Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Self Serving Media locked out of Trenton

Hollow, insincere, and self-serving. That's how the media and NDP sounded as they claimed the Conservative government is hiding something. Yesterday the Government to banned the media from directly reporting from the airport ceremony at CFB Trenton, where four fallen Canadian soldiers returned to Canadian soil.

That Canada's 'Liberal-Government-ordered' expedition to Afghanistan is among the most open and transparent military operations in the middle east is widely acknowleged. When four Canadian soldiers died there on Saturday, the media was there to report it right after it happened, reporting as the bodies were recovered, and reported on the ceremonies in Kandahar when they were shipped home. How the hell can they claim the Conservative government has something to hide?

Easily, if it's for gain.

So who gains? Do the families of the fallen soldiers gain by having their grief displayed across the nation? Will our military's families morale be improved by media sensationalism of the dangers of service in a combat zone? Will our serving soldiers morale be helped? Will their determination to fulfill their duties be strengthened by dragging down the morale of their families? Of course not.

What do those people in the military think? They already know when someone dies down here," said Gunner Hugo Girouard to Canadian Press, a soldier from Shilo, Manitoba serving in Afghanistan. "Why dramatize more what is already dramatic?" The Edmonton Sun reported: "When asked what their biggest concern would be should something happen to them, very nearly all the soldiers who agreed to speak yesterday said they preferred grieving family members be shielded from what they consider to be the sometimes ruthless intensity of the media spotlight. In late March, when Pte. Robert Costall was killed in a possible friendly fire incident in nearby Helmand province, many soldiers reacted with horror and disgust when specifics of his autopsy made headlines in a national newspaper."

So lets ask again, who benefits?

Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Rilley was so upset, she wants to throw the fact of our casualties into the public's face again and again and disrupt all our daily routines. If you look hard enough through a population of 30 million people you can find all kinds of opinions: The CBC actually dug up the father of an earlier casualty who said he was comforted by having the media at his son's funeral. The Edmonton Journal tried to claim the government is engaged in a "propagandistic hiding of combat's cost".
The NDP has always choked on anything to do with the military, and leader Jack Layton couldn't constrain himself from announcing that Prime Minister Harper was acting 'very American.' (Clearly Layton has forgotten which country enshrined Freedom of the Press into their constitution first, 1791 in the U.S. versus 1982 in Canada.)

Disrupting our daily routines will help the suffering Afghanis how? Demoralizing our troops will help them how? The media has clearly forgotten that our military is in a war zone, and so far all the propagandizing has been by those clearly opposed to Canadian involvement. Broadcasting grieving families on national TV isn't anti-war propaganda? Would we be helping Afghanistan and Iraq by ending the war on terror? Gimme a break. According to a recent BBC poll, the most optimistic people in the Middle East are Afghans and Iraqis.

In the United States this debate has been going on even longer. The major News organizations , now run by aging baby boomers eager to relive the remembered glory of the anti-vietnam war movement, are almost uniformly against the war on terror, even while publicly claiming they 'support the troops.' Yet the LA Times has admitted that you can't be in 'support of our troops' and 'anti-war' at the same time.

Royal Canadian Navy veteran William Knight, 81, said it best, that It is detrimental to morale to re-tell the story of soldiers killed in war. "We don't need all the press, all the photographers, all the scribblers. They've done the story so many times, they know what the reaction's going to be. They know what the family's reaction's going to be."

Friday, April 21, 2006

Another moonbat lashes out

Here's an interesting exchange I had with a 32 year old Librarian about Iraq. He's too blinded by his political viewpoint to let facts get in the way of 'his' reality. This guy's outlook is quite prevalent in the education system. I'm so glad we homeschool, and that my kids aren't often exposed to mindsets like this guy's.

We join the conversation midway:

'V' wrote:
Sad thing is that its only logical for a country who has just witnessed earths biggest superpower invade their neighbour on false pretext, to arm itself with at least the threat of nuklear arms. If that was not the case the hassle of foreign pressure, possible embargo and trade sanctions would not be worth it.

