Truth Revealed by Quiz

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 83%

You are a terrorist-loving scoundrel who hates our dear leader and the values he defends. There are few redeeming qualities about you. You most likely celebrated when the evil-doers hit us on 9/11, then opposed the Iraq war when we tried to pay them back. You hurt us at every step and cause troops to die in the field by questioning Bush's decisions. You are most likely a lost cause, doomed to be a brainwashed victim of free thought and liberalism forever. No dose of Ann Coulter's prose can save you now.



Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?

Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

powered by performancing firefox

When will we focus on reconstruction?

An excellent post:



The Torch: Why Canadians don't know the trivia that's not trivial

Quickly now - no Googling: can you name three projects Canada's Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) has undertaken in the past year? The first wiseguy to spout off that "they dug a well" gets a slap in the head for his trouble.

H/T Tart Cider

powered by performancing firefox

DRM

The other day I formatted my C Drive and installed Windows XP again. This was the first time that I did that after having downloaded a couple of LPs from the Future Shop sponsored Bonfire (Puretracks) download site. I had also upgraded to Windows Media Player 11.



Well, I thought I should back up my Licences before formatting. Well WMP 11 doesn't allow you to back up your licences. (unlike 10) I had a backup from a while back so I continued. Anyway, I am now operating WMP 10 again and half of my legitimately acquired songs DO NOT work. I have tried downloading the songs again, but they won't download with the licenses. So because Microsoft Windows needs to be re-installed every so often, and Microsoft's Media Player doesn't allow you to backup DRM licenses I am stuck with unusable music. The situation is garbage. I am NEVER going to frequent a download site again.



I object to the whole DRM system. With the large levies that we pay when we purchase recordable media there is no excuse to have such restrictive software. Moreover, all the portability and network playing restrictions that are built into the DRM scheme infringe on fair use. It is perfectly reasonable for me to store all of my music on one computer and want to listen to the song on a networked computer, or let a friend listen to my music via a wireless network on his/her wifi enabled laptop. These are not unreasonable uses, yet the DRM programme is intent on hamstring my ability to use the songs that I have legitimately acquired. I am all for legitimising the trade in digital music but this kind of crap forces reasonable people underground. We need to decriminalise and resurrect the original spirit of Napster.







Technorati Tags: DRM, Windows Media Player, Bonfire, Puretracks

powered by performancing firefox

Nation! - Me Too

I think that enough has been said about the Quebec nation debate, so I will change the subject.

I would like for everyone to look back at the history of British Columbia. I believe that when they do, they will come to the inevitable conclusion that the province of British Columbia was founded by TWO Colonies: The Colony of Vancouver Island and the Rest of British Columbia (ROB). While Vancouver Island was an organized bastion of colonial civilization, ROB was an unorganized backwater of fur traders and prospectors. And yet, since joining, ROB has has garnered all of the attention, money and political power. Certainly most of the premiers of the Province have represented ROB (There hasn't been a Vancouver Islander since the election of Premier Byron Johnson in 1947).

Most importantly, as a founding colony of British Columbia, Vancouver Island deserves some recognition for its unique historical and sociological contributions to the Province. Vancouver Islanders have a unique culture and way of life that deserves formal recognition - in a sociological sense. Anyone who has ever visited Vancouver Island will notice that older cars are driven and at slower speeds; we complain about Toronto; and we believe that every four lane divided highway should have stop lights and overpasses are for pedestrians. Moreover, as a people we have distinct tastes: Starbucks and Serious Coffee are preferred over Tim Hortons. We have a distinct way of talking: When we complain about snow in February or March we are referring to the petals falling from the flowering cherry trees.

To this end, I urge you to help convince the Provincial Government of British Columbia to "Recognize that Vancouver Islanders form a nation within a united British Columbia."

Sign the petition here!

Technorati Tags: Nation, Canada, British Columbia, Vancouver Island, Politics, Nationalism

powered by performancing firefox

Response to CDNTARHEEL

CDNTARHEEL commented on my post about Ignatieff's statement on China. Here is a response:

Fair enough, here is a bit more explanation. I was quite excited to hear that Ignatieff was running. I saw hope for a liberal party that put deep thought and principle into their policies - in contrast to the liberal party of Mr Martin. I may not agree with all of his pronouncements, but I was hoping he would stick to his guns with a little more steadfastness.

The statement that I quoted in the original post makes human rights sound like something a father would lecture a teenager about - say, coming home after 11pm. That wouldn't be a problem were he Jean Chretien, but Chretien did not write a book like The Needs of Strangers. Of course, he goes on in the interview to argue for a softer approach to China. This isn't the human rights professor strategising about the best way to help the Chinese, but the work of a political hopeful trying to earn the respect of Bay Street while appearing to remain committed to the principle of Human Rights. He seems to be pandering when I hoped he would stand on principle.

