I am a mercenary politically;
This idea of blind faith towards the actions of a party simply because you have their logo on a card laminated within your wallet is utterly silly to me.
I think Harper is doing the best job out of those who could potentially have the job, and I think that Tim Hudak may get me to vote Liberal in Ontario for the first time.
It’s all about policy to me,
I already know I am a bad Canadian because I approach every party’s platform with the approach of “what is best for my family” rather then “what is best for Canada”.
Talks of a merger between the NDP/Liberals is one subject I wasn’t going to comment on, simply because I am sure thousands of people who voted Martin in 2004 are making the same sorts of comments I would.
Unless all of a sudden the NDP moved hard center and dumped half their policy and caucus I would find it hard to see a situation where I would support them within the context of an election.
Layton has done perhaps the best job of any of the opposition leaders in their role as opposition to be vocal and against legislation tabled by the Government.
As the leader of the 3rd Opposition Party he has served his role well.
However, as a Minister of Finance or Foreign Affairs in the context of a merged Liberal/NDP party…
Scary stuff.
The NDP with power is something that we cannot afford as a nation, I look at Greece and the mess they are in because of a social safety net so expensive it collapsed their nation and I envision what could happen to Canada if we opted to move forward with even 20% of the NDP’s platform.
However I read an interesting article on CBC’s website which simply left me stunned
“He said Apps told him the NDP would have to comply with three conditions: renouncing socialism and embracing a mixed-market economy; accepting Michael Ignatieff as leader; and having senior party "saints" such as former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent and past Saskatchewan NDP leader Roy Romanow promote the merger.”
Source
Maybe I am missing something here,
Perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada has some sort of dirt on the senior folks at the NDP but after reading that my first thought was:
“Are the Liberals delusional?”
Let’s have a look at the support of both parties over the last four elections:
NDP Support:
2000: 13 Seats, 8.51% Popular Vote
2004: 19 Seats, 11% Popular Vote
2006: 29 Seats, 17.48% Popular Vote
2008: 37 Seats, 18.18% Popular Vote
Liberal Support:
2000: 172 Seats, 41% Popular Vote
2004: 135 Seats, 36.73% Popular Vote
2006: 103 Seats, 30.23% Popular Vote
2008: 77 Seats, 26.26% Popular Vote
Do you see that pattern?
The Liberals had about 32% more support then the NDP in 2000,
Now it’s an 8.08% difference between both parties as of 2008.
Some polls show the NDP just outside the Margin of Error of the Liberals in terms of national support.
Maybe I am naïve here, but shouldn’t the NDP be dictating the terms of this agreement to the Liberals?
Because I hate to say it, the Liberals need the NDP a lot more then the NDP needs the Liberals.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea that the terms of a merger are basically along the lines of the NDP having to give up everything that makes it the NDP has some appeal to me, whenever you eliminate a left of center party you reduce the likelihood of left of center policy.
I just don’t see the reasoning behind this for the New Democrats.
An NDP/Green merger makes more logical sense.
That combine force based on the “second choice” polling could potentially leapfrog the Liberals.
Based on the Globe and Mail Article breaking down the Numbers the NDP/Liberal Party could potentially lead to a Conservative Majority.
Source
Which is all fine and good, but I really would like someone from the NDP to discuss this in the same manner in which “insiders” of the Liberal Party have been.
There is no love loss between me and the NDP, and the idea of them dissolving themselves into Liberals is interesting,
But where is the pros for the New Democrats?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Why News Can Only Be Bias, If its Bias Toward Me...
Just a quick hit:
Source
Why is it then when I need to "lefts side" of the story I can pick up any number of papers, read any number of columnists, and watch any number of Canadian Media Personalities.
Yet the idea of having something similar for the right is an abomination?
Maybe I am just a simpleton,
but I think giving Canadians all the angles and letting them decide for themselves isn't that horrid of an idea?
But what do I know...
A new, all-news network directed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former chief spokesman could soon be coming to Canadian living rooms.
Quebecor Media Inc. has filed an application for an English-language TV news network with the CRTC, the federal broadcast regulator.
Liberal Heritage critic Pablo Rodriguez reacted with caution to the proposed network.
"Competition is always welcome. Normally when you have good competition, it's the consumer that benefits," Rodriguez said in an interview.
"But I would be wary of having a channel like Fox News that's driven by ideology."
But New Democrat MP Charlie Angus reacted to Quebecor's bid with guns blazing.
"One of the problems they're going to face is that there is actually an obligation in Canada — unlike the United States — to have some balance [in news reporting]," said Angus.
"Having Kory anywhere near the project kind of blows that obligation out of the water."
Angus said he fears the Conservatives will bend to Quebecor's policy demands "and in return he'll let the Kory Tenecykes treat the service as in-house media for the Conservative machine."
Source
Why is it then when I need to "lefts side" of the story I can pick up any number of papers, read any number of columnists, and watch any number of Canadian Media Personalities.
