From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Everybody recognizes those words as the communist credo. It will soon be the Canadian motto.

From the Toronto Star:

My grandfather had a saying: when they give, take; when they take — scream. Advice to consider, as you ponder how last year Ottawa took $23 billion more from Ontario taxpayers than it returned in transfers, services and benefits. To put things in perspective, $23 billion is almost as much as the province spends annually on health care.

And as we gave, others received: last year, Newfoundland benefited from net federal inflows of $2.6 billion, Nova Scotia was ahead by $4.4 billion and Quebec was up $3 billion.

Four other provinces received additional billions. Albertans, and above all Ontarians footed the bill.

Ontario's budget is in deficit, we've gone years without substantial tax reductions, living standards lag those in the United States and our level of university funding is dead last in Canada. "Other provinces are using our tax dollars to outspend us," is how one senior official in the McGuinty government describes it.

In Toronto last week, the city contorted itself over a budget shortfall of a few million dollars — yet each year, the federal government takes $5.4 billion more out of the Toronto economy than it puts back in, according to a 2002 study by the Toronto Board of Trade.

Federal policy has always been based on the assumption that voters in the receiving provinces can add, but voters in Ontario can't subtract. Maybe it's true: Ottawa has been buying votes in have-not provinces for years, always putting it on your tab.

Come election time, have you ever gotten mad at them because of it? No, not even once.

And we might never scream. Last June, when we reelected the corrupt Liberal Party, we proved ourselves not to be tigers on the world stage, but sheep. Or lemmings. Sticking with an idea that may have proved well for our parents, insisting that sooner or later it would benefit us, too. Time and again we elect the crooks, and time and again they take our money. We act surprised, but no one is more surprised than the crooks themselves, who continue to get away with it. They're laughing at us!

The Conservatives are often said to be hamstrung by their legacy as a regional grievance party, but perhaps all they need is a bigger region, and a more saleable grievance. After all, the cash register provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario have 62 per cent of the Canadian population, and their standards of living are depressed by the federal government's decision to make its main business that of inter-provincial wealth redistribution. The cash registers also have a majority of the seats in the House.

Besides, it's not like all the money sent to the regions is helping. As the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies put it last year, "Ottawa's policies of regional development spending, equalization transfers, and regionally extended employment insurance benefits are well-intentioned failures. They have left Atlantic Canada with a per capita gross domestic product that is no more than three-quarters of the national average, well below average productivity levels, and unemployment that is high even as the region suffers from increasingly significant labour shortages."

We cannot continue to allow our money to be taken away from us by our socialist/communist government. And the only way to stop them is not to elect them. Come on, people, you should have learned how democratic elections work back in fifth grade social studies classes. What's that? You didn't learn about elections, because you were learning about "diverse cultures" and "alternative lifestyles"? Well, when you're done with the lawsuit against your elementary school for failing to give you an education, feel free to look to Iraq to see how democracy works. Lemmings.

The following is from a reader I have been corresponding with. He's a lawyer based out of Pennsylvania, and we've been trading opinions on Paul Martin and the Blue States, etc etc. Some of what he said might offend, but frankly, I thinks it's what a lot of us (chiefly me) have been thinking, and have been unwilling to say. So suck it up, and read on...

I suspect my opinion of Canadians may not be the average American's. I can safely say most Americans have no idea what Vimy Ridge means; have never heard of either Ypres or Passchendale; have no idea Halifax was leveled in a war-related accident; couldn't find Dieppe with a map; think of Juno only as a Roman goddess, and those the more educated ones; think of NORAD as nothing but a totally American effort, forward-based solely for our convenience; and have no intention of visiting such graceful towns as Toronto, Montreal, or Quebec, as everyone knows it's frozen solid there nine months out of twelve, and lightly snowing the rest. Fewer still have visited Labrador City (not that I recommend it; even in June, its climate is rather inhospitable; and I'll never again order "seal pie"). Virtually none know the sheer size of the place. Until the recent loud disagreements, most Americans thought little more of Canada than as a haven for brawny brawling hockey players, moose, handsome Mounties, gorgeous women, with a fetish for Maple leaves, fairly good beer, and funny coins deceptively similar to ours but too light to work in American vending machines.

That may say too much. The truth is, Americans don't think about Canada much at all. That sounds like an insult. I assure you it is not; it is the greatest hope and promise of improved relations in the future. We're a generous people, and think of Canada more or less as a 51st state. In our bones, Americans think of the Canadians as brothers/sisters, and would no more doubt your kinship and friendship
than I would doubt that of my own sisters. I think at times that may be annoying to Canadians, both for being taken for granted and for not being noticed when they do complain: "Take that, US! You noticing us NOW?! Huh?!" and being all the more frustrated when the US simply doesn't react. Again, it's the inattention of a brother: sure, you annoy me now, but it isn't serious, because I assume without thinking about it that no matter how much my sister is annoyed with me, if I need
her help she'll be there post haste no questions asked.

Now that assumption is coming to be viewed as no longer valid, and I think we can date it to the collapse of Communism in Europe. Up until 1991, and especially in the heyday of Reagan, Mulroney, and Thatcher, there was Anglophone unity against a common threat. When the common threat disappeared, I think Canada (as a nation, on average; I know there is a spectrum of opinion) began to think it had no enemies except those that America annoyed, and if it could distance itself from America, then it would have no enemies at all. Hence the liberal borders policy; hence the emphatic non-cooperation on most overseas commitments; hence the somewhat bizarre experimentation with Sharia law; hence the increasingly public profile of the spats that do arise; and hence the loud and public disrespect to the American President, somewhat inexplicable from a people as generally polite as Canadians. When Hugo
Chavez and Fidel Castro are treated more respectfully by the Canadian elite and the Liberals than is George Bush, that gets noticed down South. And the American moonbat fringe notwithstanding, even Democrats don't much like disrespect to an American president.

I think it's fair to say that now most Americans view Canada as simply not a serious country. Ridiculous and impotent may be overstating the case, but not by much. It's not as if dissing American presidents and policies wins Canada any friends. Sure, the Democrats like to hear their rhetoric echoed, but it isn't as if that would translate into any tangible benefit for Canada if the left were ever to win power; the spineless Democrats don't view France, Germany or Canada as strong, they
just use the words as a helpful stick. Think about it: Did Canada's prestige prosper during Clintonian times?

No, to both left and right here, Canada has simply ensured that it need not be consulted. And that's a shame; Reagan conferred openly and sincerely with Mulroney. But Canada's elite and political powers have intentionally made themselves obnoxious to the American right (in ascendance now, and with long memories), and irrelevant to the American left. What has Canada to offer either side? From a military standpoint, Canada is seen as both unwilling and, worse, unable to project any significant force anywhere. Politically, Canadians can't
vote in American elections (well, sometimes for Democrats, but I digress), and no American politician ever prospered by alleging that foreigners liked him better (ask John Kerry). From a trade standpoint, do the Canadian elites think the Democrats would give them a better deal on anything? They're far more protectionist than the Republicans, and Canada needs American markets far more than Americans need Canadian
markets.

Anti-Americanism has always been a staple of elite, or rather effete, foreign opinion. [You never see muscular anti-Americanism; it's more a form of snobbery, usually loudest among those of inherited wealth or university cocooning.] And we recognize the reality that anti-Americanism may be smart domestic politics for Canadian politicians. But Americans do notice -- and remember -- when foreign
politicians use the US as a foil for partisan domestic advantage. Schroeder did so in Germany; it got him re-elected, barely, but not a single visit or concession from any American politician of stature, left or right, for three years. Chirac is roundly detested, and French imports to the United States have taken a swan dive. Turkey has been abandoned by the US in its pursuit of EU membership.

Rereading the above, it may sound arrogant. Objectively, it probably is. But it's more frustrated. All the more so because of what a force for good and right Canada once was. Canada once recognized true evil when it saw it, and fought it. In the dark days between the blitz on Poland and Pearl Harbor, America sent material to aid the fight against evil. Canada sent men. In the dark days of the First World War, when the Brits were reeling and the French impotent even on their own soil, Canada sent men. Sent men knowing that the Canadian mainland was not threatened, and likely would never be threatened. Men whose ferocious courage was world renowned. Now Canada's most admired characteristic is a health system whose shortcomings are becoming embarassingly obvious. My personal affection for Canada remains strong, but I have not been back since the outbreak of the war in Iraq. I was in Montreal that day, and saw the public anti-American demonstrations. Apparently rape rooms, mass graves, mass gassings, torture, and blatant massive graft have had no effect on Canadian opinion as to the nature of the evil fought. I'm reminded that the Nazi concentration camps didn't come to light until after the occupation in World War 2 either.