Technorati Tags: Michael Ignatieff, Politics, Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, China, Human Rights

Something Feminism has done for Me

Here is an interesting post:

Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » Stay at home dads

The post sets forth two arguments:

I am saddened by this post for a couple of reasons. If I can assume that this person is a member of the so called "Christian Evangelical Right" then how does this kind of an attitude "focus on the family". I would have thought that anything that would build good strong families would be welcome, especially ones that seem to reinforce the importance of males in the rearing of children. There are some that say that fathers are no longer essential for modern families. Oh well here are some thoughts on the post:

The first is an ideal of strict gender roles that are based on some conception of scriptural hermeneutics apparently from 3 Genesis. There is a lot to be said against this kind of straight-jacketing. Few fathers regardless of whether they stay at home or not would accept the kind of gender roles for their daughters so why should they accept it for themselves? So, unless you are willing to raise your daughter to believe that they have one purpose in life that is predefined by her gender then so might the fathers. But, I think most fathers are willing to raise their daughters to believe that their daughters can play many roles in life, and what better way to show that to them than as a father who too is willing to have many roles.

The second argument is one that is much easier to agree with: More fathers ought to spend time with the kids even if that means taking a pay cut. My problem is that by railing against stay at home dads the post is removing the one option that might best achieve that aim. Parental leave taken by fathers is one of the ways many men (including yours truly) get the opportunity to stay at home. And here is the rub it often comes with legal protections against job loss and discrimination - unlike taking a 10% pay cut as the post suggests in order to work less and play more.

REVISED 21 Nov to reflect a post made elsewhere.

Technorati Tags: Stay at Home Dad, fatherhood, parenting, feminism, christian

powered by performancing firefox

Ignatieff vs Harper & China

There are a lot of things that I dislike about what Harper is doing with respect to China and the diplomacy of trade and human rights. There is one good thing that can be said about Harper that cannot be said about Ignatieff is that at least Harper knows what he is supposed to say to Canadian electors about Human Rights. The quotation from Ignatieff, who I had a lot of hope for about 2 years ago, demonstrates a total amateurism that reminds me of the kinds of things I saw at the height of the Stockwell Day carnival.

There is a lot to criticise Harper on the China file. He didn't send Mackay to meet with their ambassador and he hasn't visited China himself. (Does anyone have a source for this, I heard it mentioned on a CBC radio interview with Dr Byers of UBC). In a world of symbols these things mean a lot. It is no wonder that China was not too willing to meet at APEC.

Ignatieff blasts Harper's 'megaphone' diplomacy with China

"Mr. Harper, I think, believes you can go to one of the greatest civilizations on earth, a superpower of the 21st century and give them a little lecture on human rights," Ignatieff told CBC News.

Hat Tip to: AC



Technorati Tags: Canada, China, Ignatieff, Liberal Party of Canada, Conservative Party, APEC, Harper

Kyoto - International Law

I want to put aside the very important issue of the state of the environment and how that relates to the Kyoto Protocol. Another issue of profound importance to the Canadian National Interest is being missed entirely.



One of the things that I've blogged about in the past is the importance of international law to the Canadian foreign policy. Quite simply put: as a small power in the presence of an American Super Power and an Asian Uber-Factory if we are ever going to have an international presence that punches beyond our weight class, then we will have to rely on an effective and respected system of international law. The alternative to relying on the civilising effect of law is using dangerous international military missions to get seats at tables and to earn favours. I am not willing to endorse such a foreign policy as the price is too high, the policy is unsustainable and the whole thing is morally reckless.





I think that most can guess where I am going with this post. It is believed that Canada will be the first state to withdraw from the protocol. The fact that there probably are some withdrawal clauses in the treaty is not important. Leaving treaties and/or ignoring the commitments that have been made on the international stage is precisely the kind of thing that will weaken Canada's place in the world. Imagine how we would feel if the United States started to ignore the provisions of NAFTA or simply withdrew from the agreement - imagining itself not bound by its obligations? Where would we stand and what could we do about it? The point here is that a policy of strengthening the norms of international law and the expectations among nations that treaties will be upheld is the kind of foreign policy that Canada ought to be advocating at every turn. We don't want to have to use our economic weight (which is waning against Asia) or to veiled threats of military force (which we cannot back up). We can get what we want on the international stage by being a good global citizen and working to ensure that others will be too. If we don't get what we want, we will at least have the consolation of knowing the system by which we didn't get what we want was fair (or at least agreed to).



The kind of publicity that we have been getting c/o Rona Ambrose and the Canadian delegation to the conference in Nairobi is a disaster. The example that Canada is setting is entirely hypocritical. I won't start on my thoughts on the politics of blaming the previous guys.





Technorati Tags: Kyoto, Canada, Politics, International Law, Rona Ambrose, Conservative Party, Foreign Policy, Environmentalism, Conservative Party, Treaties

powered by performancing firefox

West Coast Life

When I was doing my undergrad, I thought that it would be very cool and studious if I had a bust of some famous person on my desk - it would make me look smart and that is what school is all about. The only one that I was able to find (I didn't look very hard) was a bust of the victor of that glorious battle of Omdurmann - Lord Kitchener. Now, that bust would become the bain of my existence as it got tossed out of windows and photographed in compromising situations.

