The Politics and Religion of Kyoto

Once again the Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein provides balanced and valuable insight today regarding the Kyoto controversy - Debunking Hot Hysteria. Of particular interest to me:

In fact, predicting climate change and forecasting weather are different issues. Unfortunately, too many politicians, environmental activists and media who often have a political agenda to ram through the Kyoto accord, are deliberately blurring this important distinction.

This is understandable because the UN treaty is highly controversial.

Many Kyoto critics charge it is more concerned with transferring wealth from the First World to the Third World than seriously reducing man-made greenhouse gases.

So is it possible that Kyoto is actually a form of enforced U.N. global tithing for the benefit of 'developing countries' such as China who are let off the hook?

To be sure there is a lot of hysteria and political twisting of 'facts' at the polar opposites (sorry) of the debate, but I suspect the increased focus goes deeper than that.

Why all the hype right now? Why is this such a crisis today and supposedly on the minds of Canadians more than the threat of terrorism, inadequate health care or poverty?

First of all, I would suggest that MSM has a lot to do with it. Unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims are often made by junk-scientists and used by MSM as an enticement to sell their product. Repetition is used to reinforce the belief. Environmental fear sells papers, encourages people to watch propaganda on television, the internet and in the cinema.

Of course, environmental lobbyists and green industries have a vested interest too. But it's not all about the money.


The second reason why I believe this is such a hot topic today is that there is a huge spiritual void that the worship of the environment and earth serves to fill; especially by those who have abandoned traditional religion.

To be sure most Christians, Jews, Muslims and followers of other faiths have a respect for the earth as a gift from their God and believe in the importance of being good stewards, but for some people, the earth has become their god.

M.I.T. Professor Richard Lindzen articulated this concept quite eloquently in a speech given at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.:

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?"

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief..."

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics..."

"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.

This all seems to dovetail well with a letter in today's Sun:

Green doom

Re "The New Pornographers (Lorrie Goldstein, Jan. 7): I've always been amazed by the fact that if someone stands on a street corner and preaches apocalyptic doom, many consider that to be a sign of mental illness. However, if one preaches apocalyptic doom, but does it within the confines of environmental concern, this is deemed as being honourable and compassionate. Strange days indeed.

Indeed. Better pull out your Kyoto bible and bow to High Priest Suzuki.

Is global warming - or to use the new buzz word climate change actually occurring? I don't see how that can possibly be disputed or denied. However the relevant question is to what degree are man-made greenhouse gas emissions responsible and what can we do about that in practical terms?

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between the hype and self-interest at both ends - possibly in that middle ground that Colby Cosh suggests where climate change can be seen as a rational probability requiring thoughtful consideration and policy development, but not necessarily mandating a panicky, paranoid reaction.

That goal would especially not be well-served by joining the Kyoto Kult.


Update: Kate points out a disturbing POV from the Weather Channel - "Sing from the Same Hymn Book". Stripping the Kyoto heretics - it fits in perfectly with my religion analogy.

Dion reaches out to Alberta

Gotta love Dion's approach (H/T SDA)

“The government will not decide everything" - Translation: You'll still get to choose your own street names. Kyoto's a good one though.


And how about this one?

Then he tore a strip off young guys heading for the oilsands.

“All these workers living too fast for the easy money in the north,” the prime minister-wannabe blasted as Liberal-appointed senators Tommy Banks and Grant Mitchell looked on. “It’s not good for the economy.”

Good stuff, Stephane.

He talked about “new regulations for the industry” – which means Alberta hydrocarbon- based industrial heartland. “It will be fair, it will be demanding, but we will be responsible,” he insisted. “It will not be a way to pull the money out of Alberta.”

Then he outlined his plan to make oilsands developers toe the line, imposing what sounds like massive taxes by basing the fed’s capital cost allowance on how much process water they use and how much carbon dioxide goes up the stacks.

Quelle finesse!


At this rate, Harper won't even have to go out on the campaign trail. Dion will do it all for him.

* * * *

Update: More outrage here - Dion and Easy Money.

A great Western rant here - KOed, Going Dion for the Count.

Gerry Nichols - Bad Moooo-ve by Dion.

Colby Cosh - "Fire Bad. Bread good."

Debunk - Part Deux

Continuing on with the Kyoto theme...

Tuesday's Financial Post carried a similar story adjacent to the article by Peiser. In "Climate action would be suicidal", FP columnist Peter Foster gives his reasons for the lack of substance in Kyoto, which you can read for yourself.

Here is the interesting part:

...Kyoto was just one draconian step towards a much more draconian future.

It is hard to understand why the Conservatives do not hammer away at these facts. Instead, in the face of an alleged tsunami of public concern, matched only by public ignorance, the Conservatives have now allegedly "gone green." They are "consulting" with radical, unelected environmental NGOs. But then what can they do? There is an election coming and its most important feature may be that Canadians are enjoying unseasonally mild weather even as it is being used to scare them to death.

So the government is being held hostage to the political will of Jack Layton and the environmentalists; even more so now with Wajid Khan's move to the Tories having the net result of needing only the cooperation of the NDP to hold the balance of power (reinforced by Lapierre's recent resignation).

Climate change is an alleged "collective action" problem. That is, there is no point in doing anything unless every major or developing industrial power on earth signs on, and -- more importantly -- keeps to its commitments. Which they wouldn't. As it is, the absence of China and India from Kyoto -- nations likely destined to be this century's largest carbon emitters -- was one of the reasons why the United States wisely refused to sign on.

In any event, the nations that did sign on to Kyoto are almost all struggling to meet their targets. They have succeeded only in imposing even more deadweight bureaucracy...

"Deadweight bureaucracy" - The kind of thing that lefties love. Lots of unionized jobs feeding at the trough of the public purse.

Today's Post carries a column by Colby Cosh stating the case for a reasonable middle ground. We also have a couple of articles in the FP. Foster again talks about "hysteria over climate change" in Europe's Masterplan, and Lawrence Solomon talks about a theory of a 'crash' coming in the climate boom-bust cycle (Will the Sun Cool Us?).



All of which begs the question - Why did all this seemingly factual opposition suddenly come out of the media woodwork? My guess is that Canadian business is suddenly worrying that Harper's steady course to the centre is actually now veering far left; which should be a concern for us all.

And if Harper is moving far left, God help Canada.

* * * *

Update: Excellent debate going on about Kyoto at The Prairie Wrangler: Should Canada Drop Kyoto?

And speaking of the environment, Hargrove slams Layton over tough emission standards (SDA) - "It's Not Easy Being Green". Reminds me of a quote from the previous post - "a fundamental conflict between economic realism and environmental idealism".

Saturday Update: Dark Blue Tory - Kyoto's garbage...end of story.