I hope the Conservatives get their act together. Setting aside my American myopia, I wonder if it can be good for Canada's soul to define itself as "not America," and to view the United States as a greater problem for the world than Islamic terrorism. I know, more American arrogance. Well, you did ask my opinion. Thank God (can Canadians still do that?) that you don't have to listen to it 24/7.

With affection and respect,

I am the quintessential Canadian today. I can't be bothered making my own voice heard, so I'm leaving it up to someone else to do it on my behalf. I'm not overly busy at work today - just lethargic. I think it's a chick-thing.

So without further ado, check out Angry's great post regarding Paul Martin's bequeathment of our airspace and safety to the Americans, because he can't be bothered to have a hand in saving us if all hell breaks loose. Unless we're gay. Then he'll save us!

Let me explain it to you, Mr. Ambassador. Canada is in the vice-like grip of Euro-weenies in the form of the NDP/Green/Feminist/Gay coalition on one side, and the French in Quebec on the other. In between is the feckless Liberal Party of Canada, so convinced in its view that it has the natural right to rule this country that no concession to one side or the other is too absurd if it allows them to hold on to power just a bit longer.

Actually, I don't do blog-of-the-day/week/month/whatever, but today is an exception. Go check out Exile From Hillary's Village. Now. Do not pass go. Do not wait until you've grabbed your 8th cup of coffee of the day. Skip the meeting. Go now.

Girl in Right - or Babs to her readers - has her campaign site set up for her district of Golden, Colorado. Locals can check it out here.

Good luck, Babs!

The DNA testing stage is over. They can't do any more.

The medical examiner's office has largely ended its effort to identify the remains of those killed at the World Trade Center site on Sept. 11, 2001, leaving more than a thousand victims unidentified.

"We've finished making identifications for the World Trade Center," Robert Shaler, director of forensic biology at the medical examiner's office, told the New York Daily News in a story published Wednesday.

The forensic effort failed to identify any remains of more than 1,100 victims, or almost half of the 2,749 who died there.

They do hold out the possibility of future testing if new methods are developed.

Shaler has said that the DNA effort could be reopened if new scientific processes were developed.

"If three years from now somebody comes up with something ... that really looks like it's going to work, then we're going to be poised to go after it," he told The Associated Press in 2003.

[...]

"I'm still driven by the families," Shaler said in 2003. "When I see these people, they look at me with eyes that say, 'Did you find her yet?' But when you're only turning out a couple a week or four, five a month, it's hard."

In most cases, victims whose remains were not identified have been legally declared dead by the court anyway, based on documentation that they were at the trade center or on the hijacked airplanes.

It's a strange feeling, to read that something has "ended" at the site of the World Trade Center. It's like there was a before, and an after, but now the after has ended, and there's... nothing. And for all those families who will never have the hard, cold evidence they need to close the book - I can't even imagine what it must feel like. I have a hard enough time grappling with it as an observer.

The American Princess is celebrating her birthday today. Go leave a message.

Subject: Zahra Kazemi

Dear Mr. Pettigrew

It has been more than two weeks since the Iranian Ambassador to Britain admitted to the murder of Zahra Kazemi. Shortly thereafter, your office was quoted as saying, "We continue to demand a transparent trial where the person or persons responsible for this brutal murder will be brought to justice". Yet since that day, there has been no mention of this case in any of the major news sources. Only speculation in the blogosphere.

As a Canadian, and as a web journalist, I would appreciate your office coming forward with a statement to update Canadians on this situation. One of our own was murdered, charges were dropped, and now the offending nation is confessing to the crime. Surely Canada must be doing something?

I would appreciate a response from your office as soon as possible.

Kind regards

First I've heard of it, but then again, I can't read every newspaper or site every day. Anyway, the New York Times is reporting that charges have been laid against US citizen Ahmed Omar Abu Ali for plotting to assassinate Bush. (subscription only)

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, a U.S. citizen, made an initial appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court but did not enter a plea. He contended that he was tortured while detained in Saudi Arabia since June of 2003 and offered through his lawyer to show the judge his scars.

The federal indictment said that in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and an unidentified co-conspirator discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate Bush. They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."

The BBC also provides the story, without requiring a subscription. It is apparently "breaking news".

And from FOX:

According to the indictment, Abu Ali obtained a religious blessing from another unidentified co-conspirator to assassinate the president. One of the unidentified co-conspirators in the plot is among 19 people the Saudi government said in 2003 was seeking to launch terror attacks in that country, according to the indictment.

More than 100 supporters of Abu Ali crowded the courtroom Tuesday and laughed when the charge was read aloud alleging that he conspired to assassinate Bush.

...because it's funny, ya know, killing the president. I'm sure we'll all be watching to see how this story unfolds.

I found the most wonderful letter of apology from a retired Marine over at Common Sense Runs Wild. Janette printed it in its entirety, and so shall I.

"For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue On the one hand, right thinking Americans will harbor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.

I humbly offer my opinion here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure , it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait!

You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.

Chuck Pitman

Lieutenant General

US Marine Corps (Retired)

Every week or so, I Google the word "Jihad", just to see what the loonies have been up to. This week, it brought me the story of Jeremy Raynalds, a witer for American Daily, a conservative website.

A radical Islamic web site containing a death threat against me (http://haganah.org.il/harchives/003608.html) remains on line at its Chicago based Internet service provider – at least for now.

In a Friday phone call from Alex Korneyev, the owner of Host for Web (www.hostforweb.com), I understood him to say the site will be taken off line shortly. In a follow-up e-mail Korneyev said the reason the site has remained available is "because we were working with ... law enforcement agencies."

However, in the same e-mail Korneyev emphasized, "I did not say that it was FBI that requested the site to be left running."

A woman answering the telephone at the Chicago FBI on Saturday said there were no agents available. When I requested that she contact an agent, she said that someone would contact me Saturday. Despite that statement the call was not immediately returned.

The death threat's posting has caused an outpouring of concern because of the radical nature of those who post to the bulletin board section of the Al-Ansar site.

All of us here in the blogosphere have the potential to attract the same kind of unwelcome attention. Some of us, myself included, choose to write under pseudonyms in order to protect our identities. I know I haven't cloaked myself perfectly, and that if some jihadist decided he wanted to kill me, he could easily do so. It won't stop any of us from speaking out. I think it will just keep us on our guard a bit better than most.

So at the risk of sounding like an afterschool special, remember kiddies, the internet can be dangerous. If strange things (crank phonecalls, weird mail, etc) start happening, don't ignore it. Everyday I - and others like me - slam the sh*t out of some of the most dangerous people on earth, without benefit of any type of protection. When bloggers solicit funds to increase bandwidth, do they think to also use some of that cash to install an alarm system at home? After all, it might just be a viable blog-related expense.

I might sound a bit paranoid, but I'm just being careful. And I hope you are too. I'd hate to lose a blogger or a reader to a bullet.

As you all know by now, I joined Curves a few weeks back. My friends (and some readers) pointed out the right-leaning politics of it's founder and CEO, Gary Heavin. Gary appears to be a good ol' boy type from Texas, much like Bush. He would be a Republican - most entrepreneurs are.

But here's the skinny (pun totally intended): Gary can be a Republican, redneck, anti-abortion pro-lifer. He can be a Klansman, for all it matters: His gyms are loved by lesbians. That's right. Three nights a week I get all hot and sweaty in a room full of lesbians. And my location isn't the only one. It was a lesbian friend from Montreal that told me about the Curves program in the first place. She and all her buddies go to a Montreal location.

Gary Heavin can throw as much money as he wants at Republican issues, but in the end, the joke's on him.

And I think it's darn funny.

I found out about this via Conservative Life.

March for Marriage and Freedom is a grassroots initiative by the citizens of Canada to rally around the noble and indispensable institution of marriage for the good of the spouses and the rearing of children, and to recognize that marriage is a fundamental and non-negotiable pillar of our democratic freedoms. Our sole purpose is to empower and organize opposition to the legislation recently introduced by the Liberal government (Bill C-38) which is seeking to redefine marriage and thereby destroy its authentic meaning.

The March is Saturday April 9 in Ottawa
Gather at the Supreme Court - 12:00-1:00pm
March from the Supreme Court to Parliament Hill - 1:00-2:00pm
Speeches & Music - 2:00pm-4:00pm

Can anyone advise if there are buses that have already been organized, or if anyone in T.O. is interested, we can arange something? We can't always leave the protesting to the Granolas. Let's do something.

