I’ve linked to the image above because I’m getting the impression that many Canadian readers aren’t aware of what it is. Most of you would say that it’s a map of what, at any given time in its 1000 year history, was part of the massive Roman Empire of old. I wouldn’t blame you if you thought that because the resemblance is uncanny. Here’s what the Roman Empire actually held at any given time in its history:

Chop off a bit of modern-day Iraq, add on some of the Baltic and Nordic states and you’ve basically got the same thing.

So enough mystery; what you’re actually looking at in the top picture is the, as of this Sunday past, the new “Union of the Mediterranean”, a political entity which was born of such ridiculous circumstances, only the Eurocrats could’ve come up with it. This new union, which includes every current EU state, along with all but one country which borders the otherwise unimportant body of water is the baby of French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who was inspired to create the otherwise-pointless entity because the Europeans couldn’t decide whether they wanted to let Turkey into their cucumber-counting club or not. The official mandate that Sarkozy sees for the new UM (or MU?) is to promote trade, environmental protection and, eventually, European-type administration over the new conquered territo–err, members of this body that come from north Africa and the Middle East. One might suggest that the Europeans are trying to *civilize* Rome’s long-abandoned off-continent holdings again!

What strikes me as particularly amazing, although not all that surprising in retrospect, is that we now have a political entity that can in actuality become the reincarnation of the Roman Empire again not only in its ability to let western Europe influence and even dictate the domestic policy of other countries, but also in its ability to do so in a sphere of influence almost perfectly mirroring history’s most influential empire. I’m also obligated to point out that, as much as it’ll probably make Atheist dogmatics scream in agony to the contrary, it’s pretty hard to see how this new body couldn’t be capable of becoming the reincarnation of the sixth empire that the Bible says will come about again in the last days to serve as the political vehicle through which the antichrist will rule the world. To put this in perspective, what were the chances that an empire so geographically difficult to conquer on the first go and culturally diverse (see Mid-East Conflict) would become the mold through which a modern-day, diplomatic political territory be created, and in such a perfectly symmetrical way?

Speaking too of the Middle East, it is curious to see how the first meeting of the UM was so focused on reconciling the Palestinians and the Israelis; the National Post’s cover yesterday plastered the proud father-French President smiling as he hugged the Israeli PM and P.A.’s Chairman. I suppose this isn’t the time to bring up the fact that the whole tribulation is started with a peace treaty between Israel and it’s new best friend, antichrist?

I digress on the MU for the time being though. It’s still in its infancy and has yet to make any waves significant enough to reach this side of the Atlantic. It also doesn’t concern me if the usual suspects show up here to say how wrong I can be, no backing evidence or proof in hand as always! This post was more for the crowd that was expecting it sooner or later anyway, but just didn’t know when. It’s a public service message to those people because the MU was so quietly born that hardly any editor took notice…one might even say that it came “like a thief in the night!” Now I just await that talk of inking peace treaty…

CLARK: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down
CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Both sides have been taking great pains to denounce the statement, but when you really think about it, was he wrong?

I respect McCain for what he did for his country. He truly is an American hero. And if you had spent time as a general, or Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, like Eisenhower, then of course that would be at least some qualification for the Presidency. But being an ordinairy pilot, or spending time in a POW camp? How many executive decisions will you be making in either of those situations?

Please don’t misconstrue my opinion. I’m not trying to diminish what McCain did, or even say that he would be a bad President. However, being shot at does not qualify someone for being President of the United States. If it did, the GOP should start looking around the prison system for their next candidate, no?

However, looking past the obvious we see what is perhaps a more serious issue. While the UN didn’t actually “do” anything in this situation (as per the usual), I think they still might be overstepping their boundaries.

Supporters of the UN are so happy when we go in and tell some little Third World Country what to do. But what happens when it comes home to us?

The very fact that this site is designed for children makes what would be an outrageous site even worse, especially when you consider that your carbon-fattened pig explodes into a pile of blood at the end of the quiz(see image). It is also the latest evidence that the movement spearheading the climate change cause simply does not value human life and in fact sees each human as a virus leeching off the planet’s life source.

When you throw in the comments by a Elizabeth May confidante earlier this year that it would’ve been less tragic for seal hunters in Newfoundland to die and another story from Australia that I reported on earlier this year in which a doctor down under wants to tax families for every precious child they bring into the world, a clear pattern starts to emerge among those for whom the Earth is of chief importance. I don’t suppose that the original claim by environmentalists that we had to protect the planet for future generations of children holds much water anymore as they either want to tax said children out of existence or blow up the ones that slip through anyway when they reach age 8. Let’s just hope for everyone involved at the ABC that no child decides to be a good little trooper and take one for the Earth!

(welcome Newswatch readers!)

