A tale of two speeches

Advice to Stephen Harper: Stand behind your Iraq speech.

Everyone should know that speechwriters DO NOT shape foreign policy. They reflect the ideas and ideals of the person to be delivering the speech. For Bob Rae to suggest that Harper can't be trusted with Canada's foreign policy issues because he couldn't express his position on Iraq "in his own words" is insulting -- not to Harper, but to Canadians. He expects we are stupid enough not to understand the role of speechwriters. Plagiarism is wrong -- the message was correct.

Having read the speeches side-by-side , I see that the similarities are in the history leading to the amassing of troops on Iraq's border but in the areas where Harper outlines his vision for Canada, they diverge completely. There is no text in Howard's version where Harper stresses Canadian history and values and their role in determining our attitude towards the war.

There is nothing in Harper's speech that suggests we should send military support -- in fact he says:

The coalition assembled by the United States and the United Kingdom is now ready to act. It is now acting. It will bring this long run conflict to an end once and for all. It will bring to an end the regime of Saddam Hussein and the militarism, brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his rule. (...) We will not be neutral. We will be with our allies and our friends, not militarily, but in spirit we will be with them in America and in Britain for a short and successful conflict and for the liberation of the people of Iraq.

Throughout the text you find no suggestion that Canada send troops -- simply, that we support the rightness of the coalition position -- that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions and that military intervention was therefore mandated by the UN.

Let's remember too, that those countries opposed to military intervention have been found to have been involved in the Oil-for-food scandal. France, Russia, China -- are we still proud to be on their side?

The war in Iraq has taken far longer than anticipated. It has taken a toll on Americans and Iraqis both financially and militarily -- but the fact remains -- Canada was never going to send troops -- we had no troops. All the Canadian Alliance Party was offering to the US was moral support. It was offering an acknowledgement that their position --- that Saddam had failed to comply with the conditions for ceasefire and still posed a threat to the world, was a valid one. It could be argued that he didn't pose a threat because he had no WMD -- but given his ties to China and Russia and what we now know about their roles in the 'peace' between the two Gulf Wars, it's a good thing those relationships were nipped when they were.

Harper should not back down. Go through the speech. He doesn't offer Canadian soldiers -- he offers Canadian moral support. It could be argued that if Canada had supported the coalition position that war might have been prevented. We see ourselves as the righteous brokers of peace -- had we said YES, the the US and its allies have the right and responsibility to move in and fulfill the obligations under the UN resolution -- then maybe Saddam might have seen it wasn't just the countries who were dirty-dealing with him who were on his side. If a 'moral' nation like Canada had said 'we insist you comply or be invaded.' maybe he would have listened. He knew that Russia, France and China had too much to lose to align themselves with the US. He knew he could count on their support because if they sided with the coalition, it would expose their corruption and duplicity.

We can still debate the Iraq war, whether it was a success etc. But there is still no question -- I'd still rather be aligned with those who fought against Saddam, than those who tried to hide their corruption by supporting Saddam.

canadianna

Stop picking on Stephane Dion!

Or he'll stamp his feet and cry!!!

Poor, poor, Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper is picking on him.

The Prime Minister suggested that Dion's attitude about the economy is tantamount to cheering for a recession. Here are a few quotes from Dion after the stock market crisis and some follow up from experts, sometimes in the same article:

But Dion said as badly as the U.S. has performed economically, Canada has done worse and lays the blame for that at the feet of the Prime Minister.

Dion, while in St. John's, Nfld., said that Harper's economic formula is one that will land Canada in a deep recession.

"Their (the U.S.) first six months have been better than ours in terms of economic growth," Dion said.

"(Harper) made bad choices in the way he spends. He spent more than any other government before him," he said. "We've got to stop going in the direction that Mr. Harper is sending us and that is deficit and recession."

Harper urged "a more sober analysis" of the global economic woes.

People should not "turn to complete doom and gloom" scenarios, Harper said at a Monday news conference.

The Toronto Star, September 15

Seems to me that Dion is happy to interprets Harper's policies as 'sending us into a recession.'