Yet the idea of having something similar for the right is an abomination?
Maybe I am just a simpleton,
but I think giving Canadians all the angles and letting them decide for themselves isn't that horrid of an idea?
But what do I know...
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Why I am Content Being a Hypocrite
Before I move forward, I would like to introduce myself as a hypocrite.
In October 2001 when Canada was deciding to what degree it would aid NATO in the US led invasion of Afghanistan I was among the 17% of those who opposed the mission.
My logic was pretty straight-forward,
The problem with the western world fighting a war in the middle east which is a region the average CNN or CBC Newsworld watcher will only see in news footage is that there is an utter lack of understanding of that part of the world.
Afghanistan has been a nation ripped to pieces by communists and drug lords in recent history and various war mongers for centuries before that.
The Greeks, The Persians, The Mongols have all held a piece of Afghanistan at one point or another and right up to the day before NATO stormed in it was a “country” in the most basic geographical term, but in reality it was a series of tribes and nomads that were loosely controlled by one tyrant or group of tyrants.
Simply said;
Going in an getting rid of the Taliban was going to be easy, the years that would follow of the western world trying to build a unified country in a location where no truly unified country has every stood was going to cause the masses at home to get bored,
Then force us to do just what we damned the US for doing in the 1980’s.
Leaving a population to get slaughtered while we watch at home on our TV’s and then wonder decades later why those children who watched their parents get slaughtered when we left are so intent on destroying us.
I knew our troops would do good work, even though they didn’t have the proper funding or equipment
But at the same time I fear another situation where a bunch of college kids spending their parents money would spit on them upon their return because they felt their textbook knowledge of a situation was enough to entitle them to feel they were “correct”.
When the Liberal Majority Government decided to move in,
I became a hypocrite and supported the mission.
Regardless of my opinion of the long term success or support of this mission the reality is that as messed up as the nation of Afghanistan was, we went in and turned it upside down and the first lesson my parents taught me as a child was that if I made a mess, I need to clean that mess up.
At a minimum we owe it to the people of Afghanistan,
And watching the left try and explain to the Canadian population years later that “It was screwed up already, so there is no point in fixing it”
Is going to lead to those same folks on the left screaming about our terrible domestic policy decades later because we “Abandon” a people and turned them against us…
Same story, just different people telling it at a different time.
In 2006 when the Liberals left office,
All of a sudden there was an interesting shift. As expected the 82% of Canadians in favor of going into Afghanistan in 2001 shrank to around 50%,
Then a strange thing happened.
The Liberals started painting Harper as a “War Monger”.
How dare you spend money to upgrade our military troop carriers that are nearly 40 years old!
How dare you give them the resources to fight a war they should have been given before they started the war!
I recall poor Gordon O'Connor (The then Minister of Defense) trying to justify the purchase of these armoured troop carriers on one of the political talk shows,
I found it iinteresting, because had I been in the seat my answer would have been
“We are replacing troop carriers that were originally procured under the Diefenbaker government which they do not have armour on the underside to protect against roadside bombs, had any government had any commonsense over the last two decades we would have had them already"
However he explained how versatile they were, and how they could be used on any terrain not just deserts.
Which prompted to opposition to demand to know just where the Conservatives were planning to invade next that they needed these “versatile” vehicles.
I will admit it was brilliant, the Liberals were able to deflect what was nothing short of embarrassing cuts to the Military, despite the fact that the Canadians forces were on the ground somewhere dangerous in every year the Liberals were in power over the last two decades.
They attempt was made to make this “Harper’s War”, to make him George W. Bush Lite.
Not a bad political move.
They fought and demanded that no soldiers would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2009, and the Conservatives fought even to get a commitment till 2011, and agreement was reached with the clear understand from the Liberals that 2011 was "The Line"
Yet today, Liberal MP Bob Rae had this to say:
"We have an obligation to see this thing through,"
"The door is open to serious discussion in Canada — and between Canada and NATO — about what the future looks like."
NDP MP Jack Harris said this:
"All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan,"
Source
What is this crazy talk? It’s Harpers War?
Isn’t that guy supposed to be evil?
While I find it interesting to see the Liberals and the New Democrats admit that they have made a massive error in judgment when it comes to foreign policy over the last four years, I was left to wonder why?
Don’t get me wrong, I will vote either party (by either I mean Liberal or Conservative, the two that may win) depending on what’s in my families best interest, but this Ignatieff guy makes me want to burn my University degrees because he gives the educated such a bad rap.
I just find that this new incarnation of the Liberals don’t do anything unless there is a reason for it,
And how about that, it seems that in the States the approval rating of the Afghan War has gone from the 30’s to the 50’s since Obama took office, and that news came out earlier this week.
Now I get it;
Our mission, our troops, and our commitment to those people meant nothing when it translated to a few votes from burnt out hippies and philosophy majors.
However, now the tide is turning and it seems that every Liberal and New Democrat that voted against increasing funding to the Military, or in the case of 1993 – 2006 voted in favor of decreasing it
Are now running to be able to pose in a photo with our men and women overseas who have been doing great work over there for the entire mission.