I’m glad to see the Liberals are going to the fringes again with their plans (Ontario Health Minister and notoriously dogmatic homosexual activist George Smitherman bragged about how this would only affect about a dozen people per year) since it will allow us Conservatives the opportunity to point out the folly to a health care system which on paper is completely financed by the government but in reality is only as good as the government decides to make it. On the provincial level, it would be hard for Dalton McGuinty to justify how he can allow thousands in the province to go through life with debilitating back pains or limited eye sight but hey, at least Fred is happy with that new figure we bought him when we dressed him up and called him Sally! Well, at least it would be if there was actually an opponent out there who wasn’t a complete pushover or leading a party with even less hope of winning the top prize than the Leafs.

All of which makes one happy to see our national government contains MPs who are willing to go to bat for us average Ontarians whose self-esteem issues are generally limited to the names our parents gave us and foregoing extremely expensive cosmetic surgeries for a shopping trip on the weekend. It’s nice to know that somebody out there still get the notion that “public” health care is supposed to cover more than one out of every one million people in this province!

Now that money is involved, Michael Ignatieff gets in a tiffy:

“Australia is giving $25 million, the British $10 million, why aren’t we giving more when we can clearly do so,” Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff asked.

Clearly do so? We could clearly flush all of our money down the toilet too but we clearly do NOT do so. Ever think why?
I think he must be dreadfully stupid (or possibly disingenuous) to trust that the money will get to the people who need it most given the recent track record of the Myanmar statesmen — or maybe Ignatieff is completely clueless about how such despotic statesmen operate.

The Chinese are the major commercial supporters of the Myanmar military dictatorship. Let the Chinese government officials pay for everything: help people in Burma, help people in China and help re-build all of that infrastructure.

Rae was angered by the generalization for which he says he sees no basis in fact.

-Toronto Star, Saturday May 10, 2008

That quote, and that link, refer to a story by Toronto Star reporter Tonda MacCharles today that suggests that Prime Minister Harper is wrongfully smearing the opposition with an anti-semitic brush. Rae’s charge is quite simply not true, which isn’t shocking to Ontarians who remember his expert opinions on the affairs of government nearly 20 years ago. However, Tonda MacCharles, a journalist, is not presenting a full picture of the situation in her write up and all it takes is a quick Google search to prove it. That’s right! Three MPs, including Bloc MP Giles Duceppe and Montreal Liberal Dennis Coderre marched alongside Hezbollah flags in downtown Montreal back in the summer of 2006 when the Israeli-Lebanon strike was going on those two years ago. The three MPs never publicly denounced their actions and as public representatives, ignored the due diligence that they are expected to practice as such office holders.

That is because Hezbollah is a radical and dangerous group that wants nothing more than they physical obliteration of Israel and all Jews in the world. That’s the sort of allies that the three MPs above-mentioned had on that summer day two years ago and that is why the Prime Minister is accurate in asserting

Canada, under this government, is never going to cater to that kind of opinion. You know, I am disturbed that there are some elements in our political system; there are even some members of Parliament – we saw during a confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah a couple of years back – some that were willing to cater to that kind of opinion.*

So in other words, the Montreal rally was exactly what the Prime Minister was referring to, lest the opposition now suggest that his “blanket statement” could imply other anti-semitic occasions that opposition members indulged in (a Freudian slip, if it comes?). It will come too though as the Montreal event was pretty cut and dry, something that even the most hardened partisan should see if they simply put the shoe on the other foot and tried to imagine Conservatives marching alongside someone holding a “God hates fags” sign…hey, even having an MP holding hands with somebody down the street would even be fair game I guess!

So are the Liberal and Bloc caucuses full of raving “drive ‘em into the sea” anti-semites? Hardly. Are their numbers, however, including those who give legitimacy to an organization that deserves to be destroyed and at the same time associating themselves with a toxic philosophy that the civilized world should not entertain? Absolutely!

*-emphasis added

With that said though, I think that the Harper government, keen to keep itself from acting too rational on matters dealing with our southern neighbours, lest our nation’s favourite case of racism bloom along with the other spring offerings, might have come to the right conclusion on this one, even if they still don’t have a good reason for why they did it in the first place. Consider, if you will, the wider context of this sale. Yes this was a sale between two willing organizations that was perfectly legal within the context of business and contract law and in appearances it appeared very free-trade and amicable for all parties. However, the aerospace industry and its derivatives, including satellites, is notoriously regulated the western governments involved. For MDA, this means that it cannot compete for U.S. business because U.S. law requires that contracts are rewarded exclusively to U.S. firms. In fact, if you look at why MDA wanted this deal so badly, it’s precisely because of this law — it would’ve allowed the company to compete in the massively larger, and far more lucrative U.S. ocean instead of being concealed within its present Canadian fishbowl. Not that we’re much better, screaming how any foreign interaction would be an immediate compromise to our sovereignty and national security.

