However, I don’t doubt that in a city of 4 million people, there may be thousands of people who are willing to pay for that.

The question is, are the people who will buy tickets to an NFL team in Toronto the same people who will buy tickets for a CFL game in Toronto?

The National Post is doing a series on the question of an NFL team in Toronto.  Politicians are weighing in on it as those against the move are looking to find support from politicians to protect “Canadian heritage”, or to protect Canada from a “monopoly”.  I was sent Bob Ackles’ article in the series (it was dated today, but I didn’t see it online so I won’t reprint it) and he is obviously against the move in the interests of preserving his interest in the BC Lions.  He along with many others, believe that if the NFL comes to Toronto it will lead to the death of the CFL.

I think the question I posed at the top is the real one: are the two markets the same?

From a fans standpoint, I don’t think so.  I think given ticket prices that were similar, a good number of people may choose to go to an NFL game, simply from the marketing and hype of the NFL.  However, the prices are not similar.  Toronto Argonauts sell their tickets at between $20 and $80 for single games.  The Seattle Seahawks sell theirs for between $37 and $360.  There is a different clientele that can afford NFL tickets it seems to me.

From a sponsorship standpoint, there may be problems.  Canada’s corporate community isn’t all that big to begin with, since free trade opened up all kinds of big American corporations much freer access to our marketplaces.  The few big ones there are want maximum exposure - and will go anywhere to get it.  Witness the Royal Bank of Canada buying naming rights to the Carolina Hurricanes’ hockey rink!  Why spend a little on CFL sponsorship and get a little exposure when you can buy NFL sponsorship and get exposure in both America and Canada?  I can see where this could cause problems, but is being protectionist the solution?  I don’t know.

What I wonder is whether or not we can look to other sports to test feasibility.  The NHL is the big dog in most of Canada.  All the big corporate sponsors go NHL if they want exposure to hockey fans.  Yet, in recent years we have seen successful Canadian Junior Hockey franchises begin to crop up in NHL markets: The Calgary Hitmen and the Vancouver Giants are the two closest to home for me.  Both of them seem to be thriving, with lower ticket prices making the games more approachable for families and the less wealthy (while NHL ticket prices skyrocket, putting them out of reach of average Joes).  They don’t seem to be lacking in corporate sponsorship and they seem to make all kinds of money.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves: the CFL is a minor league.  There has not been a time in the last 30 years where CFL and NFL teams could even compare with one another skillwise.  Yes, they play different games, but it’s still football, and the best players in the CFL all grew up playing college football at American four-down schools.  The CFL will always be a minor league - Canadians are not willing to pay NFL money to attract NFL talent, and CFL owners do not have the deep pockets required to begin to simply hire players away from the NFL.  So if the question becomes, will the big league kill the minor league?  The answer, as witnessed by AHL, CHL and NHL hockey teams coexisting in many cities, seems to likely no.  It doesn’t have to, but we need to look carefully at how teams like the Giants and the Hitmen successfully markets and positions their clubs for profitability in the face of the big league in town.

Get real people. The previous $500 per game contract was a colossal rip-off and never should have happened. The artist is just trying to milk the tax-payer further. With this contest, the CBC is telling how much they are willing to pay the artist of the current theme. No more and no less. Have no fear. I like to call this whole thing a game of poker or chicken. My guess is that we will get the old theme back. My bet is that the CBC is this artist’s biggest source of income.

I recommend that the owners of the current Hockey Night In Canada theme submit their old theme to this contest and take the prize money. Since the winner will be chosen by the listeners, I figure it would be a shoe-in. Anything the CBC offers is a cash cow.

Some of the artists have provided a ray of clever insight:

Une solution semblait faire consensus chez la plupart des participants : la souveraineté.

I agree with that and thus, I have a suggestion to all of the Montreal-Quebeckers who are worried about losing their culture and their language: promote sovereignty or forever hold your peace.