I answered:
False pretext my ass. Wake up. The Pentagon has thousands of captured Iraqi documents that they're slowly translating, and they're revealing that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Bin Ladden met with officials of the Hussein regime to discuss joint operations. That last one was dated Feb 19, 1995.
Hell, this January the Administration released 12 hours of audiotapes of meetings from one the Hussein palaces, that include discussions between the dictator and his staff, including Tariq Aziz, about how to hide their WMDs.
As for Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has previously declared he wants to nuke Israel and America. Only an imbecillic pollyanna would accept Iran's latest statements that they're into nuclear power only for it's 'Peaceful' benefits.

'V' wrote:
Hamm you´re so full of it. Thousands of captured iraqi documents that there slowly translating!? Poor things, arabic is so awfully difficult language, written from right to left and all.
When taken into account how desperate Rummsfeld and al. where to proove that there were indeed WMD in Iraq it would be very strange if they first got around to translating them now. Its more likely the Pentagon is faking those documents themselfes.
It is well documented that Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies, "joint operations" is wishful thinking on behalf of the neo-cons.
The president of Iran is no less of an asshole than Bush but he never said anything about nuking either Israel or USA. What he has said is that Israel should be relocated to Europe, and personally I think that would have been a good idea, they should have gotten the Rhine walley in Germany.
Or the Palestinians who where driven out of what is now Israel should have gotten that territory as compensaton.

I answered:
Proof? Magazine and News stories? Read em and weep.

January 27th - A Warded Neuron Hussein's #2 Airforce General tells all.
April 2006 World Magazine Cover story: Iraqi Documents
Boston Globe, March 18th US PUTS DOCUMENTS ON THE WEB.
The Australian, March 19th Saddam's Al-Qa'ida link
oooh oooh. Here's a final link:
Evidence the administration was right, Mounts.

If I'm full of anything, it's the truth.

Wake up.

I got in an argument online today with an idiot too stupid to know there's a gun pointed to his head. That guy actually thought Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was truthful in his claim that their nuclear fuel enrichment programs were intended for peaceful use only. I think he was Neville Chamberlain in a previous life.
So if he's correct, then Ahmadinejad was only kidding about nuking America and Israel?

I don't think so either.

Some interesting thoughts on this issue by Dr. Jerry Pournelle. He writes:

First, anyone not blind will see that the West has been teaching powerful lessons over the years:

The first lesson is: if you are a dictator, or part of an unpopular government structure, get nukes, get them quick, get them in any way you have to. Get nukes and get them now...

The view from Chaos manor. Check it out.

The Evils of Socialism - Back for a 2nd Appearance

Yes, I posted this pic in 2005, (after finding it at SondraK's.) But today, for some reason, I had the need to say something about the fruits of socialism...

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Government Economist proves Spending Cuts help the Poor

The Poverty-Advocacy Industry will hate this one. Communism had failed for all to see, and the western liberal governments were publicly disavowing big government spending... (only temporarily, of course) Always quick to sway with public opinion in order to stay in power, the Canadian Liberal government cut government spending (with great fanfare) in an attempt to rein in it's deficit. Big Government Labour Unions, Social spending advocates, and their fellow travelers predicted dire consequences for the nation's poor.

But according to a study by Finance Ministry Ec0nomist Dagmar Dyck, there's a surprise ending. Writing in the Canadian Tax Journal Dyck showed that rather than hurting the lowest rungs of society, as unions and poverty activists angrily predicted, Canada's economy actually became more equitably distributed in the nineties. That kind of information could be dangerous to a lot of special interest groups.

Ben Stanley's column in the April 10th Western Standard has more:
"But those lean years are just a memory. Last year, Ottawa increased program spending by a stunning 15.1 per cent and the new Conservative government was elected promising to tack on another $22.7 billion in spending. Combined with $45 billion in tax cuts, the Tories are headed for deficits if they don't start making "heroic" cuts, according to a February report by Don Drummond, the TD Bank's chief economist. At least this time, when the feds are compelled to start cutting, they can claim they're doing it to help the poor, and use the Canadian Tax Journal as proof--that is, presuming some of us have actually read it."

Thursday, April 13, 2006

True Freedom of Religion can't Include Islam in it's Present Form.

A very interesting column by David Warren in the April 24th edition of the Western Standard. (It's not online yet, but it will be in a couple of weeks). You'll have to look for it in the magazine racks for now. Commenting on the Abdul Rahman case, Warren points out that for the first time the Western Governments have rejected the legitimacy of Sharia Law.