Isn’t it amazing that we can go from the leader of the Liberal party saying this in 2007
"A Liberal government led by me will unequivocally commit to ending Canada’s mission in Kandahar in 2009 and we will inform NATO of this deadline right away to ensure they find a replacement for Canada,"
Source
To the defacto leader of the Liberals calling for a potential extension beyond 2011 just a few years later…
I was once asked by a friend who I worked with (for the Liberals Ironically Enough) on a local campaign in 2004 what it would take for me to vote Liberal again,
I think the simple answer for today would be this:
Stop taking both sides of every issue and hoping that the voter is too stupid to realize it.
In October 2001 when Canada was deciding to what degree it would aid NATO in the US led invasion of Afghanistan I was among the 17% of those who opposed the mission.
My logic was pretty straight-forward,
The problem with the western world fighting a war in the middle east which is a region the average CNN or CBC Newsworld watcher will only see in news footage is that there is an utter lack of understanding of that part of the world.
Afghanistan has been a nation ripped to pieces by communists and drug lords in recent history and various war mongers for centuries before that.
The Greeks, The Persians, The Mongols have all held a piece of Afghanistan at one point or another and right up to the day before NATO stormed in it was a “country” in the most basic geographical term, but in reality it was a series of tribes and nomads that were loosely controlled by one tyrant or group of tyrants.
Simply said;
Going in an getting rid of the Taliban was going to be easy, the years that would follow of the western world trying to build a unified country in a location where no truly unified country has every stood was going to cause the masses at home to get bored,
Then force us to do just what we damned the US for doing in the 1980’s.
Leaving a population to get slaughtered while we watch at home on our TV’s and then wonder decades later why those children who watched their parents get slaughtered when we left are so intent on destroying us.
I knew our troops would do good work, even though they didn’t have the proper funding or equipment
But at the same time I fear another situation where a bunch of college kids spending their parents money would spit on them upon their return because they felt their textbook knowledge of a situation was enough to entitle them to feel they were “correct”.
When the Liberal Majority Government decided to move in,
I became a hypocrite and supported the mission.
Regardless of my opinion of the long term success or support of this mission the reality is that as messed up as the nation of Afghanistan was, we went in and turned it upside down and the first lesson my parents taught me as a child was that if I made a mess, I need to clean that mess up.
At a minimum we owe it to the people of Afghanistan,
And watching the left try and explain to the Canadian population years later that “It was screwed up already, so there is no point in fixing it”
Is going to lead to those same folks on the left screaming about our terrible domestic policy decades later because we “Abandon” a people and turned them against us…
Same story, just different people telling it at a different time.
In 2006 when the Liberals left office,
All of a sudden there was an interesting shift. As expected the 82% of Canadians in favor of going into Afghanistan in 2001 shrank to around 50%,
Then a strange thing happened.
The Liberals started painting Harper as a “War Monger”.
How dare you spend money to upgrade our military troop carriers that are nearly 40 years old!
How dare you give them the resources to fight a war they should have been given before they started the war!
I recall poor Gordon O'Connor (The then Minister of Defense) trying to justify the purchase of these armoured troop carriers on one of the political talk shows,
I found it iinteresting, because had I been in the seat my answer would have been
“We are replacing troop carriers that were originally procured under the Diefenbaker government which they do not have armour on the underside to protect against roadside bombs, had any government had any commonsense over the last two decades we would have had them already"
However he explained how versatile they were, and how they could be used on any terrain not just deserts.
Which prompted to opposition to demand to know just where the Conservatives were planning to invade next that they needed these “versatile” vehicles.
I will admit it was brilliant, the Liberals were able to deflect what was nothing short of embarrassing cuts to the Military, despite the fact that the Canadians forces were on the ground somewhere dangerous in every year the Liberals were in power over the last two decades.
They attempt was made to make this “Harper’s War”, to make him George W. Bush Lite.
Not a bad political move.
They fought and demanded that no soldiers would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2009, and the Conservatives fought even to get a commitment till 2011, and agreement was reached with the clear understand from the Liberals that 2011 was "The Line"
Yet today, Liberal MP Bob Rae had this to say:
"We have an obligation to see this thing through,"
"The door is open to serious discussion in Canada — and between Canada and NATO — about what the future looks like."
NDP MP Jack Harris said this:
"All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-building concerns about Afghanistan,"
Source
What is this crazy talk? It’s Harpers War?
Isn’t that guy supposed to be evil?
While I find it interesting to see the Liberals and the New Democrats admit that they have made a massive error in judgment when it comes to foreign policy over the last four years, I was left to wonder why?
Don’t get me wrong, I will vote either party (by either I mean Liberal or Conservative, the two that may win) depending on what’s in my families best interest, but this Ignatieff guy makes me want to burn my University degrees because he gives the educated such a bad rap.
