The White Russian

Taliban warns Canada to 'get out'

2006-06-02T06:30:00.000-07:00

CTV.ca News

A top Taliban official says Canadian troops should get out of Afghanistan and stop acting like Americans, or face the insurgents' wrath at the same level the U.S. has experienced.

The military commander and Taliban spokesperson, known as Mullah Dadallah, appeared on the Al-Jazeera television network this week.

"Our main enemy is the United States. As for Canada and the other countries, we have no historical enmity with them," Dadallah said, according to a report in The Globe and Mail on Friday.

"But if they want to come here as fighting forces, we will view then just as we view the Americans. America is a big snake that wants to bite everybody."

Canada currently has 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, and recently committed to remaining in the war-torn nation until at least 2009.

Since 2002, 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

______________________

Big snake eh Mr. Taliban?

I guess trying to revert a large portion of the world's surface to the feudal era is not acting like a big snake?

National Post reports on new Ice-breaking "corvettes"

2006-05-30T10:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...f-8d27d20561a6 (Subscription only, I'll give you the low down on the print version)

The Conservative government is considering buying a fleet of new "ice-capable" corvettes to allow our navy to patrol Canada's vast Arctic waters and abandoning...

Recently, there has been alot of criticism directed towards our MCDVs (Maritime Coastal Defense Vessels- http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kingston/). Basically, they were originally designed for fisheries protection, training, and mine warfare. However, they are extremely slow (can only make about 12 knots) and the hulls are too thin for ice browsing. Its also useless as it cant catch intruding ships (worthless in the war on terror- but so will the proposed OPVs). A recent navy report has blasted the ships, and the Navy is cancelling a $100 million refit for the boats, and wants a bigger, more capable platform.....in other words, the Svalbard.
[i]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Svalbard1.jpg[i].

Its a 6300 ton Norweigan designed OPV...im sure many of you are familiar with it. Its can only make about 5 or 6 knots more than a Kingston, but it has long range, can cut through a meter of ice, and can handle a heli. Its almost confirmed that the gov't prefers several Svalbards over three big, expensive Canadian designed icebreakers- a Conservative election promise. Now, the navy and gov't are fixing their chequebooks on the Svalbard. They aern't even that expensive- only 80 million, without the radar and chopper. The Press has also reported some missile capability for the proposed ships are being looked at.

I just gotta say, I love you Norweigans right about now, and I bet Langsten AG are crapping their pants at the prospect of a six strong Canadian order.

I just hope the project will come to pass and we wont spend 2 billion on three heavy icebreakers that will take forever to design and build.

O'Connor's got a wish list.

2006-05-30T05:19:00.000-07:00

ew cargo jets a top priority for Defence Minister, sources say"

Excerpts from National Post story, May 29:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

"The federal government will be asked this week to approve a multi-billion-dollar "wish list" of equipment purchases for the Canadian Forces, including new transport aircraft, helicopters, long-overdue trucks for the army and multi-purpose troop transport and supply ships for the navy.

Defence sources say Gordon O'Connor, the Defence Minister, will make a pitch to a Cabinet committee tomorrow for six major projects worth more than $8-billion...

At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.

The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports -- smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.

Mr. O'Connor is also proposing to buy as many as 20 new heavy-lift helicopters for the army and a total of 18 new search-and-rescue planes.

The army is to get a replacement for its 24-year-old logistics trucks, while the navy will get approval for its three new joint-support ships [JSS], a combination troopship and resupply vessel due to be built over the next five years, the sources said..."

___________

Excellent news, however, it will not pass, not with the PM focused on the next election. Lets just hope our PM is in a shopping mood....considering total costs will probably exceed $14 billion.

I still think that the JSS should be axed, and we should follow the aussies and acquire 66 MBTs instead of the MGS.

Even if this list is given the go ahead....the CF still requires many more billions lest the entire armed forces withers away.

Socialism in Europe is finally destroying the Old World

2006-03-25T12:06:00.000-08:00

France is burning for the second time in a year as student protesters ravage the country over new employment legislation. Antoil Ethuin, a Paris shopkeeper, remarked in tears that his “country is broken”. Hundreds of thousands of young people are protesting the new law that allows contract hiring. I find it quite hilarious actually; the French love to look down at the social “inequalities” across the pond. When was the last time Canada was torn apart by student or immigrant riots? The idea that Europe is more socially stable and tolerant than North America is one of the more prevalent myths of our times. In Rotterdam for instance, skinhead and immigrant gangs fight each other in running gun battles. Holland has been forced to tighten immigration practices due to a literal spilt in the social fabric of the nation between native Dutch and the Muslim immigrant population.

