NAFTAGATE

There was a big backlash this week against the Conservatives this week, after it was found out that they might have contributed to Barack Obama losing in Ohio. Allegedly a leaked memo stated that a person on Obama's team had reassured the Canadian government that the U.S wouldn't re-open NAFTA, and this attack on it was just campaign rhetoric. This in turn has led to a scandal? Personally, I don't think Americans could care less about what a Canadian official has to say. Secondly, many news medias have been saying for the past weeks that Obama isn't serious about re-opening NAFTA, so it's not like this is some sort of revelation. Despite this many are mad at the government, because they "can't keep their mouths shut." Of course, it would make a lot more sense to keep tons of Canadians worried about the status of their jobs instead. It would make a lot more sense to let the presidential candidates trick the public about their positions. Many are saying this was a planned leak, because the Conservatives want John McCain to beat Hillary Clinton, but would Harper really jeopardize his tenuous hold on government by trying this sort of thing. The whole crux of this argument is the Liberals telling the Conservatives that," we want Obama to win, so how dare you tell the truth about what he is saying." I say if Obama is lying, then his beliefs are fair game.

NY Times- All the News That's Fit to Print?

Earlier this year the NY Times endorsed John McCain as the best Republican candidate, but now that he de facto won the nomination they are pulling out some dirt on him. First they dredged up a rumour that he had an affair with a lobbyist that he is friends with. Their so called proof was a bunch of bitter former employees who had no evidence, but it still warranted a front page 2000 word story. McCain's response the next day was around 250 words, and was sandwiched in the back of the paper. I also read that in 2004 there were rumours that John Kerry had an affair, but they put this report way in the back, and it was only a small story. Then this week they made a big story about if McCain could even run for President, because he wasn't born in American, but on a military base. These articles have actually backfired, as they have solidified the Conservative base, who hate the NY Times more than McCain.

Come on NY Times, you're supposed to be the number one paper in the country. Do you really need to try to smear McCain so he doesn't become President? It would be nice to see a little bit more even-handedness when reporting the election. All of these candidates will be good for America, and although you can have your own personal opinion you should let everybody's voice be heard properly. Let's bring some integrity back into the media.

Democrats Winning=Disaster

As the Democratic campaign continues on and on and on, one key issue is never being talked about, and that is Iraq. Hillary, Barack and all of the other Democratic candidates said they will pull out of Iraq shortly after coming to office. This position could be considered viable a short time ago, but the times are changing in Iraq.

Recently Anthony Cordesman, a man who said in 2006 that there was no chance of Iraq becoming stable had this to say, "No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008. Seized Al-Qaeda letters also said the Anbar awakening,"created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight" . He describes how his force of 600 men turned into 20.The deaths of civilians and soldiers are going down. Sectarian violence is down, the economy is up, local leaders are starting to cooperate with the U.S and get rid of the terrorists. The situation is by no means perfect, but it also can't be said that it's so bad that the U.S can't possibly win.

Unfortunately, Joseph Lieberman says this is exactly what is going on, stating, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their position is that since there hasn't been sufficient 'national reconciliation' the U.S.A has to go. Is this really a defensible position? Could the Democrats honestly expect that a country so divided could re conciliate on a national scale so quickly? Is that really a reason to send the troops home? It's working so far on a local level, and it will continue to do so on a national level, but it will take some time.

Charles Krauthammer asks,"Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?" Let's hope that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can take a brave stance on this issue, and bring change within their party base. The Iraqi people have said," Yes we can", can the Democrats?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/democrats_unwavering_in_the_fa.html
Krauthammer article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
Al Qaeda going down the tubes

Reply to Jared's post

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5856496821064177457&postID=5967950845249187079


I agree and disagree with Jared about several things in this article. Although I do believe that torture is legitimate in certain circumstances, I don't believe that if a country stops using it completely it makes them soft. On the other hand it's easy to see today the weakening resolve in the Western World, more so in Europe and Canada than the U.S.A. An excellent example of this attitude is seen when looking at the "war on terror." When things were looking bad in Iraq a lot of Americans wanted, and still want the troops to be pulled out. They say that we're losing to many innocent lives and fighting for nothing. They forget that the "great generation" who fought the world wars, lost exponentially more soldiers and the public knew how important it was to defend our freedoms. I think that the public today doesn't have this resolve anymore. As long as we have our luxuries we can sit back and wait till our freedoms erode.