And a few choice lines from a Sun reader (I don't agree with the whole letter, but this part is great):

Kudos to Lorrie Goldstein for prying off the lid of what is probably the biggest scam in the world, the Kyoto Protocol, or what I call the Wizard of Oz(one). This treaty is actually a giant wealth redistribution scheme, socialism on a global scale that taxes wealthy, industrialized countries by forcing them to buy carbon emission credits from poorer countries through a virtual (phony) carbon market, while not reducing the world's pollution by one single molecule. In other words, we pay other countries to make and take our garbage. Also, Kyoto will actually accelerate globalization by encouraging companies to move their factories from highly-regulated Canada to mass-polluter countries like India and China; thus lowering our standard of living. In effect it's socialism disguised as science by our environistas. No wonder Dion, Duceppe, and Layton love it...

Debunking Kyoto - Part 1

First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not disputing the concept of climate change. I believe that it has occurred at varying rates since the beginning of time.

However, I do not believe that the Kyoto accord is necessarily the ultimate answer to this problem. Throwing piles of money at something that will likely deliver questionable results at best, does not seem to be a reasonable approach in my humble opinion. Also, there are pollution problems other than greenhouse gas emissions plaguing our planet.

First I have to give thanks to SDA reader "Willy" for a reference to a very interesting article in Tuesday's Financial Post - Kyoto sinks Europe: Billions in costs make it more and more unlikely that the EU can continue to go it alone slashing carbon emissions by Benny Peiser who is a researcher at Liverpool John Moores University:

The crisis centres on a fundamental conflict between economic realism and environmental idealism, between national interest and green ideology. It has exposed the increasing tension between Europe's green enthusiasm and the realization that its unilateral framework comes at a hefty cost that is beginning to erode the economic stability of a waning continent.

Instead of reducing EU's carbon emissions significantly, the carbon-trading strategy for meeting its Kyoto target has actually had the opposite effect:

Instead, year after year, most EU countries continue to increase their greenhouse-gas emissions. Rather than proving its effectiveness, the trading system has pushed electricity prices even higher while energy-intensive companies are forced to close down, cut jobs, or pass on the costs to consumers.

Gunter Verheugen, the EU's industry commissioner, has warned that by "going it alone" Europe is burdening its industries and consumers with soaring costs that are undermining Europe's international competitiveness. Instead of improving environmental conditions, Europe's policy threatens to redirect energy-intensive production to parts of the world that reject mandatory carbon cuts.

Verheugen's warning reaffirms what U.S. administrations have been saying for many years. It is aimed at the rapidly evolving challenges posed by Asian competitors such as China and India that are set to overtake Europe's sluggish economy within the next couple of decades. Indeed, Europe's imprudent unilateralism is not only constraining its trade and industry; worse still, it has led to a significant slowdown in European R&D budgets, a sliding trend that is hampering the development of low-carbon technologies.

Did you catch that last bit? Kyoto has had the effect of slowing down low-carbon technology development.

In recent weeks, even U.S. Democrats have cautiously started to lower expectations. They now concede that even under a Democratic administration, the United States is unlikely to join any international climate regime that would exclude Asia's looming superpowers and burden its economy with unilateral obligations.

What's that? Even the Democrats are having second thoughts about Kyoto?


Meanwhile, the environmentalists are trying to wring as much political capital as they can from Stephen Harper's shaky minority government. Two noteworthy editorials from today's Toronto Sun chastise Harper and other politicians for jumping on the popular bandwagon.

A respected Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Bell, says "the Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification."

More to follow.

Challenge for Dalton

I wonder if Dalton can do anything about the incredible shrinking job situation in Southern Ontario?

Talking about good-paying jobs here; not McJobs.

* * * *

More from the Record about NCR:

NCR is blaming the strong Canadian dollar and the fact a high percentage of Waterloo's production is exported as reasons for the changes.

As well, NCR's competitors are cutting expenses by moving their manufacturing to "offshore and low-cost regions," Langos said. "If we didn't take this effort and activity, then it will cause our margins to decline significantly because it will make us less competitive in the marketplace."

Hoping for Answers

Hope Bay, Ontario cottagers are still patiently waiting to hear from the natives who own the land that their cottages sit on, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada which has been handling the lease agreements and rent collection up until now.

The cottagers have been told to vacate the buildings by the end of January. According to the Globe, "more jarring was the issue of building ownership: "You are not allowed to remove or dismantle any structures affixed to the land," said the letter, signed by Leea Litzgus, the department's Ontario director of lands and trusts services."


The cottagers feel that the buildings are theirs, because as the Owen Sound Sun Times reports:

Those leases with INAC direct that tenants receive 12 months notice if the land is to become unavailable for cottage rental purposes. They also give cottagers the right within 30 days to remove any buildings they erected on the leased land, after which they would become the property of the Crown.

Instead, and despite years of INAC assurances - one in an e-mail as recently as last November - that negotiations toward new leases were proceeding, the cottagers in a December letter from INAC were abruptly ordered out and given until Jan. 31 to collect their belongings.

INAC spokesman Brock Worobel said Wednesday the federal government does not have a position on cottage ownership, and he would not discuss terms of the expired leases with INAC on behalf of the First Nation land holders.

"The First Nation is of the opinion that the cottages are theirs," Worobel said. "We do not have a position on who owns the cottages and that needs to be decided in a court of law."

The Hope Bay cottagers are taking a very non-confrontational approach to this frustrating situation. They are appealing for meetings and discussion from both sides, but so far without results.

This conflict is far different from Caledonia inasmuch as the land is not in dispute. However, given the poor track record of both levels of government on that file, I can only wish the cottages of Hope Bay the patience of Job with regards to its resolution.

* * * *

Friday Update: Now you can put a face to the displaced cottagers (Record).


Official Government POV.

Oligarchy of Judges Runs Canada

At least that's what David Warren seems to be suggesting in today's Ottawa Citizen (A Straight Line to Polygamy):

The people of Canada are entirely excluded from this power loop by judges who, as our Supreme Court chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, is happy to explain, must never be tainted by electoral politics, even to the degree of being approved by Parliament. Nor, as she has also patiently explained, must they be restricted to interpreting the law as they receive it. Nor, I would think, would she make them accountable to God (though she has yet to rule expressly on that issue). No, they are a law unto themselves.

The word for this is "oligarchy" -- where a faction, in this case of judges, rules a country and writes the laws at its own pleasure. Canada previously aspired to "democracy," in which the people wrote their own laws, through a Parliament they elected and a government they could replace.

He cites the recent Ontario Court of Appeal "Three Parent" decision as the natural next step to polygamy being legalized. I would argue that it already is, inasmuch as it has never been challenged. It is only still listed as a criminal offence for "feel-good" purposes.


Warren finishes with the following warning:

Wake up, gentle reader. If you don't want polygamy in Canada, you had better start making a loud noise. For the internal enemies of our civilization have laid all the groundwork for this coup de grace.