France not only faces minority and student unrest, but a horrifying rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic hate crimes. The recent riots in the immigrant suburbs were not the first, nor the last riot driven by social inequality in France. In 1968, rioting students brought France to the brink of Marxist revolution. In March of last year, about a thousand French students peacefully protesting education reform were attacked by gangs of black and Arab youths, who promptly and proudly told the media present that they were getting back at the “little whites”. Of course, this event was grossly underreported in the North American media. Political correctness it seemed, had reached a new low. It wasn’t until the fall suburbs riots in France did the world get a full glimpse of what Europe has become.

In France, there are two groups that have become socially alienated: young people and immigrants. Many people blame the alienation on capitalism and “the white man” in the case of the lack of minority integration. However, all evidence points to the socialist system as the main culprit. Europe as a whole has become a withering, stagnate society. Government has become so bloated that an event like our Sponsorship scandal is an everyday occurrence in some European countries. France represents what the welfare state has done to the Old World.

Excessively high taxes pay for a corpulent welfare system, while at the same time stifling economic growth. It doesn’t take a Bay Street economist to figure out that system can’t last forever. Overly generous welfare and health benefits have caused a fiscal crisis that has kept the budget deficit far above the European Union’s stated limit. In essence, it has become a society of freeloaders. There is a mandatory 35 hour work week, and annual vacation can be up to eight weeks. Where is the incentive to work?

France’s economic growth is miniscule compared to Canada or the US or even ex-communist states that have embraced capitalism with open arms. For example, Estonia has a growth rate of 7.1% compared to just 1.5% in France. For a supposed western economic and military powerhouse in the age of globalization, 1.5% is a disaster. Labor laws has brought the job market to a stand still. The unemployment rate is at 10%, with minorities and youth suffering disproportionably. Unions have massive power in France; their support makes or breaks political parties. Employers lack the ability to hire or fire because of the influence the corrupt unions wield. To put it simply, there are no available jobs, and an entire generation is suffering from the “equality” of the French welfare state. The new legislation allowing contract hiring for young workers was designed to boost employment, instead it was understood by students as just another sign of oppression.

Immigrants in France and the rest of Europe are not just victims of racism; they are victims of a welfare state taken too far. 26% are unemployed, and the rate is only higher for minority youth, especially Muslims. Some have blamed capitalism for the fall suburbs unrest, but why isn’t our immigrant Islamic population rising up to crush their oppressors? There are opportunities here in Canada, in fact, we can’t get enough immigrants. Rural communities and Alberta need immigrants the most, and I say we completely liberalize our immigration policies. Anyone can build a successful life in North America because of our economic freedoms- the same kind of freedoms that have been trampled in Europe. Canada may be a semi-welfare state, but at least we embrace the free market, something that the French left wing governments have been fighting for decades- largely thanks to the influence the Communist Party had during the Cold War.

The rioting students just don’t seem to realize what the real source of their plight is. It is not labor reforms, it is the very system they are tearing their country apart to protect.

Canada's New Place in the World, and it's Past Ignorance.

2006-03-15T06:49:00.000-08:00

There has been but one major theme in the news these days: Has Canada finally grown up? Have we as a country accepted the fact that the world is not a nice place and that we cannot hide anymore? These questions have been asked by the supporters of our current deployment to Afghanistan and our newfound place on the international scene.

Canada recently voted against an anti-Israeli motion in the UN. This signifies a shift from supporting the orgy of Israel bashing in the United Nations to saying enough is enough. Canadians have this ill conceived notion that the UN actually matters. We ignore the evidence that suggests the UN has allowed genocide after genocide and than blames the Americans in the end for not stopping it. Somehow, we think the UN can solve all the world’s problems. Half a century ago, the UN was important. Now, it has become the arena of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, where the most insignificant, corrupt, and poor countries have the same voice as Canada. The senior officials of the UN line their own pockets while at the same time preach against the evils of corruption. The organization lacks totally the mechanisms to do anything productive other than complain to the nations that matter. Canada needs to take a long, hard look at its role in the UN and ask: are Canadian concerns being addressed?