In Afghanistan this can also be seen. Canada has lost 80 soldiers and are thinking about pulling out. Are you kidding me? Each life is important, but don't they realize that the spreading of freedom is also an important goal. Other countries in Europe are also unwilling to put their soldiers in combat situations, in fear of causalities. This of course is what soldiers are for, they're not supposed to be doing nothing. It seems that nobody wants to do the dirty work anymore and stop terror.

In future wars how many deaths will be seen as to much. 10,5,1, or should we just give in because we don't want to lose our lives. This attitude is summed up perfectly by Ehud (Sleazebag) Olmert, who said, " We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies." Can you imagine if Churchill had said this during the Second World War. Instead, he said,"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender".

This is all part of the Western World developing self-hatred towards itself. We are becoming ashamed of our history, by only looking at the bad. We see no value in our culture, and let others hijack ours. We give other religions and culture free reign as not to defend them. In Britain this week the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was inevitable that Sharia law would take hold in Britain, suggesting it can't be stopped. Where is the fight for our heritage, culture and our freedoms?

We can't get soft, we must stay proud.

Bombings in Baghdad

On Friday a double suicide bombing went off in a crowded Baghdad market, killing 60-100 people. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for this attack, but the even more disgusting thing is that they used 2 mentally handicapped women as the bombers. This is either showing that they are getting extremely desperate, or they are just willing to up the sheer brutality of what they're doing. Things have been getting better in Iraq recently, as more people are starting to cooperate with the U.S soldiers, and this just shows an even greater distinction between them and us. I'm hopeful that this attack will further strengthen the conviction of the Iraqi people, as they will be repulsed by this sick attack.

Situation in Gaza

It's been a pretty crazy week in Gaza so far. Earlier in the week Hamas shut down the power supply to Gaza and blamed it on Israel, even though ironically Israel sends them all of their food and gas supplies. They then played this up in the media by holding a candlelight cabinet session. Firstly, who holds cabinet sessions in the middle of the night. Secondly, if you look at the pictures you can see clearly see light through the curtains http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/01/darkness-at-noon-msm-plays-along-with-ha/

. I just don't see how newspapers can go along with these clearly staged photos. Then later in the week they blew a hole through the fence blocking them from Egypt. The world of course said this was because of Israel's recent blockade on them even though this plan had been going on for months. The media also went on about how the people were buying soda, candy, fruit, while never mentioning that probably some of the 700 000 people were bringing back in weapons, which is why they're being blockaded in the first place. This situation also made clear that the Egyptians want nothing to do with their Arab brethren. You have to feel bad for the innocent Palestinians who have been used as propaganda by the Arabs. Then today Iran said it would help Egypt clean up this mess. What a swell idea that would be. Let's allow the leading sponsor of terrorism to help 700 000 people get back into Gaza. Surely they won't let them bring back weapons. Israel really needs to pressure Egypt to get this thing under control, and it's in the best interest of the Mubarack regime to solve this if they want to hold onto power. Especially with the Winograd report coming out, Olmert doesn't want to look like a dunce on both sides of the border.If this whole situation wasn't so serious, it might even be comical what's going on.

SUPER BOWL XLII

After spending the last 20 Sundays, Mondays and sometimes Thursdays and Saturdays on watching football the Super Bowl is finally set. It will feature the 18-0 New England Patriots against Eli Manning's New York (Football) Giants. These teams met in week 17 with the Patriots winning 38-35 to cap off their unbeaten season. This promises to be an amazing game just like their last matchup. It's pretty disappointing that Brett Favre and the Packers couldn't make it to game, but they just didn't play well enough to win. Anyways it should turn out to be a great game with the potential for tons of history being made.

In other news things have heated up in Gaza this week. The IDF and Hamas have been exchanging blows with tons of bloodshed. Rightly, most of the world is calling for all this to end, but I propose that it ends by Israel taking the initiative. I think that they need to send in a large force to finally stop all of this rocket fire once and for all. It's shameful that a country won't even defend their people as they face constant barrages of rockets. If a major operation is carried out competently than maybe things will finally cool down for a bit. Considering that the release of the Winograd Report is due to come out soon it's in Olmert's best interest to please the country by attacking Gaza, then trying to hold on to this peace deal, which most of the country opposes. I hope that he acts swiftly in the next few days.