Sorry, David. I think it's already too late.

* * * *

Meanwhile, in Sweden of all places, a judge has rejected two lesbian women’s attempts to adopt their partner’s biological child!!!

Well at least Canada is forward thinking, even if the rest of the world lives in a time warp.

Lorrie tells it like it is again

Lorrie Goldstein cuts through the hot air and gaseous political emissions surrounding Kyoto (The Problem with Kyoto).


His insight is almost painfully clear. He asks both Harper and Dion:

Why do you support a bizarre United Nations treaty that is mainly concerned with transferring billions of dollars from the First World (i.e. us) to the Third World over a period of decades, without any guarantees this will lower the man-made greenhouse gas emissions you say are the main cause of global warming?

Whatever they do, Kyoto contains no provisions to compel those nations to live up to their word when Canadians and others, either as taxpayers or consumers, bankroll projects abroad to reduce greenhouse gases.

He chastizes Harper for paying lip-service for re-election purposes, which does seem to be the case since John Baird became Environment Minister.

As for Harper, why do you now support a treaty which you surely must know is a mess and why are you ready to have (shudder) NDP leader Jack Layton make things even worse? Other than getting yourself re-elected, that is.

* * * *

Some feedback in Thursday's Letters section:

Thank you Lorrie Goldstein for your column of Jan. 10 ("The problem with Kyoto") explaining the truth about this protocol. Now I know why the U.S. and Australia did not sign on. The Liberals always seem to go any which way the wind blows thinking it will buy them votes, and maybe this has. I wish Canadians would read the details before blindly following those false pied pipers. I look forward to seeing John Baird's environmental plan and I am glad the Conservatives are consulting environmentalists...

...I think Lorrie Goldstein nailed the reasoning behind Stephen Harper's recent capitulation to the left on Kyoto as vote pandering. Making Canadians reduce energy emissions will prove detrimental. Europe is already feeling the pain with higher energy costs and lost jobs as a result of their Emissions Trading Scheme. Even the science behind Kyoto is dubious at best...

...Recent articles have stated that more than $20 billion has been taken out of western economies to purchase carbon credits in other countries not affected by the Kyoto accord. The lion's share of this money is going to China. Why is this? If you agree with the rumours, the fact is that people in high places have vast business interests in these countries, primarily China. The Conservative party had it right....

Corner Mosque

Well, the much-anticipated "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is debuting tonight. I am looking forward to seeing what all the fuss is about.

Reviews at this point tend to be mixed - some are cautiously positive and others giving it a thumbs down. Actually, Bill Brioux's column (Flat as the Prairie) is hilarious on its own. He refers to it as "an out-of-gas Corner Mosque":

The CBC comedy, premiering tonight at 8:30, has become the Little Prayer On The CBC, the divine new series that would lead the once proud public network into the promised land of higher, or even measurable, ratings.

The jokes here are endless, I suppose.


However, even the encouraging review by Rob McKenzie voices this concern:

If Little Mosque has one weakness, it's that several of the non-Muslim characters have the depth of cardboard. The antagonistic townspeople come across as a bunch of inbred, bug-eyed sister-kissers. Mercy may be small, but it has a radio station with a shock jock who loves to fearmonger, and a populace happy to be monged. And when Amaar, the town's metrosexual new imam, is en route to Mercy from Toronto, the cops who detain him at the airport are even more imbecilic than the two Mounties on Corner Gas. Amaar says that if his story doesn't check out, "you can deport me to Syria," to which one of the policemen huffs, "Hey, you do not get to choose which country we deport you to."

Mark Steyn, in the Jan. 15 issue of the Western Standard makes the point that "Muslim the new gay". He says that "...the intended impact is the same: to make Islam something only uptight squares fret about."



Record television critic Joel Rubinoff makes that comparison as well (sorry - under subscriber lock):

While some may find its Northern Exposure-meets-Men In Trees premise too derivative to feel truly original, the (mostly) witty subversion with which it skewers Muslim stereotypes shall be proven in time, I suspect, no less groundbreaking than Ellen, the '90s sitcom that, courtesy of Ellen DeGeneres, announced the arrival of gay culture in mainstream homes across North America.

Creator-producer Zarqa Nawaz herself is quoted by Rubinoff as saying:

I want people to ... recognize the similar issues that appear in all our lives. It's important to normalize the community within the greater community so as not to be seen as the 'other.'

Well, then clearly it's not a hidden agenda. However, if it helps us all to get along better together then what's the harm? And maybe, just maybe it will actually be funny!



What we really need here is a self-deprecating comedy about CBC. How about "Big Blight on the Taxpayer"? Now that I would watch.

* * * *

Update: Well, I just finished watching the pilot. (Of the show, that is). Big yawn as far as I'm concerned. For a show that is trying to do away with stereotyping, they sure go to a lot of trouble to cast the non-muslims as mindless dhimmwittis.

All in the family

The Brothers McGuinty are obviously after Stephen Harper (H/T to National Newswatch on both items).

Makes you wonder what they talk about at family gatherings. Do you think they sit there conspiring at the dinner table?

* * * *

Well trips to India do cost money I guess. C'mon Stephen. Ante up here! Dalton needs a little help getting re-elected.

Environmental Double Standard

I am somewhat bemused as to the pressure and bad press that the Harper government is receiving regarding environmental issues. One of the major problems seems to be that left-leaning media pundits and politicians only see the word "Kyoto" as having any significance regarding this file.

Yet, in our local rag I see various articles demonstrating that the McGuinty Liberals are missing in action on such important issues as regulation of auto recycling and salvaging.

In fact former federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose announced an initiative in Kitchener last month for reducing the number of mercury switches that end up in junkyards. This story was largely overlooked by MSM because it did not have that magic word Kyoto attached to it.

However, consider that "the amount of mercury found in one switch is enough to make the fish in a 24-hectare lake inedible for one year". Since we are all supposed to eat more fish, I find that quite significant.

The whole area seems to be a hodgepodge of by-laws at the regional level, and a lack of standards at the provincial level.

B.C. is introducing some kind of legislation next year and will hopefully thereby level the playing field for recyclers with standard certification requirements.


Let's hope the McGuinty government learns from the B.C. example.

But as Steve Fletcher, head of Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association says,

"I would be shocked if the provincial government would put a licence in place, as much as I know it's the best way to go, and what we've been fighting for," he said. "But the political reality of what's on their agenda is that we're just not that high up."

Now why is the environment such a priority for Canada but not for Ontario?

* * * *

UPDATE: Oh my. EU industries now starting to realize that Kyoto may actually affect their bottom line!! H/T Political Staples via Bourque. Quel choc.

See also Dissonance and Disrespect - Jack in the Box.