Canada has several national myths, foremost among these are public health care and our role as a peace loving, non violent, anti-military country. The Federal government (mostly Liberal run since World War Two) has been trying to convince us for decades that Canada does not fight wars. This process culminated in the now infamous soldiers in the streets Liberal attack ad of the recent election. The fact of the matter is, we did not invent peacekeeping, we do not do it often, and it never works. Many of you probably do not realize that Bangladesh and Pakistan are far, far more involved with peacekeeping than Canada. Did traditional peacekeeping stop the massacres in the former Yugoslavia? No, it did not. In fact, Canada resisted the launching of air strikes by the U.S that when finally conducted, halted the genocide in Bosnia. Because of our ignorant beliefs, more innocent Bosnian Muslims died than was necessary. During that same deployment, the government covered up an incident when Canadian troops killed over 30 Croatian paramilitaries in the Medak Pocket. According to the logic at the time, Canadian soldiers were not supposed to shoot people, even if they were blood thirsty terrorists. Canadian troops were supposed to dance through meadows of bright flowers holding hands with the poor people of the world.

As a country we’ve forgotten that our nation was built by blood on Vimy Ridge and the beaches of Dieppe. While we take every chance to criticize American so called militarism we bask in the protection of the world’s greatest superpower- with no cost to us. Consequently, many of our soldiers require food stamps because we do not deem them fit enough to receive our full support. Because of our attitudes we believe that the scumbags of the world can be reasoned with, that if only everyone embraced Canadian values there would be peace for all in the world.

Many Canadians are uncomfortable with our mission in Afghanistan, although the Conservative government and the media has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the importance of our presence there. No one remembers that Canadians died on 9/11, no one seems to care that Central Asia is the breeding ground for Islamofascism, the greatest threat the Western world has faced since the days of Hitler and Stalin. Rather, Canadians associate Afghanistan as an American war, a Bush war, one abhorrent to supposed Canadian values. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you have been paying attention to the news, you’ll know that the insurgents regularly murder, rape, and mutilate women just because they’re women that don’t subscribe to their crackpot radical Islamist views of oppression and subservience. They blow up schools and hospitals, and support their campaign with funds provided by a booming heroin industry.

All of the Federal political parties in Canada allegedly support the Afghan mission, but the Bloc and the NDP do not support the actual war fighting aspect of the mission. All three opposition parties want a debate in the House of Commons about the operation. The NDP claim we owe it to the troops, regardless that to a man, the soldiers in Afghanistan want to be there and know why they are there. However, the NDP are the most anti-military party in Canadian history and believes that Canada should be a peacekeeping country, even though peacekeeping in the traditional is obsolete and downright stupid. Throughout their history, they have been downright critical of anyone wearing the uniform. The NDP and the Bloc do not realize that in order to reopen a school in an Afghan village, you have to go out in the mountains and kill the terrorists that are going try to either blow it up or murder its female staff.

Canadians ignore the fact that the majority of Afghans actually support our presence there. We are doing good, and we will continue to do good as long as long as the left wing parties here in Canada do not decide sabotage the mission in order to score political points with their sheltered, ignorant voters. Furthermore, Canadians should analyze our newfound role in the world through our participation in such cold war relics as the United Nations.

Liberty in America is under attack.

2006-02-25T13:32:00.000-08:00

May I ask, where did all the Liberty go?

Not only are the neo-conservative policies ravaging the funds of the United States, they seem to be giving in to the social conservative. Liberty is disappearing faster than Osama in Afghantistan. Bush has nominated two known social conservatives to the Supreme Court, and this week South Dakota banned abortions. Does the state have any right to infringe on your physical rights? Hell no.

Although I sometimes envy the progress being made against the welfare state across the border, im troubled by the social conservative revolution and the complete hijacking of fiscal conservatism by neo-cons. The state has become increasingly bloated, and the liberty of American citizens is under threat.

Finally a Gov't that cares about National Defense?

2006-02-19T15:02:00.000-08:00

Praise Allah, Buddha, the God-Emperor of Japan, etc, but just be grateful that Canada finally has a government that cares about national defense. Canada as a member of the G8, must be able to assert its sovereignty militarily.