The BBC on-line magazine has an intelligent and hopeful article on the views and lessons from the Grand Mufti of Bosnia, Dr. Mustafa Ceric. He is working to ease the relationship between Eastern, traditional, un-bending Muslims; and those in the West who are more educated and modern in their approach to their faith.

And so, with a European and Islamic heritage ("I am proud that Islam defines my European patriotism", he says) he is well placed to see where things are going.

He came to prominence during the bloody break-up of Yugoslavia by speaking out against those who used faith as a justification for violence.

Today he has an international reputation as a man of peace and is involved in efforts to counter fears about Islam in the United States in the wake of 9/11.

A good outline of his credentials, but it's what he has to say today that gives us hope. He seems to be a rational man, trying to deal with irrationality on both sides.

The difference, he argues, is that European-born Muslims are quietly embracing European notions of freedom and human rights. This can be seen no more clearly in the rise of young, professional - but religiously devout - Muslim women who challenge the idea that it's men who should have all the say.

But thanks to today's political and media climate, argues Dr Ceric, Muslims in the West need "freedom from fear and freedom from poverty" - both of which are undermining their position in the West.

"Europe is facing some kind of dilemma of fear [over Islam] and that Muslims themselves are seeking freedom from this fear.

"No-one knows where this process will lead - but if we are rational people we must accept the challenge of what I call the 'third encounter' between the West and Islam."

[...]

But this third meeting is different because it has the potential to change the nature of Islam itself. If European-born Muslims look inside their faith for what are presented as Western notions of human rights and individual freedom, they will find them, he argues.

The challenge will be to convince other Muslims that these ideas are universal - and then western Muslims can export them back to the heart of Islamic society.

"They cannot do it at the moment, but if they are given this freedom [from fear and poverty], they will succeed.

"It's difficult to admit but Muslims [in the Middle East] now need to learn from Muslims in the West.

"The wise men of the Islamic East and the rational men of the West must meet - and then we will have moral men."

Moral men. Is he saying that Islam doesn't have that now? I wonder. But I really like his ideas on the current security climate. He seems to be telling Muslims to open their doors and submit (for now) to scrutiny, as they should have nothing to hide. If they have nothing to hide, they will be left alone.

Dr Ceric says governments must essentially buy the trust of Muslims by institutionalising their faith - giving it state sponsorship through schools, official bodies and so on. Resistance is a "tribal mentality" that allows others to present Muslims as alien outsiders.

"Muslims don't like this idea, they think that governments would control them," he says. "But, my dear brothers, I say you are losing your sovereignty already if they [the police] are entering your homes and mosques.

"I say let them in today because if not they will come in tomorrow and the consequences are a long-term bad image for Islam."

I did some digging around on Dr. Ceric, and so far I have been unable to come up with anything two-faced or derogatory about him. Mostly I've found quotes where he has asked for calm on all sides of the divide. I was skeptical at first, because many of the Muslim clerics you read about who are calling for peace in the press are preaching something very different to their followers. I can't find anything like that here, but I will continue to look. I hope my search is fruitless. If it is, we need more like him.

Lindsay over at United Right has an interesting sampling of where our money is going, including one little expenditure I hadn't heard about:

Grits hire Peterson

THE DALTON McGuinty government has appointed former Liberal premier David Peterson to lead talks with First Nations on a new framework for sharing gaming revenues. The appointment pays $1,000 a day. Always lots of money for Liberal patronage appoinments!! Even though Dolton just spent a week whining to Martin that Ontario is cash strapped and deserves some of that free handout money the PM is tossing to the Atlantic provinces...

Our Governor General will be spending a bit more of our money this year, and with good reason. She'll need to buy nice biscuits for when Jeremy Patfield comes to call.

From today's Globe & Mail:

It was Her Excellency, Adrienne Clarkson, calling to offer an apology and to invite the chastened 15-year-old and his parents to stop by for tea the next time they are in Ottawa.

"I am extremely happy. It's awesome. How many people have gotten a phone call from the Governor-General before?" Jeremy said shortly after hearing from Ms. Clarkson yesterday afternoon. "She said she was sorry that happened and she said if she had heard what I said, she would have answered my question."

Better yet, a threatened three-day suspension was not imposed by his school. Jeremy's parents were worried the discipline record would have hurt his application to college or university. He was worried it would have prevented him from taking part in a basketball tournament at the school this week.

All's well that ends well. Now, about that question, Your Excellency...

I just opened the Canadian version of Google News. Two stories sat one on top of the other:

Canada Court Grants Bail for 'Al Qaeda' Suspect
Reuters Canada - 3 hours ago
A Canadian court granted bail on Thursday to a Moroccan man jailed for 21 months on suspicion that he belonged to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group.

And

Top Martin Security Aide Abruptly Quits Job
Reuters Canada - 1 hour ago
Robert Wright, the top security adviser to Prime Minister Paul Martin, is unexpectedly leaving his position amid talk that the two men had had a major disagreement, security sources said on Thursday.

You can't tell me that these two stories have nothing to do with each other.

From the first story:

Federal officials have said senior Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaida had reported having seen Charkaoui in Afghanistan in 1993 and 1997-98. Another al Qaeda operative said he trained with him in Afghanistan in 1998.

Charkaoui, 31, has denied the charges.

Officials argued before the judge that the best way to limit any danger to Canada's national security was to keep Charkaouiin in custody.

Through supporters, Charkaoui complained that he was not given details of the government's case against him and that much of it appeared to be based of foreign newspaper clippings.

Under the bail terms, Charkaoui will have to stay with his family and respect a nighttime curfew.

How pathetic. We're talking about a guy willing to die in the name of his God, and they think he'll quake at the thought of a curfew?

From the second story:

Before Bush arrived, Canadian officials said they did not expect the president to press Martin to get Canada to sign on to a proposed U.S. missile defense shield.

But Bush publicly urged Martin three times to take part in the controversial program, which is unpopular with some in the Canada's ruling Liberal Party. This prompted questions as to whether Martin had been badly briefed about the visit.

The position of national security adviser was created in 2003 as part of a government reorganization to improve the workings of Ottawa's security establishment.

Wright was the first person to take up the job and only last October told an academic conference that he faced major hurdles creating a new security policy.

"It would be right to say it is peculiar Wright would be leaving at this time. It does suggest there's something behind it," another security source told Reuters.

No, it's not that peculiar. The guy probably felt he was slamming his head against a brick wall trying to get this fool country to defend itself and take some responsibility on the world stage regarding terror. It's stories like the first that lead to stories like the second.

Back on the very dark day of September 11, 2001, my friends and I coined a new term: Jenningsed. This term was used to described something that seemed - in theory - to be a good idea, but which self-destructed in some way. It was based on Peter Jennings being dragged into the ABC studio to report on the events of the day, after having been at a function the night before. He was unshaven. His clothes were untidy. I felt that was the way news whould be: Messy, on the spot, and terribly real.

By the end of the day, our gallows humor kicked in, to protect us from our 100th viewing of the towers coming down. My friend saying things like "That's a strange place to put the observation deck - in the basement" and other such things that can be brought on by 15 solid hours of watching things our minds couldn't comprehend. We'd stopped being scared. We'd stopped crying. We'd stopped being angry. We'd left sanity somewhere around the 8th hour.

But we weren't the only ones. Somewhere close to the 10th hour, Peter Jennings (now shorn, properly clothed, and made up) began to act strangely, too. At one point, he described the collapse as "something you've seen every day, something you've taken for granted, and then POOF! Gone." Most of that is a paraphrase, except for the part where he said POOF! Nearly 3000 people were killed, and one of America's most trusted newsmen was describing it using the word poof. (Rather was no better, using cliches like 'great balls of fire" and "day that will live in infamy")

My pals and I realized that Jennings was cracking up. We shifted our attention away from the WTC, and instead began to make up stories about the crazy things he might do if he snapped. I won't go into detail, but they were pretty funny. A few weeks later, at Thanksgiving, I was baking pies for my guests, who were expected around six. At three, I called my friend up, practically in tears, and told her that one of my pies had Jenningsed (I had put too much filling, and it had exploded in the oven). A new term was born. My friends and I still use it.

So today, I read a short piece in the Toronto Metro (free paper for commuters) in the TV Watch section, by Rick McGinnis. It made me think of that fateful day when Peter Jennings lost his mind.

ABC has been heavily pushing an upcoming Peter Jennings Reporting special on UFOs, with ads on TV and the web. The special airs next week on ABC, and will be simulcast on the CHUM network of local stations, including the New VR. "Peter Jennings explores the stories, both fact and fiction, behind this mystery after conducting almost 150 interviews with scientists, investigators, military personnel and witnesses," according to a press release. "He also gives us a fresh look at the history of alien abductions, the mysterious Roswell and the UFO phenomenon itself."