And then:

"The Canadian market fundamentals are still solid . . . ," (Industry association president Calvin Lindberg) said, echoing the reassurance about the health of the overall economy issued earlier in the day by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid," Harper said, stressing that Canada is in better shape that the U.S. to withstand the current financial turmoil and suggesting that the worst of the crisis has already passed. "Our household sector, our government sector, and our financial institutions have solid economic fundamentals."

However, Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion charged that were it not for the policies of the minority Conservative government, the economy would have been in better shape to withstand the U.S. slump.

"The difficulties in the United States are something we worry about," Dion said, adding "bad choices" by the government have resulted in economic growth being weaker in Canada this year than in the United States.

While most indicators - especially job growth and housing market sales, prices and construction - have been much stronger in Canada than in the U.S., overall levels of economic growth have been stronger there than here - with Canada's economy barely skirting a technical recession of back-to-back quarterly contractions in total output of goods and services and an actual decline in the first half of the year.

The Vancouver Sun, September 15

Note that two men who know a little bit about economics say that our economy is holding steady. The voice of dissent comes from Stephane Dion. It could even be argued that the man is almost hopeful of a recession, just to prove his point.

As the U.S. economy slipped deeper into financial turmoil Monday, Dion cast the Conservative economic plan as an anchor that has dragged Canadians to the brink of recession.

Dion blamed Harper for doing little to protect Canada from the looming economic downturn.

"Stephen Harper has allowed what was a booming economy to hit a brick wall," Dion said.

"Stephen Harper governs for the next day, the next poll. He wants to buy your vote with gimmicks for the next election."

The Liberals have also targeted the Conservative government's economic record in a new TV ad they dubbed "Harpernomics."

The Toronto Star, September 16

There's Dion, suggesting that Canada's headed for recession and it sounds like it would suit him fine. After all, it fits right into the clever and witty "Harpernomics" line. Is Harper really wrong for suggesting that he's practically drooling, hoping for a downturn on Harper's watch?

"He spent a lot, he has no direction and we are close to a deficit and close to
a recession," Dion said.
(...)

"The federal government has entered the 2008-2009 fiscal year with pretty solid momentum at least in the early stages of the year that momentum has continued," said Derek Burelton, an economist with TD Bank Financial Group.

"I think the numbers coming in so far this year suggest that the surplus is declining but we're not looking into an immediate return into deficit."

The GST cut has robbed the government coffers of around $12 billion a year, a move that has subtracted significantly from excess surpluses, Burelton said.

"We're still in surplus territory. No doubt the GST cut has eaten into that," Burelton said.

However, he said, the federal government is benefiting greatly from greater revenue from taxes in the resource sector despite the fact that commodity prices have fallen.

The Tories are projecting a $2.3-billion surplus this fiscal year and $1.3 billion for the next, down from the $10.2-billion surplus for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Dale Orr, managing director of Global Insight Canada, believes those are conservative estimates and has predicted a $4 billion to $5 billion surplus for this fiscal year.

"There's not much chance of a deficit this year," Orr said.

Orr said the tax base continues to grow more rapidly than was forecast in the budget, offsetting the softening economy. Also, interest rates are lower than predicted, which provides some relief on debt charges.

As well, the government has not included in its forecast the $44 billion collected in Ottawa's auction of wireless airwaves. Orr said many believe the Conservatives will budget 10 per cent of that revenue to be used for over the next 10 years, meaning an extra $400 million of revenue will be coming for the current fiscal year.

Mark Gollom, CBC Reality Check, September 15

Again, Dion says recession, deficit and two experts say not. Is Harper wrong to think Dion almost seems hopeful that the economy will plunge in order to prove his own hypothesis?

One could almost forgive M. Dion for his fallacious belief that all one had to do to become Prime Minister of Canada was to don the red banner, point at the people in blue and scoff, but his reaction to criticism is to whine. Not very becoming of a man who hopes to lead the nation.

It seems inconceivable to Stephane Dion that anyone would question his policies, his demeanour, his strategy of predicting economic decline in order to boost his own fortunes. Instead of trying to justify any of those things, he becomes shrill and childish and blames those who would challenge his narrow world vision.

"Never has a government spent so much to destroy a person and his policies as Harper has towards me," Dion said during a campaign event in Stoney Creek, Ont., just outside Hamilton.