Canada is a geological treasure trove- as the North Sea oil fields deplete we will become one of the world’s only politically stable sources of energy. Northern Canada has large reserves of unexploited hydrocarbons. Ironically, climate change is making these resources more accessible and even potentially profitable. Not all countries, however, accept our legitimate geographical claims to certain areas of the Arctic. Denmark, for instance, is eying the archipelagos off the coast of Greenland, a Danish colonial possession. The Danes empathized their claim by recently occupying Hans Island, the center of the dispute between Canada and Denmark. We retaliated in kind by launching our own expedition to Hans Islands. Nevertheless, the Royal Danish Navy has armed icebreakers that conduct regular patrols in to the Arctic. On the other hand, the Canadian Navy does not currently possess Arctic patrol vessels, and our Halifax-class frigates are not suitable for Arctic operations. The Coast Guard operates icebreakers, yes, but they are not capable of conducting the sort of sovereignty missions necessary. The Conservatives wish to build three armed icebreakers, along with an Arctic deep-water docking facility in Iqualuit. In addition to maintaining our Arctic sovereignty, these vessels could be used to enforce environmental standards. The Globe and Mail has stipulated that the major threat in the Arctic is in fact foreign vessels ignoring our environmental laws.

The Conservative proposal also includes installing underwater sensor systems in order to detect any foreign submarines operating in our Arctic waters undetected. American submarines are believed to routinely violate our territorial waters. Although these submarines could be Russian, or even British, the realities of the post- Cold War world point to the U.S. Navy as the likely culprit. What is not clear is whether or not the violators are Attack submarines (SSNs) or Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBNs). The latter represents a most serious offense. Surely Canada should be able to keep foreign weapons of mass destruction out of its territory?

The total cost of the proposed Arctic defense program is estimated to be at least $5.3 billion. It is a substantial investment in a country seemingly dedicated to neglecting totally the needs of National Defense. Still, the Arctic is a resource rich region of our great nation that requires a military presence. Stephen Harper is completely correct when he says that if you don’t use sovereignty, you can lose it.

Bernard Lord and the PCs are on the Right Track.

2006-02-17T11:50:00.000-08:00

Last week, Premier Bernard Lord announced a comprehensive Cabinet shuffle and several new portfolios were created in order to further the five main initiatives of the current government. Upon hearing of a new independent Department of Wellness, many supporters of small government cringed. However, one only has to look at the statistics to ascertain the logic in the plan. New Brunswick is the least healthy province in Canada and frankly, it’s costing us. Obesity, smoking, and the attendant lack of physical exercise are the greatest health risks facing our province, and those are the problems that are going to be tackled by the new Department.

41% of New Brunswickers are overweight, the highest rate in the country, and the figure is only increasing. For instance, 30 years ago a survey was taken of 9000 students in Saint John public schools. Only 30 were found to have high blood pressure. A repeat of the study is currently being conducted, and researchers expect to find as many as 700 youths with high blood pressure. If that does not tell you that obesity is a pandemic in this province, what will? Current estimates speculate that over 750 people die of obesity in this province each year. Most of these deaths are attributed to cardiovascular problems. New Brunswick’s high smoking rate (15% above the national average) only contributes to the dilemma as smoking is one of the six major causes of heart disease. Of course, smoking is the biggest factor in lung cancer, which kills over a thousand New Brunswickers each year.

The fact of the matter is the much vaunted public health care system in this province and country as a whole is collapsing. British Columbia, Quebec, and Alberta are all moving towards health care reform, with access to private care central to the plans of all three. Why is that? Simply put, the system is falling apart due to the accumulating stress of out of control obesity and smoking rates. For example, a local man has had several operations but keeps coming back for the same procedure because his damaged bones cannot heal properly due to his two packs a day smoking habit. Furthermore a report last week outlined the danger that baby boomers pose to the health system. It warns that the abhorrent smoking and obesity rates amongst the late middle aged have the potential to ruin public health care in Canada.

So how much does obesity and smoking cost New Brunswick each year? The most conservative estimate, the estimate that takes into account only direct cases of obesity as a killer, is about $55 million per annum. If you consider all of the direct and indirectly related deaths from obesity each year, the cost goes up to $72 million yearly, or about 5.6% of New Brunswick’s total health budget. The indirect costs of obesity in such things as productivity are also staggering, even eye opening. Obesity probably costs New Brunswick some 100,000 work days, 160,000 physician visits, 225,000 bed days, and 600,000 restricted activity days annually. Health problems credited to smoking cost our provincial health care system about $120 million a year, and employers some $218 million yearly.

Obviously, the Progressive Conservatives realize that the most pressing health challenges to New Brunswick need to be addressed. The Department of Wellness is a part of a strategy to promote healthy lifestyles. If the smoking rate can be drastically cut, and if people can be encouraged to eat right and exercise, the taxpayers of New Brunswick may not have to subsidize an over bloated, inefficient, and continuously more expensive public health system.