Peter Jennings is the public face of ABC's news department, on par with Brian Williams at NBC and Dan Rather, the departing anchor and news chief at CBS. UFOs do not exist. In case you were wondering why network news is in crisis. [emphasis mine]

That's a lesson 15-year-old Jeremy Patfield learned, when he and his class were unceremoniously removed from Rideau Hall, after Jeremy spotted the GG and asked, "Is that the woman that spends the money on the Queen when she comes?" I would have asked a hell of a lot more than that, kid.

An Ontario teen whose question about the Governor-General's spending led to his school's tour of Rideau Hall being cancelled will get an apology, the Governor-General's office is saying.

It will come from the tour guide's supervisor and will be accompanied by an invitation to return to Rideau Hall.

Jeremy Patfield, 15, was touring the Governor General's official residence, Rideau Hall, when he actually spotted Adrienne Clarkson -- and wondered aloud about her spending habits.

"I said, 'Is that the woman that spends the money on the Queen when she comes?'," Patfield recalled in an interview with CTV News.

Considering the controversy Clarkson's budget has spurred in the past, the question was not that unusual. But, in light of the fact it was uttered within earshot of the Governor General herself, it was particularly ill-received.

A tour guide who overheard the teen's comment took swift action.

"Our group got kicked out for my comment towards the Governor General," Patfield explained. "It was supposedly my fault that we got kicked out."

One day, son, when you're a little older, you will understand that there is nothing more opressive than a liberal country. The sooner you learn this, the better. Freedom of expression, and the right to clarity in government - these rules do not apply (well, freedom of expression applies, but only to gays, minorities, the homeless, and terrorists - it doesn't apply to you and me).

You often hear the American left saying "You brought it on yourselves - you voted him in!" I tend to feel that way about Canada. Despite my vote, and the votes of many others, we still managed to welcome in the thieving Liberals again. We must be suckers for punishment.

From Macleans:

Auditor General Sheila Fraser is raising the alarm over billions of taxpayer dollars channelled into arms-length government foundations not subject to public scrutiny. The lack of oversight means it's possible foundation money could be misused in the same way tax dollars were wasted in the sponsorship scandal, warned opposition MPs.

Fraser didn't shoot down such concerns, saying that since she can't audit foundations, she doesn't know what might be going on within.

Critics also complained that the government is playing a shell game, putting money into foundations to artificially lower controversial budget surpluses.

Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government is frequently criticized for trying to downplay and underestimate the size of its massive surpluses.

More than $9 billion that would otherwise swell federal surpluses has been invested in agencies like the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which don't face adequate oversight despite previous complaints, the auditor general said in her latest report Tuesday.

Why do we keep doing it to ourselves? What is this need to be robbed and abused by our government? $9 billion is a lot of money. It would more than pay for new hospital equipment, and more nursing staff. It would shore up our weakening CPP. And if the government insisted on doing it, it would pay for the child care scheme, and still buy a helluva lot of golfballs with the leftover change!

More importantly, it would - and should - come back to us. The voters. The lemmings. That $9 billion and more belongs to you and I. The government is supposed to be a not-for-profit enterprise. Anything left over from last year means they take less from us this year. That's how it's supposed to work.

"Given the significant sums involved, I am concerned about the lack of adequate accountability to Parliament," Fraser wrote.

"Important gaps remain in the external audit regime and ministerial oversight."

Her review comes a week before the federal budget which some say could include plans to sink billions more into new foundations, perhaps to fund a national child-care program.

Fraser's review, looking back over eight years, found that only a small portion of foundations funding has been spent. Fully $7.7 billion is still sitting in accounts, building up interest.

That's not a complete surprise, since Ottawa tends to put all the funding in place immediately, even though the spending stretches out over several years far from the scrutiny of MPs.

And since foundations don't face performance audits - essentially reviews of value for public money - there's no way of knowing exactly how all the funds are managed.

I'm sorry, but with this government's track record, I don't hold out very high hopes of what our money is doing.

The left cried out the loudest when the Enron scandal broke. After all, that was money that people invested their pensions and security in. How shameful, for those fatcats to make off with the dosh while innocent people were left penniless. Why can't these left-leaning people see that the same thing is being done to them - to all of us - by people they chose, and not just by some nameless guy in a suit. The government does not hold any authority over us that we do not allow them to hold. If we don't want our savings raped for special interest groups, shady "funds" and "sponsorships", and the CBC, we have the power to say NO. We have the power to bring in someone to put an end to these practices. but for some reason, we simply do not. We don't want to. We prefer to see our futures, our savings, our paychecks dwindle down to nothing, while those who we put in charge of our finances are held unnacountable. We don't want to know about their inpropriety. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Opportunities for misuse of public funds are simply too great to close these agencies to full parliamentary scrutiny, said Conservative MP John Williams.

"There's always an opportunity for a sponsorship scandal to be hidden anywhere," he said.

If nothing else, the government shouldn't be tucking away billions of dollars in foundations where the public can't see how it's being used, added New Democrat Peter Julian.

"The auditor general has said she is not satisfied that we know what is happening with that money," said Julian.

"There's some real concern about the hide-seek that is being played."

But Treasury Board President Reg Alcock said he's satisfied with internal audits done by the foundations.

"They are accounting for it in all possible manners and are quite willing to have evaluations," Alcock told the House of Commons.

Fraser also noted that certain funds, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, continue to grow as Ottawa frequently tops them up with new tax dollars - even though they can't spend the budgets they already have.

Give it to me! I know where I can spend it! My RRSP needs some extra funding this year, and I have zero savings thanks to our trans-atlantic move and the ongoing immigration struggle for Mr. Right. Couldn't you think of a couple of things to spend that money on, too?

Last year, Ottawa estimated a $1.9-billion surplus - limiting opposition demands for tax cuts or spending hikes - then was embarrassed when the surplus actually hit $9.1 billion.

And our accountants are dyslexic. Insult to injury.

I found a new blog today, through my site counter. It's called Free Iraqi, and it's written by a man in Baghdad. His posts are insightful, and he seems generally pleased at the progress his country has made since the fall of Saddam.

From his post on February 1, entitled Looking Forward.

I'm not going to pay attention to the naysayer anymore, as they don't respond to logic and not even to historical facts. Many of those have accused me, my brothers and many determined, good, brave and optimistic Iraqis of being blinded by wishful thinking, if not traitors and CIA agents. This time we don't need to speak and we don't need to resort to logic and argue with these people, as finally the Iraqi people have spoken and they came through loud and clear and made even some of the major media admit the success for probably the first time.

What happened in Iraq last Sunday was no less than a revolution as one of Jeff Jarvis's friends said. Millions of Iraqis have put all the doom and gloom people to shame and silence through acts of bravery not words. Some of those still don't seem to have changed their minds, but if such a great victory does not get to them then I guess nothing will. So I'll move on together with all Iraqis and look for the future with more courage and an optimism that is much more founded than any of their "smart pessimism".

I think many of you would be impressed by what he has to say, especially since he is in the thick of it.

I rarely find warm-and-fuzzy stories to report, but check this one out:

A 9-year-old boy who nicknamed his brain tumor "Frank" - that's short for Frankenstein - is celebrating the intruder's departure.

"Frank is now dead and gone and never to return," David Dingman-Grover said Tuesday. He was wearing a black T-shirt that read, "Cancer is not who I am."

Frank the Tumor gained national attention when David's mother created "Frank Must Die" bumper stickers, which the family auctioned on eBay to defray the costs of surgery.

Biopsy results Tuesday showed the tumor was no longer cancerous.

Wait, it gets better. How's this for class?

The surgeon did not charge for the procedure, which normally would cost about $100,000 including hospital fees and anesthesiologists. The family has donated $20,000 they received to a charity to help other children with pediatric cancers.

Asked why he did the surgery for free, the doctor showed reporters a pebble the boy gave him which he now carries in his wallet. On it is the word "courage."

We of the blogosphere report bad news day in and day out - slinging arrows at our opponents on the other side of the political divide - and adding our own commentary. I would like to think that in face of a story like this, both sides of that divide can only comment to say what a brave boy he is, and how everyone shares in his joy at being cancer-free.

Way to go, David.

There are inherent differences between the immigration system in the UK, and the one in Canada. The laissez-faire attitude of the UK is why we originally lived there - I paid a small fee, and was automatically granted access to healthcare and, upon marriage, permission to work. From the moment I - or anyone else - set foot in the UK, I could be hospitalized, have surgery performed, or have a prolonged course of subsidized prescription medication. As a matter of fact, within weeks of landing there, I contracted pneumonia, which required three weeks of antibiotics.

