A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke

December 31, 2006

Raising the minimum age to buy cigarettes: Can it make a difference?

It's a given that teens ought not to be allowed to purchase cigarettes. Everyone knows it is an effective way to keep a cap on the rate of teen smoking.

Really?

I stumbled on a story out of the UK in which 2007 will see the minimum age to purchase cigarettes rise from 16 to 18, but the rate of teen smoking in the UK is already the same as in Canada, where the minimum age is 19. So what will this age change (and presumably the resulting prosecution of store owners trapped by overzealous tobacco inspectors) do to the rate of teen smoking in the UK?

Probably nothing at all. And the UK government knows it.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:13 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1058 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Perhaps the zeal to prosecute the helpless (small businesses)arises from the shame in not doing much to combat serious crime, by dealing out stiff penalties, as in the case of illicit drug dealers. A corner store owner now faces a heavier penalty than the corner dope dealer. Look for a new black market to arise, with the accompanying contempt for the Law, and the Lawmakers. And authorities wonder why so many people have the Sgt. Schultz mentality.

Posted by: dmorris at December 31, 2006 11:37 PM (iNlUz)

2 First, comparing smoking rates between countries is difficult owing to differences in laws, data collection proceedures, cultural attitudes, etc. However, even if we ignore these factors, there are some serious problems with your use of statistics and comparisons. 1) The UK "teen smoking rates" don't include 16-18 year old as do the Canadian "teen smoking rates." And, given that the proposed law targets just this age group, it surely makes sense to use these figures rather than "teen smoking" numbers you cite. If you look at the numbers (Steve, it wouldn't let me link to the ASH site because it had "org" in the link), in 2000 29% of UK 16-18 year olds smoked, and in 2005 it was 24% of 16-18 year olds smoked in the UK. Far higher than the 9-11% you are attributing to "teen smoking" as a whole. In Canada, by way of contrast, 18% of 15-18 year olds smoked in 2005, down from 21% in 2001. So, based on these numbers alone, it appears that between 5-10% fewer Canadian 15-18 year olds smoke than their UK counterparts. Surely part of this can be attributed to the fact that Canadian 15-18 year olds can't legally purchase cigarettes. Now, I think you are probably right that it is tough to reduce further the rate of teen-smoking beyond a certain number; but clearly the UK isn't there yet. The same UK report found that since 1982 the rate of 11-15 year olds has remained stable. That is, the same number of 11-15 year olds are getting smokes from their older friends, siblings, etc. There is, however, a huge jump in UK rates after 15 years of age, once teens can start to buy them for themselves. It is this, that they are trying to address -- and if the Canadian figures are comparable -- it would seem to be effective. Second, you quote: "There is little conclusive evidence that a higher minimum age alone has an impact on reducing smoking prevalence among young people,Ã¢Â€� the Department of Health consultation document admitted." The Key word here is "alone". The UK is not ONLY rasing the minimum age. They are also banning smoking in pubs and restaurants, rolling out new anti-smoking ads, and a million other things. It is a PART of a broader strategy which, all evidence shows, IS effective in reducing smoking among teens and among the general population. Finally, your final two points are simply false. The UK Goverent DOES know that the new minimum age WILL make a difference when integrated within a broader strategy. And, you have presented NO evidence that "store owners have virtually no effect on the rates of teen smoking". What you have shown is that current teen smokers don't go to the corner store; but you can't say that if regulations were lifted (or enforcement reduced) that more teens wouldn't then use the stores. Indeed, if the UK numbers are comparable, then it seems that ability to purchase in stores gives a 5-10% jump in 15-18 year old smoking rates.

Posted by: Bob at January 01, 2007 03:28 AM (uvT7t)

3 Steve: As a rule, I agree with you. But, with all due respect, you are simply wrong on this issue.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 01, 2007 01:04 PM (X0vnb)

4 maybe off topic but this is a gem...form toronto star ..... ;-)Just came across of Â“Great Dismantler' puts ideology into actionÂ” by dimitry - nice Canadian name Â– must be Â“first nationÂ” guy/gay. I can only ask Â– do you love Canada Dimitry? or you work for putin?

Posted by: at January 01, 2007 02:42 PM (nHj8W)

5 I've got to agree with Brian. As a libertarian I'm all for smokers rights (enclosed smoking sections in restaurants) but teen smoking is one issue where I agree with laws that intrude on "rights". The DoH study in Britain may have suggested that this won't curb teen smoking. Fair enough, let's see if they're right. This seems to me the logical first place to start when encouraging children not to smoke.

Posted by: Matt at January 01, 2007 03:00 PM (lLdex)

6 Oh what the hell -I haven't been called 'stupid' in a while... OK, first off: Bob -good rebuttal (grudgingly said). Steve I'd be interetsed to see what -if any- counter argument you have to that. Secondly: Yes, anyone with a higher IQ than Mr. Harper's controversial kitten knows that smoking is a bad thing and we should encourage our young people to not smoke. We get it. I get it (and yes, I smoke, so I'm eventually really gonna get it no doubt). But: Are we not expending just a wee bit too much time, resources and energy on this anti-smoking jihad ? Would all this zeal and energy not be better spent elsewhere ? I mean, isn't that the same thing that the marijuana crowd is always harping about ? For example: Yes, smoking related illnesses cost the taxpayers money. But so does AIDS. Imagine trying to tell teens -or anyone else- to keep their trousers on and not shoot up drugs -especially with people of questionable hygenic practices. Excellent way to be branded as "judgemental" or just another religious fanatic. I would imagine that the non-stop carnage on our highways costs the system a buck or two, but even in this age of Kyoto we see four and five hundred horsepower engines for cars (!) being trumpeted in the advertisments. Where's the outcry to stop that nonsense ? There are organisations of well-meaning young people who single out movies that show people smoking cigarettes. Portraying brutal gang-rapes (The General's Daughter), slashing peoples' heads off with a sword (Braveheart), gangland executions (The Untouchables) and hard drug use (The Dead Pool) are all acceptable (these movies are from my somewhat dated -and rather mild by todays standards- collection) just don't show someone smoking a cigarette. I am reliably imformed that in my workplace, smoking a cigarette in the wrong place will cost me $4,000. But a guy caught smoking a joint or drinking alcohol will likely just be sent home for the day (I work in the forestry industry -read: heavy equipment, saws, other dangerous machines, etc). Um...hellloooo.... Don't get me wrong -I agree that we should make every effort to keep young people from starting a foolish, expensive and self-destructive habit, but could we not just step back for a moment and put things into perspective ? As dmorris pointed out, it's easy as hell to police the fundamentally law-abiding. If we were to put half as much time, energy and willingness to prosecute into fighting gangs, drugs, kiddie porn or terrorism, we'd likely be a lot better off. But that's just me. End rant/

Posted by: up north at January 01, 2007 07:18 PM (62fam)

7 I drive by a high school everyday and see the usual crowd (probably less than 10% of total school population) of under 19's puffing away on the 'public' sidewalk as smoking isn't allowed on school property (both school/city bylaws at work there). Rules, rules and these kids still smoke (to the long term detriment of not only themselves but also our health care system). Instead of rules, time to look to parents.

Posted by: at January 01, 2007 07:50 PM (zMULg)

8 Nicely done, Bob! Saves me a good 15 minutes digging 'round the internet for the proper stats and figures to counter Steve's argument. Kudos to you! Oddly enough, I'm also inclined to agree with up north's observation that the anti-smoking trend, especially in Toronto, may be shading into overbearing zealotry. Which is a weird thing to say, given that I'm a non-smoker and involved in the public health field.

Posted by: Z at January 01, 2007 07:52 PM (0pX37)

9 I agree with Steve, age restrictions will make no real difference to tobacco use by minors. There will always be a percentage of people who will smoke. I also feel that all the anti-smoking hectoring is more than a little hypocritical on the part of governments who profit from tobacco sales. As for healthcare costs as a reason for limiting smoking, if that is a sound premise, then why are we still allowing fast foods, alcohol, automobiles, snow shovels, ladders, etc, etc? Smokers are an easy target, that's really all it is. The 'second hand smoke' theory remains unproven. As pointed out by a former Dean of Health Sciences at McMaster University, if everyone stopped smoking and kept driving there would be no improvement in air quality but if everyone kept smoking and stopped driving the air would be crystal clear. There's no movement to blame car emissions for widespread environmentally caused illnesses, even though what comes out of a tailpipe makes tobacco smoke look positively benign. I suppose that when your economy is based on the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels you don't rock the boat.

Posted by: Selma at January 02, 2007 12:14 PM (BEnxZ)

10 Will Canadian tobacco enforcement continue to target store owners in the face of evidence that these store owners have virtually no effect on the rate of teen smoking? Of course they will not dismantle the regulatory and enforcement apparatus, no matter how pointless and destructive it is (of tax dollars and of the small businesses it targets). It's not like those inspectors are going to go out and get a real job. Helloooo? D'you know what private sector jobs pay these days, compared to government jobs? They don't have good benefits or pension plans either, and you can actually get fired if you screw up. Brrrrrr!!! At the end of WWII, the federal gumshoes were faced with a terrible dilemma. There were hundreds of them running around spying on, arresting, imprisoning, and generally hassling Canadians of Japanese, Italian and German descent. And probably also anyone who didn't show sufficient enthusiasm for rationing butter, recycling tin cans, buying government bonds, etc. End of war, end of job, right? Not so fast, buddy! Conveniently, right around that time, someone convinced the feds that narcotics - yeah, that's the ticket! - were a terrible and growing problem, and presto! The war on drugs is born. So you can count on the cigarette nazis having it made in the shade, and they will soon be joined by trans-fat nazis, cell-phone-driving nazis, ethanol-gas nazis, carbon dioxide nazis, private-sector-employment-equity nazis, and so on, until half the country will be working for the Stasi, and the other half will each be the subject of a big, fat Stasi file. More about regulatory capture here and here.

Posted by: at January 02, 2007 08:00 PM (a0Sy/)

11 Ahhh Goodwin's Law. Yet again, you prove your worth.

Posted by: Bob at January 02, 2007 09:42 PM (uvT7t)

12 Lousy politicians are really good at regulating EVERYONE but themselves.

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at January 03, 2007 10:09 AM (Y1ykG)

13 One makes it sound as if teens smoking is a bad thing. The fact is that the public health costs associated with smoking is more than paid for by the reduction in payments for the obese and the elderly who die early - thus saving social security/old age pensions systems over $10 billion. If one were truly perverse, we should be encouraging teenagers to smoke as a means of population control and of saving the state money. Furthermore, another false premise is assuming that the public health system should be preserved by discouraging kids from smoking instead of being driven further and faster into the insolvency that it is heading towards everywhere in the developed world. But all of what I've said is beside the point and rather cynical. My solution would be to prosecute the teen smokers in court rather than the tobacco store owners as exists now.

Posted by: Ace at January 03, 2007 12:21 PM (c3IA4)

14 BOOBWIN'S COROLLARY - The erroneous invocation of Godwin's Law in the defense of obnoxious government policies is the hallmark of a lazy intellect.

Posted by: at January 03, 2007 07:19 PM (a0Sy/)

15 1) I didn't defend any goverment policy. I just pointed out some serious errors in Steve's statistical comparisons. I frankly think that the war on drugs is a losing proposition. 2) Is there anything that exhibits more intellectual laziness than invoking analogies to Nazis in any context other than geo-political wars?

Posted by: bob at January 03, 2007 07:38 PM (uvT7t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's New Year message to Canadians

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:14 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

December 29, 2006

Jew-controlled bookstore picketed in Toronto for philanthropic actions of its boss

Canadian philanthropists are helping out lone soldiers in Israel. What is a lone soldier? I have never heard of the term either, but apparently it is an issue in the Israeli Defence Force.

Of course, helping Jews is unacceptable in many quarters, and those who can't stomach the idea are targetting Chapters/Indigo, the Canadian bookselling mega-chain, for the private actions of its CEO, Heather Reisman.

Another evil Jew-controlled (and profitable) corporation -- heck, it deserved to be picketed.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:38 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1137 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I just KNEW this new IT era was/is going to be the end of us. I remember a time when there was no instant feedback on anything, because it took weeks of word of mouth or newspaper columns for "everyone" to know what was, supposedly, going on. Now "everyone" knows "everyting" instantly and it means setting up picket lines. Life is becoming a series of picket lines and our individual reactions to them. Heck, we become friends or enemies depending on what lines we're willing to walk. Never mind what our natural lines of affection might be. Life's become unnatural. The grapevine's been speeded up to the point where we can't keep up. Maybe when the electricity grid completely fries, we'll all be better off. We'll have to rely on our instincts. We'll have to watch the sky for what's coming. We'll have to pray for wisdom and healing and stop relying on our bank accounts and computer skills for SUCCESS. I wish Reisman and Schwartz well with their help for lone Israeli soldiers. Any help we can give anwwhere is a good thing. As for those setting up picket lines: What are you doing to contribute to loving your neighbour? You're not part of any solution, just more of the problem of man's inhumanity to man. Get your own life and stop trying to tear down others'.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 29, 2006 08:24 PM (DCYE8)

2 heather reisman is (or isn't) jewish, doesn't matter. she does believe in censoring books, namely Mark Steyn whose books have been oddly hard to find in her bookstores.

Posted by: kelly at December 30, 2006 02:54 AM (dYZNV)

3 Kelly, A privately owned bookstore deciding not to sell a book isn't censorship. If you don't like their decision not to sell books that you like, then shop elsewhere. But stop with the "censorship" nonsense. Or do you believe that we should compel privately owned businesses to sell things that they don't want to sell? Should we, for example, make privately owned Christian bookstores sell Richard Dawkins book "The God Illusion"? Or should we just call them censors for not selling it?

Posted by: Bob at December 30, 2006 08:36 AM (uvT7t)

4 Kelly Kelly Good question "Or do you believe that we should compel privately owned businesses to sell things that they don't want to sell? You mean it does not already happen? How about forcing private businesses ( printing shops ) to print things they don't want to ( Gay wedding invitations )or face prosecution for discrimination.

Posted by: George B at December 30, 2006 10:16 AM (21ZN+)

5 I agree with kelly in regards to the selective censorship Chapters does. Mark Steyn, the Paul Wells book, Dr Laura Schleschinger many right wing or conservative books are not purchased or displayed. And yet the shelves are full of wonderful books on Trudeau, Belinda and the environment that no one buys. Go see what they have on display and check some bestseller lists. As far as shopping elsewhere they merged Chaperters and Indigo own Coles, the Book Company, and Classic Bookshops. They own most of the bookstores in malls and there are virtually no chain competitors. Close to a monopoly in my opinion. Chapters has unfortunately earned a wash on this one. Sorry lone soldiers, sounds like a good cause. enough

Posted by: enough at December 30, 2006 10:57 AM (iX7S6)

6 Kelly, you're completely wrong. Steyn's book was unavailable for about two weeks, and the publisher and Indigo both stated that it was because the print run had sold out more quickly than expected and the second run had not yet been delivered by the printer. There was no censorship, and if there was, Steyn's book is oddly _easy_ to find right now in Chapters. At the Chapters near me, Steyn's book is now displayed prominently not only on the shelves in the Politics section, but also in the Recent Non-fiction area at the front of the store, and on the aisle display that has popular books on politics and current events. Maybe you should, you know, actually enter a bookstore before you report your received wisdom on the subject. Were you aware that there are people who actually visit bookstores regularly? Yeah, crazy, huh? As for "enough", I gather that bookstores are a bit of a mystery to you, too, but you think "the shelves are full of wonderful books on Trudeau, Belinda and the environment" because the publishers pay to put them in in your face. Every book on a table, on an aisle end cap, and even, I suspect, in the Heather's Picks section are there because a publisher paid to put them there. And yes, they do sell. Books in a bookstore sell, or they're returned to the publisher. Publishers don't pay to put books on displays if they don't think they're going to sell. It must be scary for you to realise that your views are actually in the minority in the book-buying public. Maybe you guys should read a couple of books yourselves and find out why that is.

Posted by: M@ at December 30, 2006 11:44 AM (+NXe+)

7 Is it not ironic that Heather Reisman is getting it from both sides. Is she pro Islamic Fascist (ie. not carrying Steyn's book) or was she wary of the backlash if she put the book front and centre in her stores ? I suspect the latter. It is sad that we are yielding to the threat of violence.