I just find that this new incarnation of the Liberals don’t do anything unless there is a reason for it,
And how about that, it seems that in the States the approval rating of the Afghan War has gone from the 30’s to the 50’s since Obama took office, and that news came out earlier this week.
Now I get it;
Our mission, our troops, and our commitment to those people meant nothing when it translated to a few votes from burnt out hippies and philosophy majors.
However, now the tide is turning and it seems that every Liberal and New Democrat that voted against increasing funding to the Military, or in the case of 1993 – 2006 voted in favor of decreasing it
Are now running to be able to pose in a photo with our men and women overseas who have been doing great work over there for the entire mission.
Isn’t it amazing that we can go from the leader of the Liberal party saying this in 2007
"A Liberal government led by me will unequivocally commit to ending Canada’s mission in Kandahar in 2009 and we will inform NATO of this deadline right away to ensure they find a replacement for Canada,"
Source
To the defacto leader of the Liberals calling for a potential extension beyond 2011 just a few years later…
I was once asked by a friend who I worked with (for the Liberals Ironically Enough) on a local campaign in 2004 what it would take for me to vote Liberal again,
I think the simple answer for today would be this:
Stop taking both sides of every issue and hoping that the voter is too stupid to realize it.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Why I am Unpopular At Work
900 million bucks for security at a G20 conference! That seems like a lot of scratch to protect a bunch of suits?
The talking point of the last few days on every call in show, and nearly every political television program has been the cost of the G20 conference in Toronto.
The Liberal supporters have even gone as far as to call it Harper’s “Billion Dollar Boondoggle”.
Public sentiment when it comes to politicians is often pretty straightforward, we don’t like em, we don’t want to be inconvenienced by em, and we don’t want to spend money on em.
With that in mind even the original 160 million dollar budget would have been enough to annoy most Canadians.
Now we have watched the cost go from the budgeted 160 million to over 900 million (which for the sake of shock-value we can round up to a BILLION dollars, even though for some reason 900 million sounds worse, but what do I know?)
Why has the cost gone up?
My first guess would be that the firebombing of the RBC branch in Ottawa and targeting of civilians’ who happen to work for “evil” corporations may have raised the stakes a little bit,
The fact that the amount of protestors that are estimated to descend on the city of Toronto is around 10,000, to put that number into perspective there are 5,800 sworn in members of the Toronto Police.
Coupled with the fact that some of these Anarchist Groups have promised “militant” protests aimed to “humiliate the security apparatus” according to yesterday’s Toronto Star.
Let me be the first one to say that spending 900 million on anything that doesn’t play the Dallas Cowboy’s at least once a season is simply beyond me, but to attack the government for this is about as short sided as it gets.
Is the threat posed by these protestors real?
I believe it is; and going after a bank branch with a firebomb leads me to believe that these folks mean business.
So what is the correct response in the face of these threats?
The summit could have been canceled?
Maybe I am just old school, but bowing down to a vocal minority of protestors and giving into what they want generally breeds more of this sort of behavior.
If firebombing buildings and promising violence gets them their way just once, we open a door that we may never be able to close.
To me canceling the summit in the face of a bunch of whiney 20 something’s and some burnt out hippies is not an option, especially less then a month out.
Which leaves us with two choices:
We take all measures to adequately protect our guests,
or we don’t.
Those who are threatening violence are getting off far too easy in the media and amount angry Canadians.
The money that needs to be spent is because of the violence that has been promised, not because the government has decided to waste money on items that are not needed.
I would imagine that 99% of people think I am totally nuts in the fact that I am not foaming at the mouth over this money being spent,
However I am one of the few believers that the G20 has done some good work, and I am damn proud that we are on an international stage hosting 19 leaders of the world…even though it’s in Toronto…
The talking point of the last few days on every call in show, and nearly every political television program has been the cost of the G20 conference in Toronto.
The Liberal supporters have even gone as far as to call it Harper’s “Billion Dollar Boondoggle”.
Public sentiment when it comes to politicians is often pretty straightforward, we don’t like em, we don’t want to be inconvenienced by em, and we don’t want to spend money on em.
With that in mind even the original 160 million dollar budget would have been enough to annoy most Canadians.
Now we have watched the cost go from the budgeted 160 million to over 900 million (which for the sake of shock-value we can round up to a BILLION dollars, even though for some reason 900 million sounds worse, but what do I know?)
Why has the cost gone up?
My first guess would be that the firebombing of the RBC branch in Ottawa and targeting of civilians’ who happen to work for “evil” corporations may have raised the stakes a little bit,
The fact that the amount of protestors that are estimated to descend on the city of Toronto is around 10,000, to put that number into perspective there are 5,800 sworn in members of the Toronto Police.
Coupled with the fact that some of these Anarchist Groups have promised “militant” protests aimed to “humiliate the security apparatus” according to yesterday’s Toronto Star.
Let me be the first one to say that spending 900 million on anything that doesn’t play the Dallas Cowboy’s at least once a season is simply beyond me, but to attack the government for this is about as short sided as it gets.