Now that I am on the West Coast it would seem that the tradition continues. This past week I woke up and found an e-mail urging me to sign a great petition urging a state funeral for the last Great War Veteran. I wrote that article and then went to see how I could get a code to have it voted on at Progressive Bloggers. Their I found A Post by Lord Kitchener at the top of the Voting List! Then the next day I found a post over at My Blahg about a White Poppy. I went for a morning walk to think about this idea and came to some conclusions. When I sat down to write the post I found it almost idea for idea written by Lord Kitchener.

So, I blame the three hour time difference. If I was operating on Ontario Time my greatness would be more fully realised and accepted throughout the world. However, I'd rather not move back to the land of snow and ice, so I'll just sit back and read Lord Kitchener's blog (now on my blogroll) whilst plotting his demise.


Technorati Tags: Blogging, West Coast

powered by performancing firefox

Rumsfeld Resigns:

What did it take?

Rumsfeld resigns as U.S. defence secretary

Technorati Tags: Donald Rumsfeld, Politics, Canada, Election

powered by performancing firefox

Petition - Last Great War Veteran

This is an important historical issue and a great milestone in Canadian life, and marks the passing of a foundational era. Canada was rose out of the ashes of the Europe leftover from this great struggle. Please sign this petition and never forget the great sacrifice of those who purchased freedom for us on the fields of France and during the Great War.

The Dominion Institute - Memory | Democracy | Identity

Canada's Last Great War Veteran
"We the undersigned feel enormous gratitude for the sacrifice made by all the Canadian Armed Forces through the ages in defence of this country and its values; acknowledge the very special nature of the sacrifice made by those who fought in the First World War in appalling conditions and with terrible loss of life; note that only three First World War veterans remain, and urge the Prime Minister that their sacrifice, and all of those they served with under arms from 1914-1918, be celebrated by offering a state funeral to the family of the last veteran of the First World War resident in Canada." The Dominion Institute will send the petition on behalf of its signatories to the Prime Minister of Canada on December 11, 2006.

UPDATE: The movement is afoot in the UK too:
The Observer | UK News | Calls grow to grant last Great War veteran a state funeral

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers!


UPDATE: I will link to any other blog that encourages people to sign the petition:
Kitchener's Own
Socialist Gulag
Responsible Government League
Small Dead Animals
The Screaming Pages
Halls of Macadamia
Andrew Coyne


Technorati Tags: Remembrance Day, First World War, WW1, State Funeral, Canada, Dominion Institute, Canadian Armed Forces

powered by performancing firefox

Not an Issue of Naturalism/Religion/Cleanliness etc... it is about Rights

And so, my faithful reader, I deliver unto you links to a rather bizarre conversation taking place mainly on the comments page of the Red Tory. The first quotation is from a counterpost to the original thread, the second is a counter-counterpost and the third is the original post.

Defend Canada: A Debate on Homosexuality

Further, it demonstrates that those promoting this so aggresively, outright refuse to recognize that if I have to accept their rampant over-promotion of Homosexuality, then churches across the country should be able to send out flyers promoting Homosexuality as "unnatural", without resistance.

RT: We Get Mail
RT: Sexually Immoral Conduct

As I have explained before (Ramblings: April 2005) the whole issue surrounding the acceptance in society of homosexuality and all of the trappings that come with is not a matter of anything other than equality rights. And, because we are talking about equality rights (everyone has them) a diminution of one person's rights is a weakening of everyone else's.

For instance if, because of an argument about the naturalness of something, one is able to restrict the behaviour of homosexuals - restrict marriage rights or permit ad campaigns against that conception of how to live, then one would have to accept the opposite. Again, for instance, it may be true that the traditional definition of marriage is un-natural. Anthropologists may determine that humans were ever meant to live together for more than seven years - they might cite the "seven year itch" and demonstrate overwhelming scientific evidence. Would we then wish to legislate marriage to restrict it to seven year renewable open term contracts (you know - like mortgages).

You can substitute the the terms of the above argument for most anything: unpopular, socially destructive, not-true-because-my-religion-says-so, unscientific, backwards etc... But, what you cannot do is substitute a rights based argument.

My point is this by couching the terms of the debate in rights and ensuring that recognition of homosexuality is done in terms of rights churches and other organisations are strengthened. A equal rights based argument makes it more difficult to threaten the place of churches in society.


Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, homosexuality, politics, canada, conservative, rights, equality,

powered by performancing firefox

More on Trusts

It looks like I am not the only one saying that some warning would have been nice.  There are a lot of pissed off people out there - and a lot of them from the demographic that the Conservatives should be courting.  Again, I do think that in the long run this was a good decision, but the whole process by which the Conservatives have done this strikes me as piss poor.