The man has a persecution complex. Politics is a blood sport and Dion seems to bruise easily. Maybe he should stick to what he's good at -- maybe fishing or saving the universe.

canadianna

I don't wanna subsidize your 'art' -- I'd rather pay my mortgage -- thanks anyway

If the left-wing parties think the arts are underfunded, then they should be encouraging wealthy Canadians to create endowments and foundations to help foster both artists and young patrons.

Only established writers/singers/dancers/filmmakers/artists/musicians are eligible to receive arts grants of the type the whiners are griping about. It isn't galleries going without, or starving artists unable to keep a roof over their heads because they lack the cash for basics while they paint their masterpiece or write the great Canadian novel. Galleries are still being funded, and those poor first-timers are like the rest of us, slogging their guts out to make ends meet while trying to fit their creative passion into what little spare time they have. Instead, it's the Canadian Arts elite -- the kind of folk who don't live on my street --- they're getting Arts cash, much of which comes with very few strings and no accountability.

It's far easier to fill out an arts grant application than it is to go to the private sector looking for backing for your play or your movie idea -- or God forbid, a bank. Normal people who want to start a business have to go to the local TD or BMO. These celebrity sorts come to us. They write their books and create their music video with taxpayer money -- with what return for the taxpayer? The privilege of viewing their creations? Thanks anyway -- I've seen some government funded 'art'. I'll pass.

Who funded Lucy Maud Montgomery? Mary Pickford? Emily Carr? Peter Appleyard? Stompin' Tom? For generations, in every country, great artists/musicians/writers etc have managed to keep their hands on their crafts and out of taxpayers pockets. Talent and merit should determine success, not government subsidies.

Maybe the whiners should face facts -- if their art were more worthy, people would actually pay for it and they wouldn't need government handouts.

I don't think you'll see riots in the street over this one.

canadianna

Meet the Candidate

A Canadian Press article had a link that led me to the writings of R.K. Finch, Liberal candidate for Dufferin-Caledon. Over the years I've read some shrill, over-the-top assessments of Stephen Harper. There are comparisons to Bush, allusions to some malevolent right-wing cabal, accusations of snobbery and critiques of his parenting style. Never have I come across a one-stop hate-fest like this. Keep in mind, this piece was written in March of this year -- long after most Canadians began to shed the 'fear' of a 'hidden agenda' and see Harper in a more positive light.

Originally it was based on the same basic intuition all Canadians feel when staring at those glassy, watery eyes; eyes that only show a glint of real emotion when they're blazing in delight over the taunting or jeering or destruction of someone else, or accidentally revealing an astoundingly low self-esteem and less surprisingly high sense of paranoia. It was in reaction to the early indications that his right-wing, ultra-conservative agenda is not good for all Canadians yet is slowly but surely going to be forced upon us anyway if he has anything to do with it, which unfortunately at this moment in history, he does. It was due also to the sense of that hidden agenda that almost all Canadians know with every ounce of intuition is there, though they just can't put their finger on it.

This is how it begins. Never mind that much of her opinion is based on his looks and her 'intuition' -- it's also based on innuendo and allusions to gossip that circulated ages ago. Apparently Rebecca Finch has had her head in the sand for the past couple of years -- but that was just the warm up:

Let's start with the really nasty stuff, though, the stuff that conjures up comparisons to Hitler or Stalin; let's talk about a damaged psychology, a malevolent personality disorder, and lessons that we, the discerning public who are ultimately affected by these characters, should have already learned.

When I recently re-read the definition of the term, "malignant narcissism", I felt like I was sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, watching Harper . . .

Harper mightn't be your cup of tea, but Stalin-like? A bit much.
A megalomaniac? Malignant narcissist? Wonder if it's a pot/kettle thing.
And taking "delight over the taunting or jeering or destruction of someone else." Maybe poor Becky's projecting a little. And she's not finished:

What we have here is an immature and conscienceless man who is using this country as an experiment to prove a theory posited in a university paper (which got him great attention) he can't get over, and for the ongoing attention he discovered after writing that paper which led to meeting the people who secured his success in politics, allowing him to simultaneously indulge his megalomania while holding fast to his grudges and punishing those who treated him badly in his erased history. This is a story about a radical Christian who denies his beliefs in order to win over what he shows with disdain is the moderate majority, who has bought into a story of a political parousia that includes Canada as the landing strip for Jesus' triumphant return to Earth.