At the end of the day though, if we’re going to play nice and laissez-faire, the least we owe to ourselves is to expect the same attitudes in return. NAFTA would’ve never worked for Canada if it was all give and no take. It’s also why North America’s flirtation with China is ultimately doomed in the long run as well. As soon as they actually get an economy over there, do you think the Chinese government’ll actually welcome the free flow of wealth out of its country, given the way it handles every other non-expedient situation it encounters right now? This sort of vigilance might have also given our local auto industries a fighting chance, if the union python wasn’t helping Japanese protectionism to choke it to death!

So in retrospect, I think that even conservatives will look back on the Prentice decision as one that was beneficial for a Canadian firm. Not that the man actually deserves any credit, given his willingness to invent guilt-by-association taxes to appease record labels and other blunders that indicate that Jim Prentice clearly doesn’t *get* how economies work! Of course, lost in the translation during this whole situation was the question of how MDA got into its mess in the first place; if Prentice were wise, he’d be spending the upcoming weeks with his American counterpart on that one…

This, again, is my whole point with the exercise: “Earth Hour” may be many things, be they politically motivated attempts to one day make Al Gore President of Earth, guilt-suppressing for the feeble-minded or an excuse for the promiscuous left to achieve it’s one and only goal no matter what the issue is framed as, but it is not about saving the Earth, nor is it about changing our lifestyles. Instead, like “buy nothing day”, the UofT sit-in this week, Kyoto, the green ribbon campaign of 1997 and The Waffle, Earth Day is just another much ado about nothing that The Left has established to be high on symbolism, but waning on substance. At the end of the day, it wasn’t really about making a difference, but about feeling like we did; it wasn’t meant to change how we view the world, but how the world views us. So congrats Earth Hour warriors! You’ve claimed one hour to feel all smug about (although I really don’t know why…), but I still have 8765 more this year where common sense will take over! I might be the pariah tonight, but come tomorrow morning you’ll be the one following my lead…

Beijing, China was regarded as the one to beat though as many of the delegates in the IOC thought that bringing the Olympics, with all its capitalist dollars and scrutiny, would be a vehicle to enhance the progress that China was making at that time to become a freer society. There was a columnist that wrote at the time that China’s then-leadership was probably going to be replaced by the time that the games came to the Chinese capital and that somehow a sporting event was going to usher in a push to hold free elections in the billion-strong nation. How wrong they all were.

Fast-forward seven years and aside from the blessing of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 games — an endeavor that will at least save Ontario taxpayers a few ‘G’s for the next two decades — there isn’t much to report on in way of good news. Today it is being reported that France may boycott the games now (for once I support their auto-trigger response to surrender), and the undertones are indicating that other western nations might join in. Since Athens was the last city to host a summer games, it might be asked in the event of a large enough boycott to re-host the games although they would almost certainly be delayed at this stage until later this year or even 2009. The fact remains though that China the reality isn’t settling very nicely with the real world and it is only the IOC pie-in-the-sky types that we have to blame for what might not be a crisis, but certainly might be a disappointing disaster for the hundreds of young athletes who sacrifice almost all of their young lives to make it to the five-ring competition.

While I’m reluctant to say that the world owes anything to these talented young people, certainly the officials in the IOC do, and they’re about to let them down quite unpleasantly. The fact that boycotts are already being suggested is no surprise; if we were honest with ourselves we’d know that China has an atrocious human liberties record and is using its human capital clout to bully the world into maintaining the status quo. This might work when we are talking in terms of economics (we’ve already seen China politely threaten Stephen Harper’s government if Canada takes a hard line with it, risking the valuable trade we have with the nation), but the Olympics are at the end of the day a highly symbolic situation, wherein the only losses will be suffered by the athletes, their coaches, families and friends. Sponsors will find other events to bankroll, people will find other shows to watch, and the economy will remain virtually unaffected, aside from the Olympic emblem hat here or the torch keychain there.

Of course, China, in continuing its violence in Tibet is only hurting itself at this point. Even the Soviets back in their day knew how to look pretty when they had to , and cover up the fact that they weren’t playing nice behind the scenes. In other words, China might have finally pushed around its weight a little too much and crossed the previously-mythical line that the West had drawn in the sand. China will be set back if they have the games disrupted by this folly, both economically in the short-term and politically down the road. Who knows, maybe this’ll even start to make us here in the West serious about our feelings that Tibet should be given independence; a blessing in disguise that will bring about tremendous good in the years to come. All we can know for sure right now though is that China had put on a pretty good show in the next few weeks if it wants to keep the Beijing games intact. A word of warning to the Asian country though — watch out for the French judge, as he’s looking pretty grumpy right now!

Measures of well-being include life expectancy, education, purchasing power and standard of living. Not surprisingly, the top 10 [best countries for women] are among the world’s wealthiest.

(emphasis added)

The report, made by a New York-based group called “Equality Now”, also showcased a blaring absence of the United States in the Top 10, making the whole comment about wealth questionable at best.