And on a completely unrelated topic:

Announcement: there is a scheduled outage for old Blogger next Tuesday, January 9th, from 7:45am-9:45am PST. You will not be able to post to old Blogger blogs or access any old Blogger blogs on Blog*Spot during this time.

This affects Joanne's Journey. Joanne should get her act together and upgrade.

* * * *

Reader Gabby has provided a couple of great links. The first is to Lorrie Goldstein's Sun column, The New Pornographers.

The other is related: Media Attacked for 'Climate Porn' from BBC News of all places!

Both are worth reading. Your feedback is invited in comments.

Please remain in your seat

When the Ontario Court of Appeal recently decided that some Ontario children are allowed to have more than two names under the category of 'parent' on their birth certificates, I attempted to refrain from using the slippery slope argument; mainly because it is so overdone.

However after reading an article by Barrister and Solicitor Iain Benson, who is the Centre for Cultural Renewal’s Executive Director, I have come to the conclusion that the 'slippery slope' argument is not only used too often; it is also false. Canadian society is actually in a free-fall not unlike one of those stomach-churning rides at Canada's Wonderland, the 'Drop-Zone'.

The judicial activism that eventually caused same-sex marriage to be enshrined in Canadian law ignored concerns such as those voiced by Benson:

During the arguments in the various “same-sex marriage” cases (in which the writer had some involvement as counsel), one of the points made by counsel for the Inter-faith coalition for the family was this. Once you eradicate the male/female nature of marriage as it has been historically understood, there is really no reason why the numbers of people in a “marriage” should matter.

This is the familiar argument that polygamy will naturally follow same-sex marriage. Here's why I think he's right:

In other words, once two men or two women can be married to each other because they wish such recognition (and if the biological aspects related to children are deemed, as happened in these cases, to be irrelevant), what logic is there anymore in restricting marriage to just two people? In fact, it was argued that, logically, if “sexual orientation” is the basis for same-sex marriage and “bi-sexuality” is a sexual orientation, then a marriage involving bi-sexuals must logically involve more than two people since their very sexual identity involves more than just a heterosexual orientation, an orientation that, as the logic went with same-sex claims, has a right to expression. What is sauce for the homosexual goose is, as it were, also sauce for the bi-sexual gander. As it happens, this argument, slightly ahead of its time, was one that the courts dealt with by ignoring it completely.

The relevance of the point has just come home, but, like many strategic litigation strategies these days, in a rather round about way. In a January 2, 2007 decision the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that a child does not just have a father and a mother as parents but can, in fact, have a third party, in this case the lesbian partner of the mother, as another parent. Thus the case is known as the “three parents” case.

If we are to recognize the legitimacy of bi-sexual 'rights' in Canadian society, then it follows that these folks may require more than one partner to be able to properly express their sexuality and therefore marriage with multiple partners must be allowed.

Polygamy has never been prosecuted in Canada because in fact it is legally impossible to do so. How can you prosecute a community of people cohabiting and sharing partners, child rearing and so forth in a society that allows Swingers' clubs, 'equal' marriage, and more than two names on a birth certificate? Also, from a Freedom of Religion point of view it would never stand up in court. The only way that the legal system can attack is through proof of abuse.

Let's just cut out the nonsense and strike polygamy off the books. If you have a law on the books but you never use it, what's the point? It becomes meaningless.

So buckle up, close your eyes and enjoy that ride down. It's gonna be a gut-wrencher.

* * * *

More at Rempelia Prime - Buoying the Bishop of Bountiful.

Ted Byfield (Calgary Sun) - Family structure takes another hit.

Spink about it - Slippery Slope or Society's Freefall?

It's Official!

From the Office of the Prime Minister: WAJID KHAN JOINS CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS.

CBC says "Dion told the CBC on Friday morning that he had "no indication" Khan would defect". Sounds like a man really in tune with his caucus.

So, are there any more Khanverts out there?


UPDATE: Mixed reaction from Khan's riding.

I just saw an interview on CTV with Khalid Sagheer, the Liberal riding association president for Mississauga-Streetsville. He expressed support for Wajid Khan's decision and had some surprising things to say. Among them was a reference to the "token gesture" that the Liberal party extends to new Canadians - i.e. not much substance.

I hope CTV adds that interview to their website. It was most interesting.


CBC is carrying this story. Will the Riding Association President jump ship too?


Saturday Update: For a good laugh, check this out!

News Conference Imminent

Has Wajid Khan finally made a decision?

More to follow.

Update: YES IT'S TRUE!!! KHAN HAS CROSSED THE FLOOR!!!!

Congrats Stephen Taylor on your awesome scoop! I'll be keeping an eye on the Liblogs for sour grapes stories.

Oh boy, this one is really bitter.

And here we have enough sour grapes to make a really big batch of whine!

More of that here (playing the bigot card).


Big Update: Werner Patels has tipped me off that there is a lynching in the works.

And some things never change...

Wasting Court Time?

Excellent article in today's National Post by lawyer Karen Selick. It also appears to be available without subscription, which is a bonus.

Karen is also a frequent contributor to the Western Standard. She is usually featured in sparring bouts with Michael Coren where she seems to take the more liberal point of view. Considering the WS's political bias, hers is likely in reality more centrist compared to general Canadian standards.

Anyway, Karen's premise is that it was a waste of time and money for Mom & Mom & Dad to have gone through the recent court process to have their collective parenthood recognized:

...Had the two women walked into my office with their concerns, here is how I would have recommended they resolve them.

One of their fears, apparently, was that if the non-biological mother died, the child would not inherit her estate. "That's simple," I would have told them. "Just write a will, and your estate will go to whomever you wish. In fact, you should write a will in any event: If you die intestate, even after a court grants you recognition as a parent your estate will still be problematic to administer."

Another fear the couple cited was that if the birth mother died, her "surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child, such as critical decisions about health care."

This, too, I would have told them, could be resolved quite simply and inexpensively by the birth mother writing a will...

...This leads me to wonder whether the application before the court really was intended to serve the interests of the child, or whether it was merely one in a long series of court test cases designed to get "in the faces" of heterosexuals and score political points.

But in true centrist fashion, Ms. Selick also chastises the other side:

The "straight community," too, with all its hand-wringing, seems to want nothing more than something to fight about. They are apparently unaware that for many years, the law of Ontario has awarded the status of parent to three or more people under a variety of circumstances.

However, the examples that she elaborates on in the ensuing paragraphs do not take into account that this was the first time that three names have been allowed on a Canadian birth certificate. No one seems to fully understand the implications of such a ruling regarding future court challenges.


Predictably there were many letters to the editor this morning on this subject. I found the following one most interesting. This one is under subscriber lock, but the first paragraph is available here. Please read it first.

O.K. Did you get that last sentence? Judges just can't say "No" to a lesbian. Darn bigoted Bible-thumping right-wing zealot, right?