This woman has put a lot of time and energy into hating Stephen Harper, yet most of what she says is completely unsubstantiated. It just flows from a visceral, blinding hatred that seems to seep into the very fibre of her being. Look at those adjectives -- so certain and so hostile -- immature, conscienceless. Look at the tone, mocking and sneering. It's creepy and weird how very much she hates a complete stranger, based solely on the biographies she's read, some snippets on CPAC and some pseudo-pychological conjecture about his motivations. This obnoxious, toxic screed says a lot about its author. If she manages to win her riding, let's hope she tones down her rhetoric and learns to judge people based on more substantial criteria than their eye colour, or the province they choose to live in, or their religious beliefs -- no matter how ugly or ridiculous she finds them.

For those who are interested, here is a post I wrote a while back responding to someone who shared a similar distaste for Stephen Harper. Defending Stephen Harper from January, 2006.

canadianna

Getting the word out

The Green Shift slid down the slope into the dung pile and it's all the Conservative's fault. Apparently, according to reliable sources -- get this: the Conservatives disagreed and therefore spoke out about it before the Liberals really got a chance to explain. From the Globe:

The Liberals still have to fight to explain their Green Shift plan because the Conservatives bombarded the airwaves with “propaganda” in an effort to kill it, Stéphane Dion says.

If the Conservatives had just kept their mouths shut . . . those poor Liberals have only had two months since they announced this plan to get the word out. During that whole time the Conservatives actually gave their opinion of it. How fair is that? Their rival actually commenting on their policies? Typical Conservatives. They've got opinions on EVERYTHING and most of the time, you can count on those opinions to be different from the Liberals and you know what? They actually feel free to talk about it in public.

He (Dion) added later: “We are starting to explain it after months, months of propaganda by the Conservatives. I'm sure you and many people thought it was a carbon tax. You didn't know it was a green shift. That we will tax less what we want more of, our income, and we'll shift it to pollution, something we don't want.”

So, there you have it. Now, don't blame Stéphane Dion if you don't get it. The Conservatives probably twisted his words or something because quite frankly, it just doesn't make much sense.

canadianna

Who would make a good citizen?

I have a friend who is a refugee from Iran. His family ran a book store and quietly spoke against the Ayatollah. This friend became an activist, working underground against the government. There came a point when his friends began to be rounded up and he and a couple of others managed to get out. Unfortunately, he arrived in Canada in the wake of 9/11. His claim has been rejected although he's made a last ditch appeal.

This man, my friend, is university educated in some sort of geology thing that lends itself to working in the oil & gas industry. He has learned English and speaks it fluently. He works at menial and low paying jobs -- all he's able to get considering his status, and he has worked consistently since coming to Canada. He has never received social assistance. He has no debt, has refused legal aid (although as a refugee, he was entitled). He refused to use being a Christian as a part of his refugee claim. In short, he's a good man.

Now, read Rosie DiManno about the American hiding out here to avoid facing a trial for desertion.
This toy soldier signed on for an education and a paycheque and bailed when he found out that he might actually have to live up to the job description. Bob Rae is reaching out to help him, speaking out for him? I wonder how our soldiers would feel about this?

canadianna

While we're at it . . .

Jack Layton wants inspectors in every meat plant.

While we're at it, why don't we put a driving coach in every car -- just in case? How about a doctor in every schoolyard -- or better yet, tear down the playground equipment -- that way no one can fall off. What about making a helmet law -- everyone who has to cross a street must wear government approved CAS helmets. And maybe all new babies could be put in a nice plastic bubble so they wouldn't have to breathe in polluted air or ever get a cut or bruise -- maybe we could grandfather it and everyone could be protected!!!

Life is full of risks. Avoiding them by adding more bureaucracy is just paying an extra person who will be able to say "sorry" when something goes wrong, and it will because . . . humans make mistakes. What a shock, eh?

canadianna

Paranoid

There is no "I" in team. But you'll find D-I-O-N in paranoid.

Apparently, as he single-handedly 'did the Clarity Act' and 'saved the Kyoto Protocol', mild mannered, bookish, Stephane Dion, donned a cape and tights and became -- SUPER-DION -- a mild-mannered, bookish superhero who managed to thwart nefarious adversaries, repel all sorts of furtive enemies and some really mean anonymous guys-- all of whom were intent on destroying Canada and the world.

