along every day please make full use of it. NATO - prove this alliance relevant and ensure we accomplish this mission!

Telling . . .

588 votes (including mine) to give John Tory the boot. I hope he's getting the message.

But I'm not holding my breath, the London Free Press quoted one of my professors, Paul Nesbitt-Larking saying, "Unless it's been a disaster, they should give a leader two elections." True enough, but this was a disaster, John Tory didn't even win his own seat in the last election.

But why would HE meet with THEM?

So Stephan Dion and Michael Ignatieff went to Afghanistan to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff ... told the Afghan leader that they
believe Canada's combat role should not be renewed.

However, they told Mr. Karzai that the party still supports diplomatic and development efforts, as well as a possible continued military presence in the country, they added.

No word was available on how Mr. Karzai reacted to that position, although Mr. Dion said the Afghan leader did thank Canada for its current contributions during the
talks.

No word indeed. I can guess what Mr. Karzai was thinking, "Why did I agree to meet with these two clowns." The Afghan government has been very clear that Canada's role, including it's military support is and has been essential to that country's security. I doubt very much that Afghanistan's position has changed.

I truly cannot fathom why Karzai would even meet with these two unless he thought that he could convince them that Canada's mission should be extended. Obviously he has more convincing to do.

Addicted

This is my latest addiction. Futures trading in politicians. This is too much fun, and a lot harder than it looks. I thought it was easy money to bet on Hillary to lose the New Hampshire Primary, but she went and won and my contracts expired worthless.

Rasmussen Markets is totally free, and its a source of daily polling data for the US presidential election. For what it's worth, my funny money is betting on Mitt Romney. That news alone will probably knock him down 1/2 a point in trading.

This Shouldn't Take Long

When I first heard that Prime Minister Brian Mulrooney would be called before a parliamentary ethics committee for allegations from Karlheinz Schreiber, I thought this would lead to a chain of events that would stretch on for months or years. It's already been a controversy for long enough, but given Mulrooney's testimony today, I just can't see it lasting.

Mulrooney submitted two contradictary affadavits from Mr. Schreiber to the Commons Committee:

"You don't have this one. Take a look at it, it's interesting," Mulroney said, holding up the two affidavits. "Which one is perjury? … They can't both be true."

Mulroney quoted from Schreiber's past court filings and media interviews throughout his testimony, using them to support his allegations that Schreiber had lied and to support his own statements.

MPs asked Mulroney how they were supposed to know which ones to believe.

"If you can figure that out, you're going to heaven," said Mulroney, drawing laughs from the packed room.

Mulrooney summed up Schreiber's claims against him simply:

"All of the allegations in the affidavit are completely false. He will say anything, sign anything and do anything to avoid extradition."

That's about it. Mr. Scrhreiber is a liar and a wanted criminal in Germany. He has zero credibility. It won't take long for the committee to conclude that there's better ways to spend their time.

Dump John Tory Now

Finally there’s looks like an organized effort to dump John Tory. Convention usually holds that when the leader of a major political party gets humiliated in a general election they have the good sense to resign gracefully.

John Tory hasn’t shown that good sense, which is just another example of his weak leadership. Many pundits point to Tory’s ill-fated promise to expand funding to religious schools. I think that’s simplistic.

John Tory lost because he had no credibility. His quick retreat during the campaign from the religious school funding promise was probably more of a problem than making the promise in the first place. Conservatives would never have been able to trust him to defend Conservative principles. For that matter Ontario voters couldn’t trust him to keep his promises, in part because he never made any. John Tory ran an exclusively negative campaign without ever defining what he would do differently. Ontario voters made the right choice to reject his leadership in the election, it’s time for Conservative party members to follow suit.

John Tory doesn’t deserve another chance. Ontario voters deserve a real choice when the next provincial election roles around in 4 years. I will renew my expired provincial PC membership and work to Dump John Tory now.

Downsizing Sucks

Friday my company dismissed 25% of our staff. It had to be done, the Canadian pork industry is in dire straits and cost cutting is just reality. Still there's no two ways a about it, downsizing sucks.