Cherniak on Politics: On Income Trusts

If they had warned people to be cautious, then this would not have happened. How might they have done that? It is simple. The day that BCE made its announcement and after the markets closed, Flaherty could have said "this sort of extremity was not our expectation when we set our policy a year ago". Would that have been misleading? Perhaps as far as the motivations for the policy last year. However, at least it would have informed the markets that something was up.

The Progressive Right: Income Trusts

Garth Turner had a better solution to handling the income trust closure: I think the minister of finance could have declared a moratorium on new conversions, struck a blue ribbon panel to study the industry and eased in regs over the past few months making it crystal what direction the feds were going in. That would have allowed for a more orderly, less panicked correction, and kept from scaring the crap out of a few million seniors. It would have been a kinder blow.

Technorati Tags: Income Trusts, Politics, Canada, Conservative

powered by performancing firefox

The Worth of Freedom

As pointed out here:
My Blahg » A TALE OF TWO COLUMNS

Two columns in which both authors say the conjoined Simms’ twins should have been aborted.

The two columns are very similar in their arguments:

The Gateway | Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 | Volume XCVII Issue 15

Furthermore,
being on government assistance and with two other children to care for
already, she knew she would have to rely on Canada’s health-care system
to pay for an operation that may or may not work on little Tatiana and
Krista.

globeandmail.com: Twin sides of the coin

The
twins' mother, Felicia Simms, is a 21-year-old single woman on social
assistance. She has two other children, ages 4 and 2. She is unable to
work, she has said, because she has severe scoliosis — curvature of the
spine — and a panic disorder.

NO, I will not make a comment on any arguments for or against abortion, be drawn in to said arguments or even touch the arguments about this case.  However, I will use this as an opportunity to point out the emptiness of of libertarian conceptions of freedom against liberal equal freedom. 

Ms Simms' case, to me, is a shining example of how a guarantee of freedom is meaningless without some sort of system to ensure that such freedom is actually worth something to the individuals to whom it is guaranteed.  Without a redistributive system whereby individuals have the means to make choices (like Ms Simms did) a guarantee of freedom is in fact meaningless.  Had there not been a health care system in place she may have been forced by her circumstance to do something she would not otherwise have chosen to do.

The two columns, I presume, would be made quiet if Ms Simms won the lottery and moved to the United States.  To this end, it seems that the columns are saying that certain of our freedoms ought only to apply to those capable financing their decisions; to the rest of us, we are doomed to be slaves to the contingencies of necessity.  But, such a world is not fair as it privelleges some above others and punishes others for things wholly beyond their control.  For this reason, a charter that guarantees rights and freedoms is of no value unless it is coupled with a system that ensures that those freedoms can be exercised to some degree by all people. 

To those not swayed because they feel that they will always be in a position to have the resources to exercise their freedom: imagine that one day, out of the blue, the minister of finance makes a decision and your net worth is suddenly reduced... oh sorry, still a little bitter.




Technorati Tags: Politics, Canada, Abortion, liberalism, libertarian, health care, freedom, rights, choice

powered by performancing firefox

Furious over Income Trusts!

Well I'm pissed! The decision to tax income trusts has me fuming for several reasons. For one it has cost me a lot of money, so I am obviously unhappy about that. However, Flaherty's righteousness over the way he handled the announcement is completely unwarranted. The nature of coporate taxation and the pandering that is going on towards the NDP has got me going and finally so to is the bribing of seniors!

The first two points are one and the same really. Me losing a lot of money all of the sudden is a direct result of how Flaherty decided to handle this issue. He wanted to contrast how the Liberals did it:
Flaherty imposes new tax on income trusts

"Well, the last government did nothing but muse about it and that was the problem," said Flaherty. "There's still an RCMP investigation of the Department of Finance in Ottawa about leaks arising from that."

But the problem with how the Liberals handled the affair was that they leaked the decision before the announcement to folks on Bay Street. It was known generally that an announcement was going to be made, but not what that decision was going to be. Contrast Flaherty and the Conservatives who showed absolutely no intention to deal with trusts until last night. As a result the market has to absorb this shocker the instant the doors open in the morning. If you are planning on screwing with the market you warn people that you are thinking about it so that the market can deal with it rationally when you announce the decision a month (or whatever) later. Today was a mad scramble. In addition if you warn, you can consult.

Then there is the nature of corporate taxes, capital gains and dividend taxation. As Andrew Coyne points out "No corporation ever paid a dime of tax. All taxes are paid by people: the people who own the corporation, or the people who work for it, or the people who buy its products. A corporation is just a piece of paper, a legal document on file at the registrar's office." So why the hell are people getting double taxed left right and centre? And then, depending on the source of the money taxed at different rates. Income is income is income - tax it once and all at the same rate. (keeping it progressive of course). By making the move at the corportate tax level is an attempt to placate the NDP who don't understand Coyne's point and are always going after corporations to pay more taxes.

Lastly, I am not a senior and ther was nothing in Flaherty's announcement that was designed to soften the blow of the announcement. He was abviously sucking up to that demographic, but they are not the only people who have invested in income trusts. Why the hell must I bear the full brunt of the blow while others get deliberate cushioning?