"When I did the Clarity Act, I had a lot of anonymous sources against me," Dion said. "When I saved the Kyoto protocol I had a lot of anonymous sources against me. A lot."

Dion's vocabulary is peppered with references to Harper and the pronoun "I". That's all he has. That, and an ego the size of France and enough paranoia to further deflate a flagging campaign.

M. Dion seems to be taking lessons from a certain Liberal-come-lately MP from just outside of T.O. and who shall remain nameless on this blog. Paranoia is not appealing in a leader and neither is overstating one's participation in events or self-aggrandizement. Maybe someone should tell Stephane. Better yet, maybe they should just let him keep talking-- after all, he knows everything.

canadianna

Dalton's dictionary

"My Catholicism, my private faith, does not determine my position. My responsibility to the public interest does."
Dalton McGuinty, September 17, 2007

FACT: The only thing 'public' about Roman Catholic education is the funding.

In Dalton's world:

Public education and Roman Catholic education are synonyms

Roman Catholic education and 'faith-based' education are not

Lucky for Dalton that rather than putting the question directly to him, reporters have skirted around the issue. They've asked questions like 'what about your own kids?' 'what about your own education?' but they haven't come out and asked the one question that would pin down Dalton's real opinion on the issue. If they asked it, one would have to wonder would Dalton the politician or Dalton the Roman Catholic step up to the plate:

Dalton McGuinty-- since you are emphatically against 'faith-based' education funding, will you make it your mission to dismantle the Separate School boards across Ontario and redirect all of that money into a single public education system that is truly public and truly inclusive?

If not Dalton, then you are a fraud. I'm against Tory's plan, but at least his plan reflects the 21st century reality of Ontario. Your acceptance of the status quo, where one faith group is favoured over all others is regressive and bigoted. And if so, Roman Catholic parents will desert the Liberal Party en masse.

You can't have it both ways -- if you are against faith-based funding, you can't say 'except for my faith'. Public and Separate are NOT synonyms except in Dalton's dictionary, where his faith is more worthy than yours.

See also: Joanne's Journey and doggerel party

canadianna

Fee education

Anyone who has a kid in school knows that the first week is fee week.

Amongst other fees, it used to be for the primary school kids they'd 'suggest' you buy a $5 'agenda' for your kid to help him keep track of homework, tests etc. Then, it became mandatory for you to buy your kid a $5 agenda. Now it is both mandatory and $10. That's a $5 increase in a matter of about four or five years for something that has no educational benefit.

They say it's necessary. Fine. Your kid has to write down assignments, tests, trips etc. -- well what's wrong with one of those blank notebooks from the dollar store? Or one of those calendars with the big squares? (Also available at the dollar store.)

But no, the schools prefer the printed agenda -- that way it has a personal greeting from the child's very own Principal and from the school board. It has the individual school's code of conduct, lunch schedule, floor map, song, cheer, bullying policy, internet policy, etc. All of this information is available elsewhere and isn't used by your average K-8 student, but it sure makes the agenda seem invaluable.

Someone is making a lot of money from this. I don't know who got the idea to make these silly wastes of paper but they must be a millionaire by now. Selling an idea like this to multiple school boards and then supplying the product --wow. Clever. And there has to be a different one every year so the calendar will be correct and the Principal's message will be fresh.

There is nothing wrong with kids taking responsibility for their assignments and upcoming events, but surely it doesn't require a $10 coil bound, holographic covered, multi-coloured, over-paged, glorified datebook to do it.

And then there's high school fees. An agenda, student ID and yearbook are all compulsory at my older kids' school. $40 per kid. If you don't have the forty dollars on the first day, they don't give your schedule.

How's that for FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION -- Dalton? TDSB? Anyone?

canadianna

Revised does not equal 'Revisionist'

In today's National Post, historian Randall Hansen takes issue with the War Museum's recent decision to replace the controversial plaque about Bomber Command. Yesterday the National Post quotes Randall as calling the decision 'craven' and 'appalling'. He went so far as to say that attempts to deny the plaque's accuracy are 'absolutely Stalinist' and 'Orwellian'.