Excellent Michael Chricton essay on Politicized Science

2006-02-13T06:38:00.000-08:00

Kudos to Bio from www.wedgestation.com/forum for actually taking the time to hand type this straight out of Chricton's book, State of Fear. He likens the science of eugenics, which was very popular before WWII to the present day junk science on global warming. State of Fear is a good book, you should read it, but Chricton does try just a smidge too hard to discredit the left's views on climate change. Your just preaching too the choir buddy.

Enjoy
_____________
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford, George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells. Nobel prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done in Harvard, Yale, Princeton and John Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation, and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarassing- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the 'feeble minded.' Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century- 'dangerous human pests' who represented 'the rising tide of imbeciles' and who were polluting the best of the human race.

The eugenicists and immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded - Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or sterilization.

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty... there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of the human race."

Such views werre widely shared. Wells spoke against "ill trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their own kind." Shaw said that "only eugnenics can save mankind."

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as The Rising Tide of Color Against the White World Supremacy, by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal- the improvement of mankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of 29 states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most enthusiastic and progressive- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundatioon continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before WWII began.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led to a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and killing of ten million undesirables.

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody ever had been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts at universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of 'degenerate' or 'unfit.'

Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.

Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell in line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the 'active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy... where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine... no external pressure can be documented.' German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. Those few who did not adjust disappeared.

We are now engaged in a great new theory, that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealth with.

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme solutions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice- terms that have no agreed definitions- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial, and I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being supressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions on the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are no longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called 'the demon-haunted world' of our past. That hope is science.

But, as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

That is the danger we now face, and that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

Just me, or are women not eating these days?

2006-02-10T12:35:00.000-08:00

I can’t seem to remember how many times I’ve heard the phrase “Mischa Barton is so hot”, or “man, Lindsay Lohan is fucking sexy”. What? What the hell is wrong with you people? Only a blind, deaf, and dumb retarded albino could not realize that those women have eating disorders. Those 95 pound celebrities are not beautiful, in fact, they should disgust you. Conditions such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia are becoming more and more widespread and all the young, horny male can do is to encourage the problem. . On the opposite end of the spectrum, many men become obsessed with being muscular, and therefore resort to dangerous diets and heavy steroid use. This cultural focus on appearance is what’s wrong in the world.

Recent research has suggested that close to 30% of young female Canadians suffer from eating disorders and the figure is only rising. 80% of non-afflicted females are believed to be at risk of developing an eating disorder sometime in the future due to the ever increasing societal fixation on weight. Eating disorders can, and frequently do, kill. The recovery process takes years and most sufferers never fully recover from their ordeal. It is fast becoming a vicious cycle; how can one recover from something like anorexia when society wants them to look like skeletons? We think dying is sexually appealing, ain’t that a bitch?

Somehow, men expect women to have slim stomachs, giant breasts, and long legs. Oh yeah, that is completely reasonable! How far have we fallen when every woman aspires to look like a porn star? It is utterly unfeasible and frankly we men should be ashamed of ourselves. Now, of course not every woman is troubled by such pressures, many could care less. It can not ignored, however, that far too many women are being affected by the need to look a certain way, and are willing to resort to drastic measures to achieve it. Does it appear to anybody that maybe our perception of what is beautiful is becoming something of a paradox? We believe that eating disorders are horrible, but yet the only way for most women (and some men) to achieve the standard we want are to starve themselves or go under the Surgeon’s knife. Studies have discovered that young women fear becoming fat more than nuclear war, cancer, or losing their parents!

I’m sure a lot of you are aware of “roid monkeys”. Come on, you’ve all seen them. Pardon me, but I find that notion that one has to eat steak every day, chug back creatine, and shoot Mexican steroids in your ass cheek only a wee bit too much just to have those big, useless arms you’ve always wanted. Ask any one of those guys, and they say they do what they do to get chicks. It’s either that or because they want to “hold their own in a fight”. What? So you endanger your life just so you can go to Nicky Z’s on a Saturday night, pick up a pink haired trailer park girl named Crystal, and wake up Sunday with a bad case of the clap? That does not sound even remotely appealing.

Of course, this increasingly important societal concern of weight and physical appearance was not a political issue during the very recent election. It should have been, it is a massive health problem that needs to be addressed quickly. Like the zillion other “Reality Check” columns around the world this one is aimed at helping you think through the surface of an issue. Please remember that the next time you see an attractive woman at Dolan’s Pub, try to think what she may go through in order to look the way she does. And that my friends is not pretty at all.