In my husband's case, things are very different. We purchased travel health insurance to bring him into the country. One of the most important parts of his immigration process was the physical (including blood tests and screening for HIV), which we had to pay for ourselves. Only now is he eligible to use our Ontario healthcare system, after being in the country for nine months.

Now the UK Tories are considering implementing a similar system of immigration health screening.

Tory leader Michael Howard said foreigners from outside the EU will be tested for tuberculosis if they are coming for more than 6 months.

Those who want to settle for the long-term will be required to undergo testing for other conditions such as HIV/Aids.

The usual suspects are complaining:

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, said screening was unlikely to have an impact.

"There is no evidence of HIV health tourism. These proposals are going to be expensive and rather than solving public health problems they could cause them by forcing HIV underground and increasing stigma association with it."


And she said people with HIV were not just a burden on society.

"They bring a lot to the economy. It is very simplistic to say these people will cost a lot and contribute nothing."

Lisa Power, of the Terence Higgins Trust, accused the Tories of "pandering to prejudice".

I agree with Mr. Howard that testing should be mandatory. It is my understanding that even if my husband had been HIV positive, he could not be denied access to Canada, as it would have infringed on his... well, you know. Anyway, I believe that in the case of HIV/AIDS, the government needs to know simply for recording and budgeting purposes. I'm not saying that some immigration official might not use their discretion to put someone on the bottom of the pile, but they do that now, anyway.

Let's say a country like the UK has 1,000 immigrants come in from a particular part of the world - say Africa - and that 800 are infected with HIV. The next time there's a G8 or UN summit, and countries are paying lip service to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, who do you think will then step up to the plate with help? The UK will have statistical evidence that the African AIDS problem affects us all. They will point out that if we don't pay to solve the problem at the source, we will be paying in our home countries for healthcare, because people will continue to migrate away from countries where they are being raped by AIDS-infected soldiers. Wouldn't you?

Tuberculosis is a completely different issue, and I'm astonished to find out that they don't already check for it in people coming from less than sanitary countries. TB is highly infectious, unlike HIV/AIDS, where sexual interaction is the main way to contract it. I would like to know, personally, if I have been sitting on a plane, breathing recycled air, with someone who tests positive for TB. But how can the airline contact me with that information, if people are not properly screened. Yes, they do basic testing at the airports, but is it enough? If someone comes to settle in the UK and they have TB, they are not the only potential drain on the NHS. Every person they speak to is at risk. But if this one immigrant with TB could be identified, then those around them could take the necessary precautions, they can get the treatment they need, and the healthcare burden is lower because they will be the only one requiring treatment. It's simple math - something that Tories understand, but special interest groups choose to ignore.

In the end, if the UK only has to pay for that one immigrant to be treated, insted of her, her daughter, her daughter's teacher, a neighboor, the lady at the job centre, and the bag-boy at Asda - that's money saved, isn't it?

I found this post on LGF.

Saudi Arabia's morality police are on the scent of illicit red roses as part of a clampdown on would-be St Valentine's lovers in the strict Muslim kingdom.


The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia's powerful religious vigilantes, have banned shops from selling any red flowers in the run-up to February 14.


Florists say the move is part of an annual campaign by the committee -- whose members are known as "mutawwaeen" or volunteers -- to prevent Saudis marking a festival they believe flouts their austere doctrine of "Wahhabi" Islam.

It truly is the religion of love, isn't it? Sigh...

Janette at Common Sense Runs Wild has been following the story of Terry Schiavo, a young woman who is in a coma-like (though not an actual coma) non-communicative state. This woman's family are asking not that the plug be pulled, for she does not require life support, but that she be starved and dehydrated until death.

Let me be clear on this: I am a huge advocate of quality of life, and euthenasia as an alternative to terminal suffering. If anyone has seen what I have seen, you would probably feel the same. But I do not agree with starving a person to death. Especially when her own doctors cannot figure out what "state" she is in, for they do not believe that she is either comatose or vegitative. Until she is deemed terminal, or until it is determined that her brain is dead, this is bordering on murder.

Terri Schiavo is not dying, she is not comatose, she is not in a persistent vegetative state. She is disabled, anyone who watches the videotapes would agree to that.

Terri is kept alive by the same things that keep all people alive — food and water by a tube and the air she breathes -- on her own. It would be murder to cause her death by denying her the food and water that she still has the ability to digest and metabolize.

From the Washington Dispatch

Under Florida statute 765.309 concerning such patients, only "life-prolonging procedures" may be removed, not regular food and water; the law does not "permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

So you tell me, why is Terri Schiavo's life worth less than a cow, a research animal or a convicted murder?

I encourage anyone with feelings on the subject to read Janette's post, as she has outlined various ways to have your concerns heard.

Best of luck.

Angry in the Great White North had a post yesterday regarding our spendthrift Liberal government.

When things get lean, I, like most other people, cut away the "fun" stuff. Fewer evenings out, or none altogether. Rent a movie instead of going to the movie theatre. Spending vacations closer to home instead abroad. If the cash crunch is more chronic, then the cutting goes deeper. Fewer cable channels. Fewer cell phone features, or maybe no cell phone at all. Simpler and cheaper foods bought in bulk.

What of governments? Does the same apply to them?

Apparently not in Canada. You'd think in a cash crunch, the government's priorities would mimic any sane person's. Keep the roads and airports and sea lanes functioning. Pay for border controls and for defence. The nation is now fed and sheltered.

He then goes on to point out the myriad ways that our government is throwing its non-exsitent cash around, like a gold bedecked pimp on a Saturday night. He sites Canoe as his source.

Is that what our government and our Prime Minister are? Pimps? They'll dole out the cash for cultural programs and "bilingualism education," leaving nothing left to pay the rent. Seriously, folks, our government needs a wife to look after the bills. Someone with a little sense.

Since daycare is such a hot topic in Canada right now, I thought I would bring you a story of daycare gone wrong, and how little the government is doing about it.

An Edmonton day care that left a baby crying alone in the dark after the centre closed for the night has been ordered to stop taking infants under 19 months.

Day-care staff said at the time that they simply forgot about Israel Golden, who was at the Bearspaw Day Care Centre for the first time on Jan. 27. But an official with Alberta Children's Services said an investigation found several deficiencies at the day-care centre.

"It's a mistake that we cannot tolerate and I'm sure that parents would not tolerate," Ron Bos, spokesman for the Edmonton region, said Thursday.

"Taking this step sends a message to other day cares, but also affects the confidence of parents as well that when mistakes happen that affect children, we will take action."

I don't understand. I don't understand how a daycare facility can abandon a baby, and then get a slap on the wrist, but continue operating. Ron Bos says it sends a message. I'm not sure it sends the right kind of message, if this is all the action that is being taken, despite "several deficiencies" being discovered.

Ironically, it is Alberta that does not want to get involved in the government's new child care scheme. I'm starting to think maybe they ought to, just for regulatory purposes. In the end, though, I would rather have a private babysitter or nanny look after my child, one on one. Stories like this one just happen far too often.

From the Washington Times:

A German prosecutor yesterday dismissed a war-crimes complaint brought by a leftist legal group, paving the way for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to attend a NATO conference this weekend in Munich.

Mr. Rumsfeld had balked at attending while the complaint against him was pending in German jurisdiction. The Pentagon has labeled as "frivolous" the complaint brought by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, whose founders included famed radical lawyer William Kunstler, who died in 1995.

Somehow I didn't think this pointless complaint would get very far, but it would have made for great viewing. Anyway, at least Rummy no longer has this hanging over his head.

Earlier this week I reported a National Post story about Iran admitting to the murder of Zahra Kazemi, the charges for which had been dropped last year when her death was ruled "accidental". Since then, I have been checking the news sources every day to see if there have been further developments, and if Canada has responded. Today was the first time I found anything: this terribly short piece in the Globe & Mail.

The federal government has asked its ambassador to Iran to press that country over an Iranian envoy's admission that photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was murdered. Iran's ambassador to Britain made the remarks this week, contradicting the official ruling, which called the death accidental.

"We continue to demand a transparent trial where the person or persons responsible for this brutal murder will be brought to justice," said a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

That's it, that's the whole article. I can't help but hang my head in shame at my country doing nothing over Iran's admission of guilt. Canada is the first one to jump on the bandwagon of liberals who whine about POWs not getting enough orange juice, or not being able to play golf, or whatever passes for torture at Abu Grhaib and Gitmo. Yet now it is one of their own citizens, who also happens to be of the poor, unfortunate, oppressed-by-the-Yanks Iraqis, and Canada has yet to truly step up the plate.