Looks like I'm not the only one who lost, looks like some lost BIG:

globeandmail.com : globeinvestor.com : Surveying the fallout from the trust bombshell

Income trust investors suffered more than $20-billion in paper losses on their portfolios as some of Canada's best-known companies — from telecom giants BCE and Telus to Yellow Pages, CI Financial, Canadian Oil Sands and Aeroplan — were battered by the rush selling following Mr. Flaherty's surprise announcement that trusts will be taxed.

Technorati Tags: Income Trusts, Conservatives, Taxation, Canada, Politics, Conservative Party of Canada,

Republican Ad

Look at all of the apoplectic Liberals:

U.S. campaign ad critical of Canada yanked

"Is this what Canadians should be expecting as the outcome of cozying up to Mr. Bush by the prime minister and his Conservatives?" said Alghabra.

RT: Republicans Suck (Part XXVIII)

Aside from my own parochial resentment at this thoroughly despicable advertisement, is it any wonder that right-wing is held in such profound contempt these days?

Assuming the comment about Canada was the one non-sarcastic comment in the ad, it is unbelievable to see Liberals going off their rockers at an an election advert that lobs a pot-shot over the border for domestic gain.  Such things are beneath the high standards of Liberal election discourse. 

At least some wise soul figured this whole thing out:

Tart Cider: So very, very stupid

For the love of god, it's a joke. It's a bad joke, but it's not at Canada's expense. If anything the good old boy's sarcasm implies that Canada is busy.

Technorati Tags: Liberals, attack ad, Republican, Harold Ford, Politics, Canada, USA

powered by performancing firefox

Technorati Tags: Liberals, attack ad, Republican, Harold Ford, Politics, Canada, USA

powered by performancing firefox

Cops for Coffee

Today I was in a Starbucks and heard the employees talking about the practice of coffee shops giving police officers free coffee when they come in. The employees all looked down on the practice. Though, it appears that the practice is alive and well in Nanaimo It reminded me of my fabled time spent as a late night doughnut jockey in an sub standard suburban sweatshop turned coffee and doughnut joint outside of Ottawa. The owner basically told me that he expected me to give cops free coffee and doughnuts because that way they would spend more time in the area and keep the undesirables away. Of course, I relished being the only employee who charged the cops as they strolled in expecting a bribe free coffee.

Of course this practice is completely contemptible and when examined as coffee for protection the whole practice stinks to high heaven. We look down at countries where bribes are expected and criticise places that are corrupt, but the difference is a matter of degree and not category. That is to say the cops and coffee shops that take part in this practice are in the same category as those places that we criticise for corruption because the cops accept cash for increased protection; cash or coffee is a matter of scale.


Technorati Tags: Police, corruption, Nanaimo, Ottawa, coffee, bribes, protection

OIfficial Secrets

This is an old issue and one that did not seem to get a lot of attention.  It is also an issue to which I have no answer, but one that does not seem to be adequately resolved.

globeandmail.com: Secrecy law quashed, RCMP admonished

"Increasingly, the courts are recognizing that in order to have a healthy and vigorous media, governments simply have to respect the rights of journalists to have their sources." Hurriedly enacted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the anti-leakage provisions were used by the RCMP in 2004 to seize documents from the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill, after articles she wrote caused the Mounties to suspect that she was receiving leaked material.

Here is the problem: If it is ilegal to divulge some secrets, it should not be permitted to harbour those individuals who break the law.  The fact that a secret was divulged to a reporter does not make the breech permissible. Protecting the source is at least morally equivalent to harbouring a criminal - if not worse.  When you harbour a criminal you are not furthering a crime.  When a reporter reports a state secret they are compounding the security breech.  What privellege do reporters have? In order to have protection must one find a national reporter? How 'bout a small town reporter? student paper? blogger? man on a soapbox at the corner? 

I have no doubt that there are times when secrets out to be revealed, but often secrets MUST be kept secret and a legal situation that gives protection to those who break the law permits the exploitation of national secrets for partisan purposes.  And here is my dilemma: without risking legitimate national secrets, or elevating certain ordinary citizens to be public confessors how does one ensure secret whistle blowing?  Maybe a few judges have to be actual confessors with security clearences to hear whistle blowers [which would also protect the whistle blower from reprisals].  I don't have the answer, but airing national secrets to reporters is probably a bad idea.



Technorati Tags: Freedom of the Press, Arar, politics, canada, journalism, national security, secrets

powered by performancing firefox

Taiwan

If this is true it is a worrisome.

Cherniak on Politics: Harper: Taiwan "an integral part of China"

In today's Vancouver Sun, Barbara Yaffe reports on comments that Stephen Harper made to Mary Yang of the Sing Tao Daily. This paper is widely read in Canada's Chinese community. Mr. Harper said: We believe it [Taiwan] is an integral part of China. Yes. Mr. Harper, a man of supposed principle, believes that democratic Taiwan is an integral part of authoritarian China. As Taiwan consular official Brian Su explained, the Liberals "never so bluntly referred to Taiwan as an integral part of China".