I would also recommend that Quebeckers keep their children in school. Their high drop-out rates seem related specifically to French language studies.

I’d just like to point out in light of the stupidity that is occurring with the Human Rights Commissions in Canada right now, that this story highlights just how close Canada is to sinking into a morass of self-destructive correctness.  Vigilance is the only defence.

Burma is a heterogeneous population. The vast majority of the Burmese population is ethnically Burmese but about a quarter of the population is ethnic minorities — some of which have fought for autonomy. The cyclone hit the region of an ethnic minority that was previously targeted by the Burmese military. A little more political history of the Karen region tells me that these poor people are hopelessly doomed.

Apparently, the Maple Leaf is too vile to be displayed as well.

No word yet on what exactly was so offensive about it.

I say tough luck for the current athletes if they get offended. They may want to think they are separated from the politics — fine — the athletes benefit from state privilege and my taxes go to fund their activities without my choice, mind you. Therefore, their connection to politics is fair game. Without political power, they would not be there and the Olympics may not even exist. If every single Canadian voted to abstain from participating in the Olympics or to even fund the sports, well, sorry! they are out of luck. What the state giveth, the state can taketh away. They should be grateful that they are not competing 25 years ago.

If athletes compete in China, any of them who step on the podium should have the courage to make a real difference like these guys did. Maybe they could just stick their tongues out and take a bow:

TIBETAN SALUTE
In Tibet when one man greets another it goes beyond the mere shaking of hands. A Tibetan bows, extends both hands palms open and sticks out his tongue!

By the way, Matthew was right first.

Quebeckers are not better than anybody but they are individuals. Demanding patriotism is not my style but I enjoy seeing people celebrate their origins and their community. This Bouchard-Taylor recommendation would lead to the demise of an exciting aspect of North American culture.

It seems like Falardeau-Poulin were able to see this coming more than twenty-five years ago:

ELVIS GRATTON : Moi je suis un Canadien québécois, un Français canadien-français… Un Américain du Nord français, un francophone québécois canadien… Un Québécois d’expression canadienne –française française. On est des Canadiens américains francophones d’Amérique du Nord… Des Franco-québécois…

I hope Quebeckers do not get sucked into the trap of political correctness.

A fundamental component of the debate has been ignored so far though and that is whether a tax on the sixth element of the periodic table is really such a good idea after all. For example, I relayed a report late last year on how an obsessive academic from Australia proposed the sick ideal of putting a carbon tax on each baby born into the world and a yearly tax on children for the first years of their lives. As we have our national government apologizing for the Chinese head tax of almost 100 years ago, calling the practice a shameful blemish from our past, eco-liberals are gearing up to add a tax that doesn’t discriminate on race necessarily but on simply existing. The professor was never quite clear on what would happen if families either refused or could not afford to pay the tax, although he was certainly joyous in announcing how this would effectively womens’ (and mens’) right to chose to have their babies (something liberals often love to do except when they know the choice will result in one less life in the world).

On the other end of the age spectrum though, Stephane Dion’s carbon tax threatens the well-being of our society. While details haven’t been offered by many pundits so far, I’m sure more than a few of them have been sharing my imagination of a Conservative attack ad picturing an elderly old lady, huddled in the corner of a dark, snow-squalling room; as the picture pans out from the detailed sadness of this lonely old woman, a caption will read something to the effect that the retired lady wouldn’t afford heat because that nasty Scrooge of a Liberal, Stephane Dion, is taxing coal so high that she can’t afford to keep warm this Christmas/winter. Whether or not we end up seeing an ad like this run, the fact still remains that some fixed-income Canadians will be hit hard by a carbon tax, often in the case where they slaved away their whole lives under an income tax system that punished them when they were making more money. Now they wouldn’t make as much, which should reduce their burden under income tax, but would be sideswiped by the Dion carbon tax at a time in their lives where going out to make more money simply wouldn’t be an option.