I will continue to follow what tiny shreds there are to this story.

February 11, 2004 was my first blog post. I was writing for an audience that consisted of me, my husband, and occasionally the cat, who liked to sleep on the monitor with her head hanging down. I had a need to vent, and a computer to do it with. I didn't care if some people were offended, and didn't ever come back. Somehow I knew there would be people who would feel the same, and it was for them I started this blog.

I don't have a huge readership, like Powerline or Right Wing News. (of course, I also don't have annoying pop-ups like Powerline, but I digress...). Since July 2004 I have had 3,455 visitors. Right Thinking Girl gets more than that in a day. But the visitors I have are quality, and every one of them is appreciated - like old friends.

Crox, who is golf-obsessed, but who has had the occasional blog post that made me laugh so hard I nearly peed. He's been with me since the start. Happy blogaversary.

Paul, from AgitProp makes his presence known from time to time, and was one of the fist Canadian blogs I discovered upon my return to Canada.

Kevin, from Rant Me a River (great title by the way!) - he's been around a while, too.

I have been flattered to have the people involved in some of my posts stop by to comment once or twice. One of them is Madame Rick, who wanted to put me straight about her need for security at Rick's All American Cafe in Casablanca. Another was Jason Tulley, who received a kidney from his best friend, a Marine fighting in Iraq. Sadly, Madame Rick's & Jason's comments were deleted due to a technical malfunction over the summer, but I hear Jason's doing well. I really should drop him an email.

I was pleased when the Adam Smith Institute blogrolled me, and sent me an email to tell me how much they liked the site. I felt I'd hit the big leagues!

I recently discovered Angry in the Great White North, and though I tease the writer about having too much time on his hands, he delivers consitently good, thoughtful articles. I check him several time throughout the day, and we comment often on each other's sites.

There are also visitors who don't have blogs of their own, like Friend of the USA, who has been commenting on and off for about two months. Bonjour, mon ami! So despite the fact that I rarely top 50 visitors a day, and have never gotten any hate mail, I still feel like a major success. I hope I can continue to deliver amusing or insightful articles that interest you. If there's something you don't agree with, or would like me to address, let me know. I won't necessarily change, but I will acknowledge your concern.

I hope you'll all be with me for more blogaversaries in the future.

RightGirl

I have worked in customer service for years. At my last place of employment in the UK, I asked management for a laptop loaded with company software so I could work those extra "we had to downsize, sorry but you'll be doing more overtime from now on" hours from the comfort of my home office, and maybe be able to spend some time with my husband a couple of evenings a week. Much of what I did was Word based, with some telephoning (which I was happy to do from my own line, at no extra charge, just for the convenience), and a lot of emailing. With the company's software, I would have been able to stay in the network, even on "duvet days", when I couldn't be arsed getting out of bed to put in my 60th hour at the office that week. Their response: It would be too costly. Too costly? What about when I was off for two weeks with stress and overwork, but you still had to pay my salary and hire a temp to cover me? Was that really cheaper than a laptop?

People who reach Esther DeJesus when they call Office Depot Inc.'s customer service center have no idea that she's sitting at home in a room decorated with pictures of Garfield and Betty Boop.

The Orlando, Florida, resident, who works on the retailer's account for call center contractor Willow CSN, is one of a new breed of customer service representative.

Rather than commuting to a crowded office, she puts in 37 to 40 hours a week at home and sets her own schedule.

"It is really convenient," said DeJesus, who likes the setup because it allows her to take care of her grandmother.

It seems to be okay for companies to move their call centre operations to Mumbai, but not to my livingroom. Way to go, Office Depot, for coming to your senses and seeing that it really does begin at home - not just on home soil, but literally at home.

After some unsuccessful attempts to move call centers abroad, U.S. companies are shifting some of that work back to this country -- and into people's homes.

Besides Office Depot, JetBlue Airways Corp., General Electric Co. and Staples Inc. are among the companies that have been using stay-at-home customer service representatives as an alternative to traditional call centers in the United States, India and the Philippines.

Home-based workers are usually happier, which means better service, these companies say. The arrangement also allows employers to schedule people in small part-time slots when call volume is higher, rather than hiring regular call-center workers who get paid whether they are busy or not.

I know where my resumes are going!

I know that the title of this post is overstating the obvious, but...

Roman Polanski, the world's most celebrated pedophile, is to be given access to British justice without threat of extradition to the U.S. to face charges of having sex with a 13 year old.

But to avoid the risk of extradition to the US, where he is wanted on an outstanding child sex offence, the director will give evidence from Paris.

The Law Lords ruled on Thursday that Mr Polanski should not be denied access to justice because of extradition fears.

Hows this for a quote?

Despite his fugitive status, a fugitive from justice is entitled to invoke the assistance of the court

Lord Nicholls

Why is a fugitive from justice allowed to invoke the assistance of the court? After all, having sex with a 13 year old is just as illegal in the UK as it is in the US, so why should they be protecting him?

Mr Polanski has issued libel proceedings against Conde Naste, publishers of Vanity Fair, over an article published in July 2002.

He seems to think he has some special right to have his own claims heard, but should be protected from having to face the claims of a child he raped. Becuase at 13 years of age, it is rape.

What surprises me so much about this article is that Britian has more watchdog groups and "czars" protecting the rights of children than they know how to organize, yet they are willing to grant a pedophile the right to sue for libel. Libel is a cash grab at the best of times, and they are encouraging him by not requesting that he make his statement in a British court, on British soil, with the potential of a US Marshall standing outside the courtroom door, waiting for him to come out.

I know that Saudi Arabia has a long way to go to measure up to Western standards of democracy, and that any little step in the right direction is cause for celebration. Perhaps all citizens of Iraq were given the opportunity to vote on January 30th because the U.S. was running the show, and that countries like Saudi Arabia who are doing it for themselves might do it a bit differently. But I can't see this as being terribly democratic:

Saudi Arabia took a small step towards democracy today as men in and around the capital voted in the kingdom's first municipal election.

The vote excludes women, but is the first in the country that largely conforms to international standards. Although the city councils are to be half-appointed and half-elected, some are optimistic it will lead to further reforms to the Saudi royal family's absolute monarchy.

In Saudi Arabia, women are more opressed than anybody, even Christians or Jews, because they can't leave. If you are a Jew and you stumble into Saudi Arabia (you are an idiot), at least you can leave. You can escape. In fact, they want you to go. But the women of Saudi Arabia are property. They are prisoners. More than anybody, they should have the right to choose a government that will do something to alleviate their suffering. Which might be the reason they are barred from voting.

I saw clips of these Saudi elections on the news last night: Bedouin tents with broadband access, politicians peppering their speeches with Koranic quotes - isn't that what got them into trouble in the first place? And somewhere off in the distance, dark shapes moved silently through the streets. Women. Even the reporter I saw last night (I can't remember where) was a Western woman, and was dressed in black with a long scarf to cover her hair when she wasn't on camera. The whole thing had more of a circus feel than anything. It was farcical. The same people will be in power tomorrow as were there yesterday. They will simply have a different title. They look as if they are capitulating to Western democratic pressure, yet they will be laughing when it's over.

The Meatriarchy led me to a fantastic post at Hog on Ice about how to claim your Native American roots, Ward Churchill style.

I can top Ward. My grandfather was a Cherokee. Now, I grant you, he wasn't my BLOOD grandfather. And he wasn't a full Cherokee. But he had dark hair and he tanned like nobody's business. And like all true Native Americans, he was a professional dry cleaner.

Also, on both sides of my family, there were horny old guys who left their wives for Indian women. I can understand that. My ancestors were mostly Celts, and after a while, the sight of all that pasty, freckled, dough-like flesh can drive you mad. My idiot sister likes to run around claiming that this makes us Indians, but the problem is, the family is pretty sure the Indian ladies came along after these gentlemen sired our forebears by fat, dumpy Scots-Irish broads.

Lame, I know, but compared to Ward, I might as well be Geronimo.

Okay, so the first order of business is to ream out you WHITEYS for keeping me down. You knocked down our teepees, you ate all our buffalo, and in return, you gave us swampland and poisoned whiskey. You better believe I am pissed.

I want white guilt and handouts, NOW. I want my damn land back. I’ll let you keep most of it. I want Manhattan and Vegas. I know, you claim you bought Manhattan for twenty-four dollars. Okay, smart ass, where’s your receipt? Right. That’s what I thought.