Posted by: erl at December 30, 2006 12:40 PM (8FNfk)

8 "kelly" writes: "she does believe in censoring books, namely Mark Steyn whose books have been oddly hard to find in her bookstores." Dear kelly: You are an idiot. As numerous people have explained in numerous places, Steyn's book was hard to find for a period of time simply because his own publisher could not keep up with demand. I personally have debunked this rancid little myth here, so can we please not have any more of this nonsense soiling the Internets? Thank you for your prompt attention. CC

Posted by: CC at December 30, 2006 06:28 PM (EJvHP)

9 CC: Kelly is most certainly not an idiot. I was into Indigo in Toronto just a week or so after America Alone came out. They didn't have ANY copies. THEIR explanation was that they were having trouble getting copies from the Canadian distributor. That was a total CROCK. Indigo/Chapters had known for months about Mark Steyn's book and CHOSE not to order enough, or any, thus they were caught with their pants down when the book came out and became an instant best seller. I support Reisman's and Schwartz's support of lone Israeli soldiers, but NOT Reisman's handling of Mark Steyn's America Alone. Hers was a politically correct decision to shun not only Mark Steyn but all of his supporters and readers in Canada, of which I'm one. Indigo didn't get a sale that day, and I didn't accept their dumb-ass excuse. The sales person I talked to, a nice metrosexual male, pretended he didn't know what I was talking about and told me, looking guilty, "I'll be back in a minute." When he returned, he gave me the "party line": "We weren't able to get copies from the Canadian distributor. There are a lot of people asking for it and we're setting them aside for them." I told him I was from out of town and not to bother, knowing I could get it from steynonline.com or somewhere else. I'd already made a decision not to give Indigo/Chapters my business. Yeah, right.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 30, 2006 07:05 PM (rdfnm)

10 Correction to post above: "Yeah, right" should appear BEFORE the last paragraph and after Indigo salesperson's "We weren't able to get copies from the Canadian distributor. There are a lot of people asking for it and we're setting them aside for them." YEAH, RIGHT!

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 30, 2006 07:09 PM (rdfnm)

11 Ah yes, the old "Yeah Right" argument. Despite no evidence that the employee was spinning a yarn -- in fact, in the face of evidence that he was not doing so -- the "Yeah Right" argument will still win everytime. It is indisputable. You should really take that show on the road; it is a stunning display of logic and rhetoric.

Posted by: bob at December 31, 2006 10:17 AM (uvT7t)

12 If Chapters was really trying to suppress Steyn's book, I think adequate proof of that would be a single instance, anywhere in Canada, of a Chapters that currently does not have this book in stock. Yeah, right.

Posted by: M@ at December 31, 2006 12:54 PM (+NXe+)

13 I'm inclined to give Ms. Reisman the benefit of the doubt on this one. Regardless of the political leanings of the owner or store managers, book stores exist to sell books. M@, CC and bob simply reflect the widespread belief of liberals that anyone who disagrees with them -namely conservatives- is stupid and therefore unlikely to spend money on something they can't read anyway. Small wonder that Chapters underestimated the popularity of Steyn's book. Having said that, I have in the past made the 4 hour drive to the nearest Chapters (you guys don't know how lucky you are) and noticed that best-selling new releases by conservative authors seldom wind up being prominently displayed (you know -like on the "best-sellers" and "new releases" tables). The grim, disapproving stares and occasional snide, editorial comments from female sales clerks half my age, when they see I'm buying a book by a conservative author, also makes a statement about the political leaning of such places. As far as the actual topic of this thread -which seems to have been hijacked- I think that's a nice thing they're doing for those 'lone soldiers'. As soon as it stops snowing (hopefully in April) I'll be heading off to Chapters too!

Posted by: up north at December 31, 2006 02:32 PM (8MYT5)

14 HATE IS THE TRUE ENEMY It is not Muslims I fear. I have had many Muslim friends, and the aphorism, Â“Lucky is the man who has an Arab for a friendÃ¢Â€� is poignantly true. No one is more affectionate, sacrificing, or thankful. I have also had the pleasure of friendship of several equally wonderful Iranians (who are Persians, not Arabs). Hate is our true enemy. Lately, the Middle East is seen as a nexus of hate, but hate comes from everywhere, itÂ’s a universal, boring and unoriginal human emotion. Every group on earth has been victimized, but hate is a choice. Those who hate, clinging to it as an addiction, passing it on to their children, cherishing it inside themselves, using it as the centerpiece of their lives, are finally left with nothing. It is a waste of time and energy, like other addictions. If you give up your brain to it, reason is pushed aside by constant anger, paranoia, righteous indignation, dreams of revenge, and self-justification. Thoughts and words are obsessively repeated again and again, day after day, with nothing to show for it, no progress, no change, just like other addictions. People do not just have hate Â– hate also has them. Democracy has always been under attack, and the attackers have always been full of hate. Fascists, Communists, Islamists, to name a few... No one has a right to spread and incite hate, to teach hate in schools, holy places, religious meetings, street demonstrations, or even community picnics. I offer you a demonstration: go into your room, alone, and spend the rest of your life hating Israel, or the Sunni, or oxygen. When you die, we will put on your epitaph: Â“he/she hatedÃ¢Â€�. A wasted life. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA: "Sherif Ali: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people; a silly people; greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." Lawrence of Arabia risked his life for the Arabs, and was key in their liberation from the Ottomans. He seemed to hate it when Arabs would only stick up for the tribe, but never for freedom, or peace. Yes, everyone loves to live in freedom and peace, but people who do not continually struggle for democracy do not keep either for very long. Many people in the ME want to wallow in hate, but they donÂ’t want to pay for it. Hate is not free, itÂ’s very expensive, like all addictions. Hate is a stepping-stone to war, and others know that when you begin to spout hate, encourage it, teach it, and justify it, they feel that conflict is imminent, and they feel threatened. They react, and take measures to confront you, and if they are simple, they react with their own hate. Meaningless conflict follows, where people die, but hate does not, and war follows war. I give you the Middle East, for more than 5000 years. One thing for sure: many leaders in the ME want democracy DEAD in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan because democracy IS VERY THREATENING to them personally. Democracy consists of : (1) The people are governed by representatives who are elected by fair and frequent elections, with the President and Prime minister also elected, (2) Written laws which can be changed by elected representatives, (3) A final Â“Basic LawÃ¢Â€� (Constitution), on which all other laws are based, and it usually has a Â“Bill of RightsÃ¢Â€�, describing the essential rights and freedoms of all citizens, (4) Judges who ensure that the laws are applied fairly, and these judges are appointed or elected, and no politician can fire them, (5) A separation of Religion and Politics, so that neither can interfere with each other. Hizbulla, Hamas, Syria, Iran, and the Taliban are against all five. They see solutions in murdering their enemies. Many ME commentators suggest we let Lebanon, Palestine, or Iraq Â“just fight it outÃ¢Â€�, but this is callous, uncaring, and hate perpetuating, leading only to more meaningless death. Left unchecked, hate culture almost always eventually focuses on innocents. We can confront hate: accept it from no one, point it out when you see it, disagree with it, refuse to listen, refuse to apologize, fire them, jail them, sue them, vote against them, demonstrate against them, and forgive them. Insist, at all times, on the Golden Rule. Otherwise, democracies will eventually win, but we will have to watch more decades of boring, meaningless death. When hate leads to the slaughter of innocents, will we each say, Â“As a citizen, I did everything I could to avoid this?Ã¢Â€�

Posted by: DemocracyRules at December 31, 2006 05:08 PM (+WNUd)

15 Sometime, a long time ago, when I was in my mid-thirties (IÂ’ll be 58 next MarchÂ—my where does the time fly?), a much older friend of mine told me that books were censored all the time. I really had a hard time believing this at the time as I bought into all the Â‘my how we are a free peopleÂ’ crap. But to continue the line of thought, my now deceased friend went on to say that the most effective form of censorship is when a book never sees the light of day. Certain new books simply don't get distributed and certain old books just never get republished. The public is none the wiser because what is not seen, to all practical purpose, may as well not exist. Some books do get published though. The anti-German annotated American edition of Mein Kampf (Alfred Knoft Publishing), for example, suddenly appeared in print in America in 1939. Around and about the same pre-War period, anti-German films began to be churned out by Hollywood. Noticing the timing (historically speaking), I could not fail to recognize that information indeed was being Â‘handledÂ’ during this time frame. Clearly there was an Â‘Invisible HandÂ’ guiding the film and print flow of information on the eve of World War IIÂ—and this at a time when American entry into any prospective European war was opposed by about 85% of the American people. (We all have sudden insight into how the levers of history are actually pushed and pulled as opposed to how we may have been taughtÂ—and this was mine.) This friend of mine went on to give a somewhat incomplete history of censorship in America. Among his numerous examples, he mentioned that his brother authored a book entitled The Dispossessed Majority. This was a very controversial book at the time of its publishing and remains so even today. It is most definitely not your political correct pro-multicultural book. But this is not the point here. The precise point is that the book was refused distribution in all of North America. Not only that, the book had a strange history of disappearing from library shelves on which it had been placed by either the publisher or by friends of the publisher. The only conclusion, after a long observation of this phenomenon of the disappearing book, is that the book was being censored (removed from libraries) in some quasi-organized fashion and not necessarily by library staff in the greater of instances. This form of Â‘walking off the shelfÂ’ censorship probably extended to other titlesÂ—but I cannot possibly say for sure to what extent. A more personally familiar example of forced censorship occurred in the early to mid-1990Â’s. At the time I was living near Lexington, Virginia, and I had the habit of when in town, of buying the Washington Times from a street vending machine. After a while, I began to notice that the machine was frequently empty, often very early in the morning. I checked other locations and I noticed the same pattern of empty vending machines. On one occasion, I ran into the newspaper vendor and he flatly said that he wasnÂ’t getting copy. Later on, I noticed that there appeared to be a certain kind of ongoing Â‘press warÂ’ with certain elements vehemently protesting the editorial content of the Herald. This had to do with critical comments on US Israeli policy as well as comment critical of multiculturalism and so forth. After a while, certain editorialists were dropped from the Times and some new names appeared; and the editorial tone of the paper was much altered. Apparently, the Times was forced to give in under overwhelming outside pressure having to do with distribution channels. Once the Times caved as to editorial content, the paper magically began to reappear in abundant circulation. To the above, the denial of distribution to the Times was not absolute. It did not have to be. On some days, you could find a few copies, on other days, none at all. It was sufficient tactically to just squeeze the distribution and therefore the incoming revenue to the paper. Sure, I cannot prove all of this categorically, but the pattern of events was just too pat. Also, one of the dropped columnists was Samuel Francis. My friend and his brother (the author of The Dispossessed Majority) knew Samuel Francis well and it was pretty clear that Francis was forced out of the Times editorial staff under pressure. This was also about the time that Patrick Buchanan was forced out of the mainstream press due to his famous Â‘Amen CornerÂ’ remarkÂ—or at least, that is my recollection. As to censorship in general, IÂ’d say that if you were to scratch the surface, you tend to come up with the same suspects or coalition of suspects. IÂ’d also would say that the cultural front is a very important and vital front in what has come to be termed Â‘The Culture WarsÂ’Â—but also that it is a secondary tier in the scheme of things. Money is what makes the world go around and money is the funding mechanism for all other activity. Therefore, the apex of the triangle is a consortium of the Money and Power Political in an alliance of mutual interest. These folks in control are the very top feeders and they call the tune (at least for now). All of the prime moving goes on behind a curtain. Know how this all works and you can make a handsome living and still keep your integrity. Fortunately though, we now have the Internet, making it much more difficult to constrain the flow of information and of ideas. But still, you have to have a working knowledge of titles. Again the Internet helps. Once you find good information on the Internet, one good site tends to link to another good site. There is a certain compounding effectÂ—both for the better and for the worse. By the way, I recently discovered Mark SteynÂ’s America Alone at Human Events books. I not only liked the book, but I found the writing to be exceptionally well done, even extraordinarily accomplished. Mark without doubt is possessed of a first rate mind. He also has first rate wit. I donÂ’t know how he came by the rigor of his exceptional educational backgroundÂ—but it comes to me as relief and as refreshment to the soul. Human Events also has some other excellent titles. I recently read Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters and I am passing that book around to the Church men with young families. I recommend this as required reading for those of you who wish to raise strong families free from the toxicity of the prevailing milieu. I mention this because charity begins a home, and so do strong civilizations. In any event, thank you all for all of your efforts out there. You all give me hope and encouragement. And please, NEVER GIVE UP. Many thanks, Dave

Posted by: Dave Mason at January 01, 2007 02:36 PM (IRgyY)

16 The only time I know of that Chapters/Indigo chose to "censor" is when the Western Standard reprinted the images of Muhammed that appeared in the Dutch newspapers last year. Chapters/Indigo came right out and said they would not stock the magazine issue in question, despite normally carrying the magazine. Happy New Year! Cheers, Keith.

Posted by: Keith at January 02, 2007 01:05 PM (D8Hiv)

17 Keith's got a point. The word 'censored' is becoming every bit abused, overused and taken out of context as 'torture', 'genocide', 'ground zero', 'weapon of mass destruction' and numerous others. The book I alluded to in my last post was Ann Coulter's "Godless" (and please, let's not re-hijack this thread into a debate on the merits of Coulter. I read her. I also read Michael Moore -though I admittedly don't buy his books. Sue me.) 'Godless' had already been pilloried in every mainstream outlet you could think of. Coulter had been on the 'Tonite Show' defending her book. It was still a best-seller (probably more so because of the controversy). So where did a Chapters store in Winnipeg have it ? On a bottom shelf in some obscure section on 'lifestyles' or some damn thing (I can't exactly remember the section it was placed under -I did have a hard time finding it though). Censorship ? Arguably, no. People like me will find it wherever it is. Now what about people who don't follow politics all that closely ? People who are buying books for someone else. They're going to gravitate to the 'new releases' and 'best-sellers' sections. But (conservative) Coulter's best-selling new release wasn't there. Hmmm... As an afterthought to this: At the checkout, the young (and rather cute) female cashier, looked at it and muttered "Don't get me started." I love arguing with liberal males (face to face) but I live in fear of arguing with females, so I didn't bother to point out that she was A: Obviously a self-starter. B: Her job description probably doesn't include making editorial comments about the clientelle's purchases. I paid for my books and got the hell out of there. Can any liberals posting here tell me of a similar experience with a left-wing author ?

Posted by: up north at January 02, 2007 02:39 PM (TOtW0)

18 Well, bob, vis a vis your dissing of my "Yeah right argument" when it came to the Indigo salesman's response to how come there weren't ANY copies of Mark Steyn's America Alone--and this was back in December, a month and a half AFTER the book had appeared on the shelves of countless American bookstores and online--it happened AGAIN this week in Toronto: same town, same time, same place. Hmmm... No copies, guy wasn't sure why, they'd sold "quite a few" and had--now get this--"18 more on order." EIGHTEEN MORE? WOW! AMAZING! 'REALLY CATERING TO THE TORONTONIANS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR A BOOK THAT IS EXTREMELY POPULAR EVERYWHERE ELSE. It was apparent, once again, that Heather Reisman and her book emporium were ahead of the curve, both eager and willing to provide Torontonians with an impeccable book-buying experience. YEAH, RIGHT.

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 05, 2007 11:39 PM (ncCt/)

19 To those folks who have to drive for four hours to get to a Chapters, try http://amazon.ca or http://www.chapters.indigo.ca. I know shopping on-line is not like the shopping in a bricks and mortar book store where you can physically leaf through the books but in some ways, the on-line shopping experience is better. I love the idea of Wish Lists where I can put books of interest on my wish list and occasionally, either I or someone I know will buy some of the books. Even on a dial-up connection, that has to beat a four hour drive, unless you were going into town anyway.

Posted by: ci at January 11, 2007 03:19 AM (vZGyZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

NDP blogger hot on the trail of Kittygate!

Robert McClelland is hot on the tail of Kittygate, in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper is at the centre of a conspiracy to fake a photograph of his family.

Suddenly, a kitten appears where none existed before.

Yes, a kitten!

I can't tell if McClelland is being serious, but the post is so absurd that it deserves to be parodied.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:14 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I guess that that's the kitten the Harpers were fostering and decided to adopt. IIRC it's name is Cheddar. There was a blurb on one of the news websites last week about it.

Posted by: Pat at December 29, 2006 01:48 AM (j4tnX)

2 OMG! it looks like the Harpers had more than one Christmas photo taken! What an outrage! Wasting pixels! Don't they know that Hollywood Stars desperately need those pixels, have they no shame!

Posted by: Philanthropist at December 29, 2006 02:25 AM (7pBiD)

3 The more apparent it becomes that the NDP is finished the more they will lash out at the CPC instead of their real enemy: the LPC.

Posted by: real conservative at December 29, 2006 02:28 AM (EZLLA)

4 I like his list of evidence. It's hilarious. Let's make another list of evidence to show how much of a tool McLa-La-Land is: - Stephen Harpers hands are exactly the same? I don't think so. Look at the index finger of his left hand which is crossed over his right. In the no kittie pic you can see a little bit of skin from the edge of his right hand below the index finger. In the kittie pic, no skin. - unless the grand, right-wing conspiracy has hidden some kind of 3-D picture taking system that we don't know about, I'd love to hear McLa-La-Land explain just how it is that we can see more hair to the left of where Stephen parts his hair in the second picture than we do in the first. It's obvious he has turned his head slightly. - there are almost no shadows on Stephen's collar in the first pic as the collar is obviously tighter up against his chest. In the second pic there are shadows all around the collar and you can easily tell it is more bunched up. - you can see most of Stephen's left ear in the first pic. In the second pic it is not much more than a sliver's worth. - his son's right hand, which is on Stephen's shoulder, has the thumb lined up with the knuckles in the first pic. In the second pic it is lined up with his fingertips. - his son's left hand has the thumb pressed up against the index finger in the first pic (something you can only see on McLa-La-Land's copy) whereas in the second pic his thumb and index finger are touching at the tips and creating a loop. - his son's smile is different in both pics - you can see a lot of his son's left ear in the first pic. In the second it is almost completely obscured by his hair. - Mrs. Harper's hair in the first pic comes down on the right shoulder. In the second pic, her hair almost covers her shirt collar. As well, in the first pic her hair on the left side is behind her shoulder. In the second pic, her hair comes down around her face. - Mrs. Harper's shirt collar is much flatter in the first picture than the second. This can be seen by how much of a bigger loop the collar presents in the second pic. I'm surprised McLa-La-Land didn't use this as some evidence Harper was using his wife to be more racy by giving the appearance of showing more boob. - Mrs. Harper's necklace seems to come out from below one side of her shirt and curve upwards on the other side in the first pic. In the second picture the necklace is equally curved on both sides. - there is a significant fold in Mrs. Harper's shirt in the second pic coming off where Stephen's head meets his shoulders. In the first pic there is none. And that's just stuff I saw right away! Seriously... McLa-La-Land needs to take the tin foil hat off and get some sun. His abilities as spotting photoshopped pictures are not something he should be holding up as anything to be proud of. What's worse is that he actually is serious about this; just read his replies in the comments section as he hasn't said it is a joke. No... he's the joke.