Technorati Tags: China, Taiwan, world, politics, international relations, CPC, Harper

powered by performancing firefox

Times Colonist Letter:

One of today's yesterday's letters to the editor in the Victoria Times Colonist was classic:

Stop glorifying violence, war

The recent display by the Armed Forces at Odgen Point and the prior military parade in downtown Victoria is false advertising and disguised militarism.

The forces, with total impunity, continue to solicit and peddle their trade without disclosing the entire picture to unsuspecting "customers," mainly youth.

Joining the Armed Forces can be fun, entertaining and perhaps lead to a prosperous career; this may be so, but it may also lead to premature injury, psychological illnesses and possible death.

I just can't believe that people can say these things when the armed forces are seeing so many comrades as casualties on teevee. The letter writer goes onto claim that there is a:

a general drive to glorify violence and the corporate war machine, in a slow descent to hell.

I'm not sure what this means and I'm not sure what kind of policies would be the result if one were to take this kind of thing seriously. In my dealings with folks in the military there are few serious people who repeat the old lie, but that doesn't mean that the need for armed forces is a lie or that armed forces are not needed. To me it means that, in the end, the work is
more tragic.

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. [Link]

Technorati Tags: Newspapers, letter, Victoria, MSM, pacifism

powered by performancing firefox

Political Discourse on the NET

I love reading political commentary both amateur and professional; I enjoy reading My Blahg. Sometimes they are a bit hard to take and today I just had to shake my head and make a comment. I guess it is difficult to criticise and to be conscious of your foibles. No doubt I and most people are similarly guilty.

Recently the guys over at the Blahg have been on a "Uncivil Discourse" theme. Ironically enough, repeatedly refering to the Prime Minister of Canada as PMS and calling conservatives "whories" is an incredibly elevated form of discourse.

My Blahg » UNCIVIL DISCOURSE II

A few examples of how the rightwing corporate media is leading the charge to make Canada’s political discourse less civil.

My Blahg » THE BLOGGING WHORIE POLICE STRIKE AGAIN

Heehee, more trouble in blogging whorieland

My Blahg » GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

PMS is going ahead with his guilty till proven innocent law.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, Civil Discourse, Canada, Politics, Commentary

Rawls Socialism and Liberalism:

Just a quick note on Rawls... I don't have any of my books here so please forgive the vagueness of this post:

Rawls ends up as a socialist only if you don't understand or accept the priority of liberty.  By that I mean that you end up with a strong redistributive society that provides equality of outcome (as opposed to opportunity) if you do not give the first principle of justice (the one that guarantees equal basic liberty) priority over the second principle of justice (the difference or redistributive principle). 

The point I am trying to make is one about liberalism and its concern for the individual above its concern for the overall outcome or end-state of the society.  I believe that this is one of the big differences between liberals and socialists.  Where the one is concerned with affording individuals opportunities equally (say to become a philosopher) where the other is concerned that the society has not produced an equal number of pink and purple, male or female philosophers. 


Technorati Tags: Rawls, philosophy, politics, liberalism, socialism

powered by performancing firefox

Progressive Bloggers

So, I'm joining the "Progressive Bloggers".  This group does seem to be a nicely organised bunch of political blogs.  They claim to attract bloggers who are:

Liberal or liberal, New Democrats or democrats, Green voters or voters
who want a green country, or even Red Tories searching for a home,

 There is no mention of "Progressive-Conservatives", or Conservatives (regardless of capitalisation).   I've always considered myself a conservative, but also a liberal.  That is I believe strongly in the principles that constitute the liberal democratic tradition from Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke?, Kant, Hegel?, Mill and to their greatest expression in the work of the late John Rawls.  I understand Canada to be (or have been) one of the greatest examples of this tradition.  So, to my mind, a conservative in Canada ought to wish to conserve the institutions of liberal democracy.  Now, to be a liberal in the sense that I am so rooughly referring is to be progressive- that is concerned about the progress of the individual in society. 

To make a long story short that is how I rationalise my attempt to get more hits at Ramblings.


Technorati Tags: Politics, philosophy, liberal, conservative, individual, progressive bloggers, canada

powered by performancing firefox

Sites I link to: Dinner Table Dont's

So Dinner Table Donts won the contest to identify the person that is on my profile and I promised to link to his site.  He already has a link so I thought I'd start explaining why I link to the sites that I do - starting with his.

I strumbled across his site by way of various links throughout the blogosphere.  I was looking for a leftward leaning political blog.  I liked the fact that he is philosophical in outlook and yet still interested in actual political affairs.  There are few blogs that will discuss both proofs of god and the NDP convention. He has a nice range and is clearly interested in engaging in civil conversations about the things that he posts to his site.  There are not enough sites with well reasoned posts and a desire to engage others and that's why his blog is worth reading.