I’m turning Vegas and Manhattan into the United States of Steve. I’m going to be President for Life. My Vice President will be Wayne Newton. All you palefaces can get the hell out, except for hot white chicks and people who provide essential services. Like craps croupiers, bartenders, and pizza bakers.

The whole article is hilarious, and worth reading in its entirety.

What a story to wake up to! As if rioting over football isn't enough, now North Londoners are rioting over Ikea, of all things!

A man was stabbed and five other people were taken to hospital after thousands of customers caused a stampede at the midnight opening of a new IKEA furniture store in north London, British authorities said Thursday. The Swedish retailer expressed regret at the incident.

The stabbing victim, a man in his 20s, was attacked at around 1:30 a.m. near the IKEA store, a spokeswoman for London's Metropolitan Police said, adding that his condition did not appear life-threatening.

The new IKEA warehouse in the Edmonton district had been due to operate 24 hours to mark the opening, but shut until further notice after some 40 minutes because of the unexpectedly large crowds.

Yet no one seems to be raising much of a fuss over Prince Charles marrying his long-time, um, consort (for lack of a better word).

Mayor Martin O'Malley (search) likened the cuts in President Bush's budget proposal for urban areas to the Sept. 11 (search) attacks, drawing fire from his fellow Democrats as well as Republicans.

The mayor, who is weighing a bid for governor in 2006 and is considered a rising star within the Democratic Party, was among a group of mayors and other local officials who held a news conference Tuesday in Washington to criticize the president's proposal to cut spending for community development programs by $2 billion.

"Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America's great cities. They did that because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most," O'Malley said. "Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And with a budget ax, he is attacking America's cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core."

Montgomery County, Md., Executive Douglas M. Duncan said O'Malley "went way too far."

Also from the National Post today:

Native detainees at the Regina Correctional Centre say their religious rights have been violated because they've been denied access to their cultural practices. In the 17 months since he has been in custody, Ryan Sayer says he has not been allowed to burn sweetgrass or attend sweat ceremonies. "All of that stuff has been taken away from us," said Sayer, 26. "I've been denied lights for my sweetgrass, sweats, and all of these things help me in my troubles ... The way I see it, my spiritual rights are like me reading the Bible, and it's been tampered with on numerous times." Sayer added correctional officers have made fun of items of significance to him, such as an eagle feather he keeps in his cell. Julien Hulet, the centre's acting director, said the complaints are under investigation by the province's human rights commission.

These people are in prison. Obviously they did something bad, and have therefore had some of their previous freedoms limited. They are in jail. And while Canadian prisons do their best to allow religious freedoms (Muslims get prayer mats, Christians get Bibles, etc), they wouldn't very well allow anyone to set fire to something that smells like pot. Believe me, sage & sweetgrass smudgesticks smell like weed. A riot would break out! I agree that the wardens and guards shouldn't be poking fun at the guy's feather, but if they want to draw the line at smudging, or even drumming because it might be disruptive, then they have the right to do that. If this man wanted the freedom to openly take part in his religion, he shouldn't have broken the law. Then he wouldn't be incarcerated in the first place.

Canada's taxes increase, its hospitals become worse and worse, yet this is possible:

A clinic providing free heroin to Vancouver addicts is to open later this month to see if prescribing the drug can help addicts who have failed in other treatment programs.

Similar projects have been scorned in the United States, seen as unethical or dangerous. There have been such studies in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Spain.

The 12-15 month trial is to determine if prescribed, pharmaceutical-grade heroin - in conjunction with methadone treatment - is more effective than methadone alone in treating certain opiate-addicted people.

"We're trying to figure out whether we can reach out to those people with medically prescribed heroin," said Dr. Martin Schechter, principal investigator for The North American Opiate Medication Initiative.

The project also will be conducted in Toronto and Montreal, but is set to get under way in Vancouver first, following government approval - expected in about two weeks.

More than 4,000 drug addicts live near the clinic in Vancouver's impoverished Downtown Eastside, an area known for its street drug deals.

Heroin is cheap in Vancouver - and almost always has been - because it comes across the Pacific by the boatload. In 1997 I attended a funeral in Niagara Falls for a young woman (friend of a friend) who had overdosed in her filthy one-room Vancouver apartment. As far as I was concerned, this woman had made a decision to try heroin, and wound up an addict. Sometimes people make bad choices, and it's always nice if there's someone out there who can help repair the damage. For years the government has been trying to clean up addicts, and I don't know what the success rate is, but they must be pretty desperate if they are now pushing the drugs.

The project has scientific approval - and $6.4 million - from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a government agency, and the support of the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto and the Universite de Montreal.

I would much rather see that $6.4 million go towards cancer research, or toward upgrading and modernizing our hospitals. I simply do not feel that we as individuals should be paying taxes to buy heroin for addicts. Prescription grade junk isn't cheap. Due to an unfortunate resistance to conventional painkillers, my mother took that stuff. It was normal to be vistied by the RCMP for spot checks, and it was to them we had to return her unused prescription portions when she went back inot the hospital. So as you can see, the administration involved in such drugs is costly in itself.

At what point are we allowed to say no? I think it would be great if we could clean up the addicts, but how many of them have such deep-rooted problems and addictions that they won't be able to stay clean? Should we then continue to support them with government class smack at a premium price because it is cleaner than street drugs?

The U.S. government would not back a similar program, said David Murray of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington, D.C. He said addiction should be treated as a disease to be cured.

My uncle's stepson was on and off the horse for about nine years. He has one year of sobriety under his belt, paid for by his wealthy mother. His treatment came in the form of private clinics in the U.S. Not everyone can afford that, I know, but I just don't see why it should be up to the taxpayer to pay for the drugs. Paying to fund treatment is one thing, but we shouldn't be in the business of pushing.

A judge in the court-martial of three British soldiers accused of abusing detained Iraqis ordered jurors Wednesday to acquit one of the suspects on a charge of pretending to kick a prisoner.

Lance Cpl. Mark Cooley still faces two charges of abuse and Judge Michael Hunter refused to allow reporters to publish more details of the decision.[emphasis added - RG]

Pretending to kick a prisoner. He didn't actually kick him, but he faced a court martial.

Cooley is also charged with hoisting a detainee on a forklift and driving it, and with simulating a punch against another detainee, seen in a photograph. He has pleaded innocent to all charges.

There's that word again - pretending. Okay, the forklift thing was dangerous and stupid, but I'm sure the "punching" charge will be dropped as well.

Let's cover some basics about when pretending could prove illegal:

• Pretending to be a police officer
  
• Pretending to be a doctor
  
• Pretending to pay your taxes
  
• Pretending you have any plan of leaving a country you are entering

These are all pretty vaild reasons for facing prosecution if you pretend something. But pretending to punch or kick a prisoner at a time of war? Not so much.

Another soldier, Cpl. Daniel Kenyon, 33, faces five charges, all related to witnessing the alleged abuse and not reporting it. He has denied the charges.

Was it real abuse, or just Mr. Rogers-style make-believe abuse?

This story from the National Post caught my eye as I skimmed the pages over lunch. Nothing like it to mess with your digestion!

Iran's ambassador to Britain admitted yesterday that Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was murdered by Iranian security officials -- radically reversing the official position of the Iranian judiciary, which has said her death had been an accident.

"I don't support the killing by some shrewd security forces of that lady," Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli said at Saint Antony's College at the University of Oxford. "We are sorry for it."

Mr. Adeli's startling statement contradicts the formal explanation for Ms. Kazemi's death given last July by Iranian authorities, following the acquittal "due to lack of sufficient evidence," of Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi, an intelligence ministry agent who had been charged with her death.

At the time, the hard-line judiciary claimed Mr. Ahmadi's acquittal proved Ms. Kazemi died when she fainted and hit her head.

So now Iran has admitted to it, when the case has already been thrown out. What is Canada going to do about it? Will they keep their mouths shut? Or will they, at the very least, stand behind the United States when they start busting heads over Iran's nuclear program?

Canada has turned into a very weak country, just while it seems the Americans have been flexing their muscles. But now it's on of our own dead. Murdered - let's all get used to the word, since they've admitted to it.

In 2003, Ms. Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, was working in Iran with the permission of the Iranian government. On June 23, she was arrested while taking photographs outside the Evin Prison in Tehran, where demonstrators were protesting the incarceration of students and other democrats.

Ms. Kazemi, 56, was arrested and taken inside the prison, where she was subjected to more than three days of interrogation.

Four days later, she was taken to a hospital, bleeding from her nose and mouth. She died July 10.

