jbg

Are you saying that Israel, the US, UK and Canada should do nothing since some innocents that the terrorists hide behind might die?

I choose to address the first half, rather than the loaded and rhetorical questions in the second half. The British Empire imploded between 1914 and 1945. Prior to 1914, the British Empire maintained a surprising degree of world peace other than, of course, in the charnal house commonly called "Europe". The geographical expanse of Canada and Australia, the increasing power of an increasingly non-hostile, and ultimately aligned United States, together with colonization of the Indian Subcontinent, large parts of Africa, and outposts in China threw a wet blanket over many regional tensions. In addition, the US defeat of the Barbary Pirates cut down on the predations on Western interests coming from the Muslim world. The post-1945 attempt to grant "independence" to the Third World and regulate tensions through the UN has been a dismal failure. Thus, Israel serves as a giant forward base in a very dangerous and crucial part of the world. US support of Israel is far cheaper than maintaining bases, and Khobar Tower style housing to stabilize that area.

Good post but a few corrections. It was "Black September". Black Sabbath was a rock group popular during that period. Also, Al Fatah was using Jordan proper as a base from which to launch guerrilla attacks (now more appropriately called terrorist attacks) against Israel. The West Bank was at that time, 1970, under Israeli control. The Jordanians received the brunt of Israel's retalation, since Israel's position was and is that a nation is responsible for improper acts emanating from their territory. Jordan, not enjoying the retaliation, expelled Al Fatah in a ruthless, bloody attack during September 1970, thus the name "Black September". The expulsion was from Jordan east of the River, not the West Bank.

When the Liberals (and for that matter the US State Department) stop operating one level above treason (as the US State Department has since at least the 1930's).

Same reason that the Europeans chose to cashier 6 million Jews, who shared many of their cultural and family values, and now welcome Muslims as "guest workers" who of course never depart, and are destroying them, bit by bit.

It's hard not to. Only on Israel would people see the question as ambiguous. I didn't realize that Canada had diplomatic ties with and an ambassador in Israel.

OK, want independence, sovereignty? How about no government support from "white man" or the UN?

Bush and Harper are coming under a lot of pressure from the chattering classes to endorse Kyoto and take self-destructive steps to "comply" with this global suicide pact. The invitation should be resisted, firmly A little historical perspective is in order on the issue of global warming. In the days of the Vikings, around the year 1000, wine grapes were harvested in Newfoundland and Greenland and Iceland were both fit for agriculture. I doubt that man-made pollution made that possible. Then, during the "Little Ice Age" of the late 1700's cannons could cross the Hudson River near New York City on the solid ice. Dickens' had the snowy settings for his stories in London. In short, we are at neither the warm nor cold extremes of recent history. We should remember that previously we worried about a man-made "Ice Age" during the three cold winters of 1976-77 (with record cold, record Buffalo area snow, though NYC got almost no snow, the Hudson River froze); 1977-78 (with record East Coast snows); and 1978-79 (with record Chicago area snows). Before steps are taken that will bankrupt the Canadian and US economies (mostly to benefit European economies) a bit of calm reflection is in order. The details of the Kyoto accord show its cynicism; the base year for calculating greenhouse gases is 1990, just prior to when Europe and Japan started a major recession and just before the USA and Canada experienced economic growth. If countries are forced to reduce emissions 15% from 1990 levels, guess which countries get to suffer? Almost entirely Canada and the US. On that score, I have a modest suggestion; suggest to the Europeans that the base year for measuring Kyoto compliance be changed from 1990 (12 years ago) to 2000. See how fast the Europeans would look to get out of Kyoto. If you're interested, I refer you to these links: http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/ http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1295/ and http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Libr...mingArticle.pdf or, if you're having trouble opening, http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/ The summation of this is that there are many causes of climate change; there are the famous, roughly 3-5 year El Nino, La Nina cycles, there is the less famous 30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (that has biased towards warming from 1977 on and should now be causing a bias towards cooling), even longer sunspot cycles, etc There have, over the millenia, been lots of incidents of both warming and cooling of climate. The Viking era (warm); the period when Dickens wrote (cold). Kyoto - billions for nothing. On the other hand there have been natural cycles for centuries. It is most arrogant to think that just because we, as humans, congregate between approximately 35 degrees north and 50 degrees north, that the area will forever stay exactly the way we want it. There is nothing a bunch of politicians can do to change this.

Bears on the reluctance of liberals to call a spade a spade. Yes. That doesn't mean it should be. I fail to see the societal values advanced. I can read. And I read the National Post among other publications. Why the nasty tone?

I think there are enough neutral countries in the world, morally and otherwise. Canada does not have to be one of them. As much as you find it hard to believe. Harper's right on this one.

Thank you.

I posted that over a year ago, and still consider the essay timely. If the Forum Administrator wants me to remove it I will.