Now here's the rest of the letter:

The lawyers for the newly-created mom say this is about preventing problems in care should anything happen to the biological mother. How nice! What about all the biological fathers who endure legal horrors to gain access to their own children in cases of divorce? No judge ever did as much for them.

By the way, I am gay too.

Bob Manders, Toronto.

I can't wait for the inevitable Dad & Dad & Mom challenge.

Warning from the West

The Calgary Sun's Paul Jackson warns Canada about the Dion's fatal flaws and what could happen if he becomes PM. Not a big Liberal fan it seems...

H/T National Newswatch.

Cabinet Changes

You can get the list from Joel at Proud to Be Canadian.

My only disappointment is that Diane Ablonczy appears to have been overlooked again.

Very happy about John Baird in Environment though. I think he should do well.

More at Stephen Taylor.


Official Press Release here (H/T National Newswatch).

* * * *

BREAKING NEWS!!!! Check out Stephen Taylor - KHAN WILL CROSS THE FLOOR!!!

Must be an election coming

McGuinty throws Caledonia a bone.


Update: OPP gets a much bigger bone! My guess is that Fantino can be quite convincing.

* * * *

If you're planning to vote for the Anyone But McGuinty Party, you might be interested in this from MAW.

"Naked Judicial Activism"

Joseph C. Ben-Ami of the Institute for Canadian Values is NOT a happy camper today.

* * * *

Update: David Frum's Diary via Jack's Newswatch - "Skipping Down the Slippery Slope"

Now here's something that I want to remember. David says:

I'm reminded of something Evelyn Waugh once wrote to his friend Nancy Mitford: He said that because she had no understanding of the implications of her (left-wing) politics, that for her the future was always full of lovely surprises. Whereas he had to live through every catastrophe twice, once in anticipation, and then again in reality ....

That is the story of my life.

* * * *

David Quist from Institute of Marriage and Family Canada -

"What we do know from social science research right now is that children raised by their married biological mom and dad do best, but we also know that's not a fact of life for a lot of kids out there," he said. "Let's put in (some policy) that supports the outcomes for the children the best we can, rather than going the other direction."

Further Update: Unchartered Waters by Mindelle Jacobs (Edmonton Sun).

The Plight of the Disadvantaged Two-Parent Child

The landmark Ontario Court of Appeal decision has ruled that kids can now have more than two legal parents.

So how is this fair to the ones with just two or one or none? Won't there be some one-upping in the schoolyard? ("I've got a daddy and two mommies! Nah, nah, nah-nah-hah! How many do you have?")

Aren't these kids going to get more birthday and Christmas presents than all the other kids? Won't they get more attention and love? Somehow it doesn't seem fair to the others.

I recommend that we form some kind of bureaucratic body to ensure the rights of the parentally-disadvantaged. We need to ensure that these children do not feel socially marginalized.

Perhaps a Foster Extra-Parent Foundation. Something along the line of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, but with a lot more money thrown at it by the taxpayer. I'm sure there's a government boondoggle out there somewhere ready to take up the cause.

Maybe it would give the Court Challenges Program folks something to do.

* * * *

Update: Call for Federal Marriage Commission. (This is all beginning to sound oddly familiar. Ontario courts legislate social changes; government puts the seal of approval on it.)

Membership has its privileges - and obligations

My New Year's Eve post asked what is the next big issue facing Canada? My personal feeling had been that MSM should be watched closely and challenged on any biased or sloppy reporting or else how can we feel confident that the message getting out there is the truth?

However, an anonymous reader suggested the following:

What is a big issue that needs to be looked at? Well, frankly, I still think that immigration needs a big overhaul. I hope that the Lebanese/Canadians-rescue-return to Lebanon issue isn't forgotten. It's that old dual citizenship thing that needs to be looked at, so that we don't get "used" again by people who play a race/refugee card when they need it, and then their Canadian card when they need that.

Lorne Gunter must have been listening. In today's National Post column, Commit to Canada if you expect it to commit to you, he vents about "Canadians of convenience" who hold dual-citizenship but reside outside of the country. He wants even more stringent commitment than what Citizenship and Immigration Minister Monte Solberg is proposing with a passport increase to $500 for non-resident Canadians:

Citizenship is not just about privileges, it is about obligations, too. And if you are not prepared to make at least a semi- permanent commitment to Canada, I don't see where this country has any responsibility to stand by you, even if you've slipped the foreign affairs department a little something extra once in a while.

There is an undercurrent of resentment here. While I don't think it's our first priority, this issue definitely needs to be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

What is the Next Big Issue?

What is the one issue that really is at the forefront of the Canadian voter's consciousness? Are we most concerned about global warming, the environment in general, health care, terrorism, government accountability or any of a myriad of other possibilities?

Here's what we should all be focusing on the most - Truth in the media.

If we can't trust MSM to deliver the facts, then we have no way to assess the other critical issues.

Lorrie Goldstein's column in today's Toronto Sun gives an excellent example of how the largely Liberal-controlled media and party pundits have been sugar-coating the real story to lull us all into believing that Stephane Dion was the champion of Kyoto:

Dion's website (stephane dion.ca) boasts that "at the follow-up to the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change in Montreal in December 2005, he won international agreement to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012."

Right. Well, here's a more realistic assessment of what actually went on in Montreal, written by Kyoto expert Robert Henson in his new book, The Rough Guide to Climate Change, The Symptoms, The Science, The Solutions.

Henson, no global warming sceptic -- his book has been praised as "superb ... even-handed and accessible" by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change -- assesses that meeting in this way:

"In the end, the diplomats managed to eke out an agreement for a two-year round of non-binding talks under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) that 'will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments' (as the official wording says) but could set the stage for future talks. In this light, it's not at all certain that Kyoto-like targets will prevail after 2012."

Gee. Guess Dion and Co. didn't save the world, eh?

Goldstein goes on to point out how the U.S. which never ratified Kyoto, has actually done better than Canada regarding the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions:

The "evil" U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, finished five places better than we did.

And while the U.S. is the world's biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (20.6% in 2000, compared to our 2.1% , which put us in ninth place) when you break the numbers down on a comparative basis, we, uh, stink.

Based on emissions per capita in 2000, we were the seventh-worst offender, at 6.3 tonnes of carbon equivalent per person, barely one place better than the U.S., at 6.8.

On the basis of carbon intensity, we were the 10th worst offender at 172 tonnes of carbon emitted per million dollars in GDP, one position worse than the U.S., at 162.

Indeed, you have to wonder what former Liberal PM Paul Martin was smoking when he raced to that Montreal conference last year during the federal election and scolded the U.S. for lacking a "global conscience" on climate change.

Of course this type of blatant manipulation of the truth (aka propaganda) runs the gamut of hot-button issues. Stephen Taylor exposed CBC bias recently with the Christina Lawand fiasco.