Afgan national Abdul Rahman had reportedly converted to Christianity while in Europe, and had since returned to Afganistan. After returning to his home country, Rahman had freely admitted to his family and authorities that he was now a Christian. Widespread interpretation of Sharia Law calls for the EXECUTION of any muslim who leaves Islam.

"For the first time without quite realizing precedent they were setting, western governments rejected the legitimacy of Sharia, not only in the West, but in a Muslim country where the West had a stake. And they made no concessions to cultural relativism.
On sound, old-fashioned, Lockean liberal principles, the complete freedom of religion can never be extended to the practice of a religion that itself denies freedom of religion. Or to put this another way: it is incumbent upon Islam to reform itself, not incumbent upon us to accept it unreformed. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with our own survival."
(other David Warren columns are available at

I'll rephrase the good part. Freedom of Religion can't include Islam because Islam denies Freedom of Religion.

Despite many statements to contrary, Change is possible. In the Daily Breeze, Jamil Momand writes that Islamic authorities were using two hadiths (the writing down of what were once verbal remembrances of the sayings of Mohammed) to justify Rahman's death penalty. However, The Quran clearly allows conversion, and the Quran overrules Islamic traditions like the hadiths.

Interestingly, rather than face this issue, some western mid-stream media sources like TIME magazine were quick to point out Rahman's unsavory past, as if that excuses the whole issue. ( it's okay if they kill him, he's a lousy father anyway????)

Compared to Time, I find I prefer the approach of Ahmed Amr, of the Middle East Times:

To paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemoller "First they came for Abdul Rahman and I spoke out because I was a Muslim. Then they came for the Palestinians and I raised hell because I was a Jew. Then they came for the Iraqis and I protested because I was an American. Then they came for the Muslims and I spoke out because I was a Christian, Then they came for the poor and I spoke out because I was rich. By the time they came for me, I had all the support a man could ask for."

Friday, April 07, 2006

Canadian Health Care Ranked 2nd last

The repeated assertion by lefties that Ralph Klein’s as yet undelivered ‘Third Way’ approach to medicare must now die as aborted as the Premier’s reign reveals their woeful (deliberate?) ignorance of the failures of Canada’s government funded health care system, and their inherent self-interest in big government as an employer. Wednesday’s Edmonton Journal carried the news that in terms of lineups and terminally long waits, the Canadian government-funded health care system ranks LAST in a recent study. Last. Last. Last. Last.

The New York based Commonwealth fund, a private health research firm, studied patient surveys from six advanced countries, reviewing 51 indicators for quality of care. The U.S. was ranked first in Effectiveness, third in timeliness, and last in the other four categories. Canada was mostly ranked last or second last. The study was based on patient surveys divided into six categories: patient safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. It should be noted that all six nations’ health care systems feature a mix of private and publicly funded services and facilities. The American’s have the least public funding, the Canadians the most. The countries in the study were, in terms of ranking:


2-New Zealand,

3-United Kingdom



6-United States.

I wish I could remember where, but I read recently that Healthcare spending is now the single biggest budget item for the provincial government spending in Canada, and Alberta now spends more per capita than any of the other provinces. Inflation for the last five years has been what, 2% per year? This week's Western Standard reported that Government spending in Health care in Alberta rose 53% over the same period. For all this spending, Canada is last or 2nd last. Something needs to be done. Of all the provincial governments, only Ralph Klein’s conservatives have really tried to introduce new approaches. Yet every single proposal for an increase in privately owned medical facilities has been loudly and vigorously fought by the Friends of Medical Unions, - I mean, Friends of Medicare, who seem to fear marketplace competition above all else. What do they want? More MONEY!

The midstream media here still blindly bequeaths credibility to groups like the Friends of Medicare, ignoring the fact that they are the thinly disguised mouthpieces of Alberta’s heavily unionized health-care labor force. Minimum performance standards, merit-based incentives, worker accountability are traditionally anathema to big-labor, which usually regards the defense of their deadwood as an article of faith. . But overriding all these concerns is organized labor’s self-interest in preserving a single-pay system is obvious: right now their main employer is government, which is far more Vulnerable to easily manipulated public opinion polls than a combination public/private system with multiple employers and insurance providers would be.

I think that's what bugs me the most about all the whining by the lefties and associated civil service types about Ralph Klein's governance over the last decade. Alberta is spending more on education and health care per capita than any other province. So STFU already. Geeze.