Free Speech under attack in Canada

Ezra Levant, founder of The Western Standard, is under trial for printing the Mohamed cartoons in his newspaper in 2005. He is not in a regular court of law, but is being put before a human rights commission, because he offended Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Knowing he wouldn't be able to beat Levant in a regular court of law, Levant is now forced in front of a one person commission which will decide if he will need to apologize. Besides taking away his freedom of speech, he is also being forced to pay for his defense, while his accuses pays nothing. The publishing of these cartoons could be considered offensive to members of the Muslim community, but they do not promote violence or hatred against them. It is simply an expression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press which has been part of our heritage since the Magna Carta. To take away this right through a government bureaucracy is wrong. These courts were initially set up to solve housing disputes, in which minorities lets say wouldn't receive an apartment due to a racist owner. The creator of these commissions has even said that they never intended matters of speech or thought to be taken before these courts. If Levant loses he will be forced to apologize, which he claims is Orwellian in nature, as they will be controlling what he does. In his opening comments he said that criminals aren't forced to apologize, but he should? This commissions in the past once forced a right wing Christian to pay reparations to a gay man who was offended by a newspaper comment in which he gave bible verses that said homosexuality was wrong. Levant properly speaks when he says that he is defending every true supporter of free speech and not just himself.

Mark Steyn, a N.Y Times best selling author is also going to be hauled in front of these courts in Ontario, due to Macleans publishing excerpts of his book, which offended some Muslim students at Osgoode Hall. Many of the claims they lay against him are completely unjustified and they are demanding that Macleans let them publish a rebuttal in the magazine which will over around 5 pages. Needless to say they disagreed. Stuff can offend you all of the time, it doesn't mean you can force people to go in front of these kangaroo courts. I wonder what these commissions response would be if I claimed that a book I read by a Muslim author offended me, or if I said some homosexual acts offended me because of my religious beliefs. I somehow think my complaint wouldn't receive the same attention. We must speak up now if we want to keep our basic freedoms.

You can go to ezralevant.com to see some clips of him before the commission and
marksteyn.com to read about his case

In response to Ezra Levant defending himself this "nice" facebook group has been made about him
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007823.html

Who I want for U.S President

Seeing as I have American citizenship I have been paying close attention to the election coverage. For Democrats I would prefer that Hillary wins, because she has a lot of experience and her foreign policy stance is pretty balanced. Also Bill would be able to help her out a lot. Despite this, I think I'm probably going to vote for a Republican candidate, and I really hope that John McCain wins the primaries. Not only does his name sound like Bruce Willis' character from Die Hard, but he also is the best candidate. Firstly, he's a dedicated war hero having been a POW in Vietnam, so he knows first-hand the perils and sometimes necessity of war. He's in favor of the war in Iraq but he has a much better plan that any of the other candidates on how to make it a success. He is also a big defender of freedom because his was taken away for so many years (anti-torture). Mccain is also the most environmental of the Republican candidates, having been passionate about it for years. He has been a Senator for a very long time and knows how to play ball in Washington. Mccain is also a passionate believer in the state of Israel. He is a social conservative, and a supporter of free trade. The next president will have to deal will many issues that affect the peace and future of the world, and he knows what he's doing more than anybody else. It's time we pay this war hero some respect

The Mitchell Report

With the release of the Mitchell Report which names steroid users in baseball, serious thinking needs to be done. This list included Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, possibly the greatest players of the last 10 years. Other notable players such as: Eric Gagne, Chuck Knoblauch, David Justice, Miguel Tejada, and Kevin Brown were on the list. Even current jays players Greg Zaun and Howie Clark were on the list. Now the question is what to do with these players. Should they be given immunity or be punished for their actions? What is the MLB going to do about their flawed steroid policy?

I personally think that all of these players should receive some sort of suspension, and be tested much more frequently than others. Baseball is no place for their to be cheaters ruining the game. Players such as Barry Bonds and even Roger Clemens should be banned from being in the hall of fame. The MLB should also test more frequently and by surprise, instead of alerting players when their tests are. Perhaps the MLB should also consider letting an independent agency conduct the tests. MLB cannot expect to let players cheat, and then expect the fans not to be disgusted. It's time that every player be put on a level playing field so fans don't need to be suspicious. The MLB might also need to hand out a healthy dose of **********************

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtAZsxRrKjTT_Jt7PcxGTpDZxLsF?slug=ys-mitchellnames121307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
names of cheating players

The whole report can be found on MLB.com

Bah, Hanukkah

The article Bah, Hanukkah was written by Christopher Hitchens. In this article he basically slams the holiday of Chanukkah, which isn't much of a surprise as he has written a book called "God is not Great- How religion poisons everything." This anti-religious stance also makes him very much in favour of the War on Iraq although he is a social liberal. Any ways let's get back to the article.