Is the threat posed by these protestors real?
I believe it is; and going after a bank branch with a firebomb leads me to believe that these folks mean business.
So what is the correct response in the face of these threats?
The summit could have been canceled?
Maybe I am just old school, but bowing down to a vocal minority of protestors and giving into what they want generally breeds more of this sort of behavior.
If firebombing buildings and promising violence gets them their way just once, we open a door that we may never be able to close.
To me canceling the summit in the face of a bunch of whiney 20 something’s and some burnt out hippies is not an option, especially less then a month out.
Which leaves us with two choices:
We take all measures to adequately protect our guests,
or we don’t.
Those who are threatening violence are getting off far too easy in the media and amount angry Canadians.
The money that needs to be spent is because of the violence that has been promised, not because the government has decided to waste money on items that are not needed.
I would imagine that 99% of people think I am totally nuts in the fact that I am not foaming at the mouth over this money being spent,
However I am one of the few believers that the G20 has done some good work, and I am damn proud that we are on an international stage hosting 19 leaders of the world…even though it’s in Toronto…
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Why I am Unpopular at Cocktail Parties
The topic du jour around most glasses of wine and fine cheeses over the last few weeks has been Arizona’s “controversial” immigration law.
Needless to say I have never seen Godwin’s Law invoked as quickly as I have in these last few weeks. Everyone in Arizona’s government are evil, they are passing a law that “everyone” is against…
The problem is that over 50% of Arizona voters are in favor of the legislation, so even if it was made a ballot issue it would most likely pass.
Damn that Democracy! It’s getting in the way of the minority acting as though it’s the clear 90% majority.
I have heard both sides of this debate (as usual) give me the most ridiculous examples that they try to pass off as the “norm”.
The Democrats would lead me to believe that the police will walk up to tables in food courts around Arizona pull aside the girl lunching with her friends with the brown skin and demand she supply proof of citizenship.
Whereas the Republicans are paining a Mad Max sort of situation of illegal’s pouring in over the border with heavy artillery.
As per usual the reality falls somewhere in the middle.
As I understand the situation, it’s already illegal to be in the United States illegally.
The problem seems to be that only ICE agents are able to stop people and demand proof of citizenship.
The trouble is there are only something like 2000 ICE agents for 3169 km of border.
I have watched the Democrats defend the “need” for illegal workers as they do jobs that Americans “Don’t want”. Perhaps that can be sold to folks in Washington, they are about 1500 miles away from the border, but if the voters of Arizona are in favor of this legislation then perhaps the people in the state where illegal workers are doing jobs that “Americans don’t want” don’t agree that they are jobs that are unwanted?
This is typical of the political landscape of large nations,
If it’s not happening in my backyard then what do I care?
Regardless of your stance on this legislation, this is what happens when a nation’s government starts to tolerate “acceptable crimes”.
Washington in general, and the Democrats in particular don’t want to lose the support they have in Latino vote rich areas, at the same time they don’t want to further push some Southern border states away, especially not with the midterms looming in November.
This legislation is a product of frustration, the people of Arizona rightly or wrongly so are in favor of this rather harsh measure, but with that said are they not simply asking for the enforcement of a law that is already?
This has become a situation where Washington has allowed a law that is popular with some and unpopular with others to go unenforced so they could secure support from both sides.
Now the issue has been forced,
And I have to wonder what the solution is?
The people in Arizona are not “racist” they just want a law enforced, and if Washington feels that law is unjust then they need to address it rather then painting the people of Arizona as being backward.
Needless to say I have never seen Godwin’s Law invoked as quickly as I have in these last few weeks. Everyone in Arizona’s government are evil, they are passing a law that “everyone” is against…
The problem is that over 50% of Arizona voters are in favor of the legislation, so even if it was made a ballot issue it would most likely pass.
Damn that Democracy! It’s getting in the way of the minority acting as though it’s the clear 90% majority.
I have heard both sides of this debate (as usual) give me the most ridiculous examples that they try to pass off as the “norm”.
The Democrats would lead me to believe that the police will walk up to tables in food courts around Arizona pull aside the girl lunching with her friends with the brown skin and demand she supply proof of citizenship.
Whereas the Republicans are paining a Mad Max sort of situation of illegal’s pouring in over the border with heavy artillery.
As per usual the reality falls somewhere in the middle.
As I understand the situation, it’s already illegal to be in the United States illegally.
The problem seems to be that only ICE agents are able to stop people and demand proof of citizenship.
The trouble is there are only something like 2000 ICE agents for 3169 km of border.
I have watched the Democrats defend the “need” for illegal workers as they do jobs that Americans “Don’t want”. Perhaps that can be sold to folks in Washington, they are about 1500 miles away from the border, but if the voters of Arizona are in favor of this legislation then perhaps the people in the state where illegal workers are doing jobs that “Americans don’t want” don’t agree that they are jobs that are unwanted?