This is the first time downsizing has really hit me so close, and it's hard to describe everything that I'm feeling. The closest word has got to be grief. I've lost a lot of good friends who I didn't see this morning. In some cases, I might not see them again. It's going to take a little bit of time to come to terms with that loss.

I think of my friends who did lose their jobs. We were a close group and they've basically lost that entire social network. We'll still get together, but the relationship will have changed because we won't be experiencing the same struggles.

It's also easy to get angry and start second guessing the management. (When will people realize the world will be a better place when I run it? ;) But all that can be done now is to pick up the pieces and move on. In the meantime, downsizing sucks.

Bumper Sticker

I saw a great bumper sticker on the drive home:

If you don't stand behind our troops . . . You're welcome to stand in front of them.

Classic.

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Earlier this month the Kitchener Record did a hit piece on KW Right to Life's recent billboard campaign that highlights the link between abortion and breast cancer. According to the Record article, the Breast Cancer Foundation's position is that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. But according to AbortionBreastCancer.ca:

Since 1957, a total of 70 studies worldwide have been published with specific data on induced abortion and breast cancer. Of these, approximately 80% have provided evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer.

I'm not a scientist, and I'm sure there are studies that find contrary conclusions. But I have to ask with such a wide body of evidence that suggests there may be a link. Why don't cancer associations develop a more nuanced position?

Congratulations Ontario!

I've been on vacation in Africa for several weeks, so I only saw the results of Ontario's referendum on changing the system of government. The results were decisive. More than 63% of voters voted to keep the current system of government. In fact there were only 5 out of 107 ridings (districts) in the province that voted to change the system.

The bar was set quite high, so that it was unlikely that the system of government was going to change. However, I'll admit I was fearful that the result would be close and we'd have to listen to academics tell us what a foolish system of government we have until we were forced to accept a less democratic system. Happily, I was wrong, Ontario voted solidly for the current system of government and there's no need to discuss it further.

No to Mixed Member Proportional Representation

Ontario's October 10 referendum is quickly approaching and Ontarians will have to choose whether to keep the current system of representative democracy or move to a new system of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation. As I wrote last January proportional representation is a threat to democracy because it will make some members of parliament accountable to party brass rather than to voters. Please read that post because my views haven't changed: Any system that uses a party list rather than directly electing representatives is less democratic.


That said a good friend of mine who is deeply divided on the issue wrote me recently asking a question that I'll paraphrase somewhat: Given the choice between a proven liar (McGuinty on the Health tax), a spineless red tory, or the quasi-communist NDP wouldn't it be better to vote for the new system and hope that some fringe parties will get a few members of parliament and gain an opportunity to raise their issues? The question specifically mentioned the pro-family Family Coalition Party.


I'll start by saying I may very well vote FCP; I'm thoroughly unimpressed with John Tory and the PC party simply does not deserve my vote. The FCP offers the only coherent pro life and pro family platform so I certainly wish them well.

I also see the attraction of having more voices in parliament. However, I think it's important to recognize that representative democracy is about REPRESENTATIVES! Naturally many of those representatives will have a common approach to issues and they will form voting blocks to advance their goals, political parties are just a formalized extension of this trend. Giving power to political parties rather than directly elected representatives will turn the concept of representative democracy on its head.

The proposed MMP system of government will have other secondary impacts too, such as more minority governments, and quite possibly the development of many more (likely urban and left wing) fringe parties. I view these impacts as mostly negative as well, but, regardless of how you might view these secondary impacts the damage that will be done to our system of government outweighs any potential benefit.

Ontario - Vote to keep the current electoral system!

Exposing a Harsh Chemical

This sounds familiar, but it's worth repeating:

A freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at this year's Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to the alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide." And for plenty of good reasons, since it can:

1. cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew that the chemical was...water.

The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?" The conclusion is obvious.

H/T Agrilaugh

The Globe is Right About Families

I was pleasantly surprised to read the headline editorial, "No Replacing Traditional Families," from the Globe and Mail today:

Not all families are equal for the raising of children. Not every form of diversity deserves celebration. Canada's 2006 census, released yesterday, shows that marriage is in decline, and common-law unions and single parenthood continue to grow. And that is not good for kids. Marriage is still the best framework in which to raise healthy, happy children.