I've already posted my opinion on the plaque, here and here.

The plaque in question is poorly worded because it purports to be a neutral commentary on Bomber Command but then goes on to draw a negative conclusion about the Canadian air campaign against Germany. The plaque draws a reader's attention to the 'enduring controversy' regarding 'the morality and value' of the air strikes and then wraps up by drawing the conclusion that the raids were ineffective except in their slaughter of innocent civilians. Hansen might believe the conclusion is factual, but then why does the plaque pretend the issue is controversial if this conclusion is unequivocally true?

Hansen is an historian who has written about this period in our history. He comes to the issue armed with research and an agenda -- to propagate ideas he set out in his book. He sneers at Cliff Chadderton who has taken offense at both the content and the tone of the plaque. Hansen accuses him of not having read, or having read his history poorly.

What Mr. Hansen fails to realize is that as clever and well-read as he is and with all that education and research under his belt, the War Museum is not meant for him. It wasn't built to satisfy his interpretation of the air war and, he's right, it wasn't meant to assuage the souls of Vets. It was meant to inform.

The plaque in question does not inform -- it leads. It wording of the plaque leads the reader to the one conclusion -- that despite their actions being militarily ineffective, Canadians continued to bomb the hell out of poor innocent German civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of them. It gives no indication of Bomber Command's losses or limitations -- it simply leaves the modern reader with the impression that it was unnecessary and wrong -- not controversial -- unnecessary and wrong.

A school kid reading the plaque -- which, let's be clear, is the defining statement of the display -- would have no grasp of the total war, no sense of the intractability of the enemy, little understanding of the limitations of the technology of the day, small idea of the risks of pinpoint bombing, and minimal awareness of the huge Bomber Command losses (51 out of every 100 airmen were killed in action). That school kid might move further along in the display and see some of these facts mentioned somewhere -- but not in relation to the destruction and death described in the centrepiece plaque. This kid is likely to conclude that Bomber Command was wantonly murderous. What else could someone who is not an expert think after reading that plaque?

Hansen uses words like 'craven', 'appalling', 'Stalinist' and 'Orwellian' to describe the veterans' attempts to have the plaque reworded. He uses hyperbole to defend something so small and insignificant as an opinion -- yet he doesn't understand why the veterans are compelled to defend their honour, their service and their sacrifices for this country. It's academic tunnel vision.

canadianna

Jerusalem, where?

A Federal appeals court has determined that when the holder of a Canadian passport was born in the city of Jerusalem, that the omission of the country name 'Israel' is acceptable and not a violation of the charter rights of said holder.

The petitioner argued that recognizing Israel as the country of his birth is part of religious identity. The National Post says that the appeals court determined:

The decision upholds a 2006 court ruling that Canada's passport policy is neither discriminatory nor a violation of religious freedom, despite the fact that Israel is the sole exception to a practice of allowing passport applicants to list their birth country of choice when dealing with cities in disputed territories.

Not discriminatory when Israel is the lone exception? It isn't only a discriminatory policy, it's cowardly.

Disputed territory or not, even under 1948 rules, part of Jerusalem was part of Israel. Why does the Canadian government persist in this myth that Jerusalem in its totality is a city that belongs not to Israelis, but to no one or to everyone?

While I don't believe this young man's religious rights are being violated, reality is being evaded. Why make a document inaccurate in order to appease the sensibilities of Palestinians, who obviously cannot be appeased by greater concessions than even that?

My Israel includes Jerusalem.

canadianna

Either you do, or you don't

Toronto's decision to remove the "Support Our Troops" ribbon from EMS vehicles actually clarifies something for me. Council is afraid that supporting our troops might be confused by the public with supporting the war in Afghanistan. Heaven forbid that someone get the idea that if you support the person performing a particular job, that you also support the job they're working at.

Often we'll hear people like Jack Layton and David Miller say that they support the troops, but not the war in Afghanistan as though the two ideas were not inconsistent. Maybe it's time we stop pretending to believe them. It's one thing to have questions about the mission and how it's progressing, its end date etc. but these are guys who are ALWAYS anti-war and have always been against any military action that was not exclusively a peace-keeping mission.