Forceful Marxism in Our Universities

2006-02-08T17:46:00.000-08:00

In case you have not been paying attention- Canadian Universities are the last stronghold of Marxist thought in Canada. Now, even though I despise any sort of Socialism, I really have nothing against Leftists or Marxist. I believe they are wrong when it comes to politics and economics, but as people I do not hold anything against them. My girlfriend has relatives that are Marxist scholars, and I consider them close friends. After all, it is just politics.

However, I am of the belief that our post secondary institutes have been hopelessy compromised by Liberal and left-thinking academics. This is not news. What is news is the fact the in the U.S, steps may be taken to protect students and faculty that are victims of bias. What is wrong is the fact that Marxist theory is being shoved down the throat of young, impressionable 19 year olds by self serving Professors and Lecturers. I should know, I was one of them. It took me years to see through the half truth, bias, and out right lies.

I attend the University of New Brunswick. The Pol Sci department has three Marxist-Feminists out of a staff of seven. One utterly refuses to accept any views but his own- that America is evil and the white male is to blame for everything. In one class, he basically called every male present rapists. I failed an exam due to my total refusal to blame the wars of the 20th century on American manliness.

In addition to a total lack of objectivity in marking, these academics do not hide their efforts to instill their political views on young students who are about as vulnerable as they come. In a recent tutorial, instead of talking about the subject at hand (Reconstruction in the American Civil War) the tutorial leader, a self described "1960s radical" only seemed to want to talk about 21st Century percieved American Imperialism.

Universities are not centers of learning anymore, they are centers of propaganda.

Tory Woes

2006-02-08T08:26:00.000-08:00

Oh Stephen Harper, what have you done? It is only the first week of your government and already you have reneged on popular and intelligent campaign promises. You told us your government would be different, that you would not tolerate the same antics that defined the 12 years of Liberal hegemony. Instead, the appointments of David Emerson, Michael Fortier, and to a lesser extent Gordon O’Connor represent a breach of the public’s trust.

At first glance, Stephen Harper’s decisions make absolutely sound political sense. The Conservatives were shut out of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The Tories have enough MPs surrounding Toronto that can represent the city’s interests, but that situation is not exactly true in regards to Montreal and Vancouver. This explains the appointment of Mr. Emerson, a Liberal turncoat from Vancouver and Mr. Fortier, an unelected Conservative from Montreal. The biggest problem facing the Conservatives is a complete lack of experience. Many Tories today remember the disastrous government of Joe Clark that fell just nine months after election due to the fact that his rookie government was unable to resist the tide of a resurgent Trudeau. Most of the new Cabinet Ministers, indeed the entire Tory Caucus, suffer from a critical lack of experience. The most experienced member of the new Cabinet is probably the eccentric Stockwell Day, who served as a provincial Minister in Alberta for a number of years. John Baird and Tony Clement have also had long careers at the senior levels of provincial politics and their expertise will be essential. However, at the federal level, most of the new Conservative Cabinet members lack any sort of familiarity with the upper echelons of power. David Emerson is the new Minister of International Trade and has that sorely needed experience, which was attained through his tenure as Industry Minister under the now fallen Liberal government of Paul Martin. He is also a very powerful man, with many contacts spread throughout the North American lumber industry. This in part explains his appointment; he may be the best hope for resolving the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. once and for all. Mr. Fortier is a finance geek with the intelligence and drive to wrap his head around the Public Works portfolio. Gordon O’Connor, the new Defense Minister spent most of his life in the Canadian Forces and retired as a Brigadier-General. Unlike many previous heads of the Defense portfolio, Mr. O’Connor will actually know what he is doing.

However, Prime Minister Harper has clearly made some potentially harmful mistakes in appointing these three individuals. After the defection of Belinda Stronach to the Liberals in May of 2005, dozens of Conservative MP’s supported a bill that would require floor-crossers to seek an immediate by-election. Stephen Harper, rightly so, joined in and raged against the inappropriate and unforgivably ambitious action of Miss Stronach, although he did not support the by-election bill himself. By accepting the former Liberal David Emerson into his Cabinet, the Prime Minister now looks to be just as hypocritical as any other previous Prime Minster, no matter how logical the appointment seems to be. In addition, the “Honorable” Mr. Emerson is a hopeless opportunist; his constituency is overwhelmingly Liberal and his voters contributed hundreds of volunteer hours and nearly $100,000 to his election campaign, only to see their representative betray their political beliefs. That is not democracy. In regards to Michael Fortier the PM and the Conservative Party as a whole consistently said during the election that any Cabinet members in a Conservative government would have to be elected. Mr. Fortier does not hold a seat in the House of Commons, although he will seek one during the next Federal Election. On top of all that, Mr. Fortier is being appointed to the Senate, despite the Conservative policy of reforming the Senate along more democratic lines.