Hitchens starts by saying that Chanukkah is, "to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness." He says that the Seleucid empire had taken a hold in Israel and had started to wean people away from practicing Judaism. He of course doesn't mention that most Jews were being brutally forced to go through these changes, and couldn't practice Judaism if he wanted to. He then falsely says that the name Alexander is a Jewish name because Hellenism was so popular amongst the Jews. He says instead of celebrating the highly advanced Greeks, we celebrate the no good Maccabees who were just trying to spoil this enlightenment. He then says that maybe the Hellenists were a bit brutal, but the Jews also did terrible stuff amongst themselves after and during the war. He then said if we had just submitted to the Greeks, Christianity and Islam would have never been created, and we have brought all of our suffering onto ourselves because of this. I guess he prefers people practicing polytheism over monotheism. He then if the miracle happened it just shows that G-d loves extremists and religious thuggery.

He then goes on to talk about how dumb Christmas is, because it just takes pagan practices and puts them into the holiday. Of course some of these customs probably came from the beloved Greeks who he so widely lauds. The rest of this article continues in this manner, and he says when we look into the flames of the Menorah we should be saddened, as this is the first case of extremism winning over modernity.

Basically this article is very mean spirited and it is made even worse due to the lose facts that he uses. If you make up facts and talk in such a nasty tone you can either make your point very well or just disgust the reader. I'm going to go with the latter feeling

Here's the article
http://www.slate.com/id/2179045/

You can read my other blog from Tuesday if you want

News from Iran

In the last couple of days U.S intelligence has issues a new report stating that Iran stopped its nuclear program back in 2003 and probably hasn't started it up yet. In a lot of the articles I've been reading it's been pretty easy to find a lot of ironies in how people are reacting to the news. In recent Democratic Party debates some candidates had bashed Hill-Dawg for voting to classify th Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, and are using this new report to beef up their statements. But wait a second. Why are they listening to this new piece of intelligence, but were ignoring the past ones? It would seem to suggest that only reports that fir their political motivation have truth in them, and all other reports are lies. Unless these other candidates sincerely believed that Iran was making nukes before this report, and were willing to serve up Israel as an expenditure. And if these other candidates do believe in all intelligence documents, then surely they have seen the intelligence showing the Rev. guards have supplied terrorists in Iraq, but I guess they can probably say it's just war-mongering Bush up to his old tricks again. You at least have to respect Hillary for actually taking a stand on foreign policy, and not just blaming Bush for tricking them into going into Iraq.

Then today Israeli intelligence said that they have grave concerns about this new U.S intelligence. Frankly, I'm gonna take Israel's word over the U.S.A's. Also the report still said that Iran can make nukes between 2010-2015 so it's still a serious threat. This report also fails to mention all the rhetoric coming form Iran, their constant lying to the U.N, their supplying of terrorism. Even if this report is true th world can't suddenly say let's leave them alone. They are still the biggest threat facing the U.S.A and Israel, and we shouldn't let this report cloud our judgment.

Also the year 2003 potentially has some significance. This of course is the year that the Americans went into Iraq, and easily defeated Saddam and his army. Perhaps this show of military force did stop the Iranian missile program, as they were afraid of being invaded to.

I hope a new report comes out contradicting this one and see how some people in politics respond.

Tell Us The Truth Already!

2 Years after riots struck France, they once again have been reignited. All of the newspapers are saying that the forces behind these riots are "youths". This of course leads the reader to wonder who exactly these "youths" are, and I think it's about time that a newspaper came out and said who these "youths" really are. The so called "youths" are of course mostly made up of Muslim immigrants or children of immigrants, so why aren't newspapers willing to say this. Are they afraid of some sort of reprisal if they report the truth? Shouldn't the newspapers be calling it like it is and tell us who these "youths" are. Personally, I think that Europe has had a lax immigration process, and now they are reaping what they have sown. By calling the rioters "youths" they can keep on pretending that nothing is going on in their perfect country. They call the West Islamaphobic and portray themselves as friends of the Muslim world, but i don't see this happening over here. The mayor of the twon even went so far as to say that the rioting was, "not violence but an expression of rage." Sure whatever you say. Grow up already, start telling people the truth, and realize that you have made mistakes that can still be solved.