This is typical of the political landscape of large nations,
If it’s not happening in my backyard then what do I care?
Regardless of your stance on this legislation, this is what happens when a nation’s government starts to tolerate “acceptable crimes”.
Washington in general, and the Democrats in particular don’t want to lose the support they have in Latino vote rich areas, at the same time they don’t want to further push some Southern border states away, especially not with the midterms looming in November.
This legislation is a product of frustration, the people of Arizona rightly or wrongly so are in favor of this rather harsh measure, but with that said are they not simply asking for the enforcement of a law that is already?
This has become a situation where Washington has allowed a law that is popular with some and unpopular with others to go unenforced so they could secure support from both sides.
Now the issue has been forced,
And I have to wonder what the solution is?
The people in Arizona are not “racist” they just want a law enforced, and if Washington feels that law is unjust then they need to address it rather then painting the people of Arizona as being backward.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
When is being "right" at the expense of being right, Wrong?
I hate war.
I hate losing young men, who die in the service of this nation in order to do some degree of good in a part of the world that the vast majority of the Canadian population will never visit within 1000 miles of.
It turns my stomach a little bit when I watch those on the left make an attempt to make politicians who are right of center in their political leanings either war mongers or somehow guilty of war crimes.
The concept that anyone in power regardless of political stripe takes any sort of pleasure in sending soldiers into harms way is perhaps the greatest slander and most epic insult that can be volleyed onto a person.
It implies they are somehow subhuman, when in reality we know that regardless of who makes the discussion; it’s never easy.
As I sat watching the Sunday talk show circuit that pits a left of center and right of center rhetoric machine against each other in an attempt to see who can make the most fantastic and utterly ridiculous claim against the other side, and comment was made that stuck with me.
“You need to do the RIGHT thing”
I don’t recall which side it came from, nor could I pick the guy who said it out of a line-up but it caused me to dwell on the word “right”
What is the “right thing”?
As a Canadian the topic that is most discussed when the matter of war is raised is that of the ongoing Afghan War,
I have watched the typical partisan ballet;
The Liberals who entered this conflict in 2001 where in favor of the conflict till January 24th 2006 which interestingly enough is the first day that the Conservatives took power in Canada.
After that every attempt was made to paint this as “Harper’s War” and to make out anyone who was the Minister of Defense as some sort of trigger happy war monger.
If you took a poll today it would swing a few percent one way or another but both sides tend to hover around the high 40’s or low 50’s depending on the poll, which as far as I am concerned pretty well puts us at a tie.
In 2001 when Canadians were asked if we should go into Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, the numbers were in the high 70’s to low 80’s in terms of percentage.
This is where the “right” thing comes into effect,
30% of Canadians have gone from pro to con over the course of the 8+ years this conflict has raged on.
What I have ask them is very simple:
What do we owe the Afghan people? Should we not finish the job?
We walked into their country with our NATO allies, we kicked the Taliban to the curb, we beat back insurgents in the streets, we have got them to a point where they have at least the most rudimentary democracy in place, and then we lost interest, because we started losing soldiers.
I can’t blame Canadians for wanting to take our troops out of harms way, but at the same time I have to wonder why we are so quick to be willing to trade lives.
How many Afghan lives are worth that of one Canadian?
It may sound like a harsh question, but its one that the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, as well as BQ have indirectly asked me as a Canadian to decide.
How many Afghan Civilians do I feel are worth the life of a single Canadian troop?
There are two ways to approach that simply morbid question;
You can be right; or you can be politically right.
The see the difference I can cite a very simple example.
In the early 1990’s the UN sent a Peacekeeping team into Somalia to attempt to stop a pending civil war, this mission ended after the Battle of Mogadishu when news footage of the dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu found its way back to the people of the United States in 1993.
Public opinion of the conflict in Somalia plummeted, and President Bill Clinton did the politically right thing and pulled out the US soldiers from the Somali mission after 19 US soldiers were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu (31 for the entire mission), which resulted in the collapse of the mission, and Somalia falling into a continued state of Civil War.
The Somali Civil War still rages on, and has resulted in the death of about 400,000 people, with well over a million displaced from their home.
The question of how many Somali lives are worth a single American life was answered:
31 Americans died,
The American people wanted out.
They got out
400,000 Somali's are dead
400,000 / 31 = 12,903 Somali’s died in exchange for every US solider that did.
But;
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 by one of the largest margins every won by a Democrat in a Presidential election.
He made the “right” call, politically speaking, he was “politically right”.
But that call resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somali citizens,
The question then becomes, was it the “right” choice?
Was there any obligation to finish what they started?
George W. Bush is often called a War Monger because he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Stephen Harper is often call the same for his support of the Mission in Afghanistan, but it should be noted that roughly 8,309 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, with estimates as high as 16,000, Iraq based on IBC’s numbers have experienced 104,119 civilian deaths (as the high estimate, roughly 96,000 as the low)
Even if I am being generous; the inaction in Somali led to roughly 4x more civilian deaths then the direct action of invading two nations.