Posted by: Surecure at December 29, 2006 09:22 AM (Dn18P)

5 ...one correction ...the fourth and eighth point should have been you can see almost all of Stephen's and his son's RIGHT ears in the first pic, not their left ears.

Posted by: Surecure at December 29, 2006 09:24 AM (Dn18P)

6 That cheddar is a little cutie!

Posted by: kursk at December 29, 2006 10:01 AM (lqkmi)

7 Settle down everyone, it's obviously a joke. Really, one glance and anyone can see it is two different photos. McClelland is a fanatical madman and a vicious anti-semite. He's still seething over the media photoshopping scandals, exposed by conservative bloggers, during the recent Israeli defensive military action. In his deranged mind, touting this obviously nonphotoshop as a photoshop helps discredit the real photoshopping scandals that hurt the cause of the Jew-haters. Simple as that.

Posted by: anon at December 29, 2006 10:32 AM (526aW)

8 It's obviously a joke so simmer down folks, a few seconds glance and you can see they aren't the same photos. McClelland is just trying to discredit all the genuine photoshopping scandals exposed by conservative bloggers.

Posted by: anon at December 29, 2006 10:42 AM (526aW)

9 McLelland is in love with himself, facies himself as a bright fellow. Reality: McLelland has his own blog but obviously it does not generate very much interest, thus he has time to play around on other blogs most of the time. Even in his own little left wing socialist world, he is rejected, he is to be pitied. Seyon

Posted by: Seyon at December 29, 2006 12:05 PM (1pAl0)

10 Finally some proof that the "reptilian kitten eater" potiticians actually exist. If you look closely at the photo without the kitten - you will notice a tiny part of the tail that is sticking out of the corner of Stephen Harper's lips...

Posted by: Gordon Stamp at December 29, 2006 12:41 PM (pO0T2)

11 Anon: Did you even read McLa-La-Land's posting on this? There wasn't a hint of sarcasm or over-the-top lampooning going on. And the fact that he himself responded with a serious tone in his own comments section without even trying to tell people to take it easy -- as if it were a joke -- only shows how serious he is taking it. You are right that a few seconds glance you can tell they aren't the same pics. McLa-La-Land simply doesn't have the facilities to understand that.

Posted by: Surecure at December 29, 2006 12:57 PM (Dn18P)

12 So why are you giving him the publicity? He is a major knob. I wouldn't give him the traffic.

Posted by: Stephen at December 29, 2006 01:17 PM (PizTn)

13 Well, if it isn't a joke then I am well and truly amazed that someone either that stupid or dishonest could possibly attract a substantial following in the internet. And make no mistake, McClelland is respected and admired by a lot of the hard left. Even that Toronto Star columnist Zerbista (or whatever her name is) respects and admires him.

Posted by: anon at December 29, 2006 01:46 PM (61NOu)

14 Not much evidence needed to realise that Robert is not that bright, but if he is willing to provide some, that's okay. My young children spotted several differences in the images right away, btw. If it was a joke, he would have filed it under the humour category in his blahg. And why have the comments in the post been closed now? He's also trying to backpeddle by having a new post, "kittiegate." That one is filed under humour.

Posted by: civitatensis at December 29, 2006 03:08 PM (bOi9A)

15 I've noticed what seems to be backpedaling too. And closed comments? Not a good sign.

Posted by: Steve Janke at December 29, 2006 03:27 PM (9N1fk)

16 Anon: You're surprised "that someone either that stupid or dishonest could possibly attract a substantial following"? Ever hear of Rush Limbaugh? Michael Moore? And it doesn't take intelligence to get the love of any political extremist. You just have to tell the people what they want to hear. That's where some extremist parties and individuals get their power: spreading the crap that people eat up.

Posted by: Surecure at December 29, 2006 03:43 PM (Dn18P)

17 Civitatensis: McLa-La-Land has never admitted to being wrong, and when he is making a joke at anybody, he has always made at least an effort for that to be clear. He made no attempt to make that first posting seem like a joke and in fact wrote SO much that you would be hard pressed to think that he thought it was a joke. Yep... closing comments, making a second posting to try and make the first look like a joke when it wasn't... typical McLa-La-Land snores.

Posted by: Surecure at December 29, 2006 03:45 PM (Dn18P)

18 the NDP is pretty desperate these days.

Posted by: the bear at December 29, 2006 07:01 PM (NIATg)

19 Obviously, two different photos (don't all professional photogs take umpteen photos hoping you'll find one to appeal to everyone on your Christmas/Birthday/New Year's list?). What IS bob mcla-la-land's PROBLEM? Methinks he needs to get a grip, though I'm not holding my breath. This is what happens when you live in too rarefied an atmosphere: 'can't tell the kitty from the litter.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 29, 2006 07:49 PM (DCYE8)

20 Proud to be Canadian did a spoofy post on Harper's photo and the cat the same day. http://tinyurl.com/ymvvxf

Posted by: WW at December 29, 2006 08:08 PM (yzOzm)

21 To batb: You ask, "What is Mr McClelland's problem?" For starters, he obviously doesn't have a life. He just as obviously hasn't heard of the following gem of wisdom attributed to Abe Lincoln (perhaps accurately): "It is better to be silent and thought dumb than to speak up and remove all doubt."

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at December 29, 2006 10:37 PM (X0vnb)

22 Bwahaha! This even more lame than the time he was raging on about the "crescent of peace" monument for the 9/11 victims in Pennsylvania. Didn't know what a Great Circle was! Nice to see he's abandoned all pretense at free speech by closing the comments. Much more representative of his true calling: NDP apparatchik. Hang it up Rube. You're past it.

Posted by: The Phantom at December 29, 2006 11:27 PM (nAMT1)

23 the first picture was taken with the kitten and then PMSH ate it. We all know he eats kittens and hates cats too.

Posted by: kelly at December 30, 2006 02:47 AM (dYZNV)

24 Kelly, of course! Mcla-la-land has it ALL wrong. What great powers of observation YOU have! With friends like Bobby, the NDP needs no other enemies. If I was Jack Laydown I'd be trying to pull the plug on Bobby's computer. Meow!

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 30, 2006 09:53 AM (ZoQFx)

25 I meant to comment on the PM's family portrait. Despite Janey Taber's disparaging remark about their resemblance to The Brady Bunch, I think they're a lovely looking family: heteronormative, as Fenris puts it over at Dust My Broom.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 30, 2006 04:53 PM (QwT8D)

26 Kathy Shaidle has Bobby's nutty number... Robert, you really have to stop reading those spooky spy novels. It is amazing that you a) think that people really spend their days doing psyops and b) if they did they would care about this board, or the NDP for that matter.

Posted by: neo at December 30, 2006 08:44 PM (kaMZX)

27 Two of the blogosphere's biggest knobs doing battle. I could watch this all day.

Posted by: Devin at December 31, 2006 09:13 AM (kYCrQ)

28 What is it about the leftyzoids and conspiracy? They must all be taking Myblahg 101 at commmunity college. The person who bills himself as Canadian Cynic is so shy he has to post anonymously, before putting up a frothing personal attack at his own version of myblahg. "Hetero-bias my arse. You can't go two minutes without thinking about "the cock."" Wow, that just blows away my commentary about extinction. I'm in good company though. He next turns his razor-sharp wit and prodigious vocabulary on Small Dead Animals and AGWN, with a tour-de-force entitled, "Kate, you ignorant slut."

Posted by: neo at January 01, 2007 02:20 PM (PAoox)

29 Looks to me like the cat jumped onto Rachel's lap during a sequence of shots. And you're right about the NDP being swallowed whole by the 'progressive' liberals like Dion. Perhaps the NDP will finally get together with the Communist Party of Canada and their labor supporters.

Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle at January 03, 2007 02:40 PM (uStux)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 27, 2006

Methadone left on a Toronto bus

A large quantity of liquid methadone was left on a Toronto bus. Who was carrying the methadone, and for what purpose? And what questions are raised by this potentially deadly incident?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:59 PM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

Severe static on the NDP blogging line

Why does the NDP ignore their stable of bloggers? Maybe because there is some terrible static that would prevent the NDP from getting any sort of coherent message out via bloggers.

Maybe the Blogging Dippers need to rid themselves of the static.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:43 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 885 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Frankly, I don't think you can blame McClelland for the NDP / blog woes. We have to remember that, like the BT blogroll, the Blogging Dippers is a voluntary aggregator that Blahgger Bob set up. Simply put, the BD wouldn't exist without him. The blame, if anywhere, really goes to the party's communications department for its lack of net savvy. This is hardly surprising; many corporations who should know better tend to set up a website and then ignore it, thinking that they've done their bit to be "with it." The NDP is no different.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at December 27, 2006 02:14 PM (+kFf8)

2 I agree with points made by both of you. The NDP communications have failed to exploit the WWW to the party's advantage. However racist and biggoted NDP supporters like Robbie (I don't know what the other NDP blogs are like, I don't read them) probably frighten the party more than most people realize. Do a search for "ndp blog" and Racist Robbie will be your top two results, with one or two official NDP blogs on the next page or so. Until the party finds a way to get themselves higher than Robbie in the results, they won't be encouraging anyone to look for "NDP blogs"

Posted by: Matt at December 27, 2006 04:03 PM (d1a7q)

3 Getting under people's skin is the very definition of victory for Robert. This blog entry made my day.

Posted by: ferrethouse at December 27, 2006 08:36 PM (+iQ4m)

4 It is somewhat ironic that the NDP has not been able to capitalize on the grassroots movement which exists through the web. It would almost seem a natural match. One could see Maurice Strong and the Moveon.org people promoting the NDP platform. As for McClelland's labelling of the CPC, I don't find it that unusual because I do tend to see it with the right as well with labels like Lieberal Party and the You-Have-Got-To-Be-Kidding(NDP) Party. Steve's comments are correct nonetheless because if the moderator of a blogging site can keep the tempo of the conversation elevated then real discussion can take place. Aaaah, if only they could be as professional as you Steve. Kate at relapsedcatholic can really get down and dirty with some of her exchanges.

Posted by: DarrenL at December 27, 2006 08:49 PM (323x7)

5 I've also noticed that Robert's delusions of grandeur seem to be getting worse and his hissy fits seem to be growing proportionally. Personally I'd be happy if the NDP more closely associated themselves with McClelland and his Blogging Dippers. Their 12% (poll support) would drop to 2% within the space of a few months...

Posted by: Richard Evans at December 27, 2006 10:43 PM (Slrc1)

6 Brad Lavigne is one of the few dippers I actually like...

Posted by: Soccermom at December 28, 2006 12:25 AM (sglp2)

7 How can a dipper be a responsible blogger though? The concepts are at odds with each other.

Posted by: Real Conservative at December 28, 2006 02:46 AM (EZLLA)

8 Robert is what the liberals refer to as their useful idiot.

Posted by: gimbol at December 28, 2006 07:01 AM (egH/E)

9 McClelland is nothing more than a urinal puck, attracting like-minded odors to his site. Yes, he does serve a purpose for the ultra extremist left of the NDP. They are the ones with the bandannas over their faces throwing rocks at any gathering with television cameras.

Posted by: view from the West at December 28, 2006 08:33 AM (X0vnb)

10 Maybe he's par for the course? Spend 10 minutes reading through a Rabble board. For all the insults thrown at conservatives ("trogolodytes', "mouth-breathers", etc), they just plain out seem to be, um, nicer people. That's not to say you won't read nasty stuff out there (mostly in comment threads), it's that it is the exception not the rule on a conservative blog. We can all learn from Robert McClelland -- he does not his causes with his behaviour -- we will not help our own by being like him.

Posted by: Peter Jay at December 28, 2006 11:12 AM (CMqUi)

11 It's not just McClelland. Check out Rabble.ca. Or the ex rabble group at Enmasse. It's virtually impossible to have anything resembling a balanced discussion without being insulted and banned. They are simply echo chambers with no real dissenting opinions being tolerated.

Posted by: Stan at December 28, 2006 11:34 AM (HJTWW)

12 Calling Kinsella a "great blogger" is a bit of a stretch, dontcha think? Even most of the "lousy bloggers" know what a permalink is.

Posted by: Sean at December 28, 2006 12:59 PM (qNP3E)

13 Interesting to see My blahg's site stats since Aug. http://tinyurl.com/y6juue

Posted by: wolfvillewatch at December 28, 2006 01:41 PM (yzOzm)

14 What's a spastic sociopath like Robert McClelland doing painting himself as a dipper partisan or some political activist? Is this a con job to avoid his inevitable institutionalization?

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at December 28, 2006 02:10 PM (e1kRH)

15 My view of what makes a great blog weighs technical aspects such as permalinks rather low. They are a useful tool for creating traffic, but Kinsella doesn't need that. Since he blows away the contents of his blog every December 31, there is no historical value for a permalink beyond 365 days at the most. On the other hand, his content is rich, insightful, and influential, so how can you say it is anything but a great blog? That's my take.

Posted by: Steve Janke at December 28, 2006 03:21 PM (9N1fk)

16 "Interesting to see My blahg's site stats since Aug. http://tinyurl.com/y6juue" www.myblahg.ca is a domain that I own. I thought it'd be amusing to have dippers looking for McClelland (www.myblahg.com) redirected to a conservative blog instead....

Posted by: Richard Evans at December 29, 2006 07:18 PM (Slrc1)

17 Wow, check out the supersleuth on the Harper family picture... he is so adamant that the EVIL conservative is a liar he wants us to believe that the photo has been photoshopped... it's a different photo Robert. Now take your meds and stay off the computer.

Posted by: Sleepy Beagle at January 01, 2007 06:48 PM (FPAoM)

18 What's the matter, Wanke? Got tired talking about Cindy Sheehan's vagina?

Posted by: Angry on a great white toilet at January 08, 2007 09:30 PM (g/xaS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 26, 2006

Iran and Nuclear Weapons: Should we wait them out?

Is Iran a problem that is going to solve itself? One economic analysis suggests exactly that. But the same data can be used to come to a very different conclusion -- that the moment to affect change has come and gone, and that the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government have embarked on the path to developing nuclear weapons knowing full well their time would soon come to an end.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:54 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 573 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Look at what happened to the world by waiting out the Nazis. Iran must be politically and economically isolated from the world to allow the internal decent to take it's course. Only then should the world offer any assistance to help the Iranian people rejoin the 21st century.

Posted by: Glen at December 26, 2006 05:01 PM (29ziu)

2 Wait out Iran, maniacs like Mahmoud will always play things to the tilt no matter what happens. Let him overstrech himself and the clerical regime. And if the predictions about Iran's oil industry is right, the rest will play itself out; as the internal opponents of the regime have realized that peacefully reforming the system is impossible they will use the economic decline as their opening to rise up and overthrow the clerics. The key is to apply the right amount of soft power by helping the opponents of the Clerical regime like what the West did with Solidary in Poland during the 1980's and to close off Iran's ability to get more nuclear technology. After that then we should help the Iranian people move into the 21st century.

Posted by: Jon M at December 27, 2006 04:51 AM (H+iZC)

3 I'd settle for the 19th century.

Posted by: iowavette at December 28, 2006 09:03 AM (0p4xh)

4 Iran's a weird case. An economic collapse may well not be enough. My history teacher, Miss Seyedali, who is Iranian, pointed out to me that when most Iranians go to the mosque, they pray for the death of America. She is not of that group, of course, and there are definitely exceptions, but Iran is a country, for the most part, that is so monstorously xenophobic, that their hatred may well destroy themselves, sort of like the Old South, where their hatred, or at least yearning for dominance, of the black man came very close to reducing them to a third world country. And even if opposition to such policies grows, it may well not come in time. Of course, there is some good news: Thanks to our courageous President, we do have an increasingly operational missile shield, as does Isreal, and as for the idea of terrorists planting a nuke, that might be a little harder then it sounds, because for a nuclear weapon to be effective, it has to be detonated at least 2000 feet above the target. Otherwise the blast is of limited strength and cannot destroy a city. And anyways, I doubt the Iranians have or will have a nuclear weapon that small. In the end, it may be only the Iranians who get hurt; somewhat ridiculous, almost like the end of the movie Caddyshack where the gardener has blown up the entire golf course and the gopher stands up out of his hole, singing, "I'm alright/Don't you ever worry about me." The lines "Do what you want," and "It's your life," become especially relevant.