To applaud diversity for diversity's sake is to evade responsibility for the effects of that diversity on children. Common-law unions are more likely to break down than marriages, and the children of single-parent families tend to face disadvantages. "Children growing up in single-parent families are more likely to repeat grades, and to be less healthe than children living in two-parent families," says a Canadian government report on the well-being of the country's children, citing the huge database known as the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. "These children are also less likely to get along well with friends and parents than children living in two-parent families." Problems of hyperactivity, aggression or conduct disorders and other behaviour problems are also higher in single-parent families, the report says. These findings hold true regardless of the income of the single parents.

The editorial board is absolutely right! Could it be a sign of rational thought in the Main Stream Media? I hope so. It's about time that we stop making 'diversity' the primary definition of what it means to be Canadian. It's also time to stop the war against 'the traditional family.' Our society depends on healthy families to create healthly children and healthy citizens. It's time to start supporting them.

He Who Controls the Present . . .

. . . Controls the Past. He who Controls the Past Controls the Future. (George Orwell 1984)

There was an intelligent debate happening at the Globe and Mail. It's a pity they closed comments so quickly. The issue surrounds a decision change the wording of a display at the Canadian War Museum that seemed to paint Canadians as War Criminals:

"The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested: Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war."

Fortunately we still have primary sources that want to set the record straight. One of them is Art Smith, a former Bomber Command captain and former Conservative MP, who explained: "The words said that we were responsible for 600,000 dead. I took offence that we were just helter-skelter bombers. We always had justified targets."

Many Historians have taken offence that the museum has agreed to change the wording of the display. It's sometimes admirable to defend accounts of history from political lobby groups but in this case the display seems inaccurate. Historian David Bercuson seems to have summed it up best, "I don't see it as giving in. I see it as correcting something that was unfortunately and badly placed in the first place, and I don't see why anyone shouldn't be given leeway to correct errors."

I think the museum has made the right decision; Museums must respond to public input, especially when it comes from people with first hand knowledge. Far too often academics do not recognize their own (usually very left-wing) bias. The museum has not bowed to political pressure simply agreed to make their display more accurate. It's about time.

Winning Iraq

Check out the News from Iraq this week. On Sunday an under dog Iraqi soccer team won the Asia Cup beating Saudi Arabia in the final.

On Monday respected critics of the war from the left leaning Brookings Institute outlined the progress in Iraq this year and argued for a continued American presence in Iraq. It's an important article, if the last link didn't work try here. The article generated some excellent discussion at the National Review.

On Tuesday it was reported that July had the lowest casualty count in Iraq this year!

The good news keeps pouring in, although I read it all online. The radio news still carried the boilerplate a bomb exploded somewhere stories. This should be cause for Americans and all the Western World to be hopeful. Regardless of your opinion on the war success in Iraq is vital to our freedom and the struggle against terrorism.

Catholic Insight Magazine Endorses FCP

A popular Canadian Catholic magazine has endorsed the Family Coalition Party. The FCP has often been considered a fringe party that has had trouble fielding candidates, has never won a seat in the Ontario Legislature, and generally has a percentage of the popular vote that ranks well into the single digits.

In recent elections there's been little reason for anyone except the most passionate family values voters to cast their vote in their direction. Strategic voters may have voted for Mike Harris' Conservative party or for a strong local candidate from another party. The upcoming election is different, no other party holds the slightest promise of advancing family values or offering any protection at all for life or those that are most vulnerable. Father Alphonse de Valk explains:

. . . for the upcoming October 10 election, Catholic Insight sees no choice but to abandon the policy of supporting worthy candidates in all parties. Instead, we will support only the candidates of the small, centrist, pro-people Family Coalition Party. The situation is so bad that it would be inexcusable for us to do otherwise.

As readers know, and as we have explained before, the NDP and the Greens are constitutionally committed to a pro-death, anti-human philosophy. Therefore, they are disqualified from holding office.

The leaders of the Ontario Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties have now also made it impossible for family-minded Canadians to vote for them.

Since 1967, the federal Liberal Party, from Pierre Trudeau (1968-1984) to Paul Martin (2004-2006), mocked human Reason, Tradition and Religion with anti-family policies sanctioning contraception, divorce, pornography and same-sex 'marriage,' matched only by their pro-death abortion and embryonic stem-cell legislation. More recently, its provincial counterpart, ruling in Ontario again under a renegade Catholic, has adopted the same stand.