Finally, we have to realize just what a ridiculous notion it is for the Liberals to propose that a carbon tax would be tax neutral. Take the mathematical equation ax + by + cz = 100, where a, b, and c are the percentages of total tax that three hypothetical taxpayers, x, y, and z, would pay into the system. If a tax shift were truly neutral (and Canadians have good reason to believe that no political party that proposes a new tax will EVER deliver on the neutrality promise), that 100 would have to stay the same since it represents 100% of the taxes the government collects now.

On the one hand, it may go down for x because he doesn’t buy as much carbon in a year, but z’s burden might go up because she lives on a rural farm where oil heating and a truck are the necessities of a farmer, not the luxury that we might think. Will *big oil* account for some of the z’s out there who will see their tax bill increase? Most definately, but who do you think will pay for it in the end? The fat cat execs who The Left is always telling us about, or the common Canadian who goes to fill up at the pump?

On the other hand, we have to ask just why the Liberal spin doctors are already playing up the tax neutral element of such a carbon tax? After all, either the government isn’t going to be collecting the same amount of money because carbon usage will go down (in which case, we have to ask how Dion plans to fund his national daycare and other new spending projects), or they will and we will be essentially using the same amount of carbon. Thinking further, what isn’t carbon out there? Bread? Wrong. Clothes? Try again. Wood? Look elsewhere. In fact, the only things I can think of off the top of my head are computer chips and software programmes that are downloaded off the internet. Not exactly the bare necessities but I’m sure the tech industry is already thrilled that our government already presumes that we’re pirates and thieves every time we buy a CD/DVD and is itching to get into the flash drive market as well (think of it as a silicon tax — maybe we should just harmonize it with Dion’s carbon tax and have a tax on all IV A elements!).

Ultimately though, if the Liberals are willing to fight for this one in an election, I say go for it. After all, it wouldn’t take long for someone to point out the obvious: if all this environmental posturing we’re doing now is meant to save the Earth and, ultimately, our existence as a species, why would we impose a tax that would be so destructive both to our children and our elderly? Isn’t the point about making our quality of life better? And once the debate is framed that way, Dion’s already ill-advised plan will be toast and we won’t have to hear any more about eco-radicalism, or at least until the summer of 2024 when we have a couple more days over 30 than usual!

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…

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!

But, like almost all things that liberalism gets behind, the devil is very much in the details. A series of articles went largely unnoticed back in mid-February when we were concerned with John Tory’s fate, the Alberta election or the federal government’s lifespan. In them comes news that bread, particularly the stuff its made of (grain) has tripled in price in just a matter of months. Two factors are being blamed:

a)the rapid emergence of a middle class in the combined 2 billion-large areas of China and India (serious question: would it be improper to refer to this as Chindia from now on?)

and b) the increasing demand for ethanol as an energy source

We have no right or basis to blame the first point on anyone (in fact, kudos to the Asians who are beginning to enjoy a better standard of living!), however we should look into that latter one. Ethanol is a fairly plentiful chemical in our ecosystem, and the hippies love it because it’s a fairly clean, albeit highly inefficient source of energy (although don’t tell them that its mass is composed of over 50% carbon!). Don’t get me wrong either: if nothing else, I’m pro-moving away from oil just so we can stick it to the Saudis and eliminate the threat they pose to western civilization, however not only is the ethanol energy craze the philosopher’s stone of the modern era, it’s also the next best way of socialism causing a famine in the land.

Demonstrating that they really don’t understand economic forces, the greenies of the world praised ethanol as a cheap and renewable source of energy. Yes, it’s definately renewable but cheap is only a temporal trait as the market is always changing. If you need 1000 pounds of wheat to feed your population per day, and request another 500 pounds for energy purposes, demand goes up, and the price with it. Things could eventually stabilize with either continued breakthroughs in agricultural chemistry to improve grain yield, or us just planting more fields with grains, however I remain skeptical as energy demands have steadily increased over the past 100 years and will continue to as our population and technology increases. In the meantime, we really need to ask ourselves if forcing a child to do without an extra meal is worth the dubious effort to remove carbon from our atmosphere.