Posted by: Jeremy Janson at December 28, 2006 11:52 PM (EakuE)

5 Our....president?

Posted by: David Markin at January 04, 2007 11:44 PM (IB4NO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 23, 2006

Wikiasari: Search Engine of the Future, or every Black Hat SEO's dream come true?

A new search engine is about to be launched. Unlike the top-down model of Google and Yahoo, Wikiasari is a community, bottom-up approach, in which the community of users build the engine.

It's an interesting idea. But what is that thundering noise? Every Black Hat SEO running, not walking, to start working Wikiasari over.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1108 words, total size 8 kb.

A Christmas Wish from Prime Minister Stephen Harper

And from the entire production team at Angry in the Great White North, well, me, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah, and best wishes for Kwanzaa.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:14 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He's a good man, and thus a good Prime Minister. I voted for him and will do it again. Merry Christmas all.

Posted by: anonymous at December 23, 2006 02:48 PM (DO1b6)

2 I too am VERY pleased with how PMSH has been doing and hope that we can keep him around for a long time

Merry Christmas......one and all. LIVE LONG & PROSPER

Posted by: GL1800 at December 23, 2006 06:25 PM (QfFhU)

3 Just dropped by to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Peaceful New Year. Oh, and to thank you for your great blog :>}

Posted by: Selma at December 24, 2006 12:55 AM (ifUn9)

4 It is so nice to have a PM that our country can be truly proud of. Thank you for your blog, hope we see a little more of you in the New Year! Merry Christmas!

Posted by: MaryM at December 24, 2006 12:20 PM (bh66S)

5 I'll chime in as well with my admiration and support for Mr. Harper and my thanks to Steve for this excellent site. Merry Christmas to all and a heartfelt Thank You to any of our troops who may be reading this in a place far from home. God bless and Godspeed.

Posted by: up north at December 24, 2006 05:05 PM (Iayy3)

6 Having a PM who can be understood, who is clear concise and to the point is a pleasure. PMSH is truly what this country needs and I will be voting for him again. Thankyou to Steve Janke for this blog site where I go daily to see what is happening in this country. I do not rely on the MSM for my news.

Posted by: Norman at December 25, 2006 10:51 AM (bN6a5)

7 He is a PM who makes us positively proud to be Canadian once again. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy and prosperous New Year .

Posted by: Ron White at December 26, 2006 08:20 AM (y5yPI)

8 Prime Minister Stephen Harper just gets more and more statesman-like every time I see him! He wears the mantle of leadership well. Why? Because he doesn't use it as his own, personal soapbox or to benefit himself and/or his friends, the way Trudeau/Chretien/Martin and the Librano$ used their tenure in office. Canada is truly blessed to have such a principled and SMART leader at such a troubled time in world history. My hope and prayer for the New Year is that PMSH and his CPC government manage to win a majority. They heartily deserve to as, in 11 months in power, they've done more positive things for Canadians than the Liberals did in 13 years. No contest, really--except for the Libs' MSM cheerleaders. So, thanks, Steve, for your role in balancing the MSM spin. You, I trust. Not the CBC.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 26, 2006 11:28 AM (Bkxyb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Shiraz Dossa: A smart move by a poor professor

Shiraz Dossa is under fire for having attended a conference in Iran. The conference hosted many notable Holocaust deniers. Dossa, a professor of political science at St Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, is lashing out against his critics, saying his academic freedom is under attack.

Interestingly, Dossa had many critics before going to his conference. I wonder if his trip was calculated, at least in part, to immunize himself against further criticism.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:25 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1288 words, total size 8 kb.

Rick Mercer: Giving up Christmas at home for the troops

I know from comments left on this blog that a lot of my readers are not big fans of Canadian comedian Rick Mercer. I don't count myself in that group. I realize Rick and I don't agree on many political issues, but then actions speak louder than words.

How many of Rick's friends or critics would give up a Christmas to spend in the heat of danger of Afghanistan?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Merry Christmas to Rick, our troops and to you to Steve.

Posted by: at December 23, 2006 02:09 PM (bvmoJ)

2 Not a Rick Mercer fan... However I do appreciate his efforts to be with our troops, he deserves kudos for this action.

Posted by: Paul Hansen at December 23, 2006 02:40 PM (nlevv)

3 Have always enjoyed Rick's Rants, regardless of the political slant, and have to give him kudos for showing his support for our soldiers efforts overseas. This is the type of coverage average Canadians need to hear about the efforts in Afganistan to explain the sacrifices the MSM prefers to focus on. Good for Rick Mercer to show the coins flip side. Merry Christmas to everyone!

Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at December 23, 2006 03:38 PM (Joh8X)

4 I'm not slow to criticize Mr. Mercer when it's due. But I'm happy to praise his efforts to raise the morale of the troops in Afghanistan, and am glad to see him emphasizing many facts which the NDP would deny: that Canada's many roles in the region are contributing to the development and growth of modern Afghan society.

Posted by: Paul O at December 23, 2006 07:57 PM (9DVsr)

5 In my opinion Mr Mercer has it backwards. I hope he relises that our troops are over there ready to make the ultimate sacrifice so folks all across Canada can have the freedom to celabrate Christmas or what ever they wish to celebrate.

Posted by: Shawn at December 23, 2006 10:25 PM (WM45z)

6 I am not a fan. I really don't consider him that political. He has a political riff that is rather middle of the road. He is a hater. Americans, Albertans to name a few.

Posted by: Jim Wylie at December 24, 2006 09:42 AM (W23hT)

7 1) Mercer is not funny 2) Mercer is a liberal political hack 3) Mercer has an ego as larger than his CBC budget 4) This is another Mercer grand standing stunt like when he showed up at the CPC convention and mocked anyone with a cowboy hat. He recently attended a liberal leadership convention (as a voting delegate?) so we know he belongs to a party and ideology which condemns the armed forces and their involvement in any real warfare. His appearance is totally inappropriate and a sneering contemptuous ideological shot at the troops involved in this action. Had I been serving at this time in Afghanistan and a gaggle of stilted CBC liberals showed up to darken my Christams, I'd take it as an insult.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at December 26, 2006 09:54 AM (e1kRH)

8 While I may commmend Rick Mercer entertaining the troops, I have the same reservations as fellow-commenter WL Mackenzie Redux. Can't the Canadian forces find a few top-notch entertainers in Canada who actually support Canada's role in the ME, rather than a CBC retainer? Yikes! If this is the best we can do, that has to say a whole lot about our entertainment industry, doesn't it? Maybe Canada has no entertainers on the right side of the political spectrum--and if that's the case, why would that be? Would it be that they can't get air time, or Ontario Council for the Arts/Canada Council support because they're not left-leaning? O Canada. The True North Strong and Free. BTW, I sent a Christams parcel to a soldier I have "adopted" in Kandahar and a couple of Christmas e-cards to him. I know he'll be spending a very different Christmas than my family and me (there are still 10 and a half days left of Christmas, seeing as it is a season of 12 days)... I am so grateful for our troops and what they are doing in Iraq, and am also grateful for a PM who understands how high the stakes are if we were to pull out. God bless our troops and Prime Minister Stephen Harper!

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 26, 2006 11:40 AM (Bkxyb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 22, 2006

My towel has CSS printed on it, and I'm throwing it in

My attempts to tame CSS have come to naught.

Faster than the French decided in June 1940 that sauerkraut really does go well with just about any meal, I have decided to give up the fight to make a CSS-only rounded button.

Well, it's not that bad, but for an old Ada hack, the state of CSS is very distressing.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:42 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 655 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I trust you used the CSS validation service from w3c.org? I'm sick to death of IE's haphazard interpretation of XHMTL and CSS. I don't even try to support that flaky POS. you would think that given the opportunity to release a brand new version they would have at least tried to make it standards compliant. Iframe is deprecated, but that's the only clean way to import an external document into a page for IE, completely disregarding the way the object tag is supposed to work. On saskblogs aggregator, for the news import, I just tell IE users to download mozilla. Cheers, lance

Posted by: at December 22, 2006 12:21 PM (WuiN/)

2 I must say I really like the format you have now. Especially the colours, which are various shades of blue on my screen -very easy on the eyes. I took an immediate dislike to your last setup, but as I've stated before, I'm here for the excellent content and commentary, so I figured it was worth it if it meant that more people had better access to the site. You do whatever you have to do. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: up north at December 22, 2006 03:06 PM (UDlrd)

3 ADA was my favorite too.

Posted by: murray at December 23, 2006 06:45 AM (Rmf5L)

4 You liked the blue? Really? I thought people would hate it. How many people liked the blue?

Posted by: Steve Janke at December 23, 2006 09:58 AM (9N1fk)

5 Blue is a soothing colour. That's a good thing given the percentage of the articles here that are meant to get us riled up (imagine what our posts'd be like if your site was done in shades of red and violent oranges!). Personally I did find it much easier on the eyes, although this grey isn't bad either. And blue after all IS the colour of the CPC. I'd vote for shades of blue -perhaps with a red border on Fridays (just kidding -I imagine that's a lot of extra work)- but I'm more of a lurker than a poster so I will defer to the will of the majority.

Posted by: up north at December 23, 2006 11:45 AM (wDHTg)

6 I'm getting a grey background, which is OK but my eyes are fried from staring at monitors since 1978, so I actually like a white background. I liked the cream background you had when you first started the redesign too. I guess I missed the blue, I've been busy for a few days. Esthetically, I like this layout the best so far. As Up North said, I'm here for the content, not eye candy, but a good layout certainly helps.

Posted by: Selma at December 24, 2006 12:52 AM (ifUn9)

7 Steve, of course MickeySoft is the odd man out: They designed it that way, damn their black souls. That's why any Web site written to look good in IE looks horrible in anything else. I promise that Mozilla and Netscape didn't add a "Microsoft compatibility" option because they wanted the extra work.

Posted by: SDN at December 25, 2006 11:35 AM (wIor+)

8 I gave up trying to accommodate IE in any web page. If you're running a windows platform on broadband it only takes about 2 minutes to download and install Firefox, and it'll display pretty much all it gets. If the tweek is easy for IE I'll do it, otherwise IE users can fumble around to their heart's content. Even FF's updates go smooth, something Microslop never figured out (Apparently the new Vista is as flea-ridden as any other MSOS). While IE may still drive the user percentage, those users are of little intellectual interest to me in any case, otherwise, the'd be using Firefox....

Posted by: Skip at December 28, 2006 01:29 PM (EPff6)

9 ...actually green is known soothing colour...as in jade green, not puke/lime green. I'm using Firefox and can't see a thing...basically the whole site is a dull grey (old 404 error code) colour. Buttons on the left are light grey on grey. Get back that whiteish background please. If you want you can use the crushed paper background I use on my site.

Posted by: tomax7 at December 31, 2006 05:09 PM (jHhd0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 20, 2006

Web Site Design: Serving all the customers is a good idea

If you have been to Angry in the Great White North in the recent past, you'll have no doubt noticed that the site has undergone yet another change. It was prompted by my commitment to make sure the site is as accessible as practical to as many web surfers as possible. In this case, the problem was with the 3-in-5 people who come to this website who have monitors set to lower resolutions.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:27 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

1 My monitor is set at 1024x768. If I have my Favorites list displayed, then the tabs cover part of the title graphic, and the scroll bar on the right disappears.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at December 20, 2006 02:13 PM (pPVQ0)

2 I'm at 1280x800 using Firefox, and the Tab menu on the left is totally squished together and unreadable.

Posted by: bob at December 20, 2006 03:08 PM (uvT7t)

3 Also, the content in the top header bar is truncated on the left side. There is, however, a huge swath of white space between the right edge of your post and the advertising.

Posted by: bob at December 20, 2006 03:11 PM (uvT7t)

4 I am running at 1680x1050 and all looks good in IE7. The tabs on the left do not seem to render properly on either Firefox or Opera - all the text is compressed together. Anyway, I usually read from a big screen, but I like to use my notebook too - good thing you are paying attention to the common resolutions.

Posted by: Concerned Torontonian at December 20, 2006 03:27 PM (8hDo1)

5 I use Firefox as well and can confirm the same problems as bob. I also noticed that in IE 6 your "angry" graphic header acts somewhat irratic - sometimes remains fixed in place as the header, sometimes not. In Firefox it doesn't stay fixed at all (which is better in my opinion). The extra space is much appreciated though, even though my computers all have decent resolutions (1280x1024 or larger) I almost never surf with a maximized browser. When it comes down to it though, I prefer the frameless experience all the way. I don't mind going back to the top for navigation. Thanks for the continued work!

Posted by: Denis at December 20, 2006 04:55 PM (SqX7o)

6 IE6 at 1280x1024 has the same flaky problem with the header graphic overwritting the google toolbar and the top of the text in the blog. Thunderbirds RSS reader scrolls OK but the tabs are all squished up as reported by the Firefox users. Otherwise - a much better design - cleaner and more text on the page.

Posted by: DHuff at December 20, 2006 05:17 PM (DY5wZ)

7 Damn! Looks like I've got some work to do this weekend.

Posted by: Steve Janke at December 20, 2006 06:04 PM (27ap9)

8 Bravo, Steve! I don't feel like I'm wearing a visor anymore, one that I kept feeling like I had to push up on my head to get more light. There's lots of "head space" now for comments. Thanks for your blog, thanks for always being open to suggestions, and thanks, even further, for responding so whole-heartedly to your viewers'/readers' constructive criticism. I have absolutely no idea what my "monitor resolutions" are; I just know that I felt cramped when reading your posts and responding to them. 'Looking forward to more posts from Angry in the Great White North once you aclimatize to your new job. BTW, Blessings of the Season, Steve, to you and your family!

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 20, 2006 06:05 PM (C5I9S)

9 Your changes work for me, Steve! 'Hope you can work out others' problems and leave me with the improvements I'm enjoying. All of the tabs on the left are perfect, totally readable, and your heading is great, too. BTW, I never have trouble posting now, whereas until you made your changes, it was a crap shoot whether or not my comment would be "accepted." I usually got the message that "This page cannot be displayed," or something to that effect. From where I sit, you get an A+.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 20, 2006 06:09 PM (C5I9S)

10 'Only thing is: all of the ads are BELOW the comments rather than beside them.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 20, 2006 06:15 PM (C5I9S)

11 Using IE6 at 800X600 the space and environment links are cut off and the ads appear after the comments. At 1024X768 everything seems fine.

Posted by: Pat at December 20, 2006 07:26 PM (j4tnX)

12 I'm at 1280x1024 and your heading is truncated to the left side and your LH vertical tabs are overlapping and unreadable. Firefox 2.0.

Posted by: john at December 20, 2006 07:49 PM (1UCCk)

13 Something is wrong with your tabs under Kubuntu 6.10 Firefox 2.0 - they all overlap and are ugly. Send me an e-mail if you want a screen - shot.

Posted by: Mike F at December 20, 2006 08:37 PM (dxMpW)

14 Works for me but your text font drives me nuts--word kerning is non-existent. Not complaining, really, your plate overflows with meat and potatoes.

Posted by: Colin at December 20, 2006 09:09 PM (ISThE)

15 It looks OK with Opera 9.1 at 1024x768 except that the test in the tabs on the left and their text don't line up. The ads on the right are below the message at 800x600, which is my normal resolution for my old eyes. The validator in Opera reported 286 errors on your page. This high a count is often due to a mistake like a missing declaration near the beginning that cascades. Load your page with Opera and hit Ctrl-Alt-V to run the validator.

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2006 11:15 PM (yevwd)

16 Absolutely no offense indended; but if you are going to start blogging on website and blog "design strategies", etc., you should really ensure that you test any new features on all of the major browsers before you roll them out. It is one thing for us hacks to mess around with our design and screw it up -- but when your job is "blog master" . . . Firefox is disproportionately popular among blog-readers, and at the moment your site is all but unusable for them given that I can't read any of the tabs. Again, no offense intended -- I love the site and just want to be able to read it again.

Posted by: altacan at December 21, 2006 07:25 AM (uvT7t)

17 It looks like the compression problem with the tabs on the left has been fixed.

Posted by: Concerned Torontonian at December 21, 2006 11:43 AM (8hDo1)

18 Thanks for the changes. I thought it was just me as I'm running on a mini-laptop with a tiny screen. It will be great to get to read you while walking on my treadmill again. (I have to increase font size when I'm on the treadmill and with the old layout I'd only get a paragraph of text at time!)

Posted by: CanadianKate at December 21, 2006 02:48 PM (lysyY)

19 Using Firefox 1.5.0.7 on openSuse. Also have MSIE 6.01SP1 under Wine on the desktop. Also MSIE 6.01SP1 available in a W2K VMware guest on this Linux machine. All display you site just fine. I usually only keep the left-right window size about 85% of the screen width, to allow left-most icons on screen to be accessed, and your site displays fully in that set-up too. Narrowing window (resizing) works to the logical design point, too. All at 1024 x 768. Of course, the site fonts look gorgeous in Firefox on native Linux, but crappy fonts in MSIE.

Posted by: Eik Sorenson at December 23, 2006 04:28 PM (TfPle)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 19, 2006

Jefferts Schori: Episcopal Church not splintering

On one level, you would think that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is being willfully blind, stating that the church is not splitting apart over the issue of gay ordinations.