Telling the Truth Are the liberals or conservatives better at "saying it like it is"? The one thing that “conservatives” (and I dislike that term for myself) have going for them is that they come closer to telling it like it is about political events these days, whereas liberals mince words. The fact is that certain things are not consistent with society’s values; extreme Islamist belief, gay marriage, encouragement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency. In general and frequently, liberals will say that all of these things are necessary for a pluralist, free society to accept. They may be acceptable if they did not have deeply pernicious and even dangerous effects on society. But this is not true, and liberals have not been good at publicly acknowledging this. Similarly, the liberals still have a childlike faith in the efficacy fo the United Nations. There was a time when things were quite the opposite, and the liberals had the better of the argument. During the 1950’s and 1960’s it was conservatives who failed to acknowledge the truth that discrimination by race and gender was degrading, sapping of productivity and morally wrong. Extremist Islamist Activity – Anyone who was alive on September 11, 2001 knows that Islamists took advantage of the openness of American and European (where they organized their cells) societies to unleash a horrific attack on us. These same people know that there have been other horrific attacks: Lockerbie, the 1972 Olympics, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the nightclub in Bali, Indonesia and the recent Spanish train attack, to name but a few. In order to protect ourselves, everyone knows that the now daily ritual of signing into buildings, being inspected by a metal wand when entering courthouses, etc. does little to deter these kinds of attacks. It is the way the politicians can seem to be in charge and doing something. Everyone knows by now that eventually, a full blown confrontation with the Islamic world will be necessary. Was this inevitable? When they began amassing massive petrodollar surpluses that could be used to corrupt political institutions and corporations throughout the world, probably. Examples are the US’s failure to confront Saudi Arabia and therefore the heart and funding of Al Quaeda (United States), Power Corp./Desmairis, and ultimately the sponsorship scandals (Canada), France and Russia’s use of the veto in the UN to seek to frustrate the Iraq operations. These days, the conservatives understand that there is a need to separately profile, monitor and restrict activity by Middle Eastern people in our hemisphere. Conservative understand, for example, that Arer and Khadr and not Canadians in any generally understood sense. Conservatives understand that there is little to be gained by strip-searching Jewish grandmothers from Queens at airports, and that wheat farmers from Saskatchewan are rarely walking bombs. Liberals have trouble attacking the use of mentally slow 14 year olds to wreak havoc and devastation on civilians, always finding excuses such as “Arab anger”, etc. One question, what decent person sends their own flesh and blood out to become a walking bomb? Gay Marriage – Society has given married people a favored status, for a long time, in various endeavors in life. They pay lower taxes as a result of being able to file joint tax returns. They can, in many states and provinces, own real property in ways that creditors cannot levy on that property for satisfaction of debts. They pay lower insurance rates, based on the perception that their life styles are more stable and less prone to risky behavior. Many of these advantages have been granted in order to encourage the creation of procreative family units, and at least an initially stable and settled environment for raising children. While it is true that gay people may form lifetime attachments to each other, there is little that society gains from such attachments. Thus, there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage. Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns. The liberals will say that rich people should be taxed more. But they have always said that and, even when in power, have not succeeded in any long-term increases of taxes from rich people. Rich people have both the ability and incentive to shelter their earnings, and liberals know that. Their assertions to the contrary are false and/or hypocritical. Welfare dependency – The liberal programs in the United States, i.e. the “War on Poverty” succeeded only in decreasing the incentives of poor people to remain married and working. Out-of-wedlock births soared during and after this period. During 1982, I worked as a legal assistant ina legal services program for the poor. This shows that I put action behind my words bout helping poor people. I was not being paid. During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money? The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl’s mother did for a living. She said “she’s a mother”. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry. For example the legal service program sponsored organizational meetings for apartments that were seriously run-down. The goal was to obtain an administrator to replace the slumlord who was draining the buildings. My suggestion that the money that was due for rent be pooled so that the administrator, when appointed, would have some money t actually repair the buildings was hooted down derisively. The suggestion also cost me my volunteer position. Not really a loss though. That day, I learned I was passé the Bar, and began practicing law privately as a bankruptcy legal assistant (while awaiting formal admission) in January 1983, and was admitted to practice on February 9, 1983. And what net gain did those legal services I helped provide give to the poor people? Probably none. United Nations – Liberals say the UN imprimatur is needed to give the US effort in Iraq “legitimacy”. Given where the proceeds of the “oil-for-food” program went, is there any doubt on two things: 1) That the world is better off without Saddam Hussein; and 2) That the UN is rotten to the core? Can the UN really give legitimacy to anything? Will you hear about any of this from today’s so-called “liberals”? I’m still waiting. And while you’re at it, what makes the people that call themselves “liberal” truly liberal?

I've always felt that MacKay should not have External Affairs (or whatever they're calling it these days).

The usual answer, when crude and gasoline prices are on the decline, is that one of the companies, for whatever reason, will break ranks and cut prices sharply. They'll have a surge of volume that keeps going until the market catches up. Sometimes it's a neighborhood by neighbood thing. I remember when prices were dropping from $3.39 USD per US Gallon to $2.29, that a Mobil station on the major highway (which usually is about the average price), went from $3.39 to $3.19 in one day, then a few days later to $2.99 and then $2.93 before jumping for a short time back to $3.09. When the price crumbled back to around $2.89 at that station, a bunch of stations operated by Shell dropped to $2.55 in both Port Chester. The Mobil on the highway took about 7-10 days to work down to that level, a period when presumably the Shell stations had bustling business. The use of competitive price allowances is more prevalent during periods of relative price stability than during a surge or plunge.