“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.

Meanwhile, I have a few friends in teachers colleges across the province who have reported back that specific unions have come into their classes to tell them the names of Liberal candidates in the local areas that they were expected to vote for “if you want a job after school” or how there are now classes dedicated to teaching how great a man Pierre Trudeau was (even if he were a great man, a controversial statement in itself, should we not teach the students to judge history for themselves?). As they say, your tax dollars at work.

I found this video on YouTube today that brought me back to these issues and reminded me of just how intellectually bankrupt our system is, and ethically destitute the unions which brought it about are. The United States has many good things, and many bad but one constant in the latter category has been its education system which has been a point of grief in that country since at least the time of the civil rights movement. Watching the video, it really depressed me to notice how much of the show could be cast in Ontario these days — particularly the part around the 22 minute mark. John Stossel is a personal favourite, and 20/20 (like all TV investigative journalism shows) should be watched with caution but aside from the fact that the network has a vested interest in not being sued for slander, Stossel makes his best point at the end of the show: a hope that this sparks a debate.

Basically, Shane is right that this is the beginning of something. We have crossed the line of officially recognizing the isolationist mentality that we have been acting upon for the past 40 years. Let’s not kid ourselves though, this school, John Tory’s ill-fated campaign promise, and everything that is yet to come should’ve been seen coming from a mile away. In fact, most of us still smugly endorse the culture that is allowing this transformation to take place. You see, unlike the Americans who now have 230 years of generally open immigration experience (and whose one exception happens to be the black slave case), Canada’s current model has only been going for a few decades and it is something that most Canadians like to think makes us superior to our souther neighbours.

Instead of a melting pot, we like to think our society is multicultural, where you can bring not only the food, dress, music, and language from back home but also the racism, ills, cultural norms and other attributes that most of us would personally find undesirable. When a family from the Middle East punishes their daughter harshly for not wearing a hijab, as a Mississauga father did in killing his daughter over the issue, we always see the culprits at the CBC, Libblogs and the general bleeding hearts quickly run in to caution us that it is we, the ones who have been assimilated into what used to be Canadian culture, who need to adopt sensitivity, not the individual(s) who came here to seek the better life/wealth that our culture had a large part in creating! By letting different ethnic groups go about their business, just not around my family though if you please, these newcomers who include many individuals who want to escape the ills they left behind and become truly Canadian, are marginalized. Unlike the Americans or Japanese (to name a couple), we don’t create a systematic incentive so strong that one cannot help but learn passable English within a year of landing here (I should know; my neighbours two doors down don’t speak enough English to understand me saying “hello”, but live off of the welfare program all day in their new dwelling). Nor do we create any other incentive that will make people stop saying that they’re Indian, African or Dutch, but rather that they’re just Canadian!

I know some of the people who are up in arms over this post already wouldn’t like me quoting from our Lord, but He had some pretty wise things to say that apply to all of society, not just Christians. The one that comes to mind is that “a house divided will surly fall.” As North York becomes the newest member state of the African Union, and Islam prepares to move Mississauga into a vassel dar al-Islam, we might want to step back for a moment and consider that for a bit, and maybe explore whether we’re paying a higher price to get sushi at the mall than we have to…or than we can afford!

I’m sorry that they feel that their people got a raw deal from Confederation and in a perfect world, yes, the treaties negotiated over a hundred years ago (and gifts for that matter) were done in bad faith, but a Native today has no more right to rule over this land than an immigrant, a native-born Euro-Canadian or anyone else for that matter. Canada is a U.N.-recognized, politically sovereign entity which calls the shots in its territory. In all fairness, what have any of these mobsters or terrorists now crying crocodile tears done to deserve the very generous tax exemptions, government programs and hand-outs that they get besides winning the genetic lottery? Have all of those perks been considered by these people or should we subtract all of the tax money behind them from the total we are to pay this band for the Grand River territory (IF we even owe it to them post-negotiations!), because it might just turn out that the Natives owe us a nice big fat cheque along with the apology!