Meanwhile, several parishes in Virgina have done exactly that -- split from the Episcopal Church altogether.

But in a strange way, Jefferts Schori is right. The Episcopal Church is not splintering because gays are being ordained. It is splitting, but because of a disagreement over the fundamental nature of Christianity.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:25 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 932 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Agreed. The issue is how do you answer: What are the holy Scriptures? As some men of God once answered (in part): "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." Westminster Confession Of Faith Some churches simply ignore this plain teaching. Unfortunately this has been happening since the days of the Apostles as seen in many of the New Testament letters.

Posted by: Denis at December 19, 2006 02:50 PM (SqX7o)

2 Well said sir. I agree completely.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at December 19, 2006 02:59 PM (GqO0P)

3 What a load of pop psychology. Your use of the term "reason" throughout this post betrays a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of the history of both philosophy and religious studies. As only the tip of the iceberg, it is absurd to state that a belief system based on reason denies that an absolute truth exists. It is precisely the opposite!

Posted by: bob at December 19, 2006 03:39 PM (uvT7t)

4 sorry bob Steve's actaully got it right... he very clearly outlined the fundamental weakness of all religion. in the absense of absolute truth in the form of ongoing and definitive revelation from God... the existing canon of revelation, whether it be the Torah, Koran, Bible, Communist Manifesto, Nature Magazine, or whatever publication you decide to put your faith in, will always be subject to human interpretation. there may be an absolute truth out there, (I personally think there is) but humans are obviously incapable of understanding it, and therefore substitute understanding with interpretation. The results of those interpretations being directly responsible for most of the wars, violence, opression and general stupidity over the last 7000 years or so.

Posted by: Sierra at December 19, 2006 05:12 PM (CHE53)

5 Sorry I meant to say... The results of those interpretations, coupled with greed, ambition, and the lust for power being directly responsible for most of the wars, violence, opression and general stupidity over the last 7000 years or so

Posted by: Sierra at December 19, 2006 05:15 PM (CHE53)

6 Sorry Sierra, but Steve doesn't have it right. A belief in reason does not in any way shape or form require a belief that there is no absolute truth. Unless by "truth" you mean something like "moral truth". Most of the time when Steve uses the term "reason", which has a very specific meaning in both philosophy and theology, he seems to mean something along the lines of "opinion" or "interpretation". Whatever it is, it sure isn't reason, as understood by most religious scholars. Second, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the existing cannon of revelation is always subject to human interpretation. And as such, this is not an argument about Faith vs. Reason, as Steve argues. It is an argument about whose interpretation of revelation is "better" or "more true". Steve implies that it is only those dastardly liberal episcopalians who are interpreting revelation, while "conservative" episcopalians are simply accepting on Faith the revelation as given -- as if there were no interpreation required.

Posted by: bob at December 19, 2006 06:56 PM (uvT7t)

7 As Kant observed, just because you can say there is a penny in your pocket does not mean one exists. Just because you can say "absolute truth" does not mean that the concept is coherent. It is meaningful to assert the existence of absolute truths within a particular closed system of logical convention, such as 2 + 2 = 4 in our integer system, base 5 or greater. The truth claim is about a feature of the system of representation. However, any claims about our systems of representation in relation to the real world are contingent. As chaos theory amply demonstrates, anything of interest in the world is constituted by causalities too complex for any system of human representation to model completely and consistently. A life of "Reason" necessarily involves faith, as Holmes indicated in "A Soldier's Faith" and other speeches, and as Nietzsche set out in book five of Joyous Science. The incompleteness of reason is no cause for despair. A plant cannot grow "toward" the sun, because that would be too operationally complex for a plant, it grows "away" from darkness, which is tractable to implement at the cellular level without top-down control. So too human systems of knowledge. It begs the question to assume computationally tractable ideals. Rather, scientific/empirical knowledge grows away from error, through continual and unending creative transformation of the systems of modeling and their relationship to experience. This does not imply relativism. Error and failure are certainty objective. A child does not have a preordained ideal "walk" program in the brain. There are many ways to walk, as gait and the required neuro-muscular sequencings will vary with bone length ratios (which change over time), etc. But "fall down" is pretty objective. Walking "truths" that can't stand up to scrutiny (so to speak) cannot simply be asserted as subjective truths. Thus the absence of any meaningful notion of an "ideal" walking program or "absolute walking model" is hardly an objection the the activity of learning to walk. Moreover, positing the existence of an absolute walking program probably interferes with learning to walk more than it could help. I think the real issue here is the evolved wisdom of tradition versus social experimentation. As Holmes observed, social experimentation is a fine sport, so long as one appreciates it takes a century to replace a tree.

Posted by: murray at December 20, 2006 10:12 AM (dw9A3)

8 "But some of the decisions by the Episcopal Church are clearly NOT permitted through scriptural revelation. Doing the kind of investigation I descibe would quickly show that." It is offensive for you to imply that Church leaders (and even simple religious folks) in these Congregations have not, and are not, going through the same sort of struggles with their faith that you went through with yours. Do you honestly believe that they are just whimsically making these decisions? Take a look around -- it is causing great strife and great pain -- and it is not being done lightly. If you look through the Archives of the Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, United, etc., churches, you will find extensive theological, philosophical, and moral discussions on just these issues. The struggles are all too evident. Just as there were on issues of slavery, treatment of women, and a whole slew of other "contemporary" problems. Many faiths do not view the scriptures, themselves, as the word of God, but instead as recorded observations of the Life of Christ by exceptional, but ultimately human, teachers. As such, for many, many, Christians, the scriptures are seen as guides to moral practice and not as proscriptions. You may disagree with the way others view the scriptures; but just as I am sure that you feel that only God is capable of ultimately judging the terms of your interpretation of divorce, why don't you let God judge the terms of others interpretations as well.

Posted by: bob at December 21, 2006 05:38 PM (uvT7t)

9 'Like the blue! I can't enter into the theological discussion here, as I am no theologian. But to put it very simply, Jefferts Schori is living in a parallel universe to reality when she asserts that "the Episcopal Church is not splintering." It's been splintering for a long, long time. Any Christian Church that begins to pick and choose which parts of Scripture it will accept and which passages "no longer apply to an evolving humanity" has ceased to become a Christian Church. It's simply the chattering class at prayer, who truly feel that they are superior to everyone else, especially "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" Christians. I should know. I have more than a passing acquaintance with such folk in the Anglican hierarchy, and I voted with my feet a year and a half ago. Whatever the failings of the Roman Catholic Church, at least its Magisterium holds to the eternal truths of our Christian faith, passed down from generation to generation. John Paul the Great was a magnificent example of a true and courageous teacher and spiritual leader, which is, actually, the "job description" of a bishop of the Church (who would know when listening to what Jefferts Schori and Andrew Hutchison [the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada] have to say?)

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 22, 2006 09:15 AM (8+eLi)

10 The bigger issue with the mainstream protestant churches is the throwing out of centuries of tradition for faddish theories. Much like socialism, there are people who believe that they can ignore the example of history can craft society in their own vision. And they wonder why theses churches are becoming more empty with each ridiculous edict being passed.

Posted by: Mitch at December 22, 2006 04:38 PM (zwzg4)

11 Steve does have it right. Those in the North American Anglican church are making choices regarding this statement. "The Bible and the plain interpretation thereof informs all our choices." 1. If no, a) you leave the church and only come back for family occasions. b) you stay and become a force for liberalization. 2. If yes, a) you leave and go to another church. b) you stay you stay and become a force for conservatism. My wife, as a pastor, chose 2a. The church is splitting 4 ways because the 1b and 2b people can't stay together much longer. Ordaining gay bishops is not the issue, it is the revelation of the issue. Is incompatable with The Bible and the plain interpretation thereof. You can't do that and maintain the long standing fiction that your church believes in the Bible in any meaningful way. The ordaination of gay bishops is part of a theological package that denies just about everything in the Apostles' Creed. If the leaders can deny that, they can easily deny that their church is splitting apart.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at December 22, 2006 11:15 PM (Zlb1H)

12 wholesale NFL jerseys,nfl jerseys for china,cheap nfl jerseys

Posted by: Texans jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 08:44 AM (eOBZU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 15, 2006

Eva Ho: Her story reaches the National Post

The story of Eva Ho, the Toronto teen who disappeared in August, has reached the attention of National Post. Canada's premier daily has run a story on the front page, in part because of the focus this blogger has applied to the case.

I hope this helps Eva and her family.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:03 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 974 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Again, you continue with this ridiculous assertation that this is a "low priority for police, despite the potential connections to the murder of Philip Sit." Two Toronto and One York region Police divisions are involved in the investigation. How many would you like involved? Should we bring in the RCMP? CSIS? Especially given that there is, so far, absolutely no evidence liking the two cases. It is all well and good for people like you to point out suspicious connections; but as the Detective says in the story; police need a little bit more to go on before they can start calling press conferences nevermind pulling resources off of cases that do have evidence. It sounds to me like the Police are being quite active considering the facts of the case.

Posted by: bob at December 15, 2006 10:38 AM (uvT7t)

2 Wow, the poor mother. She hasn't slept since August 14. No wonder she speaks through an interpreter. It's amazing that she can speak at all.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2006 01:21 PM (ePtoF)

3 At the end of a training session Penis enlargement exercises are, for the most part, just like any other kind of workout. They stretch and stress the tissues in order to make them expand and add inches to the length and girth of the penis. The exercises designed to bring the pubococcygeus muscle into shape are actually pushing this muscle beyond its regular tone. Penis enlargement reviews

Posted by: Birom at January 03, 2007 02:30 PM (0qBTm)

4 This is why nobody should be surprised that the end of the workout session leaves a strange sensation in the penis, the very same sensation experienced by people working out at the gym. The tissues tingle as the blood flows up and down the penis faster than normal, especially since a small part of the cells making up these tissues have broken down and are in the process of rebuilding. The skin might be a little bruised from the grip, while the increase blood flow makes the penis sensitive to the slightest touch. All these sensations are perfectly normal given the recent workout. Penis enlargement reviews

Posted by: Nikitka at January 03, 2007 04:29 PM (0qBTm)

5 Another good way of dealing with PeyronieÂ’s disease is to use a traction device to straighten the penis. Despite the controversy surrounding such novel approaches as traction devices, several clinical studies have already been conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of this technique. Due to the nature of PeyronieÂ’s disease, any procedure that is based on sound scientific facts and promises to work is quickly put to the test in the hope that it might prove to be the long-sought cure. And traction devices seem to be a genuine alternative for men suffering from the disease. Penis enlargement device

Posted by: Jambo at January 03, 2007 06:29 PM (0qBTm)

6 Judging by the rapid growth of the penis enlargement market, a lot of men are not happy with their current size. IÂ’m not sure whether the problems they face in their sex lives come from penis size, low confidence or some other cause, but itÂ’s clear that a bigger penis is one of the ways to achieve success in bed. A bigger penis does matter when asking a lady out and once youÂ’ve got her in bed any other problems should be forgotten for the moment. Penis enlargement reviews

Posted by: Pasputin at January 04, 2007 02:33 AM (0qBTm)

7 Good design! My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Michelle at January 16, 2007 12:43 PM (Ug9U2)

8 lesbian threesome teen threesome gay threesome mature threesome mfm threesome

Posted by: blidd at January 25, 2007 12:13 AM (LvzdE)

9 We haven't given up. The investigation continues if you have information about Eve and her friends please give us a call. 1-800-222-TIPS or send a message thru www.222tips.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op9aJ6FN3TI

Posted by: Toronto Police at January 31, 2007 07:38 PM (cdhjh)

10 There is nothing we can do right now but wait for the good news and hopefully we see eve again i know alot miss her and the police are trying there best and they aren't pointing fingers yet they just need to consider every possibility till then we have to keep an eye out everyone who cares about her worries and still keeps an eye out despite what anyone else says.

Posted by: Thomas Nicholson at February 01, 2007 10:56 AM (tlKsh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 13, 2006

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: MADD predictably hits the funding wall

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is in the news, as a result of a Toronto Star investigation that revealed that something like 81 cents of every dollar donated to this charitable organization goes to fund telemarketers and door-to-door fund raising campaigns. I can't say as I'm surprised. I first wrote in November of 2004 that MADD had reached the asymptotic end point of its effectiveness. It was inevitable that the shift would occur from fighting drunk driving to fund raising.

That piece is as relevant today as it was when I wrote it two years ago.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:00 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1221 words, total size 8 kb.

1 If you want to see a classic example of radicalization just look to animal rights. SPCAs in Ontario and BC continue to work towards improved animal cruelty laws, but these are mainstream groups that realize there are limits to what can be done given economic and societal reality. Both groups are now being seriously attacked by more radical "rescue" groups run, for the most part, by women who think stealing animals and sabotage are legitimate methods of advancing their cause. It's getting ugly out there if you dare cross the nutbars.

Posted by: The Rat at December 13, 2006 12:41 PM (N21pf)

2 It is certainly good that deaths are down, but look at the flip side. We now must submit to road blocks which are another indication of loss of liberty. Consider that if you want a drink and do not desire to drive afterward, you can not get reliable pulblic transportation in most American cities. The whole situation is as rediculous as any other effort by our government which is bent on removing any evidence of freedom in this country.

Posted by: David Caskey at December 13, 2006 12:58 PM (xxoPt)

3 I used to contribute to this charity up until a couple of years ago. It was apparent at that time that they were just getting 'a bit over the top' in some of their proposals. Am doubly glad now that I stopped contributing.

Posted by: e. hamilton at December 13, 2006 02:46 PM (SqX7o)

4 Rat - Yes. There is a war being waged against domestic animal husbandry, including pet ownership. The AR groups have lots of money, paid lobbyists at all government levels and large memberships, most of whom don't know the real agenda. Good posts, both of them

It's true, a single issue group has nowhere to go once success has been achieved and there will always be a small percentage of recalcitrants no matter how effective the campaign may be. To me, that's the major problem with socialism, ie, success leads to unemployment for the socialists.

Posted by: Selma at December 14, 2006 07:35 PM (ifUn9)

5 Another example is the loud wailing from SOW when the government decided to give the funds directly to those for whom they're intended by cutting back some of the funding to offices of the social workers. It's a whole social industry, eating up huge chunks of the funds. The cries are also coming from the Dippers and the Libranos to score political points, nothing more. MADD is off the rails for the same reason. It's regrettable when the cause becomes secondary to the bureaucracy.

Posted by: Liz J at December 14, 2006 08:57 PM (ioamy)

6 So yousaid so two years ago? Well your piece was probably just as stupid then as it is now, although now I see you are ready to attack them today for what they have not even done yet but (how horrible) may do....in future ads. They have done fabulous work and if the stats are down, they are to be part of the credit for that achievement. Why not go back to you mud pies.

Posted by: garhane at December 15, 2006 06:38 PM (j8KE0)

7 Every public organization eventually gets taken over by the fakers and the takers and becomes another blood sucking lefty pressure group.

Posted by: BlacquesJacquesShellacques at December 15, 2006 07:31 PM (h2Jr+)

8 MADD has been the greatest organizational abuser of civil liberties in the past decade....essentially justifying police state interverntions where no just cause exists....police road blocks, police detention without cause or chrge, roadside fishing expeditions, promoting criminal punishments that far exceed the offence. I could go on with the many uncivil solutions they support as they grind their single issue axe on the public's liberty and legal rights....so I'm not surprised their funding and revenue systems arenot any more civil or ethical than their political solutions.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at December 17, 2006 10:22 AM (e1kRH)

9 Steve's commentary on MADD and the underlying mechanics of all related interactions in our society is profound and telling for so much of what is going wrong around us. Every second day it seems there is a new initiative or cause that needs our attention, our support, or our money. Somewhere there is a victim that needs a law changed, funding, support programs, whatever. While I can rarely argue that an avoidable harm is not potentially coming to someone, somewhere, it is the larger picture and the law of diminishing returns or as Steve put it "an asymptotic process" that the Social Leftist ideologues really need to understand. They need to understand it before they completely tank our society in pursuit of stopping any one person from not only being a real victim but even just a pseudo victim. (For some good reading on victim hood go read Dr. Sanity's guide to victim hood @ http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/12/dr-sanitys-practical-guide-to.html) The Nanny Stators think that any and all negative consequences and not just tragedies can and should be averted. Human behaviour, or at its core stupidity, is one of those things that we produce in our complexity that cannot just be banished or legislated away. We are so focused in our efforts to prevent the next victim from having to deal with even just negativity that we have completely lost sight of the big picture. Steve, what you have written as the underlying premise in the demise of MADD is telling as to what we are pursuing as a society: a bloated, expensive, and inefficient regulatory path to accommodate the lowest common denominator in our society: The dumb victim or those that pursue victim hood as pseudo victims. All this effort is taking away so many resources from not just from true victims of our society's ills, but our progress as a whole to ironically; the Great Society Socialist Liberals strive for. Oh hang on, maybe they like all this Orwellian stuff!

Posted by: joseph williams at December 18, 2006 05:49 PM (vtQ3P)

10 MADD has done what many organizations who find themselves successful that are not inherently "conservative" - they become more left-wing. Robert Conquest's axiom is applicable as MADD has become a cypto-prohibitionist movement with things like advocating zero blood alcohol, banning of alcohol on commuter trains and sporting events, to name a few.