I'm sorry -- but I find it difficult to believe that you can 'support the troops' but not the war. It seems like one of those mantras people recite because they don't want to be seen as being as cruel as Americans were to their soldiers during Vietnam.

How can you support the troops if you don't support their work?

Can you support Wade Belak in a hockey fight if you are against hockey fights on principle?

Can you support the Pope if you are against Roman Catholicism and what it stands for?

Can you support abortionists if you are anti-abortion?

It doesn't mean to say that anyone wishes ill-will toward Belak, the Pope, abortionists, or the troops if they don't support their work, but it stands to reason you can't support the employee if you are morally opposed to his job. You might not want him to die, but that's not the same as 'supporting' him.

Say it Mr. Mayor, Mr. Layton and all of you who have pretended to support the troops -- you think war is wrong. And if this war is wrong, so are the people who are participating in it. Just own up.

As for me, I support our troops.

canadianna

President of the OPG: Don't believe anything you read

Harper has been warned.

Warren Kinsella writes today about the ongoing feud between the press and Stephen Harper, wherein Harper has limited access and put restrictions on questioning. Kinsella notes that it isn't just The Toronto Star sniping, but guys like Don Martin of the right-leaning National Post who are fed up with Harper's 'disdain' for the press. He quotes Richard Brennan, new president of the Ottawa Press Gallery, as saying:

"There's not a lot we can do, except push back, and that's what he is going to find," said Brennan. "We are pushing back."

Kinsella gives all rounds up to this point to Harper, saying that "the Prime Minister has beaten the national media at every turn. They have been forced to play the game by his rules." But goes on to say:

Sometime soon, the Prime Minister is going to find the news media "pushing back" at a time when he is most vulnerable. Namely, during the election campaign.

Already, it is arguable that this push-back campaign is producing dividends: However much Harper moves to the centre, offering up big-spending policies for latte-sipping urbanites and ruthlessly muzzling the red-necked crazies in his backbench--he gets no credit for it. He and his party remain ahead of the Liberals, marginally, but they are also far from their lusted-after majority. So they lick their wounds, and wonder why.

So, rather than reporting the news fairly and accurately, the president of the Ottawa Press Gallery seems to be advocating that the media selectively report, thereby attempting to shape the opinons of the nation, rather than do what they are supposed to do, inform the nation and allow us to form our own opinions.

This concept is coming from the guy the OPG chose to represent them -- Instead of just sucking it up and giving us the news, he'd rather the press gallery 'push back,' and it would seem as Kinsella notes, they'll use 'omission' as a tactic.

How is it that the head guy believes that OPG's petty grievances are more important than their responsibility to Canadians to tell things as they are? Do they think that they are somehow 'representing' us up there in that rarefied world of Ottawa bars and backrooms -- especially when they decide they're going to play kingmaker if the PMO won't play ball their way?

Is there any wonder why Harper doesn't trust them?

canadianna

Canadian Idiot

I'm a fan of clever television ads. Sometimes I even get sucked into trying a product because their advertising is good or I'll find myself humming along with their catchy tunes.

Some ads I hate though -- like the Casino Rama ones where no one knows how to have fun until they've visited the casino "Thank you, Casino Rama, for showing us how to have fun." Because without Casino Rama and gambling in our lives, we'd be too stupid to realize that we should cheer if our team scores or if we win an amazing trip in a radio contest.

One new ad has really caught my ire. David Suzuki has managed to both offend and enlighten in his new television ad, aimed at having us plebs reduce our energy consumption. It could have been a cute idea and its premise is a good one -- regardless of whether we are 'deniers', 'skeptics' or 'true believers' in climate change, it makes sense to conserve energy and try to improve environmental conditions in every aspect of our lives, if only to make breathing easier.

In this new ad called "The Basement", Suzuki and his enviro-idiots use 'Bob', a guy so ignorant that he keeps a huge fridge running to cool four beers, then protests when Suzuki says it's a waste. 'But I'm using it' comes the doltish plea. But when Suzuki awakens Bob to the savings potential -- and the prospect of more beer money -- not only does Bob unplug the fridge -- he races through his house, pushes past his family members and proceeds to unplug every energy using device, even those in use. All for more and more and more beer. Just a regular guy, that Bob.

Thank you David Suzuki, for letting us into your head to see what you and your pals really think of us. Idiot.

canadianna