Affirmative Action

This whole discussion about affirmative action in class made me remember something i once read about a black conservative names Shelby Steele, and his views on it. Steele just wrote a book called "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era", and in it he says that whites today have 'white guilt' from what they have done to blacks, and this is why affirmative action is here. In this book he bashes affirmative action, welfare to minorities, and other such programs. He says these policies make whites feel better about their past deeds, and makes them not seem racist, but at the same time these things ask nothing from blacks. He thinks that affirmative action is just an incentive for Blacks not to try hard, because they can try less and still succeed because of these programs. He says blacks now think that they have a lower bar than anybody else and they will only reach for that and not higher. He points out that SAT scores dropped among blacks from 1990 till 2000, and he says that this is a likely cause.

He says affirmative action makes blacks out to be second class citizens, because they are expected to do less than everybody else. He also says it makes blacks dependent on whites for them to be successful. Whites can now look down at blacks and think you are only here because i let you. He then starts to criticize liberals who promote these policies. He says that liberals can now say they have a clean slate because they are doing affirmative action programs. He says affirmative action actually promotes white supremacy, because these programs make us out to look smarter, and put minorities on a lesser level.

He says now that they civil rights movement is in serious trouble because Blacks need to say that they are weak and whites are strong to get anything. He says this will eventually stigmatize a whole generation of young blacks, who need to see their leaders constantly sell themselves out.

His critique of liberal policies then continue. He says that liberals take away the personal responsibility of blacks solely for political gain, and then they are able to say they have a higher moral authority than conservatives. He says that liberals claim the conservatives are racist because they don't believe in these programs. This he concludes is the way that liberals try to gain power in America. He says that subsequently if liberals abolished these programs they wouldn't be seen as compassionate, and thus lose their power base. The liberals form of power is to take over all personal choice so they can try to rectify the sins of the past. He says even now they are trying to portray the environment as a victim of past 'white atrocities' and they can once again claim a new moral high ground by trying to protect it.

He then criticizes George Bush for losing his pride when responding after Hurricane Katrina to the charges he didn't care about Black people. He said Bush clearly cares about blacks and the only reason he responds to this is because of his white guilt, and by speaking this would remedy his problem. He says this speech was not meant for the benefit of blacks but an attempt to not look racist in front of swing voters.

I don't agree with everything Steele has to say but he does bring up a lot of good points. In another article of his he says that the U.S is doing badly in Iraq because of this guilt. He says the army has to win a war but at the same time can't seem the least bit racially and culturally insensitive, or imperial in any way. He also says that the demonization of America by Europe is a way that Europe can get over their white guilt. They say that America is the new imperial devil, is racist, hates culture, and this helps their guilt. Overall he is a very interesting man and a lot of his articles are very interesting.

Canada finally stands up at the UN

The UN Human Rights council in the past few days had a few items on their agenda. Of course being the UN, most of the items addressed had to do with Israel and how it is the source of all the worlds evil. The UN Human Rights council comprises of 47 members, including Canada, and over half the citizens in these member countries have little or no freedoms. These moral authorities proposed to make Israel's "atrocities" a permanent item on their agenda, and the only voice that opposed this was Canada. The custom dictates that you must have an unanimous vote for these issues to go through, but of course since it deals with Israel these rules can be ignored. The council also has taken away actual observers of human rights violations in such countries as Cuba and Belarus, and now they will more easily be able to break human rights codes.

It is obvious to see that the UN is perhaps the most corrupt institution in the world. When the voices on the Human Rights council are actually the ones breaking human rights so severely you know there's a problem. Instead of trying to stop the genocide in Darfur, the situation in Burma, and many other things, they instead only focus on Israel.

The only good thing that came out of this vote was that Canada refused to vote for this anti-Semitic agreement. After years of voting with the majority, Canada has finally taken a stand. I'm proud that our country refuses to agree to these biased motions, and in my opinion all countries with any moral fiber should pack up and leave the UN.

What's up with Condy?

What's going on in Condoleeza Rice's head? It seems that in the past couple of weeks she disagrees with seemingly everybody else in the higher echelons of the government. First Dick Cheney and George Bush say that under no circumstances should Iran get a nuclear weapon. Since the attack on Syria they have very good reason to be even more suspicious of Iran and its nuclear program, but Rice disagrees. She thinks that the government needs to take a soft approach on Iran, and ask the U.N for sanctions. If it was April i would check to see if its April Fools Day, but since its October i don't know what to think. I'm sure she's privy to lots of information that would make her want to take a tough line on Iran, but instead she wants to commit to the weaker agenda.