Posted by: Mitch at December 22, 2006 04:42 PM (zwzg4)

11 Why can't the enraged creeps start to hound the BOOZE MANUFACTURERS who make STUPID MANS' POISON, just for a change? ...in the meantime, I'll stick with POT...a lot safer, proven not to rot the mind and liver...

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at February 08, 2007 03:41 PM (GN3Xe)

12 OK YOU GUYS LOOK... AND I HOPE THIS GETS OUT... I AM A TELE FUNDRAISER FOR MADD CANADA. I HAVE BEEN FOR MANY YEARS. I TALK ON PHONES FOR 11 HOURS A DAY TO TRY MY BEST TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEATHS IN CANADA. MOST RECENTLY IT'S BEEN A REAL CHALLENGE, BECAUSE ALL OUR DONORS THAT HAVE HELPED IN THE PAST ARE CALLING US A FRAUD.. OK SEND THIS WHERE EVER IT MAY GO... BUT IN ORDER FOR A CHARITY TO RUN LEGALLY IN CANADA.. ADMINISTRATION COSTS MUST BE BELOW 20%.. OUR ADMINISTRATION COSTS ARE 16.4 % MAINLY GOING TO SENDING OUT PLEDGE SHEETS.... US FUND RAISERS ARE PAID BY MADD CANADA IN A FLAT RATE PER YEAR.. WHETER WE RAISE $1,000,000 OR $10,000,000 WE STILL RECEIVE THE SAME FLAT RATE EVERY YEAR.. NOW THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED THE ARTICLE ARE JUST DISGRUNTLED WORKERS OF MADD WHO DECIDED TO SEEK REVENGE FROM THEIR TERMINATION. WE MUST KEEP MADD ALIVE!!! I MYSELF HAVE HAD FRIENDS KILLED BY DRUNK DRIVERS I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS CHARITY IS... DON'T BELIEVE A RUMOUR UNTIL YOU KNOW THE FACTS... JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ARTICLE DOES IT MEAN IT IS TRUE??? IF THERE WAS A PICTURE OF A FAMILY MEMBER IN THE PAPER AND UNDERNEATH THE CAPTION SAID THAT SHE/HE WAS A TERRIBLE PERSON... ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THAT AND ACCEPT IT OR FIGHT WHAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN... I'M SURE YOU WILL FIGHT TO HELP THAT PERSON KNOWING THAT IS NOT TRUE... SO HELP FIGHT TO KEEP MADD CANADA... OUR SUPPORTERS ARE LIKE FAMILY, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE FOR EACH OTHER AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE NO MATTER WHAT THE TORONTO STAR SAYS

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2007 02:23 AM (NIzhM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 11, 2006

Bob Rae: Did anti-Semitic remarks come from long-time Liberal supporter, Palestinian activist, and former immigration official Khaled Mouammar?

I have to say that I find the issue of the anti-Semitic remarks being made during the Liberal leadership convention -- aimed at Bob Rae, or more accurately, aimed at his wife, who is Jewish -- fascinating. Not just because of the creepy view into Liberal Party groupthink -- this is about power, and nothing is off limits when it comes to achieving power -- but also because the main player in this, Khaled Mouammar, has a long history with the Liberal Party.

I know, because I wrote a long piece about the Mouammar clan in relation to an entirely unrelated story. At the time, I thought the links to the Liberal Party were disturbing, as both Mr and Mrs Mouammar were appointed to positions of responsibility with the Immigration and Refugee Board, even as they and especially their children enjoyed the notoriety that comes from in-your-face activisim, including events like the infamous Netanyahu riot at Concordia University in 2002 and long-term positions such as dismantling the entire immigration system in Canada.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:20 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 6 kb.

1 While most of the stuff on this blog is none of my business being a sole passport holder of the south of the 48th parallel leviathan, I'm continually astonished by the MSM willingness, there and here, to ignore bigoted and hypocritical invective when uttered by liberals. In this case there's a backstory that fills books and still there's silence. When is a story not a story? My Company provides a service to other companies across North America. While I'm not particularly fond of some of them, I practice due diligence with all because that fulfills customer expectations, and that's what I'm paid to do. There's no picking and choosing based on my personal opinions and preferences. Would that the media would even do that little.

Posted by: iowavette at December 11, 2006 06:12 PM (0p4xh)

2 Rae and his wife become conservatives? Politicians make for for strange bedfellows(bedshes?)

Posted by: Fergy at December 11, 2006 07:21 PM (yrJzt)

3 This is further proof of the cesspool the Liberal Party has become. It is also proof they will get back to power with the hatchet wielders from their base of supporters in Toronto and environs, Ontario as a whole and Quebec with a Native son running for top job. Their Toronto and 905 supporters are not interested in the common good of Canadian people, it's ll about special interests, we all know what those are. Canada is lost if this is what transpires.

Posted by: Liz J at December 11, 2006 07:44 PM (BNmmd)

4 Fergy, remember back a few months ago when other prominent Jewish Canadians parted ways with the Liberal Party: Heather Reisman, Gerry Schwartz and Ariella Cotler? This anti-semetic ideology has been festering in the LPC for a while. This flyer is just the latest eruption. Kudos to Dion for calling it out but he is unlikely to stop the rot. From where did his delegates come? They were not supporting Rae(his wife)or Ignatieff (Iraq). So he owes them, principles or citizenship notwithstanding. Would it be a shock if Arlene followed her friend Ariella?

Posted by: john at December 11, 2006 07:51 PM (3usbu)

5 I used to confuse AMBITION with INTELLIGENCE. That's what these people are ALL about.

Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at December 12, 2006 09:14 AM (Y1ykG)

6 Finally a name to track. So Dion has made a statement. When is there going to be action from Liberals on this? When will Liberal party memebers who have spoken out against anti semitism in the past make a statement. Or is it because they would rather deal with it in private as it doesnt suit their internal party ends anymore? I think many Liberals are appalled by this, but their public silence is odd and disappointing.

Posted by: Stephen at December 12, 2006 10:48 AM (wtbPM)

7 This makes absolutely sick!

Posted by: at December 12, 2006 01:57 PM (KqGpk)

8 This makes meabsolutely sick!

Posted by: at December 12, 2006 01:57 PM (KqGpk)

9 We can all be judged by the company we keep. The very idea they would surmise this sort of thing would fly among Liberals is telling. It's also telling that we have heard so little from the MSM on it. What the hell, they had something for everyone at their love-in/convention. Starting with handouts like Liberal logo cover-your-front-bare-your-butt thongs to condoms, one a come-on the other play safe! Save us from any more Liberals, please.

Posted by: Liz J at December 12, 2006 07:00 PM (PvHAK)

10 On the contrary, along with 'we are all Hezbollah' Coderre and 'Israel is a war criminal' Iggy, this fits well with French citizen Dion's Vichy Liberals.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 17, 2006 02:40 PM (xRZmv)

11 As a Chinese immigrant who grew up in Canada, all I can say is that finding out about this kind of stuff makes me sick! Dirt bags like the Mouammar family gives all good honest, hard working immigrants like me a bad rap. If this was Hong Kong, scum like them would be thrown into Hong Kong harbour as food for the Sharks. To hell with what the MSM or the chattering classes say, we are at war with Islamofascism and it is quite obvious that these people are not on the side of Canada and the values of freedom and liberty we as Canadians that give purpose and meaning to our lives. I say lets just give them what they deserve; the other ethnic minorities like the Chinese, Indians, Sikhs, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, blacks and etc have no problem with this so go right on ahead.

Posted by: Jon M at December 27, 2006 04:32 AM (H+iZC)

12 You ought to be careful about your fact-checking. Considering that you no longer write anonymously, you could be open to legal action. For example, I never "led the riot" at Concordia, I participated in a sit-in and was scapegoated by the university who was under pressure to offer the media "bad guys" for their own poor judgement. I was never charged criminally and I never did anything that contravened the law. Others who were charged criminally, like Jaggi Singh, were found innocent of all charges (though the university continues to appeal the decision in its ongoing atempt to off-load blame). Also, I am not a "senior member" of No One is Illegal. There ae no senior members, it's a collective and I don't even live in Montreal anymore so I don't work with them. My bio at Zmag is way of date. And you're hyperbole against my father is for doing what exactly?!? I didn't quite get it. Denying he wrote a pmaphlet that pointed out Bob Rae's Zionist sympathies, but defending the right of people to do so. Ooooh, those Mouammars sound so evil! The daughter defending the rights of freedom of assembly and the father defending the right to free speech. We must protect Canada against such anti-democratic forces! Give me a break. Get real.

Posted by: Leila at February 22, 2007 03:49 PM (cCSOW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 09, 2006

Conservative's new Chemical Management Plan: Stephane Dion's lousy first week just got worse

Stephane Dion has had a rocky start as leader of the Liberal Party. Most of the energy coming out of the leadership convention has been expended on the question of citizenship. And now his number one reason for being prime minister -- to save the environment -- has taken a blow as the young Conservative government of Stephen Harper has released detals on a new initiative to regulate dangerous chemicals.

At least one environmentalist points out that the plan is long overdue. One guess to remember who the minister of the environment was for nearly two years before the Conservatives came into power.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:43 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The Liberals may be having a bad week but the Toronto Star touts a new poll showing the Liberals at over 40% in public support. I expected some bounce from the convention but not majority territory.

Posted by: Jim at December 09, 2006 07:03 AM (g5RZC)

2 It's an Ekos poll commissioned by The Toronto Red Star..... enough said.

Posted by: TorontoCrawler at December 09, 2006 07:56 AM (NE5y2)

3 an ipos-reid poll, commissioned by canwest has the grits at 38%.....

Posted by: jeff at December 09, 2006 09:27 AM (dN3pY)

4 Yeah...terrible week...those polls...probably keeping him up at night. The Conservatives on the other hand...really good week...showed themselves to be real defenders of traditional marriage in Canada...have locked up that social conservative vote for the next generation.

Posted by: Small Town Shyster at December 09, 2006 09:34 AM (aG0Wo)

5 It is strange that the liberals who are quick to defend their leader for being a citizen of France is not quick to oppose anti-semitism from within their party ranks. During the Liberal leadership convention, several delegates sent out electronic flyers among each other denouncing Rae for having once delivered a speech to the Jewish National Fund and requesting people not to vote for Bob Rae because his wife was Jewish. A delegate actually approached Mrs. Rae, not knowing who she was and told her not to vote for Bob, because his wife was Jewish. When Mrs. Rae told the delegate who she was, that delegate made a hasty retreat. Here is the link to the article: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/bob_rae_061207/20061207/ Here is a link to the actual electronic flyer that was being circulated among delegates: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/disgusting-flyer.jpg

Posted by: Marc at December 09, 2006 10:08 AM (9HdFH)

6 The Liberal Party and their supporters continue to delude themselves. The election of Stephane Dion is more of the same old Liberal Party under Chretien. Looks like no party renewal. It's hilarious to see Liberals point to the expected bounce from a leadership convention as proof they are going to win. The numbers show that they are not digging into Conservative numbers, but NDP numbers, we'll see how long that lasts. Good Luck Liberals et al, just keep telling yourselves your doing great right into the next election.

Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at December 09, 2006 10:15 AM (fOdaf)

7 You're such a rube.

Posted by: Robert McClelland at December 09, 2006 11:27 AM (LGMUg)

8 Nice attempt at Spin Steve - if a "terrible" week for Dion is resulting in every major polling firm showing the Liberals in the lead... then I'd hate to be the Conservatives when he had a good week. On the contrary, Dion has had a very impressive week.

Posted by: Scott Tribe at December 09, 2006 12:00 PM (qrL4p)

9 Get lost, Creature from the Blahg. As for your comments, Scott Tribe. How could it be a very impressive week for Stefawn Deeyawn when he's such a horse's ass. Well, actually a pony's. As I mentioned in another post, "OK, so the Libs went for the "grassroots," workhorse of a candidate and neither of the thoroughbreds...and look who they got stuck with: a pony, neither spirited nor graceful, but definitely small." He's going to have to come up with some fancy footwork--or get the Librano$' buddies in the MSM to spin it for him--to convince Canadians that under his watch as Minister of the Environment he actually DID anything. The Emperor simply has no clothes. The pony doesn't have the legs to win him the race.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 09, 2006 02:15 PM (FMOrF)

10 I don't think that you really believe the Liberals are having a bad week. Polls show them to be in majority territory, and Dion's reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Why not just be honest?

Posted by: Rob at December 09, 2006 03:01 PM (KLE6p)

11 Polls for Trolls (tm) I don't want any party to live by polls, but by principles. Canada's Constitution et al was designed for 2 parties. I fraqnkly would love a stron opposition leader, I hope Dion is the one. My sad observation is more partisan snapping at each other (on both sides).

Posted by: at December 09, 2006 03:24 PM (yrJzt)

12 Does anyone know if Maher Avar denounced his Syrian citizenship? So when next time in US they will not ship him there! Do I have to pay for him like I did for Lebanese Canadians? I like to keep my money Â– spend on beer and popcorn.

Posted by: george at December 09, 2006 03:27 PM (nHj8W)

13 Why is it that they keep forgetting he was traveling under his Syrain passport as a citizen opf Syria??? Must be a convienent omition on the Media's part or to point out this whole mess the Conservatives have been handed to clean up all happened under Martin's watch... Ah, I get it now, it must have been part of the evil Stephen Harpers "hidden agenda"

Posted by: Mr Ed at December 09, 2006 03:37 PM (8C0v5)

14 mr.Ed Does it mean that Syrian government has to pay not us? He is suing Canadian government Â– what means me! Can we ship him back? At least half of him? Settlement will be reduce 50%!!!!!!

Posted by: george at December 09, 2006 03:51 PM (nHj8W)

15 The truth of Arar will never be known as it falls within national security.I believe he did have some involvement.

Posted by: Simeon at December 09, 2006 04:13 PM (k+82y)

16 simeon so it means i still have to pay for it? i hate it, look at this: Arar's lawyer Julian Falconer said the parties responsible for the fiasco must be identified and held accountable. Falconer said Arar's entire family has been affected. His brother lost a trucking business because of an inability to travel to the U.S., his parents have aged "horribly" and Arar himself cannot travel to 70 countries, Falconer said. (CTV) he wants to go to 70 countries? i cannot afford to go to 2. Ship him back!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: george at December 09, 2006 04:23 PM (nHj8W)

17 Regarding the opinion polls, it is only normal for a party to get a bounce in the polls after electing a new leader. Remember John Turner & Kim Campbell? Mr Turner got a big bounce in the polls, and he went on to suffer the worst ever federal Liberal election defeat. Ms Campbell got an even bigger bounce, and went on to suffer the biggest EVER election defeat by a sitting government. So, if the Liberals and their supporters want to get complacent, they do so at their own peril.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at December 09, 2006 04:28 PM (X0vnb)

18 I am tired of having to defend myself. I am a social conservative. I am right wing. I am a capitalist. I defend traditional marriage and family values. There is no place or room in Canada for me to be all that and espouse this? So much for inclusive Canada. Inclusive as long as you are a liberal. enough

Posted by: enough at December 09, 2006 04:44 PM (iX7S6)

19 The Conservative government has launched a $300-million plan to curb the use of toxic chemicals in Canada. Whew. What a relief for Canadians. Government will continue to expand under the conservatives as fast as it did under the socialists. And it's only going to cost the public $300M (for starters), and besides the dozens or maybe hundreds of new government jobs that will be created, it'll probably only hamper and drive up costs in a handful of small, unimportant sectors of the Canadian economy. Like pulp and paper, auto manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, mining, smelting and refining, metallurgy, transportation and farming. For starters. Because we know that once a bureaucracy gets rolling, it'll find new toxic bogeymen behind every tree and rock. Bless their sharing, caring, overpaid souls. And after these industries have been crippled by the environmental police, there will be plenty more jobs at EDC, BDC, Industry Canada, etc. plus all of the many duplicate and overlapping provincial agencies, as they try to bring industry back to life with tax-dollar loans and subsidies. It's morning in Canada! Actually it's one of those Groundhog Day kind of mornings. But I'm sure we'll get it right some decade.

Posted by: at December 09, 2006 08:52 PM (a0Sy/)

20 "Do I have to pay for him like I did for Lebanese Canadians? I like to keep my money to spend on beer and popcorn." You can blame Stephen Harper exclusively for this $85 million dollar bill (the government actually refuses to release the total cost). Official government policy states that taxpayers will not be charged for these sorts of rescue operations, and that the individuals being rescued should pay. Harper chose to ignore this policy and stuck it to taxpayers instead. Thank you, sir. Speaking of sticking it to taxpayers -- I personally love the new $300 million Environmental Toxins programme. As anonymous notes, I'm not sure conservatives will like the plan nearly as much. It seems the Tory committment to voluntary, tax-incentive environmental policies has quiety disappeared. Like I said, I'm all for it. Overall, I don't know if it was a good week or a bad week for Dion; but my guess is that anytime the environment tops the government's agenda, he has to be a happy man.

Posted by: bob at December 10, 2006 02:41 AM (uvT7t)

21 The Tories have brought in two major environment programs in less than a year and all Dion has to show for two years as Minister is a contract(s) to one of the adscam companies. I don't see how that comparison would make him happy.