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!

“However much you may think that’s a totally acceptable symbol, and that is totally neutral, that might not be entirely the case for everybody who comes to court,” Woolcott told the Waterloo regional police officer.

You must not wear the poppy.  The poppy represents the remembrance of sacrifice.  That sacrifice was for freedom.  Some people in Canada do not like freedom.  In fact, they oppose it.  We, as a free society, do not wish to offend anyone - especially those who oppose freedom.  We must not wear flowers representing freedom in their presence.

Lest they be offended.

Catchy.

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.

Matty, Nikky, and Steener are playing the best hockey of their careers in training camp. Matty and Steener have been battling for ice time especially on the power play, with the likes of Welly, Tucker, Poni, and now Jason Blake, and I think Matt and Alex have become better hockey players because of it. With Welly out for at least a month, they now have their oppurtunity to get second-line duty, and extra pp and pk ice time. As for Tucker, he has to be watching his back with guys like Matty and Steener playing outstanding right now.

That’s just an embarrassment. Dude, you are NOT in the Leaf locker room! You are NOT on the team! Leave the lame, unimaginative nicknames for teammates who have been concussed 5 too many times to actually think of something original.

Besides. The Leafs suck. Luongo is taking the Canucks all the way to the finals. Sorry.

If Harper now hopes to satisfy Quebec, provincial officials suggest he might agree to the province’s long-standing contention that it should be able to opt out of national cost-shared programs and still get its share of federal booty with no strings attached. He might also agree to extend any limitations to federal-only programs.

Such measures would provoke concern in some quarters, especially among Liberals, that Harper is weakening the national fabric, ending the possibility of creating new coast-to-coast social programs with national standards. And it could hand Dion, who is intimately familiar with the file, an issue upon which to finally define his shaky leadership.

Still, some provincial officials suggest any backlash will be muted by the fact that Harper won’t be enshrining the new limitations in the Constitution. A federal law can be changed by future governments, administrative agreements eventually expire, policy statements can be ignored.

“It seems all esoteric to me,” says one provincial official. “Unless they’re talking about amending the Constitution and have the votes to do it, it seems like all sound and fury.”

I say, roll back the federal government!

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?

Abu Saif spoke with disdain of Blair’s appointment as a special envoy to the Middle East, issuing an apparent threat.

“Inshallah,” meaning “Allah willing,” he told the crowd, Blair will “go to the Middle East as an envoy, and he’ll come back in a box. Inshallah. What box that is, we leave that up to you.”

Humphries estimated nearly 3,000 Muslims were gathered in front of the mosque in north London June 22, after Friday prayers, to protest Queen Elizabeth’s knighting of Indian author Salman Rushdie, the target of a death-sentence fatwa for “insulting” Islam’s prophet Muhammad in his 1988 book “The Satanic Verses.”

For Humphries, the response of the Muslims at Islam’s largest house of worship in the UK was telling.

“Not one said, ‘You’re not speaking for me’ or ‘Not in my name.’ They stood there and watched and applauded,” he told WND.

Like the UK, Humphries said, the U.S. has three major vulnerabilities to patient, fundamentalist Muslims who believe their purpose for living in the West is to help fulfill Islamic prophecies: The loss of border control, the inability to say no and lack of assimilation.

Be sure to listen to all of the audio feeds, particularly the interview with Abu Saif. It’s truly fascinating stuff, especially with his home-grown British accent, inciting revolution and the destruction of Israel.

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love thou dost in us command.
We see thee rising fair, dear land,
The True North, strong and free;
And stand on guard, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.

Refrain
O Canada! O Canada!
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.

O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western Sea,
Thou land of hope for all who toil!
Thou True North, strong and free!

Refrain
O Canada! O Canada! etc.