But there seems to be this mentality that if its not on CNN then it didn't really happen. If a child is murdered in Africa, and various international news agencies don't bother to cover it, does it count? Clearly to those on the left, it does not.
As a fairness test;
If I stand by and watch a man drown or;
If I drown a man,
The man is just as dead at the end of the day.
I understand that politicians can draw a line between civilians who die when we are watching, and then those who die when we are not.
I however, do not.
Civilian death seems to be different depending on your party line; and while that may pass salt in Washington or Ottawa, it doesn’t work with me.
If we held the withdrawal from Somalia to the same loose international legal standard that is being used by pundits to damn all Conservatives, Republicans, and Labour Party Members over Iraq & Afghanistan; Would Bill Clinton not be subject to the Yamashita standard?
I don’t think so; but he was a Republican I can assure you that it would at least be a hot topic of debate on the Sunday talk circuit.
Why is the opposition in Canada in such a rush to potentially have our own withdrawal which could potentially lead to civil war weighing on our conscience?
Will it win them an election?
Perhaps.
Damning our troops and the government who supports them may be “politically right” but I have to wonder what the consequences of being “politically right” would be for the average Afghan?
We went in there, and we need to finish the job.
Scoring points off our troops who are in harms way every day from the confines of the Parliament buildings may score you political points;
But I still have a hard time as an average Canadian when I am asked to indirectly answer how many Afghan lives are worth that of a single Canadians?
Because that is what a withdrawal, and calls for withdrawal basically amounts to.
And that is when bring “right” vs. “politically right” becomes the choice of every Canadian.
I hate losing young men, who die in the service of this nation in order to do some degree of good in a part of the world that the vast majority of the Canadian population will never visit within 1000 miles of.
It turns my stomach a little bit when I watch those on the left make an attempt to make politicians who are right of center in their political leanings either war mongers or somehow guilty of war crimes.
The concept that anyone in power regardless of political stripe takes any sort of pleasure in sending soldiers into harms way is perhaps the greatest slander and most epic insult that can be volleyed onto a person.
It implies they are somehow subhuman, when in reality we know that regardless of who makes the discussion; it’s never easy.
As I sat watching the Sunday talk show circuit that pits a left of center and right of center rhetoric machine against each other in an attempt to see who can make the most fantastic and utterly ridiculous claim against the other side, and comment was made that stuck with me.
“You need to do the RIGHT thing”
I don’t recall which side it came from, nor could I pick the guy who said it out of a line-up but it caused me to dwell on the word “right”
What is the “right thing”?
As a Canadian the topic that is most discussed when the matter of war is raised is that of the ongoing Afghan War,
I have watched the typical partisan ballet;
The Liberals who entered this conflict in 2001 where in favor of the conflict till January 24th 2006 which interestingly enough is the first day that the Conservatives took power in Canada.
After that every attempt was made to paint this as “Harper’s War” and to make out anyone who was the Minister of Defense as some sort of trigger happy war monger.
If you took a poll today it would swing a few percent one way or another but both sides tend to hover around the high 40’s or low 50’s depending on the poll, which as far as I am concerned pretty well puts us at a tie.
In 2001 when Canadians were asked if we should go into Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, the numbers were in the high 70’s to low 80’s in terms of percentage.
This is where the “right” thing comes into effect,
30% of Canadians have gone from pro to con over the course of the 8+ years this conflict has raged on.
What I have ask them is very simple:
What do we owe the Afghan people? Should we not finish the job?
We walked into their country with our NATO allies, we kicked the Taliban to the curb, we beat back insurgents in the streets, we have got them to a point where they have at least the most rudimentary democracy in place, and then we lost interest, because we started losing soldiers.
I can’t blame Canadians for wanting to take our troops out of harms way, but at the same time I have to wonder why we are so quick to be willing to trade lives.
How many Afghan lives are worth that of one Canadian?
It may sound like a harsh question, but its one that the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democrats, as well as BQ have indirectly asked me as a Canadian to decide.
How many Afghan Civilians do I feel are worth the life of a single Canadian troop?
There are two ways to approach that simply morbid question;
You can be right; or you can be politically right.
The see the difference I can cite a very simple example.
In the early 1990’s the UN sent a Peacekeeping team into Somalia to attempt to stop a pending civil war, this mission ended after the Battle of Mogadishu when news footage of the dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu found its way back to the people of the United States in 1993.
Public opinion of the conflict in Somalia plummeted, and President Bill Clinton did the politically right thing and pulled out the US soldiers from the Somali mission after 19 US soldiers were killed during the Battle of Mogadishu (31 for the entire mission), which resulted in the collapse of the mission, and Somalia falling into a continued state of Civil War.
The Somali Civil War still rages on, and has resulted in the death of about 400,000 people, with well over a million displaced from their home.
The question of how many Somali lives are worth a single American life was answered:
31 Americans died,
The American people wanted out.