Posted by: Bob at December 10, 2006 05:59 AM (mgqUb)

22 My appologies Bob, i inadvertenly posted your name. i blame my poor computer skills.

Posted by: phil at December 10, 2006 06:04 AM (mgqUb)

23 From the link provided. CEPA first became a law in 1988. A review in the 1990's further strengthened its human health and environmental protection components. To distinguish between the two, CEPA 1999 is used to refer to the renewed Act. Who was the Prime Minister then Robert? So the Liberals strengthened it and Harper has gone a further step.Thanks for pointing that out. Now explain why ghg emmissions rose in 2005 with Dion already in the previous tear as enviro minister.

Posted by: paulsstuff at December 10, 2006 12:18 PM (uOsUo)

24 Golly, gee... where on earth do you think that Harper got his list of chemicals from?? Did they appear out of thin air? Did he write up the list himself? Oh where, oh where did this list come from? Why it was researched and started when Dion was environment minister and this past September the finalized list was handed to Harper as the "new" government. Why did it take Harpo so long to announce Dion's Chemical Management Plan and the funding for it? Kinda slow on the up-take, Steve.

Posted by: hiti at December 10, 2006 11:29 PM (FpZ2f)

25 hiti, Prime Minister Stephen Harper "Kinda slow on the up-take"??? You've got to be kidding. He and his government had a few other priorities to attend to and they've only been in office for 10 months. H***, the CPC government has done more in the past 10 months than the Libs managed to do in 13 years. That's because the Libs were more involved in bilking the Canadian public out of million$ of dollar$--they still owe us--and propping up their friends' and their own personal fortunes. I've often asked how it is that Chretien, a small-town lawyer (you know, le p'tit gar de Shawinigan) and then PM, got to be a mulit-millionaire. There's something very fishy going on and it really stinks. Do your homework, hiti. And, BTW, if Dion had "the list," how come he didn't bring in the Chemical Management Plan himself? I imagine it had something to do with the Libs' not wanting to spend the $$$ on it, seeing as that would deplete their Adscam pay-offs.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 11, 2006 09:06 AM (A3ZXE)

26 Good point "been around the block". That is one of my favourite questions to pose to Libs. Just how did the little guy from Shawinigan get to be a multi-millionaire from spending his whole life in the public service? Can you believe that nobody in the MSM is asking the same question?

Posted by: johnboy at December 11, 2006 01:57 PM (9BQO2)

27 'been around the block, Dion never had the list. He just asked for the research to be done and the list to be delivered to the government, which now happens to be Steve. Having got the list of harmful chemicals this past September, Steve just looked at it for the past 3 months until he could play politics with it. Sorta like his photo-op with the military this past weekend. As for Steve doing more in 10 months than the Liberals in 13 years, ya he raised my taxes, destroyed retirement funds, changed our mission in Afghanistan from humanitarian aid to warmongering, gave Dubya Bush a billion from the softwood lumber producers as he sold them out to his buddy, canceled literacy programs, funding to museums, funding to women's rights, canceled all the good Project Green programs like EnerGuide, covered the butt of the RCMP commish until he couldn't get away with it anymore, killed the funding to fix the problems with First Nations, left numerous parents without child care spaces, keeps on showing up for photo-ops with the military and that is just a small list of how idiotic Steve is, never mind his international image.

Posted by: hiti at December 11, 2006 11:44 PM (FpZ2f)

28 As for Jean Chretien, he left politics when John Turner was elected and he made his millions during that time period. Most lawyers are millionaires.

Posted by: hiti at December 11, 2006 11:45 PM (FpZ2f)

29 Bad week for Dion? By the measure of what? He waltzed all round your man without even trying. He is plainly working to a plan. Both bowl at Stephen the Unready and outflank him, at the same time. Very bold. As for you, it might be better to work on real issues for a while. There are all kinds of holes in the Canadian Environmental Act, remember that is the one your lad is amending (snort) with the clean air, or is it healthy air act now strugglling for credibility in Parliament. There are two very large problems. We do not have the time for the usual 20 years of BS about Provincial/Federal screw ups and how dreadful it all is. And we need to made a drastic separation between scrubbing the air and products and MSDS systems, and reduction of greenhouse gasses. You can tell us how SO2 is not pollution.

Posted by: garhane at December 12, 2006 03:36 AM (Tvz1Y)

30 Thanks, hiti, for articulating all of the good things Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done for Canadians. Seeing as the Librano$ turned Canada upside down, which Lib-supporters figure is right-side up (seeing as you're all standing on your heads), no wonder you think all of their policies were moving Canada "forward." 'You wanted multi-million dollar corporations to avoid billion$ of dollar$ of taxes because of loopholes left in the taxation laws my the Libs, so that low- and middle-income Canadians could take up the slack? Fine. 'Sounds like a typically skewed Librano plan to me. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had the guts and was principled enough to make a tough decision, which economists on both sides of the political spectrum said would have to be made at some point. Funny thing, the Libs left it up to the CPC to make the difficult decision. I could poke holes in every one of your other arguments but don't have time. Wake up hiti. Smell the coffee. Grow up. It's time to leave the Liberal playpen and deal with the real world. Thank G*d PMSH and the CPC understand that.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 12, 2006 07:53 AM (Jzh2B)

31 'been around the block... open wide, another bowl of horse pucks coming your way from Steve and Jimmie. I mean, how uninformed can one be as to not know that whatever taxes corporations didn't pay was paid by the income trust holder. DUH! As for Jimmie lying about tax leakage, didn't happen. Economist Yves Fortin, working on behalf of the Canadian Association of Income Funds, stated in a paper that "it might well be that no tax leakage would be found if such a study was done properly." The "new" government hasn't released the numbers it has come up with. They don't want the truth to come out cause they're waiting for their buds from the south to swoop in and grab all the income trusts. They're waiting, private equity firms from the US and abroad, drawing up lists of target companies and waiting for the prices to drop further before they strike. All those smaller companies who relied on their income trust for capital and expansion will sell out and disappear. This really is the stupidest government since Mulroney. Back then I use to vote Tory but now I've grown up and acquired a heart. I no longer subscribe to the neo-con, republican ideology.

Posted by: hiti at December 12, 2006 10:26 PM (FpZ2f)

32 The EU has maintained a web site for several years listing the various chemicals used in the manufacture of "fragrances" and also used as "flavour" in food. http://www.fpinva.org/Composition/EU.htm I believe the list currently stands at over 5000, the majority of which are VOC's derived from petroleum. Of the 5000+ chemicals, only about 100 have actually been tested as to the effects on the human body. Of those 100, several are known carcinogens, several are known to cause birth defects, several are known to be hormone disrupters, several are also known to directly affect brain chemistry, who knows what the effect of the other 4900+ is. These chemicals are used in the manufacture of "fragrances" which are then used to make scented candles, added to toothpaste, household cleaners, shampoo, pesticides, soap, fabric softener, perfume, after shave, and just about everything you can think of. Some are also used to enhance the flavour of foods. Considering about 95% of the adverse reactions to cosmetics are caused by the "fragrance" in the cosmetics, the Liberal Government's much vaunted "labeling" reform regarding cosmetic companies listing ingredients does absolutely nothing, because the amount is less than a certain %, the company only has to list "fragrance" as an ingredient. About 75% of asthma attacks are triggered by "fragrances". Artificial "musks" used in "fragrances" for hand lotion, soap, etc. accumulate in the water system, and then accumulate in the tissue of lower animals and on up the food chain, ultimately to humans. The US is doing more testing(canÂ’t remember who), a series of articles in the Calgary Sun indicated the average person leaves home in the morning with on average 135 various chemicals on them, gained from the use of toothpaste, shampoo, hand lotion, perfume, and fabric softener on their clothes, etc. ItÂ’s estimated about 15% to 20% of the population suffers to varying degrees from adverse reactions to Â“fragrancesÂ”. I canÂ’t go anywhere without at least getting stuffed sinuses and itchy eyes to a severe headache. So many people complain about the hazards of second-hand cigarette smoke, but they donÂ’t realize they are probably carrying around more toxic chemicals on their body than they could ever find in second-hand cigarette smoke.

Posted by: LJ at December 13, 2006 02:39 AM (XdgAx)

33 hiti,do you ever research anything before posting on here.Cause you seem to be wrong 100% of the time.The list of chemicals was sent for review in 1999,and i'm pretty sure Dion was not enviro minister then.The review was to end at the end of September of this year, which it did. Upon reviewing the final report Harper acted. As for your statement about tax leakage,none other than Ralph Goodale,he of the RCMP income trust investigation,agreed about the losses of tax revenue. Project green spent $6 and saw ghg emmissions rise,so scrapping that makes good sense to me. Afghanistan,check again.It was Paul Martin who committed the troops to Kandahar,and at that time he said there would certainly be casualties because of the dangerous mission. And perhaps the stupidest thing you wrote: I mean, how uninformed can one be as to not know that whatever taxes corporations didn't pay was paid by the income trust holder. DUH! Maybe check with an accountant before making such an idiotic statement.And you realize it wasn't just lost tax revenues,it was also the fact that these companies set up as trusts were spending next to nothing on R&D.

Posted by: paulsstuff at December 13, 2006 01:43 PM (uOsUo)

34 If Dion had a bad first week the rest of his career as the resident of Stornoway isn't going to be any better. Rumours persist of a rift between camp followers, and all it takes is one of them not recieving what they think they are entitled to could cause a resumption of hostilities. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/547722.html Wonder what she's going to do if Dion makes somebody else deputy leader? Lately you can tell that the beer and popcorn gang that ran the last campaign for Bucky is still fully in control. So far Dion is saying he will vote against budget that he has no idea what it contains because he's opposed to Harper's "agenda". I sure hope Dion isn't talking about a principled stand or anything because it shouldn't have taken any effort for the liberals to stop legislation from passing, though for all Dion's talk Harper even in a minority position got the job done. The other weak point in Dion's argument is the talking point about the hard right wing ideology to the socon base. Perhaps Mr Dion might want to explain how some of his own MP's reflect that same socon base? Perhaps he should be explaining to his hard left base what he intends on doing about those rouge MP's. Are those the ridings where he is going to appoint female candidates? Paul Steckle it was nice knowing you. More to the point, if Dion wants to play up the liberal party as a centrist one, then he better be ready to explain what conservative policies he's ready to support, if not then Dion represents a hard left turn. The future under a Dion government: NEP II Cut and run from Afghanistan Higher taxes to pay for Kyoto credits More denial that a fiscal imbalance exists, and more incursion into provincial jurisdictions while ignoring the federal jurisdiction. Increase of the GST More waste on a gun registry that doesn't work (the shooter at Dawson used a registered weapon) Fully legalized prostitution Legalized marijana Willful promotion of anal sex with minors Lifting the ban on reproductive technology Business as usual in Quebec (more adscam) Refusal to reform the senate by any means

Posted by: gimbol at December 16, 2006 07:29 AM (egH/E)

35 With respect to the polls, and as a follow-up to my earlier comment, it appears that the bloom has already worn off the new Liberal rose. Ipsos-Reid already has the Grits back into a statistical tie with the Tories. So much for the Liberal bounce. As I said before, the Liberals will get complacent at their own peril.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at December 16, 2006 02:17 PM (X0vnb)

36 The Liberal party is still a tinderbox and will be for some time. Divided it is and they all damned well know it. They know who they are. Even Kinsella, the dinosaur enthusiast, knows it to be the case. Remember how he used a toy dino as a prop against Stockwell Day? Stockwell has proven to be a very credible Minister in the Harper Government. Far beyond anything the Libranos have put up in the recent past. As for polls, we at least have a PM who has the guts to make decisions NOT based on polls. The all things to all people Liberal Party runs on polls and the you vote for me and you've got it non-principled governance.

Posted by: Liz J at December 17, 2006 05:34 PM (CkZhX)

37 "You can blame Stephen Harper exclusively for this $85 million dollar bill (the government actually refuses to release the total cost). Official government policy states that taxpayers will not be charged for these sorts of rescue operations, and that the individuals being rescued should pay. Harper chose to ignore this policy and stuck it to taxpayers instead. Thank you, sir." For your own sake do your bloody homework before you run around making an ass of yourself! Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party are the only ones responsible for this boondoggle. It was they who changed our citizenship laws making Canada the ONLY country in the world that grants citizenship to refugees pal. They did it for one reason only, for votes during an election year when things were looking poorly for them. Traditionally immigrants vote Liberal in Canada, always have, likely always will. How to save themselves, grant citizenship to 100's of 1000's of refugees and bingo, that many Liberal votes. The Liberals once again sold Canada down the river with no regard for the long term damage and cost to this country, it was all about staying in power and the country be damned. These hyphenated Canadians, who never wanted Canada to be their permanent home in the first place, took what was handed to them on a silver platter, and but got out of the country as soon as conditions improved back 'home' in Lebanon enough to permit a safe return. They would have done so without our citizenship, but what the heck, a freebee is a freebee, and it has certainly paid off, on the rest of our backs. Ahhh, Canadian citizenship these people say, we never have to give anything to Canada yet Canada gives us the 'gift that just keeps on giving'. The difference between a landed immigrant and a refugee; a foreigner requesting to immigrant to Canada must be approved by Canada, ie background security check, self-supporting, employable (not eligible for welfare) etc. Refugees arrive here uninvited, often after destroying all identification enroute, from 3rd world countries so devoid of 20th century technoloty it is impossible to do background security or criminality checks on them. Refugees are eligible and receive welfare from the moment they set foot in this country. They are never required to seek employment or work, but may voluntarily work if they so choose. Both categories of people are eligible for citizenship 3 short years after arriving. Incidently, Trudeau and his boys reduced the time period from 5 to 3 years for eligibilty for citizenship the same year they permitted refugees citizenship to enable more landed immigrants to become citizen so they could vote Liberal and save the government too. Again, the Liberals sold Canada's security down the toilet for votes, for POWER. Question: Does anybody out there think aside from Canada, the rest of the entire world just might have a reason for not permitting refugees to ever obtain citizenship to the countries that offer them safety? Duh?

Posted by: Ross at December 22, 2006 01:28 PM (Y1ykG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 08, 2006

Stephane Dion's dual citizenship: It's important to his mom, but not that important

In my previous post on this topic, I discussed how Stephane Dion had allowed the debate about whether it was appropriate for a prime minister or a potential prime minister to hold dual citizenship to become inetnsely emotional and personal.

Instead of trying to understand that for most people, this was a general discussion, and not about making a special rule for Stephane Dion, Stephane Dion was reacting very emotionally, as if it was a personal attack.

News now is that Stephane Dion is willing to give up his French citizenship. Unfortunately, he sounds bitter, talking only about political liability, which says to me that he still doesn't get it.

But curiously, he doesn't seem to mind so much if disappointing his mother is the price to pay for political power.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:16 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 4 kb.

1 CBC headline: "Dion would sacrifice French citizenship to become PM" http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/dion-france.html Suggested alternate CBC headline: "Dion would make the ultimate sacrifice to become PM" Joking aside, Dion's cynical reason for renouncing his French citizenship is not to avoid a potential future conflict of interest, or even the perception of one, but merely to garner more votes for the Libranos. At least he's honest about his insincerity and cynicism.

Posted by: anonymous at December 08, 2006 11:13 AM (xPXyP)

2 I put this in the comments to the other thread; but it is probably more appropriate for this one, given that you quote the same passage I do. Feel free to delete the other one: So far the discourse has been entirely on the potential problems (vaguely defined as they are) with dual-citizenship; but there has been next to no talk about the potential strengths. Selley has an interesting article over at Macleans in which he cites some research suggesting that Canada's dual-citizenship is one of the factors that results in Canada's more successful integration of immigrants compared with the US. In particular, between 1971-2001 the percentage of adult immigrants who took out Canadian citizenship rose 15% (from 60-75%), while in the US during the same period it dropped 24% (from 64% to 40%). Other figures: 15% of Canadian MPs are immigrants, compared with 19% of the general population; but only 1.8% of US congressmen are immigrants, compared with 11% of the general population. This would seem to suggest that Canadian immigrants are more likely to become active citizens than are immigrants to the US. Note also that the Can and US figures were stable until the 1970's, which was when Canada adopted its dual citizenship/multicultural policies. I wonder if forcing Dion to give up his French citizenship might just have a net-negative effect on the willingness for immigrants to participate in civic duties. Certainly when you read statements like the following from Dion, you can't help but wonder if it is really worth stripping such an important emotional symbol from an individual's identity. Steve mentions that Dion has shown no willingness to understand the position of folks who want him to renounce it; but I think the opposite can equally be said. It is clear that most people do not recognize how integral citizenship (whether single or dual) can be to someone's identity. It at least should give us pause to consider whether the costs (both to the individuals and to our country) of eliminating dual-citizenship are worth the apparent benefits of doing so -- benefits, I would add that haven't been entirely well defined. Â“I'm born like that. It's part of me. It's my mother who gave that to me. And like all sons, I love my mother and I love what she gave to me. And so to remove that from me, I'd be sad.Â”

Posted by: bob at December 08, 2006 11:59 AM (uvT7t)

3 bob.. No one is forcing Dion to do anything.