Gordon O’Connor at first glance seems like the perfect choice for the Minister of National Defense. However, he served for years as a lobbyist for some of the biggest and powerful defense firms in the world. Although the Conservatives wish to ban government officials from lobbying for five years after they leave public service, a lobbyist entering the government is not a big deal. He severed his professional links with his former employers two years ago upon election to Parliament and he does not likely suffer from a conflict of interest. Still, his selection did raise some eyebrows. The most pressing concern about O’Connor however is not his lobbying past, but his current views on the Chief of the Defense Staff. General Rick Hiller is the most popular CDS in decades, both within the military and the Canadian public at large. Mr. O’Connor has criticized General Hiller in the past and there are fears Hiller may be sacked.

So what can the Prime Minister and the Tories do to contain this mess? First, they have to make it clear to the electorate that the Cabinet decisions were necessary. As I’ve already argued, they are quite logical. The Tories will also have to control internal dissent over the appointments of Fortier and Emerson, or risk a schism in the Party itself. Thirdly, the Prime Minister must move quickly to implement his five main priorities of government accountability, GST cuts, a tougher justice system, the fiscal imbalance with the provinces and of course the new child care plan. These measures, with the exception of the child care changes, enjoy wide support throughout Canada. The Tories will find support from the other parties on all their proposals excluding child care revamps, which is not supported by all three of the opposition parties and all of the Provincial governments. Contrary to many beliefs, the Senate will not a be a barrier to Tory power; the Canadian people have given the Conservatives a mandate, and the Senate serves the interests of the people. Lastly, the Tories must prove they are indeed different and that change will be good for Canada. How they will do that however is still not clear

Aid to Hamas is like shooting yourself in the foot.

2006-01-30T07:23:00.000-08:00

The world seems to be united in their view that Hamas is not deserving of international aid unless drastric change is implemented. Thank God. I was beginnig to think the world was going to crack.

Stephen Harper has demonstrated he will not tolerate a terrorist government in Palestine. Even the Aid-happy European Union has stated that Hamas must "recognize the state of Israel, renounce violence and disarm." Could Europe actually be growing some balls for once?

__________________________

LONDON, England (AP) -- The United States wants other nations to cut off aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian government, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said ahead of an international strategy session on Mideast peace prospects.

Rice ruled out any U.S. financial assistance to a Hamas government.

Humanitarian help to the Palestinians, many of whom are poor and unemployed, is likely on a "case-by-case basis," Rice said Sunday.

She indicated that the administration would follow through on aid promised to the current, U.S.-backed Palestinian government led by President Mahmoud Abbas.

"The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence and that refuses its obligations," under an international framework for eventual Mideast peace, Rice said.

Rice was meeting other members of the so-called Quartet of would-be Mideast peacemakers Monday.

The group, which includes the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, is already on record as saying "there is a fundamental contradiction between armed group and militia activities and the building of a democratic state."

In Gaza meanwhile, a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, called on the international community to continue funding the Palestinian Authority.

"We assure you that all the revenues will be spent on salaries, daily life and infrastructure," he said at a news conference, addressing international concerns that aid would be used to fund violence.

The Liberal Bias

2006-01-29T13:27:00.000-08:00

Over the years, especially after the removal of a brutal dictator that somehow made Canadians hate the U.S. even more, there has been outrage and disgust at perceived American interference in Canadian politics. Most Canadian “neutral” media outlets could not contain their glee as they happily reported on American right-wingers supposedly meddling in our affairs. During the recent election, the Liberals tried to scare Canadians by suggesting that the Conservative Party drew funds from oh so scary American conservative groups. Much of the remainder of the election was spent by the Canadian media trying to drudge up any other “evidence” of American interference. It was suggested that just because Stephen Harper made a speech to registered Republicans nearly a decade ago, Canada would be doomed under his leadership and he had been hopelessly compromised by American interests. Anger was expressed in Canada when it was revealed that the American right wing group Free Congress was actually rooting for Harper (of course they were, but who cares?). Somehow, this was taken as a sign of more American intrusions. However, when American left-wingers take an interest in Canadian politics, it goes almost completely unreported. Biased much?