Then there was the Reuters-Beirut-photoshop scandal that proves this type of deceit is not limited to the Canadian media.

So wake up from your complacent belief that what you see in MSM is the truth. This is the 'big issue' folks! The rest follows from it.

* * * *

Update: Looks like I wasn't the only one impressed with Lorrie Goldstein's Sunday column - Check out Dark Blue Tory "Some People Would Vote Liberal No Matter What".

Tuesday Update: The Toronto Sun names 3 top priorities: Wait times, Afghanistan and the environment (beyond Kyoto) - Promises to Keep.

* * * *

New York Times caught telling a whopper - H/T to Suzanne at Big Blue Wave.

Fisking Red Tory

I am taking a brief break from my reading to critique a recent post by Red Tory (By Request: Fisking Goldstein). According to Wikipedia, fisking is "a point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. "

Well, Red Tory may have failed on a few of those points. I'll let you decide which ones.

I do not intend to drone on point-by-point, mainly because I want to get back to Paul Wells' excellent book Right Side Up, but Red raised a few issues that need to be challenged.

First of all, RT questions Goldstein's premise that Liberals look for convenient issues to flog as a major crisis. To me, that is the essence of politics. They all do it to a certain degree. It's not necessarily a flattering attribute of the métier, but to say that the Liberal party categorically abstains from publicizing contemporary issues that may seem to play to their advantage is both ludicrous and disingenuous.


Then Red seems to be suggesting that Lorrie ignored the fact that wait times have not been reduced:

"It’s also interesting to note that during the last election Harper said his proposals and patient guarantee would stay within the budget established by the Liberals, yet he vowed to reduce wait times for medical procedures as one of his infamous “five priorities.” But uh-oh, that one seems to have quite mysteriously vanished over the course of the past year..."

But in fact, Mr. Goldstein did indeed point this out:

"Which brings us back to wait times, a problem the Liberals say Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't doing anything about, even though it was one of his five key election promises. True."

So he did acknowledge that.



Red took exception to this statement from Lorrie's editorial:

More on that in a bit, but first, back to global warming. While the Tory government is doing nothing about it now, the Liberals did, uh, nothing, about it for 12 years. But I know global warming is important because Dion named his dog “Kyoto” and gave out green scarves at the Liberal leadership convention.

Red practically called Goldstein a liar in response:

"This is a flat-out lie... Everyone agrees that the Liberal track record on the environment has been a disappointment, but to say they did “nothing” is totally inaccurate."

Well, here's the thing, Red. Let's define what is "doing something". Is it throwing piles of money at something with no measurable results and no accountability? Is it lining Rick Mercer's pocket while we watch him drone on with his annoying diatribe about the "One Ton Challenge"? Is it talking just for the sake of appearing to be "doing something?"



In any event, perhaps Red Tory could cite evidence of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions going down during the Liberals' 12-year tenure in office? In fact, they kept going up dramatically, both before and after they signed Kyoto at almost twice the growth rate in the U.S. during the same period.



Red also seems to be hopelessly gullible when it comes to any Liberal communications. He actually believes the wait-times propaganda that spews out of Queen's Park:

"Uh, uh, since August/September 2005, wait times have decreased by: 27.7% (86 days) for cataract surgery; 19.8% (87 days) for knee replacement; 19.9% (70 days) for hip replacement; 39.3% (22 days) for angiography; 13.3% (16 days) for MRI scans; 17.9% (5 days) for angioplasty; and 2.5% (2 days) for CT scans. Nice try Lorrie."

(Uh huh. And I've got a great piece of swamp land to sell you, Red. Just let me get my pal George Smitherman to be the broker.)


At least Ontario Auditor General Jim McCarter hasn't been hoodwinked. He questioned the methods used by the province to measure reductions in hospital wait times and said the statistics should be taken with a "grain of salt.''


But in any case, Red. Carry on. Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Happy Anniversary to Moi

Today is the One-Year Anniversary of Joanne's Journey. I am trying to remember what drove me to begin this journal, but there are a few clues in my early entries.

First was my frustration with the previous government. I needed a place to vent and MSM had a limit as to how many of my angry letters-to-the-editor that they were willing to publish (the previous year I had managed to have about 35 published in various newspapers including the Post, Globe, Sun, Star and others).

Also, we were gearing up for the final leg of the election race. CTV had a terrific political blog going and I was a prolific contributor. I believe it was David Akin who casually suggested that I start my own blog; perhaps as a way to get a break from his Blackberry going off every time a comment had to be approved.

All this plus my son's encouragement and assistance gave birth to this journey. I haven't regretted a moment. Along the way I've met some interesting folks and had some lively and informative debates. I've learned a lot and I hope that I've provided a useful forum for others to express their thoughts and frustrations.

And since this is a mélange of Canadian politics seasoned with a dash of real life, I have occasionally included some of my own musings on life in the moment.

Sometimes the two worlds mesh.

As my technical savvy increased, I learned to link to some of my favourite blogs, including Platty, Sara, Molar, Chuck and so many wonderful others. At this time I changed my signature to "Joanne TB" to differentiate myself from the "Liberal" Joanne, thus proving that I did not have a split personality.

March provided a few memorable highlights - notably a dispute with Garth Turner that culminated in a phone conversation where he won me over (for the moment). I'm still not sure exactly where he stands on my love-hate meter right now.

However, the most significant milestone was my Innocence Lost story where I became so enraged with MSM bias and lack of accountability that I actually contacted the reporter who had covered the infamous YWCA daycare report. The telephone interview only fueled my distrust of MSM, leaving me even more jaded and cynical.

On the plus side, that post did attract Stephen Taylor's attention. I was invited to join the Blogging Tories, which has been great fun and increased my readership substantially.

In April of this past year I signed onto Sitemeter. Since then this blog has been hit over 47,000 times with over 86,000 page views, with more than 300 posts and over 6,000 comments since March. (Some of those comments were even from people other than myself!)

In May I took a brief time-off and wandered the web for a while. I met Red Tory during a heated discussion about abortion at Calgary Grit, and stupidly invited him back to my blog to continue the debate. Life has never been the same since.

My little blog really came of age in June, when I had to learn how to deal with trolls. (This is indeed a sign that you've hit the big-time in the blogging world.)

In August I discovered some fellow MSM watchdogs, Canada Free Press and CBC Watch. (Memo to CFP: Lose the pop-up ads pul-eeze! They are so annoying!!!)

Then I started joining in various blogbursts, some of which began to take on a life of their own.

October saw another huge blogburst calling for an end to the Court Challenges Program.

In November Joanne's Journey had the dubious honour of being mocked by Bill Doskoch on his CTV political blog - another baby step on my journey to the Bloggers' Hall of Fame.



If you're still reading this sad piece of self-indulgent navel-gazing, you are either a true and loyal reader or else you just don't have a life. In either case, thank you so much for accompanying me on my journey. It would have been lonely without you.