Posted by: at December 08, 2006 12:07 PM (zMnsO)

4 Bob says "Selley has an interesting article over at Macleans in which he cites some research suggesting that Canada's dual-citizenship is one of the factors that results in Canada's more successful integration of immigrants compared with the US." What a bunch of BS. I have duel citizenship but I am not aiming to be PM however my kids also have it and have been in Canada for 25 yrs. They are tories do you think if Harper held duel be it US or UK the Lieberals would let it rest. Oh and when did Canada's duel-citizen factor make it more successful than the US?

Posted by: at December 08, 2006 12:17 PM (H/VwO)

5 Just a question. Would this be a big deal if he had dual citizenship from some other country other than France? If he were Jewish and held Isreali citizenship. Or South African? Or Chinese? .....

Posted by: Mick at December 08, 2006 12:40 PM (S8e+4)

6 Anonymous "What a bunch of BS. I have duel citizenship but I am not aiming to be PM however my kids also have it and have been in Canada for 25 yrs." 25 years? Wow, congratulations! What is your point? I didn't say that duel-citizens all want to become PM. I said that research seems to suggest that immigrants to Canada (where they are allowed/encouraged to maintain duel citizenship) seem to be more involved in civic affairs than in the US (where they are not encouraged to maintain duel citizenship), if taking out Canadian citizenship and becoming involved in politics are any measure of civic involvement. "They are tories do you think if Harper held duel be it US or UK the Lieberals would let it rest." This is such a pathetic argument. Can we please stop using it. First, the Liberals did have a duel Can/UK leader -- John Turner. It wasn't a problem for them at the time, and it wasn't a problem for Conservatives at the time. What has changed since then? My view is that it is probably a symptom of an increasing nationalism and xenophobia post 9-11, and I'm not entirely sure that is a good thing. Second, this whole line of argument boils down to: "Since the Liberals would have had a problem if Harper had been a duel US/Can citizen, then we had better have a problem if a Liberal leader is a duel citizen. Why would you want to base your argument on what the Liberals are thinking/beliving? Everything they can do, we can do better? The real question is, would you have a problem if Harper was a duel US/Can citizen. If not, then there is some hypocricy/partisanship in your argument against Dion. If so, then there is no need to use the whole "the Liberals would have had a problem" argument in the first place. I'm simply asking for us all to look at the issue for its own merits, and to consider both sides. In order to consider the issue fully, it seems necessary to explicity explore: 1) What are the benefits we gain by having someone give up their duel citizenship? I agree there may be lots; but most of the arguments around here have been based on the arguments: (1) it would never happen in the US (false); (2) it is "bad optics" (weak), (3) "the liberials would have opposed a duel US/Can Conservative leader" (irrelevant), or (4) the individual would have divided loyalties that would compromise his ability to lead the country (questionable; but by far the best argument of the bunch). 2) What are the costs of having someone give up their duel citizenship? This is a topic that has hardly been touched on. If the data cited above are correct -- there might, indeed, be costs with respect to immigrant integration, civic responsibility, etc. It seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to integrate immigrants -- and paradoxically, requiring single citizenship might do the opposite.

Posted by: bob at December 08, 2006 12:52 PM (uvT7t)

7 A couple of things regarding how this is all about perception: 1. Although most of us here are pretty well "in the know" concerning who Dion is and what his true loyalties are, we are bloggers, pundits, party followers, etc. Those of us who don't soak up these things like a wet sponge will hear that the new Lib leader is also a French citizen. Remember, Dion was considered a fairly unknown candidate and, although has been in the government for years, never really was in much of the spotlight. So the average citizen might not know that he's "proven" his loyalty time and again, and they would feel justified in their perception that he might not be behind Canada 100%. This perception could easily cost him votes. 2. Now think about the world stage. If Dion is fairly unknown here, think about how he'd be seen out there. Once word got out that he was a citizen of France as well, other countries might start thinking that his decisions (especially if the decisions are in line with those of France) were influenced by his alternate citizenship. They will be wrong about this perception, and they may even know it's wrong, but they will use it to their advantage. Will Dion then recuse himself from all world bodies that France happens to be involved in? What leader of a country could truly do that? This perception could easily cost Canada what little influence we have left out in the global community. His only real option is to renounce the citizenship.

Posted by: LG at December 08, 2006 02:08 PM (FQ09o)

8 I think this is becoming more of an issue now since the failure of multiculturalism has morphed into multinationalism. More and more Traditional Canadians, (those that immigrated here to escape hardships, enjoy freedoms and embrace the Canadian way of life) are asking themselves what does it mean to be Canadian anymore? Instead of endorsing a unifying vision of what Canada is (and can be!), the emphasis has been to put one's heritage above patriotism. People hardly ever describe themselves as solely Canadian. Most annouce themselves as Italian-Canadian, Korean-Canadian, Iraqi-Canadian ect. The divisions continue through the Provinces as well. Maritimers, Quebecers, Albertans, and native Canadians all define themselves culturally or regionally. The wider the divisions get, the more important the question of loyalty will be. Dual citizenship never used to be an issue because it was understood that Canada should be the primary concern. Canada's identity has faltered, it's culture is dissolving, and the question of loyalty is throwing speculation at those who carry allegiance or involement with other groups. A strong Canada would know that these issues are imagined, that the real power to change lay within themselves. The the power of the leader is only as strong as the loyalty of the soldiers. So the real question is, "How do we bridge the gaps of region, culture and religion and unite Canadians in a strong and loyal Canada?"

Posted by: Jan in Alberta at December 08, 2006 02:13 PM (Joh8X)

9 "They are tories do you think if Harper held duel be it US or UK the Lieberals would let it rest." This is such a pathetic argument. Can we please stop using it. It's only a silly arguement to you because you know that's EXACTLY how liberals would respond.

Posted by: tori at December 08, 2006 02:25 PM (oQnNr)

10 "It's only a silly arguement to you because you know that's EXACTLY how liberals would respond." No, it is a silly argument because it SHOULDN'T MATTER how liberals would respond. Again, why should we define our response to correspond with sloppy Liberal thinking? Jan in Alberta I have seen no evidence that immigrants are becoming increasingly "confused about what it means to be a Canadian", or that immigrants are putting heritage ahead of patriotism. On the contrary, the statistics cited above seem to suggest precisely the opposite -- that immigrants are increasingly identifying themselves as Canadian by taking out citizenship, and are increasingly involving themselves in patriotic duties such as running for public office. In other words, the appeal of being able to maintain duel-identities might be one of the factors that encourages Canadian patriotism, rather than discourages it. If the comparable numbers from the US are to be believed, then immigrant engagement in civic society might actually be discouraged by forcing them to give up identity ties to their homeland. It is also strange that you seem to believe that multinationalism developed out of multiculturalism. Most people consider multinationalism and transnationalism to be outgrowths of the spread of an increasingly successful capitalist system around the world. As far as corporations go, for example, nations and citizenship are becoming highly irrelevant. Employees get shuffled from country to country, manufacturing takes place in one country, marketing in another, packaging in another, etc. To the extent that there has been a decline in sole-nation identification (which may or may not be true), it seems to me that this would be just as likely a culprit as "failed multicultural policies". The first perception argument presented by LG seems weak to me. Rather than trying to present the truth to the Canadian public about the man's service to his country, we should give up and let ignorance rule the day? It seems to me that we should try to fight faulty perceptions rather than cave to them. LG's second perception argument, however, is definitely worth consideration. Is it possible that leaders in other countries will be confused about where Dion's loyalties lie, or perhaps more troublesome, that they will somehow be able to take advantage of him because of his French citizenship? I'm skeptical; but I suppose it is possible.

Posted by: at December 08, 2006 03:11 PM (uvT7t)

11 Dion is his own worst enemy. It is not what his response was, but how his response was. If he had merely shrugged his shoulders and said to the effect "no big deal, just like a million others, what's your point?", the story might have dropped. Instead, he made it a story larger by confronting reporters with "It is important, no more questions!" Reality is, outside of downtown Toronto and Montreal, where cosmopolitan chic trumps all citizenship, being French while Canadian is probably not a good sales point for a prime ministerial candidate. That may not be fair or right, just the way it is.

Posted by: john at December 08, 2006 03:26 PM (hHZ38)

12 Bob, The US has made it more difficult to become a citizen, while Canada has made it easier. Citizenship doesn't give us any indication regarding integration into these countries. More relevant statistics would be the % of immigrants still residing in the country after 10 years of immigrating. The % of children of immigrants becoming elected officials. Civic participation of immigrants in their communities and economic success of immigrants are other good indicators.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at December 08, 2006 03:34 PM (F47cQ)

13 I wonder if Tony Clement isn't a dual citizen'being of british hertiage?Shouldn't Tony give up his dual citizenship?

Posted by: jld at December 08, 2006 03:34 PM (I/A57)

14 All I can say is thank goodness we have someone like Dion as the test case. Here is a man who has proven his devotion to Canada. I hope that using someone with his credentials will help lift the debate out of the "he said she said" that Canadian politics usually sinks to and move it into a realm of thoughtful and sober discussion. I also think the question being discussed should be reworded a little. Instead of "Should a PM or (potentially) future PM hold dual citizenship?" Maybe we should be discussing "What criteria or attributes should a member of parliament have before being appointed to the position Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister or leader of the Loyal Opposition?" Dual citizenship can be part of the list to be discussed.

Posted by: jgriffin at December 08, 2006 03:39 PM (GrnSc)

15 Only people with Canadian citizenship should be in CanadaÂ’s government.

Posted by: george at December 08, 2006 04:53 PM (mG30q)

16 If I can be completely honest... Aside from the fact that I don't personally think the leader or potential leader of our country should have dual citizenship primarily for the optics and the example it sets... I think it's fun to watch 'Mummy's Boy' Dion twitch and squirm and stammer while trying to figure this one out. It really shows he has a political 'tin ear' when he obviously has no idea why this would irk people in this country. Also, let's face it, if it was any country other than France, it wouldn't get the hair on the backs of our necks up so much. Heh.

Posted by: Scott at December 08, 2006 05:09 PM (MvuOx)

17 "if it was any country other than France, it wouldn't get the hair on the backs of our necks up so much" Oh? How about Cambodia or Saudi Arabia or Norway or Russia? Afghanistan? Mexico? It is the concept, not the country, that is irksome. Canada allows dual citizenship with any country, to my knowledge (Bob will start googling without that caveat). The US only allows it with certain countries, Canada being one of them.

Posted by: Selma at December 08, 2006 05:59 PM (ifUn9)

18 Another looser Maher Arar Â– dual citizen Canada & Syria. And US could not decide so they took 51% he was Syrian. And they ship him there Â– now ---cry baby cryÂ…Â…

Posted by: george at December 08, 2006 07:09 PM (nHj8W)

19 Curious.Turner has dual citizenship,no fuss was made when he was PM. I wonder if the fact Dion is from Quebec and also has French citizenship,might have something to do with this non issue being turned into an "issue"

Posted by: dirk at December 08, 2006 10:52 PM (pGgYY)

20 I think the big part is being missed, should be, if you come to Canada (and we welcome all) we should be Canadian (and not Lebenese Canadian - sory too easy to ignore), you can't come here for CP or health care and run of for other benefits some other country may offer or as a fall back should something not work out.

Posted by: dano at December 08, 2006 11:22 PM (2sYs4)

21 I have no reason believe that Dion is not a trustworthy and honest individual. Having said that, I will never knowingly vote for a citizen of France to run Canada. Say what you will. Neither will most of English "speaking" Canada. They would look on it as a potential breach of public order. Minimise this as you will, the proclivity for malice is possible. Remember that the French Republic's secret service funded the FLQ in order to undermine Canada and separate Quebec. I am not accusing Dion of this but WE MUST INSIST ON only one allegiance by our PM.

Posted by: Mel N at December 08, 2006 11:44 PM (Ng4nz)

22 Bob I am the person who posted #4 and I dont think anyone with duel citizenship should be in the government of Canada. I don't know why Canadians would allow it assuming you are just a Canadian. All you need to do is look at the reported arm twisting by the muzzies to get their delegetes not to vote for Rae and ask where their allegiances lie and it isn't Canada. As someone else said my arguement about Harper is only silly to you because that is exactly how Liberals would have reacted.

Posted by: Pissedoff at December 09, 2006 12:15 AM (H/VwO)

23 Canada allows dual citizenship with any country, to my knowledge (Bob will start googling without that caveat). The US only allows it with certain countries, Canada being one of them. Or you could start doing your own research so that you could start presenting an informed opinion. I know, I know, it is just so much easier to give your opinion without having to worry about those darn pesky facts.

Posted by: at December 09, 2006 06:16 AM (uvT7t)

24 There is a lot of truthiness around here.

Posted by: at December 09, 2006 06:56 AM (uvT7t)

25 You know,NoName, you're right. I've been lazy this week. Must smarten up!

Posted by: Selma at December 09, 2006 09:21 AM (ifUn9)

26 I really wish Harper would get on with the Pinochet solution to the Libs/Dipper/Socialists, after all it's part of the Hidden Agenda right? I mean, soldiers in our cities right? Lefties are such retards.

Posted by: Ace at December 11, 2006 12:09 AM (A6vIW)

27 The U. S. only frowns on dual citizenship in the case where an individual acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it. That person may subsequently lose U.S. citizenship. The only caveat is that U. S. citizens, including those holding dual, must enter and depart the country using their U. S. passport. There are no constitutional or legal restrictions on dual citizenship in the United States. That's about as open as it gets - rediculously so in my book. I definitely wouldn't knowingly vote for a candidate with dual citizenship and particularly if French. From my perspective, it might as well be Iranian or Venezuelan. Dual citizenship telegraphs divided loyalties. As for the utopian one-worlders in the audience, you're out of your tiny little minds. The only rule of law safety nets out there stem from the need to pursue commerce with capitalist, Western European derived societies such as the U. S. and Canada and to a lesser extent, the European countries themselves. Their rule of law depends on whether a company is successful, European based and not Microsoft. I also noted the crowing about Canadians making it easier and Americans making it more difficult to obtain citizenship. That's fine. You know we can take care of ourselves as well as Canada. That's one reason why a fence on the northern border is every bit as critical as a fence on the southern. Thanks for validating my position.

Posted by: iowavette at December 11, 2006 05:58 PM (0p4xh)

28 Bob: US Congressmen are noted for their exceptional terms in office. They are truly elected individually, and the turnover is infinitesimal. In a party system where individual candidates have no power this isn't so: most people vote for the party rather than whoever's running. Further, parties (especially Canadian ones) can give nominations to favoured candidates in Parliamentary systems even if they have minimal resources or power bases. The US primary system requires more resources and larger political bases to fight for and win office. There's a huge difference between stacking a nomination meeting of at most a few hundred people and stacking a primary election in a riding with 30-70% of the total population eligible to vote and 10-20% likely voting. The rest of your points have similar basis in fact (i.e. not much). But there's a larger point: why should we want immigrants involved in politics? They have freely chosen (or their parents freely chose) to come here, why are they so anxious to change the system they were attracted to? Is it to extract favours? Support for "their" group? Why exactly should they be making decisions for the population that has been here for a long time? We award citizenship far too easily and quickly. Something on the order of 10 years of continuous residence (to demonstrate your true committment to the country, rather than using it as a hotel) should be the minimum requirement for citizenship. Further, our politicians should have at least 15 years of experience as a voting adult (native and foreign born). This helps ensure that you get life experience outside of politics, as well as further demonstrating a long term committment to the country by first generation immigrants (25 years). It is more about ensuring that people truly are committed to the country and its best interests, rather than having outside agendas. Senior politicians should be especially confirmed in their attachment to Canada, and have no foreign loyalties. As to the Turner question: there's the easy point that we are all loyal subjects of the Queen, and that there is no or miniscule tension between the loyalties of an English subject, a Canadian subject, an Australian subject, etc (the problem children have all renounced her sovereignty). But if one must be absolutist and allow no exceptions, then only loyalty to Canada is acceptable, rather than allowing allegiances to powers that do not recognise Her Majesty as their sovereign (especially the French... we have many debts to repay, especially for De Gaulle).

Posted by: Hey at December 11, 2006 07:56 PM (umWFO)

29 Does it matter if the Prime Minister lives and works in another country? Stephane Dion appears to work in Paris and maintain a home there. Does it diminish his contribution to his task? The voters are the only ones to decide, and all we need is good information on his home and work life.

Posted by: Layon de Lumber at December 15, 2006 07:06 PM (1dKxB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 07, 2006

Search engine pay-per-click advertising being used to fund terrorists?

Is Google being used as a funding source for Islamic terrorists?

According to a news conference held yesterday, the AdWords programs is being used to generate funds for terrorists.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.

281kb generated in CPU 0.0894, elapsed 0.1918 seconds.
113 queries taking 0.1299 seconds, 589 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 11794
Files: 27
Bytes: 137.6M
CPU Time: 10:51
Queries: 1030047

Content

Posts: 3596
Comments: 36932

Feeds

December 31, 2006

December 29, 2006

December 27, 2006

December 26, 2006

December 23, 2006

December 22, 2006

December 20, 2006

December 19, 2006

December 15, 2006

December 13, 2006

December 11, 2006

December 09, 2006

December 08, 2006

December 07, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds