Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation, here's Cab Calloway and his orchestra performing Reefer Man:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

Cab Calloway: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_Calloway

(PS: In the last two seconds of that video, there's a shot of us in the SDA LNR studios ;-)

Robert Sibley's column in today's Ottawa Citizen is a fascinating dissection of our tolerant multi-cultural society. Please discuss as the theme is basically the success or failure of our country as we know it.

Robert Sibley's column in today's Ottawa Citizen is a fascinating dissection of our tolerant multi-cultural society. Please discuss as the theme is basically the success or failure of our country as we know it.

Attitudes on 'Global warming' changing, but changing at different rates depending on Democrat/Republican and level of education.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/05/solving_the_cli.html
with a loooong comment thread.

H/T Marginal Revolution
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

Saskatchewan to elect Senators sez the G&M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080519.wsenate17/BNStory/National/home

A Poll, too.

Saskatchewan plans to elect senators
Here's the link

It's funny to see the leftie commentors twisting in the wind and trying to justify their opposition to electing senators. It's painfully obvious that they
just oppose anything ever put forward by conservatives.

Nancy Michaud

Robert Sibley's column in today's Ottawa Citizen is a fascinating dissection of our tolerant multi-cultural society. Please discuss as the theme is basically the success or failure of our country as we know it.

Took some hunting, but here 'tis:
-Intolerable--

"“If the old days in China were so terrible, why the long queue at Mao’s tomb?” P.J. O’Rourke wanted to respond, “They’re making sure he’s dead”... more»"

"The Cleveland of Asia: A Journey Through China’s Rust Belt
P. J. O'Rourke"

"Tom’s worst problem with the proletariat, however, involved one of his mill hands who was having an affair with a woman who worked at the chemical factory next door. They conducted their trysts in an electrical equipment closet. Amidst the throes of passion the mill hand backed into some high voltage circuitry and fried. (His paramour, with hair a bit frizzier than is usual in China, survived.) The man’s widow then brought her entire ancestral village to block the steel mill’s gates. As compensation for her husband’s death, she demanded his salary in perpetuity, a job for their retarded daughter, a new house, the payment of her husband’s gambling debts, and that her grandmother be flown to the United States to have her glaucoma treated.

“I had to call in the Communist Party officials,” Tom said.

“Did they ship everybody off to prison camp or something?” I asked.

“They didn’t do anything. They said it was my problem. I settled with the widow for a couple of hundred bucks.”"
http://tinyurl.com/687dcq

George Jonas "Defending the Freedom of Bad People" in todays Ottawa Citizen is an another shot into the sinking CHRC ship "Titanic".

How much longer can Harper and Nicholson hide below deck? No comments from B'Nai Brith or the CJC or CIC either?

Some Senate Stats

Total # of Senators: 91

Average Number of Years in Senate 19.8 years

Three Longest Senate Terms (all appointed by Trudeau):
1. Charlie Watt - 35.5 years
2. Anne Cools - 34.6 years
3. Colin Kenney - 34.5 years

Shortest Senate term - Yoine Goldstein - 3.7 years (appointed by Martin)

SEATS
Liberal - 60
Conservatives - 22
Independent - 4
Progressive Conservative - 3
Independent NDP - 1
? 1

APPOINTED BY/# OF APPOINTEES/AVERAGE YEARS IN SENATE:
Chrétien - 40 (17.5 years)
Mulroney - 21 (23.2 years)
Martin - 17 (14.1 years)
Trudeau - 9 (31.2 years)
Harper - 2
Turner - 1
Clark - 1

PROVINCE
Ontario 22
Québec 22
N.B. 9
Nova Scotia 7
Alberta 6
Manitoba 6
Saskatchewan 6
Newfoundland/Labrador) 5
B.C. 3
PEI 3
Nunavut 1
NWT 1

We need more articles like Robert Sibley's in every national newspaper: Where are you Probe and Fail? (You may need fewer Jeffrey Simpsons and more Peggy Wentes on your writers' roster...)

To ask a cultural heritage group, in this case Judeo-Christian/European/British, to forfeit its values--which, after all, have been the host values of Canada and the reason so many immigrants have come here from tyrannical and intolerant regimes, often Muslim and/or Communist--in order to be welcoming and "tolerant" of illiberal, anti-women, anti-democratic values brought to our country by large numbersof immigrants--not all-- is insanity of the first degree.

And, yet, this is what our "mulitculural," "tolerant," "open," and "diverse" apparatchiks have been demanding of Canadians ever since True-Dopey ushered in the dysfunctional, deranged, dystopian Dominion of Canada as the so-called "Just Society" (sic).

For those of us who were warning others about the train wreck hurtling down the track in the late '60s and early '70s--and who were given short shrift by all of the moral equivalency progressive crowd, who had their hands firmly around Canadians' collective neck not to mention dipping L/liberally into our collective pocket book--what has happened to Canada can only be described as a monumental disaster.

We are now having our freedoms, fought for at a great price by our forefathers and mothers, curtailed by too many of these immigrants who have no sense, let alone respect for, the shared values and traditions which made Canada, ironically, their destination of choice when they decided to leave the tyrannical regimes of their countries of origin behind.

Add the insinuation of tribal values and Sharia law to the wholesale gutting of OUR Western civilizational values by our chattering classes, with their devotion to Trudeaupian values of moral relativism and equivalency between all cultures and religions, and you end up with present-day Canada. That would be a country which allows--indeed, encourages--newcomers to Canada, who are stuck in their tribal enclaves with no intention of assismilating into our society based on Western values--to use our liberal institutions as battering rams against our way of life.

It is high time for Canadians to take back their country. Given that the pen is mightier than the sword, it's time for the members of our MSM to begin to do some heavy lifiting here. The Canuck Six are certainly doing their part, but that's not enough, not nearly enough. We all need to stand on our hind legs and proclaim, "I'm mad as He** and I'm not going to take it anymore."

It's way past time for us to worry about who we offend. The Islamofascists, who are doing their best to ruin our democracy, certainly aren't in the least concerned about offending our sensibilities--or about curtailing our democratic rights and freedoms. Theirs seem to be the only rights that count--and that's not right.

Harper and Nicholson do have to address the issue of the HRC's. They are aiding and abetting those who would tear down our democracy.

The case of Macleans, Steyn and others currently hauled before the Kangaroo Court is enough to make ones skin crawl and all the proof we need about the agenda of these Commissions.
The Trudeau Charter gives us freedom of speech, they take it away.

32,000 scientists sign petition refuting global warming.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/default.aspx

another poll going horribly wrong...CTV

Regulating industry 4081 votes (81 %)

Carbon tax 964 votes (19 %)


Total Votes: 5045

"FP: Illuminate the system of political indoctrination.

HVC: The system of political indoctrination was simple enough – the Nazis controlled the existing media."

"Lessons of the Holocaust-how the Nazis rose to power, what to do to stop history from repeating
Frontpagemagazine ^ | 5-19-08 | Jamie Glazov"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017992/posts

Sibley sums up what we have discussed numerous times on SDA with the same conclusions, damn soft-headed liberals.

"Originally, multiculturalism -- "soft" multiculturalism, as it's been called -- was intended to promote tolerance and open-mindedness. But this idea has been ransacked by the radical left and reworked to produce a variety of notions -- postmodernism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism -- that betray nihilistic self-hatred on the part of the western intelligentsia. In the words of political philosopher Kenneth Minogue, "multiculturalism arises less from love of others than hatred of our own form of life." The result is a "hard" form of multiculturalism that is little more than an anti-western ideology.

Hard multicultural theory, drawing on the assumptions of cultural relativism, claims that attempting to assimilate immigrants from non-western countries is wrong because it presumes western culture is superior. "The cutting edge of multiculturalism ... is to be found in its insistence that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts (of the western world) must not think their language, religions, laws and customs in any way superior to those of the people who, for some mysterious reason, want to come and live here rather than stay home," says Minogue. Assimilation is coercion.

This attitude presents difficulties for the western societies hosting non-western immigrants. Some immigrants bring illiberal cultural values with them -- hostility toward homosexuals, treating women as second-class citizens, and hatred of other cultural groups, for example. Resentment toward the host society is also common. In Minogue's words, "One inevitable consequence of multiculturalism is a constant drip of complaint from would-be ethnic high-flyers that they are not getting a change in law, or academia, or wherever the gravy train happens to be."

Doesn't that sound like Thobani and Roach? They partake of Canada's prosperity and stability, but denounce the political and social traditions that created those conditions. Thobani says multiculturalism has little to do with sharing power with immigrants or restructuring the country economically to meet their concerns. This creates a contradiction between multiculturalism as a celebration of difference, and policies of bilingualism and biculturalism that tell newcomers "the real Canadians, the real citizens, continue to be the Canadians of British and French ancestry," she said on the TVO program. Thobani, it seems, is really after power. Similarly, Roach has enjoyed the benefits of Canada's constitutional monarchy for the last 50 years, but seems to think he has no obligation to tolerate the traditions of a political culture supported by most Canadians. He wants an exemption from laws that the wider society obeys in order to feel better about himself. In short, it's all about him."

Agree that Ron Sibley article is a very good read. But notice at the very end of that article this comment:

Even Pierre Trudeau, the key architect of multiculturalism, regretted how multiculturalism had been warped to emphasize an immigrant's identification with his country or culture of origin rather than his assimilation of a Canadian identity. At a private luncheon with MPs in the mid-1990s, Trudeau was asked whether multiculturalism had developed the way he hoped. He replied: "No, this is not what I wanted."

I had read a more thorough analysis of that luncheon discussion and could never find it again on Google. I’m no fan of Trudeau, but the point is, he put something in motion and wasn’t able to correct it as it morphed. Chrétien liked what it morphed into … silos that he could use in mega cities to capture the vote with ethnic-Adscam-like, corruption and buying of votes.

That the Liberals Balkanized Ontario there is no question. But did Trudeau plan it? I have my doubts. I think it was Chrétien who saw multiculturalism as an opportunity to isolate immigrants into voter silos. Ontario was at one time the economic power base of Canada. Two things have weakened Ontario’s ability to adapt to a global economy …government unions and multiculturalism. Queens Park and Ottawa have played to this multi-culti/union base and it is still working for Liberals in Ontario. Ditto the identity politics with the Dems in the US. But we can see how that can turn into cannibalization; let’s hope it happens here.

Socialism: the ideology of Citoyen Dion, Taliban Jack, Suzuki, et al:

"They treat us like we're not even human,"
...-

"Burma prepares for vote

Yangon - "They treat us like we're not even human," fumed Yangon taxi driver Ko Myo, after Myanmar authorities knocked on his door to remind him to vote this coming on Saturday.

More than two weeks after Cyclone Nargis struck, leaving at least 133 000 people dead or missing, he's still struggling to rebuild his life.
Myanmar's main city remains short on electricity and water, while the nearby Irrawaddy delta lies in ruins, with corpses still rotting in fields and desperate survivors forced to beg for food.
Despite the devastation, however, the military regime is going ahead with a second round of voting on a new constitution on Saturday in the regions that were worst hit by the storm."
http://tinyurl.com/66gr98 (IOL)

QHRC wants council meeting prayers to stop - Mayor says, "No"
================

Quebec's human rights commission has asked the city of Saguenay to stop praying before council meetings.

[...]

The city's mayor, Jean Tremblay, has been an outspoken defender of Quebec's Roman Catholic roots, and said he has no intention of cancelling the prayer.

According to him, the commission's ruling is not binding, but rather a recommendation from a certain perspective.

http://tinyurl.com/4zvvd7

four engineers and an architect , who would have guessed.

http://www.ctv.ca/gallery/html/ENT_smart_celebs/photo_0.html

I agree with nomdeblog; however, i don't think that it matters whether it was Trudeau or Chretien who essentially stopped Canada dead in its tracks from becoming a self-organized, self-defining cohesive nation in charge of its own identity and instead set it up as an empty space for immigrants to resettle their multiple old culture and identities, each incompatible with the other.

The fact is - this is what happened and it's a disaster, effectively splintering Canada into multiple isolate adversarial 'blocs' of populations. This splintering is extremely useful, as both Chretien and McGuinty have found, in setting up loyal voter blocs, who can be bribed as a group, to Always Vote Liberal.

In return for such blind loyalty, these blocs are assured that they need never assimilate; that they can retain their old country beliefs and behaviour - even if such are only viable for a 7th century isolate lifestyle and unsuitable for a modern networked society - and this govt will support them in their continuing isolation.

Trudeau's Charter set up the legal infrastructure. That charter has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with individual rights and freedoms. It's focused on group rather than individual rights. There are two key groups in that charter, defined first by language and second by cultural origina.

The linguistic groups set up by the Charter are French and English. The fact is, Canada is not in reality and never will be a bilingual country, but the Liberal's Charter is primarily about establishing bilingualism. That's the main content of the charter -pages and pages on establishing bilingualism.

Effectively this set up an oligarchy rather than a democracy for the bilingual requirement excludes the majority of the population from major and even middle of the road government service.

Remember that our Westminster style of government appoints the majority of our government; the elected House is only about 300 members, while the appointees are over 3,000. The result of bilingualism set up an exclusive and excluding and self-perpetuating mandarin class in the Ottawa-Montreal corridor, isolated from and ignorant of the rest of the country. That's not a democracy.

Then, this focus on 'group identities' (in this case by language) moved into cultural group identities. Multiculturalism also insisted that group identities supercede and dominate individual rights. It says so in the Charter -

Section 15 affirms equality of the individual before the law, and section 15-1 takes it right away, because 'Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

So, your individual rights are subsumed by the privileging of the 'conditions' of a group.

And, Section 27: "this charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians". What does this mean? It means that the group identities of various cultures trump individual rights.

Ontario has been the province of Immigration. What's the result of a policy that rejects assimilation and the development of a Canadian identity and instead, sets up these newcomers as Voter Blocs, owing their life and loyalty to the Liberals? The result, apart from maintaining the Liberal Party in power, is a population unable to work together, a population acting within adversarial and isolate communities, and feeling above all, absolutely no filiation, no loyalty, no commitment to the nation of Canada.

As a TVO Muslim participant recently said, when asked about her nationality, replied: 'Pakistani'. It turned out, she was born in Canada but that was utterly irrelevant to her. And such a view is the commonality rather than a deviation.

We've done this to ourselves. We've rejected the notion of a Canadian identity (except for the smoothness of 'tolerance for diversity', 'peacekeeping' and doughnuts - all mushy values unable to stand up to scrutiny).
Compare us with Australia, which has taken charge of itself, insisted on developing an identity as a nation, insisted that immigrants acknowledge this identity and not instead do, as in Canada, simply move their old beliefs and behaviour to 'another space'. The Australians have taken charge: they've moved to an elected Senate, they've reduced the number of appointees, they've set up a competitive economic system.

Canada? We've self-defined ourselves as Open Space. No Space. Bring your old beliefs and behaviour to Canada and behave just as you did 'in the old country'. Even though it's a different context and different people around you.

As for Ontario and its Unions - that's the Other Disaster. It's also All About Power for the Liberals. They've aligned themselves with the Unions - and they've set up Ontario manufacturing and the huge bloated civil service (health care, education, transportation, security) within unions.

Unions? They are parasites. But that's another story. The economic reality of unions is that once a company becomes unionized its focus moves from the provision of goods and services to the benefits of its employees. To hell with the goods and services. So, the COSTS of these well-reimbursed employees goes up. And up. And up. And the goods and services costs obviously go up. And up.
Which moves those goods and services out of competition. So, Japanese cars are preferred to the pricey Canadian cars.
And, the quality of these goods and services goes down. And down. And down. Because the focus and money goes, not to updating machinery, or developing new technology. All the money goes to those employee benefits.

So - the profits, rather than being reinvested in providing better cars and goods, research on developments, better service...goes to higher pensions, and benefits, and wages....

You can see this in our health care. The focus is on the employees. Not the health care. And not training, or employing more health care services or updating equipment. It's th employee benefits.

That's what Unions do. They destroy any ability of an economy to take charge of itself, update and advance.

That's Canada.

Loved Sibley's essay. Thanks john iev. Seems we're not intollerant xenophobic bigots after all.

Dr. Fruitfly Sucksuki was on CTV's Question Period yesterday about Dion's carbon tax which btw is "a good idea but hard to sell" according to MSM but of course would just be "a bad idea" if it came from Harper.
Anywho, there's a CTV.ca report on Suzuki bashing Layton and Harper and praising Dion: Check out the comments section below:Most all are negative again'st Dion's tax and CTV.ca is NOT a Blogging Tory site by far!

Happy Vic day and stay warm (Cold here in SOUTH western Ontario)...Lay on your polar bear skin in front of the C02 spewing fireplace

ET says “ I don't think that it matters whether it was Trudeau or Chretien who essentially stopped Canada dead in its tracks from becoming a self-organized, self-defining cohesive nation in charge of its own identity and instead set it up as an empty space for immigrants to resettle their multiple old culture and identities, each incompatible with the other”

I think it matters a lot if we hope to turn this around. Because Liberals don’t reason. They run on emotional faith and Trudeau was the messiah. If we have now found a new Code or Scroll or Gospel that says before Trudeau rose to sit on the left hand side of God , that he announced multi-culti was a mistake … then we have Reformation of the church of Trudeau … don’t we?

If we could get Liberals to accept the new Pope’s thinking on the need for both “faith and reason” we might turn Ontario around.

"Mr Obama, can the Al Gore as an advisor on the environment."
"The polar bear situation should push Americans over the edge. The long term population has increased. In addition, the cold this winter may simply be a preview of what is coming."

"An Open Letter to the Presidential Candidates

AccuWeather.com's senior meteorologist and long range expert Joe Bastardi sent the global warming center a copy of his open letter to the 2008 presidential candidates. I like his idea in the fourth paragraph. Here it is...............

Dear _______

The nonsense that is the global warming debate can be likened to a Don King production, where the two main antagonists, well deserved ones at that, are still hours away from the main fight. Instead, we have under-cards that leave us simply wondering if we will ever get to the real deal.

I use the fight game because in boxing in past days, guys went right at it. Jake La Motta and Sugar Ray Robinson once fought each other within a few weeks of a fight. There was no dancing and ducking and big mouthing, just the fight against the guys that deserved to be in the ring.

This is exactly how this should be handled. Mr Obama, can the Al Gore as an advisor on the environment. Mr. McCain, quit succumbing to pressure because you want to look nice or moderate. Both of you, get the people that can give this debate its true merit in front of you. Hillary, if you are elected, the same thing (you got to admit, she is showing some Lady Thatcher or Golda Meir spunk these days). But stop with watching people that aren't the main event."
http://tinyurl.com/5nmsl5

I see your point, nomdeblog, but aren't you missing something? There are TWO reasons for the Liberal support of the unique Canadian style of multiculturalism, aka, The Hotel Of the World.

The first reason is assuredly ideological, which sets up multiculturalism as a value, a virtue belonging only to the Wise, the Good, the Tolerant. And, yes, if we point out that at some later time, The God of Wisdom, Trudeau, thought that heck, maybe, it isn't such a wise idea after all...that might change things.

But you are ignoring that the ideology was rapidly transformed from the heady wine of ideas into hard core practicality. VOTES. The Liberals, aka Libranos, instantly saw the practical value of the specious vapid emptiness of multicultural verbiage. VOTES.

Encourage the vast numbers of immigrants to settle as Isolate and Dependent Blocs. Dependent on the government for their very existential security. Isolate from other Blocs. Adversarial with these other Blocs for funding from the govt to maintain their very existence.
What is that existence?

Their old beliefs and behaviour. They are discouraged from developing and assimilating into Canada. Canadian culture is defined, in itself, as a "Bloc'. Isolate and frozen in itself. Newcomers certainly can't integrate with it; they are discouraged from doing so. Settled Canadians are openly and aggressively discouraged from integrating with the newcomers. They are to be 'Left Alone in their Sanctity. Untouched and unchanged.

Instead, the Liberal govt, actively and aggressively, via funding, programs, school teaching, insisted that immigrants also freeze themselves. As they were in The Old Country.

This frozen dependency, which established large numbers of voters unable to assimilate and work to develop a shared Canadian identity, worked to the Liberal political advantage. These people are dependent on Liberals for their very existence (they think).

So- how do you deal with, never mind the mindless Trudeaupian rhetoric, but the hard pragmatic facts of a corrupt misuse of newcomers to this land?

I see a few articles in the same vein as Sibley's in the media and the blogosphere these days: one is left with the impression that the author has just written, in 2008, a severe and serious criticism of alchemy - and now expects praise, and perhaps a Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Asinine doesn't even begin to cover it.

So I was pleasantly shocked when I read this from George Jonas:

"All right. Going to bat for Mark Steyn's freedom of expression is like going to bed with Gina Lollobrigida. Anybody can do it. The challenge to liberty's libido is going to bat for a James Keegstra's freedom of expression, or an Ernst Zundel's. Defending the Charter rights of crude racists and Holocaust deniers is a test of liberal virility. It's a test we failed."

You're damned right we failed, George. Not the government, not the bureaucrats, not the cops, not the media, and not academia, but us, each and every Canadian citizen.

I'm not asking for a Maoist self-criticism circle here, but anyone who would deign to wear the "Freespeecher" badge with even a shred of credibility *must* first acknowledge that they - we - have failed, repeatedly.

The great lesson of the 20th century is the banality of evil, and the culpability of the masses of people who silently and knowingly acquiesced to the evil of a handful of miscreants.

" Iconic Bambi herself is in the Kafkaesque commissariat's crosshairs. I say Bambi is at risk today because we couldn't bring ourselves to defend vermin. We didn't even defend stragglers like the late West Coast journalist, Doug Collins. When statism's trespassing marauders declared an open season on Canada's traditional liberties 30-plus years ago, we abdicated.

Defending the freedom of freedom's friends is dandy, but it's no substitute for defending freedom. One isn't defending freedom until one defends the freedom of freedom's enemies. Waxing eloquent about speech one admires is admirable, but it doesn't defend freedom of speech. Defending freedom of speech means defending the freedom of speech one abhors."

Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies:

"And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don't let him be proud of his ``progressive'' views, and don't let him boast that he is an academician or a people's artist, a merited figure, or a general--let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It's all the same to me as long as I'm fed and warm.
...
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

``Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

``Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.''

G&M has a poll, do you want an elected senate.
I voted yes-results 100% yes, with one vote. Voted about 40 minutes ago.
Just checked the results and guess what, no votes cast.
Go vote and lets see the results, after they get enough NO votes to register.

Dave: "Originally, multiculturalism -- "soft" multiculturalism, as it's been called -- was intended to promote tolerance and open-mindedness..."

There's a parallel and a link to the HRC's history of radical subversiveness. Both have imposed policy within our borders without consulting Canadians (i.e. outside democratic controls).

re: the G&M poll
I too voted yes at approx. 6:00am EDT today.
I just checked and there are no votes registered.
I tried to vote again but it told me I had already voted.
Guess they didn't like the results.

that's interesting, Mary T. I also voted 'Yes' to an elected Senate. And it also showed up as one vote cast for 100%...and now..shows up as zero, with 'no votes cast'. Hmm. Could be a glitch.

ET “But you are ignoring that the ideology was rapidly transformed from the heady wine of ideas into hard core practicality. VOTES”

Actually I totally agree with you on that, as I said above “Chrétien liked what it morphed into … silos that he could use in mega cities to capture the votes with ethnic-Adscam-like, corruption and buying of VOTES.”

ET “So- how do you deal with, never mind the mindless Trudeaupian rhetoric, but the hard pragmatic facts of a corrupt misuse of newcomers to this land?”

We deal with it by removing it from the Trudeaupian “religion”. Because Trudeau says it was a mistake.

We also need to tie it to John Tory’s Faith Based Schools and tie it to Dion’s Carbon Tax. These are bad policies, not costed out, and not thought through, just emotionalism.

When these items get launched they take on religious like qualities. I’m saying fight fire with fire. Fight religions with religion. If blogs can demonstrate to the 1/3 Ontario population, that worships Trudeau, that the messiah in fact said he was not happy with what his multi-culti idea morphed into; then we have something to campaign on in the battle field. Ditto Dion's flip flops on CO2. These are relgious issues and we can always find another chapter negating each other .. so insert reason into faith. Today's Liberals can't handle reason, we'll win.

more on multi-culti-huggy

" Writing for the Glob, Lysianne Gagnon makes several arguments pointing to the sham of the official Canadian multicultural policy. Her arguments are incidental to her point against the Bloc’s phony desire to see Quebec exempted from the official federal policy. Her piece is evidence of how sound arguments can be used to marshal fallacious conclusions.

Never mind the official ideology of “multiculturalism,” a gimmick set up by Pierre Trudeau to facilitate the adoption of the Official Languages Act. At the time, some ethnic groups, especially in the West, were furious at the privilege bestowed on French Canadians, whom they considered to be just another ethnic group. Very well, said Mr. Trudeau - we’ll promise that these groups will also be able to retain their cultures of origin.

rtr http://tinyurl.com/5h9hbd

*
"I brought him home. I left the room to make a phone call,
and when I got back he had vanished and stole my $1,500
Tag watch," Rasmussens said.

So what part of "junkie"... do all you folks not understand?

*

Britain's left-wing Labour government will vote on limiting late term abortions tomorrow. They'll also be voting on eliminating the need for fathers, animal-human hybrids and growing twins so that their organs can be harvested.

It's the most radical law being debated anywhere in the world and yet it's not getting 1/1000th of the attention that the California gay marriage thing.

You can read about it on the bbc website.

Is this the same driver? Yesterday there was a story of a trucker, waiting to cross the border, to get a load of Oreo cookies and bring them back. Due to delays etc he would max out his driving time and have to rest. Today there is a story of a truck filled with Oreo cookies, that crashed and overturned, with cookie pkgs all over the road. Seems the driver went to sleep and hit a meridian.

What, what - no more Gay Parieee ??

[PARIS, May 19 (Reuters) - France is considering a ban on happy hours in bars and on the sale of bottles of vodka and other strong liquor in nightclubs as part of efforts to curb binge drinking among young people, an official said on Monday.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7525727

nomdeblog - I'm very sceptical about your 'fire with fire' tactic. That assumes that Trudeau's later musings on the problems of multiculturalism is a fire, and even enough of a fire, to displace and dethrone the Religious Mantra of Multiculturalism that currently exists.

As pointed out, the Charter is primarily about the establishment of bilingualism in Canada - a policy with disastrous undemocratic consequences because it removed over 80% of the population from viable government roles and set up an isolate elite mandarin civil service governance in Ottawa.

Multiculturalism doesn't exist just as some musings from Trudeau. It's in the Charter. His pet project, a project which has divided Canada into isolate Blocs - isolate by language, by origin, by frozen identities.

And certainly, no costs of inserting either bilingualism or multiculturalism into our system were ever done. Or will be done. The costs of bilingualism are massive - and what return do we get for it? The 'return' is the disintegration of a civic and democratic governance. Multiculturalism? The 'return' is the empowerment of the Libranos in government, both elected and appointed.

Attached to that Charter's multiculturalism and bilingualism, we have an enormous, enormous set of statutes and rulings to promote both. With regard to multiculturalism - we have the Human Rights Act. An act which has nothing to do with human rights but a great deal to do with enforcing isolate and adversarial identity blocs and preventing the collaborative development of Canada.

How are you going to deal with this legal infrastructure that rapidly, like some noxious weed, took hold and spread, to strangle our nation?

Asteroid Alert

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080519.wthomson0519/GIStory/

"Falun Gong band gets Tulip Fest spot

A marching band that was initially ousted from the Tulip Festival played yesterday to one of the largest crowds event organizers have seen this year."
http://tinyurl.com/5awf64 (ottawasun)

"The Ray-ban theory of history

Juan Carlos Zarate, described as a senior US counterterrorism official by the Telegraph is quoted as claiming "that the demise of al-Qa'eda is in sight because its failure to adapt its violent ideology and tactics has provoked growing dissent across the Islamic world." This claim is not as outrageous -- even to those who believe ideologies are invincible -- as it might at first seem. While Islam has maintained its general militancy and aggressiveness over the centuries, the lifespan of individual fanatical movements is distinctly shorter. It is possible that the world has not seen the last of radical Islam; but it may be true that it has seen the last of Bin Laden's crew.

History suggests that Islamic militancy comes in waves. Mohammed bin Abdullah Hassan, better known as the Mad Mullah of Somaliland, had a heyday between the years 1900 and 1920. The Mahdi, Mohammed Ahmad of Khartoum fame, lasted from the early 1880s to the turn of the century, if the career of his successor the Khalifa is added to it. The British were chronically in pursuit of one mad mullah or another throughout their vast colonial possessions. The young Winston Churchill facing the forces of yet another "mad mullah" in the Swat Valley some years after he had accompanied Kitchener to Omdurman, remarked:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome".

The wave passes. But the ocean remains."
http://tinyurl.com/54wcpq (belmont)

Quote: It's way past time for us to worry about who we offend. The Islamofascists, who are doing their best to ruin our democracy, certainly aren't in the least concerned about offending our sensibilities--or about curtailing our democratic rights and freedoms. Theirs seem to be the only rights that count--and that's not right.

Yep the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's time we sent a message to the Islamofacists who want to destroy our freedoms. SHUT UP AND INTERGRATE, or leave.

Leftwing think thanks admit that Muliticuluralism, much to their chagrin, is a failure. It destroys the hosts' culture and replaces it with marginilized minority culture and beleifs that aren't compatable with democracy and a free and open society. The direct result of multiculturalism is ghettos, racial enclaves, violent race based gangs, immigrant upon immigrant violence. Immigrants bringing Century old hatred and feuds onto our soil and we were told to turn a blind eye because to speak of the above we'd be racism vermin.

Canadians were not allowed to speak as we watched this hell unleashed on our soil lest we offend. We aren't nor were we racist, we were visionaries that saw the future and the destruction the leftards ideology wrought on our culture.

Part 2 of Robert Sibley's essay:

Define True Patriot Love
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=981b666d-f44e-46d3-b659-cd87f2a332ba

ET , I get your point about multi-culti-huggy being in the Liberal’s bible.. the Charter.

But Conservatives are the party of the BNA Act and on that basis we are de-centralizing and the Provinces will soon have to stand on their own accountability. The Ottawa/Queens Park obfuscation by ponzi games will end, as will the under the table funding of ethnic leaders.

Meanwhile assimilation is an attitude. If we can overcome cultural relativism and stop the idiotic blaming of our selves for colonialism in Rhodesia and get back to our own history of tolerance of one another’s cultures; then we’ll assimilate versus silo.

Your points on the cost of bilingualism and HRC’s support my point .. if one can be slightly optimistic.

Decentralization will keep our tax funds, as even McGuinty agrees, in Ontario versus sending them to Ottawa for equalization so that the Have-not Provinces have more nurses per capita than we have. De-centralization means more control in unilingual Queens Park and the shrinking of 400,000 civil servants in Ottawa ..thus incrementally starving the need for bilingual Federal bureaucracies.

ON HRCs , less then 1% of the population even knew about section 13.1 a few months ago. Now I’ll wager you that it will end soon after the 2009 election.

ET: You're in very fine form today. Great posts.

As far as Trudeau regretting what multiculturalism had become, I simply don't buy this. Trudeau was a communist or as I put it in another venue once: as communistic as he could be in the context of the Canada of his time. In that same venue, a few years ago, a poster, evidently with a straight face, argued that Trudeau tried and tried and valiantly tried some more to insert property rights into the Charter but his heroic efforts were foiled.

Remember Trudeau's "north-south" dialogue [read: monologue: we speaking in honeyed tones while giving the shop away, they rubbing their eyes in astonished disbelief at our naivity].

Trudeau HATED the Anglos (and business, free markets) and no small part of the project was to try to destroy Anglo dominance in Canada.

As Steyn put it, multiculturalism is a one way street. [see the UK kaffir- baiting video in an earlier thread for proof of this]

ET and nomdeblog. By extension our Charter of Rights and Constitution are not being interpreted correctly, if Trudeau didn't believe in later application. After all, he is the brains behind the document. To effect the change we need, two things are likely required. Second, incremental rather than institutional/constitutional change, reforming from the bottom up. Harper is shy on this one because he knows there's very few votes for him anyway, and challenging multiculturalism will meet heavy resistance from all sides, especially the soft left lib desperately holding onto their bastion of influence. It will get nasty quickly.

Anyway, those voting blocs have been reduced to large urban areas, and while it allowed McGuinty to sustain his incompetent regime, there is not enough there for federal Grit power.

Harper will likely abandon those blocs in next election and focus his efforts on the 905 belt in Ont and strengthening support elsewhere, even in Vancouver, where multiculturalism takes a different bent - owning Japanese cars and Italian flooring. Shrieking fear just doesn't play as well out west.

Maybe we should try harder on this one, but pragmatism and appealing to immigrants who come to Canada to be capitalists will eventually win out. It's still ultimately about power and Harper knows he can't make the change many believe is needed without a broader base of institutional and parliamentary support.

Some object strenuously, but appealing to ideological purity is dangerous; just ask Stephane Dion.

My apologies. The first needed condition for change is, of course, a Tory majority government.

"Soldiers sickened by Taliban tactics
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS

ARGHANDAB DISTRICT, Afghanistan - Not much comes as a shock to soldiers, but even for men who may have seen it all, the suicide bombing involving a young Afghan boy has taken the already bitter war in this country to a whole new level of savagery.

It was the utter cruelty of the attack Friday that wounded two Canadians and took life of an Afghan soldier on patrol in Zhari district that has made if even the most weather-beaten, battle-hardended faces blanche.

Afghan police initially placed his age at between 10 and 12 years, but over the weekend one official in the troubled district said the child may have been 13-years-old.

What investigators were trying to determine as they sifted through the evidence over the weekend was if the boy's bomb vest was remotely activated by a militant somewhere nearby, timed to go off - or whether the child flipped the switch himself." http://tinyurl.com/6p4fou
...-

Liberals: "Dion backs Dallaire on Khadr case"
[...]
"Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion backed Dallaire yesterday, reiterating his call that the government intervene in Khadr's case.

"I think that Mr. Jason Kenney, as usual, provoked a colleague of mine who has not a lot of experience in the heat of the parliamentary debate. But on the substance of the issue, Gen. Dallaire is right. Mr. Khadr should be back in Canada. All the other countries have done that," Dion told reporters.

Khadr, now 21, was 15 when he was shot and captured by U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan in 2002."
http://tinyurl.com/6fd76p (broom)

Shamrock “but pragmatism and appealing to immigrants who come to Canada to be capitalists will eventually win out.”

I totally agree. I’m a big fan of Wajid Khan, the Liberal MP who crossed the floor. I've seen at the podium speaking directly to a Muslim audience “you are Conservative and don’t know it” .
He goes on to talk about free enterprise, hard work and family values. His audience nodding.

I say, keep the immigrants deport the multi-culti-huggys.

The Charter, whether Trudeau intended it or not, has three BIG holes that relate *directly* to the Macleans/Steyn v. Islamofascism matter:

1) There is no (individual) property rights protection in the Charter;
2) There is a listed, open-ended categorization of protected groups, which is related to the group rights reference;
3) The notwithstanding clause renders the whole document meaningless.

The Steyn affair, I think, has been wrongly classified, even by some very intelligent people, as a free-speech issue. It isn't. It's a property rights issue. Do Macleans have the right to determine the content of their magazine or not? Does anyone of us have the right to throw someone out of our homes?

As the philosopher Ayn Rand pointed out, all individual rights rest on property rights; without property rights, no other rights are possible.* It is ironic that one of Harper's campaign promises was the insertion of property rights into the Charter. Not that he was tripping over himself to get that done, but it's interesting that the first real test of the Charter's efficacy came under his stewardship.

I'm beginning to suspect that El-Masry may have factored this - Canada being a constitutionally rightless state - into his calculations.

By the way, is there a right-wing, radio talk-show circuit here in Canada? Or is the revolution all Web-based?

Thanks.

-----

*Notice that this might explain Communist China's rapid economic growth. Although the press is gagged, the right to property ensures the building of skyscrapers.

shamrock and nomdeblog - now THAT strategy, the strategy of pragmatism, of focusing on appealing to the development of small/medium size capitalist enterprises - now that makes sense.

I totally agree, change must come from the bottom up, incrementally and based in daily local reality.

There's no way to change the amorphous clouds of group identity politics (bilingualism, multiculturalism) by suggesting yet more amorphous clouds (let's not be diverse, let's all be Canadian!). Yes, it might work but it's as fragile and frankly, unethical, as the first one. Remember, Kyotoism 'works' despite the fact that it's completely unrelated to reality and the environment and is instead just a money scam. Kyotoism works on guilt, just like multiculturalism and bilingualism.

In this case, it's guilt for having industrialized (first)...heh..as if industrialism was some mineral that we in the west happened to find first. No, it took reason, logic, experiment, analysis, risk, tests...to develop. So, we should feel proud. Not guilty.

The only way to deal with the romantic blather of multiculturalism is by pragmatic reality, which is to stop funding the isolationism and the welfare mode of this isolationism; and focus on enabling the immigrant to be part of the economic reality of the country.

That also means a change in immigration mode - as the govt is suggesting. Rather than entire blocks of extended family members, most who don't work, most who never learn the language, most who refuse to identify with being in Canada and whole groups who want to set up their own legal system as privileged over the national one - we must focus on those who actually want to be Canadian and part of our social infrastructure.

I know this isn't a gazillionth as important as the Muslims taking over the world, but has anyone else ever thought they'd seen that creepy dead gopher flick its little dead tongue in and out? I swear, I've got to stop smoking my breakfast...

--
Lisa

Dare Balogun: The Steyn affair, I think, has been wrongly classified, even by some very intelligent people, as a free-speech issue. It isn't. It's a property rights issue.

I find the Steyn, MacLeans, Ezra, Kate, etc. affair pushes all of the following equally important buttons:
• free speech button
• property rights button
• abuse of process button

ET .. “now that makes sense.”

Whew!

You can see where being PM must take enormous stamina. I must be a lot harder than blogging … ;>)

glasnost: I find the Steyn, MacLeans, Ezra, Kate, etc. affair pushes all of the following equally important buttons:
• free speech button
• property rights button
• abuse of process button
---

That's the thing I'm trying to point out: they're *not* all equally important. To exercise free speech or to stop "abuse of [whatever] process," you first *require* property rights. Property rights are the essential rights, and in any epistemological context, the essence is that which determines the others.

Let me try to concretize this:

You go into a store to buy something. You think the owner's wife looks sexy, and then you say so, loudly. The owner hears you and throws you out. Do you yell "Hey, free speech!"? No. And that's because it's our right to ownership of property that determines our freedom to express ourselves.

The contents of man's mind, which are intangible, require physical objects (property) to be brought into physical reality. First as written words or diagrams, then implemented into real man-made objects, such as houses, bridges, computers, songs, paintings, etc. All these require that there be an inviolable claim to physical property which settles the mind and allows it to focus on creation.

Notice what the Sock Puppets claimed to be asking: to publish a rejoinder of their choosing without regard for proof or editing. This would have been politically, even if not morally, fine provided they did so in *their own* magazine. Hell, the NYT does it all the time!

But, why are we here? Because they are trying to force Macleans to surrender their property rights. It's the same in Levant's case.

Property rights are the essential rights; the other rights **rest upon** property rights. Notice that prisoners have free-speech rights: they can yell at the guards all they want. Any man can speak, but where and how and on what and whose grounds? That's what counts ultimately.

glasnost - it IS a free speech issues, as much as it is a property rights issue.

With regard to free speech, the basic axiom is that in a civic democratic society, the individual must have the right to think and express these thoughts. If these opinions offend someone else, so be it. The issue can be debated; it can be resolved or not resolved.

Free speech can't be defined as similar to hate speech (even though some fogged minds have recently done so). Hate speech is a direct incitement to take actual steps to physically harm someone, i.e., to breach the peace. I'd note that Richard Warman's approval to the students to fling a 'pie-in-the-face' at Icke would, in my view, fit into this section.

Those opposed to free speech can't declare that it's the same as defamation/libel, which protects your actual reputation, not your alleged reputation and not your feelings.

Free speech is - speech. It presents opinions and must be, in my view, open to debate. If it isn't open to debate, it's irrelevant, it's dogma.

The steyn article was free speech; it wasn't hate speech, it wasn't defamation. It's open to debate. Elmasry is quite wrong to declare it hate speech and to our deep shame, Canada has 'Human Rights Commissions' which define 'hate speech' not in the specific manner in our Criminal Code section 315, but in an ambiguous focus on a subjective and personal feeling of 'being viewed with hatred or contempt'.

This latter, being subjective, is completely unprovable as being the result of any speech/article.

The question then moves on to the issue of Debate. There is no reason whatsoever that the debate must be in the same room, the same lecture hall, the same town, the same magazine. Yet, Elmasry and his puppets are demanding just that. This moves the case to property rights.

Is a private publication owned by the owners and editors? Or, if I don't like an article, can I insist that Macleans publish my counter argument. And then, JoeBlow will dislike what I said and insist that he get his rebuttal published, and then, SusieSmart will..and so on. Can't be done.

If Elmasry and the students want a debate, he can do so in another publication - and that's been done. He has no legal right to demand that it be in the same space, hall, room, building, magazine. And he should expect that HIS article must be open to debate by others. That's a sticking point for many of these Muslisms; they can't handle critique and debate of their lifestyle and religion. Tough; this isn't 7th century Arabia.

2.36 AB time and I just checked the g&m poll again. Still no recorded votes.
Must just be getting yes votes from Ont.

I also voted Yes in the G&M poll for do you want an elected senate.

Thanks, ET. I altogether agree with Me No Dhimmi's assessment of your fine posts today.

nomdeblog: "At a private luncheon with MPs in the mid-1990s, Trudeau was asked whether multiculturalism had developed the way he hoped. He replied: 'No, this is not what I wanted..'... I’m no fan of Trudeau, but the point is, he put something in motion and wasn’t able to correct it as it morphed."

My question is, if Trudeau wasn't happy with the direction in which the multiculturalim he instituted had gone, then why didn't he make this abundantly clear before he died? He had ample opportunity--and a drooling and compliant media through which to do it--to write about his disenchantment with the direction in which multiculturalism had gone and why he wasn't happy with it.

He didn't.

So, he spoke about it at a private luncheon? Well, whoopee, big deal. And his comments can't even be Googled, so how the heck would most Canadians even know?

He was an entitled, Mount Royal socialist, who happened to have been "educated" by the Jesuits. It seems that all he got from them was their arrogance; as far as "the Catholic" goes, I see very little evidence of adherence to the Magisterium.

What Pierre Elliot Trudeau did, in his monumental arrogance and ignorance, was to unleash a Frankenstein's monster on the Canadian populace.

And, lucky him: he's not around to have to deal with the mayhem it's resulted in. His children are privileged enough, and have sufficient financial resources, to hide out in their gated mansions, to send their kids to private schools and camps, and to otherwise shield them from the day-to-day realities that the rest of us have to live with, so what's it to him or them--or the rest of the I'm-OK Librano$?

Even though Canadians stood three-deep along the railway line on PET's final journey in order to pay their last respects, when all the facts and figures are in, I suspect that history will not accord him the hallowed place in Canadians' memory that he enjoys today.

His legacy will be a ruined Canada, a Canada brought to its knees, with the commensuarate loss of its democratic freedoms, by the "open," "tolerant," and "diverse" multiculturalism he ushered in. I guess he just wasn't able to discern that the world didn't need anymore "isms" to free the proletariat.

Useful idiot?

Well said batb.

Minority interest groups that represent gay rights, women's rights and disabled peoples rights are in the pockets of the left wing political parties. The very existence of these publicly funded institutions depends on pushing this agenda. These brand names carry so much clout with the groups they claim to represent that advocates of the aforementioned movements follow blindly where there masters take them. I guess what I'm trying to say is that WOMEN should spend more time informing themselves about public affairs and spend less time thinking about shoes and Avon. Nullius Inverba

Yes indeed, batb, spot on. Trudeau did not speak up. Then he died and was assisted to his final resting place by his hero Fidel Castro, about whom he evidently didn't change his mind, unless maybe he didn't get around to changing his instructions to his executor!
He was a utopian fool or a knave which in the real world for people over 18 is a distinction without a difference.

Way back in the earliest Trudeau days my father, a small businessman and lifelong liberal, said of him: "He doesn't understand economics". I mentioned this to a friend once who replied, "Well yeah, but he could have ....".
Well, yeah, but he chose not to!

This "it didn't turn out the way it should have" schtick is all too reminiscent of the old excuse still retailed by aging Marxists in the academy: Marxism is great, it's just that we had the wrong folks running it". Trudeau didn't even have this handy excuse, eh?

batb “What Pierre Elliot Trudeau did, in his monumental arrogance and ignorance, was to unleash a Frankenstein's monster on the Canadian populace.”

Now I’ve Googled it, according to the Ottawa Citizen PET spoke about it in the mid-1990’s luncheon of about a dozen Liberal MPs:

Each MP was allowed to ask just one question of the former prime minister, on any subject. After a series of relatively routine questions that Trudeau batted away with relative ease, now-retired Liberal MP John Bryden asked about the multiculturalism policy his government had proclaimed 15 years earlier.
"Mr. Trudeau, you were one of the key architects of multiculturalism and now we are in a situation where many newcomers to Canada consider their ethnicity before being Canadian. Is this the outcome you wanted?" asked Bryden.
There was silence around the table as the former prime minister thought before replying.
"No, this is not what I wanted," he said.
According to Bryden, Trudeau made no attempt to hide his disappointment.

So batb , I’m with you, except that PET is dead. But now we do know that Liberals obtained new opinions from their messiah. Yet, they did nothing. where’s the outrage? Where’s the new adjusted Liberal policy? The answer: follow the money.

Angry's conclusion: Suzuki is a misanthrope*.
...-

"Does David Suzuki advocate exempting industry from the Liberal carbon tax?"
"It makes me wonder if David Suzuki is truly an environmentalist, or if he just hates people. Punish the people for overpopulating the planet -- that's the real goal."
http://stevejanke.com/archives/262760.php

*Noun
"Origin: 1555–65; n. use of Gk mīsánthrōpos hating humankind," (dict-com)

Drug lords go after Mexican police officers

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtgNIPlWAt6m7WNNeMV5fSoJ4hUwD90O739O0

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Drug cartels are sending a brutal message to police and soldiers in cities across Mexico: Join us or die.

I think the point is that Trudeau's multiculturalism was intended to be multiculturalism amongst those of European origin--the two founding cultures of bicultural/bilingual Canada plus those who had immigrated since. Remember it was the non-Brit Anglophones--or at least those in organizations who cared about such things--who were somewhat upset about "biculturalism" which seemed to exclude them.

Remember also that Trudeau thought that nationalism of the European (or Quebecois) sort was a very Bad Thing. Hence a multicultural Canada based on liberal, British and European, values would be a very Good Thing that would curb any development within Canada of nasty nationalism of the type that I suspect he also disliked in the US (the "melting pot" that enabled the Americans to conduct the Vietnam War).

What Trudeau did not foresee was that Canada's immigration source countries would rather rapidly become very largely third world and that immigrants would increasingly lack the British/European liberal and philosophical values he so cherished. And he certainly did not foresee that our elites would change their values so much from the ones he held as to essentially deny the value of the British/European values on which he based his policies.

I think Trudeau would have agreed with most of what Robert Sibley has just written in the Ottawa Citizen. Unforeseen consequences and all that.

Mark
Ottawa

Can you find the name of the "scientist" "academic"? Couldn't be Suzuki; he is non-taxable.

This is the money quote: "In the case of the academic who fabricated data, a technician notified university officials in 2002 alleging the researcher had been falsifying data since 1993."