The most stunning and obvious factor that the paper made no mention of was a commonality that all but three of the 10 worst countries had:

Afghanistan (Muslim)
Democratic Republic of Congo (Socialist)
Iraq (Muslim)
Nepal (Hindu)
Sudan (Muslim)
Guatemala (Catholic)
Mali (Muslim)
Pakistan (Muslim)
Saudi Arabia (Muslim — on steroids!)
Somalia (Muslim)

To quote Mark Steyn, there seems to be a trend here: “it starts with ‘I’, and ends with ’slam’”!

What I have noticed about most articles discussing this kerfuffle, is that both the Obama camp and the Clinton camp have admitted to anti-NAFTA rhetoric on the campaign trail, but both have assured Canadian officials that they are not to be taken seriously.

What does that say about the credibility of either Obama or Clinton that they would do this?

That question aside, I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is another side-effect to this mess. Harper is facing flack all over the Commons over our Prime Minister merely expressing concern over thinly veiled threats against a major international trade treaty that has massive effect on Canada’s economy.

Why shouldn’t our government be expected to comment on such an important document as NAFTA being threatened?

But maybe another question should be asked. If the outcome of this flap damages Harper’s credibility as Prime Minister, then maybe it is, once again, American interests influencing Canadian politics, and not the other way around, as our opposition seems to want to frame the issue.

During a nationally televised debate in Cleveland, the two Democratic presidential candidates suggested Canada and Mexico would be given just six months to make compromises on the deal in order to satisfy the U.S. government.

“I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I have said we will renegotiate NAFTA (and) you would have to say to Canada and Mexico, ‘That’s what we are going to do’.”

Said Mr. Obama: “We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out” to force Canada and Mexico to reopen trade talks.

“We are both federal states and when you live in glasshouse you don’t throw stones.“

Yes, Mr. Ambassador, but Canadians do not torch embassies nor do they poison their political opponents. Canada is a “federation” but Canadians are different from Russians and Serbs. [I wonder if the Russian ambassador considers a bayonnet and a butter knife as being the same too, hmm???]

If Canadians want to maintain any semblance of being part of a civilized nation, they will distance themselves from the bullying arrogant rhetoric of Russian statesmen.  Canadians will align themselves with other civilized people who did not hesitate to recognize the obvious: Kosovo independence.

Sergeant Dehaan was comfortable with his mission in Iraq and the flaws of the Iraqi Police he was tasked with training and molding.

“I prefer these small and morally ambiguous wars to the big morally black-and-white wars,” he said to me later. “It would be nice if we had more support back home like we did during World War II. But look at how many people were killed in World War II. If a bunch of unpopular small wars prevent another popular big war, I’ll take ’em.”

He may have a point.

But read over the whole piece.  The prison tour is eye-opening, metaphorically.

h/t

“I think we need to do more with reservists,” he said. “If some of our people are putting their lives on the line, the least that we can do is protect them when they’re coming back.”

There’s a “great deal” of pressure on the private sector to follow Ottawa’s lead in giving leave to reservists, MacKay said.

“In the private sector, the signals are also very positive,” he said.

Tories say reservists won’t go from front line to unemployment line — Maclean’s

Says who?
Signals? What signals? I want to know what the hell that means.

Now, before you call me heartless and shout “Support The Troops!” let me just say that an employee taking any sort of leave of absence (that also includes maternity and sick leave) is costly to the employer. If this future law — the product of perceived positive signals — demands that a private sector job be held for a reservist without some form of compensation to the employer, MacKay is being disingenuous. Employers can save a job already if they wanted to save a job for a reservist.

I really want to know: What are these signals?????
Maybe he hears private sector employers saying: “We want to save jobs for our reservists! Please enact a law that compels us to do that which we can already do on our own.”
Obviously, such a hypothetical law would not be necessary (some of the provinces actually have them) if MacKay is being honest about these private sector signals. Maybe there will be compensation…. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

President Bush has had a difficult time lately in Iraq. He lost the mid-term elections, fired his defence secretary, and is about to launch his presidency’s last stand — a “surge” of thousands of fresh troops in one more desperate attempt to take and hold Baghdad.

Norman Podhoretz speaks Jan 16, 2008 :

It took Lincoln three years to find Sherman and Grant. It took George Bush three years to find Petraeus.

The topic of the interview will be general military affairs and issues relating to Canada’s role as a peace-keeper. If you’re interested in submitting a question, read more at the Maple Leaf Web weblog.

Among the more reasonable explanations that I’ve been offered are that if the roles were reversed, the U.S. would be laughing right through the primaries at the thought of turning one of its citizens over to a foreign nation to face a criminal charge that it is not willing to make itself, and that Emery is just being used as an example; there are many B.C.-based websites that offer the same service that Emery has, but the U.S. law enforcement agencies aren’t even recognizing their existence.

There are problems though, even with these justifications. First, while it’s true that the U.S. would be more keen on keeping its own safe, I seem to recall many examples wherein the country is willing to extradite American citizens to Europe, or Canada to face charges such as fraud, murder or theft; if I’m not mistaken, many of the recent business scandals that have been recently rocking the U.S. financial world involve execs in just this situation. Irregardless, two wrongs wouldn’t make a right; everyone, including Emery, agrees that he willingly provoked the States and is now facing the consequences. Canadian law is quite reasonable in this case, giving discretion to the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, who has the ability to veto a citizen’s transfer to a foreign country to face charges if he feels that there is the potential that that individual’s basic rights (to a fair trial, to life…) would be violated or that the crime stated is unreasonable (eg. if you are a woman charged with walking down the street sans a male escort). This allows our nation’s officials to get a glance at the situation and make a judgment call. As for why Emery is being singled out, I understand that he’s particularly provocative and even if he isn’t the biggest or more dangerous seed seller out there, it’s the U.S. government’s freedom to decide who and who they will not contact Canada about wishing to prosecute.

Marc Emery will certainly face a steep sentence if he is convicted in the States, make no doubt about it. However, he knew the risks going into the situation and figuratively thumbed his nose at America’s right to authority as he did so. To cry foul now that the tables are turned is to completely disregard every step he’s taken up until now!

Now that we’ve all settled into winter here in Canada and the Bali Summit is complete, the focus is starting to turn to the mission in Afghanistan. It struck me yesterday in my travels during the Boxing Day trials that these two political theatres have an interesting correlation that everyone on the Left, the Right and in between should heed:

In the environment sphere, the Left tells us that despite the fact that the U.S., China, and India (the global leaders in CO2 emissions and real pollutants) have, to date, not signed onto any treaty that would limit their emissions Canada should step up to the plate and do more than our fair share in reducing these emissions so as to at least reduce the alleged damage that would occur due to CO2 build-up in the atmosphere.

In the global security sphere, the Right is telling us that despite the fact that Great Britain, Germany, and Italy (the other coalition partners that are part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan) aren’t contributing their fair share in the heavy-fighting reasons in southern Afghanistan that Canada should step up to the plate and finish the job no one else is willing to in Afghanistan so as to at least bring stability to the Afghan people.

It’s an interesting comparison especially when you factor in the rebukes to each respective argument. While I would argue that the Afghan mission has more success, both initiatives are only tentative and not guaranteed to bring on a better world and both are costing our economy money that opponents would be better spent.

The only consideration that I believe we should be factoring into these issues as we consider how to move forward on them is that in both cases the other countries of the world are either too lazy or too hypocritical to engage in the endevours themselves, so whether it is fighting the Taliban in the mountains of Asia or car emissions on the 400, we shouldn’t be looking to the international community for either guidance or support. Rather, our policies should be based on a clearly thought out vision that is prudent and ultimately promotes Canadian values and growth. Consider this when both issues come up in next year’s almost-certain election when all four party leaders pitch their vision (or lack thereof) of why we should hitch our coach to their particular wagon!

I guess Canada’s say in the matter in the matter isn’t that important any more either now that the US has agreed to sign onto something, unlike, you know, the rest of this week when Dion et al were convinced that the human race would survive or smolder based on John Baird’s decisions.

Ideology is substitute religion, a belief system based on ideas that are often contradicted by history and common sense. Yet men will adhere to ideologies with a zealotry that borders on fanaticism.

Marxism, fascism and socialism were are ideologies, gods that failed. So, too, is democratism, the Gospel of George W. Bush.

Democratism is a belief that all men are equally endowed with a desire for freedom and an aptitude for democracy. All can be uplifted, and all brought to see that democracy is the one true path to peace in our world. In democracy lies our salvation.

The US military says the number of civilian deaths has also fallen 60 per cent since the surge took effect, with a drop of 75 per cent in Baghdad. According to icasualties.org, the average monthly US death toll dropped from 96 for the first half of 2007 to 66 in the past four months. The average monthly death toll for Iraqi civilians and security forces has dropped from 2,157 to 1,223 in the same period.

Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?

Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.

Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?

You may not believe me, but I don’t even think it’s much of a stretch, certainly no grand fictional scheme à la Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America in which Lindbergh defeats Roosevelt in the election of 1940 and the U. S. opts out of World War II. The Clinton-Gore administration wasn’t the least bit afraid to use force. Erratic about it - maybe. Insecure about it - maybe. But pacifist? Ask Milosevic.

I haven’t seen it yet, but I reccommend it to you for two reasons: first, the movie “Hotel Rwanda” by the accounts of the Rwandans I have talked to, was largely fiction - kind of like “Saving Private Ryan” - it is set in a real-life war, but the events are fictional.  This movie is based on Dallaire’s memoirs, and had more support from Rwandans.  I know this because “Hotel Rwanda” wasn’t even filmed in Rwanda (the hotel in the picture is actually in South Africa - I know because I have been to Hotel des Mille Collines, and it looks nothing like the movie).

The second reason is because it was actually filmed in Rwanda and most of the extras are real Rwandans.  I was in Rwanda last year while it was filming.  A friend of mine that I made while there was an extra - he was there as a missionary but took a bit of time for fun to play the role of a Dutch soldier in the United Nations force.

I know some people don’t like downer movies, but my opinion is this - a movie like this is more important in terms of understanding reality and our times than the next “based on a true story” sexfest.  You don’t need to know how Hollywood thinks people boinked in history.  You do need to understand the true consequences of war, genocide, and international ambivalence.

Plus, while Dallaire sits as a Liberal senator, I still salute him for his admirable service in Rwanda.  You should too.

In 1999, Australians voted “no” in a referendum for a republic system for their country.

“We’ve got a very stable system of government. There has been no coup or civil war, in part because of the constitutional linkage between the Crown, the Governor-General and the Government of the day.

“This has given Australia great stability,” he concludes.

The West should be very wary of trading with China to the extent that it presently is, be it a tyrannical and morally bankrupt regime, although some significant trade is necessary to leverage our moral authority and hope to influence them in the long term. As a point of national interest, India is a much more logical strategic ally than China, although China has certainly helped reigned in the North Koreans.

In the mean time, those Liberal trade missions to China should not have been in vain. It’s nice to see Harper, rather than more trade missions, cashing in on Canada’s moral leverage to prod Chinese leaders along.

Now, if only he can say something about Darfur and China’s less than agreeable complicity. See here as well.

This guy, be he potentially the oldest man to become President of the United States, never gives up. And furthermore, he stands on principle no matter what; namely, Iraq is doable.

Here’s an interesting piece contemplating whether the McCain campaign is coming back to life after a tough summer. I sure hope it is!

As Stephen Hayes tells it:

Our first stop in New Hampshire became newsworthy for reasons having nothing to do with Iraq. Two students from Concord High School asked the kind of look-at-me questions that have more to do with impressing their peers than with grilling the candidate. (Reporters never do this.) One wanted to know whether McCain was worried that he was too old to be president and whether he thinks he might get Alzheimer’s in office. Snickers everywhere. McCain joked that his son thinks he’s old enough to hide his own Easter eggs, then punctuated his comments, with impeccable comic timing: “Thanks for the question, you little jerk!” The students loved it.

A second questioner sought McCain’s views on LGBT issues. McCain was confused by the acronym–short for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender–and after a clarification, the senator acknowledged differences of opinion with his interrogator. The student responded angrily. “I came here to see a leader,” he said. “I don’t.” McCain was unfazed. He told the student that such disagreements are “what America is all about,” smiled, and moved on.

Later that evening, I rode with McCain to the fire department in Bow, for a town hall meeting. A nondescript white van with two “McCain” stickers affixed to the back windows served as a poor man’s Straight Talk Express. The senator’s wife, his daughter Meghan, and a longtime family friend were waiting in the van with two staffers when McCain climbed in. After welcoming me to the van, he smiled broadly and gestured to those sharing the ride.

“I’m sorry you have to sit here surrounded by all of these jerks,” he said to great laughter.

I reminded him of the exchange at the school and said: “That’s the word of the day, isn’t it?”

“Oh yeah,” he said, as the memory of the morning registered. “Then there was that other question about the TB-GYN community,” McCain added, drawing laughter from the others in the van, most of whom knew the right acronym.

John McCain is having fun on the campaign trail–more fun than he did last spring when he was one of the frontrunners, and certainly more fun than during the summer of trouble. He is more carefree, more feisty, and more effective. Voters in New Hampshire seemed to notice.

Worth reading the rest. Incidentally, Hayes is also the author of Cheney: The Untold Story of the Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President in American History.

My favourite Bernier story:

Maxime Bernier reclines his lean, six-foot plus frame in his constituency office and recounts with relish how he lost hundreds of new jobs for his riding.

After his election as the new Conservative MP for the Beauce, the “distinct society within a distinct society” nestled between Quebec City and the Maine border, he was visited by the owner of a local bicycle factory. Mr. Bernier had just been named Stephen Harper’s Industry Minister and the factory owner wanted his local MP to lobby for the imposition of quotas on cheap Chinese bicycles that were undercutting his product.

He said he had to make an investment decision — invest $1-million in low-end bicycles, creating 300 new jobs in Saint- Georges, or a similar amount in high-end bikes that would bring considerably fewer jobs.

“With that answer he killed himself. I said to him that it would be difficult for me to impose quotas that would add $72 to the cost of a bicycle for all Canadians for only 200 jobs in the Beauce,” he says.

When it emerged that the Industry Minister was not fighting for jobs in his riding, the Bloc Quebecois launched a broadside in the House of Commons, claiming that he was ignoring the needs of Quebecers. At Cabinet, other ministers offered to defend the file publicly, fearing the electoral consequences for the rookie MP.