Technorati Tags: Politics, Favorites, NDP, Canada, Philosophy, Politics

powered by performancing firefox

Good Link

I have really enjoyed most of Jordan Coopers contextless links. Here is a phenomenal set of stories out of Afghanistan. Read them and think about what the guys in Afhanistan are going through, trying to accomplish and the attitudes of the Taliban foot soldiers.

jordoncooper.com: Contextless Links [Jordan's Site]

An account from the front in Afghanistan [The Link]:: "We had to manoeuvre across open ground for 200 metres. The scene was like a human abattoir. We fought off the Taliban, but were too late to save the French guys. All of us were shaking when we were flown back to base. One of the Afghan survivors said the French had been tied up, then gutted alive by the Taliban. It was one of the most shocking things I had ever heard."

powered by performancing firefox

Not Entirely Satisfied

I'm not fully satisfied with the tone and ambiance of this blog yet, so I may change the name in the near future. The postings, I hope, will continue apace but with less focus on Afghanistan.

I am uploading a profile picture. I was inspired by Red Tory and Aeneas the Younger. Guess who it is, I'll link to your site!

The Court Challenges Programme

The folks over at My Blahg have been going on about the cancellation of the Court Challenges Programme. (Site). Lorne Gunter of the National Post provides this explanation:

The Bear Blog » The root of all evil ?

Not only did left-leaning interest groups want to keep CCP cash flowing into their legal departments, they understood that if they controlled the CCP granting process, they could keep groups opposed to their viewpoints from receiving equal funding, thereby giving their own causes an unfair advantage in court.

This seems a perfectly good reason for axing a programme. Consider this: if the NDP were to form a government and found that the Fraser Institute had been receiving most of its funding from the Federal Government, then, I would suspect that they'd axe that funding. It would seem reasonable of them to do that.

All that being said, the principle for which the CCP was formed is an excellent one. The idea is that freedom and equality belong to us all. The courts are an instrument that help to insure that equality. But since the freedom to challenge legislation in the courts is meaningless without the financial power to do so, the CCP is an essential element of our system of freedoms. Because no one knows when they might be without the resources and with the need to challenge legislation, we are all less free now than we were before. This is a disappointing state of affairs. A non-biased CCP-type mechanism needs to be established in the wake of these cuts.

powered by performancing firefox

More on Afghanistan

Idealistic Pragmatist: The NDP's real position on Afghanistan

So again, in point form and rephrased into plain language, the reasons for the NDP's official stance on Afghanistan are as follows:

[1]* like the war in Iraq, the Afghanistan war is poorly planned
[2]* also like the war in Iraq, too much money and effort is being poured into combat while the humanitarian side is being neglected
[3]* we're following the U.S.'s lead in a mission that's supposed to be Canada's
[4]* it's impossible to win a war when we don't have a clear statement of what winning would entail, and
[5]* as things now stand, we're not doing any long-term good over there.
[Numbers courtesy of Ramblings]

Though I am eagerly awaiting response on my previous post I would like to quickly comment on the quotation above.

1. Upon what information is this statement based? What kind of planning are we talking about? I doubt the average Dipper/Blogger is privy to war planning.
2. Is the humanitarian side being neglected?  Remember we were asking for more combat troops recently? The reason was not that NATO countries have not participated in Afghanistan, it was because they are only participating where it is safe to do reconstruction. So, in reality it is the combat side of the house that is suffering.
3. The US is withdrawing more troops every year:

The U.S. force in Afghanistan will be drawn down from 19,000 to 16,500
this year, although both military and civilian leaders have promised an
American presence in the country for years to come.

We have substantial command positions in ISAF and the operation is a multilateral NATO run affair. (See "Which countries are contributing")
4. Winning would certainly not be made easier by withdrawing troops.  This is an argument for better analysis and communication.  What would be a clear definition of success?  How about when the Taliban are no longer capable of fielding an army? The definition is not up to me, but when you think about this question it is not so easy to answer, but that doesn't make the war unwinnable, just unpredictable... much like the way war has been for a long time.
5. Is that what Karzai thinks?  Do you really think that what we have done so far is going to have only a limited long term impact?

powered by performancing firefox

powered by performancing firefox

Enlightened Moderation

This is good...

Gen Musharraf at the UN on Tart Cider: Around the World in 80 Canapés

We also need to bridge, through dialogue and understanding, the growing divide between the Islamic and Western worlds. In particular, it is imperative to end racial and religious discrimination against Muslims and to prohibit the defamation of Islam.

powered by performancing firefox

Afghanistan

There has been a lot said about the situation in Afghanistan, but I think Scott Brison said it best:

I am fortunate to live in a country that has allowed me to become an elected Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. In the Taliban-led Afghanistan, I would be thrown in prison or executed for being gay. The same fundamental human rights that we enjoy in Canada are no less important than the rights of the people of Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to defend those rights, at home and abroad. Those rights should be the basis of a values-based, principled Canadian foreign policy. Our country must be willing to stand up for the values that we espouse. I don't take these rights for granted. (Link)

Yesterday, and for the last couple of years we have been a witness to the price that has to be paid when you stand up and stand for something. The price of believing in equality, is understanding that everyone is equal, not just our countrymen. Human rights and freedom is about equality.