Iranian authorities initially claimed she had died because of a stroke, before admitting her death was likely the result of head injuries and charging Mr. Ahmadi with quasi-intentional murder.

Her case became a source of tension between reformers in Iran's parliament and conservatives in the religious judiciary and Council of Guardians, who hold real power in Iran.

At one point, a spokesman for the reform-leaning intelligence ministry promised to identify the alleged real killer, if the judiciary allowed it.

But the judiciary declared Ms. Kazemi's death an accident and effectively closed the case.

How does Iran categorize the murder of the photo journalist? By equating it with a Canadian police officer shooting an armed criminal!

Mr. Adeli claimed Ms. Kazemi's murder was an isolated event, similar to the Port Moody, B.C., police shooting Keyvan Tabesh, an 18-year-old who was shot and killed after he charged a plainclothes officer with a machete.

"May I speak frankly?" Mr. Adeli said. "It is compatible with police in Vancouver shooting that Iranian boy, just because they thought he was running after that lady."

An eighteen year old male armed with a machete, running after a woman, gets himself shot by the cops (well done to the cops, by the way), and that's the same as cracking the skull of an unarmed woman taking pictures in Tehran?

This is something Canada could take a lesson from, what with it harboring fundraisers for Hamas and the Tamil Tigers.

Beware the pop-ups and pro-marijuana ads for this link from the NYT:

A federal immigration judge on Tuesday ordered a former fund-raiser for a prominent Islamic charity to be deported, saying his activities posed a threat to national security.

The judge found that the man, Abdel Jabber Hamdan, who has lived in Orange County for more than 20 years, knew or should have known that the money he raised for the Holy Land Foundation was being used to support terrorism. The government contends that the foundation has funneled more than $12 million to Hamas and other Palestinian organizations that the United States considers sponsors of terrorism.

The immigration judge, D. D. Sitgraves, ordered Mr. Hamdan, 44, who has been in custody since last summer, deported. But Judge Sitgraves said he could not be sent to Jordan, where he was born in a Palestinian refugee camp, because he would be at risk of torture by the Jordanian government because he has been accused by the American authorities of terror-related activities.

The benevolent U.S. is still protecting the best interests of this man, despite his transgressions. That's rather big-hearted of a government that is accused by the left of being Nazis.

Mr. Hamdan's eldest daughter, Yaman, 20, said on Tuesday that she believed that the government was pursuing the deportation order as a way to pressure her father.

"They're trying to get him to talk about the H.L.F., even though he doesn't have that information," said Ms. Hamdan, a pre-law student at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. "They're holding him on a visa violation that's more than 20 years old because they want him to provide the evidence against the others."

William B. Odencrantz, a senior lawyer at the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said he was pleased with Judge Sitgraves's order, although he said the government might appeal her ruling that Mr. Hamdan not be returned to Jordan.

"We're pleased the evidence we presented convinced the judge that Hamdan knew or should have known that the money he was raising as a paid employee of the Holy Land Foundation was destined for a terrorist organization that engages in atrocities and human rights violations such as suicide bombings and killing innocent people," Mr. Odencrantz said.

I get a lot of flack for not wanting children. Mostly from my in-laws, but what can you do. I just don't like them. I'm not even one of those people who say "I like other peoples children, because I can give them back." Nope, I don't want 'em around at all. I have a child no-go zone which is my home, and if you wish to visit for my parties and dinners, you had better get a sitter, because junior just isn't welcome. I feel though, that I should clarify. I am also an advocate when it comes to the protection of children. No child should come to harm at the hands of its parents or anyone else. If you're going to have babies, you'd better be looking out for them, because I'll be first in line to crucify you if you aren't.

Anyway, that said, do us a favor and keep 'em locked up till they're old enough to behave in public. I was not allowed to accompany my parents to "proper" restuarants until I was 10. Dad's rules. He felt that if he was paying for a nice meal, then the guy sitting at the table next to him was doing the same thing, and wouldn't want to be disturbed by me. So it was McDonald's and the like for me till I was mature enough to appreciate a grown up dining experience.

By the time I was fifteen, Dad had taught me to tip the hostess or maitre d' and request not to have any children seated near me. I still do this today. A few dollars go a long way to ensuring a peaceful meal.

I saw this post over at Proud to be Canadian. In it, Joel quotes a piece in the Winnipeg Sun about Joey Tomato's discouraging people from bringing their brats to irritate other diners.

While Joey Tomato's does not bar babies or toddlers from entering, most locations no longer provide high chairs or booster seats in an attempt to quietly discourage parents from bringing very young children.

"We're trying to offer that premium experience with casual dining prices," says Jennifer Engele, Joey Tomato's marketing director.

Part of that premium experience is a more serene, adult atmosphere, without dozens of highly energetic and vocal diners to spoil the mood.

"We just renovated the Kelowna location this past summer and, when we re-opened, we didn't have any high chairs or booster seats," explains Engele.

We live in the "cult of the child", with a Baby Gap on every corner, and somebody blocking the sidewalk with a carriage no matter what time of the day or part of town you're in. I have seen frustrated wait staff in our local lounge/cafe struggle to accommodate pushy parents and their precious cargo at happy hour. WTF? And although the drinking age in Ontario is 19, I often see kids in pubs and bars with their parents. Aside from the fact that it is hardly the proper environment for children, what on earth are they doing infiltrating an adult only area? This was a major issue in the UK as well, when parents (usually very young mothers) would take prams into smoky pubs and get sloshed with the father of their next bastard, but that's a subject for a whole different post! It has basically gotten to the point where if you want to enjoy a steak and a beer without screaming kids in the background, you have to go to a strip club to do it.

From Joel:

Some parents are absolutely livid about the policy and have accused Joey Tomato's of discriminating against children.

My only qualm is that Joey Tomato's doesn't go one step further and ban babies and toddlers entirely. In fact, more restaurants should consider offering baby-free locations.

There are more than enough eateries that cater to families with young children.

What about all the hungry patrons out there who don't particularly like kids?

What about business execs who want somewhere quiet to go when conducting lunch or dinner meetings?

More importantly, what about the many loving parents who need to love their kids from afar once in a while?

Talk to any couple with kids and they'll tell you that the last thing they want, after arranging and paying for a babysitter, is to be seated at a table next to screaming kids. Might as well stay home.

Sure, fine-dining restaurants are always an option. But most people can't afford to eat in such establishments on a regular basis.

So Joel, meet you at the Brass Rail for lunch?

Blog after blog I read is asking for money. Help support the cause! Our bandwidth is costing us a fortune! Blah, blah, blah. My bandwidth is dirt cheap. Friday is my one-year blogaversary, and I just received my semi-annual bill for my girlontheright.com domain and hosting. Frankly, I don't want your money. I don't need it. Save it, and if you really want to spend it, go and buy your girlfrinds and wives something cute for Valentine's Day at the Right Girl Cafepress shop. The items I ordered myself will probably be here on Monday, and I'm so excited!

And if you are desperate because your hosting is costing you a fortune, please check out 1 & 1, which gave me mine for a song and a smile. It's about $80CDN a year for the domain registration and hosting. I have yet to break the zero barrier of bandwidth. I am poor and very under-employed, and I am telling you that I don't want anything from you that I won't give you something in exchange for (i.e. t-shirts, etc). So check them out, and stop asking for free money.

That's something Democrats do!

Damian over at Daimnation! has an excellent post about the life and death struggle of Muslim apostates. For me, as a teenager, to renounce my faith in the Catholic Church, it was a matter of saying "f**k it, I don't care." My parents didn't beat or disown me. My life was not in danger. For the most part, nobody even mentioned the state of my immortal soul.

But for a Muslim to renounce the faith, it is an automatic Fatwa.

In his post, Damian quote the Times:

Yasmin, who was raised in the North of England, has been forced out of her town once, and is now trying to resist being chased out again. Brought up in a Muslim family, she converted after having a vision of Jesus when she gave birth to her youngest son, and was baptised in her thirties.. "My family completely disowned me. They thought I had committed the biggest sin - I was born a Muslim, and so I must die a Muslim. When my husband found out, he totally disowned my sons. One friend tried to strangle me when I told him I was converting," she said.

"We had bricks though our windows, I was spat at in the street because they thought I was dishonouring Islam. We had to call the police so many times. I had to go to court to get an injunction against my husband because he was inciting others to attack me."

She fled to another part of Britain, but the attacks soon started again as locals found out about her. "I wasn't going to leave again," she said, adding that it was the double standards of her attackers that made her most angry. "They are such hypocrites - they want us to be tolerant of everything they want, but they are intolerant of everything about us."