But they underestimated him and the reaction in the Beauce, where public sympathy was solidly behind their MP. Mr. Bernier insisted that he take the question in the House and hit back at the Bloc for defending corporate interests against those of Quebec consumers. The incident earned Bernier the nickname “Blocbuster” in the Prime Minister’s Office.

– (John Ivison, National Post, A6, 20 Jan 2007. Not available online).

Harris, a self-described “gay man” who dedicates his recent book to his “partner of twenty years,” tells how the orgins of Islam, be it the origins of an inner-worldly political community, were and are, out of necessity, violent. He argues that the very generosity of liberal values, when confronted by those who do not share such values, works to undermine the very security of Western liberal society.

Near the end of the interview, Harris shares why he is an opponent of same-sex marriage. He makes a point that I have argued here many times: traditional marriage is the very definition of marriage. Any partnership between two-persons of the same-sex is not, by definition, marriage; there’s no substantive equivalency.

In agreement with anyone of a conservative temperament, Harris argues that intellectuals should be highly wary of tinkering with basic traditional conventions, conventions that give Western society a basic ordering structure, from whence reason emerges.

This is an excellent point!

Once you start ignoring basic common sense differences between men and women, and basic differences between heterosexual and homosexual human relationships, you are no longer as in touch with the ordering structure of reality as you once were. And when common sense reason starts to flag in one area, such unreason is demonstratably contagious and liable to spread. Case in point: once “sexual orientation” was read into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and accepted as standard lingo in speaking of ALL persons, juridically and very narrowly, same-sex marriage became a more amenable, seemingly logical, permutation of Canadian jurisprudence.

Harris tells how he grew up a Southern Baptist and has a great deal of respect for many of “those people.” He says the very fact that he is tolerated as a gay man and allowed to live freely is a great accomplishment of civilization, especially when radical Islam would have him killed in the worst possible way. One can’t expect perfection from Western civilization, but rather be aware of how much better it is than the alternatives and WHY it is ABLE to be better than the alternatives.

Definitely an interview worth checking out!

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There’s no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like “boat people,” “re-education camps,” and “killing fields.”

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today’s struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that “the American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today.”

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda’s chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to “the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents.”

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans “know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet.” Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility — but the terrorists see it differently.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that “the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever.” Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror — but it’s the central front — it’s the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it’s the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon’s foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration’s policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.

Here’s what they said: “Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.” I believe these men are right.

In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one. So we pursue the extremists wherever we find them and we stand with the Iraqis at this difficult hour — because the shadow of terror will never be lifted from our world and the American people will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator meant for all. (Applause.)

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives — and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

Peter Rodman explains why Bush’s history lesson correctly Assesses the consequences of defeat in Iraq for American global posturing.

So the president has his history right. The outcome in Indochina was not foreordained. Congress had the last word, however, between 1973 and 1975.

The strategic consequences of defeat in Indochina were also serious. Leonid Brezhnev crowed that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Demoralized allied leaders in Europe as well as Asia feared the new Soviet aggressiveness and lamented the paralysis of American will. When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as evidence that U.S. warnings did not need to be taken seriously. That’s what it means to lose credibility. Once lost, it has to be re-earned the hard way.

No analogies are ever complete, but — given our global leadership and the number of allies and friends that rely on us for their security — the consequences of an American defeat can be counted on to be terrible. How can anyone seriously think otherwise?

Apparently a sense of irony is a bourgeois luxury.

The Montebello summit in Quebec, where, among other matters, Artic sovereignty is to be discussed, demonstrates to Canadians the Harper difference in foreign affairs: the world takes us seriously again!

The Financial Times has a good piece on Harper’s last eighteen months in office, “Canada’s conservative man of action.”

Comedian Robin Williams once described Canada as being “like a loft apartment over a really great party” but it’s doubtful Mr Harper was laughing. Much of his time as prime minister has been spent trying to build Canada-US relations and making sure his country is taken seriously the world over.

During a speech in October, Mr Harper made clear he does not want Canada to sit back and watch the rest of the world act and react, saying the “objective is to make Canada a leader on the international stage…If there is any one thing that has struck me for the short time I have been in this job, it is how critically important foreign affairs has become in everything that we do”.

Thank God we have a leader who finally understands that keeping the Liberal Party in power—or any party—is not the sole reason we have general elections in Canada. Harper’s term in office, being a Canadian leader the world takes seriously because he takes the world seriously, will go down as a great restorative force for Canadian sovereignty, on the heels of Liberal frittering away of our national inheritance.

If Paul Cellucci’s recent comments are any indication, the Americans pay attention to Canada when Canada takes responsibility for it’s own sovereignty and security; they like a Canada that actually acts like the friend it always claims to be.

And in another good turn, in contrast to the constant buttering up of the Liberals to Red China, Harper has never wavered from criticizing China’s human rights record, compensating any trade defecit by looking within the Anglosphere to India:

Harper in his statement to congratulate India on the 60 aniversary of its Independence said, “India’s independence in 1947 has been an inspiration to the world. Using its great diversity to its own advantage, India has evolved into a vibrant democracy.”