It's Jeancula Chretien-MartinJr's Librano$ at their best. Are they untouchable? The article will tell you how they are legally untouchable. It's Adolf's method: achieving illegal ends by legal means.
The rot/malfeasance is deep in the Canadian psyche. This the tip of the iceberg (cliche, but true).
...-

"Scientist still getting federal funds despite misconduct finding
Margaret Munro , Canwest News Service

A Canadian academic continues to receive research money from Ottawa almost two years after top government advisers recommended the scientist be cut off and banned from receiving another penny because of misconduct, federal documents say."
http://tinyurl.com/3hn93h

Sorry folks for those of you who support an elected Senate, I give up very little ground in my full hearted support for a conservative philosophy: a tradition respecting approach to life and problems; but, I do regard an elected Canadian Senate as a brain dead, foolish shiboleth of the Reform wing of the Conservative party ( much like fixed election dates). Liable to lead to all sorts of unintended consequences and incapable in itself of solving any of the woes ascribed to that institution or Canadas' condition. Before bemoaning the Senates' cost and expense and ineffectiveness I suggest that you pay close attention to CPAC and its Saturday evening transmissions of the various senate committees in action or read their reports on-line. For the $3-4 dollars a year that the senate costs me the education provided by those committees is well worth it, especially because while some small number of senators are party hacks the majority are of a much more independent and questing mind cf. the Liberals Colin Kenney and the Defense Committee, or Joabin Granestine at Banking. Do you really want a segment of goverment in direct rivalry for popular legitimacy to the Commons, bearing in mind 1/ ( a variation on Parkinsons Law) that the smaller a bodies' membership the more influence and informal power it wields? 2/ the prevalence of vote splitting, voting one parties MP but the others Senator? 3/ the loss of the collegiallity and relative civility currently present in that body? At what cost to our common civility or deepening divisions in the country at large? 4/ Long service in a body that gets to hear the various beaureacratic excuses/ exercises/ schemes trotted out every decade or so and is not afraid to call them on it 5/ A cross selection of people (some brilliant or able or both), trades and experiences but many of whom could not win any election against the vaguest hint of charisma? 6/ a currently legitimate solution to any Goverments' worst problem; that of organizing patronage so that it is more or less above board, commonweal oriented, hierarchical and respectable instead of underground, virulently selfish and short-sighted? 7/ yet another government body whose members are beholden to the current PM, fads and trends instead of maturing to some independence of action; always with one eye on the next election instead of being able with good conscience and independence of action to tell some powerful or influencial or whingeing victim group to " go pi** into the wind and up a rope" ( would that they did that more often!).
MY liking for the current Senate is that once appointed ( and yes I do know that some have sold their soul for that appointment and can never reclaim it) they have the option of independence from whatever PM or PMO or sponsoring group that got them there. My second reason is because of their long service possiblities, as a conservative I have no problem with someone drawing on 20-30 years experience on the self same committee in dealing with something as byzantine or full of unseen pitfalls as government policy. Third, the more I see of them in action on CPAC the more I respect some of those I thought I would loathe (ie Muncie). Fourth, I am a traditionalist and the Senate is one of the deepest roots to our Canada.
If you really want to shake the roots and foundations of what Sir John A and his compatriots set up for this country ( and a pretty successful country at that) then may I make a modest suggestion?
A Senate chosen by lot from a winnowed population of the whole country.
All passport holders over 55 who can get the signatures of 25 people to vouch for them ( a low but not inconsequential hurdle) with an equal selection of 8 per province ( rep by pop is for MPs and boo hoo for your odds if you are from Ontario instead of PEI, a province is a province). Fifty names in any particular year that a sitting Senator retires to be drawn in a provincially based lottery. Of those 50 some will have died or no longer be interested but the remainder to be taken to Ottawa for a few weeks intensive civics training course ( a value in and of itself) and the participants to self select from amongst themselves whom they deem the most able at the end of that course ( Senate Survivor) to fulfil the role. Senators serve for life and cannot be removed except voluntarialy or by Act of God or expulsion by the whole of the Senate. If a particularily good crop of prospects comes along in any one year then that provinces' sitting senators may individually choose to relinquish their seat to that cohorts' runners-up; remember that some years there will have been no retirements/deaths/expulsions to initiate the process.
I think that this scheme has several advantages over a direct election of the Senate. Worthy and tested people will have been selected by their peers and have some knowledge of what the job entails. The power of the party organizations and /or PMO will have been curtailed thus allowing more independence of mind. Long experience may be accrued by Senators. The population at large could legitmately dream of winning a meaningful lottery. There would be upon the retirement of any one senator a great upsurge in political interest in that province irrespective of the political cycle in Ottawa. Ordinary ( albeit somewhat extraordinary) people would have a legitimate chance to make government policy without devoting the whole of their earlier life to politics or law or the other usual avenues to office. The Senate seat would have popular legitimacy and have been acheived via vote ( by the fellow contenders as representatives of the citizenry at large).
Of course the above still leaves what to do about rewarding party activists/hacks/patronage seekers without the Senate as a place to stuff the more able ( hence more dangerous) of them. Perhaps a system of honours/ civil list/ pensions? A la Britian? Or putting them further into the shadows as a currently conceived EEE suggests?
Sincerely,
Robert Albin
Calgary
PS But then I am no expert.
PPS Gone for a week so no use lambasting me till later. Ta.

And that's the whole point about an appointed rather than elected and limited term Senate, (assuming we even keep the Senate and why should we?)You see, Robert Albin, like you, an appointed Senate refuses to be held accountable.

And Colin Kenney is one of the worst of the lot, arrogant and ignorant as he is.

Enjoy your week fleeing accountability.

ET: "...Colin Kenney is one of the worst of the lot, arrogant and ignorant as he is." I am reluctant to disagree with you but Sen. Kenny is, in my view, far better informed, and right, about defence and national security issues than the current ministers of national defence, or of public safety, and indeed the prime minister.

His Senate committee was severely critical of recent Liberal governments. The committee is just continuing to present what I would consider non-partisan--and very good analysis. Much better than anything in the MSM.

Mark
Ottawa

Speaking of moral equivalence, note the cleansing power of fire.

Hansard for Zimbabwe is online. Or, rather, it was. The last installment dates from September of 2007.

For the curious, have a scan:
http://www.parlzim.gov.zw/cms%5CHouse_Of_Assembly_Hansards/12_September_2007_34-9.pdf

TO; ROBERT ALBIN now that you've spoken, perhaps we could eliminate government altogether, and have Stehane Dion wear an army uniform.... What a f@#$%&* crock of bullshit!!

Canadian Sentinel 7:18 PM mentions,

** Drug lords go after Mexican police officers **

AP.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtgNIPlWAt6m7WNNeMV5fSoJ4hUwD90O739O0

This is only part of a massive problem brewing for us north of the Rio Grande, [ Mex/US fence].

AP makes it available, yet the MSM seems unwilling to bring the news of growing drug cartels powerful threats to our attention.

Between Mexico, Columbia and Venezuela, one has to wonder about security for Panama, all the retired who live there, and the vital canal. = TG

nomdeblog: "So batb , I’m with you, except that PET is dead."

Not dead enough.

His socialist views and policies--and their negative impact on our communal lives--live on, with the added veneer of having been put in place by "a Canadian icon." Pierre Elliott Trudeau posed as a Magus, and his dead hands still pull a lot of puppet strings.

As far as Trudeau and unintended consequences go, Mark Collins, it was clear that many of these consequences had begun to deeply erode the fabric of Canadian society when PET was still alive and when he could have--had he chosen to--set the record straight. I don't let him off the hook because he was an old man. Supposedly with age, comes wisdom and, perhaps, a little humility, neither of which I detected in the Old Magus.

It also seems clear that he did everything in his power to emasculate anything to do with the British--and Judeo-Christian--heritage in Canada. I think he knew all too well what he was doing when he instituted official bilingualism and multiculturalism, the latter to "replace" the millions of Canadian voters/workers who were never born because of his liberal abortion policy.

His is a sad legacy.