This Time I Really Mean It

O.K. This is it. I'm going cold turkey for sure right now, or else we won't have hot turkey! (Alright, my sister is actually cooking the bird, but you get the picture).

No more political ranting for a few days. I'm not even going to discuss this.

Just going to try to preserve my sanity in the mall and grocery store one more time, then head home to get some last minute things done. Here's a tip for frantic shoppers - Bring a bottle of water and some kind of protein with you. I love those cheese string thingys. There's nothing worse than being in a huge crowd and getting dehydrated and weak. This will keep you going. A Clementine is a great energy boost too. Keep a few in the car. Oh, and don't forget the hand cleanser. Keep those germs far away!

Drop a little something in the Salvation Army kettle. That will also give you a lift.

Then go home and start counting your blessings. We tend to complain a lot (and I am probably the worse offender), but at the end of the day we have so much to be grateful for here in Canada.

Merry Christmas to all!

Aw, stuff it!

Ontario politicians have just voted to stuff their stockings at taxpayers' expense. The Star is the first MSM site to carry the story, which we all knew was inevitable anyway given John Tory's complicity.

The fact that this was pushed through in spite of indignant public reaction tells me that politicians believe that all will be forgiven and forgotten come the next election which is less than a year away.

How will we register our anger and frustration?

Update: CBC - Grits, Tories Unite to Pass Major Pay Hike. Is Dalton really worth $198,620???

FRIDAY UPDATE: I knew the Toronto Sun wouldn't let me down - McGuinty? Tory? Humbug!

The editorial quotes Oliver Cromwell:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Time for a mutiny, folks!

Carry on, Judy!

Judy Rebick's scathing withdrawal of support for Elizabeth May, may have in advertently fueled credibility for the very side of the abortion debate she so fiercely detests and whose voice she works so hard to obliterate from the public forum.

Elizabeth May was asked to comment on abortion and gay marriage at a convent during the federal by-election. Instead of spouting off some evasive political platitude, she shared some very candid and profound thoughts in a respectful manner (as I see it anyway):

But I think there's been a moral dimension to this debate that's quite complex, and I think deserves respect. So I respect people who say, "I'm against abortion because there is a right to life, and the fetus is sacred." ...So I see it as a moral dilemma, and I don't see it as a clear-cut black-and-white... And I think one of the things that I would like to bring to Canadian politics is to show enough respect to the other view, that we could actually have a dialogue about it. Because one of the things that is wrong about polarization is the language becomes a barrier to understanding... So if one group of people say, "A woman has a right to choose", I get queasy, because I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose. What I don't want is a desperate woman to die in an illegal abortion. But I also don't think it's right to say - Well, you see, you end up having this conflict... What I'd like to do in politics - and I've talked about this in some other settings besides here today, because this is the first time it's come up in London North Centre - what I'd like to do in politics is to be able to create the space to say, "Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions." ...So can't we then have a different kind of conversation? What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place? Instead of having this rather polarized and, you know, really, futile debate that only fuels divisions and makes both sides feel as though they're, you know, in some form of battle.

What I take from this, is that while Elizabeth May is personally against abortion, she sees it as necessary to have the choice for the reason of safety. Therefore she is respecting both sides and looking for some kind of strategy to reduce the number of abortions in general. When she says that no one in their right mind is for abortions, I think she means that no sane person would get their jollies out of killing an unborn child (hopefully).


For some reason all of this offended Ms. Rebick in the extreme:

There is no middle ground on the abortion issue as you are no doubt finding out. The organized opposition to abortion in this country as in the United States does not care if women die... I personally have debated right-to-lifers for 30 years. There is no dialogue here. They put the life of a foetus above the rights and even the lives of women. Whether or not you agree with this, by raising the issue in the way that you did, you contribute to their position... We had a debate on abortion in this country for decades. Raising the need for further debate as you have done is a serious error in judgment and in the unlikely possibility that Stephen Harper wins a majority in the next election, you could have done irreparable harm.

'Right-to-lifers' don't care if women die? Again, most sane people care about all life. There may be a very few extremists who might think that the life of the preborn child usurps all other life, but my guess is that most reasonable Canadians are somewhere in the middle on this issue.

And what is wrong with discussion in an open and free society?

By putting down such a calm, logical and thoughtful point of view such as that which Elizabeth May put forward, Judy Rebick has cast herself as a vengeful, uncompromising extremist which does her side of the debate no service at all.

My hunch is that Canadians would like to have the kind of discussion that Ms. May proposes, and Judy Rebick may have unwittingly contributed to that process.

Please share more of your outrage, Ms. Rebick.

* * * *

Oh, Judy. You really blew it. Kate's picked this up now!! With her readership, this is not going away anytime soon.

Bah, Humbug!

With the mild weather this year, I'm finding it very difficult to get into the Christmas spirit, and the antics at Queen's Park are not helping.

The Toronto Sun's Christina Blizzard mirrors my contempt for all provincial parties with this sudden and urgent need to ram through a 25% pay hike before Christmas. The holier-than-thou NDP is fighting it and some say they will donate the money to charity - for now, but I don't see anyone refusing it outright.

I did get a chuckle from the main editorial though, The Star's Bizarre Backflip.

Actually, we wondered about the Star's incredible flip-flop on this issue as well. But we just put it down to the fact no one reads Star editorials -- apparently including the people who write them.

Zing!!!


Now if I put on some Christmas music, perhaps I can psych myself up to do a little gift-wrapping.

U.S. Hospital Respects Refusal on Moral Grounds

This is a good-news story for anyone concerned about Freedom of Conscience regarding forced participation in abortion procedures.

Native Claim Redux

Perhaps this is too simplistic, but I think the "two-tier justice" complaints and land disputes might be reduced to one basic premise - Natives do not see themselves required to obey Canadian law.

And that may be too much of a generalization. Perhaps it depends on whether the band follows the traditional council or the elected one. I could be totally out to lunch here and therefore invite input. However if that were true then perhaps I could begin to understand why Canadian police sit back and do nothing. It would start to make some kind of sense.

Trevor Miller has been in jail since August when he was arrested for assaulting two members of a television crew.

"He is being held as a hostage, a political prisoner," protester Pat Houlley told the Canadian Press, arguing Miller should never have been charged, because as an aboriginal he shouldn't be subject to Canadian law. "We've never abandoned our traditional government nor been conquered by any war."

Is this how all aboriginals feel? That they are apart from Canadian law and Canadian society?

Meanwhile natives in Caledonia deny involvement in the trashing of a house near Douglas Creek Estates.

But the Ontario government is not stupid. With an election coming, and while attempting to give MPP's a 25% raise, they must be seen to be doing something for the Caledonia residents.

How much money will it take to buy a whole town?

* * * *

Dust My Broom - Above the law in Caledonia.