Many prominent Democrats in the U.S. have repeatedly labeled the Canadian Conservative Party as completely and utterly repugnant to Canadian values and should not, under any circumstances, come to power. Democrats have offered their support to Liberal and left-wing political parties and groups in Canada with nary a word from the Canadian media. On the other hand, when an American Conservative makes a supportive comment of the Tories, we are all over it like a pack of dogs. Consider this: what would happen if a high ranking Republican, let’s say John McCain, publicly stated that the Conservative Party was the best choice for Canada and that the Liberal Party was evil? Rioting in the streets, that’s what. We may even provide our soldiers with enough rudimentary equipment and training to invade Maine, but don’t count on it.

Al Gore recently stated that "The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," and " the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests." The only major newspaper I’m aware of that considered the comments inappropriate and printed old Al’s horribly ignorant quotes was the Calgary Herald- located right in the heart of Tory country. Obviously, there is some pretty significant media bias in this country, even more than originally thought. Even so, poor Al just can’t seem to grasp the notion that in Canada individuals can only donate $5,000 a year to political parties and companies and unions are capped at $1,000 a year. The Conservatives have promised to limit donations even further. Still, I think those guys at 97.9 FM are going to use Gore’s quotes as more evidence to support their odd hypothesis that Stephen Harper is an oilman controlled by corporate interests. They will probably use their favorite sources of information- The Daily Show and The Colbert Report- to back their extremely intelligent claims. Dear god, does the media bias in this country run deep or what?

I’m not saying that there is not a conservative bias in Canada. In fact, it is probably more subjective than the Liberal bias. However, the mainstream media has a duty to at least attempt objective reporting, and by not reporting Liberally inclined favoritism from the U.S, they cease to be a legitimate source of objective information.

Kyoto is Useless

2006-01-29T13:09:00.000-08:00

I have to say it for the sake of sanity, Kyoto is useless. Not only will the treaty hurt our economy, but who says that global warming is our fault? I know it’s a fad to believe everything the liberal media says, but seriously, does anybody think for themselves anymore? As Canadians, we love to look down on those primitive Yankees, but the fact of the matter is, they are so far ahead of us in emissions reduction and climate change research that it makes us look like fools. They have the right idea too: That we do not know enough about climate change to attempt something like Kyoto, and that all of the solid evidence available points to humanity’s innocence.

The climate has been changing long before the Industrial Age, and humans have had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, a warming period helped to bring Europe out of the Dark Ages. Why is it that we try to blame natural cycles on our Carbon Dioxide emissions? Some people even try to blame earthquakes on humanity. Many left leaning environmentalists seem to think that our recent sprees of intense hurricanes are being caused by human induced global warming. If these individuals had the common sense to do some historical meteorological research, they would discover that hurricane intensity is the result of purely natural cycles. 30 years ago the Gulf of Mexico was home to some very, very scary storms, however that particular cycle ended and the coast line began to be heavily developed. Now people are trying to find excuses for their own stupidity, and blaming modern technology has become quite popular.

Still, I am not pretending to know the answers. If for some reason it turns out climate change really is our fault, there are no simple solutions, despite what everyone says. Firstly, Kyoto is worthless to the point of hilarity. Even if the Pact was successfully implemented (which it won’t be) the impact on emissions will be miniscule. The economic consequences, however, will be enormous. Canadians seem to want action on global warming, but I’m willing to bet money that once the factories and plants start to shut down there will be a drastic change in heart. I also can’t seem to grasp why India and China have been given such leeway? I don’t care that they are developing countries. Here is a scenario for ya: If we adopt Kyoto, our economy will go into a major recession. But wait, global emissions will continue to rise. Why do you ask? Because India and China will pick up the slack. Than the pinko commie, development assistance happy lefties will demand that we provide aid to India and China so that they can bring their own emissions under control. Unfortunately, our economy collapsed because we decided to act on flimsy junk science

The idiocy of our climate change policy makes me want to vomit-preferably all over the face of Leonardo Dicaprio or some other hippie activist celebrity. We have to learn to adapt to our changing world. We cannot halt or even put a dent in global warming; it is probably not even our fault. Instead, we are just going to have live with it. In other words, grow up people.

The Conservative Party is correct in the notion that Kyoto is not right for Canada. Provinces should be able to negotiate with Ottawa their own emissions control regime. Canada just has to look America. There the States, not the Federal government, has taken the lead. Guess What? The U.S. is so far ahead of us its amazing.