Thanks. Remember the Barbary Pirates, after all? They believed they were entitled to white Christians as slaves.

I guess September 11, 2001, March 11, 2004 (Spain), July 11, 2005 (London) weren't major and disruptive developments in your book? What do those have to do with Hezbollah? Do you really respect these barbarians' carving themselves up into largely meaningless separate "entities"?

I guess September 11, 2001, March 11, 2004 (Spain), July 11, 2005 (London) weren't major and disruptive developments in your book?

Oh yes. The Europeans (I mean France, Belgium, Germany, Austria mostly) still revel in a pre-1914 fantasy world where the "civilized world" revolved around Europe and who controlled it. They bitterly resent that a country barely a blip on the radar in 1914, the United States, wound up controlling the post WW II "Pax Americana" as a result of Old Europe's magnum opus of carving themselves up fratricidally and suicidally in two World Wars (that themselves followed almost 1000 years of almost continuous warfare among royals). This is envy, and nostalgia, pure and simple. The fact that half the world may not know the name of Germany's Chancellor, France's PM and/or President or Austria's Chancellor while names such as Bush, Blair or even Harper and Howard are household words is galling. As an American, if the isolationists in America (and their brie and chablis buddies in France) want the US out of the Middle East, maybe we should pull our welfare, err, bases, out of Germany. Boy would that be an economic treat. Coerced democracy as in what Germany, Austria, Japan, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine are now enjoying, thanks to the English-speaking blood of WW II and the efforts of the English-speaking world in the Cold War? Is that what you mean? What's better, a small amount of American-caused casualties (or underwear over prisoners' heads) or the thousands Saddam fed into wood chippers whenever he was in a bad mood? I'm Jewish. I didn't know that I had that kind of power. Thanks for telling me. Bloodbath of a melting pot? I live in an affluent Jewish village, which is cheek-by-jowls with a somewhat grungier Hispanic and Italian village. I don't see a bloodbath; I see people working, playing, socializing, making money and fun together.

I agree that Canada went there because al Qaeda was being sheltered by the Taliban. However, al Qaeda is now being sheltered in Pakistan. It could be a never ending battle. Canada has to assess if Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own and whether we contribute to stability or add to their instability. My prediction is that we're basically returning to a modified form of colonial empires. The Western countries will, for their own safety, maintain bases throughout the "Uncivilized World". These "independent nations" will continue to run their internal affairs, but will be subjugated on external security and foreign affairs. They have shown zero ability to keep the world safe from depredations coming from within their borders. They have also shown no ability to not use armed forces as weapons in internecine tribal or religious battles within their countries. This intolerable state of affairs must end, as we learned on September 11, 2001.

What exactly do you mean by collusion? Do you think that the gas stations speak to each other and decide on a price? Nope, too many individual owners. But obviously the cost of gas is much less, and you'd expect at least one of them to lower their price to attract business... but they don't. Awfully fishy. They may also be struggling to survive. Since their products are exactly the same, the only way they can increase sales is by decreasing price. Which is why I don't understand why their isn't competition in marketed gasoline. Gasoline is a commodity bought on the open market just like the oil it is made out of or any other commodity. If your cost is the same as the other guy and you can't add any value to the product, it is hard to undercut him and stay in business. As I explained earlier, oil companies will offer stations assistance, denominated "Competitive Price Allowance", "Zone Pricing" and similar terms. The way it works is that every station is responsible to call in to their supplier (or these days more likely e-mail) the prices of designated competitors. The company will often lower the price in order to allow the station to meet the competition. In areas near the US border, it is conceivable that the US price may be factored in, and the station will be aided to the extent of allowing it to be only, say, 1-2 cents per litre over the US price. The game here is that if an individual station owner is making their supplier unhappy, i.e. adding too much margin to the price, not maintaining the operating hours the company wants (sometimes in excess of the hours provided in the franchise agreement), or not agreeing to contract changes the company wants, the company will often "redraw" the "map" of competitors with the effect of reducing the price assistance. In many cases, this puts the station out of business. Trust me on this one.

Plain spoken and straightforward as well.

How come every assertion of rights of Christians or Jews is derided by someone as "racist"?

Of course, the "Martin" faction and the "Chrétien" faction of the LPOC had always been at war, and Martin took advantage of the opportunity to "cleanse" the remaining "Chrétien" people after Martin seized leadership and became PM.

I beg to differ. I believe the US IS setting up to replace the dollar. Isn't it true that the oil countries are wanting to be paid in Euros as of late? I am pretty sure I read that somewhere, that that is the growing trend. I keep reading how it will be a Canadian, US merger. What about Mexico? Don't forget about them. The US CAN'T forget about them. As I posted elsewhere, there are too many cultural, standard of living and linguistic differences to support a viable common currency and economic policy. Translated, that means that there is no way the relatively affluent American and Canadian taxpayers will bring Mexicans up to our standard of living without the Mexicans producing themselves.