Update: Family dog injured at trashed house - according to Toby Barrett at Queen's Park.

The Continuing Saga of Ezra, Warren and Citoyen Dion

There is a battle being waged on the opinion pages of the National Post and the stakes are high.

It started last week with Warren Kinsella's Dec. 14 editorial The Viral Campaign against Stephane Dion. According to Kinsella, lyrically-challenged Tory bloggers are ultimately responsible for the 'smear', but it all started with Ezra Levant:

My friend Ezra Levant, a long-time conservative (and Conservative) activist, revealed the "news." Wrote he in the Calgary Sun: "When it comes to making decisions about the war on terror, and Canada's role in Afghanistan, will Dion be unduly influenced by France, a country that has taken up the role of lawyer and arms dealer for every terrorist state in the world, even defending Saddam Hussein until the eve of his overthrow?"

Then another "friend", Pierre Bourque picked up the story and ran it for a while on Bourque Newswatch, which apparently inspired Conservative bloggers (who are supposedly so unpatriotic as to not even know the words to 'O Canada') to cover the story with such unrelenting force that MSM was cowered into running the story and demanded a response from Citoyen Dion.


First of all I have to say that if all these guys are "friends", I'd hate to see their enemies!


But anyway, today we have a response by Ezra Levant in the Post, "Dion's citizenship was real news".

Levant's position is that he was merely pointed out facts whereas Kinsella has been known to do a little 'smearing' himself, and should therefore get off his high horse:

In his book, Warren described his own TV appearance during the 2000 election -- where he mocked Stockwell Day's purported belief in creationism by holding up a stuffed dinosaur -- as his crowning political moment. How can distorting and ridiculing Day's Christianity be acceptable, but pointing out the incontrovertible fact of Dion's foreign citizenship be beyond the pale?

Did Warren Kinsella ever consider the remote possibility that he himself is responsible for perpetuating the unwanted media focus?


BTW, I think Mr. Kinsella owes all Blogging Tories a personal recital of "O Canada" - by heart.

Brother's ashes in cottage

Hope Bay tenants are anxious about getting their possessions out of their cottages that had been built on land leased from the federal government and now deemed to be native land.

Stephen Gibbs is concerned about retrieving his brother's ashes from the fireplace mantel.

Cottagers will be escorted in and out by natives with videocameras, and will have to leave the structures and fixtures behind.

Is the Liberal party discriminating against women?

Iggy has been tapped as Liberal deputy leader.

Sorry, Karen!

But as Canadian Christian Conservative says, this is an Early Gift to the Tories.

Update: Prairie Wrangler: Dion to promote women, starting now..no wait... now

* * * *

From Tuesday Globe: "...By choosing Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Dion goes against the politically correct fit, which would have been to put an anglophone woman in the role. Interestingly, Opposition Whip Karen Redman inadvertently sent an e-mail last Friday saying she had not got the deputy role and what should she ask for. The e-mail was meant for one of her children but instead ended up in the inboxes of Conservative senators."

So, she already knew on Friday that the job was filled, and was looking for something else to lobby for. That would explain the message title, What Comes Next?

Did John Tory blow it?

According to the Toronto Sun, he did.

I don't see much difference between the Ontario Liberals and Conservatives right now, and I could never vote NDP.

Green Party? Nah.

So who is the least horrible of all the choices? I suppose that's who I'll be voting for. *Sigh*


Tuesday Update: Debate rages on about who exactly is the Grinch - Hampton Opts for Charity (Sun).

Harper - Time's Choice for Cdn Newsmaker of the Year

Via National Newswatch - Time magazine has named Stephen Harper as Canadian Newsmaker of 2006!

I like this part:

The magazine says, "If Harper wins the majority he craves, in the election expected sometime next year, he may yet turn out to be the most transformational leader since Trudeau.''

Mmm... O.K. Maybe that could be taken has something other than a compliment, but I do think he will take up more than a paragraph in the history books!

(And they said he could never pull it off. Ha! So there.)

Peace on earth

OPP arrested Gary McHale today.

Update: McHale may be forced to stay away from Caledonia.

SDA picks up on the story: Wrong Permit.
(Warning - Comments are colourful)

Halls of Macadamia: So Much for the Law of the Land.


Monday Update: From the Hamilton Spectator: Vandals wreck House in Caledonia!

570 News: Hope Bay Cottage Owners forced out.


Also from 570 - Natives demand release of SN protester; call him political prisoner.

An Unexpected Christmas Gift

Via Greg Staples - Karen Redman slips up with email.

It would appear that she is looking for the Deputy Leader's job, but instead of sending the message to her daughter for advice, it was accidentally forwarded to all federal senators!

Well, we all make mistakes. The only problem is that if you're Deputy Leader, this kind of gaffe could have serious consequences.

Well, here in Liberal-dominated Southern Ontario, we haven't had a Cabinet Minister at either the federal or provincial level for ages, so we'll take any little bone that our thrown our way; even if it's just deputy leader of the opposition.

But first Ms. Redman should check with her colleague Mr. Brison about the perils of Blackberry carelessness.


Update: Step to the Right has also picked this up.

If I were really blogging

If I were actually planning to do some kind of post today, instead of sticking to my Christmas to-do list, it would be difficult to select just one topic.

For example, there is the buzz about a possible Cabinet shuffle - always great political fodder for those who love to speculate. Rona Ambrose is unlikely to retain her Environment portfolio if that happens. Who will get the nod to replace her?

Then there's Warren Kinsella's amusing little column in today's Post, "The Viral Campaign against Stephane Dion". I just wouldn't know where to begin with this one. According to Mr. Kinsella, it seems that the lyrically-challenged Conservative bloggers have the awesome power to control MSM:

Conservative bloggers -- most of whom couldn't be counted upon to recite the lyrics of O Canada without professional help -- then took up the refrain, regurgitating the anti- Dion talking points with glee.

At that point, the so-called mainstream media had no option but to cover the story, and force Dion to respond.

Did you hear that Canada? We control the press! Merry Christmas Stephen Harper!!! That little tidbit will serve him well in the next election.


What else? Oh yeah! A glimpse into the rationale behind Dalton McGuinty's 25% raise hike just before Christmas:

Sources told CanWest News Service, however, that Mr. McGuinty's change of heart came after Liberal caucus members revolted and demanded a salary hike in keeping with the latest recommendations of the province's integrity commissioner, which reviews MPP's remuneration.

Don't you just love the altruistic dedication and integrity of Ontario politicians?


Of course, I'm not really doing a post here today. Just thinking out loud. Thanks for listening.

* * * *

The Warren Kinsella story has taken some interesting twists. Norman Spector seems to be calling our friend Warren the "cancer in Canadian journalism (and politics)".

OK, now. That may be a tad harsh.


Update: Political correctness rears its ugly head again re: Christmas Trees.