O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,
To keep thee steadfast through the years
From East to Western Sea,
Our own beloved native land!
Our True North, strong and free!

Refrain
O Canada! O Canada! etc.

Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our dominion within thy loving care;
Help us to find, O God, in thee
A lasting, rich reward,
As waiting for the Better Day,
We ever stand on guard.

Refrain
O Canada! O Canada! etc.

Alberta could benefit from its own militia, the Alberta Defence Force.

The Falklands War was a great national struggle. The whole country knew it and felt it.

It was also mercifully short. But many of our boys - and girls as well, of course - are today stationed in war zones where the issues are more complex, where the outcome is more problematic, and where life is no less dangerous.

In these circumstances, they often need a different sort of courage, though the same commitment.

So, as we recall - and give thanks for - the liberation of our islands, let us also recall the many battle fronts where British forces are engaged today.

There are in a sense no final victories, for the struggle against evil in the world is never ending.

Tyranny and violence wear many masks. Yet from victory in the Falklands we can all today draw hope and strength.

Fortune does, in the end, favour the brave. …

In terms of real politik, apart from the just defence of the Falkland Islander’s self-determination, the UK has a real interest in keeping the islands. Not only are they militarily significant as a launch point into South America, the islands are rich in natural resource, be it tremendous fish stocks and potential oil reserves; even New Labour has this figured out. For those interested, here is a good travel log of the islands from The New Zealand Herald. And as to be expected, of itself anyway, here’s some of the BBC’s schizophrenic coverage of the anniversary: here outlining the military staging offered by the islands for the UK; here rapping the UK on behalf of “an Agentine historian’s perspective”—a dreamy-eyed disregard for the people who actually live on the islands and the long-standing British claim.

The world is a dangerous place where Western powers need to best grow their capacity to defend their national interest. For the UK, small outposts like the Falkland Islands, which it fortunately possesses all over the world, remain militarily vital, better than any aircraft carrier should a conflict arise.  And again, beyond national interest and as a moment in history, the Falkland’s War exemplifies the courage and fortitude necessary to defend liberal democracy from tyranny; the cost that comes from passively ignoring threats from abroad.

Yelena Tregubova is a former member of the Kremlin press corps. Her book, Tales of a Kremlin Digger, published in 2003, accused Vladimir Putin of stifling political and press freedoms in Russia. As a result, she lost her job and was blacklisted from the Russian media. In February 2004, a bomb exploded outside her apartment, moments before she opened the door. Tregubova, 34, has now applied for asylum in Britain.

She writes:

There has been no single example in history of a dictator who, sooner or later, did not become a danger to both his close and distant neighbours.

The goal is not the “revival of Russia” or the “revival of the national pride of the Russians”, as Putin and the Kremlin’s propaganda are trying to present it. It is a full-scale revenge by the secret services and the authoritarian regime with all their old methods and tricks.

Putin has shut all independent TV channels, introduced harsh censorship, blocked access to the press for the democratic opposition, accused Russian human rights activists and NGOs of being Western spies, and split up the country’s biggest oil company, Yukos, among his friends from the special services.

Encouraged by your non-resistance, Putin’s regime has become so strong and impudent that is now directly threatening its close neighbours, Poland and the Czech Republic, former colonies of the Soviet Union, trying to speak to them as if they were its vassals. In recent months, three ambassadors - Estonian, Swedish, and British - have been affected by the actions of extremist organisations controlled by the Kremlin.

And now events have taken a logical new turn: the Kremlin is threatening the West, by missile-rattling. The critical difference between this and the Soviet era lies in the fact that then you knew exactly which side of the barricades you stood on, when you provided moral support to the opponents of dictatorship. But nowadays due to the favourable situation in oil and gas markets, Putin has the resources to buy your indulgence and silence.