“India is rising to global prominence and Canada stands ready to deepen our partnership with India to advance our common interests and to promote new opportunities for economic development and international trade for the benefit of both our peoples,” he said.

UPDATE:  Ten years ago, when asked about the protesters outside the APEC summit in Vancouver, Jean Chretien deflected commenting on their very presence, and the harsh police response to them, by saying he put pepper on his plate.  In contrast, Harper is too sincere to reflect such poor leadership, not feigning to ignore the protesters and their insincere antics.  As far as Harper is concerned, the protesters at Montebello are a sad spectacle. :-)

On Friday last, the U.K.’s Telegraph lost one of its finest: W.F. Deedes. He died, age 94, halfway through his final column, putting his laptop to the side of his bed only when he was simply too weak to continue. Check out the Telegraph’s tribute page.

Lord Deedes had been a British peer for over twenty years, being knighted just under ten years ago for services to humanity. Not only did he sit as a Conservative member of Commons, a minister in Harold MacMillan’s government in the 1960s, he is the only person to have served in Cabinet and been the editor of a national newspaper. Bill Deedes was a journalist for 76 years.

I read his columns semi-regularly, always enjoying what he wrote and how he wrote it. If ever there was the “gentleman journalist,” he was it, and he died “in harness,” remaining an active contributor to the paper he loved.

From commentaries on him ….

… on his instinctive compassionate conservatism:

He was not flashy. But if you wanted something done, Bill Deedes was your man.

The virtues that Lord Deedes exhibited are underrated today, when it frequently seems that surface glitter is more appreciated than substance.

Lord Deedes devoted much of his life to trying to help the disadvantaged, without ever drawing attention to that fact.

He was, perhaps, the best exemplar of a compassionate Conservative: someone who sees that the best way to diminish life’s inevitable unfairnesses and injuries is not to set up a government committee or to wait for someone else to do something, but to get on with trying to combat the troubles he encounters.

As the Conservative Party ponders the path to take and which values to project, it should remember Bill Deedes. The life he lived could stand as a model for both.

… on his other-worldly good nature:

In 2000, when I became comment editor of The Daily Telegraph, I was lucky enough to work with him. He would come to the afternoon leader conferences at which it was decided what the leading articles should be and what line they should take. He was only 87 then, but my impressions from meeting him in the corridor or over a pint in the Henry Addington (or later the Cat and Canary) had been that he was rather distant from the world, a bit deaf and isolated. The impression was reinforced by his habit of singing little tunes, a bit like Winnie the Pooh.

But I soon discovered my mistake. I was utterly wrong. He would show immediate insight into topics under discussion in leader conferences, and amusingly bring to bear his memories of parallel political circumstances from the days of Stanley Baldwin, say.

From his own hand …

… on new lefties vrs. old lefties:

And she a Socialist! But Mrs Castle makes no bones about her liking for the good things of life, a good dinner, high company, a little pomp and circumstance - all right, she says, as long as you don’t inhale!

On her own front, through most of these Diaries, she is in pitched battles with consultants, with junior doctors and defenders of paybeds.

Of course one should argue that she misdirected prodigious energy on wrong and damaging objectives. Yet, after reading it all and taking a political holiday, I would argue something different.

These Diaries are, as perhaps she intended, more a portrait of Mrs Castle than of anyone else. They are, overall, the portrait of a parliamentary democrat.

With the advent of the new and nasty Left, one reads Mrs Castle’s Diaries with something like nostalgia. Again, one can argue, and some will, that it was precisely the likes of her that paved the way to the new and nasty Left; that from just such political wombs the monster sprang.

But one thing that distinguishes the old Left from the new Left is the capacity occasionally to laugh at yourself.

… on not blaming all of Africa’s problems on the West:

… not all African woes can be attributed to neglect by the West. That claim raises the temperature, sets people marching to attack greedy nations that misruled Africans in the past and now turn a cold shoulder to their needs. It also falsifies history. I have always conceded that we granted independence to Africa on the tail of Harold Macmillan’s “wind of change” too precipitately. No administrative framework was in place. The countries hastily granted independence were up for grabs.

By contrast, Southern Rhodesia was put on the road to freedom by Margaret Thatcher and with an orderly election. And who won? Mugabe, of whose misrule we still read most days of the week. There is no sensible way forward for Africa until we recognise the extent to which African rulers rather than the West are so heavily responsible for its plight.

… on Darfur, his last column, two weeks ago:

It is time the world was shaken awake to the infamy of what is going on in Darfur. In terms of man’s inhumanity to man, what has been going on there for four years is now comparable to the death camps for which Germany’s Nazis were found guilty. That statement may provoke cries of outrage from some: surely the Holocaust stands alone?

Not to me it doesn’t, and as a soldier I had to enter one of those camps and went to the trial of its commandant. I