They got out
400,000 Somali's are dead
400,000 / 31 = 12,903 Somali’s died in exchange for every US solider that did.
But;
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 by one of the largest margins every won by a Democrat in a Presidential election.
He made the “right” call, politically speaking, he was “politically right”.
But that call resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Somali citizens,
The question then becomes, was it the “right” choice?
Was there any obligation to finish what they started?
George W. Bush is often called a War Monger because he oversaw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Stephen Harper is often call the same for his support of the Mission in Afghanistan, but it should be noted that roughly 8,309 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, with estimates as high as 16,000, Iraq based on IBC’s numbers have experienced 104,119 civilian deaths (as the high estimate, roughly 96,000 as the low)
Even if I am being generous; the inaction in Somali led to roughly 4x more civilian deaths then the direct action of invading two nations.
But there seems to be this mentality that if its not on CNN then it didn't really happen. If a child is murdered in Africa, and various international news agencies don't bother to cover it, does it count? Clearly to those on the left, it does not.
As a fairness test;
If I stand by and watch a man drown or;
If I drown a man,
The man is just as dead at the end of the day.
I understand that politicians can draw a line between civilians who die when we are watching, and then those who die when we are not.
I however, do not.
Civilian death seems to be different depending on your party line; and while that may pass salt in Washington or Ottawa, it doesn’t work with me.
If we held the withdrawal from Somalia to the same loose international legal standard that is being used by pundits to damn all Conservatives, Republicans, and Labour Party Members over Iraq & Afghanistan; Would Bill Clinton not be subject to the Yamashita standard?
I don’t think so; but he was a Republican I can assure you that it would at least be a hot topic of debate on the Sunday talk circuit.
Why is the opposition in Canada in such a rush to potentially have our own withdrawal which could potentially lead to civil war weighing on our conscience?
Will it win them an election?
Perhaps.
Damning our troops and the government who supports them may be “politically right” but I have to wonder what the consequences of being “politically right” would be for the average Afghan?
We went in there, and we need to finish the job.
Scoring points off our troops who are in harms way every day from the confines of the Parliament buildings may score you political points;
But I still have a hard time as an average Canadian when I am asked to indirectly answer how many Afghan lives are worth that of a single Canadians?
Because that is what a withdrawal, and calls for withdrawal basically amounts to.
And that is when bring “right” vs. “politically right” becomes the choice of every Canadian.
Conservative Supporters are Paranoid & Crazy...
I often sit on the sidelines and enjoy watching my friends who cover the right and left spectrum of politics argue back and forth about the fairness of media.
The Conservative supporters have this conspiracy theory that the "left wing" media is out to get them, and the Liberal and New Democrat supporters simply laugh and say that they are crazy, and that reporting the truth does not constitute bias.
As I was thumbing through the Globe and Mail website the other day, I came across this interesting article that caught my eye.
The headline was:
With the little blurb online before the article saying:
Neat! I had to read more!
This revelation was made based on a Nanos poll which basically asked based on the following institutions do you feel they have too much power, the right amount of power, or not enough power, or unsure.
The results from the poll which is displayed within the very article shows the following when asked about the office of the Prime Minister:
Too Much Power: 41.6%
The Right Amount of Power: 40.4%
Not Enough Power: 9.3%
Unsure: 8.7%
Perhaps I fell asleep in grade school when they taught the class how to add, but based on the Nano's poll I see it as 49.7% of Canadians feeling that the PMO has either the right amount of power, or not enough...
That is a higher figure of Canadians believing that the headline of the article is incorrect, then correct.
But again, what do I know?
Have a look at the article yourself and make your own judgment.
I guess maybe there is something to the old saying:
"It's not paranoia if they are really after you"
The Conservative supporters have this conspiracy theory that the "left wing" media is out to get them, and the Liberal and New Democrat supporters simply laugh and say that they are crazy, and that reporting the truth does not constitute bias.
As I was thumbing through the Globe and Mail website the other day, I came across this interesting article that caught my eye.
The headline was:
PMO has too much power, poll finds
With the little blurb online before the article saying:
More than 40 per cent of Canadians put Prime Minister's Office ahead of Senate as institution most deserving to have its wings clipped
Neat! I had to read more!
This revelation was made based on a Nanos poll which basically asked based on the following institutions do you feel they have too much power, the right amount of power, or not enough power, or unsure.
The results from the poll which is displayed within the very article shows the following when asked about the office of the Prime Minister:
Too Much Power: 41.6%
The Right Amount of Power: 40.4%
Not Enough Power: 9.3%
Unsure: 8.7%
Perhaps I fell asleep in grade school when they taught the class how to add, but based on the Nano's poll I see it as 49.7% of Canadians feeling that the PMO has either the right amount of power, or not enough...
That is a higher figure of Canadians believing that the headline of the article is incorrect, then correct.
But again, what do I know?
Have a look at the article yourself and make your own judgment.
I guess maybe there is something to the old saying:
"It's not paranoia if they are really after you"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