Say what you will about Prime Minister Harper not being as conservative as he should be, but at least foreign policy wise he has been courageous; be it no more buttering up to China; be it deploring terrorism against Israel. Now, hopefully, he will show courage and say what needs to be said to Russia. The non-appeasers of the world should take heart that Canada has Harper in charge; leadership with a conscience and a backbone. It used to be that some foreign despot could flash a few petro-dollars in front of Chretien (and dare I say, Maurice Strong’s padewan, Paul Martin Jr.) and he was more than obliging to stick to pleasantries.

Monday, April 16th, 4 am, near the hamlet of Craigmyle, southwest of Hanna, Alberta. John Rew, age 50, was awakened to the sound of an Emergency Response Team (E.R.T.) “flash bang” shot through his bedroom window.

He was thrown face-down on the floor and handcuffed instantly afterward, as a second “flash bang” exploded through his TV stand in the living room, singeing the floor.

The Drumheller RCMP and Calgary E.R.T. had come for all his firearms, in particular his registered prohibits and restricteds. Yes! Registered!

Although their search warrant did not include any residences, John agreed to lead them across the farmyard to his 80 year-old mother’s house. Her basement contains John’s storage facility.

John’s mother, Betty, allowed them entry and was detained for her co-operative efforts. The masked, body armoured, assault rifle equipped law enforcement personnel got what they came for.

John was hauled away, still in handcuffs, John’s alleged crime: allowing his F.A.C/P.A.L to expire, his various criminal Charges all stem from that.

2:30 that afternoon John was released, promising to appear in Drumheller court 10am may 25th, 2007.

The police shut down his oilfield business for the day, turning his 20 employees away at the gate. His sister was not allowed entry to tend to Betty.

Ironically, the next day, April 17th, our government announced an extension of the long gun registry “amnesty” for another year.

Needless to say, Mr. Rew was somewhat upset.

However, rather than taking it laying down like a good POGG (Peace, order, good government)-loving Canadian, Rew did something that was very un-Canadian indeed:

Rew went down to the CRO’s office in the constituency of Drumheller- Stettler where he lives, and registered to be a candidate in a June 12 provincial by-election, which just happens to be taking place right now!

Speaking of being un-Canadian, Rew, the new Independent candidate in the Drumheller-Stettler provincial by-election, is running on a platform of Alberta Independence.

While his late entry and lack of profile makes it unlikely that Rew will challenge for first, he is bound to pick up some sympathy, and maybe a few votes, from those in east Central Alberta who are experiencing yet another bout of disillusionment with the provincial and federal government. Tired of being either written off or taken for granted by the provincial/ federal Conservatives, the voters of Drumheller-Stettler may send Ottawa/ Edmonton a message by backing an outsider who wishes to register the ultimate protest.

While it is hard to imagine a separatist winning in Alberta being good for Confederation, perhaps the opening of a fault in the provincial/ federal conservative bedrock of Alberta could be jolt that brings both parties back from their centrist slide.

With provincial and federal Conservatives drifting further to the left, and potentially towards oblivion, they may be wise to pay heed to the warning shot John Rew is about to fire from the prairies of east central Alberta.

…..

Link Byfield asks what happened to “Common Sense Policing” here.

So who really cares about Iraq? It seems that only the Iraqi people and their government can save Iraq. To do so, they must first accept that there is no military solution and therefore all efforts must be focused on reconciliation, including the following measures: 1) Passing an oil law that distributes oil revenues equitably among the Iraqi people; 2) Allowing the majority of former Baathist members to rejoin the government, which will alleviate the financial plight of millions of Iraqis and dramatically reduce sectarian conflict; 3) Establishing a political dialogue with the insurgency with the objective of empowering the Sunnis to create their own entity within the a federal system; 4) Granting universal amnesty to those who have been involved in unlawful acts of violence; 5) Releasing all prisoners except hard-core terrorists; 6) Opening up the ranks of internal security and the military forces to Sunni recruits.

See for yourself.

We stand for reason against faith, claims the liberal left. Do they, now? Perhaps they should re-examine their reasoning here. All those prone to terrorism ar