The Taliban is probably one of the most despicable governments we've seen in a long time. It has no inclination towards rights, equality or freedom let alone any idea of an equal right to basic liberty. So, since we are engaged in combating the scourge of the Taliban any talk of disengagement will involve, in all likelihood, strengthening the Taliban's position. Ipso facto one is strengthening the hand of inequality and repression.

So, my question is: Why would the NDP, whose leader has said:

I do not subscribe to the view that human rights are a buffet from which one can selectively choose. (Link)

Urge the Government of Canada to do the following:

1. Take the necessary measures to ensure the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan; (Link) [I'm lazy and didn't search the NDP site for its version... I trust this guy... he's a philosopher]

Clearly it is not out of pacifism because in the same resolution they want to send our troops to Darfur:

2. Increase significantly our resource and financial commitments to United Nations led multilateral Peacekeeping and humanitarian initiatives such as Darfur; (Link)

So why commit to Darfur and not to Afghanistan? This looks like picking and choosing from the smorgasbord of failed states and human rights catastrophes.

I will not debate the relative merits of these tragedies. The criticisms that seem to most often be made against staying in Afghanistan is a) Americans are involved and b) the casualties in Afghanistan are too high.

The first argument is absolutely ridiculous (from principles). The fact that you have Americans helping you in your goal does not make your null or void.

The second argument needs to be argued. The fact that the rates are high or higher than others is not a reason in itself for disengagement (See Tart Cider, Wonder Dog and Wrangler). The argument has to made with respect to the objective that high casualties are interfering with or making the objective unattainable. Understand that a commitment to use military force is a commitment to take casualties however unfortunate or tragic. When the armed forces are deployed in operations there is always a risk of casualties. The fact of casualties is not an argument against ceasing an operation. One may argue that the operation was never worth anyone's life in the first place, but I haven't heard that, yet.

This leads to the last point in the NDP resolution:

Support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building in that country so that reconstruction efforts and good governance are achieved;(Link)

I am a bit confused about this point given that point 1 would pull all of our troops out of the country. That being said a UN force would have to face the same problem, namely, the Taliban grip on the South. How do you do point 3 when the Taliban can field fighters in a pitched battle in certain areas? Unless you ride on the coat tails of NATO - expecting them to continue to fight and die while you get the accolades at home for saying "look I'm reconstructing and not fighting". My point is that an argument for democracy building cannot be made without a plan for security. Remember the NATO mission does have UN blessing and that as a member nation it is entirely within the rights of the US to contribute troops.

Lastly, Dinner Table makes this point:

It calls for a continuation of development assistance for Afghanistan and democratic peace building so that good governance is achieved, not merely a fake democracy where the interests of human rights abusers and war lords are best served.(Link)

This is a legitimate concern. However, neither the drug nor the imperfect democracy point necessitate disengagement on the scale envisioned by the NDP. The drug issue was faced early on in the operation and was, to my recollection, a conscious decision. [Commanders, I believe, thought that it would be better to fight just the Taliban and not the poppy growers and the Taliban... I know the Taliban dislikes opium... but my enemy's enemy is my friend]. As far as Democracy and Human Rights are concerned, remember, it takes a long time to get them right. Remember the Florida recounts and Residential Schools? Perfect democracies and Human Rights regimes don't happen over night they require people with the courage to stand up with conviction and the strength to remain standing.

powered by performancing firefox

NDP Values

Something I was working on and shelved for a couple of days:

It is now official NDP Policy:

Members of the federal New Democratic Party on Saturday overwhelmingly endorsed party leader Jack Layton's call to pull Canadian troops from Afghanistan.The vote came during the national party's convention in Quebec City, where the mission in Afghanistan has dominated discussions and debates.

However at the same convention a lady going by the name "Jane Doe" spoke. As reported by Dinner Table Donts:

Jane Doe urged Youth Delegates to stand up and speak out againt sexual violence against women, to treat it with the same distaste as racism, sexism, agism, and all other destable practices.

The implication is, and I think it to be true, that the NDP is against all of those detestable practices. In addition, the NDP is in favour of some form of equality. So, what about working to insure that some people in Afghanistan begin to be afforded shelter from those detestable practices?
Well, a strategy of disengagement from that country when the foe stands as the antithesis of equality and the champion of dispicable tactics seems to call into question any principles of equal access to rights. The principles of equality, particularly a principle of equal access to rights and freedom would seem to demand some kind of engagement in Afghanistan.

More to come...

Liberal Attack Ad

So a couple of things came to mind when I saw the now famous attack ad here are a couple of those thoughts:

• There are soldiers in my city and the liberals are in power
  
• Maybe the liberals don't expect soldiers to have guns?
  
• if the liberals start saying "we aren't making this up" what are they doing when they don't say that?

Just a few thoughts...