Not to mention that she's pushing for a new peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis at the Annapolis peace conference. She wants to push for final-status agreements between Abbas and Olmert, though even a toddler could see that this is one of the most idiotic plans concocted in the last few years. Not only does it go against Bush's road map proposal, and many other words he has said in public, it seems to serve no American interests. How does Condy see a weaker Israel and a win for terrorism as good for U.S interests. Abbas doesn't even own half of the country, and probably in 5 years Hamas will take over the West Bank and then they'll have the state???

It looks like Condy is trying to pull a Bill Clinton, meaning that you try to save your legacy by making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Just because you have done a bad job in your position Condy, it doesn't mean you should screw up a whole country, and your own country's interests. The Palestinians are not Blacks in the South during the Civil Rights movement, so stop making that comparison. I would suggest holding a conference on Iran's genocidal leader instead of holding one that serves nobody's interest, except for Islamo-Fascists.

The Nobel Committee sure knows how to pick them

A few days after presenting Doris Lessing the Nobel prize for literature for her, "skepticism, fire and visionary power." , the seemingly harmless 86 year old, had very harsh words for some. Firstly Lessing had to say this about 9/11,"Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think. They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be," Ouch that hurts. She goes on to say that 9/11 wasn't as bad as IRA attacks that plagued England for man years. She then serves up a few choice words for former P.M Ton Blair, ""Many of us hated Tony Blair, I think he has been a disaster for Britain and we have suffered him for many years. I said it when he was elected: This man is a little showman who is going to cause us problems and he did." Lessing then continues with her America bashing by attacking "Dubya" ,"As for Bush, he's a world calamity.Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars." Don't get me wrong now. Lessing also has some things to say about Iran, "I hate Iran, I hate the Iranian government, it's a cruel and evil government.Look what happened to its president in New York, they called him evil and cruel in Columbia University. Marvelous! They should have said more to him! Nobody criticizes him, because of oil."

I just have a few questions for the Nobel committee.
Where do they get these people? Don't they do some sort of background check before they hand out these awards?
Maybe next year the Nobel committee will do some research before they hand out awards to people who make very controversial statements, and will hand out awards to decent people who deserve it.

Thanks to Yahoo News

Family Day

Fresh off his election day win Dalton says that he will provide a holiday for Ontarians in February so families can spend a day together. Although his idea seems heartwarming, economists predict the day will cost between 500 million to 2 billion dollars in lost money. I seem to remember that Tory's faith based funding plan would only cost 400 million. I guess though that spending one day with your family in February is more important to Dalton McGuinty than providing 53000 students with funding.

The Nobel Peace Prize- A Joke

With the news that Al Gore has just won the nobel peace prize one should take a look back at some of the past winners and Al Gore himself.
2007-Al Gore- how does an inconvenient truth have anything to do with promoting peace?
2005-Mohamed El Baradei- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency for trying to stop all nucler development for non peaceful reasons. He sure is doing a great job with Iran.
2002- Jimmy Carter- I didn't know promoting anti-semitic sentiment helps peace?
2001-U.N+Kofi Annan- see Jimmy Carter
1993-Yasser Arafat-see Jimmy Carter+U.N
Shimon Peres- trading away Israel apparently is a peaceful endeavor for him

It seems to me that today the Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely jack and has become a political prize(mainly for extreme left wing ideologues), and doesn't actually find the person who best promotes peace in the world.

Free Speech

In the aftermath of Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University it is interesting to see Stanford University's response to Donald Rumsfeld being invited to become part of a campus think tank. Thousands of protesters have decried this appointment and have started a petition to rescind this offer. The petitioners state that Rumsfeld should not be allowed on the the think tank because,"We view the appointment as fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested inquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed." Others have stated that Rumsfeld is a war criminal and should not get this appointment. These people are of course talking about the former U.S secretary of defence who patriotically served his country, although his policies might be controversial. I'm sure that many of these same protesters were fighting for Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, but then show disdain for a former secretary of defence. I personally am speechless at the hypocrisy of these people and wonder what freedom of speech and academic freedom even mean any more.

Thanks to CNN