The Ontario Conservatives, meanwhile, have been in opposition since 2003. They are still dominated by the so-called Red Tories, to the public acclaim of the Ontario media . . . In February 2005, Ontario’s McGuinty Liberals changed some 70 Ontario statutes in three readings, lasting a total of less than three hours, to conform them to the Ontario Court of Appeal command of June 2003 that from then on, the age-old federal definition of marriage would be unconstitutional. The Ontario PC’s co-operated by refusing to even call for a recorded vote.

Clearly the alternatives are grim with John Tory as perhaps the most disappointing leader of all. Next election it's time to support the FCP with votes, money and hard work. The party's not perfect and they've endorsed the dangerous proposals to move to proportional representation, however, it's run by a core of hard working, sensible and moderate volunteers. Now's the time to lend them our support!

Conrad Will Walk

According to Black's lawyers, the Conrad Black trial will end tomorrow. With the jury deadlocked, it seems increasingly likely that Conrad Black will be a free man. This would be a very good thing for the rule of law and the validity of contracts. It's been disgusting how the prosecution relied on a completely dishonest schmuck like David Radler or others who were bought with plea bargains or other side deals with the prosecution. It simply doesn't appear that prosecutors would have had any case whatsoever without their side deals with witnesses. Essentially if Conrad is found guilty traditional burden of proof justice will be replaced by Survivor justice where the defendant is simply voted off the island by ex company employees or directors whose sole motivation is protecting themselves.

Before you mistake this for an informed opinion you should know that I'm certainly not getting 'fair and balanced' coverage. I've been following Mark Steyn's coverage of the trial on Maclean's, but given Mr. Black's one time dominance of the world newspaper industry I doubt there's a single 'unbiased' reporter covering the case.

Shameless

Stephan Dion and Jack Layton are shameless in their attempt to capitalize on the death of six Canadian soldiers. I sincerely hope that they tone down their rhetoric and take the advice of the soldiers' officers:

Senior commanders at CFB Edmonton have called for quiet reflection on the recent deaths of six Canadian soldiers, rather than political debate on the mission. Four of the slain men were based in Edmonton.

"I would encourage all of you that at this point in time, that the focus must be on repatriating these valiant soldiers and ensuring their families hear a clarion call of love and support from Canada," said Col. Jon Vance.

"The families are well aware that there is debate on this mission. Nonetheless, at this particular point in time, the most sensitive and, I think, mature approach, would be to show them ... love and support. These soldiers died in a mission that they believed in, and saw progress occurring."

Brave men and women are fighting to keep Afghanistan free, and by extension to keep the world free. Shame on anyone who would use their death as an opportunity to score political points. Make your arguments - you're entitled to your opinion, but show some common decency.

I Feel All Warm and Fuzzy

There's no shortage of stories that highlight the heroism of our troops. But you just gotta love this one:

A Canadian warship freed a humpback whale that was entangled in fishing gear on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland on Wednesday. HMCS St. John's was on a routine fisheries patrol when it received a radio message from a nearby fishing boat that a whale was in distress.

The 10-metre animal was thrashing on the surface as it tried to free itself from ropes and a large orange buoy snagged in its tail.

. . .

"We were a little concerned about letting the boat get close, let alone letting divers get in."For more than an hour, sailors in one of the boats tried to free the whale by cutting some of the lines that were attached to the buoy and about 20 heavy crab pots below the surface.

The sailors had to keep a safe distance as the humpback dove to the bottom and then surfaced in a futile attempt to get loose of the lines. Santarpia eventually dispatched two navy divers without tanks into the water to try to save the animal before it drowned.

. . .

Once free, the whale swam away slowly as two other humpbacks stayed nearby and a few dolphins looked on.

I'm no environmentalist, but I think this story demonstrates a basic truth that it's in our nature to be good stewards of the environment. Thumbs up to the crew who participated in the mission. Now there's no excuse, even left wingers have to Support Our Troops!

But That's What They're For!

Quebec looks to ban cellphone use by motorists.

h/t Bourque.org